Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

F1 2021

WRT Marzipan, he must be reasonably capable to have a super licence. It’s a sad indictment of the sport, though, that there’s a lot better drivers who, because they haven’t got the money, didn’t get a drive. Even Grosjean, who had a poor reputation when he started out, wasn’t as bad as this. I’m down grading Marzipan because he got where he is on the back of his father’s money.
 
I was wondering if LeClerc could legitimately have overtaken Verstappen when he had his little whoopsie before the second restart? Max was off track, only briefly, but if LeClerc had tapped the throttle and sneaked past, I can’t see how the FIA could penalise him?

50EF1EDD-3042-4C47-A5A7-0D1E24CA8327.jpeg
 
Could not hang on for the wrap up yesterday but it seems Bottas and Russell both think the other should show more respect.

Racing incident seems about right for me. Russell ranting at a driver in a smashed car after a 200mph accident is a poor show.
I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that Totto had said, in essence, that Russell should have been aware that he was passing a Mercedes and should not have tried. The implication being that Mercedes always has the right of way and should not be challenged.
 

Decision No Further Action.

Reason The Stewards heard from the driver of Car 63 (George Russell), the driver of Car 77 (Valtteri Bottas) and the team representatives and reviewed multiple angles of video evidence and telemetry. Car 63 approached car 77 to pass after the front straight a few laps after the restart when DRS had recently been enabled. Car 77 maintained his line throughout the incident along the right hand side of the dry line, leaving at least a full car’s width to the right at all times. Car 63 approached with a significant speed advantage. He moved to pass on the right. As the cars approached the kink of turn 1, the gap between them and the right hand side of the track decreased. At no time did either car manoeuvre erratically. The track appeared to be not especially wet through turn 1 but at the point of closest approach to the right hand side of the track, the right hand side tyres of Car 63 hit an especially damp patch and the car snap yawed, bearing in mind that the car had low downforce in the rear with the DRS open. The Stewards conclude that the accident was a racing incident considering the conditions and take no further action.
 
Yeah after reviewing myself, I think you gotta say it's just one of those things, Russell would have lost time in dry conditions and would probably still have reason to be pissed off if there is a 'gentleman's agreement' but a gentleman's agreement and the rulebook are not the same thing.

Bottas however is starting look like he's not really the part now Mercedes car isn't necessarily the best, while Hamilton is still able to get the car up there. Big season for both Bottas and Russell.
 
Stroll legal threat to end with ‘bloody nose’
Billionaire Lawrence Stroll is probably the driving force behind Aston Martin’s current legal threats against Formula 1 authorities, according to Ralf Schumacher. Red Bull’s Dr Helmut Marko, with an opinion echoed by many of his peers, says Aston Martin threatening to sue over the 2021 aerodynamic rule tweaks is “incomprehensible”.

The team has insinuated that Liberty Media, the FIA and even Pirelli conspired to make key changes in order to slow Mercedes down with Aston Martin described as “collateral damage” by Toto Wolff. On Sunday, Pirelli boss Mario Isola rejected claims the tyre design was changed for 2021 for that reason. “Any change suits someone more, someone less,” he said. “You can’t make everyone happy. “But no one expected a pandemic that would stop the whole world. We discussed the situation with the teams, but when the FIA made changes to the technical regulations, we could not guarantee that we would be able to supply tyres with the appropriate characteristics,” Isola added. “The factories were closed, we stayed at home, we couldn’t do anything. When the opportunity to develop something arose, we made prototypes, double-checked the reliability, and then tested them on the track. Everything was done quickly, with limited testing. Obviously we don’t want to hurt any teams, we only adjusted to the changes affecting all of them and, in my opinion, we chose the most reasonable solution,” the Italian said.

As for Aston Martin, Ralf Schumacher joined those who are critical of the team’s complaint. “It’s a bit strange to conclude at the second race weekend that you are being disadvantaged,” he told Sky Deutschland. Schumacher suspects it is not team boss Otmar Szafnauer who is driving the legal threat, but rather Aston Martin team owner Lawrence Stroll. “The ‘big boss’ doesn’t like to lose. As a successful businessman, he is not used to that,” said the former F1 driver. “He’s also the type of person who always wants to assert himself, so apparently he’s trying it this way now. But my guess is that they’ll get a bloody nose in the process.” Schumacher also suspects that Stroll is angry that the Silverstone based team was penalised last year for the ‘pink Mercedes’ car copying affair. “Maybe that’s why they think they are entitled to a favour now,” he said.

[I thought the Concorde agreement stopped teams from taking legal action against the FIA, isn't there a clause that prohibits such legal action :confused: ]

Teds Race Notebook
 
Toto NOT impressed.


"Bottas’s place at Mercedes is considered to be under threat from Russell for next season and the British driver implied afterwards that Bottas would not have defended so vigorously for ninth place had he not been involved. “Perhaps if it was another driver, he wouldn’t have. That’s what went through my mind,” Russell said.

Bottas dismissed the suggestion, saying: “Sorry, I lost my aluminium foil hat somewhere. It’s quite a theory. I’m always going to defend to any driver, I’m not keen to lose any positions. That was normal defending. It could have been a lot more aggressive if needed.”

Wolff’s response was more blunt in reaction to Russell’s suggestion, pronouncing it as “bullshit”. He noted that as a Mercedes driver the Englishman should have been aware of the bigger picture in taking what he believed was an unnecessary risk.

“The whole situation should have never happened,” he said. “Valtteri had a bad first 30 laps, and shouldn’t have been there. But George should have never launched into this manoeuvre, considering that the track was drying up. It meant taking risks, and the other car is a Mercedes in front of him. In any driver’s development, for a young driver, you must never lose this global perspective. So yeah, lots to learn for him I guess.”
 
Russell Apologises To Bottas
Williams driver George Russell has apologised to Valtteri Bottas following the horrific accident the pair had during the 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix. In the immediate aftermath of the crash, Russell jumped out of his cockpit and approached Bottas’ car. The drivers exchanged words before Bottas raised his middle finger and Russell slapped the Finn’s head. After the race, Russell revealed that he had asked Bottas if he was trying to kill both of them, but the young Brit today issued an apology on social media.

“I knew it would be one of our best opportunities to score points this season and, when those points matter as much as they do to us right now, sometimes you take risks. It didn’t pay off and I have to take responsibility for that. Having had time to reflect on what happened afterwards, I know I should have handled the whole situation better. Emotions can run high in the heat of the moment and yesterday mine got the better of me. I apologise to Valtteri, to my team and to anyone who felt let down by my actions. That’s not who I am and I expect more from myself, as I know others expect more from me. I’ve learned some tough lessons this weekend and will come out of this a better driver and a better person for the experience. Now it’s full focus on Portugal and a chance to show what I’m really about. Thanks for all the messages, both positive and negative. They will all help me to grow,” he concluded.

Wolff is Lawrence Stroll’s ‘lap dog’ – Kolles
Toto Wolff, the Mercedes team boss, is actually billionaire Lawrence Stroll’s “lap dog”. That is the wild claim of former F1 team boss Colin Kolles, who admits he fell out with his Austrian friend Wolff some years ago. “Mr Wolff was a business partner of mine, I brought him into Formula 1, even if some people don’t want to know anything about that,” he told Sport1.

Kolles, who ran the Silverstone based team that is currently called Aston Martin during its Jordan, Midland, Spyker and early Force India era, minimises the contribution Wolff made to Mercedes’ utter dominance of F1. “The structures were all established by Ross Brawn,” he insists. It is rumoured that Wolff has now bought up to EUR 42 million in shares of Aston Martin, the British carmaker that was taken over by Stroll last year.

Kolles therefore warns Sebastian Vettel to tread carefully in his newly Aston Martin-branded F1 environment. “I am of the opinion that the Stroll-Wolff combination is a very dangerous one for Sebastian Vettel,” he said. “Many factors are playing a role in the background.” According to former HRT boss Kolles, Wolff is not at the same level as billionaire Stroll. “He is called the lap dog of Mr Stroll. That is a quote from Bernie Ecclestone,” he said
 
Last edited:
Two candidates emerge to replace FIA president
Two candidates have emerged on the front row of the grid to succeed Jean Todt as FIA president. Todt’s third and final term expires in December, and f1-insider.com correspondent Michael Zeitler reports that United Arab Emirates representative and former rally driver Mohammed Bin Sulayem is one potential successor. “He wants to bring a breath of fresh air to the FIA,” Zeitler said. Todt’s top pick for the role, though, is reportedly his current deputy, Graham Stoker. “Stoker would continue the Todt line,” said Zeitler. “It is also possible that Todt will receive a new role at the FIA alongside him, such as honorary president.”

Mercedes explain why Hamilton's stop was slow
Mercedes have explained why their pitstop to switch Lewis Hamilton to the intermediate tyre was slower than expected. Hamilton had been in a tight battle with Red Bull's Max Verstappen, and could have possibly overtaken the Dutch driver when the Mercedes pitted on Lap 28 after setting a personal best lap on his in-lap. Any chance of passing the Red Bull evaporated when Hamilton's pitstop took four seconds, almost double the average pitstop time and what Red Bull had managed with Verstappen. “Well it is fair to say that we're not the best," Mercedes' Andrew Shovlin explained when asked about why the team's pitstop was so much slower. Speaking on the official Mercedes debrief video, the engineer explained that a wheelgun issue had added to the time needed for the stop. "In particular though, in Lewis' stop we did have an issue with one of the pit stop guns," Shovlin said. "For the next stop, we actually changed to a different gun and that seemed to resolve that issue and also there was a short hold. We had [to] hold him for around four tenths of a second because [Antonio] Giovinazzi was coming down the pitlane just at the point that Lewis was ready to go."

While there was extraneous circumstances for this particular stop, Mercedes rarely top the timesheets for fastest pitstops. This is an area where Red Bull excel, frequently finishing races with the fastest stop. Shovlin acknowledged its a particular weakness that Mercedes want to address. "We are losing time in the pit stops and it is an area that we have been focussing on for a while now. As I said, there was some specific instances that affected us in the race in Imola and we will look to work on those but longer term we are still looking at what we can do with the crew, with the equipment trying to find a bit more time in the stops.”
 
Zak Brown happy as McLaren sells F1 factory for $240m
McLaren has sold its iconic headquarters, including the Formula 1 factory, for almost $240 million. A New York-based real estate investment company called Global Net Lease announced the deal earlier this week, revealing that it will acquire the full Woking facility and enter a “20-year, NNN lease”. A so-called ‘triple-net’ lease means the tenant, in this case to be McLaren, no longer owns the property but pays for all of the expenses. “Why should we have all of our money in real estate?” Italy’s La Gazzetta dello Sport quotes McLaren supremo Zak Brown as saying. “We are not a real estate company we are a racing team and automotive company. There is a lot of money in this building and it’s not a productive advantage when we want to invest in our business,” he added.

Initiated by Ron Dennis in 1998, the award-winning McLaren Technology Centre was originally called ‘Paragon’ and designed by renowned architect Norman Foster. “We look forward to the long-term partnership with McLaren and the benefits this transaction will have to Global Net Lease,” said the New York-based company’s chief executive James Nelson.

Wolff’s ‘technical twin’ How Allison’s new role will work
James Allison will become Mercedes Formula 1 team boss Toto Wolff’s “technical twin brother” in his new role as chief technical officer. Allison has been Mercedes’ technical director since joining the team in 2017 but will step away from the position on July 1 to take up the newly-created CTO role. Wolff helped fashion the new position to keep Allison on board after Allison decided in 2019 he would not continue as technical director long-term and informed Wolff he did not want to be considered for the team principal position either. With Mike Elliott assuming the technical director role and day-to-day responsibility for the F1 team’s technical operations, Allison’s position will have a much broader perspective, encompassing non-F1 projects and positioning him as an even closer ally for Wolff in making bigger decisions for the company as a whole.

Wolff even described Allison as a “sparring partner”, a description previously only reserved for the late Niki Lauda when he was Mercedes’ non-executive director until his death in 2019. “James obviously is a huge asset to the team, not only as a brilliant engineer but also as a leader, and he has a good understanding and overview of what is happening in Formula 1 beyond the technical space,” Wolff said when asked by The Race at Imola about Allison’s potential exit from the team prior to creating the CTO role. He is a sparring partner of mine when it comes down to strategic discussions, political discussions and he is getting more involved also with the other departments and racing programmes that we have. It was almost a logical step to make him my technical twin brother. I’m also the head of Mercedes[-AMG] Motorsport. And so it makes sense to have a technical director for all motorsports programmes. I’m the CEO and he’s the CTO. He enjoyed the idea so we’ve worked on that for a year.”

Allison said the “absolute backstop” of any agreement to keep him at Mercedes had to be that his new position “could not in any way undermine” the technical director position. That means leaving Elliott full responsibility “for the assets and technical challenge beneath him”, although Allison will aid the transition to July 1 and be available to advise Elliot as requested. Allison stressed it was necessary to ensure the CTO position was “not in the front line, not part of the day to day, not part of the current car, or indeed, next year’s car” which means this separation of duties is different to Mercedes’ 2014 project, when the conceptual stage of the car built to new rules was split from the day-to-day technical work early. “It had to be a role where I could focus on longer-wavelength stuff than that, on looking at what challenges the entire company might face,” Allison said. “And how could we best equip ourselves technically, to make sure that we’re well set to face them. But it really is what it is described as, it is not an operational role. That is the preserve of a technical director, the correct preserve of a technical director.”

Allison said he was hopeful of engaging in non-F1 activities the company has Formula E and hypercar projects alongside the grand prix team, plus other technological pursuits but also of “putting my shoulder to the wheel to help the team be set fair with its technical resources on a longer-term basis”. He said that would be “for the sort of things that may arrive with us three, five, 10 years from now, stuff, which is always in the back of your mind when you’re conducting a championship assault or preparing for the following year. But which is nearly always displaced by the urgency of the sort of events that tend to fill your inbox, as the days roll on,” he added. Allison had once been earmarked as Wolff’s successor and even took control of the team trackside at the 2019 Brazilian Grand Prix. Though he said at the time it was not too different to his usual duties and that he found the experience enjoyable, Allison apparently told Wolff that the top job did not interest him. “He would absolutely be capable to be the team principal and also he has so much respect within the organisation,” said Wolff. “But it is very easy he said, ‘never, ever I would do this’. The team principal requires different skills so he said, ‘no, thank you’. James and I speak multiple times every single day, and we’re totally coordinated on the strategic direction of Mercedes Motorsport and Mercedes Grand Prix. Much earlier than before we decided the CTO role, it must have been a year or two ago, we discussed the future of the team principal role in Mercedes and he made it very clear that that was not for him. Since then, obviously I’m thinking and I’m looking and I’m observing what is happening out there and who’s doing a good job so finally I can step back from this madness.”
 
The last company that I worked for that sold its building and then rented it back had to sell themselves after about 5 years due to the costs of rent, maintenance etc of what had been their building. The bosses admitted the short term decision to get liquid capital into the business was a long term mistake.
 
Last edited:
Can somone explain to me how no longer owning your building but still having to pay all the expenses is in any way sane?
It's a cash utilisation thing. Lots of businesses have capital tied up in premises, often quite a lot of money. Often it's the biggest lump on the balance sheet. It's a big asset that could be better invested in things that generate income. If the extra income that injection could generate is bigger than the maintenance and lease costs, it makes sense. If.

Businesses reason that they aren't in the game of owning and profiting from property. They're making widgets and should invent better ones. So they sell to a business that is in the property game. The lease and maintenance costs should be affordable from the the continuing cashflow. Obviously, the continuing costs rise a fair bit to cover the lease and repairs. But so far, so sane.

The problem is that the net-net-net contracts make the (now) tenant liable for maintaining and repairing an increasingly decrepit and unsuitable building. The (new) owner will have lease increases built in every three or five years. The optimistic extra income might not appear, especially if big lumps of the liberated capital ends up in directors' bonuses or shareholder dividends instead of funding expansion and developments. Not so sane.

Sale and lease back is not necessarily a bad idea, but it does need strong financial management.

NB This is not financial advice. You mileage may vary. Errors and omissions excepted. External use only. Wipe up spills. If ingested seek medical help. Etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom