2014 Pre-season and In-season Testing Thread

[good_Ralf]

I don't think I have seen a team have such a testing nightmare that Red Bull have had since Mclarens 2004 Mp4-19.
And we all know how that turned out...

Then they produced a B-spec car that was very competitive. Could RBR have the resources to do the same thing and also make it work?

[Ataxia]

I don't think I have seen a team have such a testing nightmare that Red Bull have had since Mclarens 2004 Mp4-19.
And we all know how that turned out...

Then they produced a B-spec car that was very competitive. Could RBR have the resources to do the same thing and also make it work?

They could if they wanted, but the issue's not wholly with them. You can do as much with the car as you want, but if the engine's a pile of junk then it's going nowhere.

[eytl]

I don't think I have seen a team have such a testing nightmare that Red Bull have had since Mclarens 2004 Mp4-19.
And we all know how that turned out...

Do you mean the MP4-19 or the ultimately unraced MP4-18?

You can do as much with the car as you want, but if the engine's a pile of junk then it's going nowhere.

Some might disagree with me, but I'm loving the direction this season is heading in. Rather than having each car within 2-3s of each other and the key differentiating factor being invisible aero gains that eke out an extra 0.1-0.2s of performance, I don't mind a bigger field spread (with also bigger potential for gains from teams behind) and also the massive spectre of unreliability, and the fact that it's a mechanical component (ie the engine, as opposed to an aerodynamic component) which is the deciding factor. Back to the "good ol' days"!

[rachel1990]

I don't think I have seen a team have such a testing nightmare that Red Bull have had since Mclarens 2004 Mp4-19.
And we all know how that turned out...

Do you mean the MP4-19 or the ultimately unraced MP4-18?

both actually looking back.

[Alextrax52]

I don't think I have seen a team have such a testing nightmare that Red Bull have had since Mclarens 2004 Mp4-19.
And we all know how that turned out...

Do you mean the MP4-19 or the ultimately unraced MP4-18?

both actually looking back.

I actually felt sorry for Mclaren during 2004 as Kimi looked good for a podium at Nurburgring until the engine blew and Hockenheim until the rear wing broke off. Whenever a Mclaren retired in 2004 I thought "Oh dear it's happened again"

[More_Blue_Flags]

Do you see Bottas moving on to bigger and better things - or Massa getting the boot from Williams?

Massa could retire by 2016. Anyway Williams are a yo-yo team up and down at the moment.

Massa retiring after 2 years at Williams makes sense, which I would have realised if I had not read the original post as 2015 (Smacks palm on forehead). That's what I get for surreptitiously reading the forum on my phone when I was supposed to be helping my daughter with her homework.

Some might disagree with me, but I'm loving the direction this season is heading in. Rather than having each car within 2-3s of each other and the key differentiating factor being invisible aero gains that eke out an extra 0.1-0.2s of performance, I don't mind a bigger field spread (with also bigger potential for gains from teams behind) and also the massive spectre of unreliability, and the fact that it's a mechanical component (ie the engine, as opposed to an aerodynamic component) which is the deciding factor. Back to the "good ol' days"!

Apart from the double points for Abu Dhabi fiasco, I tend to agree (I am fairly neutral on most of the other rule changes, and don't even care too much about ugly noses). As long as the Renaults get a bit more competitive throughout the season, the prospect of different combinations of technical solutions, driving styles and team tactics being potentially successful on any given day is pretty exciting - especially as potential unreliability across the board might open up a few opportunities for backmarkers that didn't exist over the last few years.

[Zetec]

Well the RedBull reminds me right now of the MP4-18, a car designed by Newey that was never actually raced and had a severe problem cooling the engine down (due to the radical design; exactly how Newey discribed the new RedBull).
So, 10 years later the same nightmare for Newey?

Anyway, I have a felling that aerowise the cars would be in the same pecking-order as last season. It's obviously the engine, who will dictate the season.

[wsrgo]

I was having a bit of an argument with my brother regarding this particular thing yesterday. He was saying that when the new rules were introduced, he was a fan of them, but now, after the completion of 2/3rds of pre-season testing, he fears that the new rules have served to increase the gulf between teams. Mercedes seem in a lonely pedestal at the moment, and although I know it's only testing, the early signs are that they will have a 2004-like Ferrari season. McLaren, Williams and maybe Ferrari might be able to challenge them occasionally as the season goes on, but Merc seem pretty bulletproof at the moment. The car's handling well (unlike the Ferrari), has had fewer gremlins (Renault) and have been able to lap at times other teams can dream of doing on compounds one grade harder than the ones they've used.
Has the FIA shot itself in the foot with the overhauling of new regs? Will Merc run away with 2014? Thoughts?

[UncreativeUsername37]

I was having a bit of an argument with my brother regarding this particular thing yesterday. He was saying that when the new rules were introduced, he was a fan of them, but now, after the completion of 2/3rds of pre-season testing, he fears that the new rules have served to increase the gulf between teams. Mercedes seem in a lonely pedestal at the moment, and although I know it's only testing, the early signs are that they will have a 2004-like Ferrari season. McLaren, Williams and maybe Ferrari might be able to challenge them occasionally as the season goes on, but Merc seem pretty bulletproof at the moment. The car's handling well (unlike the Ferrari), has had fewer gremlins (Renault) and have been able to lap at times other teams can dream of doing on compounds one grade harder than the ones they've used.
Has the FIA shot itself in the foot with the overhauling of new regs? Will Merc run away with 2014? Thoughts?

As you say, I'd start panicking over dominance a few races into the season, not when testing isn't even over. And even if Mercedes do dominate, Hamilton and Rosberg would probably make an interesting title battle. So mostly too early to have too strong thoughts for me. Though I still like the new regulations; like etyl said, it's like the good ol' days!

[mario]

I was having a bit of an argument with my brother regarding this particular thing yesterday. He was saying that when the new rules were introduced, he was a fan of them, but now, after the completion of 2/3rds of pre-season testing, he fears that the new rules have served to increase the gulf between teams. Mercedes seem in a lonely pedestal at the moment, and although I know it's only testing, the early signs are that they will have a 2004-like Ferrari season. McLaren, Williams and maybe Ferrari might be able to challenge them occasionally as the season goes on, but Merc seem pretty bulletproof at the moment. The car's handling well (unlike the Ferrari), has had fewer gremlins (Renault) and have been able to lap at times other teams can dream of doing on compounds one grade harder than the ones they've used.
Has the FIA shot itself in the foot with the overhauling of new regs? Will Merc run away with 2014? Thoughts?

As you say, I'd start panicking over dominance a few races into the season, not when testing isn't even over. And even if Mercedes do dominate, Hamilton and Rosberg would probably make an interesting title battle. So mostly too early to have too strong thoughts for me. Though I still like the new regulations; like etyl said, it's like the good ol' days!

Exactly - as things stand, very few teams are running with the Melbourne specification bodywork (several teams, including the heavy hitters like McLaren and Ferrari, are bringing in upgrade packages for the final test), and it is worth noting that Rosberg has pointed out that he suspects most of the other teams have not yet tried a qualifying type run. Equally, McLaren and Ferrari have had pretty solid reliability too, and whilst the F14T does seem to be a little difficult to drive at the moment (as evidenced by Kimi's heavy crash on the last day of testing), we will have to see what their upgrade package can do.
There is also the question of how Mercedes will cope with the organisational challenges of being title favourites - McLaren, Ferrari and Red Bull are quite familiar with the difficulties of winning a title, and it has to be said that Red Bull's recent success has owed a lot to their organisational abilities off the track as much as on it (such as the effortlessly quick pit stops and the fact that they were able to bring in upgrades on a regular basis that worked immediately, whilst Ferrari brought in many more upgraded parts that didn't deliver the expected performance).

Mercedes do seem to be towards the front, but I wouldn't necessarily be confident in saying that they are the outright favourites just yet - and as others have pointed out, there is still the interesting question of how Hamilton and Rosberg may react if they are the two drivers who are the primary contenders for the title this season. It's an odd situation because they are relatively close friends, having known each other since karting days, so it's not clear how they would react if they were suddenly pitched against each other (especially since, most of the time in 2013, they didn't encounter each other that frequently on track).

[FullMetalJack]

I actually felt sorry for Mclaren during 2004 as Kimi looked good for a podium at Nurburgring until the engine blew and Hockenheim until the rear wing broke off. Whenever a Mclaren retired in 2004 I thought "Oh dear it's happened again"

I would have, but my beloved Jordan team were much worse. Plus the prospect of Sauber beating them that year was quite intriguing.

[SgtPepper]

Mercedes do seem to be towards the front, but I wouldn't necessarily be confident in saying that they are the outright favourites just yet - and as others have pointed out, there is still the interesting question of how Hamilton and Rosberg may react if they are the two drivers who are the primary contenders for the title this season. It's an odd situation because they are relatively close friends, having known each other since karting days, so it's not clear how they would react if they were suddenly pitched against each other (especially since, most of the time in 2013, they didn't encounter each other that frequently on track).

It will be interesting to see how this is handled without the strong set of hands that was Ross Brawn. As an aside to this issue though, did anyone else notice how frequently media pundits mentioned their friendship during the 2013 coverage? Sometimes it gaves me the queer sense they were setting it up for increased drama if this sort of situation were to arise further down the line. I know that they're the media, and it's literally they're job, but I still felt it was just slightly sinister.

[mario]

Mercedes do seem to be towards the front, but I wouldn't necessarily be confident in saying that they are the outright favourites just yet - and as others have pointed out, there is still the interesting question of how Hamilton and Rosberg may react if they are the two drivers who are the primary contenders for the title this season. It's an odd situation because they are relatively close friends, having known each other since karting days, so it's not clear how they would react if they were suddenly pitched against each other (especially since, most of the time in 2013, they didn't encounter each other that frequently on track).

It will be interesting to see how this is handled without the strong set of hands that was Ross Brawn. As an aside to this issue though, did anyone else notice how frequently media pundits mentioned their friendship during the 2013 coverage? Sometimes it gaves me the queer sense they were setting it up for increased drama if this sort of situation were to arise further down the line. I know that they're the media, and it's literally they're job, but I still felt it was just slightly sinister.

It was brought up a number of times, but it could be for other reasons - it could equally be that the comments were made as an implicit contrast against the rather less amicable situation at Red Bull (and, to a lesser extent, at a few other teams too) whenever there were signs that the relationship between the drivers was deteriorating.

[IceG]

The Red Bull/Toro Roso situation is intruiging.

By swapping Toro Rosso from Ferrari to Renault engines, it means that the two teams succeed or fail together. Perhaps had Toro Rosso stayed with Ferrari they could have been in the embarassing position of being capable of outperforming the senior team. It would also have meant that the advertising publicity purpose of running the teams would not have taken such a hit. And Red Bull might have had a heads up as to what they needed to achieve performance-wise vis-a-vis the Ferrari engine. All in the past now of course.

As an aside, do we really want a championship where 1/3rd of the cars are effectively handicapped and running in another series? To have one team screw up the installation and have to respond is one thing; to have four teams hampered by a bad engine is quite another because it destroys the spectacle and excitement. Given which teams are affected, there is the concern that an engine debacle could see them all leave the sport for one reason or another - then where are we?

[Jocke1]

Most laps Jerez & Bahrain combined:


1. Nico Rosberg ------------- 362
2. Fernando Alonso --------- 334
3. Kevin Magnussen -------- 289
4. Lewis Hamilton ---------- 262
5. Jenson Button ----------- 252
6. Valtteri Bottas ---------- 213
7. Esteban Gutierrez ------ 211
8. Kimi Raikkonen --------- 204
9. Felipe Massa ------------ 198
10. Adrian Sutil ------------ 192
11. Nico Hulkenberg ------ 154
12. Kamui Kobayashi ------ 137
13. Sergio Perez ----------- 124
14. Jean-Eric Vergne ------ 122
15. Marcus Ericsson ------- 114
16. Felipe Nasr -------------- 87
17. Pastor Maldonado ------ 85
18. Sebastian Vettel ------- 84
19. Daniel Juncadella ------ 81
20. Robin Frijns ------------ 78
21. Daniil Kvyat ------------ 66
22. Daniel Ricciardo ------- 53
23. Jules Bianchi ---------- 33
24. Romain Grosjean ----- 26
25. Max Chilton ----------- 26

[UncreativeUsername37]

As an aside, do we really want a championship where 1/3rd of the cars are effectively handicapped and running in another series? To have one team screw up the installation and have to respond is one thing; to have four teams hampered by a bad engine is quite another because it destroys the spectacle and excitement. Given which teams are affected, there is the concern that an engine debacle could see them all leave the sport for one reason or another - then where are we?

It's F1, a minimum of about 80% of the cars are always like that anyway. We've gone through many a time of one team dominating, and teams suddenly dropping in performance, and survived, so I'm not too worried. If they left, of course, that would be another matter.

[andrew2209]

As an aside, do we really want a championship where 1/3rd of the cars are effectively handicapped and running in another series? To have one team screw up the installation and have to respond is one thing; to have four teams hampered by a bad engine is quite another because it destroys the spectacle and excitement. Given which teams are affected, there is the concern that an engine debacle could see them all leave the sport for one reason or another - then where are we?

In my opinion, I think it would be a bit of a shame if Vettel had no hope of defending his title because of a poor engine. It's one thing to have your team design a poor car, but when a third party factor affects your title bid, it's quite another. Also, Caterham use Renault engines, and they've not been quiet about their dissatisfaction with their results in recent years.

[mario]

The Red Bull/Toro Roso situation is intruiging.

By swapping Toro Rosso from Ferrari to Renault engines, it means that the two teams succeed or fail together. Perhaps had Toro Rosso stayed with Ferrari they could have been in the embarassing position of being capable of outperforming the senior team. It would also have meant that the advertising publicity purpose of running the teams would not have taken such a hit. And Red Bull might have had a heads up as to what they needed to achieve performance-wise vis-a-vis the Ferrari engine. All in the past now of course.

As an aside, do we really want a championship where 1/3rd of the cars are effectively handicapped and running in another series? To have one team screw up the installation and have to respond is one thing; to have four teams hampered by a bad engine is quite another because it destroys the spectacle and excitement. Given which teams are affected, there is the concern that an engine debacle could see them all leave the sport for one reason or another - then where are we?

Well, part of the reason for Toro Rosso switching to Renault was to tie the performance of the junior team more closely to that of the parent, not to mention making it cheaper to run the junior team too (because Toro Rosso now uses the same energy recovery systems and transmission of the parent team, rather than bespoke units, that cuts costs for Red Bull Technology and frees up resources that can be used elsewhere).

As for the next question, I guess that there is a bit of a split between two different groups on the Renault situation. On the one hand, we have the group that is concerned about the impact on the Renault engined teams and the overall competitiveness of the sport if, as pointed out earlier, a third of the grid are effectively out of the competition. It's especially worrying for the survival of Caterham and Lotus - Red Bull and Toro Rosso at least have the money to comfortably weather the performance hit, but if Fernandes is disheartened by the performance of the team in 2014 and Lotus tumble down the field, it may well prove to be the final tipping point for those two teams.

On the other hand, there are also those who say, to a certain extent, that Renault's problems are of their own making - they were the fiercest advocate for the current engine format yet, according to Symonds, they have steadily cut back on resources and personnel for their F1 division for several years now, whilst Horner is claiming that the issues with the energy recovery systems is because there hasn't been systematic integration of the energy recovery systems (which he claims were largely left to the teams to develop) and the remainder of the powertrain, which was developed in house by Renault Sport.
Of course, if there is one failing that Red Bull have had recently, it has been in the field of energy recovery systems - Newey has always been rather keen to avoid KERS (not fitting it at all in the past, and then reportedly running a cut down KERS unit to minimise the packaging constrains as much as possible), and it is therefore one area which has been neglected in favour of their aerodynamics division.

Therefore, there are many who think that it is unfair to level the field again given that Mercedes and Ferrari are ahead because they invested in their programs whilst Renault didn't, and that both Renault and Red Bull (for their work on the energy recovery systems) deserve to pay the price for not putting in the effort that their rivals have.

[Divina_Galica]

Could someone clarify about the fixed gear ratios, that the same fixed gear ratio must be ran at all tracks and each teams gets to decide their own ratio? Should we expect to see almost all cars on their rev limits at the Monza straights then?

It is precisely that - the teams have to select, in advance, the gear ratios for the gearbox and are then limited to using those same ratios for every single track, be it Monaco or Monza.

However, the indication is that most teams will probably choose an 8th gear ratio that is really only used for Monza (and, given the long periods spent on full throttle, perhaps Spa), with 7th being used as the final gear for most other tracks. With the relatively wide power band for the new powertrains compared to the old V8 engines (the power band on those engines was tiny - only really between 16,000-18,000rpm - whilst the new powertrains seem to have a usable power band that is two or three times wider), it would appear that the teams can rely on the more flexible power output of the engines to compensate for the restrictions on gearing.
Some drivers have already indicated that they don't really need to drop below third gear through most chicanes and even in some hairpins, such that first and second may only really be used at very slow tracks (Monaco and possibly Hungary). On top of that, there are a few who have wondered if some outfits might be able to fine tune the electrical power output at certain street venues (in the same way that the engine manufacturers could slightly adjust the power output curves of the V8 engines depending on track configuration).

Yes, this does mean that the fixing of gear ratios for the season isn't as damaging as originally assumed. Also, that given the increased torque of the engines when ERS is being used means that they are capapble of spinning up the rears in 3rd, 4th, maybe even 5th, you could see teams going for high ratios for 1st/2nd gears and consequently all the others will be more closely spaced.

If they are into serious fuel saving mode they will also be looking to use 7th/8th at the expense of absolute lap-time if this can be done without risk of being passed. You could imagine a re-run of Monaco 2013 with Nico leading and using only the high gears and horrendously slow lap times but with little risk of being overtaken.

DG

[go_Rubens]

Therefore, there are many who think that it is unfair to level the field again given that Mercedes and Ferrari are ahead because they invested in their programs whilst Renault didn't, and that both Renault and Red Bull (for their work on the energy recovery systems) deserve to pay the price for not putting in the effort that their rivals have.

This sounds very similar to a certain Andrea Moda in 1992. They paid the price for mot putting much of an effort.

Besides, I can agree to that statement. As you related to earlier, Renault continued to cut back on resources and personnel for the F1 power units. Are Renault so confident that they don't need as much personnel and resources to use to create a solution for arguably the biggest season to season change in history? Because if so, they are also overestimating themselves and their own ability. If they could have pulled it off, fine. It would have revolutionized efficiency in executing a plan in Formula 1. But it didn't work. And now they're about 6 days behind on their schedule for testing. In fact, David Croft confirmed Lotus did one lap on full power on Day 4 in Bahrain. Apparently they couldn't really risk going more laps thanks to Renault's issues.

I suppose for this development, Renault deserve to pay the price for not being prepared. Ferrari and Mercedes used the resources and staff they had to their advantage. When Renault cut back on resources and staff and try to build a completely new power unit, it makes them look like a bunch of fools. And it makes me wonder what was going on behind closed doors. Maybe financial issues, but I wouldn't think so.

[watka]

Despite all this talk that we could have a farce where the Renault-engined cars end up competing in effectively a B-championship, I for one find it refreshing to see that we might have a championship decided on mechanical supremacy rather than aerodynamic supremacy. It is more interesting to see a car performing better because of a smart gizmo or an ingenious construction method rather than a small, hidden away, magical flap; not to mention more relevant regarding the standard automobile market.

[rachel1990]

Despite all this talk that we could have a farce where the Renault-engined cars end up competing in effectively a B-championship, I for one find it refreshing to see that we might have a championship decided on mechanical supremacy rather than aerodynamic supremacy. It is more interesting to see a car performing better because of a smart gizmo or an ingenious construction method rather than a small, hidden away, magical flap; not to mention more relevant regarding the standard automobile market.

I have to agree. This is what formula 1 should be about rather than 1 small object deciding a season.

[CoopsII]

Despite all this talk that we could have a farce where the Renault-engined cars end up competing in effectively a B-championship, I for one find it refreshing to see that we might have a championship decided on mechanical supremacy rather than aerodynamic supremacy. It is more interesting to see a car performing better because of a smart gizmo or an ingenious construction method rather than a small, hidden away, magical flap; not to mention more relevant regarding the standard automobile market.

I have to agree. This is what formula 1 should be about rather than 1 small object deciding a season.

I agree too, makes me feel positive. And then I remember all this farcical double points nonsense and I feel a bit annoyed again.

[jackanderton]

My natural pessimism leads me to the following:

-Renault teams take 4 or 5 races to catch up
-Mid-season is competitive
-Red Bull dominate the 2nd half
-Vettel seemingly too far behind but then
-Oh...stupid double points finish
-Vettel wins again

At least that would be an improvement on the awful 2011 and 2013 seasons, but still the same one-fingered result.

[Salamander]

My natural pessimism leads me to the following:

-Renault teams take 4 or 5 races to catch up
-Mid-season is competitive
-Red Bull dominate the 2nd half
-Vettel seemingly too far behind but then
-Oh...stupid double points finish
-Vettel wins again

At least that would be an improvement on the awful 2011 and 2013 seasons, but still the same one-fingered result.

I very much doubt that. Renault's problems are extensive and the design of the Red Bull only exacerbates them. A fix in 4-5 races... I just don't see it happening. Maybe over the mid-season break... but by then it'd be too late for a title charge.

[andrew2209]

My natural pessimism leads me to the following:

-Renault teams take 4 or 5 races to catch up
-Mid-season is competitive
-Red Bull dominate the 2nd half
-Vettel seemingly too far behind but then
-Oh...stupid double points finish
-Vettel wins again

At least that would be an improvement on the awful 2011 and 2013 seasons, but still the same one-fingered result.

If Vettel wins a title in the final race because of the double points rule, then F1 will be a complete farce.

[rachel1990]

My natural pessimism leads me to the following:

-Renault teams take 4 or 5 races to catch up
-Mid-season is competitive
-Red Bull dominate the 2nd half
-Vettel seemingly too far behind but then
-Oh...stupid double points finish
-Vettel wins again

At least that would be an improvement on the awful 2011 and 2013 seasons, but still the same one-fingered result.

If Vettel wins a title in the final race because of the double points rule, then F1 will be a complete farce.

I totally agree about this.

[mario]

Therefore, there are many who think that it is unfair to level the field again given that Mercedes and Ferrari are ahead because they invested in their programs whilst Renault didn't, and that both Renault and Red Bull (for their work on the energy recovery systems) deserve to pay the price for not putting in the effort that their rivals have.

This sounds very similar to a certain Andrea Moda in 1992. They paid the price for mot putting much of an effort.

Besides, I can agree to that statement. As you related to earlier, Renault continued to cut back on resources and personnel for the F1 power units. Are Renault so confident that they don't need as much personnel and resources to use to create a solution for arguably the biggest season to season change in history? Because if so, they are also overestimating themselves and their own ability. If they could have pulled it off, fine. It would have revolutionized efficiency in executing a plan in Formula 1. But it didn't work. And now they're about 6 days behind on their schedule for testing. In fact, David Croft confirmed Lotus did one lap on full power on Day 4 in Bahrain. Apparently they couldn't really risk going more laps thanks to Renault's issues.

I suppose for this development, Renault deserve to pay the price for not being prepared. Ferrari and Mercedes used the resources and staff they had to their advantage. When Renault cut back on resources and staff and try to build a completely new power unit, it makes them look like a bunch of fools. And it makes me wonder what was going on behind closed doors. Maybe financial issues, but I wouldn't think so.

It would seem that part of the reason why Renault started cutting back on F1 was, perhaps, a sense of complacency - perhaps being lulled into something of a false sense of security given their recent success with Red Bull (which seems to explain part of the reason why their engines are also the most expensive on the grid to boot) - combined with misleading validation testing that might have enhanced that false sense of security. There is a rumour that Renault used a FR3.5 car as a test hack but, if so, it seems that it has mislead them and proven to be a dangerous miscalculation.

Ironically, another aspect is perhaps the fact that the recent regulations have downplayed the importance of the engine - with the severely restricted upgrade system and high value on aerodynamics, the cost:benefit ratio for the engine manufacturers must have sharply decreased at a time when Renault's commitment to the sport had been shaken in the wake of the 'Crashgate' revelations.
Given that situation, it must have meant that many felt that there was no point in having a relatively large and expensive F1 operation when it looked like the lifespan of the V8 engine was going to be stretched again beyond 2014 - the turbo engines having already been postponed from 2013 to 2014 - given the strong opposition from Bernie and, to a slightly lesser extent, from Ferrari to the turbo engine format. In that political situation, Renault could perhaps have been forgiven for expecting that the turbo engines wouldn't come in until 2015, or perhaps even later, given the strong opposition and were perhaps slightly caught out when their aggressive lobbying won out after Todt seems to have made it his personal mission to impose the new engine regulations as his way of stamping his authority on the sport.

My natural pessimism leads me to the following:

-Renault teams take 4 or 5 races to catch up
-Mid-season is competitive
-Red Bull dominate the 2nd half
-Vettel seemingly too far behind but then
-Oh...stupid double points finish
-Vettel wins again

At least that would be an improvement on the awful 2011 and 2013 seasons, but still the same one-fingered result.

I very much doubt that. Renault's problems are extensive and the design of the Red Bull only exacerbates them. A fix in 4-5 races... I just don't see it happening. Maybe over the mid-season break... but by then it'd be too late for a title charge.

I can, potentially, see Renault forcing a quick fix through within 4-5 races due to the pressure they are under.

As things stand, Renault's reputation is taking a sizeable hit - particularly given that they were the strongest advocate for the new engines - and Red Bull are putting them under a lot of public pressure to sort their problems out rapidly. Giancarlo Minardi has also suggested that Red Bull are, privately, threatening to tear up their contract with Renault and to go with a new engine supplier - although I don't think that they will do so for 2014, especially since I can't see Mercedes or Ferrari selling their engines to a bitter rival, I could see Red Bull aggressively courting Honda ahead of the 2015 season given that they are prepared to sell their engines to other customers.

All in all, there are two powerful incentives for Renault to sort things out quickly - a desire to prevent severe damage to their reputation and the possibility that they might lose their most valuable customers to a rival manufacturer before they can make back their investment on the new engines, leaving them severely out of pocket as a result.

[Wallio]

Chassis issues, changing engines abruptly, it really would be 2006 all over again. Although Renault have actually screwed up here, unlike Ferrari back then.

[watka]

My natural pessimism leads me to the following:

-Renault teams take 4 or 5 races to catch up
-Mid-season is competitive
-Red Bull dominate the 2nd half
-Vettel seemingly too far behind but then
-Oh...stupid double points finish
-Vettel wins again

At least that would be an improvement on the awful 2011 and 2013 seasons, but still the same one-fingered result.

If Vettel/Ricciardo/Grosjean/Maldonado/Vergne/Kvyat/Kobayashi/Ericcson wins a title in the final race because of the double points rule, then F1 will be a complete farce.

Altered in the interest of parity.

[McJaggers]

If Kobayashi won the WDC as a result of Double points. Id be stoked.

[Sublime_FA11C]

If Vettel wins a title in the final race because of the double points rule, then F1 will be a complete farce.

I totally agree about this.

I totally disagree. Yes, the rule is both stupid and bad and yes it was mainly introduced to hurt one team (again stupid and bad for the sport). Given the troubles RB have had, it would be nothing short of poetic justice if it helped the "wrong team".

All this nonsense of trying to screw RB... i get that interest vanes as one team constantly dominates but the truth is that other teams keep screwing up. Year after year other teams and drivers trip and fall over each other and one guy stays constant. Well two. Newey and Vettel. Well three if you count Hamilton allways getting crap cars he cant drive. Well four because Alonso... you know what?

Screw farcical rules, just stick Hamilton and Alonso in Red Bull, allow 3-man teams, and scrap practise sessions and testing with nothing but qualy and race. F1 is perfect again and whoever wins deserves it.

[LionZoo]

If Kobayashi won the WDC as a result of Double points. Id be stoked.

Kobayashi for Champion 2014!

[sswishbone]

interesting about Red Bull possibly wanting to leave Renault, I have a somewhat curveball solution... Nissan are almost certain to confirm an LMP1 team for 2016, what if Red Bull were to encourage development of a Nissan turbo V6 that is LMP1 compliant rebadged as Infiniti? it keeps Renault on-side but also technically gets a new manufacturer

[wsrgo]

Well three if you count Hamilton allways getting crap cars he cant drive.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but I think Lewis has had potential race-winning cars throughout his career, apart from the first half of 2009 and the second half of 2013 (where nobody was close to Rb and Vettel).

[Ferrim]

My natural pessimism leads me to the following:

-Renault teams take 4 or 5 races to catch up
-Mid-season is competitive
-Red Bull dominate the 2nd half
-Vettel seemingly too far behind but then
-Oh...stupid double points finish
-Vettel wins again

At least that would be an improvement on the awful 2011 and 2013 seasons, but still the same one-fingered result.

If Vettel wins a title in the final race because of the double points rule, then F1 will be a complete farce.

I totally agree about this.

I want to send a letter to each of the F1 teams about this matter. According to the latest rumours, a final decision on whether to extend the double points to the last three races will be made after testing is over, ie. probably next week. But for it to happen at this stage all the teams must agree, and this is why I'm going to contact them all. I wrote the letter a couple of weeks ago, it's just a mixture of laziness and personal matters that have kept me from finalising it before. I basically will ask them to stop mistreating their fanbase, as every poll that can be found shows over 90% people against this rule change, and they still seem unable to go against Bernie and tell him that enough is enough. I'm seriously considering whether I will watch this season if double points are extended, not so much because of the rule itself (I seemed to be one of the few who wasn't that bothered when it was introduced) but because of the utter contempt towards fans that F1 would show by going further with this. I cannot remember a single move that was so badly received, except maybe the "medals system", and that was happily cancelled.

The way pre-season testing is going makes things worse, indeed. With Red Bull's development rate being what it has been for the last years, it's very possible that three double points races could propel a Vettel comeback and win at the death, and this would be incredibly damaging. Take into account that, if Bernie's craziness goes ahead again, all what happens from now until early June will be worth exactly the same than three races in November. It would undermine the value of getting prepared for the start of the season and reward those who weren't ready.

[DanielPT]

The way pre-season testing is going makes things worse, indeed. With Red Bull's development rate being what it has been for the last years, it's very possible that three double points races could propel a Vettel comeback and win at the death, and this would be incredibly damaging. Take into account that, if Bernie's craziness goes ahead again, all what happens from now until early June will be worth exactly the same than three races in November. It would undermine the value of getting prepared for the start of the season and reward those who weren't ready.

That is why I am against this rule from the very beginning. Being prepared at the start of the season, having developed some great idea that makes the car fast is now much less important. If you can catch up and copy all the great ideas in useful time then you will still benefit from a more important second part of the season. Importance given by the abject double points idea. My point is that it favours too much the development ability which in turn is proportional to the available resources, i.e, money. And that is also why it is different from the example some have given of the X best results in Y races in order to validate thus idea. That was a very understandable system in an era of little reliability and managed to compare the best the teams could do regardless if was at the start, at the middle or at the end of the season. Unlike the way double points are currently implemented. I would only accept this rule if it worked like Predicament Predictions competition.

[Sublime_FA11C]

Well three if you count Hamilton allways getting crap cars he cant drive.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but I think Lewis has had potential race-winning cars throughout his career, apart from the first half of 2009 and the second half of 2013 (where nobody was close to Rb and Vettel).

I was mistaken actually. I was really thinking post 09 in the first place. And Lewis did have decent cars and he was himself to blame for ruining his chances (2011 in particular). He only really had a "crap car he couldn't drive" in 2013. All season i belive, because the car was eating it's tyres more than Hamilton could hope to preserve them.

[LellaLombardi]

As an aside, do we really want a championship where 1/3rd of the cars are effectively handicapped and running in another series? To have one team screw up the installation and have to respond is one thing; to have four teams hampered by a bad engine is quite another because it destroys the spectacle and excitement. Given which teams are affected, there is the concern that an engine debacle could see them all leave the sport for one reason or another - then where are we?

In my opinion, I think it would be a bit of a shame if Vettel had no hope of defending his title because of a poor engine. It's one thing to have your team design a poor car, but when a third party factor affects your title bid, it's quite another. Also, Caterham use Renault engines, and they've not been quiet about their dissatisfaction with their results in recent years.

I think the situation could finally be his proving ground though. If he does what Schumacher did in the 96 Ferrari and drives well in spite of it being a dog, and handles everything with dignity then his reputation could well be elevated.

[More_Blue_Flags]

As an aside, do we really want a championship where 1/3rd of the cars are effectively handicapped and running in another series? To have one team screw up the installation and have to respond is one thing; to have four teams hampered by a bad engine is quite another because it destroys the spectacle and excitement. Given which teams are affected, there is the concern that an engine debacle could see them all leave the sport for one reason or another - then where are we?

In my opinion, I think it would be a bit of a shame if Vettel had no hope of defending his title because of a poor engine. It's one thing to have your team design a poor car, but when a third party factor affects your title bid, it's quite another. Also, Caterham use Renault engines, and they've not been quiet about their dissatisfaction with their results in recent years.

I think the situation could finally be his proving ground though. If he does what Schumacher did in the 96 Ferrari and drives well in spite of it being a dog, and handles everything with dignity then his reputation could well be elevated.

That's my view as well. There will always be some diehard Vettel haters, but I would hope that at least some doubters could be persuaded by some gutsy and talented driving in an indifferent car. I'm not the biggest fan of his, but if he maintains his focus in a tough year and doesn't throw his toys out of the cot I will be (grudgingly) impressed and forced to revise my opinion of his character upwards.