The 2017 Silly Season thread

[Salamander]

Renault hold the key. With their 2016 recuperation year out of the way, and a hefty budget piled into their 2017 challenger, plus the need for a top driver to lead the team, it gives an opportunity to a fast but marginalised driver to jump ship. Might Alonso give up on McLaren again and head back 'home' to finish his career off? Will they look to poach Ricciardo from their customer team? Or might they bring in Rosberg, determined to extricate himself from the shadow of Hamilton? Or may they even take a punt on Bottas, if his form returns to 2014 levels?

When we find out the answer to this, the rest of the cards will fall into place. Much like Kimi last season.

I think you're putting too much faith in Renault's ability to catch up. Their engine is quite a way off the mark as is, and 2016 is effectively a write-off for them already. Carlos Ghosn has stated the team's goal as, "to be on the podium within three years", which you could certainly read as not wanting the whole exercise to make them a laughing stock on day 1 as Honda did, but even then it should take the team until at least 2018-2019 to be realistic challengers with the front-runners, and that's being most optimistic and assuming they make progress, which is not a guarantee. Meanwhile, Magnussen will have the opportunity to have a year or two to embed himself within the team with no real inter-team pressure, and could easily serve as their lead driver in the future if he lives up to expectations (at least, mine).

I think the key remains the 2nd Ferrari seat, because if Ferrari really wanted to keep Raikkonen, they'dve signed him on for longer. It's an all-around stronger team that has already shown to be making progress - they might have Vettel on board, but as Ricciardo proved in 2014, even in his own team, he is not invincible. And really, what self-respecting would-be title-challenger would let a little thing like having the best driver in the sport as a teammate get in their way?

[mario]

Renault hold the key. With their 2016 recuperation year out of the way, and a hefty budget piled into their 2017 challenger, plus the need for a top driver to lead the team, it gives an opportunity to a fast but marginalised driver to jump ship. Might Alonso give up on McLaren again and head back 'home' to finish his career off? Will they look to poach Ricciardo from their customer team? Or might they bring in Rosberg, determined to extricate himself from the shadow of Hamilton? Or may they even take a punt on Bottas, if his form returns to 2014 levels?

When we find out the answer to this, the rest of the cards will fall into place. Much like Kimi last season.

I think you're putting too much faith in Renault's ability to catch up. Their engine is quite a way off the mark as is, and 2016 is effectively a write-off for them already. Carlos Ghosn has stated the team's goal as, "to be on the podium within three years", which you could certainly read as not wanting the whole exercise to make them a laughing stock on day 1 as Honda did, but even then it should take the team until at least 2018-2019 to be realistic challengers with the front-runners, and that's being most optimistic and assuming they make progress, which is not a guarantee. Meanwhile, Magnussen will have the opportunity to have a year or two to embed himself within the team with no real inter-team pressure, and could easily serve as their lead driver in the future if he lives up to expectations (at least, mine).

I think the key remains the 2nd Ferrari seat, because if Ferrari really wanted to keep Raikkonen, they'dve signed him on for longer. It's an all-around stronger team that has already shown to be making progress - they might have Vettel on board, but as Ricciardo proved in 2014, even in his own team, he is not invincible. And really, what self-respecting would-be title-challenger would let a little thing like having the best driver in the sport as a teammate get in their way?

Abiteboul has confirmed that, from 2017 onwards, the engine token system shall be withdrawn and development restrictions relaxed (though upgrades can only be introduced whenever a driver uses a new set of power train elements). http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-to ... 17-671488/

Assuming that plan is implemented in full, that is going to potentially have a dramatic impact on all parties, especially Renault - though given they've sometimes struggled under the current system to introduce effective upgrades, such a decision could prove to be something of a double edged sword if their rivals only pull further ahead of them.

[IceG]

That does seem a sensible move at first glance. It seems to put engine development on a par with aerodynamic development. The alternative might have been an aerodynamics token system, or even combining the two.

IIUC the engine developments can only be implemented when a new component is taken, so introducing an interesting new strategy element when scheduling engine life, swapping engines at different tracks and taking the fifth (etc.) engine.

[DanielPT]

Abiteboul has confirmed that, from 2017 onwards, the engine token system shall be withdrawn and development restrictions relaxed (though upgrades can only be introduced whenever a driver uses a new set of power train elements). http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-to ... 17-671488/

Assuming that plan is implemented in full, that is going to potentially have a dramatic impact on all parties, especially Renault - though given they've sometimes struggled under the current system to introduce effective upgrades, such a decision could prove to be something of a double edged sword if their rivals only pull further ahead of them.

Given that, every time they're in F1 with a full team, they get out developed by everybody else. It happened in the 80s, in the 00s and in the early part of this decade, I cannot fathom much success for them. They were the first to introduce the turbo only to see rivals reap the benefits of it despite having time advantage and technology experience on their side. Though they managed to win the first title in the V8 formula (thanks to the car, mainly), they were soon beaten to it by others, arguably ending up with one of the worst engines, on par with Honda (history repeating itself nowadays) and only allowed to catch up artificially by FIA, ending up winning the title 4 times in other team when complete parity was ongoing and development frozen. Now they pushed to a new formula only to be humiliated by rivals. Yes, their Williams and Benetton Renault era was good but back then they put all eggs in the engine basket and ended up leaving when their engine was being overtaken by rivals...

Renault pride themselves of efficiency. Meaning they achieve a lot with less than the others. It hasn't been working lately.

[Salamander]

Furthermore, this assumes that the powers that be can agree on any kind of action being taken - when they all seem like they couldn't agree on the time of day at present...

[Izzyeviel]

Wehrlein to Mercedes for 2017 then.

Where will Nico end up? Williams? Renault? Mclaren?

[Rob Dylan]

A lot of behind-the-scenes activity is going to be happening following the tests and the first few races, I think. The only choice Rosberg is mildly understanding of is Williams, as he has been there in the past for 4 years. The question is whether he thinks he can gain anything from going back there, or if it would leave him stuck in a rut for a year or two.

I'd say a lot of his money and hopes are banking on an improved McLaren for 2016, and he would try to shoehorn his way in. Then again, he'll have a lot of competition in that regard if it happens. A Renault move for 2017 would be much more of a gamble, as the feeling is that 2016 won't exactly show the team as a promising prospect for next year.

Sooooooooo I'd say Rosberg probably wants to jump into the inevitably vacant 2017 McLaren seat, but it's probably safer to put your money on him driving at Williams, simply because both sides are familiar with each other, and Williams have made an overstated point about picking safe options to consolidate their decent championship place.

[Gonzalez]

Here is evidence that Alonso will not retire from F1 before 2017:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/27669502

[Bobby Doorknobs]

The teams have agreed on the new technical regulations and you're not going to like it...

In summary: Higher downforce, wider cars, wider tyres, wider front wings and as a result of all this, increased cornering speeds and faster lap times. Just like we wanted! Oh, wait...

[Londoner]

The teams have agreed on the new technical regulations and you're not going to like it...

In summary: Higher downforce, wider cars, wider tyres, wider front wings and as a result of all this, increased cornering speeds and faster lap times. Just like we wanted! Oh, wait...

Vive L'Indycar from 2017 then, I guess.

[MorbidelliObese]

But are they going to have the swept back front and rear wings? Because that's what's really important.

[AndreaModa]

I'm curious, what's important to you guys when thinking about F1? How do you think F1 should look?

[Bobby Doorknobs]

I'm curious, what's important to you guys when thinking about F1? How do you think F1 should look?

Nobody is complaining about looks. The problem here is that it's looking quite likely that the new technical regulations will result in cars that create more turbulent air, making it even harder for the cars to follow each other and that combined with higher cornering speeds will result in less natural overtaking. All so the cars can be three seconds a lap quicker, which somehow increases the "spectacle". Despite the fact that a few months ago the changes discussed involved the possibility of cars depending less on aerodynamic grip, which on paper would increase natural overtaking.

[AndreaModa]

I'm curious, what's important to you guys when thinking about F1? How do you think F1 should look?

Nobody is complaining about looks. The problem here is that it's looking quite likely that the new technical regulations will result in cars that create more turbulent air, making it even harder for the cars to follow each other and that combined with higher cornering speeds will result in less natural overtaking. All so the cars can be three seconds a lap quicker, which somehow increases the "spectacle". Despite the fact that a few months ago the changes discussed involved the possibility of cars depending less on aerodynamic grip, which on paper would increase natural overtaking.

I don't mean "look" literally, I mean, what would F1 be for you in an ideal scenario?

And an explanation of the new regs is appreciated, but that isn't an answer is it?

[Bobby Doorknobs]

I'm curious, what's important to you guys when thinking about F1? How do you think F1 should look?

Nobody is complaining about looks. The problem here is that it's looking quite likely that the new technical regulations will result in cars that create more turbulent air, making it even harder for the cars to follow each other and that combined with higher cornering speeds will result in less natural overtaking. All so the cars can be three seconds a lap quicker, which somehow increases the "spectacle". Despite the fact that a few months ago the changes discussed involved the possibility of cars depending less on aerodynamic grip, which on paper would increase natural overtaking.

I don't mean "look" literally, I mean, what would F1 be for you in an ideal scenario?

And an explanation of the new regs is appreciated, but that isn't an answer is it?

Ah, sorry, I was replying while looking at MorbidelliObese's comment thinking you were taking that literally!

Well, I guess it's hard to articulate what I really want from F1. Perhaps because I've never really experienced an F1 or indeed any racing series anywhere close to perfect, which makes me wonder how I ever got into it in the first place

On track, I suppose no DRS, less aerodynamically dependent cars (the big one I was hoping for from this rule change), less tyre saving - though not to the level where they're flat out all the way. Although the tyre rules look interesting for this season, so who knows? A closer championship battle would be nice too, though I'm not one to actually complain about dominance as there really is practically nothing anyone can do in that scenario without resorting to things like mid-season rule changes. Even without a good championship battle I'm almost as happy to watch teams like Force India occasionally punch above their weight and score a podium or top six finish.

Off track is where my main gripes are. Better revenue distribution, a complete overhaul of the rulemaking process, more variety on the calendar, possibly a budget cap, reduced hosting fees, less races that threaten the places of established 'classics' (admittedly a double-edged sword where the calendar is as big or as close to as big as it can realistically be but it's still perhaps necessary for the sport to expand into new markets) are all things I can think of off the top of my head that I would like to see. Perhaps we need a separate thread for this topic!

As for a better explanation of the new technical regulations, I wouldn't say I'm qualified to answer but I'll give it a better shot: Basically, the cars are going back to their pre-1998 width, with the tyres, wings and bodywork width increased and the rear wing height decreased the cars are (in theory) going to look a little bit prettier. They're also going to have the new cockpit halo, which is going to take some getting used to aesthetically but then there's no use in complaining about safety measures. The only problem is that the bigger tyres, the fact that there doesn't seem to be any change on the horizon for less complex front wings and the increased cornering speeds these regulations are very likely to result in mean that it looks like there will be even less non-DRS passing than what we have currently.

[Ataxia]

Ideal scenario? Right, okay...strap yourselves in!

First of all, the governance of the sport must be addressed. Currently, we have Bernie pulling the strings, a weak leader in Jean Todt, and the teams butting heads as they attempt to make decisions. As I've said, there must be an independent collection of past technical and sporting figures, a tribunal if you will, who lead the development of new regulations. In doing so, the FIA and FOM should fund a team of people who can perform the required simulations and tests to ensure that any regulations are proven to work. The teams may not have power in the rulemaking process, but may make suggestions as long as they submit a cohesive report of their findings to this tribunal.

In the technical tribunal, Ross Brawn is the immediate person to spring to mind. Gordon Murray could also be an option, as well as anyone who was involved in a design/technical director capacity in the past few years. Former drivers could also pitch in here, as well as within the sporting tribunal.

To ensure a relatively cheap formula for the teams, I would be in favour of more standardised parts; in addition to the control ECU already in place, gearboxes and fuel tanks can be standard parts supplied by independent manufacturers. Furthermore, in bringing in a new engine formula, the price must be capped at the very beginning. I liked the potential 2.2L V6TT concept; although it was only a bargaining chip to drive engine costs down, this could be a relatively uncomplicated solution. Whilst I believe F1 should maintain road relevance, I also believe that there are some areas that should be covered by the WEC, and perhaps hybrid technology is part of that. In recompense, F1 might pioneer greater efficiency; there are a number of brands in the automotive sector like SkyActiv, EcoBoost and BlueMotion which denote a marque's focus on fuel efficiency, and F1 could be a flagship operation for such names. A cost cap of approximately $5-7M per team for a year's supply would be sufficient. In lieu of DRS or anything, an Indycar style push-to-pass system can be used (perhaps in conjunction with a DRS akin to that used in Formula Renault V8 3.5, in which the bottom element lifts to close the slot-gap, creating a stall-point) so that drivers have tools available to them if the overtake is difficult to manage.

Nobody is really sure what direction to take the aerodynamic formula; some camps want faster cars and more aero, some camps want less aero with the view to more overtaking. Research must go into ground-effect once more; it seems to work well in Indycar, and if the technical tribunal can find a safe, workable solution to it then it may present a strong addition to the grid.

For the sporting regulations, I'm really curious to see how this elimination qualifying will stack up. It has the potential to really shake things up, and even if it doesn't work we have a tried-and-tested system to return to. I believe that teams should be encouraged to run test/reserve drivers in FP1, as well as introducing an extra few tests here and there. I would be in favour of reducing the calendar size to about 17-18 races, starting in late March and ending in October, before introducing a curfew for the first two weeks of November to ensure that the engineers have some proper time off after the season.

As for the aesthetics? Anything that looks modern without resorting to the clutter of the pre-2009 cars. I'd be happy with closed cockpits, I don't mind that so much. Wider tyres would be fine too.

In having a cheaper, slightly more simple formula (whilst still being technologically innovative), you have less risk of alienating fans whilst still attracting those who love the tech. You may also attract new manufacturers.

Ancilliaries:

- If drivers are going to have personal numbers, at least let them use their own stylised versions on the cars rather than restricting them to the team font. It works in MotoGP, why not F1?
- Pirelli need to make the most important change. The scale is currently hard, medium, soft, super-soft and ultra-soft. Now, you see, that doesn't make the "medium" the medium compound any more, does it? They MUST, for the sake of OCD sufferers across the globe, change it to super-hard, hard, medium, soft and super-soft. Or to solid, hard, medium, soft and camembert. I'm easy.
- There must be deals done by the FIA to bring their products to "free" TV wherever possible, including the likes of WRC and WTCC. A season pass, like MotoGP, should be an option to purchase.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

*Some of the stuff I wanted to say but couldn't think of at the time plus many other brilliant suggestions*

[AustralianStig]

Or to solid, hard, medium, soft and camembert. I'm easy.

I still think ultrasoft should be called flaccid.

[girry]

I'm curious, what's important to you guys when thinking about F1? How do you think F1 should look?

The main points are mostly those that Ataxia and Simtek already laid out in their very fine and comprehensive posts.

Urgent:
- blowing up the current governance and removing most of the veto power from the teams
- making major adjustments to the cars to remove the massive aero dependence they currently have (stricter aero rules, standardize some aero parts, perhaps even remove the front wings completely); in exchange an increase to tyre size, making the cars wider and an indroduction of ground effects should help keeping the laptimes more or less where they are, whilst still enabling the cars to race naturally
-> thus DRS would be rendered useless, and Pirelli wouldn't have to make intentionally bad tyres..
- limiting costs mostly akin to the way Ataxia suggested - it may gripe the purists to have more standardized cars, but I don't care - the cars don't look that different to each other in the current formula anyway
- removing driver aids (engine / differential mapping removal, perhaps even returning to stick gears) and increasing power output in order to make the cars more difficult & more spectacular to drive - which was the entire reason why CART late 90's remained so popular and managed to create new star drivers despite the loss of Indy 500
- limiting team-to-driver on track radio communication to safety concerns only
- creating a much fairer distribution of the financial payouts to all teams
- reducing the race hosting fees from the Grands Prix that are considered valuable and have strong local fanbases, in order for them to be able to reduce ticket prices
- re-introducing gravel traps where they're not a safety hazard - I do not advocate them somewhere like 180R or Eau Rouge, but the current situation is absolutely ridiculous when sections of 100kph corners have full size airports attached to them
- Ataxia described it an ancillary, but I think in the long term it's vital that F1 should aim to be broadcast on free TV in every country - otherwise it will keep losing its fanbase, as less and less new fans get exposed to the sport

Less urgent:
- allowing teams to alter drivers as they please, and removing the super license point system: I can't understand for my life why the FIA is doing everything it can to make it less desirable for small teams to put a local hero in their car for a round, be it Formula 1, Formula E or the WRC
- allowing any team, new or old, enter Grands Prix at any time - should they be judged to be any professional/safe and have a car that passes the regulations
- starting to police crowding from junior categories on - even the drivers don't know in which situations it's allowed to drive another car off the track and in which situations it's not
- starting to either enforce track limits properly at all times or not at all (apart from cutting chicanes inside) - currently it's a huge mess as you're allowed to violate the limits alone but not in a battle...
- allowing testing post-race weekend Mondays on permanent circuits, forcing teams to use at least one of their developmental drivers should they participate in those sessions

Silly wishes:
- if it races well I don't care about the looks - but nevertheless a return to the 1991ish car shapes would make my eyes sing and dance...actually to anything between 1985 and 2008, as long as it's not the disproportionally long monster cars of today
- Jack Nicholls (and Dario Franchitti) to the booth, pretty please?
- force the teams allow the drivers do other categories on the off weekends if they please - if not TT Isle of Man, at least GT cars, DTM, V8 supercars or other categories with decent safety records...
- the numbers should stick with the team, not with the driver *nostalgia grumble*

[AndreaModa]

All very interesting points, thanks lads.

As far as the off-track reforms are concerned, I couldn't agree more. The current rule-making setup is a farce and the revenue distribution a disgrace.

However, the on-track reforms are a different kettle of fish. There's some very well-thought out ideas above, but what is the sum total of it all that will define what F1 will look like? In other words, what sort of formula are you trying to create?

Close racing? Flat out sprints from lights to flag? The best technology engineers can come up with put into practice on the track?

The impression I get is that, when the music stops, no one really can say exactly what they want F1 to be like. They might say "like the 80s turbo cars" or "pre aerodynamic aids" or "the refuelling sprint races circa the 00s". The only way to describe how you want something to be is to refer to history as examples.

And let's be frank here. The reality is that none of the formulas ever conceived for F1 have given us an ideal solution. They were winning by margins of a minute or more in the 50s and 60s. The cars were (almost) all running with the same engines/gearboxes in the back like a spec series in the 70s, by the 80s you had a two-tier formula of turbos and NA cars and once refuelling, grooved tyres and massive advances in aerodynamics had come in during the 90s and 00s you had cars that couldn't follow each other and couldn't overtake.

Each one of us will look at a particular era and say "that's how F1 should be". But if we lock ourselves in a room together until we have a single unified set of rules that F1 should operate to, we'll never get out, we'll never be able to agree. If we did, there'd be a whole host of compromises and the end product would be something no-one wants.

That to me is what modern-day F1 looks like.

[DanielPT]

Each one of us will look at a particular era and say "that's how F1 should be". But if we lock ourselves in a room together until we have a single unified set of rules that F1 should operate to, we'll never get out, we'll never be able to agree. If we did, there'd be a whole host of compromises and the end product would be something no-one wants.

That to me is what modern-day F1 looks like.

And that is why F1 must continue its own path (albeit a bit wiser) into the future. Even if we could bring the past into the present it wouldn't be like the past in the past because it is in the present and that changes it completely, so the best way is to forge another era and go into the future. We are discussing this right now but I bet that somewhere within, 10, 15 or 20 years people will look back and wish we could comeback to this era because guess what, F1 will be deemed broken. 'We' should just concentrate on what is really wrong, like regulations making, strategy groups and Formula One Managements and concentrate on making the sport better for those involved to go and find the ideal solution in motorsport which is really what F1 is all about.

[girry]

All very interesting points, thanks lads.

As far as the off-track reforms are concerned, I couldn't agree more. The current rule-making setup is a farce and the revenue distribution a disgrace.

However, the on-track reforms are a different kettle of fish. There's some very well-thought out ideas above, but what is the sum total of it all that will define what F1 will look like? In other words, what sort of formula are you trying to create?

Close racing? Flat out sprints from lights to flag? The best technology engineers can come up with put into practice on the track?

The impression I get is that, when the music stops, no one really can say exactly what they want F1 to be like. They might say "like the 80s turbo cars" or "pre aerodynamic aids" or "the refuelling sprint races circa the 00s". The only way to describe how you want something to be is to refer to history as examples.

And let's be frank here. The reality is that none of the formulas ever conceived for F1 have given us an ideal solution. They were winning by margins of a minute or more in the 50s and 60s. The cars were (almost) all running with the same engines/gearboxes in the back like a spec series in the 70s, by the 80s you had a two-tier formula of turbos and NA cars and once refuelling, grooved tyres and massive advances in aerodynamics had come in during the 90s and 00s you had cars that couldn't follow each other and couldn't overtake.

Each one of us will look at a particular era and say "that's how F1 should be". But if we lock ourselves in a room together until we have a single unified set of rules that F1 should operate to, we'll never get out, we'll never be able to agree. If we did, there'd be a whole host of compromises and the end product would be something no-one wants.

That to me is what modern-day F1 looks like.

You're making a good point - the fanbase doesn't have a single formula they want - and personally, I'm not completely sure either, I'd be content with many kinds of different formulae as long as the particular formula gets executed as well as possible.

And yeah, it's certain the entire fanbase will never be satisfied.

However, I still disagree with that the fanbase shouldn't concentrate on voicing their concerns about the most prominent problems with the current ruleset - foremost, the dirty air problem that has caused the dull racing of the early 00's and the widely hated gimmicks of 2010's in consequence, and the general alienation of fans by moving the product away from them to the 70 year olds who can afford a Rolex.

[Backmarker]

I'd like to see teams split Berniemoney more equally, rather than based on finishing position in the constructors' championship. And I would like to see initiatives to allow more teams to entry to bring the grid to 26 cars - maybe allow new teams to run customer cars for three years.

[UncreativeUsername37]

Revised prediction after initial flyaways (and Russia???)
Mercedes: Rosberg/Hamilton
Even if Rosberg completely smashes Hamilton, which isn't likely anyway, they won't kick out the guy who's won two of the previous three championships, which were both against Rosberg to strengthen his case further.

Ferrari: Vettel/Grosjean
No need for a revision here.

Red Bull: Ricciardo/Verstappen
Whatever Kvyat did in non-early 2015, he sucks again. You could justify the first few races previously as getting used to a top team in only his second year, but there's no excuse now.

Williams: Massa/Bottas
Why change what works?

McLaren: Alonso/Vandoorne
Again, this isn't affected by events since the previous prediction. If anything, it's more likely.

Toro Rosso: Academy people
Yep.

Haas: Kvyat/Gutiérrez
You heard it here first. Kvyat is too good to fall completely out of F1, and Ferrari don't have another young guy who needs to be tested at the moment. And who'll need a new lead driver for 2017? This team.

Force India: Pérez/Wehrlein
Wehrlein is looking good. Against Haryanto, but still. Pérez is pretty much stuck. Or he could jump to Haas and start a new generation of Pérez to Ferrari rumours, but that's unlikely considering their master strategy of not doing anything will be unavailable.

Renault: Magnussen/idk
Ocon? Sirotkin? Some guy with money? Who knows? Like Pérez, Magnussen outperforms his teammate, but there are no higher spaces to take.

Sauber (if alive): Money, probably including Nasr
Whoever can nab a superlicence and some sponsorship in the same year.

Manor (if alive): Money
See Sauber.

[Izzyeviel]

Rosberg hasn't read the script. If he keeps this up, he won't get dropped. (surely?)

I can see Palmer ending up at Haas or Manor. Providing of course that Ferrari drop Kimi for Grosjean... but why would they on current form?

[Ataxia]

Hulkenberg has a Force India contract for 2017, so I don't expect the lineup to change.

[Rob Dylan]

Rosberg is the one who will get the ball rolling. With no contract as of yet officially signed for next year, every driver worth their salt is knocking on Mercedes' door for that second seat. Hell, he could win the championship and still move somewhere else. All other major contract moves rely on Rosberg/Mercedes to make their minds up.

EDIT: @UgncreativeUsergname, "Haas: Kvyat". Formula 1 leading the way for world peace

[UncreativeUsername37]

Hulkenberg has a Force India contract for 2017, so I don't expect the lineup to change.

Contract? This is F1!

[Ataxia]

Hulkenberg has a Force India contract for 2017, so I don't expect the lineup to change.

Contract? This is F1!

Yet, I don't think Vijay's in a position to start firing drivers.

[Nessafox]

Hulkenberg has a Force India contract for 2017, so I don't expect the lineup to change.

Contract? This is F1!

Yet, I don't think Vijay's in a position to start firing drivers.

Vijay's also not really the type of team boss who fires drivers at any given point and values consistency.
Their only driver who didn't see out a full season was Fisichella, who was hired by Ferrari.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Honda's talking sense...

[Dj_bereta]

My predicaments for the next season, after four races:

Mercedes: Rosberg/Hamilton again.
Rosberg wins the title and stays in the team. Lewis hints a retirement soon.

Ferrari: Vettel/Grosjean.
Iceman retires after a good 2016 season. Grosjean is promoted to Ferrari after a stunning season with Haas, finishing in the top 10. Vettel stays.

Red Bull: Ricciardo/Verstappen
It's obvious Kvyat isn't going to keep his seat since the debut of Verstappen. Ricciardo stays with the promise of a competitive car for the next year.

Toro Rosso: Sainz/Gasly
Verstappen is promoted to main team (a decision made since 2015) and Sainz stays for another year, under pressure. Gasly is promoted from GP2.

Williams: Massa/Bottas
Bottas lost the chance to go to Ferrari after an average 2016 season, finishing behind Massa. The Brazilian stays in the team for another year, but with strong wishes of retiring if the team doesn't improve.

Haas: Gutierrez/Maldonado
Haas takes a gamble and hires Maldonado to take advantage of his experience as Pirelli test driver. Gutierrez stays in the team, but under pressure to deliver better results.

McLaren: Alonso/Vandoorne
Button is forced to retire since the team wants the Belgian. Alonso remains in the team, but 2017 is going to be the last chance for McLaren to deliver something or the Spaniard is out.

Force India: Perez/Hulk
Both stay in Force India, despite the weak year for the team.

Renault: Magnussen/Ocon
The rumous come true and Ocon replaces Palmer for 2017 season. Magnussen stays.

Manor: Wehrlein/Nasr
The only option for Nasr to stay in F1 is Manor and he accepts it. Wehrlein stays for another year for development.

Sauber out of F1 after this season.

[Eifelland]

Hey you guys, I heard a rumour Red Bull were dropping Kvyat. That'll never ha...


...oh wait. What?

[DanielPT]

Honda's talking sense...

What is worst and pitiful about this is that FE is proving that sound really doesn't matter in order to attract new fans. Such effort going into a thing of this irrelevance is amazing. I bet dinosaurs preferred Pangea to stay intact, yet the world still changed and they went on to become extinct (for the most part).

[Ataxia]

I'll do some predictions too, why not?

Mercedes
Rosberg
Hamilton

Why change it?

Ferrari
Vettel
Raikkonen

To the dismay of various F1 forums, Raikkonen earns another year at Ferrari.

Red Bull - TAG Heuer
Ricciardo
Verstappen

A foregone conclusion, this, unless Kvyat manages to regain his mojo to the point where Helmut Marko has to swallow his pride and bring him back in.

Williams - Mercedes
Massa
Bottas

Massa's swansong year, most likely. Bottas is very much part of the furniture at Grove, along with a table from 1982 and the tumble-dryer in the corner.

McLaren - Honda
Alonso
Vandoorne

As much as I want Button to stay, I think he'll end up doing something else in 2017. McLaren sign Vandoorne in his place, not wishing to upset anybody further.

Force India - Mercedes
Perez
Hulkenberg

No change.

Toro Rosso - Ferrari
Sainz
Gasly

Sainz doesn't have anywhere to go, whilst Marko (having burned most of his bridges) only has Pierre Gasly to hand.

Haas - Ferrari
Grosjean
Gutierrez

Gene loves Romain, so he'd be asked to stay if a Ferrari deal doesn't materialise. Gutierrez hasn't been brilliant, but there's not really anyone else available.

Renault
Magnussen
Ocon

Magnussen's been rather handy, and I suspect Vasseur and Abiteboul will want to keep him. Palmer's been quite poor in contrast, so Renault will promote from within and give Ocon a chance (unless Ollie Rowland works wonders in GP2).

Manor - Mercedes
Wehrlein
Nasr/Ericsson

Mercedes will keep Wehrlein in the seat, since it works out well for both parties. The second seat will be in the hands of whichever Sauber driver can stump up the most cash.

SMP Racing - Ferrari
Kvyat
Sirotkin

Boris Rotenberg buys Sauber and brings Sergey Sirotkin along with him. With Kvyat free and the temptation of an all-Russian lineup, SMP snap him up too.

[CaptainGetz12]

No mention of Jean-Eric Vergne around here. Since he's a Ferrari development driver perhaps he could replace Guti or RoGro at Haas? He is certainly a capable pair of hands from what I've seen.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Remember those plans to get rid of the Curva Grande and put in a chicane? They're actually going to do it. And in spite of initial predictions, it's for both cars and bikes.

[madmark1974]

Remember those plans to get rid of the Curva Grande and put in a chicane? They're actually going to do it. And in spite of initial predictions, it's for both cars and bikes.

I clicked through fearing the worst, but to me that looks like a pretty decent change, a chicane after a flat-out
curve - seems very much like the 'new bus-stop' at Spa, and there are still outbraking manouvres there ...

[novitopoli]

Yeah, it's not really that bad, especially if it replaces the Rettifilo chicane aswell.

[watka]

My one query would be that with a straight as long as Monza's, will we actually see less overtaking at the new chicane compared to the old one as the straight is effectively lengthened, leading to more DRS passes?