Daniel Ricciardo, Max Verstappen, Toro Rosso, Sepang International Circuit, 2015

Horner determined to keep Red Bull drivers

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Christian Horner tells rival teams not to bother coming after hot properties Daniel Ricciardo and Max Verstappen.

Great cameo appearance by Lewis Hamilton in the BBC’s fundraiser.


Comment of the day

Sergio Perez, Force India, Interlagos, 2015
Kerb heights have been raised at Interlagos
Higher kerbs at Interlagos means slower lap times – but maybe it’s not all bad:

Kerbs. Remember what they are drivers? They’re there so that you don’t exceed track limits, although they’re not there on most tracks.

We’ll done Interlagos, I love you even more now which I didn’t think was possible.
David Reid (@Unicron2002)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Sridhar!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Five years ago today Sebastian Vettel won his first world championship, having arrived at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix third in the points standings. Fernando Alonso missed his chance at a third title after a strategic error:

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 51 comments on “Horner determined to keep Red Bull drivers”

    1. I was pretty convinced at the time that Red Bull and Ferrari would do a deal for PUs in 2016, and that as part of that Red Bull would offer up Ricciardo or Verstappen as a 2017 driver as part of the deal. I wonder if that was discussed, or whether Red Bull were that determined to hold onto their full stable of drivers. Given there are only two seats at the senior team, I would have thought that Horner would be prepared to offload a driver to get a competitive PU.

      1. Kvyat is a bit faster than Ricciardo. No point of ditching him in favor of Ricciardo or Verstappen.

        1. Guybrush Threepwood
          14th November 2015, 8:08

          This is completely wrong. Only reason Kvyat is anywhere near Ricciardo is because of Ricciardo’s car issues and people running into him.

          1. I´m amazed that people didn´t said the same when Vettel had all the issues in is car and Ricciardo was “beating him”..
            Ricciardo is one of the ost agressive guys HE rammed a lot of people this year, not the other way around.

          2. Poor Ricciardo.

            Whichever way you try to twist it, the fact remains Ricciardo isn’t looking anywhere near as impressive as he did last year. Last year though, he didn’t suffer much technical difficulties and people waved him by as he dive bombed them into a corner. This year he is suffering more problems but not a lot more compared to Kvyat, unlike last year when Vettel suffered almost all of the car/engine problems. And this year other drivers seem ‘a little bit’ less acceptant of Ricciardo’s ‘dive-bomb, miss the apex completely but make turn in for his opponent impossible’ style of overtaking. And what’s even funnier is that when someone else does that to him he tells the press they need a driving lesson.

            Last year was a very flattering year for Ricciardo. Now we see what he’s really about. Kvyat is giving Ricciardo a run for his money despite only being in F1 for less than 2 years.

            1. Guybrush Threepwood
              14th November 2015, 11:36

              The only time Kvyat has beaten Ricciardo this year has been when Ricciardo has had car issues. Enough said.

            2. Interesting opinion, doubt you’d get all that many to agree. In nearly every case the driver he apparently “rammed” in your opinion knew he was there and chose to close the door into his car that already occupied track position in the corner.

              Certainly he’s agressive, that’s how you win, especially in a car that doesn’t have the speed down the straights. But unfair definitely not.

          3. Same as Vettel last year. The facts are Kyvatt is beating Ricciardo. In only 2 years in F1 he has had Vergne and Ricciardo as team mates and as it stands he will beat both those prospects. For me Kyvatt is far more impressive and a better prospect. Ricciardo won one lost one to Vergne and Kyvatt will beat both. Surely the pressure will be on Ricciardo.

            1. Same? Vettel was clearly outclassed by Ricciardo in just about every race. There were no technical difficulties involved at all. Even when Vettel somehow managed to be ahead of Ricciardo (usually because a botched pitstop for Ricciardo or something) he was holding him up.

              Ricciardo and Kvyat are on a similar level. Ricciardo a bit faster and more of a racer, but he’s also taking more risks and they didn’t always pay off. You can’t really blame the guy for going for the win in Hungary though. It’s all they have this season and a few points more or less isn’t important. So indeed, Kvyat is slightly ahead on points.

              It’s funny how Vettel fans think saying Kvyat is better than Ricciardo somehow helps Vettel. If anything their saying Vettel would be beaten by Kvyat even more than he was by Ricciardo.

            2. @patrickl

              There were no technical difficulties involved at all.

              Really? So there were no issues in Australia, Spain, Monaco, Austria and the US for instance?

              usually because a botched pitstop for Ricciardo or something

              Botched pitstops/strategy for Vettel in races like Canada, Britain and Hungary more like.

              The current and ex-Red Bull driver’s performance this year supports the idea that the 4 time champion simply had a dip in form, which happens in sport. Nothing new.

            3. @david-a, Both had their minor issues, but that didn’t create the difference. The point is that Vettel was outclassed consistently all season long and not just a few times when he had a problem.

            4. @patrickl
              They both had issues out of their control last year, and Dan still had the upper hand. But indeed Vettel had more, exacerbating the margin.

          4. Kvyat had more mechanical issues with his car.

        2. Kvyat is annoying. He’s boring, dull and and off the track, mediocre in speed, and the sooner he’s out of F1 the better.

          1. It is the same as with Vettel last year. That was Ricciardo’s only good year. He has been beaten so far this year and cannot bully his way past people. His overtaking makes him a ‘grinning maldonado’. Vergne was easily as good as him, with his experience and current record he is the worst RedBull owned driver but he will survive off beating Vettel for a little while.

          2. Kvyat’s scored points in all but five races (two DNFs and one DNS), has a best finish of 2nd, and is four points ahead of his teammate in the standings. Not exactly mediocre, given the car’s not that good.

            1. Yeah beat him again today and likely tomorrow. Ricciardo is the 4th best at present in the RedBull roster for me. He beat Vettel last year same as Coulthard beat Hakkinen when the car was mediocre or like Button beating Hamilton in 2011. Ricciardo is not far off being a Maldonado with half his moves and is getting found out this year. I doubt he will ever win a title possibly never win a race again. Last year was his special year which some ok drivers have like Irvine and Frentzen in 99.

        3. @regs read guybrush.

    2. “‘If you see a guy called ‘Grip’, pass on my number’ – Sebastian Vettel “

      That would be Vettel complaining about Pirelli in soft way as not to get in trouble with Ecclestone etc for those who can’t see it.

      Since Pirelli were asked for tyres that don’t last a race distance. These same tyres should have immensive grip and produce amazing lap times. Unlike the opposite, no grip, small temperature window, thermal degradation and even while nursing them to the point that goes against racing basics, only then can they last a good couple of laps.

      1. @s2g-unit It’s nothing to do with the tyres – the new asphalt they laid down last year is falling apart because of the sports car running done earlier in the year.

        It looks like they put all their focus behind building the new paddock (well, some of it) and forgot to maintain the track itself…

        1. I forgot to mention then new tarmac. I think people need to really open their eyes to how poor Pirelli’s tyres are. The drivers constnatly moan about grip, they get more vocal about them being garbage and the Bernie steps in and tells them to not make public complaints about Pirelli.

          @GTRacer on this site should come post more information from his contacts about how poor Pirelli tyres are.
          I don’t understand how people can’t realize that drivers would openbly critisize these tyres far more if they would not get into trouble.

          1. You could have the best tyres in the world and it wouldn’t matter; if the tarmac is breaking up, there will be no grip. And the Interlagos tarmac is breaking up.

      2. But it was Bernies idea, so we have to put up with it as long as Pirelli keep buying trackside advertising from FOM, Bernie will not admit to error so unless Pirelli decide to quit or Bernie can announce a better financial deal we’re stuck with it.

        1. I agree Bernie has continued this mess by continuing their contract. We all know F1 has many problems and there have been so many stupid decisions in the last few years. Only way this will change is if we stop watching (I have), stop going to races (I have). FOM continues to see profits, so they continue to believe nothing is wrong with F1.

      3. @s2g-unit, Pirelli were the ones who pioneered the idea of fast degrading tyres. Only them. None of the other tyre manufacturers going for the 2011 deal uttered a word about that.

        Ecclestone did maneuver Pirelli in at the last minute to make an extra buck and to get rid of Michelin. Michelin pretty much had the deal until that point. So they came up with a plan and apparently that was fast degrading tyres to improve the show.

        It was never a demand from FIA. Pirelli and/or Ecclestone came up with it. FIA only stepped in when the backlash over the poor tyres fell down on Pirelli.

        1. @patrickl And you know all this how? Seriously, I don’t know how you can claim to know what other tire makers uttered unless you believe everything they have said on the subject has been publicized and you have read it all. No chance there were discussions behind closed doors on this?

          I see it like this. Several years ago Michelin stated that they would rather have a tire competitor with them in F1 because if there is only one maker and everyone is on the same tires, then tires don’t get talked about. This was coming from the concept of building good tires that we all know all the tire makers can make and have in the past, that allow drivers and teams to push their cars and themselves…you know…like F1 should be.

          But BE/F1 wanted to make tires a big factor in F1 since they can’t get off their addiction to downforce and thus processions. Rather, let’s try gadgets like DRS, and crappy tires to create passing and try to shake things up. Theoritically sprinklers without the water. Well the only way you get crappy tires is if there isn’t a tire competition within F1 and they are mandated to degrade, and at the same time the only way Pirelli would agree to be the only maker would be if they get to make tires that are the story of the race, and thus one maker can get the marketing impact of us talking about tires, whereas normally one maker making good reliable tires would not see their tires being discussed as the deciding factor in races.

          Since you’re big on speculating here’s my speculation on it. BE always knew having two or more tire makers in F1 would not provide him tires that would shake things up, and Michelin were not willing to be the one maker in F1 making crappy tires, but Pirelli were.

          And look at the difference as experienced by Michelin in the past. I should remember the year but the year that Michelin’s tires couldn’t handle one corner at one track for the whole season over all venues, that being at Indy, they were raked over the coals having made the extremely courageous amd highly unpopular decision to advise their teams to not race due to safety concerns. Fast forward to Pirelli’s monopoly and their multiple explosions and delaminations and what was their backlash for such dangerous products? But since Michelin had already experienced what can happen when you make tires that fail even at one corner of one track all year, why would they want to voluntarily make crappy tires?

          I’d take a tire competition (not a war any more than is any other aspect of competition within F1) over what we have had with Pirelli any day. Processions need to be handled with a reduction in dependancy on aero downforce, as we have seen crappy tires and DRS still haven’t fixed that.

          1. If I may interject here, was it not Bernie who said he wanted races like Canada 2010 (i think) where there was a wet start, drying track then more rain and the intermediate tyres were wearing very quickly, causing multiple stops and some drivers nursing tyres, giving different strategy calls, Jenson went from last to 1st if I remember correctly. This prompted BE to ask for tyres that wore put more quickly as it presents opportunity for some cars to make multiple stops and drive like crazy or drive conservatively and make less stops, while allowing drivers on fresher tyres to be able to make moves in cars with worn rubber, therefore increasing the number of ‘on track’ over takes.
            Pirelli was the only company remotely interested in having a shot to produce such a tyre, hence why they got the contract. I’m sure looking back they will admit to being a little naive about the level of criticism they were opening themselves up to.
            So to sum it up, chewing gum tyres came directly from Bernie, Pirelli just facilitated their implementation.

            1. @thebullwhipper,

              Was it not Bernie….?

              Most assuredly it was.

            2. It was actually 2011

            3. Ecclestone dragged Pirelli into this. He obviously wanted to get rid of Michelin.

              No doubt he claimed that the FIA would protect them from negative criticism. Indeed the FIA did quickly suppress any criticism from the teams and the drivers.

              Michelin wanted to use longer lasting tyres (!) so they could use less per weekend lowering costs. The big teams didn’t want that at all and the small teams didn’t want to pay $5 million per season for the tyres which they had been getting for free from Bridgestone. Later Michelin lowered their demands to $1.5million per season, but Pirelli already had the deal in the bag by then. Pirelli also pays “Ecclestone” a fortune for on track advertising.

              This tyre deal was all about the money really. The degrading tyres was just a gimmick to push it through.

          2. I know this because you can read what they said. Michelin had a completely different sales pitch from Pirelli. Avon Cooper or Kumho also never said anything about it, although they quickly dropperd out.

    3. Rosberg strikes back, it’s quite refreshing to see him standing up for himself and speaking out against Hamilton like this. Even though I’m not a fan of using the media to talk down other drivers like this, it does feel good to hear it from the other side.

      1. Here’s hoping he keeps the pressure on and off the track well into next year aswell.

        F1 needs that too. Even if I don’t like Rosberg that much, it’s good when it’s not just 1 guy driving circles around the others…

    4. Can’t forget the 2010 Alonso’s title defeat. Simply can not.
      Not with F1F reminding me every year this day, after a whole year of me trying to forget :P

    5. To elaborate on my comment about kerbs, I very much enjoyed watching the drivers try to cut the corners and getting expelled back on to the track (Massa in particular).

      Can anyone enlighten me as to why we’re able to have high kerbs here, is it because motorbikes don’t race there?

      1. MotoGP returned at Interlagos in 2014 but I don’t think there has been any motorbikes event since then.

        And couldn’t agree more with your COTD, it’s nice to see some real track limits re-introduced.

        1. *Nope, they returned to Brazil at another track in Brasilia apparently last year, so I’m completely wrong :P

          1. @paeschli. Good to see you recognise your mistake. Now please repeat after me “However, I am informing you because I feel we all must take responsibility for our actions. Mistakes happen to us all but what’s important is that we learn from them and grow.” :-) (source)

      2. Can anyone enlighten me as to why we’re able to have high kerbs here, is it because motorbikes don’t race there?

        I don’t know, and I’am guessing as well.
        It should not be due to motorbike races as kerbs are often BOBO (bolt on bolt off) now (Melbourne Park only has those curbs during 1 weekend). They can even change the height overnight.
        It has probably more to do with the risk of launching cars (we’ve seen that) or creating dangerous bumps (happened to Alonso) when hitting those high curbs from the wrong angle.

    6. Can someone please explain mansell’s tweet? So random…

      1. @sato113 Fomula 1 is a sport where cars race each other and they have to use fuel. No seriously, got no clue…

        1. He probably meant “Lot of cars running (high) fuel”.
          He tweeted it when watching FP and had similar short comments regarding that session.

          Not sure why @keithcollantine included it in the round-up. But knowing him (from reading this blog/site) he probably saw the funny side of the is ‘incomplete’ tweet.

          1. haha yeah I was confused as to why Keith put it in the round up lol. But I guess it’s for comedy factor! xD

    7. Can’t wait for 2017, I feel it’s going to be a horror show with Pirelli. Tyres will be exploding left right and centre with the higher loads.

      I’m a big Hamilton fan but he was looking for excuses, no good moaning after a race. What you should have done Lewis was make sure you’re on pole. Rosberg should have said what Lewis said in China, “if you’re quicker than me then overtake me.”

      1. Pirelli make as good or if not better road tyres than others. To compare them to previous suppliers from 10 years ago as they have been told to do the impossible and make degrading tyres that work at 20 different tracks. Previous suppliers had no brief to do this only had to make the best they can. You are comparing apples and oranges. Good job Michelin did not get the contract as even when they had no constraints they ruined F1 in the US as they could nit get round one banked corner.

      2. Well we all were waiting for a fight at the end of the race when Rosberg’s tyres would have been gone and Mercedes did put an end to any possibility of that battle with their extra pitstop.

        An excuse would be to blame a gust of wind for going off track when under pressure. Again.

        1. Well we all were waiting for a fight at the end of the race when Rosberg’s tyres would have been gone

          And you know that this would happen, how exactly?

          The only source I have found about Rosberg’s tyre wear being supposedly worse than Hamilton’s in Mexico was by Hamilton himself, and it being parroted by his fans.

        2. Or a pre loaded excuse of heavy partying, a fever and crashing your road car……woops wrong driver.

      3. This year there were what, two tires that “exploded”? Let me do some math for you.

        There are 20 cars, and 17 races have been done so far. The maximum amount of tires per weekend is 40 dry and 28 wet tires (10 sets dry, 7 sets wet). So let’s take a very conservative number and say each car used one single set of tires (regardless of type) for each practice session (3 sets), one set for all of qualifying (to keep it simple for this example), and two sets for the race itself, giving a total of 6 sets per weekend so 24 tires per car per weekend total.

        So simple math: 20 cars X 17 race weekends X 24 tires = 8160 tires used to this point. Now throw in the two “exploded” tires mentioned earlier, and what’s the percentage of tires that have “exploded” this year?

        0.025%. And keep in mind that’s with a very conservative tire count, with the real amount of tires used that percentage is even lower. That’s a pretty great number.

        1. Ever since Silverstone 2013, Pirelli have been blamed for pretty much every tyre failure, regardless of cause. Even when Silverstone was determined to be the fault of the teams for pushing the tyres way beyond their design limits, Pirelli were still blamed. I also remember, later that same year in Brazil, fans berating Pirelli for Bottas’s tyre failure after his collision. Of course, they all totally ignored the huge shard of razor-sharp magnesium alloy that sliced right through the sidewall and carcass.

          The simple fact is this: the rate of failure of tyres used properly is essentially zero. Except in extremely rare circumstances, tyre failures are always the result of external factors e.g. razor-sharp metal, the carbon fibre of the front wing, or flatspotting so badly you wear through all the rubber and the canvas (Korea 2013 anyone?).

          Or you can take the easy route and hang Pirelli up as a piñata. The good thing about that option is it doesn’t require thinking.

    Comments are closed.