| By Nigel Roebuck | |
| Special Contributor |
Franz Tost, it must be said, has never been the most temperate fellow in the Formula 1 paddock. It may be remembered that last autumn, for example, he came forth with a diatribe about the penalties these days meted out to drivers adjudged by the stewards to have transgressed, sometimes - although not always - for venturing beyond track limits, and sometimes - although not always - for causing an accident involving others. "If a driver touches another driver, he gets a penalty," Tost said, "and I don't think these things should go to the stewards, and result in penalties. We need interesting races, and if they crash into each other, they crash into each other - this is what people want to see. F1 is also entertainment, and currently we take too much care about all these issues - we should get rid of these penalties and nonsense..." Well, it's a point of view, and one with which, up to a point, I am in agreement. Last year I thought it ridiculous, for example, that Nico Rosberg was handed a 10-second penalty for a touch with Kimi Raikkonen while passing the Ferrari driver at Sepang, having already been penalised – five seconds this time – for a similar move on Max Verstappen at Hockenheim. This is not, after all, historic racing at Laguna Seca or whatever, but Formula 1 racing, where any hint of 'After you, Claude' will lead you swiftly to the exit door. This is not to suggest that I had any time for the sort of tactics employed, and routinely excused, by such as Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher, but of late the balance has swung too far the other way, so that even minor skirmishes are swiftly followed by retribution from the stewards.
If therefore I have some sympathy for Tost's opinion, I can't go along with his implied suggestion that on the race track anything goes. Hard but fair is what I expect of a Formula 1 driver. On a different tack, Tost came out recently with another of his observations, and this one really was off the wall. Like most of us, the good Franz has started to find wearisome the seemingly endless domination by Mercedes, which - apart from anything else - he thinks bad for business. "Friends have said to me, 'I don't watch Formula 1 any more because there are the two Mercedes at the front, and if they don't crash on the first lap the race is gone'. That is absolutely wrong - we need to come up with parity between the different teams." It is undeniable that the shunt between Rosberg and Hamilton at Barcelona last year made for an unusually exciting grand prix, not least because suddenly neither Nico nor Lewis could win, and we'd almost forgotten what that was like. Verstappen, making his debut for Red Bull, narrowly held off Raikkonen, and in the paddock afterwards folk were almost light-headed in their delight.
In Malaysia Red Bull won again, this time at the hand of Daniel Ricciardo, but only because Rosberg was spun around by Sebastian Vettel at the first corner, and later - more crucially - because Hamilton's engine let go. With Ferrari once again falling short in 2016, only the two Red Bull victories intruded on a third consecutive Mercedes parade, and if this were a sore disappointment to fans in search of close racing and unpredictability, it seems to have been rather more than that to Herr Tost. Hence his proposal - which I still struggle to believe - that development of the Mercedes team's engine should be frozen until Renault, Ferrari and Honda find ways to match it. Apart from the immediate thought that this could take a while, can anyone remember - in a sport where we're not short of them - a more asinine suggestion? 'You've had a good run, Dr Zetsche, dominating Formula 1 for the last 60 races or so, and, yes, we know that's because Mercedes has made a much better job of these hybrid engines than anyone else, but...how would you feel about sitting on your hands for a year or two until the others have caught up? Shouldn't be too difficult to sell that to the board - after all, you're only in this for the love of racing, aren't you? I mean, it's not as though you're hoping that Mercedes superiority and success will help you sell road cars...' Can Tost please explain quite why any manufacturer would wish to compete in Formula 1 - or, come to that, any category of motor racing - on the basis that it was not allowed to build a more powerful engine than its rivals?
Car companies do not go racing for reasons of altruism, as Bernie Ecclestone many times pointed out: they are in it while it suits their purpose, and their purpose is to win, for only then can exorbitant budgets be justified in the long term. Ferrari, you could argue, is a special case (although with Sergio Marchionne at the helm, perhaps not as gilt-edged as formerly), but Renault and Honda, with directors to satisfy, positively need to succeed, to get at least to parity with Mercedes – and to be seen to do it though their own expertise, rather than by having their supreme rival hobbled. Lest we forget, Toro Rosso is not a Mercedes customer. Were it so, one somewhat doubts that Tost would have come forth with his barmy suggestion. 'Parity' has never been a right in Formula 1, but instead something – plus a little bit more – to be aimed and fought for, and unless or until other teams find a way to get on terms with them, Mercedes will continue to hold sway. Let them have 'spec formula' elsewhere in the world if they want them. Grand prix racing has always been about excellence, and that must never be allowed to change. Knowing Ross Brawn, thankfully I rather suspect that he feels the same way.
|
|
| By Nigel Roebuck | |
| Special Contributor |
Franz Tost, it must be said, has never been the most temperate fellow in the Formula 1 paddock. It may be remembered that last autumn, for example, he came forth with a diatribe about the penalties these days meted out to drivers adjudged by the stewards to have transgressed, sometimes - although not always - for venturing beyond track limits, and sometimes - although not always - for causing an accident involving others. "If a driver touches another driver, he gets a penalty," Tost said, "and I don't think these things should go to the stewards, and result in penalties. We need interesting races, and if they crash into each other, they crash into each other - this is what people want to see. F1 is also entertainment, and currently we take too much care about all these issues - we should get rid of these penalties and nonsense..." Well, it's a point of view, and one with which, up to a point, I am in agreement. Last year I thought it ridiculous, for example, that Nico Rosberg was handed a 10-second penalty for a touch with Kimi Raikkonen while passing the Ferrari driver at Sepang, having already been penalised – five seconds this time – for a similar move on Max Verstappen at Hockenheim. This is not, after all, historic racing at Laguna Seca or whatever, but Formula 1 racing, where any hint of 'After you, Claude' will lead you swiftly to the exit door. This is not to suggest that I had any time for the sort of tactics employed, and routinely excused, by such as Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher, but of late the balance has swung too far the other way, so that even minor skirmishes are swiftly followed by retribution from the stewards.
If therefore I have some sympathy for Tost's opinion, I can't go along with his implied suggestion that on the race track anything goes. Hard but fair is what I expect of a Formula 1 driver. On a different tack, Tost came out recently with another of his observations, and this one really was off the wall. Like most of us, the good Franz has started to find wearisome the seemingly endless domination by Mercedes, which - apart from anything else - he thinks bad for business. "Friends have said to me, 'I don't watch Formula 1 any more because there are the two Mercedes at the front, and if they don't crash on the first lap the race is gone'. That is absolutely wrong - we need to come up with parity between the different teams." It is undeniable that the shunt between Rosberg and Hamilton at Barcelona last year made for an unusually exciting grand prix, not least because suddenly neither Nico nor Lewis could win, and we'd almost forgotten what that was like. Verstappen, making his debut for Red Bull, narrowly held off Raikkonen, and in the paddock afterwards folk were almost light-headed in their delight.
In Malaysia Red Bull won again, this time at the hand of Daniel Ricciardo, but only because Rosberg was spun around by Sebastian Vettel at the first corner, and later - more crucially - because Hamilton's engine let go. With Ferrari once again falling short in 2016, only the two Red Bull victories intruded on a third consecutive Mercedes parade, and if this were a sore disappointment to fans in search of close racing and unpredictability, it seems to have been rather more than that to Herr Tost. Hence his proposal - which I still struggle to believe - that development of the Mercedes team's engine should be frozen until Renault, Ferrari and Honda find ways to match it. Apart from the immediate thought that this could take a while, can anyone remember - in a sport where we're not short of them - a more asinine suggestion? 'You've had a good run, Dr Zetsche, dominating Formula 1 for the last 60 races or so, and, yes, we know that's because Mercedes has made a much better job of these hybrid engines than anyone else, but...how would you feel about sitting on your hands for a year or two until the others have caught up? Shouldn't be too difficult to sell that to the board - after all, you're only in this for the love of racing, aren't you? I mean, it's not as though you're hoping that Mercedes superiority and success will help you sell road cars...' Can Tost please explain quite why any manufacturer would wish to compete in Formula 1 - or, come to that, any category of motor racing - on the basis that it was not allowed to build a more powerful engine than its rivals?
Car companies do not go racing for reasons of altruism, as Bernie Ecclestone many times pointed out: they are in it while it suits their purpose, and their purpose is to win, for only then can exorbitant budgets be justified in the long term. Ferrari, you could argue, is a special case (although with Sergio Marchionne at the helm, perhaps not as gilt-edged as formerly), but Renault and Honda, with directors to satisfy, positively need to succeed, to get at least to parity with Mercedes – and to be seen to do it though their own expertise, rather than by having their supreme rival hobbled. Lest we forget, Toro Rosso is not a Mercedes customer. Were it so, one somewhat doubts that Tost would have come forth with his barmy suggestion. 'Parity' has never been a right in Formula 1, but instead something – plus a little bit more – to be aimed and fought for, and unless or until other teams find a way to get on terms with them, Mercedes will continue to hold sway. Let them have 'spec formula' elsewhere in the world if they want them. Grand prix racing has always been about excellence, and that must never be allowed to change. Knowing Ross Brawn, thankfully I rather suspect that he feels the same way.
|
|
