Kevin Magnussen, Haas, Suzuka, 2018

Steiner “tired” of complaints from Magnussen’s rivals

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Haas team principal Guenther Steiner says he is fed up of Kevin Magnussen’s rivals complaining about his driving.

What they say

Steiner was responding to Charles Leclerc describing Magnussen as “stupid” following their collision at Suzuka:

Kevin didn’t brake, he didn’t push him off or anything. I mean Kevin just moved over to his line, [Leclerc] ran into him, what can he do, just let him by?

It’s more of the same again and I’m getting quite tired of this.

Quotes: Dieter Rencken

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

Romain Grosjean does deserve to stay in F1 next year, says Ben:

Grosjean may have made much more serious mistakes than Magnussen, but I still think he’s overall the quicker driver.

He’s in my opinion had as many great performances as Magnussen now. Can’t say he’s had a better season because of the level of mistakes he has made though. But since his turnaround, he’s easily good enough to deserve to stay in F1.

I would have rated him last at the mid-season, but in the majority of the races since, he’s been excellent. And not every race in the first half was actually bad. Despite nor qualifying as well or having as good a start, in Australia, he looked as quick as Magnussen, possibly a bit faster.

For a team like Haas that is steadily improving, I think he’s an ideal driver for them given he’s been with them since they entered F1.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Magnificent Geoffrey, Pablopete80, Lyn Dromey, Russ Mckennett and Jack Nagle!

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

  • 35 years ago today Patrick Tambay took pole position for his final race in a Ferrari, the South African Grand Prix

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 RaceFans Round-upTags

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

  • 55 comments on “Steiner “tired” of complaints from Magnussen’s rivals”

    1. A pro Grosjean comment that’s not from me ! In my arms Ben :) seriously though I was so deflated after Spain. Gosh. But he’s doing good now and hopefully will do for the next 3 races

      1. “Steiner “tired” of complaints from Magnussen’s rivals”

        I suspect Magnussen’s rivals are also tired … of being hit by Magnussen.

        1. Not many are hit are they?
          See the Lec impact from F1 video, clear Mag’s fault…. not:)
          Why wouldnt midpack choose someone to pick at, they all are indanger of being ousted, and most never perform any great overtales like Mag, like the R130 just before they u fortunately decided to go same way.

        2. How many have been hit by him?

      2. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
        14th October 2018, 8:44

        Well, when the car is right for him, I think he can sometimes do drives comparable to the top drivers. But he is just so sensitive to very minor things wrong with the car. Which does result in a lot of moaning and mistakes, but it may help they know what needs sorting. And who knows, it may have been some of Grosjean’s complaints that we didn’t hear that have helped improve the car for this year.

        BTW, i hope he will do well in Abu Dhabi as well as the next 3 ;)

    2. While Massa is stating the obvious when it comes to the power and performance of the V8’s vs the modern hybrids. He misses the point that these technological marvels (so I’m told) are lost on most the fans because we cannot experience how impressive they are since they are so quiet and good. The reason people want V8/V10/V12’s back is because those engines stirred the soul and slapped you in the face with how impressive and exotic they were. We now have a quiet parade of black boxes that the manufacturers and the F1 media tell us are impressive but other than some statistics for nerds certainly do not seem that way. A normally aspirated F1 car, a pair of top fuel dragster, or a thundering field of stock cars is an experience that leaves an impression on everyone and anyone for the rest of their lives. The hybrids have some wonderful charts and Excel spreadsheets to prove that they are technically better and they absolutely are, but I don’t care.

      1. @seanloh I completely agree with you.

        Sad to think those days are gone forever but they are.

      2. Technologically they are very impressive indeed. While they do lack in the racing department because of their weight the power output and ease of drivability for such small and powerful engine are still impressive. It is also no secret that the v8s were little bit disappointing. First time when schumacher drove the v8s after v10s the main thing he felt was the lack of torque. The 3 liter v10s were not only powerful and handful but also had a lot more grunt on lower engine rpms. And the 3.5 liters before that even more so. If you look at old v10 videos you can really see how much torque they had when you look at how low the drivers can let the engine rpms drop in corners and still not lose out in acceleration. With the v8s you had to be in the narrow powerband with right gear and high revs or you were not going anywhere. I do remember coulthard complaining that the v8s were peaky. Which is true as they did not really have much power outside of their narrow top end rpms. The hybrids are also somewhat peaky and need 8 speed gearboxes whereas the v10s could do well with just 6. But this high number of gears is also result of the fact that there are fewer gear ratio changes allowed during the season.

        But from driver’s perspective the current engines are just too computer controlled. The engines are not exciting in any way except for straight line acceleration in bursts when your battery is charged. Fuel saving is not exciting and low fuel consumption is pretty much the only draw for these engines. Power wise we were getting lot more from lighter and smaller 1.5 liter turbos 30 years ago than from these current 1.6 liter ones. And even the v10s were making more horsepower while being closer to 90kg lighter than the current engines.

        The main issue with the engines is the hybrid deployment which is almost totally controlled by computers. This means that out of the 950hp the driver only has direct control of 700hp at best. In race that is probably closer to 600hp due to the unprecedented levels of fuel saving required during races. Power-wise not much different from the v8s and way below of the v10s. And it shows. The cars are too easy to drive. But that is their purpose. They are not racing engines. They are road car engines. In race cars modern turbo engine is the best solution. Light, high power and from show perspective the best because the driver is in control.

        Too easy to drive, road relevant instead of race relevant, focused purely on fuel saving, heavy, leaf blower sound, massively expensive, politically suicide as the engine manufacturers have all the power, bad for racing and competition because the engines create huge gaps between teams and make it impossible for smaller teams compete, too much computer controlled, too easy to drive. Perfect engine when you need a fast getaway from traffic lights and then need to cruise below speed limits. Excellent for city driving. For racing they mostly have just downsides. And worst of all the engines are boring and totally hidden away from the public. People complain that f1 is too reliant on aerodynamics but at least we can see the differences between the cars.

        1. @socksolid, forgive me for asking this, but when did you begin watching the sport and how much research have you actually done about the engines of the past that you are talking about?

          For a start, you assert that “Power wise we were getting lot more from lighter and smaller 1.5 liter turbos 30 years ago than from these current 1.6 liter ones.” – you have managed to cram a surprisingly large number of mistakes into just one sentence alone.

          Firstly, those engines were not lighter than a modern power unit – they were in fact heavier, and sometimes by a fairly substantial margin. A BMW M12, perhaps the most famous of the turbo engines from the 1980s, weighed in at 170kg, whilst the Renault EF4 series was ‘just’ 160kg – they were not compact lightweight engines by any means of the imagination: on the contrary, they were extremely bulky and came with substantial packaging requirements (have you seen the size of the radiators on some of those cars?).

          As for the power outputs, the supposed peak power outputs of some of those engines are very suspect and only really appear in the English speaking media – conveniently, often the same means by which the major manufacturers were putting out their publicity material. When you look at what, for example, contemporary German sources said about the BMW M12 engine at the time, their reports are rather different to the English press – and also quoted lower peak power outputs as well.

          The way in which those readings were taken are a bit suspect as well – there were more than a few reports of peak power outputs being based on “flash pressure” readings, which are known to be extremely misleading and always overpredict the power of an engine.

          Now, the supposed peak power of those engines over a single lap in qualifying was apparently impressive, but it was physically impossible for those engines to withstand those stresses for more than a handful of laps – assuming they did even produce those figures in the first place, as engine restorers working on those engines have publicly stated that they don’t believe some of those figures.

          For the races themselves, the engines would have to be heavily detuned, not just for longevity but also for fuel consumption. Again, often the figures that are quoted for race power outputs are based on the maximum boost output, but in reality those engines had to be turned down below that in order to actually finish the races: you see, you have also forgotten to mention the fuel saving in that era as well. Drivers of the time have mentioned the fuel saving tactics of the time – for example, I think that Mansell discusses how he’d plan fuel strategies with his engineer before a race and would then drive with set engine modes at set times in the race as per that agreement.

          That wasn’t just in the turbo era either, although it was very much at the forefront and a widely accepted part of strategy in that era – that also carried through into the subsequent normally aspirated era as well. If you look at contemporary reports at the time, it is quite common to find references to fuel saving (just, as an example off the top of my head, look to the reports of Stefano Modena scoring a point for Jordan in the 1992 Australian GP, where there were reports about how Modena was having to go into fuel saving mode very early on – I believe he was short shifting to save fuel as early as lap 9 (in an 80 lap race)).

          I’m also rather surprised that you have made such assertions such as “The hybrids are also somewhat peaky and need 8 speed gearboxes whereas the v10s could do well with just 6.”. I am not sure where you are getting that from, because the V10 powered cars did use seven speed gearboxes – they didn’t use more because the regulations banned them from using more than seven gears, not because they wanted to. Before that, the main limitation was the fact that the suppliers couldn’t supply a reliable transmission that had more than six gears – where they could, they would use more gears (Jordan, for example, had a seven speed transmission in the mid 1990s).

          Equally, “somewhat peaky” is a term that would baffle those who have been watching the sport from the sides of the track, because on the contrary a lot of people have commented about the fact that the engines have a very wide usable power band. I know that, for example, Mark Hughes was watching Hamilton at the first chicane during the 2016 Italian GP and noted that Hamilton was still in third gear when exiting the first chicane, yet still managed to accelerate at a rate that matched rival drivers – that sound the polar opposite of a “peaky” engine.

          I get the impression, though, that this is wasted effort because it is a case of trying to reason the prejudice out of somebody into whom it was not reasoned into in the first place – it feels very much like you have adopted an absolute position and are rearranging the world to suit your viewpoint, no matter how many facts to the contrary are presented to you.

          1. A BMW M12, perhaps the most famous of the turbo engines from the 1980s, weighed in at 170kg, whilst the Renault EF4 series was ‘just’ 160kg

            Those weights are with intercoolers. Modern f1 engine is just 165 for the engine + battery. Add those intercoolers and you are over that 160kg number. Fact: modern f1 engines are heavier. Next…

            As for the power outputs, the supposed peak power outputs of some of those engines are very suspect and only really appear in the English speaking media – conveniently, often the same means by which the major manufacturers were putting out their publicity material. When you look at what, for example, contemporary German sources said about the BMW M12 engine at the time, their reports are rather different to the English press – and also quoted lower peak power outputs as well.

            Could just be rear wheel power numbers vs power at the crank numbers. Drivetrain losses can be something like 10-20%. In any case the old engines had higher peak number which is all I claimed.

            The way in which those readings were taken are a bit suspect as well – there were more than a few reports of peak power outputs being based on “flash pressure” readings, which are known to be extremely misleading and always overpredict the power of an engine.

            Peak numbers are just peak numbers whether you talk about 80s turbos or 2017 hybrids. Only achievable for a short time. In both cases those numbers are exxaggerated to maximum. But what you are actually claiming is that the most powerful turbos of 1980s which were said to exceed 1250hp did not even get 950hp (claimed peak of current engines) out of them is huge difference. Modern f1 engines claim 1000hp. Let’s take 20-30% out of that too then?

            Now, the supposed peak power of those engines over a single lap in qualifying was apparently impressive, but it was physically impossible for those engines to withstand those stresses for more than a handful of laps

            Modern f1 engines can not even achieve that 1000hbp over single full lap because they run out of battery because the electric power output is capped by the rules. If you are going to point these limitations then at least point them out for both engines. And at least with those old engines the 1000hp was available at all times when the DRIVER had turned the boost up. In modern cars the computer controls the electric power output which means the driver in best case only is in direct control of 700hp at best in qualifying trim.

            Drivers of the time have mentioned the fuel saving tactics of the time – for example, I think that Mansell discusses how he’d plan fuel strategies with his engineer before a race and would then drive with set engine modes at set times in the race as per that agreement.

            And I never said fuel saving never happened before hybrid engines. I said the emphasis on fuel saving is at all time high with the hybrids. The way the hybrid engines work is that they use the end of straights to recharge the batteries. That is also the best time to lift and coast to save fuel. That’s why the cars even have warning lights that start blinking once the cars begin recharge their batteries.

            Equally, “somewhat peaky” is a term that would baffle those who have been watching the sport from the sides of the track, because on the contrary a lot of people have commented about the fact that the engines have a very wide usable power band. I know that, for example, Mark Hughes was watching Hamilton at the first chicane during the 2016 Italian GP and noted that Hamilton was still in third gear when exiting the first chicane, yet still managed to accelerate at a rate that matched rival drivers – that sound the polar opposite of a “peaky” engine.

            So the 1980s power numbers are unreliable but mark hughes who knows nothing about engineering is now a trusted source about the power of modern engines? You could go and download 2013 special edition of race car engineering and read something about the current hybrids. At least those numbers come from engineering sources and not some random journalists.

            I get the impression, though, that this is wasted effort because it is a case of trying to reason the prejudice out of somebody into whom it was not reasoned into in the first place – it feels very much like you have adopted an absolute position and are rearranging the world to suit your viewpoint, no matter how many facts to the contrary are presented to you.

            My position is based on facts and I proved it to you by doing the calculations on the horsepower and the weights. You were proven wrong period. Even your own numbers don’t point towards the conlusions you are trying to make. I don’t twist anything to suit my world view. I change my worldview so it is based on facts. In both cases I proved you wrong by using your own numbers. And I don’t personally attack or insult those either who have different opinions than me.

            1. @socksolid, let us return to your assertions:
              Those weights are with intercoolers. Modern f1 engine is just 165 for the engine + battery. Add those intercoolers and you are over that 160kg number. Fact: modern f1 engines are heavier.

              You are going to have to do a lot more than simply state that it is a fact because you want it to be a fact – care to provide a reliable source for those assertions?

              Peak numbers are just peak numbers whether you talk about 80s turbos or 2017 hybrids. Only achievable for a short time. In both cases those numbers are exxaggerated to maximum. But what you are actually claiming is that the most powerful turbos of 1980s which were said to exceed 1250hp did not even get 950hp (claimed peak of current engines) out of them is huge difference. Modern f1 engines claim 1000hp. Let’s take 20-30% out of that too then?
              Yes, I am saying that because the engine manufacturers themselves published dyno results which showed that, in race trim, they were not producing 1250bhp. May I recommend, for example, referring to the SAE Technical Paper by Otobe et al on Honda’s V6 F1 turbo engines? In the 1980s, Ferrari also published dyno curves of their engines in race trim which also showed significantly lower values than you are claiming – you’re going to have to come up with something better than published data by the engine manufacturers themselves.

              And I never said fuel saving never happened before hybrid engines. I said the emphasis on fuel saving is at all time high with the hybrids. The way the hybrid engines work is that they use the end of straights to recharge the batteries. That is also the best time to lift and coast to save fuel. That’s why the cars even have warning lights that start blinking once the cars begin recharge their batteries.
              And what exactly do you base the assertion that fuel saving “is at an all time high” on? Where is your evidence that fuel saving now is more onerous than at any point during the 1980s or 1990s, or indeed at any point even further back in time than that (say, into the 1960s and 1970s, or even right back into the 1950s) – you want to make that assertion, so now back it up.

              So the 1980s power numbers are unreliable but mark hughes who knows nothing about engineering is now a trusted source about the power of modern engines? You could go and download 2013 special edition of race car engineering and read something about the current hybrids. At least those numbers come from engineering sources and not some random journalists.
              As I have said, there have been engine restorers who have publicly stated that the power figures of the time are not credible when you look at the yield stress of the components used to build those engines. As for Hughes, I used that as an example of an individual who has been trackside and whose testimony would rather contradict your assertions – however, since you seem to be rather keen on attacking him, maybe you might have the courage to go up to him and make you accusations in person to him instead?

              My position is based on facts and I proved it to you by doing the calculations on the horsepower and the weights. You were proven wrong period. Even your own numbers don’t point towards the conlusions you are trying to make. I don’t twist anything to suit my world view. I change my worldview so it is based on facts. In both cases I proved you wrong by using your own numbers. And I don’t personally attack or insult those either who have different opinions than me.
              At no point have you provided any evidence of your calculations or offered any firm evidence for your positions other than asserting opinions of yours that you hold as absolutes. Offer up those calculations, and offer them with something more substantial than “because I say so” – because that is very much what this is reading as.

              Rather than dissimulating, start providing your sources, your calculations and your evidence – you claim to have them, so if you are so confident in them, it should not be hard for you to provide it.

              As for your claim that you “don’t personally attack or insult those either who have different opinions than me” – you have abused and insulted others, often quite aggressively, when they have expressed opinions different to yours, ranging from calling people dishonest to libellous claims about individuals being hired trolls. Don’t try and present yourself as being sweet natured – you’ve proven yourself to be otherwise.

            2. You are going to have to do a lot more than simply state that it is a fact because you want it to be a fact – care to provide a reliable source for those assertions?

              Racecar engineering 2013 engines special issue, page 11. Direct quote:
              ” ‘From that stage, one of the key areas we needed to investigate was the packaging of the power unit. The current V8 is 95kg, or 100kg if you add the weight of the MGU. This increases to 120kg when you include the ancillary parts, such as the radiators and other cooling devices. With the 2014 power unit, the V6 turbocharged engine will be a minimum of 145kg, plus 35kg for the battery.

              in race trim, they were not producing 1250bhp

              I never said it was 1250hp in race trim! Where on earth are you getting the idea that I am saying these are race numbers. They are not and never were and I never claimed so. Only race trim comment I’ve made is about the current engines.

              And what exactly do you base the assertion that fuel saving “is at an all time high” on?

              If you really really want that quote I can google it but it was said maybe year ago by paddy lowe in some interview that fuel saving is at all time high. And he has been around quite a few years… Obviously I am not talking about 60s or 50s here…

              however, since you seem to be rather keen on attacking him, maybe you might have the courage to go up to him and make you accusations in person to him instead?

              He is not engineer. As such his own understanding or ability to check any of the technical information is very low. I’d not have any problem telling that to his face and I’m sure he would even agree.

              you have abused and insulted others, often quite aggressively, when they have expressed opinions different to yours, ranging from calling people dishonest to libellous claims about individuals being hired trolls. Don’t try and present yourself as being sweet natured – you’ve proven yourself to be otherwise.

              There you go again.

      3. I guess you’ve never been to a recent F1 race. These engines are very loud now, the Mercedes especially. It’s more the fault of the noise not being broadcast correctly/honestly.

        1. I’m fascinated by this broadcast sound anomaly, I’ve noticed in MotoGP broadcasts that the 4 cylinder 1 litre naturally aspirated engines, that propel the riders to 300+ kph on even the shortest of straights, sound more like single cylinder dirt bike “thumpers” than the high revving “screamers” they must be, but no one complains about it.

          1. Actually when they went from 2 stroke screamers to 4 stroke thumpers there were plenty of complaints.

        2. Volume is not the issue. Its the quality of sound I take issue with.

        3. The engines are significantly quieter on Sky’s F1 coverage than they were on NBC’s coverage.

          Then again, Crofty could probably drown out a V12 without an exhaust.

        4. BMF66 I’m interested you think that. When I went to the F1 race in Hungary this year, I may have needed ear defenders because my ears were sensitive, but at least 75% of the people I encountered had no hearing protection at all, and during the race I had trouble hearing the cars over the conversations in the area around me, despite being in the front row of a general admissions area.

        5. Montreal has a small GA area across from the pits. I was there for the start of FP3 when Vettel was first to burble off. A couple of first-time visitors were facing in my direction as I watched for Vettel to finish the lap.

          As he blasted past I was impressed by the noise; not expecting it, the first-timers practically jumped out of their skins in shock!

          It was fun.

      4. @seanloh There was nothing impressive or exotic about the 2006-2013 V8’s, They were some of the most boring engine’s in F1’s history which is why for that period of time you never really heard any talk about them.

        They were down on power compared to what came before/after, Produced less torque in the lower end so were far easier to drive than what came before/after & while they were louder than what came before/after the sound the V8’s produced was rather flat & unpleasing & there was no difference in sound between the various manufacturer’s…. They were just dull& it’s often forgot or ignored now but fans hated them when they were introduced in 2006 for these reasons & only started liking the V8’s when they decided they hated the V6 turbo hybrids.

        With regards to the current engines, I think one of the biggest problems in terms of how fans perceive them is down to how badly F1 has sold them. Since before they were introduced you had some of the loudest voices in F1 calling them rubbish & trying to diminish them.

        If back in 2013/14 you had F1, The manufacturer’s, Teams & Broadcasters selling the positives, Explaining the technology & rubbishing some of the myths rather than in some cases pushing them to further individual agendas (Something Red Bull & Christian Horner especially are guilty of) I think more people would be more accepting of them as they are because I think some of the dislike from some fans is based on not knowing how they work & believing myth rather than fact. I mean many fans believe the MGU-H doesn’t do anything other than help with turbo lag & that dropping it wouldn’t affect anything when in fact the MGU-H is helping produce a chunk of the power & is one of the key areas of development & power improvement going forward (And probably where Ferrari’s power advantage this year has come from).

        1. Well said @peterg, though I imagine there are just as many fans that think the MGUH is just charging the battery and are unaware that it reduces turbo-lag as vice versa.

        2. It’s been downhill ever since the v10s were let go.

        3. Sure, the V8’s were not as good as the V10’s but they were still fit to truly stir the soul.

          The current engines just sound utterly terrible. If they are louder this year to be honest that seems almost spiteful.

        4. Meh. The best engine sound was when Fred Flintstone had to stick his feet through the bottom of his car, and huffed and puffed as he brought it up to speed. It’s all been downhill since then.

          1. francesco nicolardi
            14th October 2018, 7:01

            Well said, and I will add that the stone tyres didn’t require any farcical management and conservative strategies that the actual tyre compounds require…

            1. Ha ha, good one!

            2. But Fred would always say to Barney, sure have got some vibration going on old buddy old boy.

            3. Of course those were Firestone’s.

            4. Excellent work @robbie

          2. @phylyp
            The flintstones car looks mighty fast tho. Just look at that acceleration:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s13X66BFd8

        5. I disagree only on the front of that the V8’s still stirred the soul and the V6’s as they are just cannot do that.

          1. The V8’s on the rev limiter produced a shrill noise that was bordering on painful. That wasn’t your soul being stirred, it was your inner ear being clobbered.

        6. I would like to add that since there were other rule changes for 2014 the cars were much slower which for some fans meant that it was just due to engines while the other changes were more to blame.

          I could see that if we had gone straight from 2013 to 2017 rules the reception could have been better.

        7. Mercedes were the only team that made any attempt to explain how the PU’s work and how efficient they are. Between 2014-16, they put out numerous amount of videos displaying this information.

      5. @seanloh, I wonder how much of this is a generational bias from the fact that the fan base is now dominated by those who grew up in the 1990s and think that the engines of that era are “what F1 should be”. When you go back to that era, or through into the early 2000s, the fan base was not really that impressed or overawed in the way that individuals who started watching in the 1990s, such as yourself, seem to be when compared with what came before.

        A larger proportion of the fan base then comprised of individuals who’d grown up with the sort in the 1980s, and quite a few of them were, if anything, unimpressed with the engines of the 1990s and 2000s. To them, they were underpowered, too stuffed with advanced electronics that made them too easy to drive compared to the turbo engines that came before them, which were seen as “a real man’s engine” – to them, the shriek of the engines of the 1990s and 2000s was, to use the old Shakespearean quote “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

      6. Some people prefer Greco-Roman Wrestling whilst others get excited by the show of Professional Wrestling.
        Luckily for the second group and people looking for screaming engines there is Drag Racing and Monster Truck shows!

        1. I’ve not been bothered whatsoever by the non-screaming engines, but it is music to my ears when I hear of their power and aggression. To me they’re quieter but more growly and less swarm of beesie. That to me defines F1 more than scream does. Yet I’m sure they will continue to try to make the pu’s louder. I won’t mind that either. I do appreciate the awe inspired by the scream, just like when fighter jets fly overhead. It just doesn’t define F1 for me as there are so many aspects to it. I am just as awed that they have found more power and torque using 30% less fuel even with heavier cars.

          1. Very nice comment, echoes what I feel (or it would, if it weren’t drowned out by a V6) @robbie

      7. @peterg

        I think we should have actually stuck to the real spirit of the cars? When real horses used to move cars and not fictional horse that are mechanical bits …

        Or keep looking at birds and dream flying…

        Sighs… change is hard… history got over it, so next gen will get over it too…

    3. Will someone mention we’re tired of hearing Steiner defend one or both of his drivers after nearly every race?

      Oh wait…I just did.

    4. OK gunther, keep talking. Crashing is way better than finishing a race.

    5. ”what can he do, just let him by?”
      – No, he should’ve committed to moving to the right earlier than he did. He simply started moving to the right too late. Had he done so a mere few seconds earlier then it would’ve still been all fine.
      – I agree with the COTD.
      – Hopefully, Ocon would get the remaining Williams-drive for next season although I’m not holding too much hope for that. If not him then hopefully Sirotkin would be retained.

    6. what can he do, just let him by?

      Well, yeah? if he’s going to defend so late into the overtake manoeuvre, he has to let him by. Alternatively, he could’ve moved to the right earlier forcing LeClerc to the outside.

      Every driver knows there’s a point in which keeping a rival behind isn’t possible anymore, and you’ve got to try to stay alongside as long as possible. I respect Gunther for defending his drivers, which as his team boss he’s obliged to do, but sometimes it’s better to shut up.

      1. Yep, can’t agree more!

      2. And it was not even a defensive move, @fer-no65.
        MAG moved way too late for LEC being able to react (too late for braking, and LEC tried to steer further to the right to no avail).
        There was no way the move could have worked out for MAG unless LEC already decided to try to overtake on the left.

        IMO it was one of those moves where the front driver ’causes an accident’; a bit like slamming on the brakes in busy fast moving traffic.

      3. @fer-no65, as you say, Magnussen never really seems to have learned that there is a point where you end up doing more damage to yourself – often quite literally in his case. There is a point where you have to accept that it might be more sensible to, instead of just chopping across the path of your rival, accepting that it might be better to try and set yourself up for a counter attack at the next corner – something that Magnussen doesn’t seem to have learned or accept is possible.

      4. Indeed @fer-no65, Magnussen might feel mightily chuffed by being known to drive dirty and dangerous, but with the amount of incidents this really is a big accident waiting to happen.

    7. But I’m tired of articles like this.

    8. COTD leads me back to something I’ve wanted to know for a while: how good is that Haas? Because I think with a top driver it would probably be a lot closer. Magnussen is so average, he’s lucky Grosjean had a bad spell and that it’s a very good car. People like him because he’s aggressive (borderline dangerous) and talks a lot of old cobblers. Neither is having a particularly impressive season.

      1. Yea, I personally believe Magnussen is just as good now as he was at the start of the season. Grosjean was just so error prone at the start that it made Magnussen stand out more. Now Grosjean is back to being pretty quick, he is showing he’s capable of being much faster than Magnussen and Magnussen isn’t exactly making big mistakes. He’s just not quite got the speed IMO. They are both a bit too aggressive though a lot of the time. Other drivers will be able to do better than Grosjean is at the moment, but I doubt they will instantly. Grosjean will have the knowledge of the team as he’s been with them for nearly 3 years.

    9. @hahostolze, I think that many would argue that they have probably had the fourth best car for a fair chunk of the season, but haven’t really capitalised on it as effectively as they could.

      Neither driver has been especially consistent over the season – Magnussen has wasted a lot of opportunities by driving overly aggressively, and Grosjean had a rather poor run of races at the start of the season. The team have also, to a lesser extent, thrown away opportunities themselves, such as the botched pit stops in Australia.

      When you think about it, in some ways the current position of 5th in the WCC is a little poor given the car they’ve had to work with. When you consider that Force India could be close to catching up with them in the latter half of this season, despite losing most of their points, I think it does emphasise that the drivers and the team have both failed to take full advantage of the car they have to work with when compared to more efficient and effective teams, such as Force India.

      1. Bear in mind the team lost them about 30 points this year, which would easily put them in 4th, which is as high up as could reasonably be expected.

        Yes, the drivers have cost them points, but according to the old adage, you win together and you lose together.

        This certainly works both ways, and can’t just be ignored every time somebody gets a taste for hating on the Haas drivers.

    10. Well, Steiner is right, except it is not only regarding Magnussen. The drivers complain about each other all the time, and I do not want to hear it.

    11. They all hate the low budget Haas doing a best of the rest season….that’s where the picking is coming from…

      So they will try their little tricks – Renault going to the extreme ending up in court for a 3 mm part which Haas openly had told about and made a gentleman agreement about with the other teams –

    Comments are closed.