F1 2017
- Thread starter spitfire
- Start date
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
hey i hate to look at this thread on a non terrestrial channel race..
it always spoils it
but as it was the race where all Hamilton had to do was finish...
its not like its not going to be on every news channel
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
He had to collect the points from 5th place in any of the three remaining races, OR Vettel had to win two races and finish second in the third.
Vettel didn't finish second here, so Hammy won by default.
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
Channel 4 at 22.30 tonight.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
1%er
Well-Known Member
Proposed 2021 power-unit regulations
As has been widely predicted F1 will be staying with the 1.6 V6 turbo engine. The good news is it looks likely that they will do away with the MGU-H, which recovers heat energy from the turbo and instead concentrate on the MGU-K which does and is capable of producing much more power. This is good news for a number of reasons, not least, it should help to to bring down cost and therefore make power-unit supply more interesting for other companies, which one hopes will bring more competition into the sport.
The two other big changes will be an increase in the rev limit from 15,000 rpm to 18,000 rpm, that should have an effect of noise (for those interested in more noise) and drivers will have more control on the deployment of the ERS power.
The full presented vision of the 2021 engine specification is as follows:
• 1.6 Litre, V6 Turbo Hybrid
• 3000rpm higher engine running speed range to improve the sound
• Prescriptive internal design parameters to restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions
• Removal of the MGUH
• More powerful MGUK with focus on manual driver deployment in race together with option to save up energy over several laps to give a driver controlled tactical element to racing
• Single turbo with dimensional constraints and weight limits
• Standard energy store and control electronics
• High Level of external prescriptive design to give 'Plug-And-Play' engine/chassis/transmission swap capability
• Intention to investigate tighter fuel regulations and limits on number of fuels used
While this is currently only a proposal, it is unlikely to change very much as it comes from a group comprising the FIA, FOM and the teams.
Pascal Wehrlein and Williams news
It was a choice between Pascal Wehrlein getting the boot or Marcus Ericsson, but as Ericsson has very close ties to the new owners of the team is was always likely that Wehrlein would be the one to go. Pascal the young German driver who is on the books of Mercedes has scored 5 points in the drivers championship this season, whilst Ericsson has scored none. His place is going to be taken by Charles Leclerc who is a young Ferrari driver and Sauber's engine partner.
It isn't the end of the road yet for Pascal Wehrlein to get a seat for 2018, his connections to Mercedes could help him get a drive at Williams, but there is a very long list of drivers available now to take up Felipe Massa's seat. While it will be sad to see Massa leave F1 (again
) it is looking more and more likely that he will not be driving for Williams in 2018. He has scored less points in the drivers championship than his rookie team mate Lance Stroll and reports in the Brazilian media all seem to indicate that he will be driving in Formula E in 2018.
But Williams have a problem as their title sponsor Martini don't want two young drivers in the team they are pumping millions into, as it doesn't fit with their demographic. It is believed that the contract between Martini and Williams states that one of the drivers must be over 25. This is very good news for fans of Paul Di Resta because as things stand at the moment and if reports of Massa's demise are true, he is the only driver currently on the shortlist who is over 25. While Robert Kubica is over 25 it is thought very unlikely he will return to F1 in 2018.
The shortlist is now thought to be Robert Kubica, Felipe Massa, Paul di Resta, Daniil Kvyat and Pascal Wehrlein, clearly the Williams drive is the best available drive left in F1 for 2018, so there will be very stiff competition for that seat. Williams isn't a "rich" team and their performance this season has been very disappointing, they need money coming in and not going out to pay a driver, this will have a big effect on their decision.
There title sponsor and engine supplier will have a great deal of influence in how they go forward. I'd have thought that Mercedes would be pushing hard for Pascal Wehrlein to get the seat in exchange for a reduction in the price of their power-unit as he is a young Mercedes driver, but watching Esteban Ocon this season, who is also a young Mercedes driver (just turned 22) I think the Mercedes team will be looking at Ocon for their team in a few years time rather than Wehrlein.
Missing from parade
Sorry I was missing on Sunday but my wife decided to invite a number of friends over to celebrate Lewis wining the world championship on Sunday and thought it would be a good surprise for me, it was for sure a surprise as she decided to confiscate my laptop claiming as everyone was a Portuguese speaker I didn't need to listen to the English commentary
She looked very sheepish after the 3rd corner incident when it looked like Lewis may be out of the race 
Anyway I hope to be back in 2 weeks for Brazil, albeit not posting much as it is our annual Formula 1 bar-b-queue
As has been widely predicted F1 will be staying with the 1.6 V6 turbo engine. The good news is it looks likely that they will do away with the MGU-H, which recovers heat energy from the turbo and instead concentrate on the MGU-K which does and is capable of producing much more power. This is good news for a number of reasons, not least, it should help to to bring down cost and therefore make power-unit supply more interesting for other companies, which one hopes will bring more competition into the sport.
The two other big changes will be an increase in the rev limit from 15,000 rpm to 18,000 rpm, that should have an effect of noise (for those interested in more noise) and drivers will have more control on the deployment of the ERS power.
The full presented vision of the 2021 engine specification is as follows:
• 1.6 Litre, V6 Turbo Hybrid
• 3000rpm higher engine running speed range to improve the sound
• Prescriptive internal design parameters to restrict development costs and discourage extreme designs and running conditions
• Removal of the MGUH
• More powerful MGUK with focus on manual driver deployment in race together with option to save up energy over several laps to give a driver controlled tactical element to racing
• Single turbo with dimensional constraints and weight limits
• Standard energy store and control electronics
• High Level of external prescriptive design to give 'Plug-And-Play' engine/chassis/transmission swap capability
• Intention to investigate tighter fuel regulations and limits on number of fuels used
While this is currently only a proposal, it is unlikely to change very much as it comes from a group comprising the FIA, FOM and the teams.
Pascal Wehrlein and Williams news
It was a choice between Pascal Wehrlein getting the boot or Marcus Ericsson, but as Ericsson has very close ties to the new owners of the team is was always likely that Wehrlein would be the one to go. Pascal the young German driver who is on the books of Mercedes has scored 5 points in the drivers championship this season, whilst Ericsson has scored none. His place is going to be taken by Charles Leclerc who is a young Ferrari driver and Sauber's engine partner.
It isn't the end of the road yet for Pascal Wehrlein to get a seat for 2018, his connections to Mercedes could help him get a drive at Williams, but there is a very long list of drivers available now to take up Felipe Massa's seat. While it will be sad to see Massa leave F1 (again
) it is looking more and more likely that he will not be driving for Williams in 2018. He has scored less points in the drivers championship than his rookie team mate Lance Stroll and reports in the Brazilian media all seem to indicate that he will be driving in Formula E in 2018. But Williams have a problem as their title sponsor Martini don't want two young drivers in the team they are pumping millions into, as it doesn't fit with their demographic. It is believed that the contract between Martini and Williams states that one of the drivers must be over 25. This is very good news for fans of Paul Di Resta because as things stand at the moment and if reports of Massa's demise are true, he is the only driver currently on the shortlist who is over 25. While Robert Kubica is over 25 it is thought very unlikely he will return to F1 in 2018.
The shortlist is now thought to be Robert Kubica, Felipe Massa, Paul di Resta, Daniil Kvyat and Pascal Wehrlein, clearly the Williams drive is the best available drive left in F1 for 2018, so there will be very stiff competition for that seat. Williams isn't a "rich" team and their performance this season has been very disappointing, they need money coming in and not going out to pay a driver, this will have a big effect on their decision.
There title sponsor and engine supplier will have a great deal of influence in how they go forward. I'd have thought that Mercedes would be pushing hard for Pascal Wehrlein to get the seat in exchange for a reduction in the price of their power-unit as he is a young Mercedes driver, but watching Esteban Ocon this season, who is also a young Mercedes driver (just turned 22) I think the Mercedes team will be looking at Ocon for their team in a few years time rather than Wehrlein.
Missing from parade
Sorry I was missing on Sunday but my wife decided to invite a number of friends over to celebrate Lewis wining the world championship on Sunday and thought it would be a good surprise for me, it was for sure a surprise as she decided to confiscate my laptop claiming as everyone was a Portuguese speaker I didn't need to listen to the English commentary
She looked very sheepish after the 3rd corner incident when it looked like Lewis may be out of the race Anyway I hope to be back in 2 weeks for Brazil, albeit not posting much as it is our annual Formula 1 bar-b-queue
1%er
Well-Known Member
Manufacturers unimpressed with 2021 engine rules
It seems that none of the motor manufacturers are very impressed with the new 2021 rules, is this because they want to hold on to their current monopoly and not have other engine designers joining the club, or is it for real cost reasons. Porsche and Aston Martin are both said to be waiting in the wings to join F1 after 2021 and McLaren are talking about building their own power-unit. Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault are claiming that "there would be high costs for those producing the new engine", despite the fact that most of the design and research has already been done. One of the highest costs in the development of the current power-unit over the last couple of years has been trying to perfect the MGU-H, which under new rules would go.
Mercedes chief Toto Wolff claims “It portrays it in a way of this is how we’re going forward, and none of the current OEMs were particularly impressed. Developing a new engine concept will trigger immense costs, just for the sake of having a new concept. The new concept needs to tackle the deficit that has been outlined, development costs and noise level and all that needs to be linked with a global view of F1. We haven’t seen any of that”.
His counterpart at Ferrari Maurizio Arrivabene will not rule out wielding its unique and historic power of veto to stop changes it considers are wrong. "At a certain point we apply our right to do a veto for good reason at that time" he is reported as having said, he went on to say "Normally you have the simple equation, what and how? For sure it's not Ferrari or Mercedes driving the show, but they are the people who are manufacturing the engines".
Renault F1 managing director Cyril Abiteboul is reported as saying "Despite maybe what FOM and FIA would say, what is put forward is a new engine. That's really for me the most fundamental element. We need to be extremely careful because each time we come up with a new regulation that will come up with a new product; we all know the impact.It's going to open an arms race again, and it will open up the field".
As you have have noticed I haven't mentioned Honda above I expect they are breathing a sigh of relief and thinking it could level the playing field a little for them.
All the teams have been involved in talks about the new engine and I'm a little surprised the big 3 have come out publicly so quickly knocking the plans. These are just outline plans, they are not definitive and discussions will continue throughout 2018 with a final decision being made by the end of 2018.
What I am slightly confused about is why the engine suppliers are not more concerned about Aerodynamics? Being the suppliers of the ICE, I'd have thought they would want to push to return F1 to an engine formula and be concentrating on pushing FOM and the FIA away from Aerodynamics.
As Enzo Ferrari once famously said “Aerodynamics are for people who can’t build engines” and many of the problems currently in F1 are caused by the overuse of Aerodynamics. Enzo's comments were aimed directly at the British teams who pioneered the use of Aerodynamics in F1 during the late 1950 and into the 1960 lead by Lotus, Cooper and BRM. In my view Formula 1 needs to become an engine formula once again, returning to ground effects and active suspension to produce mechanical grip and remove all these silly wings that have effectively done away with overtaking at many tracks.
Watching the Wheels wins book of the year
Damon Hill's autobiography "Watching the Wheels" has won "Motoring Book of the Year" awarded by The Royal Automobile Club. Well deserved in my view, it is a great read. As well as covering motor racing it also covered the little talked about subject of mental health problems, together with the inevitable troubles of coming to terms with an absent father (I have this as an ebook and as usual am happy to share just send an email address and I send a copy by return).
Another book that looks interesting will be coming out later this week is "The Mechanic" by Marc Priestley. It recounts his time as a mechanic at McLaren working on Kimi Raikkonen car and covers the period between 2000 and 2008. It also looks at the time Lewis was at the team with Alonso and has a mechanics eye view of spygate. I'm looking forward to it (although I doubt I'll get to read it this year as I have about 5 books in-front of it) and will let you know when I have an ebook copy to share.
It seems that none of the motor manufacturers are very impressed with the new 2021 rules, is this because they want to hold on to their current monopoly and not have other engine designers joining the club, or is it for real cost reasons. Porsche and Aston Martin are both said to be waiting in the wings to join F1 after 2021 and McLaren are talking about building their own power-unit. Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault are claiming that "there would be high costs for those producing the new engine", despite the fact that most of the design and research has already been done. One of the highest costs in the development of the current power-unit over the last couple of years has been trying to perfect the MGU-H, which under new rules would go.
Mercedes chief Toto Wolff claims “It portrays it in a way of this is how we’re going forward, and none of the current OEMs were particularly impressed. Developing a new engine concept will trigger immense costs, just for the sake of having a new concept. The new concept needs to tackle the deficit that has been outlined, development costs and noise level and all that needs to be linked with a global view of F1. We haven’t seen any of that”.
His counterpart at Ferrari Maurizio Arrivabene will not rule out wielding its unique and historic power of veto to stop changes it considers are wrong. "At a certain point we apply our right to do a veto for good reason at that time" he is reported as having said, he went on to say "Normally you have the simple equation, what and how? For sure it's not Ferrari or Mercedes driving the show, but they are the people who are manufacturing the engines".
Renault F1 managing director Cyril Abiteboul is reported as saying "Despite maybe what FOM and FIA would say, what is put forward is a new engine. That's really for me the most fundamental element. We need to be extremely careful because each time we come up with a new regulation that will come up with a new product; we all know the impact.It's going to open an arms race again, and it will open up the field".
As you have have noticed I haven't mentioned Honda above
I expect they are breathing a sigh of relief and thinking it could level the playing field a little for them.All the teams have been involved in talks about the new engine and I'm a little surprised the big 3 have come out publicly so quickly knocking the plans. These are just outline plans, they are not definitive and discussions will continue throughout 2018 with a final decision being made by the end of 2018.
What I am slightly confused about is why the engine suppliers are not more concerned about Aerodynamics? Being the suppliers of the ICE, I'd have thought they would want to push to return F1 to an engine formula and be concentrating on pushing FOM and the FIA away from Aerodynamics.
As Enzo Ferrari once famously said “Aerodynamics are for people who can’t build engines” and many of the problems currently in F1 are caused by the overuse of Aerodynamics. Enzo's comments were aimed directly at the British teams who pioneered the use of Aerodynamics in F1 during the late 1950 and into the 1960 lead by Lotus, Cooper and BRM. In my view Formula 1 needs to become an engine formula once again, returning to ground effects and active suspension to produce mechanical grip and remove all these silly wings that have effectively done away with overtaking at many tracks.
Watching the Wheels wins book of the year
Damon Hill's autobiography "Watching the Wheels" has won "Motoring Book of the Year" awarded by The Royal Automobile Club. Well deserved in my view, it is a great read. As well as covering motor racing it also covered the little talked about subject of mental health problems, together with the inevitable troubles of coming to terms with an absent father (I have this as an ebook and as usual am happy to share just send an email address and I send a copy by return).
Another book that looks interesting will be coming out later this week is "The Mechanic" by Marc Priestley. It recounts his time as a mechanic at McLaren working on Kimi Raikkonen car and covers the period between 2000 and 2008. It also looks at the time Lewis was at the team with Alonso and has a mechanics eye view of spygate. I'm looking forward to it (although I doubt I'll get to read it this year as I have about 5 books in-front of it) and will let you know when I have an ebook copy to share.
1%er
Well-Known Member
Lewis to start talks about extending his stay at Mercedes
Mercedes and Lewis Hamilton will sit down in the next few weeks to talk about extending his contract at the team. His current deal expires at the end of next season, but Lewis has said he wants to stay with the team beyond that point. He is reported as having said "We spoke a few weeks ago back at the factory and said that we would be sitting down. It is quite and easy process for us. We already have something great in place and it is really just about extending it and enhancing it and working on what more I can do for them and vice versa. But I am pretty sure within the next month or so we would have time to have sat down".
Ferrari threatens to pull out of F1
Ferrari chairman Sergio Marchionne has warned Ferrari could quit F1 if the sport's new owners take it in a direction contrary to the Italian sportscar maker's interests. Ferrari are the only team to have been in Formula One since the first world championship season in 1950 and also the most successful, even if they have not won a championship since 2008. They have accumulated a record 228 race wins, 16 constructors' championships and 15 drivers' titles.
Liberty want to level the playing field and rebalance revenues once the current agreement with teams expires at the end of 2020 and Ferrari have a number of special deals for years, the two must commonly quoted are they receive around $80 million from the prize money pool just for being Ferrari and they also have a veto on all new rules that have an effect on formula 1.
Marchionne said that while he supported cost-cutting, there were other strategic issues under discussion that could force Ferrari to consider racing elsewhere. "It [Formula One] has been part of our DNA since the day we were born, but if we change the sandbox to the point where it becomes an unrecognizable sandbox, I don't want to play anymore. I think you need to be absolutely clear that unless we find a set of circumstances, the results of which are beneficial to the maintenance of the brand in the marketplace and to the strengthening of the unique position for Ferrari, Ferrari will not play. We're walking into this meeting next Tuesday with the best of intentions, we'll see where it takes us, I am attending those meetings on strategy because it's important, because it matters a lot to this business. The financial implications of the wrong choice for the moment going forward are pretty significant to Ferrari".
Mercedes and Lewis Hamilton will sit down in the next few weeks to talk about extending his contract at the team. His current deal expires at the end of next season, but Lewis has said he wants to stay with the team beyond that point. He is reported as having said "We spoke a few weeks ago back at the factory and said that we would be sitting down. It is quite and easy process for us. We already have something great in place and it is really just about extending it and enhancing it and working on what more I can do for them and vice versa. But I am pretty sure within the next month or so we would have time to have sat down".
Ferrari threatens to pull out of F1
Ferrari chairman Sergio Marchionne has warned Ferrari could quit F1 if the sport's new owners take it in a direction contrary to the Italian sportscar maker's interests. Ferrari are the only team to have been in Formula One since the first world championship season in 1950 and also the most successful, even if they have not won a championship since 2008. They have accumulated a record 228 race wins, 16 constructors' championships and 15 drivers' titles.
Liberty want to level the playing field and rebalance revenues once the current agreement with teams expires at the end of 2020 and Ferrari have a number of special deals for years, the two must commonly quoted are they receive around $80 million from the prize money pool just for being Ferrari and they also have a veto on all new rules that have an effect on formula 1.
Marchionne said that while he supported cost-cutting, there were other strategic issues under discussion that could force Ferrari to consider racing elsewhere. "It [Formula One] has been part of our DNA since the day we were born, but if we change the sandbox to the point where it becomes an unrecognizable sandbox, I don't want to play anymore. I think you need to be absolutely clear that unless we find a set of circumstances, the results of which are beneficial to the maintenance of the brand in the marketplace and to the strengthening of the unique position for Ferrari, Ferrari will not play. We're walking into this meeting next Tuesday with the best of intentions, we'll see where it takes us, I am attending those meetings on strategy because it's important, because it matters a lot to this business. The financial implications of the wrong choice for the moment going forward are pretty significant to Ferrari".
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
They can recycle the leaving card from last year.
I wonder if there's any cake left over?
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
Many (if not all) of these imaginative tax avoidance schemes have a slew of accountants and lawyers lining up to say they are technically legal. Rich people can afford expensive advisers.
It almost certainly doesn't break the law, because expensive advisers design schemes that don't do that. It may not embrace the spirit of the law, but the spirit of the law is to remove every penny it possibly can, and for the penny's owners to beg to get it back if they can prove a case for a refund.
Decades ago, in an income tax case, a smart judge ruled that "technically legal" schemes were totally fine if they were not actually illegal. His exact judgement was (I paraphrase): "It's not incumbent on any individual to arrange his affairs for the best advantage of the tax man." In essence, the spirit of the law can go screw itself.
The tax man can stomp his tiny feet as much as he likes, but wishing and spluttering doesn't alter the fact that technically legal things are still legal. The only definitive statement on illegality is the judgement of a court. Until then if it's legal, it's legal.
No matter how envious people are, or how much faux outrage the red-top rags whip up, the rich have always found ways to protect their money. They always will. The question is: do you like the rich bastard that's getting away with paying less tax than they could potentially be rinsed for? In Hammy's case, I say yes. Happy flying. Love the candy-apple red jet.
Of far more concern to me is the (again, totally legal) tax evasion of multinationals, who use internal cost transfers, artificial management fees and brand royalties, and money-flows routed through brass-plate offices in (usually) Luxembourg to avoid corporation tax. Amazon, Vodafone, Starbucks, Dell, Facebook and Google are prime exponents. I choose those companies because I calculated that they collectively, in aggregate, pay less UK corporation tax as a proportion of turnover than my one-man business. And it's hard to like a corporation that swears blind it's a good corporate citizen while removing as much cash as it can from the economies it benefits from.
Now I have made myself cross. I shall go and strangle a kitten to soothe my clanging nerves. Or drink a cup of Horlicks. Whichever comes to hand first.
It almost certainly doesn't break the law, because expensive advisers design schemes that don't do that. It may not embrace the spirit of the law, but the spirit of the law is to remove every penny it possibly can, and for the penny's owners to beg to get it back if they can prove a case for a refund.
Decades ago, in an income tax case, a smart judge ruled that "technically legal" schemes were totally fine if they were not actually illegal. His exact judgement was (I paraphrase): "It's not incumbent on any individual to arrange his affairs for the best advantage of the tax man." In essence, the spirit of the law can go screw itself.
The tax man can stomp his tiny feet as much as he likes, but wishing and spluttering doesn't alter the fact that technically legal things are still legal. The only definitive statement on illegality is the judgement of a court. Until then if it's legal, it's legal.
No matter how envious people are, or how much faux outrage the red-top rags whip up, the rich have always found ways to protect their money. They always will. The question is: do you like the rich bastard that's getting away with paying less tax than they could potentially be rinsed for? In Hammy's case, I say yes. Happy flying. Love the candy-apple red jet.
Of far more concern to me is the (again, totally legal) tax evasion of multinationals, who use internal cost transfers, artificial management fees and brand royalties, and money-flows routed through brass-plate offices in (usually) Luxembourg to avoid corporation tax. Amazon, Vodafone, Starbucks, Dell, Facebook and Google are prime exponents. I choose those companies because I calculated that they collectively, in aggregate, pay less UK corporation tax as a proportion of turnover than my one-man business. And it's hard to like a corporation that swears blind it's a good corporate citizen while removing as much cash as it can from the economies it benefits from.
Now I have made myself cross. I shall go and strangle a kitten to soothe my clanging nerves. Or drink a cup of Horlicks. Whichever comes to hand first.
1%er
Well-Known Member
As he lives in Monte Carol I'm not sure why he would pay Tax in the UK, as for the VAT payment on his Motor-home and private Jet, they were brought through his company. If his company was registered in the UK (and I don't know that it is) and the turnover is over 83,000 (UK$) he would be able to claim any VAT paid back, wouldn't he? My understanding is if you are a VAT registered company you collect the VAT for the Government your company charges to customers who pay you and your VAT on company expenses are able to be claimed back, has that changed?
I'm sure Lewis doesn't get involved in his tax affairs, he has "people" that do that for him, on the radio here they said a spokesman for him said he had a lawyer who specializes in Tax look at his tax arrangements and was told they are all legal.
If the government want to stop "this sort of thing" they need to make the tax laws address these issues, it can't be that hard. I have read stories year on year about Tax and the UK but no-one in Government wants to deal with it. This is real "yes minister" bullshit, where senior Tax officials who want jobs in the private sector after they do their stint at HMRC fail to address the issues, as it will effect their future employment.
I'm sure Lewis doesn't get involved in his tax affairs, he has "people" that do that for him, on the radio here they said a spokesman for him said he had a lawyer who specializes in Tax look at his tax arrangements and was told they are all legal.
If the government want to stop "this sort of thing" they need to make the tax laws address these issues, it can't be that hard. I have read stories year on year about Tax and the UK but no-one in Government wants to deal with it. This is real "yes minister" bullshit, where senior Tax officials who want jobs in the private sector after they do their stint at HMRC fail to address the issues, as it will effect their future employment.
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
Private Eye has a regular feature called "Revolving Doors" that reports on former Sir Humphreys who retire to eye-sockingly well-paid sinecures in accounting and audit firms.
Hammy's tax arrangements are legal until a court says they're not. You'll often come across the claim by the tax man that scheme X, Y or Z is a fake transaction used solely to avoid tax, and is therefore deemed to be unlawful. Well, HMRC can "deem" all they like, that particular department doesn't get to act as prosecutor, judge and jury.
It's down to parliament to pass better tax laws. Even then, accountants for the rich will always be one step ahead.
It seems that Hammy's accountants have used a procedure that dozens of other corporations use every year. It's no different when a celeb does it to when Global Tax Evasion Inc does it. It does however sell more newspapers when they can put a well-known face to a transaction the journalist can barely follow. Memo to sub-editors everywhere: You can't "dodge" VAT if you pay it up front, complete the right paperwork, obey all the rules, and get the tax refunded. That's just sloppy journalism.
If I sound bitter, it's because I am an unpaid tax collector for the treasury. I report and pay corporation tax for a limited company. I report and pay income tax and national insurance for that company's employees - me. I report and pay VAT every quarter.
Okay, I'm running out of kittens to strangle.
1%er
Well-Known Member
Sometime last year I watched Ian Hislop and Richard Brooks speaking to "The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee" about the revolving door policy of top civil servants leaving government posts and moving to highly paid jobs in the private sector, in areas that they were making decisions on while in government. Many civil servants have to report new jobs and get permission to except them, in every single case they were told "its Ok you can take that job".
Ah-ha found the link in my translation folder Youtube
Ah-ha found the link in my translation folder Youtube
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
It's the most excellent Brazil GP this weekend.
I'll stick my neck out and suggest the timings will be suitable both for Europe- and Brazil-based fans.
The UK times are:
Fri 10 Nov
FP1 - 12.00 (midday)
FP2 - 16.00
Sat 11 Nov
FP3 - 13.00
Qual - 16.00
Sun 12 Nov
Race - 16.00
I'll stick my neck out and suggest the timings will be suitable both for Europe- and Brazil-based fans.
The UK times are:
Fri 10 Nov
FP1 - 12.00 (midday)
FP2 - 16.00
Sat 11 Nov
FP3 - 13.00
Qual - 16.00
Sun 12 Nov
Race - 16.00
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
Croydon wouldn't have me.
Kitten strangling is quite a popular past time around that way.. ya never know
1%er
Well-Known Member
Christian Horner on signing Hamilton and Alonso
Horner is in the press talking about how Lewis "was desperate to drive for the team" and that Alonso wanted to jump ship from Renault to join Red Bull halfway through the 2009 season.
On Lewis he says “We had a couple of chats. It never really gained significant momentum but he's obviously a driver we rate extremely highly. He was desperate to drive for the team. In 2012, he wanted to come and drive for us, but there was no way we could accommodate him while Sebastian was with us. Then before he signed for Mercedes he was very keen to drive for Red Bull for 2013”.
On Alonso, he says “We got very close to signing Alonso. Helmut and I went to see his management at the end of 2008 for the ’09 and ’10 season, and we offered him a two-year contract. He would only sign up for one year and we said Red Bull’s position was a two-year deal or nothing, and he wouldn’t commit to that. We thought he’d had a Ferrari contract very clearly for ’09. What was weird about that was that Flavio was involved as well, but he was trying to get him for Renault which he was managing at the time and in the end, he drove for Renault for 10 years. Halfway through 2009, I had an approach to say ‘could he join mid-season?’ because they thought he could win the championship in the car. Then he had another conversation in the back of an Alfa Romeo at Spa airport several years later in ’11 or ’12. The most serious discussion was the first one, and then it missed its chance”.
F1 Brazil drivers press conference
Part 1
Part 2 (Kimi right on form and clearly wants to be somewhere else)
Horner is in the press talking about how Lewis "was desperate to drive for the team" and that Alonso wanted to jump ship from Renault to join Red Bull halfway through the 2009 season.
On Lewis he says “We had a couple of chats. It never really gained significant momentum but he's obviously a driver we rate extremely highly. He was desperate to drive for the team. In 2012, he wanted to come and drive for us, but there was no way we could accommodate him while Sebastian was with us. Then before he signed for Mercedes he was very keen to drive for Red Bull for 2013”.
On Alonso, he says “We got very close to signing Alonso. Helmut and I went to see his management at the end of 2008 for the ’09 and ’10 season, and we offered him a two-year contract. He would only sign up for one year and we said Red Bull’s position was a two-year deal or nothing, and he wouldn’t commit to that. We thought he’d had a Ferrari contract very clearly for ’09. What was weird about that was that Flavio was involved as well, but he was trying to get him for Renault which he was managing at the time and in the end, he drove for Renault for 10 years. Halfway through 2009, I had an approach to say ‘could he join mid-season?’ because they thought he could win the championship in the car. Then he had another conversation in the back of an Alfa Romeo at Spa airport several years later in ’11 or ’12. The most serious discussion was the first one, and then it missed its chance”.
F1 Brazil drivers press conference
Part 1
Part 2 (Kimi right on form and clearly wants to be somewhere else)
1%er
Well-Known Member
The spending cap
The subject was discussed in principle in Tuesday's F1 Strategy Group meeting in Geneva, although there were no details or specific numbers, and clearly they do not want to negotiate in public.
Those interested may like to hear what Chase Carey had to say about it, "I don't want to get too far into negotiating in public. What I would say is we have obviously begun all this. I think directionally there's board agreement about the direction we're talking about. We obviously have to get into the specifics, and in the details there will be differing views. It's [our job] to find the right compromises so that everybody feels they are much better off, it's a fair proposal, and it makes the sport much healthier. That's what we've got to do, to work through to find the right compromises and trade-offs. But as a direction, I think we have broad-based support for the direction of all the initiatives we're talking about, and the goals of those initiatives, and the opportunity inherent in those initiatives. We just need to now – and execution is always critical in this – we need to work through the details so that everybody feels it's fair and everybody's better off. Carey said that planned changes will make the sport more attractive for potential new teams who are being scared off at the moment by both the costs and the challenge of creating a competitive package. It will create a business model that would first and foremost be beneficial to the existing teams in it, but I think is a healthier business model, it would also entice new teams into it. When today people on the outside look in, in some ways they look at the challenges of the sport, what the top teams are spending, and that's a deterrent. And then they look at the competition on the track, which ends up with realistically with about six cars competing at one level and the rest of the cars competing at another because of the spending differences and the engine differences and the like. If you enhance the competition and create a cost structure that gave more predictability to the business, and like cost caps in the US, what they do is protect them from themselves, because competitive spirit overtakes, and you just spend what it takes to win. So create as structure that makes it about how well you spend your money, not how much you spend. I think that will create a better model for fans, a better model for existing partners, and a much more interesting proposition for potential new entrants. We've obviously engaged with some of these new entrants and it's pretty clear that the appeal of F1 is unique, the benefits they get out of the identification with it, and if we can make it a better sport for fans and a better business for everybody in it, I think it will benefit us all".
There are a number of companies that are looking at starting teams and also a few companies they are interested in supplying power-units (most have been mentioned in above posts), depending on how much the limit is and how it is policed. I believe it could be a good thing for the sport. It is clear that over the last 25 plus years that results can be directly related to budgets (in most cases, with one or two exceptions). In the main the teams with the biggest budgets are in the top 6 cars. While we have seen that major changes in the rules for aero and engines have seen some surprises, it never takes long for the teams with the big money to catch up.
This discussion about spending cuts could well be a defining moment in F1 and give fans a good idea of how things will go forward. The Noises from manufacturers Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari seem to indicate that there is going to be a big fight in the months ahead, that will decide who owns the soul and direction of the sport.
Ferrari say it looks like F1 will just become a global Nascar series and Renault say they are not happy with the introduction of some standardized parts on engines (this was the issue that nearly caused a break away series back in 2000). While standardized parts are not wanted by the top teams, the smaller teams say it will level the playing field. The standard Electronic Control Unit (ECU) was introduced in 2008 by the FIA and not FOM, the FIA claimed it was the only way they could police the cars electronics as they were getting so complicated (it has also saved teams tens of millions in not developing their own ECU). The MGU-K is another area where things could be standardized (and the MGU-H but it looks like that is going). I can understand manufactures claiming the MGU-K is relevant to their cars and they want to develop their own system, but one system will become standard in road cars at some point in the future, so why not work together to get the best system. I can understand manufactures wanting to develop their own systems as it gives their road cars some uniqueness and I can see this being a big stumbling block, going forward.
What is good for some teams will be bad for others, a couple of examples could be that Ferrari may well loose its veto on rule changes, as I'm sure Liberty Media will not want that to continue, also Ferrari will not want to loose its $100 million a year bonus they get for being the longest standing team in F1, McLaren could also be interested in this payment, as if Ferrari do walk away from F1 then McLaren would be entitled to this payment.
Liberty Media appear to be willing to use very different tactics than those used by Bernie, he ran F1 with a divide and rule model, where it was a dog eat dog system between the teams, whereas Liberty seem to want to use a collective system, where they bring the teams into the decision making process in an effort to find a consensus view forward. It seems the battle lines are being drawn with Mercedes and Ferrari taking one view, Renault taking a slightly different view and all other teams (most of whom would benefit from Liberty medias plan) standing together, the wildcard is Red Bull as Toro Rosso is up for sale and it seems that Dietrich Mateschitz may well be looking to get out of F1 post 2020.
This story will run and run until the new concorde agreement is signed
The subject was discussed in principle in Tuesday's F1 Strategy Group meeting in Geneva, although there were no details or specific numbers, and clearly they do not want to negotiate in public.
Those interested may like to hear what Chase Carey had to say about it, "I don't want to get too far into negotiating in public. What I would say is we have obviously begun all this. I think directionally there's board agreement about the direction we're talking about. We obviously have to get into the specifics, and in the details there will be differing views. It's [our job] to find the right compromises so that everybody feels they are much better off, it's a fair proposal, and it makes the sport much healthier. That's what we've got to do, to work through to find the right compromises and trade-offs. But as a direction, I think we have broad-based support for the direction of all the initiatives we're talking about, and the goals of those initiatives, and the opportunity inherent in those initiatives. We just need to now – and execution is always critical in this – we need to work through the details so that everybody feels it's fair and everybody's better off. Carey said that planned changes will make the sport more attractive for potential new teams who are being scared off at the moment by both the costs and the challenge of creating a competitive package. It will create a business model that would first and foremost be beneficial to the existing teams in it, but I think is a healthier business model, it would also entice new teams into it. When today people on the outside look in, in some ways they look at the challenges of the sport, what the top teams are spending, and that's a deterrent. And then they look at the competition on the track, which ends up with realistically with about six cars competing at one level and the rest of the cars competing at another because of the spending differences and the engine differences and the like. If you enhance the competition and create a cost structure that gave more predictability to the business, and like cost caps in the US, what they do is protect them from themselves, because competitive spirit overtakes, and you just spend what it takes to win. So create as structure that makes it about how well you spend your money, not how much you spend. I think that will create a better model for fans, a better model for existing partners, and a much more interesting proposition for potential new entrants. We've obviously engaged with some of these new entrants and it's pretty clear that the appeal of F1 is unique, the benefits they get out of the identification with it, and if we can make it a better sport for fans and a better business for everybody in it, I think it will benefit us all".
There are a number of companies that are looking at starting teams and also a few companies they are interested in supplying power-units (most have been mentioned in above posts), depending on how much the limit is and how it is policed. I believe it could be a good thing for the sport. It is clear that over the last 25 plus years that results can be directly related to budgets (in most cases, with one or two exceptions). In the main the teams with the biggest budgets are in the top 6 cars. While we have seen that major changes in the rules for aero and engines have seen some surprises, it never takes long for the teams with the big money to catch up.
This discussion about spending cuts could well be a defining moment in F1 and give fans a good idea of how things will go forward. The Noises from manufacturers Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari seem to indicate that there is going to be a big fight in the months ahead, that will decide who owns the soul and direction of the sport.
Ferrari say it looks like F1 will just become a global Nascar series and Renault say they are not happy with the introduction of some standardized parts on engines (this was the issue that nearly caused a break away series back in 2000). While standardized parts are not wanted by the top teams, the smaller teams say it will level the playing field. The standard Electronic Control Unit (ECU) was introduced in 2008 by the FIA and not FOM, the FIA claimed it was the only way they could police the cars electronics as they were getting so complicated (it has also saved teams tens of millions in not developing their own ECU). The MGU-K is another area where things could be standardized (and the MGU-H but it looks like that is going). I can understand manufactures claiming the MGU-K is relevant to their cars and they want to develop their own system, but one system will become standard in road cars at some point in the future, so why not work together to get the best system. I can understand manufactures wanting to develop their own systems as it gives their road cars some uniqueness and I can see this being a big stumbling block, going forward.
What is good for some teams will be bad for others, a couple of examples could be that Ferrari may well loose its veto on rule changes, as I'm sure Liberty Media will not want that to continue, also Ferrari will not want to loose its $100 million a year bonus they get for being the longest standing team in F1, McLaren could also be interested in this payment, as if Ferrari do walk away from F1 then McLaren would be entitled to this payment.
Liberty Media appear to be willing to use very different tactics than those used by Bernie, he ran F1 with a divide and rule model, where it was a dog eat dog system between the teams, whereas Liberty seem to want to use a collective system, where they bring the teams into the decision making process in an effort to find a consensus view forward. It seems the battle lines are being drawn with Mercedes and Ferrari taking one view, Renault taking a slightly different view and all other teams (most of whom would benefit from Liberty medias plan) standing together, the wildcard is Red Bull as Toro Rosso is up for sale and it seems that Dietrich Mateschitz may well be looking to get out of F1 post 2020.
This story will run and run until the new concorde agreement is signed
