Starting grid, Silverstone, 2013

Drivers don’t want standing restarts – Ricciardo

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Starting grid, Silverstone, 2013In the round-up: Daniel Ricciardo says drivers voiced their opposition to standing restarts before the FIA approved their introduction for next season.


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

Drivers opposed to standing restarts (ESPN)

“As of next year, I don’t like the standing restarts. If I could, I’d take that out. We all pretty much disagreed as far as I am aware.”

Jean Todt: the man with the keys to F1 (MotorSport)

“The FIA is just a regulator. I feel it’s absurd to spend so much money for 19-20 races with two cars and limited testing. I’m amazed to see the level of freight that has to be transported. It seems crazy, but [the teams] seem happy with it.”

Boullier fears more pain for McLaren (The Telegraph)

“I have to say it worries me a little bit to go there and say we are not at the level, but please forgive us and be patient, because we will be back for sure.”

Susie Wolff, Valtteri Bottas, Felipe Massa, Felipe Nasr, Williams FW36 livery reveal, 2014Women close to F1 breakthrough – Wolff (BBC)

“If there are just a handful of little girls who are there on Friday and see me driving and suddenly realise they could do the same, that is the biggest positive to come out of it.”

Red Bull won’t accept customer engine (Autosport)

Christian Horner: “Ferrari and Mercedes have their own teams, so where are you going to be in the pecking order if you’re a customer?”

Daniel Ricciardo concedes ‘it’s a shame’ that end of Red Bull dominance coincides with his promotion to world champions (The Independent)

“It’s a shame I’ve come in to the team now when we’re not dominating, but at the same time we’ve still been able to get good results.”

Judge Questions Testimony of Witness Backing Ecclestone Claims (Bloomberg)

“A German judge overseeing Bernie Ecclestone’s criminal trial questioned the testimony of a lawyer who backed the Formula One chief’s argument that a $44 million payment was an effort to prevent troubles with U.K. tax authorities rather than a bribe.”

Pirelli are ‘not conservative’ (Sky)

Paul Hembery: “This year, it’s certainly a lot easier for the teams, they’re able to manage their strategies in almost a linear way. You see the majority of races with people following almost the same strategy but I think that was necessary with such a big technical change.”

Hamilton hopes to ‘home’ in on Rosberg lead (Reuters)

“Last year, I was more hopeful than ever… that weekend it was definitely gutting not to win, to not bring it home for the country and for the fans. We have another chance this year and I’ll be doing absolutely everything to make sure we’re in front.”

Lewis Hamilton on how he got started in motor racing (F1 Fanatic via YouTube)


Comment of the day

Tony Fernandes’ time in Formula One came to an end yesterday:

I do feel sorry for Fernandes. It’s easy enough to criticise him for being over-ambitious and under-estimating the challenge, but, as others have said, when he entered F1 he expected dramatic cost cuts. That didn’t happen, and is unlikely to ever happen as long as the idiotic F1 Strategy Group exists.

That being considered, I think it’s fair to say that you’d need to be insane to want to enter an F1 team as this point in time. For that, I have nothing but admiration for Kolles, even though there’s something about him which reminds me of the idiom ‘sinking ship’…

Above all, I’m just relieved that we’ll still have 22 cars this weekend.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Troma, Chris Preston and Marcia Simon!

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

Michael Schumacher beat the two Williams drivers, including the returning Nigel Mansell, to win the French Grand Prix 20 years ago today:

Images © Pirelli/LAT, Williams/LAT

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

  • 79 comments on “Drivers don’t want standing restarts – Ricciardo”

    1. It’s a ludicrous proposition. A safety car in itself nullifies the advantage a leading driver will have, which does not need to be compounded by a restart, further negating those hard-earned seconds for minimal entrainment benefit.

      Also, has no one yet noticed the glaring lack of logic in that accidents at starts are what cause probably 50% of safety car periods in the first place? You could easily end up in a situation where the safety car effectively causes a safety car, which is a damaging cycle.

      1. As they say in Indy/NASCAR. Cautions breed cautions.

      2. Safety car periods are not exciting, and I can’t imagine this will speed up the process at all. And what happens in the event of somebody lining up in the wrong grid slow? And with unlapping cars?

        The last is particularly important, as then it becomes very easy for drivers to potentailly gain places they do not merit.

        1. The lapped cars will spend multiple laps (number depends on the length of the track) unlapping themselves. Not only will they have to get well ahead of the train, but right on to the back of it before any stopping on the grid for a restart can be contemplated.

          Lining up in the wrong grid slot usually prompts an extra formation lap with possible bonus 5-second stop/go penalty.

          At a long track like Spa we could be watching this charade throughout most of the afternoon.

          1. At a long track like Spa we could be watching this charade throughout most of the afternoon.

            Which will then give Bernie a good reason to propose to drop Spa for someone paying more :-(

          2. All of that is no different to current safety car rules though. The only difference is that when the safety car pulls away the cars line up on the grid instead of driving on.

      3. Can’t help thinking of Monaco 2011 whenever standing restarts have been mentioned lately. The red flag restart that day robbed everyone of an exciting end to the race

      4. So we are going to loose the last second dash into the pits with the fun of stacked cars. So how is this going to work with a wet track? Is there going to be service and tire change before restart with all the engineers on track? What about cold tires since tire warmers are banned? The real winners would be the quicker drivers off the start like Massa and perhaps Alonso, which would be fun to watch. Safety cars may be tedious but at least the race progresses. A standing restart will be giving us 5 min breaks which would cause many to turn off, it may also fatigue the drivers as they would be sitting there waiting. Even worse if there are more than 3.

        1. There isn’t going to be any stopping on the grid and turning the engine off with this proposal. Thus no team personnel on the grid and no tyre change. They’re going to treat the last lap under the safety car as a formation lap and have everyone stop on the grid then the light countdown begins immediately.

          I was more concerned about the implications of all of this for those on the pit wall: they have to retreat to the safety of their garages for the standing start, potentially while cars are coming in to change tyres.

      5. @vettle1, more crashes is what they want, it’s good TV !

        1. Bernie should have pushed for Piquet Jr to return.

          1. With people like Maldonado and Perez/Massa, who needs Piquet?

      6. @vettel1 The FIA have confirmed that standing restarts won’t happen in the first 2 laps from the start of a race and in the first 2 laps from a standing restart. So no, people’s main concern isn’t going to happen

        1. I wasn’t aware of that particular rule, thanks @mashiat.

          However, there will still inevitably be subsequent safety car periods at one stage.

          1. @vettel1 Perhaps, but I for one am in a way excited by this rule change. Not that I particularly agree with its implementation but I think it adds a lot of unpredictability, especially in circuits such as Monza and Malaysia. I was actually just imagining if this rule change came in 2012! Grosjean would try his best to achieve double digit number of victims, while Mark Webber would lose double digit number of places! ;p

      7. Formula 1 has the brightest minds you can find in any sport but the heads defining the rules are subpar. Why so many brilliant people are ruled by a bunch of arrogant and flamboyant gold diggers?

      8. Even better, whats the point of having SC at all if there is a standing start?
        You might as well just stop on the grid and wait.

        1. Personally I have no problem with standing restarts and the way they are going to implement them.

          To DR’s points, which he claims are the main points of the drivers against this, safety is their concern especially by restarting on old tires. Most of the time if a driver is on 20 lap old tires they take advantage of the safety car to pit for fresh ones without the risk of losing their position on the track. I suggest that because of these new restarts nobody will dare NOT pit for new ones if they’re that old. And that will mean they will be on fresh tires that have been warmed, as DR laments will not be the case (for those trying to restart on 20 lap old tires) and they will have had a few laps behind the safety car to warm them as well.

          Lapped cars will be allowed to unlap themselves, and I’d be surprised if, as suggested above, cars that are more than one lap down get to keep lapping until they have made up all their laps. Bottom line, lapped cars will be out of the way of the leaders and at the back of the pack, so that should be a bonus for the likes of DR.

          A 20 sec lead is still lost with a rolling restart, and yes, a standing restart increases the odds that the leader may lose his lead. That is no doubt the excitement and the shaking up of the order that F1 is looking for which rolling restarts do not provide. However, DR et al, if a driver had a 20 sec lead he is likely in a strong enough package to regain the lead even if losing it in the first corner of the restart. DRS will ensure that.

          Standing starts are more dangerous, but then that is totally in the hands of the drivers and they have been taught that you don’t win the race in the first corner, so the usual caution will apply on their part.

          The negative reaction to double points especially, and DRS secondly I get, but to standing restarts?…I just don’t get the outrage. I am however, as always, willing to be swayed by good arguments against this. I just haven’t heard one yet.

      9. Someone I used to work with hit upon an idea and I do wonder about the feasability. His theory was that since there is a standard ECU and the FIA can signal the cars for blue flags etc, they should be able to trigger a speed limit thereby maintaining track position, relative distances and a controlled reasonably safe scenario. No need for a safety car, all vehicles lap slower and allow the marshalls to do their job. Everyone gets the signal at once, so no chance of a rogue trigger to an individual. The lapping speed could be slightly faster than the safety car even, keeping tyres and brakes hotter.

    2. Unfortunately Ricciardo it isn’t what drivers want or advise or what is sensible, it’s all about the “show”.

    3. So the drivers don’t like it, the fans don’t like it and the engineers don’t like it.. but its happening? I don’t get it.. pinch me I’m dreaming.

      I’m surprised Merc’s and Lewis’ #ThingsTimHowardCouldSave tweets aren’t on here! – almost as funny as Formula E’s ‘Tweet2Boost’.

      1. Keith doesn’t particularly like football :) And it doesn’t belong to an F1/motorsport site anyways.

        1. Nor should Bernie Ecclestone

        2. Did Keith just delete his comment? I am pretty sure there was one here this morning. Can’t remember what he said, but I do respect that he censored his comment(may have happened before but I never noticed). This is why I recommend f1fanatic to my friends.

          1. No I haven’t deleted anything here.

      2. I’m still getting used to Spa, Monaco, Silverstone and all other tracks being half point races except the Oil desert money race…

        Can you believe that is still happening, because I really can’t

    4. The GPDA should do something about it then. Isnt it the whole point of its existence? Represent the drivers?

      1. The FIA are treating the drivers’ views the same way they always have: consult them after they have decided to implement something then totally ignore them. See also the views of the fans, sponsors, TV companies and smaller teams.

    5. One of the problems with the safety car is that you sometimes lose 10 or more laps cruising at half speed. I don’t think standing restarts is the answer but I wouldn’t mind red flags followed by a single safety car lap and rolling restart. That way, the chances of a turn 1 pile up are reduced and more of the race can be run at racing speeds. The big question would be, how big an incident would require a red flag? It would be completely pointless if the track could be cleared under just 2 safety car laps.

      1. Red flags would certainly be a better solution for most situations than this solution of combining the worst of both @tommy-c. When they stop the cars, its quite likely most accidents can be cleared faster than when they have to be carefull not to be hit by cars speeding past.

        Its really crazy to imagine that we might have a SC period that makes sense for a lap or 2, then have 2 laps of the lapped cars unlapping and catching back up, then a SC inlap and then they line up on the grid for a standing restart. Compare Sportscars introducing their “slow zones” to limit having to even use a SC because it disrupts the race!

        1. I think red flags and stopping cars should always be a very last resort and should still only be used in the extreme circumstances. To stop the cars as some substitute for safety car periods and a rolling restart would just create way more complication and delay mid-race than is necessary. It would be anti-climactic. As it is the cars keep running and keep cool and have a chance to pit for tires and the only difference will be that they will stop on the grid and then start rather than just continuing in their procession with a rolling restart. Why complicate things tenfold as well as create an unnecessary intermission with a red flag unless it is absolutely necessary and understandable to the fans?

    6. I’m just amazed that Jean Todt is actually amazed about costs in F1, first when he was Ferrari’s team principle he used not to care very much about costs, and now as a president of the FIA the rules that he pushed for are forcing the teams and engine manufacturers to spend stupid money on R&D .
      The funny thing is that while he was talking about costs, he was wearing a 240,000 euro watch (same watch that Massa and Nadal wear)

      1. BJ (@beejis60)
        3rd July 2014, 3:01

        @tifoso1989 Max pushed for the v6 era and safety testing, not Jean; he’s just riding the wave. Your complaints fall on deaf, nazi-dressed ears.

        1. Asides from the fact that it’s only really the Renault engine that is reportedly overpriced, it’s worth noting that the engine format change was supposed to be part of a much wider ranging series of measures.
          There were supposed to be much larger reductions in aerodynamics and R&D that were meant to counterbalance the costs of the new engines, but Red Bull reportedly lobbied – quite successfully – against most of the changes given that is where they have the greatest advantage.

    7. I do not understand… is really quite simple…..rather than the lapped cars overtaking the lead cars and unlapping themselves, why can’t the lead cars overtake the lapped cars so they are all at the back of the field. It would take far less time…

      All that needs to happen is an instruction for all lapped cars to go to the left side of the track….lead cars to the right….overtake slowly…hey presto..

      Unless this is because the cars will technicaly be “lapped” again…but I am sure a rule can be made up for that…..

      I do not mind saftey car periods, it is waiting for the lapped cars to catch up which is the nonesense bit….

      1. I think the problem here is that you could have two backmarkers racing each other but with the leader in between (lapping them). Safety car comes out, both cars go to the back, but with a lap in between them.

        I agree though, something needs to be done about it. I was thinking that maybe they should all line up on the grid (with cars switched off), but with all lapped cars doing an additional lap (to unlap themselves) before coming to line up. Then when the incident is cleared, restart the cars, either with just one team member on the grid, or by implementing a starter motor rule (they already have electric motors anyway). Then they can do a warmup lap and then the standing start – although I’d still prefer a rolling start (even double file if they want a bit more excitement – it would still be better than redoing the standing start).

        1. In the case where a lapping leader is splitting back markers when a safety car comes out you could let the first one go so he becomes the last in the train. Then have lapped cars pull over and be overtaken by everyone so they then become the back of the train. Then a message comes up saying “cars x, y and z” will have 1 lap added to their time at the end of the race. Much the same as a time penalty for an infringement.

          1. The cars won’t have actually completed the number of laps the timing says they have though. That has implications for tyre wear and fuel usage compared to those around them they are racing.

            1. True but they would use next to no fuel and would take nothing out of the tyres following the safety car though.

      2. @mach1 It would take less time, but it would also save them some fuel, possibly giving them an advantage later on.

        However with standing restarts there is an easier and more elegant solution possible. Front runners should take their grid slots right away and all of the lapped cars should do an additional lap. There is absolutely no reason for the whole train to go around the track, waiting for the backmarkers to unlap themselves.

        1. @maroonjack sitting on the grid for over a minute? I doubt they will agree to that.

          Besides, I always end up going back to this: why do they need to unlap themselves in the first place?

          1. I don’t think anything will change in terms of lapped cars from the way it is now, so the good thing is that no more time will be taken, they’ll be out of the way of the leaders, and I’m sure F1 will ensure that the front runners are not made to sit in their grid slots any longer than they do at the original starts. A safety car period presents plenty of time and laps for lapped cars to get around and restart at the back of the pack.

      3. @mach1 I also posed this question in the past few months. Someone said to me that it’s not “fair” then to the teams on the lead lap who will have more mileage on their engine and some other nonsense that I forgot. I feel like if you’re already lapped, you don’t deserve to be on the lead lap in the first place regardless of safety conditions. Just restart (or standing start) as status quo.

    8. Suzy Wolff is starting to annoy me.

      In most cases, you get into F1 because you’re good enough, in some cases, you’re fairly good but you stump the cash. If a woman fulfills either of these criteria, there is no reason why they cant race in F1. Simona De Silvestro was pretty forthright in saying she hasnt exeperienced any sexism and that she has only been judged on her ability.

      If a woman is good enough for F1, I dont see why any team wouldnt snap them up in an instant, they would a sponsorship cash cow (no pun intended). Christian Horner appears to know a thing or two about F1, and he reckons that of the current crop of female drivers, none of them are good enough for F1. Is a chauvinist or is he telling the truth?

      1. The simplistic view is that women should get there not because they are women, but because they are good.

        And that’s fine. But you have to make way to girls. If they grow up seeing only men racing, and girls only at podium ceremonies, what good is that? Little girls should catch the bug early, watch other women battling with men in the same circuit. That’s when the little girl will like it, love it, try her best and be skilled enough to win races and stuff.

        If Ayrton had not been there, Lewis might not be what he is. Girls need to see their heroes dreaming they could be there aswell and it won’t be so much more difficult than it is to men, which is hard enough.

        1. Well said!

        2. So you’re saying that should be a so call “sex-quota” n F1 so that girls can see girls compete? Even if they’re not so good? I disagree, first of all because if they’re not so good they won’t compete ( you’re example of Senna is a valid one, but it’s with a top tallented pilot, i don’t know anyone who wanted to be a F1 pilot by seeing Giavanna Amatti or Nissany, or Adrian Campos, Ide and so on…). They should enter the F1 if they good enought for that ( the cash, beeing a women they would find easear ways to get sponsored because of the attention i guess), it’s just simple for me, you have what it takes it doesn’t matter if you’re a Male, female, both or none, give him a car and let the show begin…

          1. @hipn0tic I bet israeli fans were very enthusiastic about seeing Nissani drive a F1 car.

            Someone’s got to be the first one. And the sport needs to allow them make an impact. We don’t know how good they’ll be unless you let them drive. F1 is hard to reach, and for a girl it must be a very tough road to go all the way jumping from karting, to lower formulas, to F1. Heck, even Mark Webber had a tough job at that…

            I think having a girl test on a friday is a great thing for the sport. And it’s a very nice example. For me, it’s a step forward for F1…

            I want to clarify. I also want to see the best sportmen or women race. I don’t want pay drivers and the lot. But we’ll be waiting forever for a “good enough” girl if the sport is unreachable for that sex. Which it currently is…

            1. @fer-no65 I don’t know, but i guess so, but after they seeing the pace, somehow they found themselves a bit sad about, like portuguese(like myself) about Lamy or Chaves

              I get what you’re saying, and you’re part right but i think that beeing a girls is somehow easier to get sponsors….The F1 road is not for all (see the portuguese example of Da Costa), but somehow giving anyone/kind/race/age/country a car just to fill a quota doesn’t look fair to me…

              @spoutnik I guess so that’s the momment, but what can we do in the future? Get quotas?

            2. I completely disagree with you. I do not see why the sport is unreachable for them at all. If anything a capable woman driver right now has even more chances of getting an F1 seat than a capable male driver. Look at people like Ellinas or Frijn. Very capable drivers with great CV that can’t get in F1 because they are males from not so sponsor happy countries.
              But if they were female then even outside sponsors might have appeared for them and an F1 team would have taken a Female driver with their CV in a minute just for the potential attention and marketing.

              What stops a woman from winning in carts and then in Formula Ford, Formula 2, Formula 3.5 etc? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. If a female driver wants to contest in those series and make a name for herself she is free to do so. Then she can come to F1 having shown skill and ability and we can all accept her as another talent driver with potential.

              You say it isn’t working. I see no such thing. Is not that it isn’t working, is simply that no female that was capable of this have appeared and that females by themselves seem less interested in racing. So yeah if anyone is at fault for no female F1 drivers then that one is women themselves.
              There are hundreds of young boys competing and trying to reach the dream and only very few make it. The competition is hard. If only 10 girls are interested to try to reach the F1 dream then obviously the chances for a female driver making it will be limited.

              And i don’t believe we should put just any female driver on the grid even when she’s not capable just so little girls can relate(yeah good luck relating to the driver getting lapped) and get interested in trying. If they didn’t like racing and F1 then female or male driver makes no difference. What crazy idea is this thing that girls can’t relate to an amazing driver just because his male? Hey when they race we don’t even see what gender they are. We just see a helmet. I loved F1 as a kid when i first saw a battle between two cars.
              At the bottom there where this strange foreign names that as a kid didn’t even know if they are male names or not. All i could see was a helmet. If they got out of the car afterwards and they were women that wouldn’t have changed anything about the excitement i felt for what i just saw.
              Male or female they are still human beings not some martians. If you can’t relate to another human being just because he/she isn’t the same gender then there is something wrong with you.

          2. @hipn0tic You did not understand what @fer-no65 said. The situation you describe is the current situation. It has been like that for decades, and one can’t see a single woman. So, maybe, it can be pushed a bit.

        3. Suppose the girls see a woman driving in F1 and she’s constently much slower than all the other drivers. How is that going to tell them to try doing that for themselves.

          I’ve seen María de Villota drive in Superleage Formula and she was lapped in a matter of laps. If anything it was embarassing.

          Not to mention dangerous. If incompetent drivers like that troddle around in F1 then they are much more likely to cause accidents.

      2. It could be that finding the answers to your questions lies in whether or not any driver gets the chance to drive in competition in F1. Then the evaluation of any new driver fine tunes down to the qualities of their race car. After that, performance and consistency.

        The point is that even though many drivers come highly touted to F1, they do not always pan out. Some fail spectacularly, others just fade away quietly. On the other side of the coin, there are those hidden gems of drivers who brighten F1 with their unexpected results, perhaps late developers or maybe their talents went mostly unnoticed. Truth is, even some of the highest ranking, most powerful decision makers in F1 don’t always pick the best drivers correctly. There are so many variables, obviously.

        I think this would apply whether we are talking about men or women drivers. Danish or Swedish, British or French, you get the point.

        Certainly, there are minimum requirements to get a chance to drive a current F1 car. Beyond that, statistics, comparative practice lap times, a gut feeling, no one thing can tell the future for sure.

        But, imagine the future for a moment, even a mere ten years from now. If there are several women drivers in F1 by that time, will this still be a prominent F1 media story? Doubt it, the media will be on to something else.

      3. The little girls’ first question in the Friday afternoon session would be “where’s Susie?”
        They should let these third drivers actually compete, rather than spinning it into being “the first woman to take part in a Grand Prix” when she clearly isn’t going to race – it’s like kicking a couple of balls with the players as they warm before a match.

        It would need some subsidising for the smaller teams, but I think a couple of third cars in the race now and again would a much better way to fill the grid than half-baked new teams or caving in to Montezemolo’s rants about everyone having third cars. Can you imagine Red Bull trying to prepare 3 reliable cars – they can’t even provide two!

      4. @jaymenon10 I think you would love this one song by Jon LaJoie that was put on youtube some 5-7 years ago:

        You’re talking to me about stuff. Why? I’d much rather see your…

      5. We’ll see how much sponsorship Simona can raise.. she has one backer who has helped her get to Indycar and the link with Sauber so far (Clean Energy). At Sauber… it’s best 2 from 5 sponsored drivers for 2015.

      6. Also, on ability.. check Horner’s racing stats in say F3000 and Simona’s in say Indycar or Atlantics.. then define ‘good enough’.. I’m sure that Simona could compete with Chilton, Ericsson, Gutierrez at least for example, and they are currently ‘good enough’ to compete. Susie would only be a second off the pace, from testing times, and Chilton is sometimes that far off Bianchi.

        1. I hesitate to add that with the right training and enough years of preparation (10+), I believe that I could possibly get to a similar point, i.e. just a little bit off the pace, but good enough to compete.

        2. So, in that respect, someone like Chilton flies the flag for the rest of us.

    9. Gideon Hadi (@)
      3rd July 2014, 5:28

      good job Ricciardo, I just hope FIA change their mind

    10. McLaren should start thinking about 2015. Get all the info they could from Mecedes and help Honda on developing their PU and direct the funds to 2015 car development program. It’s not going to get much better in 2014 guys.

      1. That’s probably what they are doing… but really they should try and secure 4th in the WCC as well, as it’s not that far ahead.

    11. That motorsport article really is a horrible read. Not for how its written, but for the horror of on the one hand having Todt state that HE is holding the keys, and according to him, better ones than when started, but on the other side this part

      Todt deflects most of Mark’s questions back to the limitations of governance, about what he can achieve within the remit of an elected politician. You’ll draw your own conclusions from the interview, but it’s a fascinating – if frustrating – article to read.

      1. Yeah, I agree. That ‘limitations of governance’ phrase is one only outsiders who understands public choice theory say. Those involved just have to get on with it and try to do their best that very peculiar system, i. e. lobby, lobby and lobby for more power and influence.

        Max Mosley clearly understood this and was just able to have the influence to at least push the energy recovery approach through to F1.

        Todt is – sadly, I must say, as a Ferrari fan who holds his reign dear at the Scuderia – nothing more than the puppet of Bernie and the big money teams nowadays.

        1. To be honest, I think that it more the case that Todt wishes for the accolades and praise of the role of FIA President, but cares not for the responsibilities that the role entails.

          The very fact that he uses the phrase “The FIA is just a regulator” to absolve the FIA of taking action on the running of F1 seems bizarre – that the very mechanism that should enable him to take action is being cited as the reason why he cannot take action.

    12. DR: “It’s a shame I’ve come in to the team now when we’re not dominating, but at the same time we’ve still been able to get good results.”

      Meh, if he joined the team in 2013, Vettel would have trashed him. I think nobody could have challenged Vettel after 4 years of adaptation to the double diffuser.

      Something has been quite remarkable until now: no crashes at the starts this year. We often criticise pay drivers but we’re seeing a lot less crashes due to driver errors than 10 years ago, this leaves me wondering if today’s grid is better than that of ten years ago.

      1. Kind of puts away the argument for those against standing restarts that they will be dangerous and a crashfest. I doubt today’s grid is better than that of ten years ago, and let’s not forget Grosjean and his behavior several times during race starts a few years ago. I just wonder if, with the luxury of DRS, and the concept that F1 is more of an endurance event than a sprint than it has ever been, means that drivers can hear the words ‘you don’t win the race in the first corner’ and can actually believe that now. When F1 was a sprint, and certainly at Monaco and several other tracks in the ‘procession era’, you DO and did win by winning the first corner, generally.

    13. It makes me wonder why we keep saying ‘ask the fans’ when they indeed ask the drivers and completely ignore whatever they say. We could have this poll saying like 90% dislike a stupid rule for example about something lidiotic as double points and the FIA would still not listen. Luckily we don’t got that going eh…

    14. I think the voice of the drivers should not be ignored every time FIA & Co change the rules. Yes, drivers are not the ones running the sport and paying the bills but they are the loudest voice of F1, fans listen to them more than they listen to Bernie, team principals, owners, sponsors or journalists. If drivers regularly condemn F1 rules, it feels a bit awkward as they are the ones, who should promote the sport, which is why they should at least be listened to before new “fun stuff” gets approved.

    15. I still believe Ferrari would not have lasted in CART and would have come back to F1 within years of going to the States.

      First of all, look at Ferrari’s current market. Mainly North America and the Middle East. Has CART/Indycar gone anywhere near the middle east? No, it’s a domestic championship with a little history in Australia and Canada. The car business would have suffered compared to where they are now, as I don’t think Abu Dhabi is planning on building any Penske or Andretti Green themeparks any time soon. Not to mention, Ferrari wouldn’t have had the political power they had in F1 and would have likely been continuing their late 80s performance in CART, some wins, but not able to win championships. Then of course, there’s the IRL/CART split which allowed NASCAR to overtake both as the leading form of motorsport in the US. My final point being that they, in either category, probably would have been either told they need to buy the regulated chassis, or be the only supplier, which I don’t think the US organizers would have liked very much (as Ferrari’s brand awareness leads to a lot of people knowing them to be Italian and proud, where Lola, Reynard and Dallara are a bit more anonymous).

      Who knows, maybe it would have allowed Ferrari to rejoin endurance racing, but frankly, I’m glad they stayed in F1. I don’t consider the car to be a blind threat either, because Ferrari at the time were not the financial powerhouse they are today and even today wouldn’t develop a car for a series they’re not going to race in to threaten someone. There would have been at least 3 GPWC/FOTA-breakaway cars built since 2000 in that case.

    16. Gideon Hadi (@)
      3rd July 2014, 10:35

      Standing starts is pointless because it will make races much more complicated and less interesting, it also quite demanding

    17. Gideon Hadi (@)
      3rd July 2014, 10:36

      Standing starts is pointless because it will make races much more complicated and less interesting, it also quite demanding, so i think FIA made wrong decision

    18. Standing starts are in and I’m out. Thats it, i can’t be a fanstic of such a blindly arrogant and foolish enterprise anymore.

      To all who miss proper racing try to watch the British Superbikes coverage from Knockhill last weekend. Superb track, battles from lights to flag right through field, female racers in the mix and a real palpable sense of risk/danger.

      I give up in f1, they’re a bunch of tarts!

      1. Bye then!

    19. The thing is, the actual cost to each team for designing and building an F1 car, and having it ready for the start of the season, is broadly similar for everyone. The competitiveness of that car is determined by a number of other factors – the quality of the design team, the depth of technical partnerships, and so on. What really differentiates the haves from the have nots, is how much money they then invest in developing that car throughout the season. The top teams will have gone through several different iterations of their cars before they even arrive at the first race, while others may have to keep the car broadly the same with just minor changes to suit the particular demands of any given track. If you really want to address costs, then this is the area to look at – either by making it impossible to develop the cars at the pace they do currently, or by creating a set of rules which would make it impossible to make any real gains by doing so.

      You could have, for instance, a system of ‘development tokens’ which can be spent throughout the season on different things, but must be used wisely. So each new part for the car costs a token. If you were only able to redesign your front wing, for instance, twice through the season, then this would make it impossible to spend the sort of money teams spend on creating hundreds of different designs. Or restrict the teams to a number of specific configurations of the car which must be homologated by a certain date. Say a high, low, and medium downforce package.

      The argument against this of course is that it could effectively lock in any advantage a team has at the start of the season, making it impossible for the rest to catch up. If you have the fastest car at the first race, then chances are you’ll still have the fastest at the last race. This is a possibility. Though it does tend to be the case under the current rules anyway since those with the biggest development budgets tend also to be the ones who roll out the best cars at the start of the season. One way to combat this, would be to keep the rules as stable as possible for periods of time. If you have effectively the same rules for five years, then the teams will all soon end up with competitive solutions to the problem. As it stands at the moment, even through periods of ‘stability’ there are still major rules tweaks every year which force the teams to completely rethink their aero concepts. Which of course compounds the problem of initial costs since every year the teams must go back to the drawing board.

      Of course, part of what makes F1 F1 is the technology, so you’d never want to end up in a situation where you’re racing cars which aren’t at the cutting edge. I would counter this by opening up the engine regulations. Part of the current concept which I would expand upon, is the creation of an energy formula. There are restrictions on how much fuel can be used, and how much energy can be used from electrical systems. This is a great idea, but why then force everyone to use more or less identical engines? It stops it being about innovation. Why not allow engine manufacturers to build whatever they want, so long as they’re restricted by the amount of energy they can use over a lap? It opens up avenues of creativity, which means that when money is spent on development, it’s spent on big, innovative concepts, instead of fettling the minutiae which make up the tiny differences between engines all designed to exactly the same spec. If Renault want to create an inline 4, then why not let them? Someone wants a V8, go ahead. Get manufacturers excited about the possibility of expressing something about their own personal brand and technology rather than being overly prescriptive. No grand maestro wants to be forced to paint by numbers.

      Of course, another big issue is the current financial and governance structure of the sport, all of which seems designed to put both money and power towards the teams at the front, while leaving the rest to fend for themselves. If I could wave a magic wand, I would get rid of the concept of an independent commercial rights holder; put the commercial power back with the teams and the FIA. Introduce flat hosting fees which are the same for every venue, and give every team an equal share of the commercial rights, so every team gets the same slice of the pie. And take all power of governance away from the teams; have the sport run entirely by the FIA. Teams are fundamentally selfish outfits who are incapable of working collectively for the good of others. That’s in their nature. No teams should be able to dictate how rules are shaped. They should be handed the list of rules by the FIA and if they like them, then sign up, and if they don’t, they can go elsewhere. With autonomy over their own commercial interests teams are then empowered to generate their own money, and with a truly equitable financial structure, success is awarded equally no matter who achieves it.

      But sadly I don’t have a magic wand. Commercial rights are like a ring of power – once forged they’re guarded jealously and wielded selfishly, and are almost impossible to destroy.

    20. The only made-up sporting rule that could possibly surpass the “standing re-start” in absurdity, stupidity was the Fifa’s “Golden Goal” rule. The FiA is constantly trying to answer questions that nobody asked and evading legitimate ones. I hope that GPDA takes a serious action and nip this spurious and ludicrous idea in the bud.

    21. Bye then!

    Comments are closed.