There's a new standard ECU in prep for 2014, but both McLaren and the FIA have said it isn't that. My money is on someone not playing ball with a contract.
Chinese Grand Prix 2013, Shanghai - Race 3/19
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
There's a new standard ECU in prep for 2014, but both McLaren and the FIA have said it isn't that. My money is on someone not playing ball with a contract.
Soldato
It will be Ron then holding the FIA to ransom with it or something.
Good results for the most part, shows that Redbull can be beaten!
Permabanned
That new pit lane system seemed to confuse Ferrari or at least Alonso.
Much prefer the highlights now so I don't have to listen to that Susie Perry presenter.
Much prefer the highlights now so I don't have to listen to that Susie Perry presenter.
Soldato
Vettel for Toro Rosso at Monza in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Italian_Grand_Prix
Soldato
In the early days? As in during the 50s/60s/70s etc? Or in the 90s/00s?
Minardi/Sauber/Prost/Force India/Spyker/Red Bull/Scuderia Italia/Toro Rosso are the teams Ferrari have supplied engines to. Sauber named them 'Petronas' and Prost 'Acer' for their respective team title sponsors. Red Bull used Ferrari engines in 2006 but didn't win a GP using Ferrari engines.
I always thought that Ferrari never wanted to supply top teams with their engines; they wouldn't want to get beaten by a team using their own engines against them. My interpretation of Ferrari supplying engines was to supply to lower teams to get them guaranteed votes for/against F1 changes and to make sure the lower teams got out of the way when a Ferrari came lapping!
Minardi/Sauber/Prost/Force India/Spyker/Red Bull/Scuderia Italia/Toro Rosso are the teams Ferrari have supplied engines to. Sauber named them 'Petronas' and Prost 'Acer' for their respective team title sponsors. Red Bull used Ferrari engines in 2006 but didn't win a GP using Ferrari engines.
I always thought that Ferrari never wanted to supply top teams with their engines; they wouldn't want to get beaten by a team using their own engines against them. My interpretation of Ferrari supplying engines was to supply to lower teams to get them guaranteed votes for/against F1 changes and to make sure the lower teams got out of the way when a Ferrari came lapping!
I'm not so sure their primary intent was to align the customer teams with their own wishes when it came to votes but you can be sure that there have been several 'suggestions' that voting with Ferrari on several issues may result in that planned engine price rise being forgotten about or a reduction in the price of engines.
Soldato
I don't think it was a main aim of providing engines but it was certainly a very much appreciated side effect. Isn't the most obvious case of a Ferrari engined team moving over for a Ferrari when at Jerez in 1997 Sauber's Norberto Fontana let Schumacher through but found it hard to see Jacques Villeneueve's Williams to let him through?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_European_Grand_Prix#Collusion_allegations
True. But if Ferrari were voting for something rather than against something a veto would be useless and having a couple of teams voting with them would be.But Ferrari had the right to veto in any vote didn't they
Soldato
Not so much well done to JB though. He just drove it home, he didn't have to fight, push or overtake many people at all (if anyone). Happy for the guy, but I don't see that he did anything special.
Soldato
Hi, well when you are in a uncompetitive car with the ones around you what would you expect? He did well, better than his team mate and managed a finishing place well above the level at which the car's performance is at which is what the team asked him to do. As they are still learning about the car there is no point in going off racing someone. McLaren need to understand what is happening with the car thus every race at the moment is a testing situation.
Last edited:
To finish one place behind the lead RedBull is a decent result for any team, especially one as currently un-competitive as McLaren are (however good or bad RBR are at that particular race).
Soldato
But still, when talking about the individual driver JB (as we are) not really anything blinding compared to what we know he can be capable of. He drove the car for some long hauls and brought it home. More of a working strategy and some good maintenance. I would expect pretty much any other driver on the grid to be able to achieve the same result.
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
Without the gamble on the mediums, Button would have been midfield at best. I wouldn't call it a good drive, considering he didn't set a (competitive) Q3 time.
Soldato
It wasn't a good drive, Even Button seemed unenthusiastic after the race.
Caporegime
I gotta say this race mostly showed why I think I'll be following MotoGP more closely. It just felt flat and fake. DRS played too large a role, and while I'm generally a fan of strategy in F1, the joke soft tyre just made it absurd. Good race by Alonso, with due credit to Lewis and Kimi. I'm glad Vettel's ugly strategy didn't pan out even if made for an exciting finish.
I think Webber/Red Bull should be penalised for carrying on with that tyre in that state; it was almost very, very nasty.
I think Webber/Red Bull should be penalised for carrying on with that tyre in that state; it was almost very, very nasty.