Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, Singapore, 2013

Red Bull expenditure has “distorted” F1 – Whitmarsh

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, Singapore, 2013In the round-up: McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh says Red Bull are leading the way in terms of spending on Formula One.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Red Bull Says Vettel?s F1 Success Won?t Scare Away TV Audience (Bloomberg)

“McLaren manager Martin Whitmarsh, whose team has been in Formula One since 1966, said Red Bull?s arrival has ‘distorted the sport’ because of its level of spending. He said a claim by Horner that his team isn?t the biggest spender in Formula One is misleading.”

Ecclestone may face fresh battle (BBC)

“A year ago, BayernLB wrote to Ecclestone’s lawyers demanding $400m in damages, to no avail. The state-owned bank is watching current proceedings in the High Court as it decides whether to formally begin a lawsuit.”

BayernLB seeks Ecclestone documents (FT, registration required)

“Bernie Ecclestone could face a new court battle after the German bank at the centre of the Formula One bribery scandal sought access to documents being used in the civil lawsuit against the motorsport chief executive.”

Formula One almost collapsed in 2009 due to FIA threats, says series owner (Autoweek)

Max Mosley: “I said there had to be a rule enforced by the FIA [to restrict budgets in 2009]. The teams said they could do it themselves without the FIA – the so-called Resource Restriction Agreement. I thought this would never work. Some might say I have been proved right.”

FIA proposes ‘pole trophy’ for F1 (Autosport)

“The idea of such a change to the points structure [giving points for pole position] was rejected by a number of team principals present, so FIA president Jean Todt instead proposed the creation of the ‘FIA Pole Man of the Year in F1’ trophy instead.”

Pujolar to Toro Rosso, Smedley to Williams (Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog)

“Williams chief race engineer Xevi Pujolar is quitting the team to join Scuderia Toro Rosso ?ǣ leaving the door open for Ferrari?s Rob Smedley to take over his job at Grove.”

Marussia: A massive boost (Sky)

John Booth: “It’s almost negligible, the [financial] difference. Morale is the biggest thing. If you’d seen the reaction of the guys afterwards, it was incredible – like we’d won the bloody race. I’m sure it was the same back in Banbury.”

Brawn’s exit leaves giant hole to fill in every sense (The Telegraph)

“Paddock opinion varies but one can only think that Mercedes bungled it. Having brought in Toto Wolff to run the team, they prised Lowe from McLaren, then 2013 went better than expected and they realised that maybe it wasn?t such a smart idea to let Brawn go.”


Comment of the day

Steven on Ross Brawn’s departure from Mercedes:

I would sit back and enjoy the fruits of my labour. He?s given his life to F1, produced results most people can only dream of, and will go down as one of the legendary figures in F1. Given that it?s probably still his passion, a consultant role with any team would probably be the best way to keep some involvement in F1, without the commitments required of a team principal.

I find it hard to believe he?ll join another team immediately, I think he?ll probably take some time off and decide on a return (if at all) during that time.
Steven (@Steevkay)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Alex White, Crispin, Djdaveyp85, Prisoner Monkeys, Wes and Villalon!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Chuck Daigh was born on this day 90 years ago. His F1 involvement was largely confined to trying to qualify the outdated and uncompetitive front-engined Scarab chassis entered by Lance Reventlow in 1960. He managed to drag the car home tenth at home in Riverside that year.

The Scarab project enjoyed greater success in sports car racing. Daigh passed away in 2008.

Today also marks the 38th anniversary of the plane crash which claimed the lives of Graham Hill and Tony Brise.

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty

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

  • 93 comments on “Red Bull expenditure has “distorted” F1 – Whitmarsh”

    1. There are more sources saying Red Bull is not the biggest spender (click to enlarge):

      If Whitmarsh believes he has different information to that known to the public, he might want to substantiate that rather than just point fingers.

        1. Thanks for posting. Very interesting info.

          The way I read Whitmarsh soung like he is a little sour. McLaren has have a difficult year. Thye just lost their title sponsor and don´t have a megastar like Hamilton anymore (Button is a champion but not as commercial as Hamilton). Since Martin took over McLaren they have had very little success. Maybe he is trying to justify his results.

          1. Mr Whitmarsh has been a train wreck as McLaren Principal. Maybe he is a nice guy, but he is not the person for the Job. As I said earlier he is a proven failure. Instead of commenting on other teams he should put his house in order.

            From the start and all through 2012 McLaren had the fastest car on the Grid with probably the best driver pairing.

            1) As a team not only did they manage to lose the WCC/WDC but also the second place in the Drivers Championship even before the last race.

            2) He managed to lose the fastest driver and McLaren Prodigy

            3) He managed to lose their key sponsor.

            4) Based on the fastest car of 2012, they managed to build a Lemon in 2013 which could not even secure a single podium.

            I am sure he should do a lot of things before looking into other teams budgets !!!!!!

            Mr. Ron Dennis…… I am sure you are seeing this. Mr Brawn is available in the market … grab him as fast as you can.

            1. David not Coulthard (@)
              29th November 2013, 6:01

              Based on the fastest car of 2012, they managed to build a Lemon in 2013

              It wasn’t based on the 2012 car.

            2. Most of those things could be said about Ron Dennis in 1994.

              Had the second fastest car in 1993, to being fourth in the constructors for the every year until 1998.
              Lost Ayrton Senna to Williams
              They lost Honda engines, even after such a successful partnership.
              Later, they lost Marlboro sponsorship.

              McLaren has periods of great success followed by a couple years of being in a bit of a rut, despite being one of the best funded and stable teams in the sport.
              Right now is one of those periods.

              That’s why people are a bit excited about the McLaren-Honda partnership, because it might signal a return to being successful.

            3. @davids Good point. As @red-andy said the other day, this isn’t football and a knee-jerk “sack the manager” reaction is not what McLaren need.

            4. @keithcollantine well you can´t hardly called it a knee-jerk reaction. Withmarsh have had 4 years in from of the team

          2. @celeste

            Since Martin took over McLaren they have had very little success. Maybe he is trying to justify his results.

            I didn’t know that McLaren were dominating WCC in the period of 1998-2008

        2. How much faith can you put in one infographic though?

          1. @matt90 @mnmracer The infographic appear to be from Marca, anyone know anything about how they researched it?

            1. I don´t think is from Marca. Marca is from Spain and they havesome problems with Real Madrid last year reporting the problems with Mourinho. That day the “Marca Lies” was trending topid world wide.
              The footnote said it is from Marca e Esportune. com I couldn´t Access the site. And didn´t find any information. But since the article is in portuguese (I think) I don´t really believe is from Marca.

            2. marca is not credible. marca miente

            3. @keithcollantine It’s written in portuguese as celeste points out but it does state that it’s sources are marca and not esportune, this infographic could well have been featured in the portuguese version of autosport, it’s the main F1 publication I see in the stands of Algarve.

        3. Funny there’s no mention of red bull technology in that pic. I wonder why :p

        4. Lotus is the most frugal team. Williams managed to score only 5 points with additional 10.

      1. It is unlikely these teams will ever divulge true and exact figures of what they are spending on F1. Interesting that the suspected biggest spenders are in the modes of denial and finger pointing. McLaren probably does spend close to what Red Bull and Ferrari do and yet look at the results. The spending by itself does not insure winning results.

      2. Red Bull expenditure has “distorted” F1

        Whitmarsh or I may call Sherlock Whitmarsh has all the proof for that @mnmracer you see Whitmarsh deciphered the code. First he looked at Red bull and saw a bull on top the car, then he looked the other way of the pit lane and noticed that rather hidden in the other side of the runway there was another car with a similar “bull”, he then read Toro Rosso, after that Whitmarsh runned away to his office seeking his ancient latin books with prancing horses on the cover and found out that “Toro Rosso” is Red Bull in english. Hard working man this Whitmarsh, no major sponsor though….

        1. But Red Bull decided “to publicize” exactly how much they spend in “NZZ” which is fortunately not defined as “press” :)

        2. That figure is Red Bull Racing + Red Bull technology. McLaren also has a technology department, Ferrari IS a technology department. Still doesn’t give us better information on the topic at hand.

          1. And who does Red Bull technology spend for ? Ferrari ? lol.

          2. Sure @mnmracer, that figure of 490 milliion EUR (585 francs) is not spent just for RBR, it also supports STR and does the gearboxes/rear suspension for Caterham. On the other hand both Caterham and STR pay for it (even if for STR its probably only on paper). Even if they wouldn’t, that still is an amount of money that easily beats everything both Ferrari and Mercedes put in their F1 team AND engine development.

            1. You don’t know how much is spent on STR and gearboxes, and you don’t know how much is paid. How can you than come to a solid conclusion?

            2. Seriously @mnmracer, even if Caterham pays something in the range of 50 million for Gearboxes (that is 3x what they pay for the engines and about half their total budget) and STR another 90 mill for support (over a 3rd of their budget) 490 million is miles away from the highest amounts mentioned for the other biggest spenders – which is around 250 million.

              We do not need to know the exact figures to see that however you turn this, its still in a completely different range than most other teams.

            3. True, who needs facts when you can just make stuff up to suit your agenda.

            4. True, who needs facts when you can just make stuff up to suit your agenda.

            5. @mnmracer, what is that supposed to mean then?
              Unless you mean that you are making up facts to show that Red Bull is spending about an equal amount or less than others, that is.

      3. We have seen Red Bull slip through loopholes like this before. Toro Rosso used to race with what was effectively a Red Bull customer chassis at a time when customer chassis were banned. They were able to do it because technically, they never purchased the chassis from Red Bull Racing – both teams bought their chassis from Red Bull Technology, a design studio that was for all intents and purposes quite separate from the teams, but simply housed in the same building as one of them. So while the rules forbade one team from buying a chassis from another, there was nothing to stop both teams from purchasing their chassis from a third party that never raced said chassis.

        Martin Whitmarsh is quite right when he says Red Bull are fudging the numbers – because he is doing it, too.

      1. No love for Alex White, Crispin, Djdaveyp85, Wes and Villalon! So many guys, this site has indeed grown alot since 09.

        1. Happy Birthday to everyone!
          PS: It’s my birthday too! Forgot to add it to the list.

    2. The spirit of F1 racing is alive and well at Marussia. The Sky interview at their garage post race in Brazil looked like they had just won a championship. This is why the small teams should be rewarded and invested in. Marussia operating on a shoestring had better reliability than some of the wealthiest teams. With a bit more investment they would likely find some more speed to move themselves up to midpack. I like Marussia and will be cheering for them. Hope they can survive and thrive.

      1. They were more reliable because they were practically running the same car as last year! Haha
        In all seriousness though, F1 does need to spread the wealth more, because the back markers are pushing just as hard as many other teams. I really am cheering for the back markers to join the midfield next year and making Q1 really interesting. I also hope Bianchi has the car he deserves, because he looks like a possible star in the future.

      2. +1, tail end teams that keep trying with little funding are real heroes.

    3. Cash in the attic? Eat your heart out

      I feel like a Peugeot McLaren might well be worth less than the random crap that normally appears on that show.

    4. I don’t like the idea of permanent numbers. It just seems a bit… naff? The current system is good as it’s sensible and orderly. I’m starting to sound like an old man!

      1. I agree. It would inevitably lead to a given number being strongly associated with a given driver (that’s the point). In the case of legendary drivers, the number would later have to be retired USA-style (I hate that), or some rookie driver would have to use it, which would not only put pressure on him, but it would make it difficult from him to associate the number with himself. And how would they decide if >1 drivers want the same number? I say leave the numbers alone.

        1. I actually quite like the system. It works very well in MotoGP. Personalised numbers gives a driver a chance to inject a bit of personality into the mix at a time when helmets are interchangeable and everyone complains that the drivers are automatons.

          If the drivers could choose their numbers, they would choose numbers that are meaningful to them, and they could share that with the fans. For example, I could choose the number 29 because my birthday is the 29th. I could choose the number 17 because the first driver I ever supported raced with the number 17. I could choose the number 74 because the first go-kart I ever drove carried the number 74.

          The entire point of the exercise is that strong association of a number with a driver. If you go to a MotoGP race, you can immediately pick out the Valentino Rossi fans because of the prominent number 46. I don’t think this is an issue, because you could retire a number when the driver who raced with it retired, and then reintroduce it a few years later. And if more than one driver wanted the same number, they could certainly sit down and talk about it and come to some kind of agreement.

        2. Motorsports numbers in the USA aren’t generally retired (atleast on the Pro level). The only number I can think of off the top of my head that is retired in the USA is the #61 in the NASCAR Whelen Modified Tour and that is the number that the late Richie Evans drove and was killed in and it was his fellow drivers that decided they wanted it retired as a sign of respect to him because he literally was a truly legendary driver if you look at his stats.

          CART had retired the #99 after Greg Moore was killed in it, however Indycar never did and since Indycar took over as the sole series that number has been used again.

        3. David not Coulthard (@)
          29th November 2013, 6:48

          the number would later have to be retired USA-style (I hate that)

          OK, so who will drive with the number 13 next year?

          Having said that, I’d also rather not see the return of permanent numbers next year (…F1 did have it, didn’t it?).

          As a side note, Tyrrell will use the numbers 3 & 4 next year anyway.

          1. Having said that, I’d also rather not see the return of permanent numbers next year (…F1 did have it, didn’t it?).

            A trawl through my archives reveals that car numbering was virtually random uup until 1969, when Graham Hill the 1968 champion kept the number 1 throughout almost the entire season (Italy being the exception, where he was given the number 2). Prior to that it seems that teams were allocated different numbers, for each driver, for each meeting.

            1. I always wondered why in the past in Italy the drivers used only even numbers? Hence say 2, 4, 6 for the first team, 8, 10, 12 for the next and so on…

        4. @ironcito

          Presumably they would drivers choose in order of where they finished last season.

          I really hope this happens !

      2. @Diego I think dedicated numbers is a cool idea. Reigning champion gets to choose first, after that it’s orderly according to the WDC standings at the given year of the change. Reigning champion always keeps the No. 1, but Vettel (if the change is imminent) is then given an opportunity to choose a different more “permanent” number to be used when he stops winning these championships (will that ever happen?).

      3. I like the current system, it reflects how the teams did the previous season, and I’ve never been crazy about remembering a driver by his number it only seems to work in NASCAR

      4. @deej92 I like the idea of drivers (or teams) being able to select a number. It works well in other forms of motor racing.

        Providing (as others have said) we don’t end up going down the naff route of ‘retiring’ certain numbers when a particularly popular driver leaves the sport, I think it’s a (very small) step in the right direction.

        1. @keithcollantine – How about temporarily retiring a number, then? We don’t want to see numbers permanently put on the shelf, but I think a lot of people who be averse to the idea of someone picking up a famous number, whether by luck or by choice, and, for want of a better word, mis-using it. Can anyone imagine the backlash if Pastor Maldonado chose the number 27 because of its connections to Gilles Villeneuve? He’s very unpopular, whilst that number is very famous. Likewise, can anyone imagine how disappointing it would be if Giedo van der Garde chose the number 27? He’s very underwhelming, and would not be able to live up to the history of the number 27.

          So I think drivers could be free to choose their numbers (with the number 1 being set aside, of course), and when they decide to retire from the sport, their number is put into reserve for a certain period of time – maybe three to five years – and it cannot be used. Then the number is revived, with drivers free to choose it if they so wish. That way, a driver and a number could become synonymous for as long as they are racing, and when they retire, their absence is acknowledged byt the retirement of the number. Then it can be reintroduced so that other drivers have the chance to build up a mythology surrounding the number in such a way that it won’t just get passed onto someone who might be seen as unworthy.

          The only time a number would be fully retired would be as a mark of respect to a legendary driver (like Schumacher), or, heaven forbid, a driver killed during the season (like Senna). Completely retiring a number would require the unanimous vote of all existing drivers.

        2. I agree the idea is great, it adds something to f1. You can create iconic numbers and such.

          Retiring of numbers can be done, but only in very rare cases. Some numbers shall obviously not be touched soon after the driver associated with this number stops (assuming it was one of the better drivers/champion).
          But we have a long road ahead to make it as ‘cool’ as in MotoGp or Nascar.

      5. Permanent numbers are a great idea but only if they are big enough to see on the side of the car!
        My colour vision is poor enough that I find it near impossible to tell cars in the same livery apart. It would help a great deal.
        On a related issue, why doesn’t F1 drag itself out of the 20th century and have automatic car-caption tagging like the TV coverage of some US road racing series?
        It takes GPS data and calibrated camera positions, sure, but the moving overlay of name, team and key stats (like a virtual reality system) is just so cool. It allows non-experts to see what’s going on. It could draw new audiences in. It certainly makes life easier for those of us with non-optimal eyesight. Even better than car numbers.

        1. Question is, would anybody pick #13?

          1. I love 13!

          2. @paulk I’m sure they would, not everyone has silly superstitious hang-ups about numbers. After all McLaren did alright with the MP4-13.

        2. @tribaltalker Apparently the size of the numbers and drivers’ names on the cars is a subject to be discussed at this meeting, but it’s likely to be shelved (for the time being at least) because sponsors want as much space for themselves as possible, of course. Although there have been instances where the driver’s name has been shown clearly – McLaren’s West days and Lotus this year. I think Force India in particular should show their numbers more clearly.

    5. I prefer the idea of teams picking their numbers rather than the drivers.

    6. So what do people think about points for pole position? I think it’s interesting to reward the achievement, but I can also see the argument that getting pole makes it easier to get points in the race, and thus it is redundant. I don’t favor the idea on balance. Having an annual award for excellence in qualifying might be best of both worlds (recognition and non-redundancy). The Tour de France has a ‘combativity’ award for each stage, which is also interesting.

      And what do we think about permanent car numbers? I can’t really speak to the tradition of them, but I suspect it overwhelms the marketing advantages. I have noticed that at races lay-people have trouble telling who is who (don’t know the helmets well enough, or too many drivers are wearing one-off helmets), so it could help a little bit in that regard. Probably best not to change the numbering either.

      1. I’d rather see a point for fastest lap I think.

        1. @matt90, agreed, subject to US type rules to prevent abuse, might encourage cars to go ” Full steam ahead and damn the tyrepedoes”.

          1. And it avoids points being given on a non-race day, which seems a bit odd to me. Getting pole is impressive, but its a means to an end to do well the next day, so I’m not sure it warrants any extra bonus.

          2. That comment was clearly made before you heard/read about some of the great ideas the Big 5 +FIA and FOM have come up with – topping with “2 mandatory pitstops” @hohum!

            1. @bascb, thanks for ruining my day :(

      2. @chaddy – I too am against points for pole. I might be persuaded to give points for the fastest lap. But your example of “combativity” is great, we should award points to the driver who has made up the most grid positions by the end of the race – explicitly valuing “progress”. That way the points go to those who need it more, or are giving us the best show.

        1. @tribaltalker I actually would prefer a point for pole position because there are some quite big flaws in your suggestions and ultimately qualifying is a race of its own and there should be no skewed or unusual outcomes (as would have been the case in the days when no refuelling was allowed between qualifying and the race). Mercedes had 8 pole positions and only 3 race wins so it’s not the same as giving extra bonus to race winning cars/drivers.

          (1) Let’s say a driver needs to secure a single point to win the championship but spins early, has a puncture or breaks a front wing and ends up at the back of the field. Currently the tactic is to make up as many places as possible to get in the points (ok, not that hard for a frontrunner given points go down to 10th not). Alternatively why not make a very late stop, put on the fastest tyre and go out to secure fastest lap. In this case the achievement is insubstantial but the result could be significant.

          (2) A point for progress basically rules out all of the top runners before the race even starts, it’s effectively a handicap system. For a driver in a top team who messes up Q1 and starts at the back it’s a gimmee. It also gives a fairly random result to a backmarker in a race of attrition.

    7. RBR/Vettel dominance makes a convenient excuse for the decline of TV viewiership especially when an early championship win can be seen as the point at which ratings fall sharply, for me this argument is to facile.
      Like me I imagine there are many F1 viewers that to a greater or lesser degree are falling out of love with F1 but find it hard to let go, me, I am waiting to see how the new regulations work out next year, but I can sympathise with those who decided to let go once the championship was decided and I suspect that those same people would have tuned out if it had not been Vettel winning but any other driver, say Paul DiResta, they were not invested in.
      F1 problems are all related to the need to make a non re-invested profit on earnings many times greater than any legal business manages to sustain.

      1. @hohum BR/Vettel dominance makes a convenient excuse for the decline of TV viewiership [sic] especially when an early championship win can be seen as the point at which ratings fall sharply, for me this argument is to [sic] facile.

        uhhh, yet when F1 fans who turn off the TV say they are doing so b/c the racing has becoming boringly predictable and suffocated by RBR, you what…want to ignore this?

        1. @joepa,@keithcollantine, do many fans actually say that is the only reason they no longer watch F1? Maybe a poll is needed?

    8. Paul Sainsbury
      29th November 2013, 3:06

      I have a lot of time for the idea of points for pole position. Firstly, I must say that I completely appreciate there is a potential downside, which is that it could be possible for a championship to be won by someone getting pole, which would obviously be detrimental to the excitement of a close title battle. Having said that, the reason I support the idea is that I think the current F1 format places far too many demands on drivers other than to simply be quick, that I would like to see some recognition in its own right for being the fastest driver. Now we have so much of the phrase that almost makes me feel ill, ‘managing tyres’, that drivers are, a large amount of the time, frankly just ‘tooling around’, looking after the right-front…………If points were awarded for poles, then the outright fastest driver would benefit, and it would also discourage the dreaded strategy seeping into Saturdays, as well as the actual race. It would also make qualify more exciting, I think.

      1. +1 Well said.

    9. Looks like stake in F1 team is pretty cheap now days!!!!!

    10. Why or why can’t we milk Tobacco companies for their money!!!!!!! If people wish to smoke. Freaking “MTV culture” does more harm to society than tobacco and alcohol industries combined!

    11. OmarR-Pepper (@)
      29th November 2013, 4:39

      If pole was given a single point, small teams would try a “kamikaze” quali, it wouldn’t mind burning the tyres out of it given that it would be their only chance (but to be honest I see almost impossible for a Marussia or Catherham to get pole, no matter how hard they would try)
      It would also distort the championship quite a lot, as a polesitter in Monaco would 99% of the times get 26 points, and not 25, for winning. And imagine how many complaints we’d have heard on the final races this year, where Vettel got many pole-to-victory runs!
      Things are better as they are now.

      1. Indeed @omarr-pepper.

        Points for pole makes sense in spec-car series, not F1.

      2. Agreed, Points for anything outside the race result is like giving points for showing up, laps completed, time certain positions are held, and so on.
        Convoluting the points system for what? motivation, having people watch closely at all stages of race preparation for points hidden elsewhere outside the actual event, consolation for crappy starts or races, I agree to give as much as you can in qualy then give 100% in race day. that should make the race more intense. Last year Maldonado had far better qualifications than races, proof that you can set up for qualy, and then throw it away in the race, making the race dissapointing, or this year Perez started in 19th in Brazil and moved up the grid substantially, proving your qualy may not be as good as your racing, which I like better.

    12. The year-end trophy for the driver with the most Pole awards would be a nice touch, I know NASCAR (for atleast the 3 national series) & Indycar do it.

    13. This is not the first time when it is claimed that RBR’s huge resources is one of the reasons for their success story. Interestingly, Dieter Rencken’s analysis also claims that Ferrari and Red Bull possess over remarkably larger budgets than all the other teams, including McLaren and Mercedes.

      Money is not enough to win championships and even if Red Bull Racing have more money than anyone else, they still deserve praise for their achievements. But I would have even more respect for them if they had won their titles in an equal playing field.

    14. 1 point for getting the pole and 1 for the fastest lap of the race. I think it would be a great way to add a bit of excitement.

        1. @keithcollantine – thanks for that link! I agree that giving points for pole and fastest lap is a bad idea.

          I noticed a curious comment of you in that article though.

          I doubt Bernie Ecclestone would approve of it: Firstly because he’s in favour of getting rid of points and awarding the championship to whoever wins the most races (which is an excellent idea);

          Do you still prefer the championship be awarded to the driver who wins the most races? In 2012, this would have meant that the championship will be over after Abu Dhabi. And all of Alonso’s consistency would be for nothing.
          I am hoping that the new points system (25-18-15, instead of 10-8-6 when that article was written) has changed your opinion :)

          1. Of course this would never happen, but as an idea I think it would work. But still rules would have to be changed.
            Talking rubbish and about the “subject” – getting an extra point for the fastest lap of the race – what “harm” could this do?
            “Change the end result of the championship?” – Well, so does “letting other drivers pass without any real fight (easy example: Sutil-Hamilton Brazil 2008).”
            Or those hidden messages: “Superman is faster than You…,” while Batman is leading with Superman being second. End result – Superman gaining 7 points.
            “But slower teams would go mental while after the points,” – Yeah? How? All the teams starting with the same amount of fuel etc. I am pretty sure my TV would not show :”Max Chilton – Fastest lap.”

            Not making any point of “it would be so much awesome,” but a quick 2013 Top 6 “according to my rules” (point added for pole and fastest lap):
            1) VET 413 (9 poles, 7 fastest laps)
            2) ALO 244 (2 fastest laps)
            3) WEB 206 (2 poles, 5 fastest laps)
            4) HAM 195 (5 poles, 1 fastest lap)
            5) RAI 185 (2 fastest laps)
            6) ROS 174 (3 poles)

            Anything more?
            Both of the Mexicans would have got an extra point, both had one fastest lap. PER would have had total of 50 (still 11th) and GUT 7 (still 16th).

            1. Woah, quotation mark overload there, eh?

    15. The RBR budget thing is a complete non-story. Most successful team has biggest budget and best resources. Hardly a shocker is it.

    16. “The fastest way to become unpopular is to start winning.

      Christian, if you think about it, surely you will realise what a dumb sentence that is?

      Are Ferrari unpopular? Is Alonso unpopular? Schumacher? Manchester United? Roger Federer? I’d argue that winning made them more popular!

      1. You realised most of those teams / sports people are hated as well as loved right?

        Federer is pretty much the only entity in that list who hasn’t been loathed at some point.

        1. Todd (@braketurnaccelerate)
          29th November 2013, 9:50

          I think Ferrari, Alonso and Schumacher did more damage to their own image than them winning a lot did.

      2. Being dominant at anything causes opinions to polarise.

        I for example can never ever support a Ferrari doing well, as it brings back to mind the days of Michael Schumacher’s dominance which, combined with F1 being on ITV in UK (advert breaks in the middle of races, come on…) caused me to stop watching F1 back in 2000. Didn’t come back until the BBC got F1 in 2009 (and watch it on Sky now as it comes with my HD pack). Plus always remember FIA standing for Ferrari International Assistance. LdM’s comments this week just re-affirm this opinion.

        I’ve always been a fan of Williams and McLaren, due to these teams history of innovation and competitiveness in the sport. I know that both are currently on the back foot, but am confident both will bounce back soon, their driver line ups for next year look promising (Massa excepted, sorry but he should have retired after 2009, he’s not been the same since being hit by pieces of Brawn and who can blame him). Glad Maldonado’s gone from Williams, hope he goes from F1 too.

        However, reading this forum I see how many people seem to despise McLaren, or at least Martin Whitmarsh, so I understand that no one will ever agree.

        1. I agree but I feel Massa might surprise us all…
          And yes mid race adverts are a pain. We get an advert after every 8 laps in India!

          1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
            29th November 2013, 15:46

            @veldaarf1 in Latin America we have 2 options to see F1, the “normal” and the “expensive”, but in the normal they go to ads every 10 or 12 laps, and they take almost 2 laps in doing so.

    17. Todd (@braketurnaccelerate)
      29th November 2013, 9:52

      If we really want to get technical, Red Bull also spends something like $80M/yr. on Toro Rosso…

      1. very handy testing team arent they?

    18. Red Bull’s budget should be combined with Renault’s budget. Ferrari and Mercedes are also making engines so you have to factor in Renault’s budget if you really want to have a bit of a clearer image. Not that you can ever really get to the bottom of it, since they are all as shady as Bernie when it comes to their books.

    19. I think the decline in viewership is more directly linked to the tire fiasco. I stopped watching when the treaded tires came into vogue, and just resurfaced when the slicks came back and Vettel started winning.

    20. A COTD for me. Cool!

      1. Congratulations, hope you get more.

    Comments are closed.