115 responses to “#F1 Daily News and Comment: Monday 27th October 2014”

1. “Watching Vettel winning constantly was to believe that his car was the dominant factor. Yet if this were true, why did Mark Webber not consistently finish as runner up?”

   Simples, because the Newey toys were custom-size tailored to Finger boy’s needs (cf Alonso vs Raikkonen), and old dog Mark just couldn’t learn the same driving tricks that the young lad could muster.

   • On top of that, it’s very superficial comparing two completely different eras separated by 50 years of development and F1 evolution. I honestly hope the writer doesn’t imply that Vettel is as good as Clark !!!

     • M78, you know me better than that 😉

       • Actually I do, you’re right, apologies

   • A response that exposes your rabid disdain of Vettel. The car wasn’t ‘tailored to his needs’. The car was tailored to Adrian Neweys ideas and as a result they required a counter-intuitive driving style. Vettel could adapt to it, Mark couldn’t – hence the difference.

     • Oh stop it hippo, we’ve heard even Horner use the same phrase of Seb driving a car that was tailored to his needs and driving style.

     • On the other hand: Vettel couldnt adapt in this year and in the first half of 2012.

       • Because it isn’t a two week project. And btw. Despite his probs in 2012, he was still the better placed of the two RB’s when the big update came.
         As far as this year goes, you are right, but the picture is skewed. Mainly due to lack of running by lost tests and free practices, which amount to a loss of four full GP distances (1.200 km). I would suggest with an additional 1.200km he’d be much more adapted to the new cars. People seem to think you can fundamentally change your driving style in just a few weeks.

         • “People seem to think you can fundamentally change your driving style in just a few weeks”

           The best can do in a far shorter time than that……

         • That’s not true. Lewis couldn’t adjust to the new breaks on the Merc for a long time. Does that mean he’s not one of the best?

         • But he still managed to win a race and beat his teammate at the same time, so that’s not really a good comparison, also Lewis was in a new team where everything was different from what he was used to, Seb is in the same environment that he won 4 titles with.

         • The difference between last year’s car and this year’s vintage is miles wider than Lewis’s old Macca and the Merc. That’s a stale argument.

         • F1 will unravel because of the Top 10-only bonus $$$ scheme, which is really a revenue share amongst the top teams. If the sport is to be viable in the future, they need to look at the National Football League’s team model for sharing revenues. Though there will be differences like franchising teams rather than having independent owners and unless the constructor’s championship is eschewed altogether, ALL teams should share in a large enough percentage of revenues to allow each team to compete regardless of their stature in the sport. You can still give bonus $$$$$ for the winning team but that money should be tightened to the first five teams because all teams do an equitable revenue share.

           Secondly, F1 needs to seriously expand its casual fan and female audience. The NFL did this through comprehensively pushing fantasy play to further pique the interest of the casual fan and through advertising directly to women. Present domestic violence issues aside, the NFL has done a wonderful job at targeting women and growing their fan base exponentially through women. And even with this present domestic violence issue, the NFL has already positioned itself to appear to “lead” in dealing with dom. violence, as evidenced by the tv ads they’re airing.

           F1 also needs a dedicated F1 channel, a la the NFL where former drivers, ream principals rule the messaging for the sport. The advent of the NFL Network was a masterstroke by the league. Sure they do pro-NFL propaganda but they are not at all above criticizing everyone from the team owners to the commissioner (who’s actual role is being union chief for the owners), to the top stars in the game; criticizing is done, obviously, to get ahead of negative stories, but in doing so they give the appearance of self-reflection – and, again, I can’t help but think this is done largely for women and the independent but important, blogger media types.

           The network creates the perception of a main hub for the league that is conjoined at the hip to NFL.com. At every turn you see women in prominent roles in the studio as, not only conversation facilitators, but as knowledgable and rabid supporters of the game, teams, and players. And NFL-sanctioned and produced fantasy leagues with large prize pools are consistently pushed in commercials.

           Team revenue share and modernizing advertising efforts are the tow keys to F1 digging itself from its present perilous position… oh, and one more thing: F1 needs to take control of its “minor leagues.” Unlike the NFL, F1 doesn’t have to deal with a feeder system – college football – that is a billion dollar business with a COMPLETELY different messaging agenda. Because of that , F1 needs to consolidate GP2, GP3 and all viable F1 feeder racing right down to owning the rights to an age-based, World Karting Championship, separate from andy other existing championships. Making the minor leagues an official part of F1 racing representing the pinnacle of each minor league step (also, in part, funded by F1) again tailors the sport to women – mothers particularly – as well as to fathers and sons. Through these minor leagues F1 further expands its reach and gets to tell – control – the stories of drivers from the cradle to the pinnacle of the sport.

           Finally, F1 NEEDS to continue too be maintain a separation from geo-politics (but inclusive of geo-social issues) —- to the point where it acts, if at all, as a place where all countries can put side their differences and enjoy in the global effort it takes to produce the races.

           I hope, fat hippo, this dispels any notion that I would be “drunk” when commenting here ;-).

         • He did actually adjust to the brakes but just doing that meant he could not brake as late as he usually did. – He still outperformed his team mate and didn’t get a pounding from his team mate at all.

         • The two of you, you and fortis, begin to bore the hell out of me. Whether he still beat his team mate or not wasn’t the point of the discussion. The point was that it was submitted that the best can change their driving style in less than a few weeks and Lewis, thought to be one of the best, did need close to half a season. Whether that was still enough to win is secondary. The conflict between the two statements is still there.

           One would think with Lewis winning the title this year you’d finally be done with your Vettel bashing. He doesn’t win this year, so you should be happy right? Nope, not you lot. You need to poke further. I’d say that doesn’t reflect overly well on you, especially since the two of you are screaming the loudest if someone dares saying something not-so-nice about a driver you don’t happen to hate.

         • Can’t be a stale argument Hippo if you’re going to use as a point of reference to somewhat justify Seb’s performance. The fact still remains, he struggled with his brakes, but still out performed his teammate in every area except on race wins and DNFs and that’s despite Nico being in the team for longer and is more use to his equipment. No one expected Seb to be behind Ric much less finding it so hard to adopt his driving style to suit his new toy.

         • I don’t think it’s Vettel “hate” hippo. It’s much more, Vettel has had the luxury of, mostly, a far superior car and receives more credit than he’s due.

           We sit on the sidelines and watch and judge and opine. Some of us refer to the people within the sport for expert analysis about the drivers, team principals, chief mechanics, designers, etc. However, for you, judgement and opinion with context-omitted factions are too often the only place your summations seem to come from, with Lewis Hamilton. Plus you MUST toss Lewis Hamilton into ANY conversation you have regarding the worth of top drivers, going out of your way to do so. Then, when your opinions are challenged or you tossing in a negative aside about LH is outed, you go from ad hominem attack to butt-hurt with little else in-between.

           The initial comment didn’t mention Hamilton and YOU were the first person in the thread to mention LH. YOU initiated this hippo, no one else.

           How about sticking to the topic at hand – only – and moving the conversation forward rather than forcing everything to come to a halt so you can rant on with your reductionist, Vettel = F1 god, Hamilton = one-off pretender argument.

           Not written by a drunk (fact: I neither drink nor do drugs; that portion of youthful folly has long passed).

         • I have a news flash for you. This years championship will be won in an even more superior car. Does the first sentence apply to this years champion too?

         • “I have a news flash for you. This years championship will be won in an even more superior car. Does the first sentence apply to this years champion too?”

           Design-wise the Mac is, as explained by Mark Hughe/SkyF1, is far superior than its competitors. However, like all the cars in this first season of the “power unit,” Merc has reliability problems. When the car is right, it’s right as rain, when it’s wrong… well, we’ve seen the teammates be forced to bow out of races at inopportune times.

           So, all in all, I’d say whichever Merc driver wins the WDC, the other likely coming in 2nd, is a season of dominance we haven’t seen the likes of since McLaren’s 1988 season.

           Because of their history racing versus each other, barring a Rosberg psychological breakthrough, if the cars perform evenly, Hamilton walks with the WDC. And yes, a portion of my first sentence applies.

           However, Hamilton has proven often that he can, as his peer Alonso says, “Win” with a car slated to finish “7th or 8th.” Alonso pointedly said Vettel has yet to do what Hamilton has already done with lesser cars. According to his former teammate, Jenson Button, LH “might be the quickest driver ever” to race in F1. Hamilton is, according to the team principals who did not play “my guys” favorites (2 of them) the “best driver on the grid today.”

           From these people with a vast amount of actual F1 field experience, no one else was or is in that conversation. No one.

         • Mr. Alonso obviously missed the fact that Mr. Vettel still holds the record for being the only one finishing first or fourth in a Toro Rosso, a car that certainly wasn’t expected to finish higher than 7th or 8th. In fact it rarely did if not driven by a certain Mr. S. Vettel. I think if you look up TR history, you’ll find that you need only the fingers of one hand to number the times that a TR had finished better than 7th if not driven by Vettel. I think Mr. Alonso was talking bullshit. As are you.
           Hamilton never had anything but a top car. McLaren might not have beem a WCC car in all his seasons, but if a McLaren is the worst car you ever drove, you certainly never had to prove yourself in a ‘lesser car’. So what’s the point you’re trying to make?

         • @dwil….

           Thank you, I’m glad you recognised what the hippo was doing, hence why I chose not to reply any further.

         • Which you just did

2. Oh Carlo. .. how do you dare say that vettel is a good driver. 😉

   • He’s going to Ferrari… I have to, it’s the law 😬

     • I didn’t dare to make that statement. But i knew it played a part. 😉

     • I like your honesty Carlo, there is a history, the drivers you dislike ending up there, Just had to comment on this! I will go back to lurking now, me old mate.

       • Welcome to the courtroom my friend. Don’t be a stranger your views would add to the community as does everybody else’s.
         As to honesty… not all Italians are crooks… 😉

         • Thanks Carlo, no there not all crooks, just the politicians and those in power. I was thinking about the third car options, how does this grab you all? Suppose established  successful  single seater Teams from junior formula like DAMs, Arden, ART GP could run a third car, for a driver from the hosting GP Nation or established name with limited or no F1 experience.

           For example Jolyon Palmer entered for British GP, A budget for a single race would be easier to raise, it would add local interest for fans, and it would attract the kind of new Teams F1 requires for its longterm future, they could gain experience and dip a toe in the water so to speak, with little financial risk, they may then commit long term with some good results behind them, who knows?

           There would obviously  need to be a relaxation with rules, and agreement with existing Teams, but this i feel would add to the Championship, quality Drivers and established Teams.

           A example of this from past Desire Wilson RAM Racing Williams FW07, a then current chassis, Part funded by John Webb Brands Hatch circuit owner, host of the 1980 British GP. Desire failed to qualify but Team mate Rupert Keegan raced reasonably well, just a idea of mine.

3. I’d rather see 3 F14Ts, RB10s and W05s than wheelbarrows we have at the back of the grid currently.

   • Absolutely not! What fun will it be seeing 3 Mercs, 3 RBs and 3 Ferraris in the top 9 positions at each GP? Week in, week out? Really? What a boredom. If something could kill off F1, this might be it.

     And consider the moment when RB necessarily bows out, ahem, slams the door. Then you have a net 6 cars off the grid. And do you feel there are sufficient Kolles’ and Ijaz’ in this world to fill up the grid with cars that actually have a working suspension? Given current business model and practices in the F1 universe, 3 cars might be the stupidest and dumbestest idea ever.

     • What fun will it be seeing 3 Mercs, 3 RBs and 3 Ferraris in the top 9 positions at each GP?

       Well, if Merc’s lineup was Rosberg, Hamilton and Alonso, quite a lot, actually.

       Which three drivers would we like to see for Ferrari and Red Bull ?

       • Paddy, Toto and Nikki would all end up in Arkham asylum for life.

       • Absolutely. If we could get 3 or even 4 Mercedes cars on the grid we’d pretty much be guaranteed a great race every time.

         • You’re looking at it from a short-term perspective. What happens when Alonso and Hamilton retire. Look at what happens in 5-10 years’ time. I won’t like it.

         • But there will be always be 2 or 3 drivers that are cut above the rest every generation, so they will be replaced, don’t worry n

         • “But there will be always be 2 or 3 drivers that are cut above the rest every generation, so they will be replaced, don’t worry”

           Looking at the Schumacher era, it took F1 ten years to produce more than one driver “cut above the rest” after Senna died and Prost, Mansell and Piquet retired. This is not meant as an insult to Hakkinen, Hill, Villeneuve etc., but, as much as i disliked the man during his reign, they were not in the same league as Schumacher and the grid at that time didn’t even come close to what we have since 2007, or what it looked like before Imola 1994.

   • To create a segue back into the Alonso/Ferrari topic above:
     “Although if the teams have to run three cars…”

     …then Alonso would probably jump ship to join Mercedes ;). That’s the irony of the situation Ferrari is in — as long as there are two cars per team they need three, but the moment it’s upped to three, they’ll only have two drivers!

     • But the article says……

       “If the F1 grid keeps diminishing, three-car entries are inevitable. Auto Motor und Sport said Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren are lined up by Ecclestone as first in the queue to start supplying third cars. If any of that trio declines, Mercedes is reportedly the next in line.”…..

       So are we forgetting Bottas and the teams reserve driver?

       Furthermore having Alonso in a 3rd Merc would be of no benefit to the team, because even if they fielded 2 cars, they’re still the team to beat. Also given the view by most that the 3 headed management team has failed miserably in managing their current drivers, add Alonso to that mix and that could be the beginning of the apocalypse.

       • well, at least in that case, every mercedes boss could have his own favorite driver.

         • So which boss would favour Alonso?

         • lowe obviously. lauda and toto already chose their driver.

   • Having three car teams will lead to the death of F1. Imagine what would happen if one team had a dominant engine and a superior engine. They would finish 1, 2 and 3 almost every race. If this happens 1 season other teams and manufacturers (Renault, Honda, Ferrari) can think “Oh well we just have to a better job next year” but imagine what would happen if that happens three years in a row? First sponsors would just leave because if you don’t have a relationship with the top team you don’t get the TV coverage you want to achieve with F1. But eventually the other manufacturers would leave too because there is no chance to win. But maybe even worse imagine what would happen if there are no small or midfield teams anymore. That automatically means that a manufacturer finishes last. That is the kind of publicity no manufacturer wants and if that happens within a year the manufacturer will leave F1 because the negative publicity of finishing last is unacceptable to a major manufacturer.

     • Exactly so. Sir Williams said as much about 2-3 years ago, that 3rd cars would kill his business.

       Now imagine that weekend in, weekend out McLaren, Ferrari and Lotus have performances of max 10th place, or last (not that different from what Lotus, Sauber and Marussia are doing this year); each time behind triumphant Mercs, Red Bulls and Williams’. How long do you think that McLaren will take before bowing out and focusing on selling high-speed cars? How long will it take before all sponsors jump the sinking Enstone? The negative publicity of being constantly outside point-scoring positions would be even more devastating for McLaren than its current 2-year lull are.

       All said, a scary prospect…

   • The F14T is a wheelbarrow also

4. “yet it seems very strange that Marussia who currently lie ninth ahead of Sauber and Caterham – after the points they scored in Monaco with Jules Bianchi – have taken the route to administration.”

   Two questions, Judge.
   1. Is Marussia starting to feel the frosty bite of Western sanctions on Russia money?
   2. With Caterham and Marussia out for next GP, and there being less than 20 cars on the grid, does the FIA have legal grounds to snatch back the commercial rights from FOM? And is Todt up for such a move?

   • Im not the judge, but for purposes of discussion…

     There is no question the banking sanctions are hitting the Russian billionaires, and that’s who has been keeping Marussia afloat. I said months ago that Marussia would make it only as far as Sochi. It appears they filed for administration 2 days after the race.
     There was no way Putin was going to host a GP and not have a “Russian” team. Now that the politics are over, Marussia can die.
     But I don’t think they will. Marussia will be back at Abu Double. The cost-reward formula works much better there. Without Caterham around, their odds of scoring points go up, and that makes them more valuable to a potential buyer.

     As far as the rights go I don’t think anyone has an answer. I have heard “less than 20”, “less than 18” and “less than 16” all used to describe the cutoff point for the FOM-FIA deal.
     There is no Concorde agreement, so what it appears bernie has done is sign individual mini concordes with each team, and the FIA, all independent of each other.
     the cutoff point in each contract is different. So bernies deal with the teams probably says “if we drop below X, you have to help me” in an effort to keep the total number of cars above the cutoff he has with the FIA. I think that number is 16, but it may have clauses giving grace periods, etc.
     Bernie also has to fulfill contracts he has with the circuit owners, which again are not connected with the teams or the FIA.
     Its all secret, so no one but bernie knows the whole story.

     I think the contracts bernie has with the circuit owners might be his weakest point. He has been pushing them around for decades, charging them huge fees, laying all the risks on them, and generally being a d*ck. If an important track stood firm because there were not enough cars to fulfill the contract, it could get bernie in some serious hot water with the FIA.

     Unfortunately COTA doesn’t have a written contract, so they have no power. bernie already has lined up a race in Mexico, so he could drop COTA and laugh (obviously not the race this week, but starting next year). Abu Doubles trillionaire sheiks don’t care how many cars are on the grid, so that just leaves Brazil this year. I don’t see them rocking the boat.
     So bernie will skate through this season deals intact.

     But even if bernie does fail to fulfill one of these contracts, then, as you say, Todt would have to publicly terminate the FIA deal. Since the contracts are secret, no one would know to challenge it, so Todt would have to grow a pair. I am not holding my breath.

     Just a rough estimation of bernie’s contracts:

     11 separate Team contracts (+haas and maybe FRR?)
     20 or so individual contracts with the circuit owners
     A contract with FIA
     contracts with every TV broadcaster (20?)
     Pirelli contract
     etc.

     All agreements go through bernie (FOM/CVC), and they are all essentially secret.

     Judge please correct me if I am wrong.

     • … that just about sums it up perfectly.

       I think the number 16 emanates from certain circuit deals. 20 is with the teams for a third car – and 18 sits nicely in the middle for those who like to sit on the fence and get a spike up their arses 😉

     • @Tourdog

       Thanks a lot for taking this up. Very interesting information.

       I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the “less than 20 cars” clause was related specifically to the contract with FIA, namely as a condition when the rights were bought. We probably need Matt on the job, to sift through the documents… From what I gather, if there are less than 20 cars, the FIA can unilaterally nullify the sale of the rights. Is there any truth in it?

       “I said months ago that Marussia would make it only as far as Sochi.”

       Yeah, remember this prediction. Spot-on.

       • I know the “less than 20 cars” number has been thrown around a lot, but I think that number is related to bernies deal with the teams, not his deal with the FIA. The speculation is that once we fall below 20 cars, bernie can activate a clause in the contracts he has with the two top teams (RB and Ferrari), and make them run 3 cars. (if more teams fail, then Mercedes, Mclaren, Williams, in order, would have to step up) This would stabilize the grid with enough cars to stay above the minimum number stipulated in his contract with the FIA. Again, we aren’t sure, and we don’t know what the actual number is, just that there is one.

         Now, in the last week, bernie has been quoted as saying that the “3rd car” would not be run by the team that made it. He essentially said, Ferrari or RB would have to give a wholly complete car, sponsors, drivers and engineers, to another team to run under their own name.
         This is as ridiculous as it sounds, and could realistically never happen. But bernie is famous for throwing large amounts of sh*t at the wall, knowing only a fraction of it will stick. What he really needs is 6-7 teams to run 3 cars each, and this may help scare Mercedes, Mclaren, FI, and Wiliiams into falling in Line.

         The rabbit hole of “if’s” is so vast that it is almost not worth discussing.
         We realistically will never know what the deals are.

         The underlying point is that all bernie cares about is keeping the contracts alive. If that means 2 teams with 12 cars each, he will make it happen. The contracts are worth billions.

         • … and it is about time these things were made transparent – again could be regulated by the FIA….

         • This Autosport article discusses some of the details of the sale of commercial rights by Spanky:
           http://plus.autosport.com/premium/feature/2246/

5. I did wonder if something like that had happened at Ferrari, everyone assumed it was Alonso that over a barrel. With 3 car teams looming, it could be a way out for both. If I was Vettel I wouldn’t happy about Alonso still being there in the same car, bearing in mind Alonso nearly beat him twice in a much slower car, imagine how that’ll turn out in the same car?

   I’m really starting to hope we get 3 car teams!

   • If it were to really happen Alonso would drive a Mercedes W06 for free instead of a Ferrari

   • “With 3 car teams looming, it could be a way out for both. ”

     From what I understand, with 3 cars the 3rd would be reserved to less experienced drivers. Presumably having 3WDC in 3 cars shall be banned.

     “I’m really starting to hope we get 3 car teams!”

     I absolutely disagree. See my rant above.

   • Maybe this is Alonso getting one over Seb after Helmut and Horner let the cat out the bag that Seb is off to Ferrari, thus weakening his bargaining power with Macca.

6. If you did 3 car teams you would need to have points all the way down the grid or teams would lose interest at the back.

   • If i understood this right, there will be no 3 car teams, but the big team will have to give a car to one small team.
     And i honestly do not believe, that let´s say a F14T in the hand of Marussia will be a Top10 finisher. It´s not just the third car, there´s more behind.

     • ….the rules are not clear. There are ‘Concorde’ rules which stated 20 cars minimum, however, how they are represented in the new bi-lateral agreement between the FIA and FOM – no one knows.

       Further, the third car rules are also not clear. It could be for one team running 3 cars – or a change in the rules at present on customer cars – allowing the third car to be an ‘independent’ entry.

       The predictable mess of F1 teams failing is now unravelling before our eyes.

       • Exactly the kind of mess Bernie likes, he can shuffle the chess pieces around the board while everyone else is running around like headless chickens.

         Anyway Marussia might have a rescue deal coming together http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/11189316/Marussia-team-very-close-to-55m-rescue-deal-claim-brothers-plotting-takeover.html

     • Well, hmm, Finger boy took a one-year old Red Bull painted in Torro Rosso colors to victory at Monza… Give a Merc to a Marussia driven by Bianchi, and Britney and Bozo beware!

       • “3rd car… works cars are faster than you! But our rivals are much slower….”

7. I don’t think it’s fair comparing a bygone era of multi-car entries with today’s money-hungry corporate-lead era. Can you honestly compare the old Division 1 with today’s Premier League where only 3-4 teams constantly dominate?

   So, all those in favour 3-car teams, how would like to see the top 10 of the Premier League for example being:
   Chelsea, Man City, Chelsea B, Arsenal, Man U, Man U B, Liverpool, Arsenal B, Man City B, Liverpool B. Fantastic eh?
   Not the best analogy, but I hope it drives the message home.

   PS I’m not a supporter of any of these teams (I actually support Glasgow Rangers), so don’t take offence in this imaginative ranking.

   • Glasgow Rangers, Rangers FC … talkin’ about administration …

8. If Fred can’t get himself into the 3rd Merc I think he’ll stay put, if only to go up against Seb in the same equipment. Herr Hippo had best start preparing the excuses 🙂

9. Minardi does speak a lot of sense on many issues, but I’m not sure about there being too many races on the calender, in the days of the many, many different ways of watching and recording television and watching online and on catchup, no dedicated fan has to miss a minute of any coverage.

   I think it would be a mistake to reduce the number of races, folks would lose interest much more if there were more huge gaps in the proceedings… look at FormulaE, I’ve forgotten all about it already.

   • “Minardi does speak a lot of sense on many issues, but I’m not sure about there being too many races on the calender”

     Indeed. Actually I for one am staring in disbelief at all the brouhaha as to: why, or why are viewership ratings falling? Well, you don’t need all these experts and research teams to answer this question:
     If with the brush of a contract signature you put (most of) the races and all the quality coverage behind a paywall (Sky in UK, Canal+ in France, I hear Sky in Germany, etc.), then no wonder that you mechanically and immediately have a decrease in viewers. What did they expect? That casual fans would immediately start forking on an expensive pay-channel on the say-so and wishes of Bernard?

     For an institution that is doing its utmost to court “casual” viewers, with gimmicks like late-to-dangerous race starts in far-off dictatorships, DRS, double-points, tractor sprinklers and flying pumpkins, they have mastered the art of turning those same fans away by putting (1) broadcasts under a paywall, (2) race weekends under prohibitive prices and (3) banning the sharing of catchy/interesting/*attracting* videos on the internet.

     With such policies in place, what else do they expect other than a wholesale flight of viewers, followed by scared sponsors. Bring on the 3 car teams, and sooner rather than later Enstone and McLaren will go belly up. And bring on the tractor sprinklers!! This should lighten the mood…

     And who are left? Disgruntled hardcore fans ready to abandon the sport in disgust…

   • I hate to sound old, but BITD there was a race every two weeks, with a three week break in the middle. You knew when races were, they were evenly spaced, and there were no huge breaks. The season ended at a reasonable time and didn’t become winter sport; there’s snow in the foothills now, for God’s sake. There are too many races; it’s becoming NASCAR like. I am losing interest BECAUSE there are too many races; it’s getting boring and the double points race doesn’t help the situation. Thanks Bernie.

10. Some late breaking news, Marussia has been placed into administration

    Marussia parent company Manor Motorsport has been put into administration, effectively placing.

    http://m.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/318074/marussia-placed-into-administration/

    • To add, The Telegraph are reporting that an offer of £55m has been made by a British-Indian brothers who made their fortune in the steel industry…..

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/11189316/Marussia-team-very-close-to-55m-rescue-deal-claim-brothers-plotting-takeover.html

      • an offer of £55m

        Which £55m apparently includes the taking on of £30m of debt… not much of a return for the (alleged/reputed) £185m put in to the team thus far.

        The F1 business model is pretty well broken at the moment.
        The entry costs are prohibitive, and there is no likelihood of getting a decent return in either prize money or sponsorship unless you’re near the top end of the grid.

        I agree with most of the objections to three car teams – the sticking point is what it would do to the decent (I exclude its various owners from that label) midfield teams like Force india – but unless the way cash is sucked out of the sport (and the way the remainder is distributed) changes very soon, it’s getting hard to argue against their being necessary.

        • Not such a bad deal. Isn’t Marussia due £90m or so for 9th place? That’s a tidy profit for not having to even run a race.

          • ….. No it’s about $64m including appearance fees ($54.5m from column 1&2 funding)

          • But that is guaranteed for 2 years remember, if Caterham goes bust, and Haas can only challenge them in 2017 for 2 years in the top ten..

            It makes no sense for the Russian to sell now, why not wait 6 months and at least get some of that money back (and sell when only ten teams, making them more valuable)?

          • And lose how much more in the meantime ?

11. The regulation which sees incremental grid penalties for each a 6th component of the PU is introduced will encourage all teams requiring to take a 6th component for the Power Unit – to go the whole hog and fit an entire new PU instead and start in the pit lane.

    This avoids a total of 30 place grid penalties being applied which could be apportioned over 2 consecutive races….

    If Hamilton is sensible, he’ll do the same, to give himself a more bulletproof powerplant for the season finale.

    Which leads me to ask, how do they decide the order of starting from the pitlane ?

    • …by the order they inform the FIA/stewards of their intention – hence Red Bull already ‘got in’ by declaring their intention publicly even though the formal process can only take place in Austin.

      • It’s based on where they qualify, if they qualify. So if you qualify 1st, then elect to start in the pit lane, you will be first in line in the pit lane, regardless of who else starts there.

        This was how Magnussen started ahead of Hamilton in the pit lane at the Hungarian GP. That’s for those that start in the pit lane, and never take to the grid. In Hungary, Kvyat couldn’t do the formation lap, so was pushed into pit lane, and so started 3rd behind MAG and HAM.

        Article 38.2 of the Sporting Regs:

        17 minutes before the start of the formation lap, a warning signal will be given indicating that the end of the pit lane will be closed in two minutes.

        15 minutes before the start of the formation lap the end of the pit lane will be closed and a second warning signal will be given. Any car which is still in the pit lane can start from the end of the pit lane provided it got there under its own power. If more than one car is affected they must line up in the order in which they qualified.

        However, any car reaching the end of the pit lane after the five minute signal must start behind any car already at the pit exit.

        All such cars may then join the race once the whole field has passed the end of the pit lane for the first time after the start.

        So if Vettel doesn’t qualify, he will be behind anyone who participated in qualifying, and then elected to start in the pit lane.

    • ….which race would you suggests Lewis elect to take this action Nigel, Austin or Brazil?

      • I’d go with Brazil. Given that it’s not a power dependent track compared to that of COTA and Abu Dhabi with its long straights. Factor in the likelyhood of a possible SC car at Interlagos, the penalty may not be so extreme.

      • Overtaking ought to be dead easy for Merc at Austin, don’t you think ?
        (And with the higher likelihood of a SC (collisions) in Brazil, isn’t it better to run around in front ?)

        @fortis – Nico isn’t in the same situation – he’s behind on points.

        Hamilton can quite happily finish second to Nico’s win in Austin, get his extra powerplant & still be able to go to Abu Dhabi ahead on oints, and with a fresher engine. Rosberg can’t afford to give away a win like that.

        Seems like a no-brainer – the only drawback is that Mercedes PR probably won’t allow it, as it might reflect on their reliability…

        • I agree, Austin would be the better place to take it, out of Austin or Brazil. In Brazil you can pass along the pit straight into turn 1, and also on the run down to turn 4. Once you get into the twisty middle section, I think you’d have to bide your time following. Could lose a lot of time there. Of course, there is more chance of crazy weather at Interlagos.

          In Austin, you have the back straight with DRS, along the pit straight up the hill into turn 1, and also the turn 14-15-16 complex where passing is eminently possible.

          I’m still not convinced that either Merc driver needs to go that route with their PUs. It would be helpful if we had more information re: mileage on each of their PUs, etc.

    • But Nico is also in the same situation as lewis? They’ve both used 5 ICE and 4 each of the other components.

      Doesn’t it also depends on what the mileage is on the PU’s? And I wouldn’t go as far as labelling a Merc PU as ‘bulletproof’

12. It would be useful if those ‘in the know’ could give us some analysis on the Marussia situation.

    Joe S seems to be suggesting that by going in to administration they are in effect gone. Whether he is right I don’t know but what he says makes sense – an insolvent team loses all rights and benefits (including the entry…). Therefore, they have no right to continue in F1 and will lose the money they would have been due for finishing 9th this year.

    If this is correct then it is very significant as it in effect means we only have 10 teams as of now and one of them is on life support.

    I don’t know the ins and outs of the situation but if they really have lost the entry and prize money then things must be really bad for Max’s father to have not bailed them out to the end of the season just to keep the things of value.

    • Joe S seems to be suggesting that by going in to administration they are in effect gone.

      In truth none of us know – it will depend upon the wording of their agreement(s) with the F1 commercial rights holder. Just going into administration might not be sufficient to breach the agreement.
      While in administration, the company is operated as a going concern, and assuming it can secure more funding, can continue to exist.

      Assuming they already carry at least £30m of debt, bailing them out to the end of the season might be just about worth it for the prize money if (and only if) you were willing and able to negotiate a deal to buy/sell the team.
      Just doing so on the off chance makes little sense.

    • @Stephen Hughes/Nigel

      It depends on which Marussia racing company has gone into administration. Is it Manor Holdco or Manor Grand Prix Racing, and which has the F1 entrance agreement, and which has the deal with Bernie for prize money. Wasn’t there any Irish registered company involved? £30M in debt, they wish!

      http://tinyurl.com/m5awzdm http://tinyurl.com/oxcco3f

      Third cars. Never going to happen. The midfield would be pushed to the back, and those currently near the back, would be much nearer to the fate of Marussia and Caterham. Anyway, it appears that every team would have to agree to a third car, and when have they all agreed to the same thing. The couldn’t even keep FOCA together.

      • This is what I’m asking really, Joe seems to be saying that Marussia didn’t do this ‘trick’ where the company that holds the license is different from the one that runs the cars. I’m just wondering if that is correct as if so that is one very big trick someone has missed…

        I see what you mean about the debt levels though, I can’t see it is worth them carrying on to be honest, even if they don’t spend a single penny for the next 3 seasons they will still end up in the red.

        • …. it’s a ‘trick’ of little worth.

          A racing license without the ability to quickly manufacture a car is pointless.

          One without the other is worthless – particularly when a team goes down mid-season, time is of the essence, so the division of legal personage has little – if no value.

        • @Stephen Hughes

          Debt. What’s that saying about banks and debt? – If you owe them £50,000 then you have a real problem, owe them £50M then they have the problem! How the other half live!

13. The problem I see with third cars is so much depends how they are implemented. If each team only gets a third car for 4 or 5 races of a season, how do the find drivers to fill the seat?

    They can’t easily keep a driver on the books ready to go out and match the leading drivers on pace and results. This in itself would push the third drivers a little way back behind the top drivers of the other teams unless there was a massive performance gap.

    Could you even end up with say the Merc 3rd driver turning up at Lotus, Williams and FI to put in an almost full season to improve their performance? It could even end up written in to engine contracts…

    If there is a limitation on experience for the third seat then you could end up with the situation where you have loose cannons at the front of the field playing ping-pong at the first corner… Or, heaven forfend even the F1 equivalent of ice hockey ‘Enforcers’ – someone how is just on the team to take out the oppositions star player.

    It would also be interesting to know if teams could re-nominate drivers during the season. If the #2 driver is having a ‘mare and the ‘3 driver gets some good results could they be swapped?

    Indeed, would it just be the #1 and #2 drivers who scored team points, or the top two from each team, or…?

    Maybe the WRC way of doing it would just be better, run the #3 car as a second team…

14. Ack! My above comment on growing F1 was supposed to be an independent thread, not a reply to Fortis… sorry about that.

    • @ dwil

      don’t worry

      everything you said has already been advocated here on TJ13 years ago

15. I have theory, just hear me out,
    Bernie knows his days at the top of F1 are numbered whether it be dismissal, I’ll health or death. He looks at his empire knowing he and his family are financially secured for generations to come, so he doesn’t want others benefiting from his hard work and clever business skills, so let’s the whole thing crash and burn, so to end the Ecclestone era and let others try and achieve what he has, off their own backs and with a starting point of almost zero. He’s a vindictive old Bugger and I could definitely see him taking this route. After reading a book on him (No Angel) although I’m not gonna say I like the guy, you have to respect just how shrewd a businessman he and only EVER looks at what is in it for him, bottom line. I have no doubt when F1 gets to its lowest point, Bernie E will step back and watch the chaos ensue. It will have served it’s purpose in his eyes, he made his fortune, let someone else worry about it.

16. How to run extra cars

    Say 4 extra cars are needed to bolster the grid up to 20, then the 4 teams that need to run a 3rd car must nominate their 2 main race drivers at the start of the season, they are the only points scorers for those teams. The 4 3rd cars willl have to be driven by juniors with less than 5 grand prix starts to their names, they would also have their own 6min qually session to find their own order but they wil all ways be 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th. That way we don’t get glory dashes on the start and 1st few corners upsetting the main championship contenders, also starting at the back, even the best has to make up 7 places to get in the points, so less disruption to midfield teams chances of points. This is by no means a perfect idea, but if 3rd cars have to be implemented then the route I’ve suggested tries to limit the hurt for mid-grid teams while still making it worth the bigger teams getting track time for their juniors.
    I could only see a problem for next year, as we have Hass F1 coming in 2016 and if it’s to believed, Kolles has an entry for Forza Rosa for next year. I can’t see Sauber going over the winter, or Force India to be honest, do we may well still have 20 cars next year IF Forza Rosa come good, failing that it will be 18 cars next year and back to 20 for ’16. It’s all a fuss about nothing.

17. “The FIA needs to take more control too. It is ridiculous what is happening with Caterham. How can you have rescuers who turn up and disappear just as quickly as a soap bubble.”

    What an accurate description of Dr Kolles’ high-flying therapists team…

    Now with Caterham fully under administration, I can’t help by notice no noises from disgruntled Arab-Swiss investors who got ripped off by the British judiciary. As far as I’m concerned, I’m not smelling any desert sand or cheese in these whereabouts, but there is a distinct whiff of mămăligă.

    • In fact Kolles has been making noises in the German press about the ridiculous web of companies and subcompanies. He all but admitted that he basically just wanted to strip the lot of parts.

18. Now we know why Mattiacci was evasive and short during Suzuka, saying he “had a lot of work to do.” If Alonso does not have a ride elsewhere and there are still two cars per team, I expect it would be cheaper to jettison Kimi again. Tough call with the bad blood between Alonso and the two M’s. Do you want a talented petulant driver? Or one who is motivated to fix the car so he can win with it? No idea what input Alonso gives the engineers but his input has not worked so far.

    • I’d pay the money and get rid of Alonso, Ferrari will likely want to build itself around Vettel. Having Alonso as his team mate would mean there would be a lot of strife and would not make for a harmonious team that’s working towards building itself back up into a winner again.

      The decision has probably already been made by Marchionne, he seems like he takes his time before he announces anything, his time table not the time table of the press or fans. Alonso will probably only have one choice – sign on the dotted line with Honda and McLaren. I think the likes of Mercedes and Red Bull just wouldn’t want to take Alonso on at this point given his history and age. I expect Bottas will move up to Mercedes if either Nico or Lewis leave the team.

      • Maybe everyone is waiting to see what happens with the 3rd cars. Merc may prefer to get Bottas a chance on the Merc but M probably wouldn’t want to risk seeing Alonso at either Merc or RBR. He would prefer keeping him close at Ferrari, even if that upsets Vettel.

        • I think that depends if it’s 2 cars plus a rookie driver in the 3rd car (which might be the FIA’s preference). Either way I think Alonso might be viewed as more trouble than his worth at Ferrari. It wouldn’t be much of a risk at this stage given where Ferrari are – well behind Mercedes. Keeping him would just smack of sour grapes and wanting to deny him a chance of getting a car that can win titles.

          Though I suspect there are a few more surprises in the driver market to come.

          • There is also ( depending upon what’s in the contract ) the option that Ferrari nominate Fred as the reserve driver.

            Give him all the menial tasks – 24/7 in a simulator etc.

            If he won’t jump – maybe a bit of ” constructive dismissal ” might appeal to Ferrari ?

            I’m not sure whether that would even be illegal under Italian law ?

          • “There is also ( depending upon what’s in the contract ) the option that Ferrari nominate Fred as the reserve driver.”

            Ay, caramba! That’s too salivating to entertain…

    • Why wouldn’t they get it in writing from Alonso that he wanted to sever the contract, and that it was done mutually (i.e. Alonso wants to leave, Ferrari waive the get-out clause payment)?!? Total amateur hour from Ferrari there!

      Without that, you cannot then go tell Vettel that “we’re ready”, or whatever it is that they’re rumoured to have told him.

19. I did a copy-paste of a misplaced comment addressing how F1 can assure a better future. It was buried among comments dealing with another topic. I’m adding it again as a separate thread starter to, hopefully, have the minds here at the judge give their thoughts as to whether to not my observations are, at least in part, viable for F1… here, again is the comment:

    F1 will unravel because of the Top 10-only bonus $$$ scheme, which is really a revenue share amongst the top teams. If the sport is to be viable in the future, they need to look at the National Football League’s team model for sharing revenues. Though there will be differences like franchising teams rather than having independent owners and unless the constructor’s championship is eschewed altogether, ALL teams should share in a large enough percentage of revenues to allow each team to compete regardless of their stature in the sport. You can still give bonus $$$$$ for the winning team but that money should be tightened to the first five teams because all teams do an equitable revenue share.

    Secondly, F1 needs to seriously expand its casual fan and female audience. The NFL did this through comprehensively pushing fantasy play to further pique the interest of the casual fan and through advertising directly to women. Present domestic violence issues aside, the NFL has done a wonderful job at targeting women and growing their fan base exponentially through women. And even with this present domestic violence issue, the NFL has already positioned itself to appear to “lead” in dealing with dom. violence, as evidenced by the tv ads they’re airing.

    F1 also needs a dedicated F1 channel, a la the NFL where former drivers, ream principals rule the messaging for the sport. The advent of the NFL Network was a masterstroke by the league. Sure they do pro-NFL propaganda but they are not at all above criticizing everyone from the team owners to the commissioner (who’s actual role is being union chief for the owners), to the top stars in the game; criticizing is done, obviously, to get ahead of negative stories, but in doing so they give the appearance of self-reflection – and, again, I can’t help but think this is done largely for women and the independent but important, blogger media types.

    The network creates the perception of a main hub for the league that is conjoined at the hip to NFL.com. At every turn you see women in prominent roles in the studio as, not only conversation facilitators, but as knowledgable and rabid supporters of the game, teams, and players. And NFL-sanctioned and produced fantasy leagues with large prize pools are consistently pushed in commercials.

    Team revenue share and modernizing advertising efforts are the tow keys to F1 digging itself from its present perilous position… oh, and one more thing: F1 needs to take control of its “minor leagues.” Unlike the NFL, F1 doesn’t have to deal with a feeder system – college football – that is a billion dollar business with a COMPLETELY different messaging agenda. Because of that F1 needs to consolidate GP2, GP3 and all viable F1 feeder racing right down to owning the rights to an age-based, World Karting Championship, separate from andy other existing championships. Making the minor leagues an official part of F1 racing representing the pinnacle of each minor league step (also, in part, funded by F1) again tailors the sport to women – mothers particularly – as well as to fathers and sons. Through these minor leagues F1 further expands its reach and gets to tell – control – the stories of drivers from the cradle to the pinnacle of the sport.

    Finally, F1 NEEDS to continue too be maintain a separation from geo-politics (but inclusive of geo-social issues) —- to the point where it acts, if at all, as a place where all countries can put side their differences and enjoy in the global effort it takes to produce the races.

    • and here’s my copy and paste reply –

      @ dwil

      don’t worry

      everything you said has already been advocated here on TJ13 years ago

      • Really? Awesome! I didn’t know people here knew/understood the NFL model and how it used it’s ever-evolving model to become and remain the king of U.S. sports. Then, I wonder why the F1 media hasn’t picked up on the idea and openly advocated for something like it — or, have I missed pronouncements of this sort? And, if I have missed them, please, please point me in a direction where I can read what’s said!

        • …Err why do they miss so much?

          • “They” who, judge? “manky” replied you said this “years ago” but when I checked the archives the site has been up since Sept. 12, 2012 (RIP Dr. Watkins), scarcely two years; a couple of years, not years ago.

            I’d appreciate it if you pointed me to the posts dealing with something similar to my comment since they may or may not be stand-alone pieces, and since visitors to the site must have previously shared their feelings and opinions in the comment section.

          • …. I’m not sure as to the detail you require – The Franchise idea has been an early TJ13 suggestion – even pre-dated the site.

            However, it may not be appropriate for you to be dismissed accordingly by others for stating something that maybe a number of folk have had thoughts upon previously.

          • I see there’s some confusion. I am staunchly anti-franchise. My sentence was so convoluted I can see where anyone perusing it would think otherwise. Even the caveat, “unless the Constructor’s championships was eschewed…” didn’t save the sentence from confusion.

            UNLIKE the NFL, I do not at all see how or why franchising works in F1. Lotus, Merc, McLaren MAKE cars for people to buy. If I am one of those three F1 participants, or Red Bull that financially pushes an entire sport – Extreme Sports – there’s no way I’m going to allow my company to be subsumed into franchisement under the umbrella of another, shell entity… where its power and money is derived, in large part, by these corporations machinery and advertising clout!

            And just to make myself totally clear: definition; franchise – the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory.

            Why on earth would the aforementioned corps. want to be further under license – amounting to restrictions on their brands and products – to market its products or services in countries where it already operates and likely has franchises of its own under operation there!

            NFL teams were created from thin air and their worth to the public is solely entertainment value, rather than actual, goods produced-based value. This aided greatly in creating the need for the formation of a corporation called, “The National Football League.”

            TO JUDGE13 READERS. AFTER JUDGE BROUGHT THE SENTENCE TO LIGHT, I WAS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW AND WHY NO ONE WOULD READ FURTHER MY SENTENCE CONCERNING FRANCHISES EARLY ON IN MY “NFL MODEL” COMMENT WAS WRITTEN SO POORLY THAT IT EASILY GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT I AM REITERATING THE CONENT OF PRIOR POSTS.

            I AM ANTI-FRANCHISE. THE NFL MODEL I AM APPLYING TO F1 CONCENRS THE NFL’S PUBLICITY MODEL AND THE METHODS IT HAS AND DOES USE TO CREATE A, “FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE,” FAN BASE.

            Thank you judge for continuing to reply to me. I greatly appreciate your patience.

          • …No worries…. I agree with your comments re: Franchise restrictions being unacceptable…. and the examples you use are just so

            but the teams already have many obligations under the agreements with FOM….

            Maybe we say – 11 or 12 racing licenses ONLY granted from the FIA – transferable ie they can be traded – which is in keeping with the notions of goodwill value for a team as stated in the article

          • @dwil

            Pardon me, but archaeologically speaking the original meaning is now crystal clear. 🙂

20. Hey Judge, so I just want to clarify something.

    If Force India finishes ahead of Lotus this season, Lotus will loose their seat at the table in the Strategy group, and FI will get that spot, correct?
    Is that immediate? start at the beginning of 2015? or not go into effect for another year?

    • Yes

      • So if things continue the way they are, Lotus is going to be near worthless by the end of the season. Deep in debt, possibly without an engine contract, uncompetitive, no vote, done.

        Though I don’t believe that audi are going to jump in to F1 as has been rumored, if they, or any other manufacturer were to do so, the only two choices would be to buy out RB (huge investment if available) or FI (in comparison to RB a cheap way into the strategy group). A seat at the strategy group table is a necessity.
        FI might be at it’s peak value at the end of the season. (the next step is a huge leap in investment, and an exclusive engine manufacturer) If Vijay was going to get out, now might be when the gettin’ is best. He seems to have some personal financial problems. just sayin’…

        • You’re also just sayin’ that you don’t seem to think Rotus have an engine contract…..

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.