Bernie Ecclestone, 2013

Unhappy teams ‘knew what they were getting’ – Ecclestone

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Bernie Ecclestone responds to Force India and Sauber’s complaint to the EU about anti-competitive practices in F1.

Tweets

Comment of the day

Timo Glock, Virgin, Interlagos, 2010
Is Grosjean’s Haas move wiser than Glock’s Virgin switch?
Joining Haas is undeniably a gamble for Grosjean, but it may be the best of a limited range of options:

Given Lotus’ financial position you can hardly blame him for looking to move for 2016.

Staying loyal to Lotus was probably the sensible decision on paper, but with administration a possibility for the team if the Renault deal didn’t (doesn’t) go through makes this the most logical choice for him. I’m now really hoping that the Haas turns out to be a handy car next season and he doesn’t go the way of Timo Glock.
@geemac

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Tyanne!

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

On this day in F1

Happy birthday to F1’s youngest ever driver and points scorer Max Verstappen who turns 18 today!

On the same day seven years before he was born, Alain Prost took a vital win in the Spanish Grand Prix. It moved him within nine points of Ayrton Senna, who retired with a broken radiator, and set up what turned out to be a notorious championship showdown between the pair at Suzuka.

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 82 comments on “Unhappy teams ‘knew what they were getting’ – Ecclestone”

    1. What’s that? Sour tweets from former F1 drivers or drivers who got into GP2, but not into F1?

      It must be hard to have a decent career elsewhere, but still consider F1 a ‘missed opportunity’. Especially considering so many drivers of past generations (Kristensen or Luyendijk, to name two) didn’t seem to bash F1 at every turn.

      1. @npf1 Di Grassi did get into F1.

        1. @keithcollantine Perhaps I should have been clearer, the latter part of my first sentence is referring to a string of drivers who were in GP2/FR3.5 between 2010 and 2014 and seem to bash F1 when a team signs a midfield driver over a rookie. Drivers like Lancaster or Calado, who pick odd moments to compare their current series and say how some things are better there than F1.

          Di Grassi isn’t wrong per se, but I do feel that these kind of messages are odd and unprovoked. He has a factory drive with Audi, a drive in Formula E, but the Grosjean signing irked him enough to tweet a generalization. He’s better off now than had he kept waiting on another F1 drive.

        2. @keithcollantine, @npf1 – “Sour tweets from former F1 drivers” covers Di Grassi quite well I thought!

          1. @tribaltalker You could probably count Daly in that, I think he wants Haas to take Rossi and/or his son on in some capacity (American drivers), yet Grosjean is better than all 3 (!) of them, and Gutierrez beat Rossi in GP3.

      2. Regardless of their relative success level, I do think they have a point. I don’t think getting the best driver is necessarily the best option when you are developing a brand new car or engine. It seems to me that it is a recipe for discontent and bad publicity for the team. I also think that the best drivers should be at the front of the grid fighting for trophies, not at the back developing new equipment. Seeing Alonso, Button and Grosjean fighting over a 15th place next year will not make me happy.

        1. Too bad in this case, that the mark of a good driver is to also be able to move to a team which might not be the best option now, but will become one after dedication and hard work. Schumacher, Vettel, Hamilton, Lauda, Prost, Senna all moved to teams which required their input in order to become successful again. Prost was fired for calling the Ferrari a truck. Same should have happened to Alonso this weekend. Button should also be released for demanding over 6 million dollars from the team which is already not coping well with its finances. What a great pair of drivers. Also take into account that the likes of Sainz, Verstappen, Vandoorne are well on their way to becoming as good or better to this age of F1 than Alonso/Button might have ever been. So losing two WCs is not that big of a loss really.

          1. First of all, you are utterly DREAMING if you think Mercedes current success and their totally dominant car is down to Hamilton – UTTERLY DREAMING!

            Second of all, Button is a world champion and one of the very best drivers on the grid and fully deserves and should expect to be paid as such. The fact that McLaren are currently in the duldrums is NOT his problem, especially not when his team mate is being paid over 4 times as much as him, partly due to the fact that Button already took a pay cut for this season compared to his previous contract.

            Thirdly, I’m sick to death of hearing about how Veratappen and the rest of the ‘young guns’ are better or will be better than Button etc. In case you haven’t actually been watching F1 the last few years, the young guns have tried to take Button down and have been utterly destroyed.

            1. Obviously you are a Button fan – and I agree with most your saying except the comment about Verstappen.
              This guy is in a league of his own and has shown the world how exceptional he is.
              All other ‘young guns’ are fast and are drivers that Button can still match his skills with.
              Verstappen is far above the others and not only a fast driver – but a thinking driver, which is rare to find – only in the exceptional ones, and they usually become world champions – like your Button.
              Just to sum this up for you.
              Fast drivers – Rossberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Massa, Ricciardo, Kvyat, Grosjean, Perez, Hulkenberg, Nasr, Maldonado, Sainz, Ericsson, Merhi and Will Stevens – they all don’t think, just drive fast.
              Fast and ‘thinking’ drivers are Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso, Button and now Verstappen.
              Let’s face it Nick – you are already sick to death about hearing about Verstappen after 6 months that he is in F1 – which proofs my point – the guy is that good and you will have the close your ears for many more years to come. He will break all records standing – including those of Senna, Vettel etc…..
              Hopefully in 15 years time I can take you back to this post in F1Fanatic.

          2. To be fair, in the time of Schumacher, Lauda, Prost and Senna, they could actually test a lot and teams seem to build cars based on driver preference, rather than today’s ‘facts only’ approach. In all the years Ferrari had a poor windtunnel, I never heard the team complain how one driver specifically couldn’t get along with it.

            Having Alonso and Button at the back might not make fans happy, but imagine McLaren Honda with Vandoorne and Magnussen. Suddenly, everyone would be complaining about how ‘rookies can’t improve a car’. While the ‘new’ 2010 teams seemed to gain little from experienced drivers on the track, it’s hard to say if hiring all rookies really helped either, considering only Manor is still around.. Haas wasn’t lured in by deceitful FIA rules though, so I’d say they’re making a more sensible choice coming in when they do and by going with an experienced driver and a relative rookie.

    2. “The teams knew what they were getting” And still they signed up ! Well of course they had the option of closing down and walking away. Maybe now they will have to.

      1. Interesting though, about the TV coverage – he’s now claiming it was to help the midfield, so maybe Bernie plans on using this argument to try to claim he’s making it fair?

        It could be that he knows he is in trouble?

        1. Or he’s just past it and needs to go into a home.

          1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
            30th September 2015, 12:40

            What a childish comment.

            1. He’s 85 years old at the end of the month. He can’t use a revolving door. His primary motivation seems to be making money whilst the sport falls apart around him.

              Do you honestly think he’s the best person to run the sport?

        2. @strontium – Bernie has a habit of giving many different (often contradictory) views. Possibly so he can retrospectively cherry-pick the ones that were right. It’s safer not to believe or disbelieve anything he says. Clever guy.

      2. pretty much this @hohum Signed at gun point. Clearly a case of the commercial rights holder abusing his powers. Remember how even Mercedes was not offered a good deal at the start and hat to talk tough to get included in the “group of privilege”

      3. Bernie does say it’s their call if they changed their mind. His statements in the article seem to be pretty level-headed for once.

    3. Bernie doesnt seem bothered from FI & Sauber complaint. Looks like nothing is going to shake up in existing pay structure.

      He is also talking about Merc-RBR partnership. Is he again trying for RBR to get Merc engines? People slam FIA for being Ferrari International Assistance…. What would they call Bernie now? Assisting RBR… And it is not the first time he has spoken in favour of them.

      Coulthard pinpoints the exact difference in Hamilton’s and Rosberg’ s mentality. Rosberg just lacks that killer instinct. He plays too soft and worries more about his image. Two days back.. a poster of this site also said something along the lines that Rosberg should have “I will not yield” attitude. He is not going to win any championships if he plays too soft. Probably Spa 2014 plays on his mind everytime he comes soo close to Lewis.

      1. I think Bernie doesn’t care how the teams split their share of the money, as long as he gets to keep his share he’s happy.
        He’ll only get worried if/when it looks like he’ll lose money.

        1. I think he might be happy to see the deals granting the privileged group being cancelled and as a result FOM gets to lower payment to them and keep it for CVC to suck even more money out (and have a chance of grabbing back power lost due to the strategy group too) @mjf1fan, @beneboy!

      2. FaIr points @bascb, @beneboy.

        When I first read about the FI & Sauber complaint, I thought if EU intervened in the matter and changes are made in payment structure and other changes, then Bernie might have lesa control of F1 and CVC could use this opportunity to replace him with someone else. But looking at Bernie ‘s response, it seems FI & Sauber doesn’t have a strong evidence with them or it may be Bernie’s poker face.

        1. Its Bernies poker face, because the case is pretty clear just from the signed contracts!

          1. What is “clear” from those signed contracts?

            I doubt it would mention other teams participation bonuses. Besides, in tennis bonus like that are common too and those are also higher for more popular players while unknown players get nothing.

            1. It is clear from those contracts that the sports commercial rights holder did not offer everyone comparable contracts @patrickl. And it is clear from the contracts that in return for getting a stake in the commercial rights holder (5%) the FIA has given away its sole right to govern the sport. Both clearly go against the deal with the EU that confirmed the FIA to be the sole regulatory body for motor sports which led to Max selling the commerical rights to Bernie in the first place.

              As for your Tennis comparison, I haven’t seen the tennis commission where the likes of Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and the Williams sisters are invited to have a say in rule making AND be guaranteed an extra income for the next 5 years.

            2. FIA is the sole regulatory body. Neither the teams nor FOM make up the rules. They can only propose changes.

              Tennis players do get different “contracts” even if it’s just for one match.

              I have a suspicion that Todt and Ecclestone had this setup checked by lawyers.

              The only thing you have going for you is that the EU can just make stuff up on the spot. Just like the F1 commission looking at rule infractions.

            3. @patrickl, there is little difference between tennis players and F1 drivers, except no tennis player has to pay to play, there the comparison ends, in F1 a team has to design, build and maintain a pair of cars at a cost of $100,000,000+ it is the teams that have to be able to recoup that cost not the drivers who do get rewarded for their skill and popularity by the team, not the event promoter.

            4. Well I can think of more differences, but is it enough to just find one and then decide that that’s the end of it? it’s not just the momnetary bit that’s in discussion and we need an example of that, which is tennis?

    4. No doubt about it, Grosjean is taking a gamble by moving to Haas in 2016. I agree with Di Grassi, it will be a huge surprise if they are not wedded to the bottom of the grid, and in all likelihood it will take years for the team to get dialled in, and become midfield runners.

      But I still think its quite a smart move.. at a minimum Grosjean is likely to be beating whoever is in the other car. Realistically Renault is a known quantity to him, there’s little chance he’ll find his way into a Mercedes, Red Bull, McLaren or Williams anytime soon. Ferrari are likely to be losing Kimi sometime in the next couple of years, so Grosjean will be well placed to move across when that happens.

      1. It makes sense really. They can be stuck at the back. But Grosjean might just trade 1 year for lifelong Ferrari. Renault already said they’d like Grosjean back in team. So there’s always the possibility for him to go back. And I don’t think Maldonado will be there much longer. He can always replace him if he cannot make it to Ferrari. Of course, if Renault don’t find someone else first.

      2. I am a bit more optimistic for Haas. They have a close technical partnership with Ferrari, already using their aero tunel and using as many components as the rules allow. Now if we assume that the 2016 Ferrari engine will be even better, that’s a very good start that could put them above McLaren and Renault.

        On the chassis side, they have partnered with Dallara, who could in theory help them create a competitive package, given their prior experience and active participation in other series.

        Finally they seem to be strong financially, and not just another case of “we got the F1 entry first, now let’s see what we can do”. Hiring Grosjean is also a good move, considering the available drivers one could agrue that it was the best move.

        I guess when next season’s testing starts we will have a better idea about how fast they’ll be.

      3. I think people underestimate how much of a 1995 Ligier the 2016 Haas will be. Haas’ entry into the sport is very different to how Manor/Virgin came into the sport. John Booth said when they got their entry in mid 2009 the team didn’t even have a drip tray. They had to design and build a car from the ground up, including components such as the hydraulic systems which established teams barely touch year on year, doing it all with a small workforce and a budget of less than £40m while Toro Rosso, the 2010 new teams’ nearest established rivals had a 2009 Red Bull as a base to build on.

        Haas, with their Ferrari relationship are in a similar position to Toro Rosso in 2010, albeit in an era with far greater disparity between power units. A 2016 Haas chassis with a 2016 Ferrari engine should be competing in and around the top ten, surely a far more competitive proposition than an Enstone chassis with a Renault power unit.

    5. Most of Rosberg’s wins have come from the front.

      Interestingly he’s only won 6 of the 17 races he’s started on pole, too.

      1. Its already started. Girosjean to replace Tony Steward in nascar after tony retires next year! ;) I joke but i had to say it. He even said it would be cool to give one a try https://twitter.com/RGrosjean/status/648935087929737216

      2. Sorry that was not meant to be a reply to you

      3. “Most of Rosberg’s wins have come from the front. People such as Hamilton and Alonso can win from behind as well.” – David Coulthard

        Congratulations to everyone who thinks Hamilton wins from anywhere outside first 2 row. You couldn’t be more wrong.
        Apparently there is this perception that Hamilton has won races from behind first 2 row, like Alonso or Raikkonen has done over the years. The one and only time Hamilton did that was last year Britisih Gp when he started the race from 6th and won. I advise you to look at the details of the race if you haven’t watched. It is extremely rare for a driver to win a race from outside the first 2 row without lucky factor: safety cars, weather conditions, dnfs and so on.
        This has been also something people kept harping on about Vettel. And the example to contrary was his fellow world champion and overtaker extraordinaire Hamilton. That is completely wrong. No difference there. End of argument. Don’t come up with it again please.
        Congratulations to Coulthard as well. For not checking out his facts.

        1. It is a rare occasion to win outside of top 4 anyway – about 1/6 of wins have come lower than 4th position.
          It actually shows more about “qualification pace” than “overtaking skill”, meaning for some other than rare reason driver put the car in lower grid position than it should have been.
          And we can’t accuse Vettel or Hamilton being slow in qualification.

          1. Grid Wins Percentage
            22 1 0.11
            19 1 0.11
            18 1 0.11
            17 2 0.22
            16 2 0.22
            15 1 0.11
            14 5 0.54
            13 3 0.32
            12 4 0.43
            11 5 0.54
            10 8 0.86
            9 4 0.43
            8 16 1.72
            7 21 2.26
            6 36 3.87
            5 46 4.95
            4 59 6.34
            3 114 12.26
            2 221 23.76
            1 380 40.86

        2. Hi nil, I don’t think you have a very good grasp of what Coulthard has said, even though you quoted it in your comment above. Coulthard didn’t say that Hamilton regularly wins from the back in F1, in fact he didn’t offer any stats at all. And if you had thought back through Hamilton’s career, you would have found many examples of winning from a poor start position – his GP2 time is a case in point.
          Next time you want to trash an ex-F1 racer, multiple GP winner, man-behind-the-scenes expert, you might want to stop and think it through a bit.
          (Disclosure – I am not David Coulthard!)

          1. Well maybe you shouldn’t assume things? I don’t really have any problems with Coulthard. I don’t have any problem with the gist of what he’s talking there. But what he said is factually incorrect. And it’s a frequently made mistake by lots of people. Especially commenting on the Internet. This was a good opportunity to clarify the situation.

            1. Hi Nil, you believe in repeating your mistakes then. He’s not “factually incorrect”. Wake up.

        3. Starting from P2 is already not from the front. It meant Hamilton had to overtake Rosberg (in the same machinery) and he did just that on several occasions. How many times did Rosberg do the same to Hamilton? I’ll give you a hint, not once.

          So even 2014 already proves what Coulthard said.

          Hamilton actually did win races from further down, but of course that’s not going to happen with the current cars. Still, Vettel was lucky that the weather changed just a few laps too late for Hamilton at Monza in 2008 because otherwise Hamilton would have won that race coming from far down the field.

          Vettel also could have won the 2009 WDC if he had been more like Hamilton or Alonso. Or Button for that matter, because Button was overtaking other cars while Vettel usually got himself stuck behind a car.

          1. Ehm, didn’t Rosberg do exactly that in his last GP win in Austria this year @patrickl, pass Hamilton right at the start in the first corner?

            1. The start doesn’t count as an overtake.

          2. It sounds really like “sour grapes” to say Hamilton would have won race/championship X if he had blablabla and weather was blablabla. coulda woulda shouda. It makes no sense to speculate like that in general, so I won’t be commenting on that.

            Additionally, I might have mentioned some names like Hamilton and Vettel, but really, you sound like you are trying to turn this into an argument on Ham vs Vet. I am not interested in that. I didn’t comment to emphasize Hamilton/Vettel can/not win outside top 2 rows unlike a hypothetical person X. It just annoys me when people present something as a fact, when it’s not, and try to use that in their otherwise baseless arguments.

            I don’t really care what Rosberg did or did not do different than Hamilton actually. Well, I care since I’m watching F1. But that wasn’t the reason I commented. I wanted to make clarifications on something people assumed and got wrong more often than not.

            1. Nil: what is a fact for you? sum of all races? or the fact that coultard make a factual statement… for 2014 alone is a fact that hamilton wins not from pole… instead of overall race results, just place ham/ros stats for 2014/15?

              someone make a specific observation and factual comment, and you divert it to a generic subject which in itself not wrong but for the factual statement made, you are wrong, admit it and move on, get yourself a beer

          3. If this or that happened Hamilton would have won Monza 2008? If you re write F1 history you can come up with any situation to support the point you want to make. Might as well say if Vettel/Hamilton had won 20 races starting from out of the top 10 there would be no argument to be had and Coulthard would not have made that comment. I suppose Vettel has only himself to blame for being a great qualifier but he nearly won Abu Dhabi 2012 from the back and would of done if this or that had happened……

      4. Converting poles to wins:
        Hamilton: 51.02%
        Rosberg: 35.29%

        For reference:
        Vettel: 60.87%
        Schumacher: 58.82%
        Senna: 44.62%

    6. Bernie seriously needs to go away. He is not in touch, absolutely greedy, and his unfiltered capriciousness is causing nothing but damage to F1.

      And someone needs to call RBR’s bluff. And if they do go away, then good riddance. Do we seriously need a team who’ll bitch/moan/complain about their technical partners? To me, Alonso and RBR are the one and the same: childish and churlish.

      1. @thepostalserviceisbroke

        . Do we seriously need a team who’ll bitch/moan/complain about their technical partners?

        If they are willing to put an insane amount of resources in two teams, be constantly some of the best performers and prepare, train and promote young talent, then not only do we “seriously” need them, we desperately do.
        Sure do they moan, but welcome to F1, everything is politics.

    7. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Renault trying desperately to get Button. Doing so would cause a complete turnover on Renault’s F1 image. In the end Button’s career in F1 has been sustained via his image.

    8. OmarRoncal - Go Seb!!! - @omarr-pepper (@)
      30th September 2015, 3:22

      Interesting that in that Prost vs Senna video, the TV host comments how “particular” it was to have gear levers as part of the steering wheel in the Ferrari, while McLaren still had the “old” gearshift. Innovative from Ferrari, and this was 1990!
      Of course they were still years before having screens or lots of buttons in the wheel.

      1. @omarr-pepper Well, yes. Everyone laughed at Ferrari for the semi-auto box idea when it was breaking down during testing but that’s usually a cover whilst it’s reverse engineered.

        Innovation tends to do that – stand out like a sore thumb.

      2. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
        30th September 2015, 12:42

        That’s John Barnard’s legacy. He was replaced at Ferrari though as he refused to move to Italy and work there so the chassis engine integration wasn’t at 100%.

        1. John Barnard and Gordon Murray’s influence is still seen on today’s cars, and they were both critiqued at the time…

          F1 is a crazy sport. You have to expect a little “sticks and stones” attacks from the folk who realised a technology later than their rivals.

    9. I started watching F1 in 2007. The pit stops in that Prost-Senna video just blew my mind. How many people were killed every week?

    10. So I see that Bernie has mr Sylt write something to push the BRDC out again (or maybe to try and get the government to pay for the fees, who knows). Sigh.

      1. “I write about the business of auto racing and theme parks” :)

    11. “Most of Rosberg’s wins have come from the front. People such as Hamilton and Alonso can win from behind as well.” – David Coulthard

      Congratulations to everyone who thinks Hamilton wins from anywhere outside first 2 row. You couldn’t be more wrong.
      Apparently there is this perception that Hamilton has won races from behind first 2 row, like Alonso or Raikkonen has done over the years. The one and only time Hamilton did that was last year Britisih Gp when he started the race from 6th and won. I advise you to look at the details of the race if you haven’t watched. It is extremely rare for a driver to win a race from outside the first 2 row without lucky factor: safety cars, weather conditions, dnfs and so on.
      This has been also something people kept harping on about Vettel. And the example to contrary was his fellow world champion and overtaker extraordinaire Hamilton. That is completely wrong. No difference there. End of argument. Don’t come up with it again please.
      Congratulations to Coulthard as well. For not checking out his facts.

      1. Hi Nil, exactly the same post as above… and still wrong.

        1. Hi, who-ever-you-are, apparently you don’t have a very good grasp of what I am saying. Explained up there for you.

    12. Well I’m happy with new standards on race coverage. Show the midfield. People have been crying for it. Now some keep complaining that we didn’t see this or that. Well I saw everything. Next time pay attention.
      Good to know F1 care to show me what I wanna see, and not the mind-glowingly boring no-action frontrunners.
      Now, Ecclestone will show you Mercedes for next race. See if you like that.

    13. This conflicting info about RBR and Merc is strange I hope that will be clarified. If RBR plays false games I am happy to enter the bashing choir. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Lauda totally misunderstood something again..

      1. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Lauda totally misunderstood something again

        Dude, both men (Mateschitz) and Lauda are Austrians. What is there to misunderstand?

      2. Yeah it’s very peculiar. Perhaps this Lauda being “boss of the waterfall” and thinking he actually has a say in the matter when he hasn’t. Or perhaps Lauda en Wolff are two entities each trying to get something done and are working against each other.

        How can Lauda say an engine deal was offered but that Mateschitz never took it while Wolff says he doesn’t think an engine deal is a good idea at all and that he argued against it to the board of Mercedes.

      3. There is a very naughty joke to be made here about Lauda hearing but I will hold back and say no more as he is one of my favourite drivers in history.

    14. We talked about TV coverage a few weeks ago and came to the conclusion that midfield runners should be shown more often.

      I hope that Ecclestone does not forget this “conclusion” in 11 days or when Red Bull are not part of midfield anymore because that is what I have always wanted to see and it is also something that would help the smaller teams a lot as they would become more attractive for sponsors this way.

      1. There was also a lot of coverage from the rear facing camera on the McLaren showing the word McLaren and BBC commentary did go on about this showing where a sponsor can go. I think this was a present for the teams with financial issues rather than to punish Mercedes.

        1. I thought it was Japanese TV focusing on the Hondas. Or whoever does the tv, simply pandering to the Japanese audience.

          I hope we no longer hear about this next week; I thought F1 was going to avoid complaining about itself to avoid creating a negative image in the media?

    15. Rosberg has indeed never won a race from the back of the grid. Even when winning races from lower grid positions than pole, he has profited from a good start (Austria 2015), successful pit stop strategy (Austria 2014) or other drivers’ misfortunes (Silverstone 2013). Not overtaking.

      Rosberg is also generally not recognised as a great overtaker. His passes have rarely been among the best of the year in F1 Fanatic polls – the last time it happened was in 2008. Of course, it does not mean that he cannot overtake. I watched a few videos of Rosberg’s overtakes this morning and some of the maneuvers are very impressive. After all, he has spent most of his F1 career in the midfield.

      I believe that overtaking is not the reason why Rosberg cannot beat Hamilton often enough and I also do not think that one necessarily needs to win from behind to prove that he is a great driver. Hamilton is simply a little faster and makes errors a little less often than Rosberg. I doubt if more “aggression and intent” from Rosberg would change that, as Coulthard suggests.

      1. Yeah, I see your point @girts. success is just too much of an opponent for Rosberg. Had Rosberg won last year, I think we might have seen a far closer fight (with Rosberg boosted by the success and Hamilton a tad less confident but fighting to prove he is the best).
        It looks like last year Rosberg tried to go more for qualifying setups to make sure he had the starting advantage. Maybe this year he went away from that a bit because he was too often hauled in by Lewis who had better tyre and fuel usage. But the biggest difference is Hamilton himself, to me it seems that Hamilton on top of his game, in control of his emotions and boosted by winning the championship last year, and with this incredibly fast and very reliable car, is just too good to be beaten.

    16. This is as big a challenge for individuals in the sport and the sport as a whole that I can remember. We could lose a couple of quality ex-world champions, and a couple of quality teams if people don’t get on top of things.

      Argh! Button and Alonso are world champions, not ‘ex-world champions’. That phrase irks me every time I see it!

      1. How so, if you are not the current world champion you are an ex or former world champion, if you are talking about 2 drivers that were world champion(s) one would be ex world champion 2 would be ex-world champions, ex-world champions is the plural of ex-world champions.

      2. @bookoi – Ex-actly!

      3. @bookoi

        Argh! Button and Alonso are world champions, not ‘ex-world champions’. That phrase irks me every time I see it!

        Agree 100%.

    17. Yeah, yeah, yeah teams complaining to the EU, Grosjean moving to Haas and TV blackouts of the race winner are all very well but the really big news is surely Nigel’s moustache making a comeback!

    18. “We talked about TV coverage a few weeks ago and came to the conclusion that midfield runners should be shown more often.”

      After Force India and Sauber complained to the EU I bet we won’t see their midfield runners on screen for the rest of the season.

    19. Nice Round Up Keith … .Probably a grim day for F1.

      We could POTENTIALLY See
      1) 2 Teams (Red Bull & Toro Rosso) Quitting F1
      2) 2 World Champions (Button & Alonso) Quitting F1
      3) Current Tire Manufacturer (Pirelli) Quitting F1
      4) 2 Teams ( Sauber & Force India ) Getting into a Legal battle with Bernie
      5) 2 Marquee Names of F1 ( McLaren & Honda) Struggling on the grid due to the current regulations.

      That is is like Wow !!! kind of summarizes the situation of F1 today. While it definitely not a dooms day it kind of smells like a crisis in making.

      1. I say this is an opportunity to get rid of the things people most dislike. I’m talking about Red Bull and Pirelli. Rest will sort itself out.
        You know like Ferrari did with Alonso when he pushed things too far and bluffed and missed the last exit before the bridge taking him to McLaren.
        Pirelli sound ridiculous with their threat to quit F1 if RB quit too. Bernie’s muppet show.

    20. I’m sure everybody did know what they were getting but I doubt they had much of an option to do anything but accept it!

      It’s basically a case of accept these terms or don’t compete in F1 which means broken contracts, redundancies and so on…

      Also, just because the teams knew what they were agreeing to, it doesn’t mean it’s legal.

    Comments are closed.