McLaren, Hungaroring, 2017

Honda says it has reached its pre-season performance goal

F1 Fanatic Round-upPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

In the round-up: Honda says its power unit is now at the level it should have been at before the season began.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

@Georgetuk makes the case for Formula One remaining a high technology competition:

Loud petrol-only F1 cars are a thing of the past and it should stay there.

Prost is right, manufacturers don’t want to go backwards, in the last few weeks Volvo have announced they are only a hybrid only route, Porsche are reviewing their engine range to potentially make a change. Tesla Model 3 also released (not related to F1 but a big news in car industry.

There will probably be a market for loud F1 cars but that can be catered for in the Historic GP racing circuit.

Cost is an issue though, that could do with some controls. Commercial off-the-shelf parts or technology sharing or similar ideas might help in that area.

Let’s move forwards, not backwards.
@Georgetuk

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Wes!

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

  • There was heartbreak for Damon Hill and Arrows as Jacques Villeneuve won the Hungarian Grand Prix today in 1997

63 comments on “Honda says it has reached its pre-season performance goal”

  1. Really nice to see F1 keeps moving in the right direction and preventing the engines from running at full speed.

    1. Did you read the article?

  2. Neil (@neilosjames)
    10th August 2017, 0:36

    Mostly in agreement with CoTD.

    I’m not one of those ‘V6 hybrids sound awful’ people, and I want F1 to be somewhere near the forefront of technological development. But I really, really, really don’t like super-quiet cars, and I’d probably cry if F1 cars sounded like FE cars.

    So alongside all the other technological forward-stepping F1 does over the next 20 years, up to the point where petrol and diesel road cars are banned in many countries, I hope the sport is at the forefront of making electric motors with efficient, high quality ‘car sound’ noise generators attached to them. From a road safety perspective I think – as they become more common and run over more people – we’re going to end up with electric cars being required to have proper noise-generating mechanisms stuck under the bonnet somewhere (loud ones, not the little mandatory warning ones they’re making them have at the moment), so it’d be an extra bit of road relevance for the manufacturers.

    Jean Todt would be happy too, with a nice road safety connection for him to wallow in.

    1. I dont agree with either. F1 should pursue the most logical fruitful avenue. Performance.
      At the moment it would include no electrification, but it would include the innovative turbos, maybe when batteries evolve, the performance is there.

      1. The Dolphins
        10th August 2017, 1:20

        F1 in this new hybrid formula has given us some good things: Turbulent Jet Ignition (although it seems to have been developed at Cosworth and brought to Mercedes through some talent acquisition) and split turbochargers (as mentioned by @peartree) being two of them. I don’t want to see a F1 go back to naturally aspirated engines but I also don’t want it to go full electric either (that’s for Formula E to exploit). I think we’re in a sweet spot right now with the hybrid approach and there is more room for performance improvement with the current formula.

      2. I’m going to counter your comment @peartree These engines are the most powerful “power units” that F1 has seen in races with over 900bhp available during the races (and more in qualifying). I’m deliberately excluding the 1980’s turbos as they had to be throttled down to about 700bhp in races from their 1400bhp peaks in qualifying (they were actually physically different engines). My point is that where we’re at is the ultimate performance for petrol internal combustion with a limited fuel flow. Remember noise is wasted energy. A noisier power unit would likely be less efficient. Anyone who has heard the Honda live will know what I mean.

        I love these engines from the sound to the technology! I’m sure more newcomers to the sport would agree once F2 moves to turbos and there’s no direct comparison.

        1. F Truth (@offdutyrockstar)
          10th August 2017, 9:53

          @peartree you are 110% spot on. And @cavman9 i’m afraid those figures could be achieved without hybridisation with far less weight, had the R&D that has gone into the current formula gone into a simpler iteration of it.

          For the record I don’t mind the current engine formula at all but @peartree is on the money in saying that the formula should be dictated by performance above all else.

          1. I say why not pursue performance while also improving fuel efficiency? As they are doing. Battery technology is evolving and I don’t see them jumping off the bandwagon only to pick it up at a later date when batteries are better. They are already drastically improved and will only get better as I’m sure does the pursuit of environmental concerns surrounding the production and disposal of said batteries.

        2. The most powerful engines were the 3 litre v10s. Those engines gave their full power all the time you had your foot flat on the floor. The hybrid engines have fake numbers because they can only achieve that peak power number in qualifying as well. In a lap that number is available for some 30 seconds. And it is controlled by computer. Not the driver.

          The hybrid engines have numerous downsides and one of them is the barrage of driving aids that come with the electronics. No turbo lag, engine torque curve that is perfectly smooth, torque is adjusted for each gear, each corner in different condition. And the full power is only allowed for the driver once the car is straightened when coming out of corner.

          Long gone are the days when driver was in control. In the previous turbo era the driver had to anticipate the launch out of corner so he could maximise their exit speed and spool the turbo up. Too early and you get wheelspin and need to lift meanig you need to spool the turbo back up. Too late and you lose performance. In qualifying that was 1500hp available every time you press the throttle. Now just floor the throttle and let the computer do it all.

          1. Not sure that’s accurate. You’re portraying a picture like the cars are on rails now, and we sure see a lot of sliding around. And turbo lag was not desirable. It is something they worked on to eliminate for a reason. It was a bother.

          2. F Truth (@offdutyrockstar)
            10th August 2017, 15:45

            @robbie a lot of the power delivery finesse which was down to a driver’s right foot back in the day is managed by computers now due to the inherent design of the engines, you can’t deny that. Drive something like a BMW i3 and it’s night and day from the cars we learned to drive in and ridiculously easy. @socksolid has a point there.

            And ultimate performance can never be paired with ultimate efficiency, they are two separate sides of the coin.

          3. @socksolid, I know that figures such as 1500bhp have been thrown about for the old turbo engines, but they are extremely dubious – I’ve seen quite a few experts say that they think those figures were either intentionally made up by manufacturers exaggerating their prowess, or based on flash pressure readings which would give unrepresentatively high figures.

            As for the V10’s, you have conveniently forgotten that the V10 era also coincided with the reintroduction of traction control (it was legalised in 2001, but the FIA openly admitted that the entire grid had been illegally using traction control for several years by then) – it was in the V10 era that drivers could “just floor the throttle and let the computer do it all”, especially since fully automatic transmissions were also technically legal for most of that era too.

            You also left out the two way telemetry systems which were active in that period – so teams could automatically alter the settings on the car from the pit lane (the complexity was there – it was just hidden away in the pit lane rather than being evident on the steering wheel).

            As for adjusting the engine mapping from corner to corner, that was actually something that was implemented in the later V10 and V8 era, and banned in the V8 era – what you are describing was phased out back in the late 2000’s.

            The V10, and to a lesser extent the V8 era, both extensively used driver aids – so claiming now that the drivers were “more in control” in that era just doesn’t ring true.

        3. @cavman99 You say efficiency, I say performance, the current techniques as @offdutyrockstar points out, carry a big penalty of weight and weight affects performance significantly and have the side effect of high costs.
          I think no one could say to chase the ultimate truth in f1, performance is not at the same time the ultimate challenge.

    2. The technological development in question is entirely geared toward efficiency and meeting government regulations in roadcars, which itself is based on the now largely debunked conspiracy theory of anthropogenic global warming. This isn’t technological development for ultimate performance, we are seeing that everywhere else on the car except the power unit.

  3. The new chicane could be named Honda or McHonda, right?

  4. So Honda is finally ready to get into a horsepower duel with last year’s Mercedes? Good thing Mercedes hasn’t improved at all….

    1. Actually if that is right, honda is not that bad behind.

      1. This. Also McLaren moved clearly forward… Last race they were quite decent.

        1. Wait until Monza ;)

          1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
            10th August 2017, 6:08

            Indeed. So much of it is track dependent. I suspect in Monza poor old Ferdi and Vandoorne will be scrapping over 19th and 20th place.

          2. Pretty much that yeah @tophercheese21, @john-h.

            Sure, McLaren did pretty well in Hungary, but that is just because the engine is less important there compared to the chassis, well and they did not break down (in part because they took penalties up ahead to prevent a breakdown at a race they thought could bring good points).

            So to see whether the Honda is at least a decent engine, let alone a good engine, we will have to wait until we see a track like Spa – where both chassis and engine are important – and Monza, where the engine will be shown for what it is. I think not many people expect too much from that, but hey Honda, if you can show it’s not a dud by then, good on you.

          3. @jureo I fear Spa will be a different picture unfortunately. Hungary was flattering but it had few to do with the engine.

            All spec 3 brought was some reliability and a few tenths. Last year in Spa they were 1.5 seconds off the pace in FP3 and this year they will probably be like 1.2 seconds off.

    2. @k-l-waster

      My thoughts exactly. Now that they matched their target of Mercedes’ 2016 power unit performance in mid 2017… it seems like it’s championship time at McHonda. They are just 1.5 years behind Mercedes and Ferrari in the development curve. Too bad their reliability is actually worse than their 2015 season, but overall, they hit their so called “targets”.

      It just annoys me when Hasegawa opens his mouth. I’d love to see the look on his face when McLaren Honda get overtaken by half the field in Spa, just to he get a double DNF due to engine failure a few laps later.

      @spoutnik . I’m expecting them to have moved backwards this year (as per Honda tradition). I’d place good money on them being around 1.7s off the leader’s pace.

      1. ‘but overall, they hit their so called “targets”..’

        That’s what the headline implies (and is how I originally read it), but it’s not what he said.
        He was expressing disappointment that only now have they reached where they planned to be at the start of the season.

        The good news is perhaps that they have made significant progress, and that there is nothing to stop them taking more penalties to bring fresh upgrades – something other teams are far less likely to be able to do beyond their planned engine changes, and perhaps the one advantage of having only one team as an engine customer.
        If Honda commit sufficient resources, they could catch up quite a bit more this season.

  5. Ocon grown with great pressure to succeed but still manage to be likeable kid. Really can’t wait to see Ocon vs Verstappen fighting for WDC soon!

    1. @ruliemaulana F1 needs room for the new generation ASAP. I really hope Liberty manages to lure more manufacturers to have 26 competitive cars. With the current 20, some oldies (Massa and Raikkonen) and pay drivers (Palmer, Ericsson) need to make room for Leclerc, Norris and other more talented drivers. I also think that Hulk and Grosjean need to find a competitive seat soon (Hopefully Renault improves its game and Haas becomes another Force India) or they will start to look as stubborn men who should step aside.

      1. @omarr-pepper after a very static few years with drivers it has been good to see some of the younger drivers come through to F1 in the last couple of seasons. We definitely need more teams hopefully back to 22 cars at least, however we are going to have to wait for the PU regs change when costs should reduce significantly.

      2. spafrancorchamps
        10th August 2017, 22:51

        @omar-pepper What I think F1 should have is a rookie team for F2 champions. Budget (last years chassis?) should mostly be paid by sponsors, and the rest should be partly paid by the current constructor champion and partly be paid by FIA/FOM. This way, you guarantee a steady flow of talent coming into F1 and it gives them a chance to prove themselves. But to do that, you have to solve F1’s moneyy problem first.

  6. At the start of the year I really believed Alonso would quit Mclaren by the end of the year if not before. But he does seem a lot happier now and think he will continue to stick it out- especially as there seem to be no better free seats at the top.

  7. Cotd, real spot on.

    This whole engine debate is out of hand and in wrong direction.

    It should be, how do we make engines more powerful, affordable that use less fuel.

    Mazda now announced HCCi engines for 2019. Now those are a gamechanger for IC engines, as big a change as fuel injection and much more relevant than Hybridization.

    F1 is racing HCCi engines since 2014. Essentially running a petrol engine that is more efficient than modern diesels.

    It is infact cleaner than EV tesla model 3, powered by electricity produced in the western world.

    And here we are arguing about sound. I like the sound of Performance.

    1. A petrol engine will never be cleaner than an electric motor, no matter where the electricity came from to power the electric motor. Your comment about the Tesla is complete boulderdash.

      1. Electrocity comes from coal in most of the world. Such power is less clean per kW generated than F1 engine kW.

      2. That boulderdash might have some truth in it.
        Oil is probably the greenest energy source we have:
        1) it’s fully made of organic material (forests and creatures of 1000s of years ago)
        2) it’s fully renewable ( F1 of the future will drive on the oil of today’s trees)
        3) and it has a negative nett carbon footprint based on the carbon absorbed by all those ancient trees.

        1. Oh no, Coal is much cleaner: Made of the same trees.
          Are we using the let’s-spin-our-own-truth tricks now?
          Next we’ll say that there is no such thing as a climate change, the earth is flat, and the sun and stars are doing their job, by moving across the sky for free :p

        2. What a short-sighted, uninformed post.

          1) not thousands of years ago, but millions of years ago
          2) renewable, but it takes a few million years to make a tree into oil
          3) all the carbon absorbed by all those tree during millions of years are now burned in a litte bit over 100 years.

          We are taking carbon accumulated over millions of years and are putting it all back into the atmosphere in 100 years.
          Don’t you see the problem with that?

          1. Suggested reading: “How to recognise sarcasm!”

            PS deep ocean organic material takes ‘only’ thousands of years to transform into oil :p

        3. 2) it’s fully renewable ( F1 of the future will drive on the oil of today’s trees)

          that’s one of the dumbest things i’ve heard in a while. are you 6 years old?

          1. No it is not. I think they are talking about bio-fuels. Don’t be so quick to dismiss someone who disagrees with yourself. Don’t rely on common sense, it has been proven to be very bad at being correct. Don’t blindly follow the Tesla hype or any kind of hype, it is a nice dream that may or may not be a good thing for everyone.

          2. Biofuel is simply vegetable oil with a bit of thinner added. It runs like diesel.

            I am a big fan of running cars on vegetable oil but it does not make a good fuel for high performance engines and I doubt, very much, that you could run a Petrol engine on it and get much performance.

            Its truck fuel but lets have a veg oil formula racing series to find out, why not?

            Everything else that guy said about oil being the greenest fuel that we have is total rubbish.

          3. “that’s one of the dumbest things i’ve heard in a while. are you 6 years old?”

            @frood19, you might be 19, but you clearly have not mastered identifying sarcasm :p

        4. Ken M would be proud of this post.

      3. @franton
        What about the electric engine in F1 cars then, Is that cleaner than the petrol engine even though the electricity comes from the petrol engine?

        You are just speaking rubbish.

        1. @rethla @peartree Seriously? So a petrol engine that converts a maximum of 30% of the energy input via it’s fuel into motion (with the rest being turned into noise, heat etc) is cleaner than an electric motor that converts 75-80% of energy input into motion? (And by the way, a Diesel engine is only about 45% efficient. Better than petrol but not by much.)

          Also the combustion products of an ICE will continue to add to atmospheric pollution after manufacture from incomplete fuel combustion. There’s also the factor of environmental impact through accidents, spills etc. What about the entire energy costs of getting crude oil out of the ground, the fractional distillation column to separate out the fuel? 30c at the top for petrol, 260c for diesels, 350+ for lubricating oils and the road tar being even higher temps again. That’s before you start transporting the stuff around either via truck or tanker. Electricity … well you just string the cable and occasionally inspect it for maintenance.

          An ICE car pollutes as it is made and continues to do so for the duration of its life. An electric car also pollutes as it is made, but then it stops. Granted it’s pushed back to the source of electricity but that’s far easier to clean up than lots of many cars. A well made electric car gets cleaner as it ages, plus it’s lithium batteries are recyclable. Once petrol or diesel is burnt, good luck recycling that.

          Now what about the whole extracting lithium out of the ground? Well that’s from brine pools, mainly in South America but also Nevada. Use the sun to evaporate off as much water as possible and electrolysis for the rest. That’s far less energy intensive than our friend fossil fuel and also a damn sight cleaner for the 3rd most plentiful element in the Universe. So this is more polluting than giant fractional distillation columns operating at hundreds of degrees Celsius?
          The rest of the elements used in batteries are also pretty readily available and while nobody pretends mining is clean, it’s a lot cleaner than your fuel of choice. They’re still also recyclable. Telsa charges a $2,500 premium on NOT recycling the batteries on their cars because of their inherent value and ease of recycling. Something to think about.

          So to summarise: no I am not wrong when I state that an electric car is more efficient than an ICE car. I am not wrong when I state it is cleaner across it’s entire life cycle than an ICE car and my statements are backed up with easily available research.

          Still want to tell me I’m wrong? The facts as states do not support either of you.

      4. @franton You have no idea how wrong you are. The efficiency in energy production that is seen in internal combustion engines by far surpasses most methods used to produce electrical energy, the car however hence hybrids became a thing, do produce more energy than that they require not to mention several losses they produce in the process of transforming the energy in movement.
        Studies show that currently, a good modern diesel car pollutes less than a new “tesla” for well over the life expectancy of the diesel car, which by the way is higher than that of the new electric car, 20 years plus. The reason why the electric car is so polluting, worldwide that is (as it has no exhaust), is the lithium extraction process, catastrophically polluting.

        1. @peartree
          German manufacturers are now offering discounts to customers trading in their Euro 4 diesel for a Euro 6 one or an electric vehicle. The old euro 4 cars will be scrapped. Euro 4 was in effect between 2005 and 2009, so the life expectancy of a ‘modern diesel car’ should be 8-12 years.

    2. @jureo – I had no idea what the hell HCCi engines were so I googled of course. The information available makes VERY interesting reading regarding improved efficiency and reduced emissions using Petrol.

      Thanks for that !

  8. I’m glad tat Ricard will be using the mid-straight chicane, otherwise the Mistral straight is just too long and boring – could be mistaken for the runway at Le Castellet next door. One of the problems I have with Ricard is actually identifying which part of the circuit I am actually looking at. On TV, the cameras seem so far back from the cars and the circuit seems almost completely featureless that I cannot tell which part of the lap is being covered. Perhaps the inclusion of a few stands will give recognisable points on the landscape which will help identification.
    But heck, how are they going to include stands and facilities for 40,000 people? The track is pretty tight to the edge of the land as it is.
    And I wish it wasn’t so flat . . .

    1. @nickwyatt The problem with the chicane however is that it’s utterly uninspiring & far more boring to watch cars go through than seeing them blast down a straight at 200mph+. I also see the potential (As seen in other categories) for the chicane to do nothing but string the cars out coming off the exit. It just totally ruins the flow of that part of the circuit.

      As we see at Shanghai a straight that long helps generate a lot of good racing/overtaking & even before DRS was introduced that long straight was always a place you saw good wheel to wheel racing.

      It also takes Signes from a corner approached at 200mph which would be a serious challenge & amazing corner to see cars go approach/through at those speeds & turns it into a far less interesting, far less of a challenge due to the lower speeds likely turning it into an extension of the straight.

      1. @stefmeister How much distance does it take for a F1 car to accelerate to 200 mph?

        1. @nickwyatt Fair point, However I still think it would be far better without it & I still think the cars would be approaching Signes faster without it which would make that a far more interesting corner.

          As I said in my original comment watching the cars at full speed going down to Signes would be far more interesting to me than watching them go through what is a pretty rubbish chicane. I’m quite fond of the Paul Ricard circuit but have always just hated seeing them use that stupid chicane almost as much as when F1 was using the awful short version last time they raced there.

          1. Then we shall have to agree to disagree, because I find Ricard to be flat, featureless and characterless. For me, the circuit was ruined when they painted the outfield like a cheap carrier bag and created more possible track permutations than routes through a large city.
            Sorry if you feel this is insulting.

        2. @nickwyatt @kaiie i’m with @stefmeister on this one….. no to the chicane!

          its just another example of them appeasing the fans that want hundreds of overtakes no matter what, another case of them ruining a circuit just to add a passing spot just like they ruined the bus stop at spa in the name of overtaking as well as the many other awful changes to circuits just to appease those that dont understand what racing is and who look at nothing other than how many overtakes there were to judge a race or circuit.

      2. But they do approach Signes at more than 200mph, at least according to the article. My guess is that with the new cars the chicane actually has very little effect on the top speeds. With the chicane they reach (again, according to the article) 343 km/h, without it, maybe some 10 km/h faster. It will probably be flatout anyway. It would’ve been an interesting corner with last year’s regulations, but not so much with the cars we have today.

  9. re cotd, tesla release isn’t really big car industry news, it’s big media news… no other car company can maintain their business by only selling 1000 cars a year without profit, loaded up with a literal ton of laptop batteries

    all else I agree with, but the entire tesla brand is a media concept/ploy to show what’s possible and futuristic

    1. Hmmm…better check your numbers. I live in southern Ontario in Canada and I see Teslas every day so I just knew 1000 was way too low. In 2016 they produced a little under 84,000 vehicles and the numbers only keep growing. They are projecting to be producing 1,000,000 vehicles in 2020.

    2. Within a range of 8 km around my home, there are 24 Tesla owners today, so I guess the 1000 cars a year is for a single sales area…

  10. F Truth (@offdutyrockstar)
    10th August 2017, 10:02

    I’ve got to agree with Horner, Vettel is traditionally stronger towards the tail end of the season whereas Lewis traditionally tails off somewhat.

    If there is a car disparity in Mercs favour it could be a very close finish. I’d like Lewis to win but i’d put my money on Seb.

  11. @offdutyrockstar If you look at Lewis’s results you can see the narrative about the second half of the season being weaker is a construct. For a variety of reasons Lewis has experienced 2/3 of his career retirements (e.g. engine blowing Malaysia – and the fast but unreliable McLaren in 2012) in the second half of the season. Long story short – expect a mighty battle between Vettel and Hamilton in the second half of the season.

    1. F Truth (@offdutyrockstar)
      10th August 2017, 13:10

      @ju88sy I hope so. I just see lapses from Lewis at the latter half of the season like taking his foot off the gas in 2015 after sealing the WDC allowing Rosberg the momentum that would eventually leave him unable to leave enough margin to counter the lopsided reliability in ’16. Or Suzuka 16 where he badly, badly needed to counter the Malaysia engine failure but didnt.

      I hope he has got his off days out of the way in the first half of the season this year.

  12. Sometimes new is not better and when it comes to F1 PU new ,especially hybrid, is not better.
    It was pointed out that todays PU’s have so much computer control that they detract from the driver’s skill and control of the car , this appears true so do away with hybrids and help F1 get back to a driver’s circuit or at least as much a driver’s circuit as such a money sensitive circuit can ever be .
    Then there is the issue of sound .Sound is part of the race experience . This is part of the reason why Formula E is not satisfying. The formula E cars just don’t sound like race cars so we don’t experience them in the same way as we do cars with engines rather than motors.
    There is little if anything in all of sport which is as pleasing as the scream of a V12, bring them back while we still can , that is before all of the true experts who designed and built them have all moved on.
    Further is the issue of the cost of technology. It is not a coincidence that when hybrid PU became the formula used that Mercedes began to dominate.
    Mercedes says that it spends about a half billions dollars per season and even though it got the constructors title payout still operated in the red for each of the seasons since 2014. Further note that by some estimates Mercedes is actually spending 1 to 2 billion per season not just one half billion. The exact amount does not matter but, what does matter is that hybrid technology is expensive ,more so than standard engine tech and thus a large corp. like Mercedes can just out spend the competition.
    Who else can lose tens perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars each year and stay in business ?
    The new hybrid /electric era is a guaranty that Mercedes will stay on top and that teams below the “top three” who don’t have the access to hundreds of millions of dollars can NEVER compete.
    I thought we want the F1 landscape to expand not be reduced to a couple of well-heeled entities .
    One final comment. recently when Hamilton and Ricciardo were asked what changes they would make in F1 if they could among other things they both said was : return to the V12’s.
    Don’t continue on ther path f1 now is on ,that is a testing ground for car manufactures . It should be pure racing where the “little” guy has a chance . That is one of the better parts of Indycar where a comparatively poor team owner like Dale Coyne can compete with and at times beat a world-wide giant like Penske . its like Sauber beating Mercedes . In Indycar it happens because it’s a “spec” series. we don’t want F1 to be spec but, we ( or at least I ) want the smaller constructors to have a chance ,now they don’t and hybrid PU are part of that problem . It was said that Mercedes worked on it’s hybrid PU from 2000 on to get them right to introduce in 2014. Who but, a car giant can invest like that ?
    Give all the teams on the grid a chance to win, make race cars sound like race cars again and keep racing separate from auto development ,that is tech developed for racing can be used for street cars but, don’t make the circuit a development platform for manufactures with only big/rich manufactures who will then operate in the red and write off the loss able to win .
    The ” little” guy with a big heart should always have a place on the track and I want to be able to hear him long before I am able to see him – that’s real racing to me .

    1. No-one will manufacture your screaming V12’s and V10’s any more. Even V8’s are disappearing from both Road & track. Those days are gone, kaput, finito. However, there are many historic series worldwide where you can still experience these visceral sounds, that is, if the tracks are allowed to run them. Yes, it’s a war on all fronts as increasingly, local residents are getting tracks shut down or severely restricted because of noise. It’s a Thing, so you’d better get used to the sound of screeching tyres my friend.

      1. By the way, F1 has never been about the “little guy”. That’s a pipe dream and F1 is littered with the corpses of 67 years of “little guys”. Two of the most notable (and possibly only) survivors being Williams & Sauber, although the latter has just ended up in the pocket of the Prancing Pony.

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.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.