This. F1's primary function is not to uphold corinthian sporting ideals, nor is it to entertain for that matter. It's primary function is to decide the F1 World Drivers' Championship and the F1 World Constructors Championship.
It costs a massive amount of money so it needs the audiences and the sponsors, therefore entertainment is required as part of the package - a means to an end if you will. As an aside, I wonder what the marketing value of the race and the aftermath was for Red Bull? Anyway, this massive investment needs to be protected by the teams and throwing 43 points into the gravel makes no sense on any level.
Vettel did what he did because he can, and he is utterly ruthless. You can't really blame him for that as there is no crime if there is no punishment and he knows that. This really lies with the Red Bull management. Ross Brawn was very clear (and explanatory) in his messages to Rosberg and if he had ignored it then there's no question in my mind that Sam Bird would be driving in China.
It's the way F1 has always been. See Peter Collins giving up a championship winning position (and car) for Fangio in 56.
Why do you watch something that bores you?
John Watson thinks that if RBR are to have any authority over Vettel for this and the coming seasons then he needs to be taken down a peg or two. The only sanction available is to suspend him from the next race.
Can't see it happening, but if they don't then they might as well send Vettel to the Team Principal's Press Conference in China instead of Horner.
Can't see it happening, but if they don't then they might as well send Vettel to the Team Principal's Press Conference in China instead of Horner.
He remained in 2nd place until the end of the lap. Performance wise it was a risk worth taking as far as Alonso was concerned because he could only feel the damage, not see it. Team should have called him in.
He was hoping it would hang on for 3 or 4 laps so he could get slicks at the same time. It was a risk that didn't work out. There is a difference between knocking a couple of planes off the wing or an end fence and breaking the pillars. Team should have overruled with safety in mind in that instance as Alonso can't see the wing so could know how bad it was.
If it had been reversed then it would be the same from this (the uninformed) side of the fence. One driver is driving to a pace and the other ignores it. If it was a fair fight then that's fine, but it wasn't.
If Webber had blindsided Vettel then Buemi would be sitting in the No 2 RB come Shanghai...
The problem is that there aren't any sanctions to impose. What will they do - fine him, suspend him, give hm a telling off? The first and last mean nothing whilst they can't suspend him. That means they can't do anything so should race without orders. If they race without orders however, it should apply to both.
I guess so - that preference might change when they have it for 30 seconds per lap next year.
Seems odd that Marussia have the KERS button on the right of the wheel, same as the upshifts. Would have thought it would be easier on the left.
Tried it driving home from work. Found it much easier to upshift whilst changing the volume control (on the left in my car) compared to moving through radio stations (on the right)
Tried it driving home from work. Found it much easier to upshift whilst changing the volume control (on the left in my car) compared to moving through radio stations (on the right)
First sight of the hard tyres at this race. Seems like the opinion was that the graining was made worse by the cooler temps in Australia. I don't think we'll see quite the same problems that we had last week.
My only hope is that they don't stop the race just because it gets a bit wet. Race Control have become very risk averse in recent years.
My only hope is that they don't stop the race just because it gets a bit wet. Race Control have become very risk averse in recent years.
Does seem to be that McLaren have made a mistake, given the timing of the changes in regulations. Maybe if they had more flexibility in testing they could have back-to-backed last year's car with this one; or even like in the good old days, started with last year's car and had the new one pounding round Silverstone in private testing until it worked. Or not (MP4-18).
Kobayashi signed up for WEC driving a 458.
Overtaking on A or B roads is a much bigger issue. Not done it LHD, but RHD on the continent is a nightmare if you're stuck behind a lorry or somesuch.
Can't wait to see who is quick when they finally show their hand in Q3 next week. Even better is that Melbourne is not a particularly representative track, so the guessing game will carry on into the early season.
Hopefully we'll get some idea of who is where over the weekend as everyone should have roughly Melbourne spec cars and a bit of dry weather. Lots of delving into race sim lap times over the next couple of days.
Or customer cars. Like the old days.
Michael is doing what pleases him, and why shouldn't he? He has nothing to prove to anyone and hasn't since around 2001.
Met him a few weeks ago. Total gentlemen - was quite happy to spend a few minutes chatting and seemed genuinely pleased that someone under 50 knew who he was.
This.
Perhaps honourable mentions for Perez and Maldonado for their sporadic showings.
It's pretty much a wash to compare all those drivers, so why not take the one that has the cash?
Seems that flags take precedence over lights, so no illegal move. Nothing official yet, but that is what FIA sources seems to be saying.
Then it is neither lucky or unlucky - it is a different event and a different result as it is not exactly the same scenario.
If two cars had collided in exactly the same way under exactly the same conditions then exactly the same result would have occurred, regardless of the person involved - 100% probability. What happened could not have happened any other way - if events had occurred differently then you would see a different result.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG