Contact Us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right. 

         

123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999

(123) 555-6789

email@address.com

 

You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab.
Link to read me page with more information.

johansson-eyes-helmet-cockpit-sign.jpg

#SJblog (source page)

Filtering by Tag: MexicoGP

2016: Year In Review

Eric Graciano

#SJblog 81

JT – With 2016 coming to a close, it’s time to reflect on some of the year’s racing headlines, trends and impending changes as the new year arrives. But before we get to that, let’s chat about your first experience racing an LMP3 car earlier this month at the Gulf 12 Hours on Abu Dhabi’s Yas Marina circuit. 

You were teamed in United Autosports’ No. 22 Ligier JS P3 with Jim McGuire, Nico Rondet and Matt Keegan. Qualifying featured an average of all drivers’ lap times in each car to set the grid. The sister No. 23 Ligier of Alex Lynn, Shaun Lynn and Richard Meins lined up 7th with your car 6th. You set the fastest time among bronze drivers in qualifying and finished third in class with your teammates after both segments of the 12 Hours. 

What was it like to drive the P3 car and how did you enjoy the racing?

SJ – It was good fun. I hadn’t been in a proper car for a while. It’s been four years since I last raced a prototype. It felt a bit rusty to start with but as the weekend went on I started to get sharper. It started to feel pretty good in my last stint of the race. I guess if I had to rate myself over the weekend, I’d give myself a “5” out of 10. There’s definitely room for improvement but I really enjoyed it. It’s always been the same for me over the years when I’ve been out of a car for a longer period of time, after three races you’re more or less back to where you need to be.

The Ligier LMP3 is a great car, fantastic fun to drive. I really like the concept of the LMP3 class with economical, proper prototypes. The cars have no driver aids. They’re very pure and basic, but like all modern race cars very underpowered but certainly not easy to drive. The chassis is very reactive and because it doesn’t have driver aids it’s actually more difficult to handle than the other classes of cars. It’s not that different than a LMPC car and has a similar raw feel to it. 

JT – What did you think of the Yas Marina circuit? You hadn’t raced there before, correct?

 Correct, I have been there a few times for the F1 race but I had never raced there before. It’s another [Hermann] Tilke designed track. The facility is outstanding and visually it looks amazing when you first see it but it’s not very interesting once you drive it. There are four 1st-gear corners, ten 2nd-gear corners and one each which are 3rd, 4th and 5th-gear. So, the track is really all 1st and 2nd gear corners with the exception of turns two and three which are somewhat tricky to get right. The rest is all typical modern F1 tracks, with the identical template kerbs on every corner and although they are by no means easy to get right it’s purely another technical track where car performance and precision are the key factors to a fast laptime. Not one single corner where you have a take deep breath and go for it.

And there are three chicanes built into a track that started with a clean sheet, which is kind of strange when you can choose any combination of corners you wish? Chicanes were originally invented as a kind of last resort to slow cars down when a track was suddenly deemed too fast for certain cars. When you start from scratch designing a modern track there should be no reason to include chicanes. It’s amazing and frustrating that this trend keeps on going on almost every modern race track being built today. Why doesn’t someone at least attempt to do something really extraordinary when you have the opportunity starting from scratch. 

Source: F1

Source: F1

JT – Looking back at the 2016 F1 season, it unfolded pretty much as expected in general terms. Mercedes GP was head and shoulders above the other teams and dominated, winning 19 of the 21 races on the calendar, setting a new record in the process. 

SJ – Yes absolutely, they dominated. The only times they were beaten is when others picked up the pieces after they made errors, bad starts or had problems with reliability. Apart from that the races were pretty much a foregone conclusion before they started. 

Ultimately, Rosberg did a brilliant job winning the championship. It’s been so close between the two of them the past couple of years and this year was no different of course. Rosberg was able to turn it on mid-season to gain a big enough advantage over Lewis, where he did not have to get into a dogfight for position but merely had to maintain his points gap even if Lewis won every race towards the end. I believe this was the key to him being able to drive disciplined and error free to get the points he needed to seal the title. I don’t think there’s much left to say about his decision to retire a week after the final race, everybody interested in F1 have voiced their opinion one way or the other. In the end it’s his decision and no one else’s. I personally respect the way he bowed out of F1. When you think about it, what would a guy like that want to do next. Would he want to hang in there trying to break every record? 

Source: F1

Source: F1

I think it really comes down to the goals you set for yourself. His goal was to win the Formula One World Championship and he did that. Other drivers – Senna, Schumacher, Hamilton – they have different goals perhaps. And then some drivers simply love racing and can look beyond what the goals are and just enjoy the moment, enjoy racing for what it is and still do a great job by doing that. Bottom line is that every driver is different and it would have been a much easier decision for Nico to say I carry on for a few more years rather than make a decision that is completely life changing to him in every aspect, it takes someone with a lot of courage and will power that reach that conclusion. 

JT – For the last couple decades F1 has focused on Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton – all guys who share a determination to be relentless in their pursuit of winning races and championships - sometimes to an unhealthy degree. I think Rosberg has demonstrated that there’s another way. It may not be a new idea but his outlook is refreshing and perhaps good for Formula One. Do you agree?

SJ – I agree entirely. There is a fine balance between doing the right thing and being relentlessly obsessed with winning at any cost, including cheating if that is an available option – and the notion that we should somehow admire that without questioning the means of how the winning is achieved.

In the end, the relatively brief moments we spend fighting to win races and championships are miniscule relative to the bigger picture of life in general but also in the life of a racing driver. I think we all evolve as human beings to appreciate that at some point later in life. Everyone has their own morals, desires and ambitions in life but I think what Rosberg did was classy and graceful. 

He figured out what he had to do, did it his way and succeeded. That’s very admirable. 

JT – The Formula One cars we’ve known for the last few years are changing for 2017. Most fans won’t miss the cars that have raced in recent seasons but as you’ve said repeatedly, though the formula is changing somewhat, the direction chosen probably won’t improve competition.

SJ – Yes, we’ll have a completely new style of cars for better or worse. The cars will probably look a lot better but whether they’re going to be better in terms of racing remains to be seen. I doubt it very much personally. We have gradually over the years arrived at a situation, primarily thanks to the designs of the cars with these incredibly complex front wings and the amount of downforce they produce, where we then have to create an artificial device (DRS) that will enable overtaking with the purpose of making the racing more exciting or interesting. Add to that the tires which have been mandated to be much worse than they could or should be, again with the purpose to spice up the show with a very short life span and low grip levels. Yet we are now adding even more downforce to the cars, granted it’s supposed to be generated from the bottom of the car and not the front which will help the turbulence for sure, but the fact remains that the cars are already almost in the corners when they brake so I can’t see how by adding a very significant amount of downforce will be helpful in this regard. The cars will be on rails literally and there will be even less opportunity to pass than there currently is. Some argue that it will only be the brave drivers that will be fast which is complete nonsense in my opinion, anyone can drive a car with a lot of downforce as long as they are fit enough to handle the forces, it’s when you start taking it off to a significant degree the difference between the great and not so good will start to show.

Technical Analysis Sketch by Giorgio Piola

Technical Analysis Sketch by Giorgio Piola

You have to assume that Mercedes will maintain some kind of advantage but whenever there’s a reset like this there is an opportunity for someone else to get it more right than the others and that advantage then tends to stay for a while as we’ve seen with Mercedes the past few years. There are also a lot of changes within Mercedes for next year. Rosberg has left and Paddy Lowe (technical director) is apparently leaving too. I have a feeling that Red Bull will be in the strongest position to challenge Mercedes next season. The engines are all getting closer to each other every year and we can assume that starting next year there will be very little difference in terms of power between the different engine manufacturers, so the emphasis will be moving back more towards the chassis and who can get the best out of the tires. The cars will have a massive increase in downforce, and it will be a somewhat new frontier for the teams to find the best package for the start of the season, and this is why I think Red Bull will be very strong as they already had arguably the best chassis this year and with Adrian Newey fully focused on the F1 program again. 

Also, all the teams that have a “B” team or a satellite team or whatever you want to label them, Red Bull/Toro Rosso, Ferrari/HAAS and Mercedes with the teams they support will most likely have an advantage in the early stages as they will have 4 cars or more to collect certain data from during the initial testing.

JT – Mercedes GP is still lining up a replacement for Nico Rosberg. Williams F1’s Valtteri Bottas is seen as a leading candidate. No matter who is chosen, they will likely experience friction with Lewis Hamilton.

Photo by Motorsport.com

Photo by Motorsport.com

SJ – There was friction between the drivers before so why should it be any different in 2017? 

How much friction depends on how big a threat Lewis’ new teammate could be. That’s normal and not a bad reflection on Lewis in particular but merely the way it is, especially in a team where you have two driver with an equal chance to fight for the championship. We had the same scenario between Vettel and Webber when they were dominating and both had a real chance of winning the title, Prost and Senna, Mansell and Piquet. It was war without weapons and no different to what we have seen between Lewis and Nico the past few years. Unless you have a clear number one driver like Ferrari had with Schumacher you will always have that dynamic if the title is at stake. 

JT – At McLaren, Fernando Alonso will have Stoffel Vandoorne as a new teammate. Vandoorne spent 2016 racing in the Japanese Super Formula. The series features 2 liter turbocharged engines from Toyota and Honda in Dallara SF14 single-seater chassis. Comparable to current IndyCars in terms of pace, the Super Formula cars are challenging to master and the generally experienced field of drivers assures stiff competition. One would imagine that racing in Japan in 2016 was probably good for Vandoorne in terms of experience.

SJ – The racing in Japan is super competitive and those cars are on a very high level of performance. It’s a great training ground for sure and it shows how competitive it is when someone like Vandoorne goes there and struggles to win races. (Vandoorne won two races in 2016.) And it’s the same for every European who goes there. It’s a very tough series.

JT – The 2017 Formula One calendar is firm and it shows that F1 events are always in flux. For the first time in many years there will be no German Grand Prix. Other events which have struggled recently including the Malaysian GP were able to secure a date. But attendance has been off at many venues, including at European races like the Austrian GP at Red Bull Ring which has seen a precipitous drop and financial losses. F1’s mix of circuits globally is always a point of debate.

But F1 will always have problems in one region or another. Typically they go to places where money is, although the European races are not big spenders. But I think it’s worthwhile to retain some of the classic venues to mix with new circuits. 

JT – A proposal for a budget cap for F1 teams has surfaced again, this time from Liberty Media, the new group taking control of F1. The budget cap idea has been put before the teams several times in recent years but has never gained support because the top teams claim that the caps cannot be enforced. What do you think of the latest move to try to institute some kind of spending limit?

SJ – I agree 100 percent that you can never really truly enforce a cost cap. The teams will always find ways to spend money, and the creativity they have to accomplish this will just make it even more expensive in the end in my opinion.  I think what should be done with that in mind is to limit the areas where large amounts of money are currently being spent.

The number one area by far to focus on is Aerodynamics because everything on a current race car evolves from the Aero package. This is the single most important area for car performance, yet it has very little benefit if any at all outside the realm of making a race car go faster. The amount of money each team is spending on aero development is astronomical. I spoke to one of the Senior Management guys in one of the top teams recently, he told me they have a total of 250 people in the Design and Engineering department, of which half are aerodynamicists. Then bear in mind that each team probably have a similar ratio of staff depending on how big their budgets are. And all they are free to do is basically just fine tuning of a very restricted package, hence nearly every car looking identical. There is no innovation, just an enormous amount of money being spent on gaining ½ percent here and another ¼ percent there which all adds up in the end. 

Almost every single driver and many designers I speak to today is in agreement that aerodynamics or downforce is not the way to go. It’s a point I’ve been making for some time now, it’s killing the racing in every category and is making the average drivers look much better than they really are. Even Adrian Newey, who is the best Aerodynamicist in F1 history came out this week and said he is in favor of a Wind Tunnel ban. 

The best and only solution in my opinion in order to keep the costs down and to make the racing more interesting but still give teams the freedom to innovate in other ways is to set a fixed limit on the downforce the cars can produce. Whatever the number is, something significantly less than what they’re getting right now, the focus would go from how much aerodynamic downforce cars make to how much grip the teams could gain back in other areas. It would be easy to monitor the level of downforce through the ECU and the load sensors in the suspension. 

It sounds controversial as it requires a complete rethink but it’s in my view it’s no different than limiting the size of the tires, the engine size, or the amount of fuel the cars can carry. We have limits and restrictions in almost every area of the car so why not limit the amount of downforce to a level that is sensible and that will also improve the racing.

Limiting downforce and putting the emphasis on other areas of development would also assist in the prevailing debate of political correctness which says that Formula One should benefit automotive technology for the street somehow. If you take all the effort, brain power and money that’s been spent in wind tunnels for the past 25 years and concentrate those resources in other areas, I guarantee you that in five years there will be breakthroughs in technology that we haven’t even seen yet. 

This could include technology that gives cars a massive leap in mechanical grip, a lot less drag, greatly improved tires and much more. At the least, it could open up new areas of exploration instead of endlessly focusing and fine-tuning the aero within this very defined box. New materials we never knew existed and other technologies would be discovered and developed at a pace we can’t imagine. 

If you free up the engine restrictions you can make similar gains as well. Set a certain parameter regarding how much energy consumption is allowed but let the engines make as much horsepower as they can get within those parameters. Make the engines powerful and not just efficient. If they can get 1500hp by only using the allowed criteria of energy consumption that’s great. Allow any technology that people want to try, remember the turbine Lotus in the 70’s, pioneering stuff that is also exciting and interesting for the fans.

Make the cars spectacular looking and difficult to drive, a car with 1500hp and half or less of the current levels of downforce will be a beast to drive, and that’s what the fans and the drivers want. 

Again, in that kind of competitive environment there would be new engine technology pioneered or developed that could be infinitely better than any hybrid or electric power plants that are currently being mandated as the only option for a power plant. Changing this focus will bring on new innovations that no one has thought of yet just because they have now been challenged to think of them. Motor racing in general and F1 in particular is the most competitive environment you can find, and if you unchain these guys and really allow their creativity to come out I guarantee you that we will see some incredible stuff in the future. 

There are more scientist and engineers alive in the world today than have lived in all previous human history put together, this is an important fact. In the past 20 years there have been literally new discoveries in Science and technology every week and this is increasing at an exponential rate. Radical new technologies are coming into existence all the time. If the emphasis of F1 or motor racing in general is to stay relevant, maybe it’s time to do a reset and allow some new and radical thinking instead of rehashing the same old Aerodynamics concept over and over at an astronomical cost each time there’s a new rule change. 

JT- With the announcement that Audi is pulling out of WEC we are now down to two manufacturers racing each other for the Championship and the overall win at Le Mans. What are the likelihood of more manufacturers joining the series and what effect do you think it will have on WEC going forward?

SJ- It’s hard to say, but I find it nearly impossible for a new manufacturer to join in the current situation and with the current rules the way they are. LMP1 is now on a level of F1, maybe even more in some aspects. The budgets are certainly very close to a top team in F1 and for a new team to join with a genuine attempt at winning would be a monumental task. We may see some half serious attempts like the Nissan project last year but I would be very surprised to see any manufacturer mount a serious effort at winning the 24 hours under the current system.

Much like F1, the development of the cars have reached a point where the racing is not very interesting any longer, the GTLM and LMP2 categories are far more interesting to follow than the LMP1 is now, with great drivers in both categories and great teams running the cars. It’s hard racing all the way.

I personally think we’re at a point now where we could take the GTLM cars and make them the main category. The goal for the ACO has always been for the fastest cars to be in the 3 min 30sec laptime bracket, they seem to think this is the safe area to be in for overall laptimes. The GT’s are in the low 50’s now and if you took of all the restrictors they would gain a significant amount of horsepower which could translate to a laptime somewhere in the mid 40’s probably. Allow each manufacturer to then develop the cars bit further, add some wider tires and wider wheel arches which would make the cars look a lot more cool and aggressive and the laptimes would be in the 30’s in a couple of years. The racing would be awesome with a whole grid full of the same cars essentially. The manufacturers would be going for it and the customer teams could buy the same car as the one winning the race. They wouldn’t be as quick, but not that far off, certainly not 10 seconds or more which is currently the case between the manufacturers and the privateers. The fans will be watching the same cars they can buy in the showroom and we would probably have 7-8 Manufacturers represented, maybe more. If you take away the BOP restrictions, it’s up to each manufacturer to make a road car that is good enough to compete for overall victory. We would see some incredibly cool looking cars, that will then also be available for people to buy. Like we have seen with the Ford GT, there will be a line of people wanting to get their hands on these when they become available to the public.

The Controversial Mexican Grand Prix

Stefan Johansson

- #SJblog 79 -

JT – Last weekend’s Mexican Grand Prix was an unqualified success in terms of the enthusiasm and large turnout of Mexican fans. But the race itself was a mess. The officiating of the grand prix proved to be confusing for both fans and drivers.

Lewis Hamilton won from the pole despite out-braking himself at Turn 1 and reentering the track at full speed in Turn 3. No penalty was assessed though Hamilton clearly gained advantage. Nico Rosberg finished a somewhat distant second after surviving a hit from Max Verstappen at Turn 2 which forced him off track.

The third spot on the podium wasn’t decided until hours after the podium celebrations. Daniel Ricciardo was awarded third place due to penalties handed out to his Red Bull Racing teammate and Ferrari’s Sebastian Vettel.

Battling for third with Vettel just behind in the last laps of the race, Max Verstappen blew Turn 1 in similar fashion to Hamilton, leaving the track and reentering at Turn 3. No penalty was issued as the laps wound down and Verstappen refused to cede the position to Vettel. This allowed Ricciardo to quickly catch Vettel and attempt to pass him for fourth position. Ricciardo saw an opening at Turn 4 and dived to the inside. Vettel squeezed him to the left under braking, making light contact with Ricciardo and held his position.

Post-race, the stewards handed Verstappen a five second penalty for blowing Turn 1 and pulled him from the podium, elevating Vettel to third place initially. But hours later Vettel was also penalized by the stewards, forfeiting 10-seconds “for driving in a potentially dangerous manner, making an abnormal change of direction, and causing another driver to take evasive action.”
Hence, Verstappen finished 4th while Vettel ended up 5th.

The lack of prompt action by the stewards for each infraction should be an embarrassment for Formula One principals. They failed to act when Hamilton made a mistake then waited to assess penalties on Verstappen and Vettel until after the race. There’s much to be said about the race and the inconsistent/un-timely rulings but I believe your thoughts begin with the track - Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez – itself.

SJ – You are correct. I’ve been trying to arrive at an answer as to why the officiating of F1 has become such a mess all of a sudden. It’s certainly not the first time we’ve seen drivers duke it out with three or four laps to go. That’s the kind of close competition people want to see but this was compromised.

The new track designs with massive asphalt run off areas have slowly and systematically been introduced to every new track and modified on most of the old and existing tracks, mostly for safety reasons. Since this started to happen there has been no clearly defined rule about exceeding track limits or taking advantage of the runoff areas. Because of this the drivers have been able to do pretty much whatever they have wanted without being immediately punished for their mistakes or abuse of the track limits, by simply continuing to race even though they’ve gone off-track.

In other words, the only punishment you can get now is what comes from the control tower rather than an immediate consequence for running off-track. Formula One needs to figure out how to reintroduce an immediate and natural punishment for going off-track.

Take, for instance, Lewis’ mistake at the start of the race. He braked too late, locked up, missed the corner and carried on without even losing a position. At a few other tracks if he’d done the same thing, missing the corner entry by breaking to late and then leaving the track, the best case scenario would be that he knocked off a front-wing endplate or something and would have to pit. Or he might have gotten stuck in a gravel trap. Maybe he gets towed out of it but loses lots of positions or even a lap.

In the past, even when you had an area where there was a clear runoff or an “escape road” as it used to be called, the rule was always that you had to wait to rejoin the track until the marshals waved you on – in other words, when the track was clear. I can’t actually remember why and when that rule changed or was no longer enforced but it used to always be the rule. Knowing this, you had no choice but to be a lot more cautious of missing the entry to the corner as it effectively would ruin your race in many cases. What used to be the escape road is now effectively the entire area past the track limit as there is no longer any definition beyond that point but instead just one huge patch of asphalt in most cases, which of course make the re-entry to the track much more difficult to control. Now drivers just keep their boot in it and keep going, entering the track wherever it suits them.

Stefan Johansson - McLaren F1 - MonacoGP - 1987

Stefan Johansson - McLaren F1 - MonacoGP - 1987

And really, so would I. Because if you can get away with that, that’s what you do. Anyone with even an inkling of competitive spirit would do the same thing. Without clearly defined rules as to what you can and can’t do, this is what happens.

Lewis did exactly the same thing as Verstappen. Both of them blew Turn 1 but Verstappen was penalized and Lewis wasn’t. The rulings are completely random, all over the map.

What I’m getting at is that the fact that these situations now have to be controlled and decided by a human being is wrong. There should be an immediate, natural consequence for screwing up. They need to figure out a way to redesign these modern race tracks to bring that about. The way things are now makes it a complete mockery of the sport. The drivers don’t know if they’re coming or going.

At the end of this race time penalties were handed out. Whether what Verstappen did was right or wrong – personally, I think it was wrong but it’s not for me to decide – he should have been told to immediately give up his position to Vettel if he was judged to be wrong. In the end, instead he lost two places. He gave up a position to Vettel and then lost one to Ricciardo. This is not fair on Verstappen’s part as he lost one position more than he should have and gave an unfair benefit to Ricciardo who had nothing to do with the battle between Vettel and Verstappen but gained one position more than he should have thanks to the time penalty. There is no science behind these time penalties but just a random number picked out of the blue. Who says 5 seconds is the correct penalty, why not instead 10 seconds, or 3, they’re all completely random numbers and does not relate to the “crime” in any way.

By being wishy-washy and not having consistency in the officiating, F1 has allowed the situation to get out of control. We need to find a way to go back to basics and try to avoid having to make calls from the control tower when they should be decided on or by the race track itself.

We have street circuits on the F1 calendar. They don’t have runoff areas and at each one you avoid these situations because there’s nowhere to go beyond the track limits, if you do you hit a wall. Look at old pictures of circuits where the curbs are a foot high at a 45-degree angle. You sure as hell weren’t going to run over those curbs. You had to adapt and drive accordingly. Interestingly, if you look back and do the statistics, I don’t think there were any more incidents or serious accident because of these kerbs, because people simply had to drive with this in mind, which again sorted the good ones from the average in a much better way.

JT – There are multiple specific examples of F1’s inconsistency in officiating that stem from rulings/non-rulings in Mexico. Another you mention is their ruling on Vettel’s battle with Ricciardo.

SJ – With two laps to go, Vettel basically did what Verstappen has done in most races this year and he gets penalized. Verstappen is yet to receive a penalty for the same actions.

Yes, they changed the rule about moving in a braking zone, or said they would enforce it harder from Texas onwards but all they’re doing is just adding another element of confusion. There are so many ways to interpret this same issue that it’s become an almost impossible task to hand out a fair penalty. At some point they just need to let the drivers get on with it.

Assume for a moment that Verstappen was racing in NASCAR. He wouldn’t have finished one race this season. He would have been in the wall every single race if he had applied the same attitude he’s shown in F1 so far. The other drivers would have sorted him out in no time until he would have shown a mutual level of respect that the other competitors showed to him. Of course, you can’t do that in open wheel cars but I remember numerous times when there were a very frank conversation at the back of a truck (hauler) somewhere. That’s how it used to get sorted out if someone stepped out of line. And before you knew it everyone was falling into line. Look at the guys who’ve gone into NASCAR from other series – Montoya, Tony Stewart, all of these great drivers. They all had to pay their dues. Correct the problem with the tracks and let the drivers sort on-track behavior out among themselves. They’re supposed to be the best in the world and it wouldn’t take long for a pattern to form where everyone would be on the same page. There are always exceptions of course and every generation seems to have a resident idiot in the field, but generally speaking, they are rarely one of the top guys as they are clever enough to understand that those methods are not winning you races and championships in the long run.

JT – Do you think the varied challenge of IndyCar racing enhances race-craft? On ovals for example, you either learn to respect the track and the other drivers or you don’t last long.

SJ – Absolutely, no question about it. A large degree of this deficit of skill or race craft is once again partly due to the design of modern circuits, and the relatively equal character to every track they race on. Finding the limit on these tracks is too easy. That of course promotes more irresponsible behavior because the risk and often even penalties, are removed from the equation. Again, there is no punishment. There are a couple of the current F1 drivers, without mentioning any names, that are absolutely brilliant in the Simulator and also as test drivers, but as soon as they get into a position where they have to race someone hard or have a few cars around them everything just goes to pieces. I have had discussions with the team principals about this and they are completely baffled about their lack of basic race craft.

JT – Going back to the Mexican GP, one has to wonder why the FIA waited to issue penalties until after the race? Why couldn’t they have been issued immediately – particularly regarding Verstappen or Hamilton. Those were clear-cut infractions. And if a penalty had been issued in timely fashion, wouldn’t that have diffused the situation that arose between Vettel and Ricciardo?

SJ – Exactly, as I said before, the penalty should have been immediate. Within a lap they should have got on the radio and told Verstappen to let Vettel go by.

What choice did Vettel have? He gets backed up into Ricciardo and he’s all of a sudden looking at losing 4th place and being 5th when he should have been in 3rd place. Any driver would have had the same level of frustration, it goes without saying and that leads to my next point.

I don’t remember when this whole open-radio policy began where the public can hear conversations between the drivers and teams. I guess that’s part of the entertainment now but if you allow and promote that then you’re going to have to expect that drivers are going to show their frustration now and then. Why should that surprise anyone? At least you’re hearing a live, breathing human being showing real emotion instead of drivers thanking the team, sponsors, their parents, etc – all that stuff you normally hear on the slowing down lap has become almost meaningless.

What Vettel said shows what’s actually going on in the car and I can relate to it 100 percent. Normally when you get on the radio like that, you just want to blow off some steam. Yes of course, you have to try to control yourself but I’ve certainly been guilty of using far worse language than Vettel did.

Stefan Johansson - Ferrari - Italian GP - 1986

Stefan Johansson - Ferrari - Italian GP - 1986

JT – Some commentators are now publicly recognizing what you have been commenting on for months. The 2017 rules package for F1 which allows a significant increase in downforce levels will do little if anything to improve the racing. However, those inside F1 still don’t seem to see this, correct?

SJ – The general consensus seems to be that the cars will become more difficult to drive next year because of the added downforce, and the really brave and good one will stand out much more than they do now.

I disagree completely. Anyone can drive a high downforce car. There’s no bravery involved when the car’s completely stuck to the track. It will just make the racing even more like a video game. Bravery comes into it when you’re balancing a car right on the edge of adhesion going through a high speed corner on the very limit. Like Eau Rouge used to be. It’s already almost not a corner anymore, I can’t even think of what it will be like next year. All this will do is make the minimum speed mid corner in the slow stuff even more critical and there will be absolutely no way to make up any time in the high speed stuff as the car will be completely stuck. The cars will outgrow the tracks even more than what is currently the case.

Pedro Rodriguez - Ferrari - MexicanGP - 1965

Pedro Rodriguez - Ferrari - MexicanGP - 1965

The technical rules in Formula One have gotten so complicated that the only people who really understand them are the engineers. That’s why they are the main people involved in writing the technical rules. I guess in a way it’s job security for them. I keep repeating myself over and over, Aerodynamics and the endless search for more downforce will kill the sport if they don’t do something about it. It serves no purpose but to make a race car go faster, but at a cost that will make your eyes water. The top teams now employ something like 200 people in the Design and Engineering departments, of which half are aerodynamicists. And all they are allowed to do is fine tune and hone an aero package that is so strictly defined that I beg anyone to tell me which car is which if they painted them all white. There is no innovation anymore, just and endless tinkering to gain an extra half percent here and another quarter percent there.