In the round-up: Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche and former Ferrari chief Luca di Montezemolo have criticised Bernie Ecclestone’s handling of Formula One.
Links
Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more from hundreds of sites across the web:
Mercedes boss Zetsche criticises F1 supremo Ecclestone (Reuters)
"I don't understand how someone who is not only the CEO but partial owner of that product talks that way about this product."
Montezemolo: F1 needs a new mentality (MotorSport magazine)
"It's not reasonable to ask a man of (Ecclestone's) age to completely change his mentality. And there needs to be a change in mentality, in many areas."
Vettel: New qualifying goes against F1's DNA (Motorsport)
"It's important that the sport remains a sport. I can see the excitement for some people of the randomness but I think it's important for the sport to remain a sport so in the end the fastest driver comes out on top to pair with the strongest team."
Lewis Hamilton wants choice on new 'halo' protection device (BBC)
"If they do implement it, I hope we have a choice of whether we have to use it and are not forced to, because ultimately it is our safety."
"If it helps increase the safety and helps save lives, there would be at least two drivers who would still be around – Henry Surtees and Justin Wilson – if we had this type of system."
Daniel Ricciardo: Nico Hulkenberg shouldn't be 'a hero' over Halo (ESPN)
"I heard Hulkenberg say some things, I don't agree with that. Because there is no need to be a hero about the situation."
Palmer: Testing has been disastrous (Autosport)
"It's been a little disastrous. I didn't even manage 200 laps over three days."
Daniel Ricciardo is Formula One’s best driver, according to Red Bull team mate (Fox Sports)
"He is obviously a very, very strong driver, I think the strongest on the grid in my opinion."
Rosberg: Ferrari could be ahead (Sky)
"We know it is close, but we are not sure if we are ahead or behind."
Haryanto wishes 'I could have more testing' (F1i)
"In terms of driving, I don’t think it’s a big step – it’s just that in Formula One you have a lot of procedures to follow and a lot of switches to change while driving, also a lot of names to remember with the team, a lot of people working hard. It’s a huge step outside driving the car."
Got a tip for a link to feature in the next F1 Fanatic round-up? Send it in here:
Social media
Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:
Mad of Hamilton to tell journos "Im not going to give you a soundbite" on Halo before saying on Instagram "it's the worst mod in F1 history"
— Daniel Johnson (@danielt_johnson) March 4, 2016
- Find more official F1 accounts to follow in the F1 Twitter Directory
Comment of the day
As Formula One embraces another little-loved, knee-jerk change in the regulations, is it time for a rule against hasty rule-writing?
What they need to do is introduce a rule that no rule changes are allowed on less than one entire season’s notice unless the rule is being introduced solely for safety reasons. That is to say that if we have reached the first practice session of 2016, no new rules may be introduced until the first practice session of 2018.
That will, at all times, give teams and fans at least one year to adjust and get used to new rules, and prevent these idiotic snap changes that are made solely to try and prevent the best team and/or driver winning.
@Gweilo8888
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday to Idr, Jarred Walmsley, Tommyb, Jake and James!
If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.
ColdFly F1 (@)
5th March 2016, 0:20
Today’s round-up:
Zetsche criticising Ecclestone
Montezemolo criticising an old man
Vettel criticising qualifying
Hamilton criticising the Halo
Vettel criticising people who criticise the Halo
Ricciardo criticising the Hulk
Palmer criticising his time to test
Haryanto criticising the names he has to remember
A tweeter criticising Hamilton
COTD criticising the erratic rule changing
bull mello (@bullmello)
5th March 2016, 1:07
The new season beginning should provide some relief, hopefully. At least some of the F1 news will be about racing anyway.
Sonics (@sonicslv)
5th March 2016, 1:19
@coldfly Haryanto is not criticizing the names he has to remember, I think the correct one is Haryanto criticizing his lack of runs.
Also you can add, a commenter replying to criticizing the article comment
BasCB (@bascb)
5th March 2016, 8:11
and then the other commenters critisizing the commenter for critisizing … etc @sonicslv, @coldfly :-o
Yeah, let’s just hope the next couple of weeks go by fast and we get a great race in Australia to enjoy.
Neel Jani (@neelv27)
5th March 2016, 7:00
This in itself should be a COTD :)
Illusive (@illusive)
5th March 2016, 8:23
When did we all get so grumpy :/
beneboy (@beneboy)
5th March 2016, 11:48
When they started charging us over £100 a year to watch ugly cars being driven around crap circuits where the most exciting part of the GP weekend is waiting to see if one of the Mercedes will have a problem that allows another car to make it onto the podium.
Jorge Lardone (@jorge-lardone)
5th March 2016, 16:46
+1
montreal95 (@montreal95)
5th March 2016, 8:59
@coldfly F1 should change it’s name to Formula Cranky!
You’re my nomination for COTD no matter what and I’m prepared to criticize every criticism of my decision ;)
Balue (@balue)
5th March 2016, 14:36
@coldfly Touché
Kevin Amery (@k-l-waster)
5th March 2016, 16:40
I guess that makes this a critical season….
(feel free to throw rotten veggies at your convenience.)
drmouse (@drmouse)
5th March 2016, 19:16
*groan*
Actually, love that joke. I definitely sniggered.
John H (@john-h)
5th March 2016, 0:23
What’s Ricciardo on about? I don’t like that attitude to be honest, criticising other drivers for giving an opinion and trying to take the moral high ground. I think that’s poor form tbh.
Ross
5th March 2016, 0:39
It’s regarding a modification that could very well save his life. I think DR has a right to his own opinion on the matter, he voiced it.
John H (@john-h)
5th March 2016, 12:44
Of course he has opinion, that’s not what I’m saying. It’s having an opinion on others having an opinion, saying they are trying to be heroes which is, in my book, very presumptuous.
sunny stivala
5th March 2016, 5:13
Standard Red Bullies stuff that.
Park
5th March 2016, 7:16
I think he was saying Hulk was using the Halo topic to make himself look cool or heroic among the fans rather than thinking deeply.
Illusive (@illusive)
5th March 2016, 8:19
“Using”, so does Daniel mean Hulk is not honest about his opinion. Didn’t expect such cheapshot from Daniel.
lockup (@)
5th March 2016, 10:43
Have to agree @john-h @illusive, the ‘puffing out his chest’ bit was unwarranted. More honey badger than pussycat, smiling or not.
Strontium (@strontium)
5th March 2016, 10:43
That’s exactly what I thought @john-h, very disappointed to see that from him.
lockup (@)
5th March 2016, 10:44
Have to agree @john-h @illusive, the ‘puffing out his chest’ bit was unwarranted. More honey badger than chinchilla, smiling or not.
bigwilk (@bigwilk)
5th March 2016, 0:39
It seems to be ignored that F1 having a Halo device doesn’t save lives in other categories. If it makes the cars look awful I can’t see it filtering down to lower formula, or especially across to Indy which probably needs it most of all. People saying looks don’t matter tend to be on the inside of the sport but the rest of the world wants to see racing machines that you can put on posters and look up to – which Ferrari’s demo isn’t. I’m not saying safety isn’t important or that there shouldn’t be something in place, but surely all those clever people can invent something that looks a little less ugly.
BasCB (@bascb)
5th March 2016, 8:13
and you seem to ignore the evidence from testing the thing @bigwilk. Not to mention that the FIA explicitly targets this to be spread to other open wheel/open cockpit series.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
5th March 2016, 0:44
I don’t agree with the argument that “ultimately it’s our safety”. I bet every improvement in safety was criticized back when they were implemented. The HANS device was particularly hated by a lot of drivers, but how many of them would get in the car without it? Same with the seat belt, they were afraid of being trapped inside the car in the event of a fire, or because it felt uncomfortable.
We have to remember we started with drivers wearing nothing more than a leather hat, then open helmets, then closed helmets, and now closed helmets, with HANS and that carbon fibre stripe over the visor. It’s come a long way. And tracks and cars have evolved the same way.
Somehow, this is the exact best time to move on to the next level of safety. We needed Stewart’s crash at the Nurburgring to improve the track-side health care service, we needed Senna’s accident to improve the tracks and cars, we needed Dale Earthnard Sr to improve head and neck protection, and we needed Henry, Justin and Felipe accidents to get that final touch towards the next new standard in safety. Which, as in previous cases, will have an effect in the whole world of motorsport, not just F1.
bull mello (@bullmello)
5th March 2016, 1:14
@fer-no65 – Good points. Jackie Stewart was heavily criticized by some for pushing safety so much. Some accused him of being out to ruin F1.
And it would seem doubtful that any new safety device would be optional as some drivers have suggested they would like it to be.
RaceProUK (@)
5th March 2016, 1:59
And then F1 went onto new heights of popularity.
mfreire
5th March 2016, 3:00
It went to new heights of popularity because of television. Formula One barely had any TV coverage during Jackie Stewart’s time- it didn’t even really have adequate coverage until 1979. We have Ecclestone to thank for that- but we have him to thank for little else.
RaceProUK (@)
5th March 2016, 9:14
True, but that’s not really my point; my point is that the drive for safety didn’t affect F1’s popularity.
RP (@slotopen)
5th March 2016, 2:58
By time Earnhardt died many teams were using HANS because the sponsors demanded it.
Perhaps the same thing in F1. The drivers are brand spokesmen. The sponsors and teams want to protect them (and the brand).
Of course some drivers object. Safety isnt part of the driver mentality. Thinking about crashing slows you down.
Corey
5th March 2016, 16:35
Earnhardt’s death only sped up the mandatory usage of the HANS device in NASCAR. Kenny Irwin and Adam Petty’s death’s the year prior is what really got some drivers to start wearing them. All three of their deaths also made NASCAR be a little more proactive. This includes the unpopular COT cars, SAFER barriers (with the help from Indycar) and kill switches. Michael McDowell’s wreck at Texas in 2008 shows the benefits of all of those safety improvements.
BJ (@beejis60)
5th March 2016, 3:22
@fer-no65 It’s zylon across the visor.
sunny stivala
5th March 2016, 5:16
driver 44 is said to be a good designer of caps, could be he would want to design one himself for his own use.
glynh (@glynh)
5th March 2016, 12:03
I think unlike other changes for safety the halo, although not to the extreme of a cockpit, fundamentally changes the design of the car.
Throughout all the years F1 has been an open wheel, open cockpit series. Drivers and fans complaining aren’t necessarily against safety improvements but the trade off that comes with it.
If moto gp decided it would be safer with 4 wheels and a dome over the bike people wouldn’t be complaining because it was too safe but because the changes made it a different sport.
For the record I don’t like the halo but I have no strong objections to its use.
bull mello (@bullmello)
5th March 2016, 1:03
For once in my life I agree with Luca di Montezemolo. Nicely said too.
And with Dieter Zetsche too. This is not how you handle any brand or product.
It is one thing to be a maverick and buck trends. Maybe at one time that was true with Bernie. Now he is most harmful to his own product and is not a maverick, he’s F1’s public enemy #1. A true maverick finds unique ways to fix things. He’s the anti-maverick.
This is not news to us who have been following F1 for any length of time. He won’t budge though. Can he be fired by CVC? Not that they care as long as they’re making money.
sunny stivala
5th March 2016, 5:21
the problem with both Di Montezemolo and Zetsche is they are forgetting that it was always by divide and rule that F1 was managed.
NewVerstappenFan (@jureo)
5th March 2016, 8:32
They want to sell the thing ASAP, and dont care about future revenue.
Detsche is in good position to criticize, Mercedes products are.in excellent shape.
Bernie should fix his product… But instead plays the blame game. That is no Leader.
I bet Enzo Ferrari would rather die than admit his product is bad… Firing marketing department, rewriting rules, make rain… But not publicly admit or evem exagerate how bad the product is.
It will all end bad for Bernie or F1… And things never end for Bernie.
Geeyore (@geeyore)
5th March 2016, 11:13
@bull mello “This is not how you handle any brand or product.”
Well that’s the problem in today’s F1: the struggle between motorsport and marketing, the latter of which is IMO a function of the current manufacturer dominance of F1.
Granted Bernie is oriented toward marketing and money, but look what he’s done for F1 as motorsport over 40 years. He forced better track conditions (Silverstone), driver safety (Sid Watkins), global broadcast coverage, and much more. Although many despise his cranky and nefarious attitudes, he does deserve credit for dragging F1 through 40 years of chaos.
Personally I’m sorry that he sold his majority interest to CVC and hence lost some of his bargaining power. Because now we have manufacturer and FIA dominance rather than Bernie dominance, basically a committee in Paris and a few corporate boards and many marketeers running F1.
Very unfortunate.
bull mello (@bullmello)
5th March 2016, 20:36
@geeyore – Bernie did do many good things for F1 over the years as you mentioned. Starting out like he did in F1 gave him a good perspective on how to improve F1 and make money at the same time. I think he lost that perspective some time ago and greed took over. Unfortunately his financial maneuvering is somewhat responsible for putting big money and marketing in the F1 driver’s seat. I’m curious to see if and how this tangled mess can be resolved for the better.
Optimaximal (@optimaximal)
5th March 2016, 22:10
@geeyore
I fail to see how Bernie gets the plaudits for improving safety – That was Max Mosley’s doing. Senna’s death gave him the free ticket to work with Sid to get the cars changed.
If Bernie was in charge of safety, he’d likely have mandated less safety features on the cars because the added risk of danger drives excitement.
Geeyore (@geeyore)
6th March 2016, 14:34
Ummm…. Bernie hired Sid Watkins.
Even though rabid Bernie-haters are rampant these days, in his book “Triumph and Tragedy,” Watkins detailed the many ways in which Bernie contributed (under the awful standards of the early days) to improve the health and safety of drivers. There are over 30 citations to Bernie in the index of Watkins’ book.
And in the foreward to T&T, Niki Lauda says “This side of the sport [driver safety/health] has been transformed, and the men who deserve most of the credit for this are Bernie Ecclestone… and Professor Sid Watkins.”
bull mello (@bullmello)
5th March 2016, 1:18
Happy Birthday Jim Clark!
(It’s still 4th of March here in the US anyway.)
He would have been 80 today. Jim Clark is the reason I discovered and started following F1 as a youngster back in the 1960s. Thank you Jim. Clark was best!
@HoHum (@hohum)
5th March 2016, 2:23
Amen to that @bullmello, whether it was F1,F2, or a Lotus Cortina Jim was always the fastest, I thought his skill made him immortal, sadly I was wrong, skill alone is not enough when something breaks.
bull mello (@bullmello)
5th March 2016, 2:44
@hohum – So true. For me, he is one of a kind. There are a number of drivers that come close talent-wise, but just not quite there. Such class on and off the track too.
Funny you mentioned the Cortina. I was looking through a bunch of Jim Clark photos online today and came across a bunch with him racing the Cortina. It was a good reminder how he and drivers in his era would race just about anywhere any time. So many Cortina photos with him putting them through the paces, catching air under at least some of the tires was quite common. Looks like great fun.
@HoHum (@hohum)
5th March 2016, 20:44
:-)
Jay Menon (@jaymenon10)
5th March 2016, 2:12
I’m all for safety, but isn’t the danger element a part of what makes top end open wheel motorsport attractive? As it is, we live in a world where the paddock is about as sterile as a heart surgeons theatre. The open cockpit still gives of that aura of danger and vulnerability.
I think it should stay the way it is. It looks pretty shocking to start with. If everyone is hellbent on doing, full canopy will probably be better, as it will eliminate all risk of debris impact.
2face
5th March 2016, 8:51
Danger makes it less attractive for me. I want the drivers to lose the race if they go off track. I don’t want them to die. For quite some time after Bianchis crash, I felt sick about F1. I might be in the minority though.
Balue (@balue)
5th March 2016, 14:43
@2face Me too. After the Senna and Ratzenberger Imola weekend I thought I had it with F1, and had there been more soon after I would probably have quit following.
I did quit Indycar and it wasn’t all to do with the endless yellow flag fakery. Watcing people die or get maimed is just something I can do without.
Jay Menon (@jaymenon10)
5th March 2016, 14:53
So how come motogp seems to get on fine? unrestrained riders hitting 300 odd ks an hour, fully exposed.
I don’t like this Halo, it’s either full canopy or nothing..
RaceProUK (@)
5th March 2016, 9:19
Yes and no; it depends on exactly what you mean by ‘danger’. The danger of racing at 200mph just six inches apart appeals, but the danger of dying from severe head injury rather less so.
glynh (@glynh)
5th March 2016, 12:07
I want danger for the cars not the drivers. I think someone summed it up by saying ‘the best part of a crash is watching the driver walk out’.
markp
5th March 2016, 13:49
I was thinking that the danger is not the core appeal to most surely. Imagine a rollercoaster that gives a fantastic experience would it be more exiting if you knew that randomly within every 1000 goes it would crash and you would be killed? The danger will always be there no matter what it an eternal fight to make racing safer short of stopping racing it will never be 100 percent safe but it does not mean we should not try. It is a battle that can never be won but we should still try. For those who complain current cars a far safer than 1950’s cars and are so much faster and more thrilling to watch.
bull mello (@bullmello)
5th March 2016, 20:22
+1
RaceProUK (@)
8th March 2016, 12:44
Exactly.
@HoHum (@hohum)
5th March 2016, 2:18
Generally agree with the COTD although the math looks a little fuzzy.
bull mello (@bullmello)
5th March 2016, 3:41
There seems to be some opposition to increased head protection for drivers lately following the initial halo testing. Reading many of the comments here over time regarding safety in F1 and not singling anyone out in particular, I wonder if some believe we should move back in time 50 or 60 years.
Should we go back to:
• Officials standing on the live track waving flags
• Fans standing on the live track, or trackside right next to the live track with race cars whizzing by at speed
• No helmets, goggles, flameproof suits, seat belts or harnesses
• No car safety regulations, impact standards or safety design requirements, no wheel tethers, no fuel cell regs…
• No track safety regulations, no catch fences, no fueling safety regulations
• No regs or requirements for safety car, medical team, doctors, ambulance, etc.
In other words, no pesky safety regulations at all. After all, it’s a dangerous sport, let’s keep it that way. Participants know the risks, so therefore we shouldn’t mind if they die or get injured.
Some will probably say that isn’t what they mean when they say they don’t want more head protection for the drivers. But, some say the open cockpit should remain to retain the element of risk and danger, as if it would be completely gone with a closed cockpit.
So, what is it?
1) F1 should continue to constantly improve safety.
2) Safety regs should stay static. F1 is safe enough and no improvements are needed.
3) Racing is always going to be a dangerous sport. Safety regs should be optional.
John Rymie (@)
5th March 2016, 14:07
This is the post I’ve been trying to write for days since the arguments of DNA of F1 started.
The DNA of F1 is everything you’ve described and thankfully it’s eveolved over time. The Hamilton’s and Hulks have all benefited to some degree because of its evolution and quit using it as an excuse to fight changes they don’t agree with.
Anyway, great post
bull mello (@bullmello)
5th March 2016, 20:48
@johnnyrye – I really felt ill watching live what happened to Justin Wilson. It made me wonder how I could continue watching single seater open cockpit racing any more. I used to love the thrill of the open cockpit and wished I could do it too. It is difficult to actually believe most fans or those in the sport would really want to go back 50 or 60 years in time to the way it was before. The sport must continue to move forward. Racing will always have an element of danger. Life itself for everyone is never completely danger free. As humans it is in our DNA to minimize danger when possible. Even when doing dangerous activities.
John Rymie (@)
5th March 2016, 22:33
Couldn’t agree more, I watched it live too and have never felt that way. To think there are people that wouldn’t want to try to fix that based on aesthetics and some hero complex angers me.
Kaltenbach
5th March 2016, 22:18
I say we go with option 1, and the best way to do that is taking the driver entirely out of the loop. It would continue F1’s tradition of being road relevant seeing that Google, BMW and others are trying out self driving cars. The benefits are two fold; on one hand the risk of a human driver being killed or injured will essentially be reduced to nil, and we can test out a fledgling technology in the most demanding of circumstances. Win-win.
Geeyore (@geeyore)
6th March 2016, 14:47
1) There is nothing “road relevant” about racecars or motorsport, aside from four tires and a driver. That’s a manufacturer/marketeer promotional line.
2) The trajectory of the safety-obsessed observer (in the inherently dangerous activity or motorsport) is indeed autonomous electric vehicles on Tilke tracks. In other words, a live-scale version of children’s slot car tracks.
3) For those uninformed as to basic physics, a canopy or similar invention does not and can never account for the chaotic, unpredictable, high-velocity and high-mass impacts of motorsports incidents. They’re as likely have deadly unintended consequences as lifesaving benefits. I’m not saying don’t do it, just realize that there’s no panacea in motorsport, which is dangerous.
pcxmac (@xsavior)
5th March 2016, 3:59
Maybe it’s none of the above?
As for Bernie, hope he kicks Ferrari and Merc to the curve, Ferrari and Merc will turn F1 in to a clown fest like MotoGP.
pcxmac (@xsavior)
5th March 2016, 4:00
*curb. maybe the curve too :)
RaceProUK (@)
5th March 2016, 9:21
Why, because they want their drivers to live?
pcxmac (@xsavior)
5th March 2016, 22:15
Or maybe life is bigger than a multiple choice question ?
bull mello (@bullmello)
5th March 2016, 22:48
@xsavior – Life is bigger than a multiple choice question. What is your non-multiple choice answer? “none of the above” doesn’t count. Just curious…
pcxmac (@xsavior)
6th March 2016, 1:42
my answer is none of the above. As in, let people choose for themselves, F1 is unsustainable because it does not allow enough opportunity (freedom) for it’s participating members. It was only a few years back when a team like Sauber legitimately had a shot at the top step. This is no longer the case, only Ferrari and Mercedes determine who wins and loses now. Renault have proven they do not have what it takes, and Honda are too up their own orifice to figure out real problems, where as they have historically depended on regulations to save their bacon.
Who wants to sponsor a team that doesn’t even have a shot at the podium? MotoGP is a show, or at least has been since 2009 when they instituted the control tire. F1 has followed suite and now allows the manufacturers to call the shots. The FIA is legislating away the competition… The over zealous application of rules are what is ruining F1, seriously.
RaceProUK (@)
8th March 2016, 8:30
Someone who wants global media exposure?
Optimaximal (@optimaximal)
5th March 2016, 22:13
@xsavior What, so you want a spec championship with a single engine and special favours given to Red Bull so they win all the time? If you want to lose the big manufacturer teams, you might as well go watch GP2.
pcxmac (@xsavior)
5th March 2016, 22:16
since that has never been my stance, I challenge you to actually substantiate your argument. Sounds more like you are throwing a straw man argument my way, … maybe I am wrong.
gweilo8888 (@gweilo8888)
5th March 2016, 4:58
The words “Ecclestone” and “leadership” really don’t belong in the same sentence, and I feel slightly dirty just for having seen them together. He’s not a leader; he’s a desperate old man clinging onto his waning power while making terrible decision after terrible decision, and that’s been the case for at least the last 15 years if not longer.
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
5th March 2016, 8:58
Actually, no, he doesn’t make terrible decision after terrible decision, really most of his decisions are very good, at least for CVC and himself anyway.
Girts (@girts)
5th March 2016, 11:13
I love how dailysportscar.com put it a few days ago:
“To those who continue to parrot statements like “Formula One wouldn’t be the sport it is today without Bernie” I’d add this – The UK wouldn’t be a free nation without Spitfires and Hurricanes but I wouldn’t want them in the front line in the 21st century.”
I guess the owners of F1 still keep Ecclestone because he has more experience and knowledge than anyone else so he can still negotiate better contracts with circuits or F1 broadcasters. In other words, he brings them more money in the short term. However, I highly doubt if he is good for F1 if one cares about the sport’s future.
Then again, look at what ideas other, Ecclestone-free racing series come up with. Formula E had a blank sheet of paper yet they somehow managed to invent the Fanboost. NASCAR Sprint Cup has been turned into a season-long ‘elimination qualifying’. IndyCar happily uses double points and reverse grids and success ballasts were also not invented by F1. So while I completely agree that Ecclestone must go, I am worried about the future of F1 with or without him.
Optimaximal (@optimaximal)
5th March 2016, 22:23
@girts All series have their problems, but every series (seemingly apart from F1) at least admits there are problems with their ideas and vocally profess that they intend to fix them.
Formula E’s Fanboost is simply a fan engagement tool – yes, it’s fundamentally bad because it artificially influences the race in the favour of a few drivers, but it drives fan interest via social media. It could arguably be improved significantly by allowing all drivers to benefit from it (i.e. all drivers get some amount of boost, based on the percentage of votes, rather than the top 3).
F1 just knee-jerks from controversy to complaint every few weeks, with most of the complaint coming from the commercial side of the sport (and those who are in bed with it). It all boils down to the amount of money involved at this level – the same can be said of any Olympic controversy and all the guff going on in FIFA.
F1 can solve the majority of it’s ‘sporting’ problems by resolving it’s commercial ones – the asymetric payment system and commercial interference in the sport in the name of financial gain for the commercial rights holder. The problem is the CRH has got the financial side of the sport tied in knots for the near future, with the other parties (the FIA, the teams and the fans) locked out due to potentially illegal yet ‘legally binding’ contracts, EU oversight and boardroom agreements.
Geeyore (@geeyore)
6th March 2016, 15:03
@gweilo8888 “The words “Ecclestone” and “leadership” really don’t belong in the same sentence”
Comments like these leave one completely gobsmacked.
Neel Jani (@neelv27)
5th March 2016, 7:03
I am not very impressed with how Jolyon Palmer has been constantly criticizing Renault. It’s your first season and you haven’t proved yourself in the sport and it doesn’t go well with how you critique your testing millage constantly. More like Bernie behavior by Palmer Jr.
Ahappyteddybear
5th March 2016, 8:53
The drivers head is one of the biggest problems when looking at aerodynamic performance. Its a big thing stick out.
Now this halo has the potential to direct air away from the cockpit and the air trap that it is.
The performance enhancement could be significant so if lewis wants to choose….
andae23 (@andae23)
5th March 2016, 9:08
I can’t believe it’s a coincidence that both Zetsche and Montezemolo would criticise Ecclestone around the same time. It’s great to see these two superpowers openly criticising Ecclestone’s policy (giving him a taste of his own medicine) and I hope it’s the beginning of the end for him.
Regarding the halo, I don’t like it at all, but not because ‘it’s ugly’. Hamilton’s comments on the halo are so unbelievably shallow, it just makes him sound like a 15-year-old girl. Whether it’s aesthetically pleasing is really not the priority here, as Vettel pointed out. Also, making it optional would definitely not work because a teams would have to design two completely different rear wings. And if there’s an aerodynamic benefit to not running the halo, I can guarantee the teams would ask the drivers not to run it, analogous to them asking drivers to be below a healthy weight.
I still completely agree with Hülkenberg on this one. I’ve mentioned before how F1 has advanced so much that they can ‘design’ the level of safety. The mindset of a lot of people (particularly the FIA) is that safety can’t not be enhanced (or in their words, ‘improved’) enough, but because of technological advancements at some point safety standards become so high that other things start getting compromised. Hülkenberg: “You can’t sterilise the sport. There needs to be an element of danger – I think in a way that’s sexy and attractive and it’s also what Formula 1 needs.” This pretty much sums up my thoughts.
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
5th March 2016, 11:51
@andae23 I found Hulkenberg’s comments interesting considering he is the only driver to race both the top level of open-wheel and sportscar racing over the last 12 months. To be honest, I personally feel that a possibility of being hit on the head by something is hardly ‘sexy’ or ‘attractive’. The idea of potentially losing your life from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not something I particularly like the sound of, but then again I still feel very sad over Justin Wilson’s death so perhaps I am being a bit biased here. I’m not fully for the halo I should add, especially considering the potential flaws – notably how in the format we have seen so far, it may impair visibility at for example Eau Rouge/Radillon or on a banked oval.
Ultimately I am for some sort of further head protection in all forms of open-wheel racing, but I don’t feel that the right solution has been found as yet.
andae23 (@andae23)
5th March 2016, 13:56
@craig-o If you put it like that I’d agree with you, I don’t want to see any drivers dying. But if you exclude every single risk involved with motorsport, at some point it would just get boring. Webber overtaking on Alonso at Eau Rouge, Verstappen overtaking Nasr at Blanchimont: they were exciting because it involved risk.
But I agree with you that if they were to get some form of head protection, the halo is not the way to go. They may as well go for a full canopy (that polycarbonate one seemed to work pretty well).
Girts (@girts)
5th March 2016, 10:50
I believe that the new qualifying has nothing to do with F1’s DNA, it is just a different way to determine the starting grid but the fastest driver will normally still come out on top. You could also say that the current format is artificial, compared to what we had until 2002 or 2005. If you really want to ensure that the fastest driver always wins, then a three-stage knockout system is not the best way to achieve that. Single-lap sessions ensure that traffic is not an issue and 12-lap sessions also arguably reduce the ‘randomness’. However, as long as it is the same for everyone, I do not think it is unfair or bad for the sport.
Optimaximal (@optimaximal)
5th March 2016, 22:29
@girts The problem is that Qualifying is always academic when the best drivers are in the best cars – it basically means that they’re always going to be up front if not for a random event that prevents them setting the best time. And the best driver will always want to be in the best car…
This is why the start of the 2012 season was good – both Red Bull & Ferrari’s cars were fundamentally wonky, so the ‘best in the best’ paradigm didn’t fit and we had chaos, until engineering ‘fixed’ the problems.
Girts (@girts)
6th March 2016, 11:00
@optimaximal You are right, as long as the best drivers are in the best cars + there are significant performance gaps between these cars, the results will mostly be predictable anyway. However, the qualifying format can still increase or decrease the ‘randomness’. For instance, competitive drivers have sometimes missed Q3 or Q2 because of a simple misjudgment, which would not happen under previous formats.
TG
5th March 2016, 16:51
‘the worst mod in Formula 1 history’
Um, no.. that would be wings. The same thing that’s keeping everybody from passing anybody.
Optimaximal (@optimaximal)
5th March 2016, 22:32
Wings aren’t the thing preventing people passing, rather it’s the over-reliance on them being the sole mechanism to adequately generate downforce on a F1 car that hurts. If the tyres gripped better and the floors had ground-effect tunnels, the wing performance would be academic.
Jorge Lardone (@jorge-lardone)
5th March 2016, 16:52
I agree with Luca di Montezemolo and with Dieter Zetsche.
Bernie, go home. You are killing Formula 1.
Philip (@philipgb)
5th March 2016, 20:20
I’ve got to say Hamilton is way off on the halo being down to choice. I still want to see how it affects a driver jumping out of the car in an emergency and how it behaves when the car roles over on grass and gravel before being convinced it’s a safety improvement but assuming it does then it’s not about if Hamilton is happy to take the risk to look cooler than the rest. It’s about the driver like Grosjean in Belgium 2012 or Raikkonen last year who has to live with having taken another drivers head off if one of those accidents had been even slightly closer than it was.
Hearing drivers talk about the ‘DNA’ of the sport is like hearing Americans talk about their constitutional amendments. Both of those things can change and in fact must do for evolution and progress. I do like that F1 is an open canopy series, not enough that I’d insist it remain so if a safer option is available though. And seeing the halo tested it actually looks better than I expected from the mock ups.
Optimaximal (@optimaximal)
5th March 2016, 22:37
@philipgb Nothing about the halo design convinces me that it will work to prevent car ingress into the cockpit – it’s largely to prevent large airborne objects hitting the drivers head. Several talking heads in the sport have already admitted that it wouldn’t have saved either Jules Bianchi’s life (too many external forces and sudden deceleration involved) or Felipe Massa from meeting Ruben’s rear suspension spring.
The way both Grosjean and Raikonnen collected Alonso’s cars during both incidents mentioned would have likely sheared the halo straight off, especially if it were a hinged unit, not fixed…
dragoll (@dragoll)
5th March 2016, 23:29
In regards to the halo, there are 2 incidents I think of when I looking back at F1 recently. The first one is Kimi Raikonnens near miss of essentially being decapitated or having his hands hit by Alonso’s car that came at him from the side at the 2015 Austrian GP. The other incident was Jules’ tragic incident where the crash investigators concluded that the weight of the tractor literally pile drived Bianchi downwards into the cockpit.
I’m not 100% entirely sure of whether the halo, as depicted by Ferrari, could withstand the weight of a tractor pushing down onto the driver, as well as whether the angle of impact wouldn’t just break the halo off its mounts as the car came at the tractor at pace. The Kimi incident, I’m not sure the halo would have stopped the protruding floor from getting into the cockpit space, as well as potentially forcing the cars to interlock.
A good series of photos of the Kimi incident with Alonso.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3133380/Formula-One-duo-Fernando-Alonso-Kimi-Raikkonen-involved-massive-lap-Austrian-Grand-Prix-crash.html
Tigerskin
5th March 2016, 23:50
There is a video with the halo simulation(in spanish) you cant see nothing in spa or monaco, i hope they dont finish off the f1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcLITmxJHPw
SauberS1 (@saubers1)
6th March 2016, 0:32
He is right, otherwise the commenting of F1 problems is very bad idea…
Todfod (@todfod)
6th March 2016, 13:54
Just to move everything away from the whining and complaints about F1’s current state, future, and mad cap Bernie, let’s address how Kvyat thinks Ricciardo is the best driver on the grid. Since Kvyat just finished ahead of the best driver on the grid last year, maybe he’s the best driver on the right now?
It’s funny how often a driver praises his teammate just to justify his own performance. Massa claimed Alonso was the strongest teammate he’s ever had, Rosberg has said the same of Lewis, Perez has said the same as Hulkenberg, etc.