Carlos Sainz Jnr, Max Verstappen, Toro Rosso, Sepang International Circuit, 2015

Judge Verstappen and Sainz after second season – Key

F1 Fanatic Round-upPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

In the round-up: Toro Rosso designer James Key says it will be more useful to compare Max Verstappen and Carlos Sainz Jnr after their second season together in 2016.

Social media

Comment of the day

Is Lewis Hamilton busier away from the track than other F1 drivers or do we just hear more about it?

Is it really only Hamilton who has such a lifestyle? Don’t we all have that one Facebook friend who compulsively has to post everything on social network. Doesn’t mean he or she is the only one partying or going around. It just means he or she is most active on social networks.

Same with Hamilton. Just because we read about him so much on Instagram doesn’t mean he is a ‘part-time racer’. It just means he is active on Instagram, nothing else. Look at Alonso and Button for comparison. While Hamilton has his music, Alonso has his cycling team, Button has his triathlon, all three examples of engagement outside F1 which take up a lot of time and effort. Just that one of these activities is conducive to posting on social networks, other two are not.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Michael Roberts!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Louis Stanley, the former BRM team chief who aided the work of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association in improving F1 safety standards, died on this day in 2004.

78 comments on “Judge Verstappen and Sainz after second season – Key”

  1. What kind of engine supplier would want to spend millions building an engine that can last 10 weekends and then sell it at half the price?

    1. half the price for the customers coz they are getting 2 engines not 4 :)

      1. But those 2 engines will be twice as expensive to build or will be less powerful and less efficient as heavier parts will cause greater inertia etc.

      2. As @hohum mentions, the material cost and manufacturing process in building those engines is only a relatively small part of the engine cost. If you build less engines, then cost for tooling and for development of the engine will have to be recuperated with a smaller amount of units, which make the price for those units go dramatically up (might well be nearly 2 times as much, after extra investment to make them last as long without power drop off) @f1007

        1. If you build less engines, then cost for tooling and for development of the engine will have to be recuperated with a smaller amount of units

          But they are suggesting this as a way to increase supply (i.e. get Ferrari and Merc to supply more teams). If they supply twice as many teams half the number of engines each, the cost per engine from fixed costs should be roughly the same, so the cost per team should be half as much.

          Of course they have to make the engines last longer, which will result in them either being more expensive or less powerful.

          1. This is, as if Mercedesor Ferrari cannot make a few extra engines… To remove that excuse. Mercedes makes Million engines per year and cannot make 8 more? Please.. For 20M€ they can employ some extrq engine specialiste and produce extra tooling.

            This is just old men politicking..

          2. I’m sure if it was an extra 8 140BHP Bluetech diesels they wouldn’t have a problem, but a F1 PU is a bit different ;-)

          3. RaceProUK (@)
            8th January 2016, 11:43

            @jureo: F1 engines are hand-made to a design that is constantly changing; you cannot just ramp up production the same way you can with a production line stamping out thousands of identical engines a day.

          4. I dont buy that for one second. With 1300 employes everyone is replacable every job can be duplicated. Hand made for sure, all it takes is 2 more engines for first race, they probably have 2 spare for each team already.. Maybe even more. I remember Honda last year had 6 spare engines to the first race.

            If there was a will to do it. It could be done…especially in 8 months time when this saga started.

          5. @jureo: You’re aware that the F1 AMG engines are made at Brixworth, whereas all the consumer AMG engines are made in Affalterbach? It’s a completely different facility producing completely different engines.

            The other issue isn’t a production issue, per se– it’s all the time spent making sure the parts are flawless. Quality control is a huge aspect of making the engines, and doubling the life of the engine would mean a huge expansion of the QC process that’s already in place.

            Personally, I liked BMW’s approach during the old turbo era– they only used high mileage blocks from existing engines, as they’d already proven their durability.

          6. RaceProUK (@)
            8th January 2016, 16:25

            @jureo: You cannot just throw more people at a problem and expect to solve it quicker; all that will happen is you’ll waste money and solve nothing. This is a basic fact of just amount any engineering or manufacturing process.

          7. Sure you can to some extent.

            There comes a time when QA can nolonger provide longer engine life, lowering tolerances does, improving cooling, lowering combustion temperature, droping revs.. And to compensate increase fuel flow…

            As proof of concept Wolf suggested they might be able to provide fewer engines of lower hp, higher durability at cheaper price per season. But that is not desired, teams want optimum performance.

            Like Lewis Hamilton said, 1300 people for 2 cars, we could put something in space if we wanted. That is the current capability of Merc F1 team.

          8. RaceProUK (@)
            8th January 2016, 17:21

            There comes a time when QA can nolonger provide longer engine life

            That’s not what QA is for. It’s up to the engineering department to make the engines last longer; QA is there simply to check the engineers have actually achieved it. It’s called Quality Assurance for a reason.

        2. i think ppl are overthinking things, mosley said with modest changes to current units, and material costs are not much most of the costs are R&D, granted they will little bit heavier but since changes are coming to make cars 6 secs or so faster, they will probably be 4 to 5 secs faster instead. And material costs are going to double the cost of engine, it might increase cost per engine max 1 mil.

          1. RaceProUK (@)
            8th January 2016, 16:26

            The changes may be minor, but the manufacturers will still have to go through the hugely expensive R&D process to make sure the changes are the right ones to make.

    2. Price is governed by supply and demand. You have to have an F1 grade engine, but you don’t need it to last 10 races. If there was an F1 grade engine that could last 10 races, then it would cost more than 2 and a half 4 race engines needed to do the 10 races simply because the 2 and 1/2 engines that last 4 races have less advanced technology, they incur more penalties, and because you need to drive the 10 race engines less carefully than the 4 race engines otherwise they will fail during a race.

      1. Doh! Don’t you hate it when, having read a comment several times, you post the comment, and then find an obvious mistake! “…you need to drive the 10 race engines less carefully than the 4 race engines otherwise they will fail during a race”. I guess it won’t be hard to work out what I meant to say, but in case someone isn’t sure, I should have said “…you need to drive the 10 race engines more carefully than the 4 race engines otherwise they will fail during a race”.

    3. Moseley is a politition and a lawyer. He is most certainly is not a manufacturer or an engineer. He is, as his autobiography showed, largely scared and somewhat of a snob Regarding such trades yet feels he has a right to tell them how to run their businesses. Incredible arrogance from such a person frankly. Particularly given his actions in 2008 and the way F1 has looked post 2009!

      He is also no longer running F1 and frankly needs to remember that.

      So does Bernie.

      @jureo. You need to do a little research on the complexities and cost benefit of developing cutting edge power units and funding manufacturing techniques. Do not believe everything Red Bull are trying to insinuate. Honda is the largest engine maker in the world. By far. How are they doing so far?

      1. RaceProUK (@)
        8th January 2016, 16:30

        Particularly given his actions in 2008

        Which have nothing to do with F1.

        and the way F1 has looked post 2009

        With Jean Todt as head of the FIA.

        He is also no longer running F1 and frankly needs to remember that.

        He was FIA president for 14 years, and a racing driver some time before that; he’s plenty qualified to comment on the current state of F1.

        1. @raceprouk Certainly better qualified than any of us!

  2. Great to see the leading article to be about Carlos and Max.
    Both have impressed me very much in 2015.
    I am looking forward to this season to see what they can do in what seems to be a good car with what’s proven to be a very decent PU.

    They kept their noses clean most of 2015 (for rookies), though they will undoubtedly make a few more mistakes. But I’ll take that for granted if we get more great racing.
    Verstappen was hyped a lot and did not disappoint. Carlos Jr, to me, was a bit unknown as a racer, however showed real pace and solid driving last year.
    And both come across very mature yet somewhat humble when being interviewed.

    To me Toro Rosso will be the most exciting team in 2016 with a taurus ruber painted on the chassis.

    1. I agree, this is a nice and closely matched line up with talented drivers and it will be very interesting to see how both develop in their second year in F1

    2. I’m not sucked in by the Verstappen bandwagon. I think with the exception of mechanical failures and accidents which aren’t their fault, Carlos is likely to shade it.

  3. Hamilton’s ability to continue winning despite his jet-set lifestyle could be one of two things:

    – He is such a supreme talent that he doesnt really have to train/practice. This type of talent is not uncommon, for example, Romario was infamous for not partying all week and not training, but would score 3 goals when he turned up at the weekend. However, we cant say the same for many of the F1 World Champions. Most tend to be very meticulous, almost surgical, in their approach. The likes of Senna, Prost, Schumacher, Lauda have all been known to spend as much time as possible in the factory with their engineers…but could it be that Lewis is just better? Possible.

    – The Mercedes has so much of advantage that he doesnt really need to be at a 100% to get the maximum out of it. This would also be a damning verdict to the ability of Nico Rosberg, who seems to try exceptionally hard to get on Lewis’ pace

    1. At his level proper rest is also very important, especially where beating Rosberg is his only real challange.

      I am sure Lewis is in the gym plenty enough, he could be at all those events and still get his workout. And without any testing, he cannot practice driving anyhow.

      And finaly, cars are nolonger so physically demanding anymore. For him it must be all about psyching himself up.

      I hope Rosberg beats him this year a little, so he gets more focused.

  4. @jaymenon10

    Hamilton’s ability to continue winning despite his jet-set lifestyle

    See COTD.

    I’d wager to bet that all the drivers have at least one hobby outside of F1. Is there any evidence that Hamilton spends less time with his engineers than other drivers?

    1. “Is there any evidence that Hamilton spends less time with engineers than other driver”…..

      I’ve asked that question on so many occasions but yet no one can provide any credible evidence to prove that he doesn’t.

      But I guess that’s all based on the fact that the media and everyone keeps pushing the rhetoric of how meticulous Rosberg is and how he spends hours pouring over data blah blah blah and whatever nonsense they come up with.

  5. Making the top ten in Melbourne last year was hardly something to crow about. If you got lucky mechanically and were not in a McLaren you got in the top 10, so praising Sainz for getting in the top 10 (of 11 finishers) when Max had engine failure like a third of the field, is a big cheat. He’s was good, but that’s a dumb comment. You may as well say ‘Sainz finished the first race’ and let that be the praise.


      If I’m reading the finishing gaps correctly, Sainz Jr. finished more or less 21 seconds behind Hülkenberg.

      From here, we see Sainz’s pit stop (there were problems) was 32.257s slower than Verstappen’s, and 28.324s slower than Räikkönen’s first stop (which was the second slowest of the race).

      Without the pit stop trouble, Sainz Jr would have been comfortably 7th, more or less 30 seconds behind Ricciardo in a Red Bull. It may not look very impressive against Nasr’s 5th, but it’s likely Sauber were faster at Melbourne. And if I remember correctly, before his stop he was in front of Verstappen (some 5 seconds from what I can recall)

      So even if the final result was just 9th out of 11 finishers, his race was better than that.

      Re: Hamilton
      Maybe a combination of both. Maybe he’s more of a party guy than most of the grid, and also more active on social media than most, so he’s more visible than other drivers who might lead a “less committed” lifestyle.

      Also, he’s British, then the Brits seem to have copied the Spanish tradition of being ruthless with the country’s sports stars.

      1. Sainz’s race was ok in Melbourne, however Verstappen was on the prime tyres (which were 0.8/1.0 seconds slower per lap slower in AUS) and he controlled the pace of the rest of the field after initially letting the field go for about 5 seconds.

        The Toro Rosso car had in the first half of the season big problems with being very nervous with high fuel load. So even without the bad pit stop of Sainz, Verstappen would have passed him easily on the option tyres and was heading for 7th at least or possibly 6th.

        1. I don’t deny that. Looking at the lap charts, Verstappen was probably going to finish ahead of Sainz. I doubt he would have been ahead of Ricciardo though. By the time Verstappen’s engine failed, he was 4 second ahead of Ricciardo, being caught 1s a lap or so. I think Verstappen would have held at least until lap 35 before stopping for Softs.

          Since his last good lap was lap 31, that means another 4 laps. He would have stopped with Ricciardo right behind him. Now, a pitstop makes you lose what, 20 seconds? So 20 seconds behind Ricciardo with 22 laps to go. He’d be faster than Ricciardo, but he would need to take care of the tyres too.

          Even if he caught Ric, it would be in the last few laps, and he would have lost the tyre advantage (that’s without considering the chance for traffic, but there wasn’t that much to be honest. Hülkenberg was 25s behind Max and going a bit faster, so he might have lost some time there, but tyre superiority might have allowed Max to get past quickly).

          So, judging by the numbers (and I admit my interpretation might be biased, although I’m a fan of Max too), Verstappen would have finished ahead of Sainz, but 6th was quite unlikely.

          1. To the Max !
            9th January 2016, 3:24

            In his out lap, after switching to the options, the engine failed (lap 31).

            I don’t know, I agree with F. Tost 6th might still have been possible looking at the lap times of Ricciardo in his second stint…it would have been close, but not impossible me thinks. He would have been 18 seconds behind Ricciardo with 24 faster laps to go, and the Toro Rosso in the first part of the season was actually the strongest with low fuel.

            I tried to look at a few of the other first races of both of them (Ricciardo/Verstappen) to see if they would give a clue, but if one didn’t have serious problems, it was the other one. However in Melbourne the Renault engine was running badly with Red Bull as I recall it correctly.

    2. @selbbin The comment was regarding qualifying.

  6. Am I the only one that thinks Max Mosley suggestion is actually makes some sense? I think we used to hear how team exploit the no limitation to engine rules back then with different quali and race engine, and the famous “If the car isn’t break down after finishing the race then you haven’t extract the maximum out of the car”. But as always when the rules changed for more reliability the manufacturers still able to adapt while keeping the speed/power. Getting 2 engine per season or even one engine (with one free replacement in case of a dud) should be the ultimate goal for reliability.

    1. But F1 is not about running the engine for many races, endurance should be WEC. Also all the fuel saving, restricted fuel flows, hybrid battery weight that is better used on fuel…only slowing it all down.

      The break down after the final lap and extract everything, super performance and speed, SHOULD BE the focus.

      Same should apply to the tires, they should be torn to bits in a quest to extract the last tenths of lap time, but not in the gimmicky nature they have now, that makes them need endurance style caring.

      F1 should be formula awesome technology used to build the fastest car driven in the fastest way all race.

      Apart from that who cares about the money argument, go compete somewhere else if that’s an issue.

      1. @maxv, why shouldn’t F1 be about using the same engine over multiple races?

        Until the advent of the turbo engines in the 1980’s, it was quite normal for an engine to be used for multiple races – in the 1960’s and 1970’s, quite a few manufacturers (Matra, Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, BRM and so forth) would base their engines for F1 on sportscar engines, which shared similar regulations, and indeed some engines, such as the Cosworth DFV and Repco V8, went from F1 to sportscar racing (DFV’s were being used at Le Mans right until the early 1980’s).

        It wasn’t really until the advent of the “qualifying special” turbo engines that the idea of having a disposable engine, as it were, became an accepted practise in F1 – before that, it was too much of a waste of resources (one of the things that made the DFV such a successful package before that was the fact that it was reasonably priced, and that in part stemmed from the fact that it had fairly modest maintenance requirements).

      2. @maxv I never suggesting F1 should go endurance style racing as you call it. The ultimate aim is still making powerful engine with only requirements is lasting for the whole season. In fact, we already have much more rules that quite blatantly designed to curb engine performance (NA only, V8, rev limit, non-exotic materials (together with health concern on this one), V6) but history shows F1 cars doesn’t immediately become sloths. Good reliability =/= slow performance otherwise McLaren Honda will always wins if they happen to complete race distance.

      3. @maxv The trouble with the “everything to the max, whatever the cost” approach is that you’ll end up with just one team, the one with the most money. Then the sport will self-destruct.

    2. If only it were that simple, making the engines last 5 race meetings is a big part of why they are so expensive, making them last twice as long and produce the same power would probably quadruple the cost per unit.

      1. I can only imagine that the grid penalties for exceeding engine quotas will increase, which will increase the pseudo-drama. Did BE call in a favour to MM, asking for something silly to distract from his original super-silliness? Another broken Rolex…

        1. @ferrox-glideh Grid penalties is designed so manufacturers won’t be cheating with throwing away the reliability requirement and focusing on performance when money for procuring lot of engines is non issue for them. Not counting testing and development rules, Honda this year is truly an embarrassment because Mercedes, Ferrari, and Renault in their first year is having more speed and reliability.

          Last year grid penalty for changing engine seems makes more sense. There are no 20+ grid penalties except on last race but even then we have hope for better reliability on the next (this) year. This year though, it looks silly just because how bad McLaren-Honda is and Renault somehow managed to fall backwards. Mercedes and Ferrari doesn’t need to worry (much) about those rules.

      2. @hohum But that’s because the manufacturers don’t have the know how (relatively) to make reliable F1 grade engines yet. As the time progress, they will understand better and the cost will go down by itself. Also making high performance but reliable things will have great impact to stuff outside F1, and that’s where F1 prestige is coming from (the original source of high tech stuff).

        1. @sonicslv, No, it’s not about learning how, the manufacturers know very well how to make reliable engines, they also know the trade-off in lower power to weight ratios, it’s simple physics. Have you never wondered why the most expensive and fastest cars you can buy are also the ones that are the least reliable and require the most servicing, the exceptions are the 7 and 8 liter US cars that still use pushrod, 2 valve, relatively low revving engines, which no one wants in F1.

          1. @hohum It’s always about learning more advanced ways. Do you think after the first flight people suddenly know all the knowledge to make best plane? Same goes with rockets, cars, and every technologies ever. With current knowledge it may give lower power, but after constant R&D from lot of brilliant minds, the power penalty surely will be reduced for same reliability goal.

            Also if you talking about the high maintenance of Bugatti Veyron or Nissan GT-R, I can give you McLaren F1 and P1 or Viper ACR, cars that have almost same cost and performance but is much more reliable and require less service in time and money needed.

          2. @sonicslv, Viper = 8 L. US mentioned above, McLaren reliability is not proven yet, unless you know of a 200,000 mile example that has been as reliable as a Toyota Corolla, I had, Ferrari, Maserrati, Lamborghini, Jag, AM, in mind. Also keep in mind F1 bans “exotic” metals to save money (LOL) while for $12,000 you can buy an LS7 Corvette motor with 8 titanium con-rods, how far would the aviation industry have got if they had been restricted to fabric on wood frames?

          3. @hohum Viper 8L definitely not a 2 valve low revving engine though. Also McLaren F1 is proven. Rowan Atkinson’s famous for daily driving his F1 and reported to have more than 40.000 miles on it, rebuild once after his 2nd crash recently but otherwise still going strong. Also it entered (and won!) LeMans basically on out of factory spec. I doubt your supposedly reliable Corolla can even last for the entire 24h LeMans.

            Also I never said about keep banning the exotic materials, rev limit, or any performance limiting rules. On the contrary I want the regulation is opened again so we can keep the V6, fuel flow limit, last for whole season requirement, but otherwise let the engineers go crazy. Heck abolish the V6 requirement, fuel flow limit is good enough and if a 3 valve engine won, that’s what you called an achievement.

          4. @hohum, you’re showing your ignorance of the regulations there a bit – you do realise that titanium connecting rods are entirely legal in F1 as well?

    3. See my comment above.

      It not only makes no sense, it’s economically flawed and will quite simply, see F1 a slower GP2 as those making the power units will most probably exit.

      It is comments like this from Max that have always ruined the sport. Just look at 2008/2009 and the affects thereafter….

      1. RaceProUK (@)
        8th January 2016, 16:32

        So the 13 years during which he presided over the greatest improvement to driver safety don’t count then.

        1. @raceprouk, you mean the 13 years when the drivers lead by Jackie Stewart had to threaten race boycotts in order to drag the the FIA kicking and screaming into implementing gradual safety reform, only finally getting serious after the deaths of Senna and iirc Ratzenberger and the subsequent charges laid against Williams, and the strong possibility that the FIA itself would be found criminally negligent unless they were seen to be more pro-active on safety, 3 cheers for Max, let’s give him a little whipping to reward him.

          1. RaceProUK (@)
            9th January 2016, 1:21

            @hohum: given the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger were in Mosley’s second year, I’m talking about the 13 years after Ballestre.

          2. @raceprouk, fair enough, but Max, a lawyer, could see the possible consequences to himself if nothing was done, who knows if he acted out of concern for the drivers or concern for himself?

          3. RaceProUK (@)
            9th January 2016, 1:41

            Probably some of both, but given he then went on to raise awareness and campaign for greater safety on the public roads, I’m happy to give him benefit of the doubt.

        2. PS. I didn’t know he drove, was he better than Bernie, his partner in team ownership?

      2. regardless of the cost discussion: i dont get the current direction of F1, the current cars are not the fastest they can be and rules are not set to make this happen. Creativity and changes are boxed in.

        Apart from this the engineering part will not get max performance if the components need to survive fatigue life rather then limited exposure. It will mean more safety margin, and less performance. Engineering for performance AND fatigue/endurance is generally more difficult, don’t see how this drives cost down. I am an engineer myself and would be fascinated by a high performing and reliable car, but thats not what I feel F1 is about. For this I watch WEC. F1 I have always watched as the fastest out there, with creative engineering, taking risk with it, making it last just enough.

    4. To be clear, not everything post 2009 is MM related but his management of the FIA was largely ruled by ego and collusion with Bernie and thus we have what we have today. Ugly cars!

    5. Getting 2 engine per season or even one engine (with one free replacement in case of a dud) should be the ultimate goal for reliability.

      Just don’t imagine that can be done cheaply. Those high-performance engines which last a season are going to cost many times what the current ones do.

      1. Nothing in F1 is ever cheap. What usually happens is F1 pioneering the use of some new (and expensive) technology so it can be more mature and other area can see the benefit of it. After that, then the cost will be down. IIRC McLaren has the best know-how and facility for carbon fiber production for some time, and without them we prolly still lack behind in carbon fiber technology.

        1. Let’s not forget that the Max and Bernie show of forming their version of F1 into being all about MS ending the Ferrari WDC drought is what sent the costs of competing in F1 through the roof. So while Max may comment about the ongoing concern over costs in F1, he is largely to blame for enabling that. When teams back then complained about Ferrari’s ability to test at their own tracks in an unlimited fashion, not to mention their veto power and their extra hundreds of millions, which resulted in MS having a designer car and tires, Max and Bernie simply said it’s up to the other teams to compete.

  7. Thanks for the COTD, Keith

  8. Didn’t Button quit thriatlon because it took too much time and effort, affecting his performance on track?

  9. The engine limitation with the related penalty system is stupid. The engines are expensive due to the development costs. Expensive materials have been banned years ago. Let them use as many engines as they need. That would increase also track appearance in training sessions.
    How many PU did Honda and Renault actually build in 2015. Capacity should be no object.

  10. “We are quite good at what we do. I think it’s a little bit disingenuous to suggest that [teams would have made dangerous tyre choices].”

    While I agree with Pat Symonds, I think that Pirelli are just trying to stop any bad press before it happens. While the teams wouldn’t make any dangerous choices, they would push the limits and in the early season there could have been some high profile failures in strategy that some may have blamed Pirelli for.

    That said, the rules they came up with together with the FIA/FOM are absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn’t be surprised if they just give the teams free choice in 2018 (I don’t see it happening in 2017 with it being the first year of a new set of technical regulations).

    1. @geemac “the teams wouldn’t make any dangerous choices”, what, like using tyre pressures outside the recommended limits? Or camber angles? Running tyres on opposite sides of the car from what they were designed for? The teams will do anything they (think they) can get away with to gain a competitive advantage.

      1. @jimg which were all things the teams had been doing for decades that had never caused any problems until Pirelli came along with there crappy tyres that were unable to withstand normal f1 conditions!

        the low pressures, high camber angles, tyre swapping etc.. were all normal parts of f1 because f1 should be about pushing the boundaries of performance, the good-years, bridgestones and michelin tyres were all able to stand up to those normal things without problem.. the fact that the pirelli’s were too fragile to withstand normal f1 conditions is purely down to pirelli making crappy tyres.

        at no point in f1’s history have we had such absurd levels of over-regulation with teams been told how to setup there cars because the tyres are so crappy, its a complete joke & will continue to be a joke until we get tyres that are actually been designed for performance again that can withstand the forces of normal f1 and been pushed to the limits.

        1. RogerA, I think that you are making the mistake of assuming that, because the restrictions were not visible before, they did not exist. Outfits like Bridgestone preferred to work through the use of Technical Directives given that the contents of a TD are normally kept confidential – I certainly don’t recall the contents of Technical Directives being openly discussed in the past – but it doesn’t mean that Technical Directives on tyres were never issued.

          1. But we know the restrictions never existed before because over the years stuff about teams pushing the limits of pressures, cambers, swapping tyres etc.. did come out from time to time.

            gary anderson even wrote a piece on the bbc website in 2013 speaking about how it was commonplace in the late 90s for good year runners to run tyres on the opposite sides of the car & that it was again commonplace to run the micehlin tyres under the recommended pressures given by michelin.

            after spa last year anthony davidson made the same points on sky about how when he was driving f1 cars through the early/mid 2000s the teams were constantly going beyond the recommendations given by bridgestone/michelin on pressures, cambers & other suspension settings & that it was just an expected part of the sport & he also made the point that its something that still occurs regularly in the wec where he races now.

  11. If there was an F1 grade engine that could last 10 races, then it would cost more than 2 and a half 4 race engines needed to do the 10 races simply because the 2 and 1/2 engines that last 4 races have less advanced technology, they incur more penalties, and because you need to drive the 10 race engines less carefully than the 4 race engines otherwise they will fail during a race.

  12. I bet F1 could make single engine last entire season and develop 1000hp, given some rule tweaks. Some Mercedes engines lasted 5000km this year, its not a quantum leap to 20-30k required for entire season. But engines are built to be most efficient for 4 races… So that is how they make em.

    1. And in same breath.. It would not bring the price down. They charge what teams are still willing to pay.

    2. Single PU for a whole season would skyrocket development costs. It would be cheaper to have units that last a race. I always wondered why FIA imposed reliability restrictions during introduction period of hybrid technology. It is much wiser to allow period of adapting to new rules and impose reliability restrictions afterwards. This way, we have very expensive PUs while technology applied isn’t quite settled in F1.

      1. Yeah, most probably all restrictions on testing and engine use drive up more R&D cost and raise total expenses. Cost saving just leads to inefficient spending, when competing. And prelongs Mercedes dominance.

        Considering how good fuel flow limit is, all teams can only progress to a finite power output. 1880bhp is avaliable or something like that.

        So let them do it anyway they want. Within reason upgrade all you want provided all teams you supply get the same upgrade. That should help drive development up and costs down.

  13. RIP Tyler Alexander.

  14. First of all, you can’t blame Verstappen that a lot of people recognize in him the next Schumacher or Senna.
    But let’s me give you my opion about Verstappen VS Sainz. Because Verstappen had so many trouble at the start of the season with his engine during practise or qualifications he got grid penalty’s. This is only reason wij Sainz out qualified 9-10 Verstappen and Sainz was just outscored by a small margin in the category: who finish as first. Verstappen was only 17 when the season started, He dominate everyone in each race class he enters and he had, yes just 1 year in formula 3 under his belt. Overtaking neat and tide and without blokking the weels. Average lap time difference between Verstappen and Sainz; 0,2> 0,3 Ofcourse Verstappen has a lot to proof but mine prediction is when both don’t have many reliability problems Verstappen will release his speed and the gap between them at the end of the season will be only bigger. Sainz is not a bad driver but every generation in any sport brings sometimes such a raw talent as Verstappen is.

  15. Apex Assassin
    8th January 2016, 16:44

    I am so sick of reading about Formula Pirelli, comments from Max Mosely, these stupid power units, or the latest PC initiative. The past 6-7 seasons of “money saving” ventures have done nothing but make the sport worse. I have no faith in the leadership or direction F1 is heading and the only thing I can say for certainty is that this formula is not attractive to manufacturers and without them this sport is finished.

    The only thing I am looking forward to is the Toro Rosso pair and the battle I expect them to fight with each other and other teams, including the parent company. Honestly, I can see them both replacing Ricciardo and Kyvat or signing for other top teams in 2017.

    1. I can say for certainty is that this formula is not attractive to manufacturers

      the manufacturer’s helped come up with the current regulations, they were all involved in all the discussions regarding the current engine formula & all of them were pushing for the small capacity turbo hybrids we have now.

  16. “The solution would be rules allowing only two engines per car per season. This would simultaneously double supply and halve costs.”

    People often complain that the people running F1 care only about money and not about the sport. But it’s worse than that – not only do they not care about the sport, they’re as economically ignorant as a five-year-old.

    Let’s allow just one engine a season – that will quadruple supply and the engines will cost a quarter what they do at present!

  17. I think Verstappen can improve again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.