Usain Bolt to give start at United States GP

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Olympic champion Usain Bolt will send the drivers away at the start of the United States Grand Prix.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Does Bernie Ecclestone deserve credit for improved safety standards in F1?

I still find it hard to believe that there are fans who still claim ‘Ecclestone did good’, track safety a case in point.

Bernie seems to have hijacked the credit for track safety but the fact is he was dragged kicking and screaming into track safety by Jackie Stewart and the drivers union he organised. It took the very real threat of a drivers strike to get Bernie onboard.
@HoHum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Jamiefranklinf1, Alex De Brito, Dan and Dan!

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

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

50 comments on “Usain Bolt to give start at United States GP”

  1. Cotd eh !? Thanks Keith, that is my memory from the time it happened, I believe it is correct but I have not researched it, so please tell me (and quote sources) if I am wrong in any way.

    1. @hohum it made me laugh a lot imagining Bernie being dragged kicking and screaming!

  2. I still find it hard to believe that there are fans who still claim ‘Ecclestone did good’

    Bernie hiring Professor Sid Watkins as the safety and medical delegate was probably the single best thing to have ever happened to F1, so yes Bernie did do good.

  3. Well, I should think that professionals shouldn’t have any qualms telling their team members a frank assessment of the situation, or have problems with receiving a negative feedback, instead of avoiding unpleasant conversations or sugar coating it.
    The fact that Hasegawa is admitting the right to be criticized is a good sign regarding Honda’s realization of just how poor they are, but to say that some didn’t take it lightly, well those “some” are just stuffing their heads into the sand. Car was poorer than poor, and the fact that some are questioning the validity of Alonso’s dissatisfaction, is only due to Honda redefining the standards of a poor engine. If you told someone about this kind of underperformance, 4 years ago, they would have told you it’s beyond bad and it’s not even deserving of being in F1.

    All in all, any patience that McLaren and Alonso had towards Honda was beyond expected or believable, to be hones, and any criticism was short of what Honda really deserved, or what they’d got from any other top team.

    1. I understand the frustration of the people who have worked really hard trying their best to put things right. I know if I worked hard in a factory helping on the engines I wouldn’t take it lightly either, but I imagine it would be more born out of my own equal frustration.

      Your last paragraph makes a very good point. I couldn’t imagine Christian Horner sitting though that for three years (…although I’d like to see him try!)

    2. It is part of the Japanese psyche to not directly criticise your associates, especially not your seniors. This is both a strength and a weakness in Japanese society, but mainly a weakness in team sports of any kind.

    3. I don’t think criticism in itself is a problem. The problem is the channel of criticism. Do you do it inside the company directly to the people or do you say it to the media? No one minds the former but lot of people (Japanese or otherwise) have problems with the latter.

      I think that was the biggest problem with Alonso and McLaren where they took criticism to the media. Statements like, “there is only one thing wrong with the car” were made by Alonso; McLaren did not hesitate to mention at every opportunity that they are prioritising low speed tracks as they lack horsepower.

      Now, I am not saying any of those points were wrong, they were correct. But, a blame game in media is never productive

      I recently read an interview of Niki lauda where he mentioned that Lewis and Nico were both threatened with race bans after Spain 2016. Such a big thing happened internally but the media had no inkling of this until now. That is the right way to deal with internal tensions.

      Alonso took his battle to the media back in 2007 He did the same mistake of telling media he wanted someone else’s car in 2013 and all the comments about Honda now.

      Criticise, but not in media.

      1. I would say McLaren and Alonso did not make the vocal criticism of honda at the start of their partnership in the media. They accepted there would be issues that needed addressing, and I am sure they did that privately. I suspect, they only got out in the media, when it became clear Honda were not willing to change their pace of development. In essence they were saying, we have a deal with you, so suck it up, however long it took them to get it right. No competitive beast, even one down on it’s luck like McLaren, were going to accept that for long.

      2. Alonso’s criticism of Honda could be looked at as constant compliments for the actual chassis. He acted throughout as if he was McLaren through and through. His job is to find fault, yet he appeared to heap praise on the chassis and the McLaren people.

    4. You overlook that McLaren didn’t want a powerful engine, they wanted an engine that could fit into the least amount of space available. Is that Honda’s fault? No, the fault belongs with McLaren. It would be like if you needed a car that would fit into a small garage, but then expected it to tow a caravan: Of course you’re going to have problems. It would have been far better for McLaren to have allocated more than enough space to the engine and accepted the loss in aerodynamic performance for a year or two.
      Now McLaren are going to use the Renault engine, and Renault won’t buy this “can the engine fit into a shoe box” nonsense. McLaren will have to allocate a decent amount of space for the Renault engine, a space they weren’t prepared to allocate to Honda.

      1. @drycrust I have heard this many times in the past 3 years but where did it originate? I can’t find a single reference to McLarens design principle being based on this concept. Sure, we heard Ron talk about the “size zero” nonsense but that does not prove McLaren demanded that form factor from Honda and I personally don’t believe they did. It makes no sense whatsoever for a car designer to overrule an engine designer to the point of greatly compromised performance. Honda have never mentioned it even in the darkest days, so, without a shred of evidence to back up my theory which is that Honda simply thought they could go one better by being revolutionary (for which I applaud them). Please, if anyone can point to a piece of empirical evidence that clearly states that McLaren demanded a miniscule PU form factor I would be very grateful, otherwise my theory deserves equal footing with yours.

        1. http://en.f1i.com/news/43852-honda-not-constrained-by-size-zero-concept-mclaren.html

          “I think there is a big misunderstanding with this size zero concept, which I am going to try to kill now,” Boullier said. “There is no overheating issues, never have been. Second, the size-zero concept is to give the aerodynamicists as much space as possible to create and invent downforce.

          “We have never ever imposed anything on Honda, they do what they want. If they come with an engine like this [big] then we have to accommodate this in our size zero, which would not be a size zero any more.

          “There is absolutely no constraint and if we keep this concept because we are happy with it and we believe in the concept, it will help us catch up quicker faster than any others.”

          Yusuke Hasegawa, Honda’s new head of F1 project, confirmed Boullier’s comments, with Honda’s cooling problems last season not being attributed to the car’s concept.

          “We have never had a push from McLaren to make the engine squeezed,” Hasegawa said. “But last year we had issues with cooling, but that is lack of our experience and we didn’t understand how much size was necessary for the cooling. For this year we modified.”

      2. That is absurd, of course Maclaren wanted a powerful engine but they also wanted one that would fit into their optimum weight distribution model but this was not the reason that the engine was so under powered and unreliable.

        I suppose we will see with the Toro Ross next year.

  4. That ESPN article is a really interesting read, although I feel a tad sensationalistic. It’s odd to think F1 has now been at COTA for longer than it was off the calendar. It feels like no time at all. The article also highlights how restrictive F1 is to its fans, talking about how the high paddock fences at Indianapolis showed a contrast to the American series’ level of access for the spectators.

    However, I’m still not fully convinced by this race. They had financial difficulties after a couple of years and have been struggling to get quite as big a crowd since Mexico rejoined. Also, I don’t think the track is as good as everybody says it is. Sure the layout is definitely one of the better Tilkedromes, but I still think that it’s too bland (even with the run-off areas painted), wide, and forgiving, featuring all the typical problems of a modern F1 track. It has 2 good sections of corners but I find the rest questionable

    1. I love the track in F1 2017, in fact it’s one of my favourites. Sure it’s derivative of Silverstone and Istanbul Park in particular but the elevation changes make nailing your braking a real challenge and incredibly rewarding when you get it right.

      It also flows, with each consecutive corner ‘making sense’ if you get what I mean, I really like it.

    2. @strontium — I agree, COTA is not a great track to watch (on TV at least). The last section between the back straight and the front straight is interesting, but after that it’s all sort of bland corners. While not the worst new track, it could have been much better than a bad copy of other track’s corners.

    3. @strontium I have to completely disagree, for me COTA is THE best Tilke track. I love the flowing corners in the first sector, I think the camera angles catch this magnificently @hobo. Long straights so they can’t just prioritise downforce, the twisty part after the main straight offers multiple racing lines in the race where we often get great attacking/defending, and finally a reverse Istanbul-turn8-style corner. It’s ace, the races there have been ace too

  5. The US GP had no business being on that lame track layout anyway- it was a recipe for failure, IMO. If the track had been longer and used more of the oval- like the Daytona 24 Hours track- then it would have worked better. But there were a number of problems with F1 being at Indianapolis.

    1. The track sucked (I already mentioned that), and because of the lack of spectacle and the track’s propensity to create boring races the Grand Prixs there suffered badly comparing to the Indy 500, which truth be told no US GP in Indianapolis could ever compare to the Indy 500.

    2. Indianapolis is far from the most sophisticated and cosmopolitan city in the US- in this regard it suffers greatly to, say, the much wealthier Chicago or even Austin for that matter, which is a 3 1/2 hour drive away.

    3. That part of the United States (the Rustbelt, as we Americans call it) is very conservative, poor and working class; and therefore ignorant and ill-educated- and the majority of people there do not like change. Something as glamorous and polished as F1 coming to Indianapolis mixed together about as well as oil and water.

    4. Because tickets to a GP are so expensive most people there in the long run cannot afford to go to a race of a series they know little to nothing about. They could spend far less money doing something else more emotionally satisfying with their weekend.

    5. Austin works better because it is a young, happening and changing city- almost the polar opposite of Indianapolis.
    Lots of people all across America come to Austin for a vacation to have a great time, eat great food, escape the cold weather up north and listen to great live music all over the city. I have never met anyone who goes to Indianapolis to experience the city. The only reason anyone would have to go to Indianapolis is to go to the Indy 500 or for some other sports event (mostly basketball, which is like a religion there).

    1. *Chicago is a 3 1/2 hour drive from Indianapolis

      1. It was the race where all the Michelin runners took to the pit lane after the warm up lap that killed F1 at Indy. I went every year until that race.

    2. I have to say I greatly enjoyed the spectacle of F1 cars on the banking at Indy, however short, but the two halves of the track never matched. It was like “run, run, run” then “walk, walk, walk”. Shame it had to end the way it did and I will be forever impressed at the dignified response of the fans..

    3. Duncan Snowden
      18th October 2017, 17:03

      ”That part of the United States (the Rustbelt, as we Americans call it) is very conservative, poor and working class; and therefore ignorant and ill-educated- and the majority of people there do not like change. Something as glamorous and polished as F1 coming to Indianapolis mixed together about as well as oil and water.”

      Pray, do tell us more of these savages, Lord Mfreireington. They sound absolutely frightful.

  6. Again that is our style, to be extremely fair in our interpretation – maybe sometimes a bit too much

    As in “they totally got us, it never occured to us, dammit!”

    1. @fer-no65 – yeah, that got a chuckle out of me too “Our engines suck because we interpreted the spirit of the regulation, not the letter”.

    2. Indeed funny how they try to turn it around when clearly caught sleeping at the wheel.

      I am a big fan of smart people finding creative solutions and available loopholes in the regulations.
      But burning lubricants as fuel is one bridge too far for me. IMO opinion it contravenes the fuel flow (circumvents that system I assume) and fuel sample (not included) regulations.
      What’s next adding nitrogen to dampers and use that, or extra fuel in the drink bottles and burn that as well?

      (Deliberate) Oil burning should have been eradicated the minute FIA found out teams were going in that direction.

      1. The difficult thing is proving what’s deliberate or not. Engines burn oil, and it’s not always consistent across the same design with slight variances and wear being a factor.

        It was never considered before in imposing a limit, and when the teams thought of it they made it integral to their design so an immediate ban wasn’t practical.

        1. Not difficult, one can assume any performance benefit is deliberate. Even more so when it is hard to ban.

    3. Yeah that’s from the guy who has no qualms offering a contract to a senior F1 technical advisor who could give him precious info on the opponents’ technologies

  7. That man looks GOOD in that Ferrari!

  8. About the COTD – Bernie did good job about safety as he get Sid Watkins in late 70′ involved…

  9. In theory Alonso has as good as he’s likely to get in F1 – a car that should in theory be going toe to toe with Red Bull

    In practice, I think the McLaren won’t be quite on RB’s level and Alonso knows this, there could yet be an unpleasant surprise for fat man Brown.

    1. Alonso leaving “an unpleasant surprise” @offdutyrockstar? If I we’re McLaren management I would be delighted. Your “fat man” invective is also a little misplaced as he regularly drives classic F1 cars and they are not for the porky. Perhaps you meant fat cat?

      1. @baron Why would McLaren management be delighted if Alonso decided to leave?

        And sorry but this chap is fat.

        https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2016-04-27-at-15.34.12.png

        1. Why would (should) McLaren be delighted? For a start they’ll save some money and most importantly, it would remove some tension from the team. Sometimes, when you have much to be fixed, it pays to have everything broken so that you can start again with a clean sheet of paper. This is very much what McLaren need to do. Your comparison photo is hysterical! You couldn’t have picked a smaller chap if you tried! :) Anyone would look well fed up against Bernie. I object to this kind of personal invective as it brings nothing to the discussion, tends to detract from any serious point you make and can be considered an insulting remark. Why do you feel the need to insult him? Are you fat? Are you thin? Are you short? Are you tall? Why does this matter in your comments? It doesn’t.

          1. @baron wow 🤣 OK, I apologise for calling the fat guy fat, if you have a similar frame to him then sorry I didn’t mean to offend you. I don’t like Zak Brown, he comes across disingenuous and i’d hazard will never, EVER take McLaren to the heights that they achieved under Ron Dennis.

            Back to the discussion at hand, McLaren want to sign him because he’s done things with that pathetic excuse for a race car in the last 3 years that few other people could (note I said few and not no other). To lose out on a driver you have publicly said you want to sign and for whom in all honesty the Renault deal has been pushed through looking at how it escalated, I very much doubt they would be delighted if he went elsewhere, why on earth would they be trying to sign him if they think they would be better off without him, you’re making zero sense there pal.

    2. I would expect the McLaren to compete on a Renault Works level if not lower. But it’s at least some exciting changes although if Renault doesn’t seriously step up its game for 2018 it will only be for the B-Championship.

      1. Somewhere between works Renault and Red Bull would be my guess. The Enstone team has made strides but they seem to be playing down their own expectations for a while yet so I dont think they have all the personnel in place just yet. McLaren does but Red Bull knows the engine much better than they do and are flying at the moment.

        1. @offdutyrockstar I may or may not have a similar frame to Zak Brown. It doesn’t matter – why are you obsessed with people’s size? The only thing holding up the McLaren/Alonso announcements must be money. I can see that Alonso could be an important part of their new relationship with Renault as he has such as high profile, and, on a good day, can probably get better results than many other drivers if he chooses to. That’s the thing, for a team effort, Alonso very much flies solo and if I were building a team from scratch, I personally wouldn’t want him because I see him as a destabilising element. That’s it. Other than that I rate Alonso as a driver, probably higher than most on the grid today and it’s a shame that he isn’t in a top team fighting for a championship. However, I fear that ship has sailed already.

          1. I’m really not, I already said I just don’t think much of Zak and you ran with an off the cuff comment, my bad.

            Re: Alonso I think you have a point re: him being a destabilising element but thus far it hasn’t been focused on McLaren but solely on Honda. He has made as much known with comments like saying he would have been on pole if not for the PU etc, so he’s actually been very complimentary of the McLaren car. Whether that will change if they can’t get close to the front is anyone’s guess but I don’t think McLaren have doubts about his relationship with the team at this stage and seem 100% on board with getting him in the car next year.

  10. This oil thing really got out of hand.

    Modern disesel engines burn about 0,6l in 10000km.

    F1 engine can burn 60l per 10000km… That is just crazy.

    I bet F1 engine is not 100x more stressed. They should set a limit at 0.1l per 100km, or potentially start enforcing 99% road legal oils, same as for fuel regulations.

    Oil burning engines bring no road relevance.

    1. I have no expertise on this but it would be very surprising if a current F1 engine could run on road legal oils. Although the limit seems like a no-brainer. It’s something that honestly I thought it was in the regulation already, for being so obvious and F1 being so over-regulated.

  11. Why is he driving? H should run the start of the race, its what we are all expecting!

    1. It’s an old joke but, he doesn’t want to embarrass the McLaren team. :D

      “Alonso ! Bolt is faster than you, can you confirm you understood that message? “

      1. @redbullf1. That’s actually really funny. Thank you!

  12. Renault have been building Formula 1 engines since 1977. By now they should know that when you find “a field that is not in the regulations whatsoever”, that’s your big opportunity!

  13. What the hell does a Jamaican sprinter have to do with the US GP? I could understand a US athlete or celebrity but Usain Bolt?

Comments are closed.