FORMULA 1 - 2016

[MIKA27]

Hamilton: Decision making process needs change

After changes made to the radio regulations and the qualifying format, World Champion Lewis Hamilton has pleaded for change at the top of Formula 1.

Involved in defining the rules of the sport include The Strategy Group, the F1 Commission and the World Motor Sport Council, who all come to an agreement in the final process of the decision making.

However, Hamilton explains that they are too many parties involved in the process and that it is becoming rather chaotic as it is having a negative effect on the sport.

"I feel at the top end there are probably way too many people making decisions, who probably don't have a lot of understanding of what it's like in the car," the three-time World Champion told autosport.com.

"All the people making the decisions have different opinions, and if they don't all agree then something doesn't get done.

"My understanding is there are teams with more money, more say than others, and the problem is for us drivers, half of us will say one thing and half will say another.

"I don't know what the answer is, but there needs to be less people making the decisions, and hopefully making the right ones."

[MIKA27]

Raikkonen defends Ferrari race strategy

Despite a number of cars switching to mediums during the red flag incident at the Australian Grand Prix, Ferrari decided to put on soft tyres, which ultimately cost them a chance at victory.

Ferrari driver Kimi Raikkonen, who retired during the race, defended their choice of tyres as it was only the first race of the season and they did not have enough information gathered yet to put on the mediums in Australia.

At the time, Ferrari were running first and second as the teams came into the pits during the red flag incident. Mercedes were behind Ferrari and decided to put on mediums as they decided they were going to run the full race without making any stops.

However, Ferrari decided to stay on the softs, which resulted in Raikkonen's teammate Sebastian Vettel, who claimed third on the podium, making another stop and losing a couple places.

"Obviously we were thinking what to do, it was a different choice for different cars and now we have to see what would have been the best choice," the Finn told f1i.com.

"Obviously in my case it wouldn’t have made any difference because we had to retire.

"This year you have more choices with the tyres, so it’s a bit hard to choose and this weekend with tricky conditions we didn’t really know how the tyres would have worked.

"During the pit stops it's up to the team to decide, they can see the whole picture and we followed the plan.

"That cost us a place but that place was lost as soon as Rosberg stopped and jumped us immediately."

[MIKA27]

Mexican GP organisers consider crowd capacity increase for 2016

The promoter of the Mexican Grand Prix has told Motorsport.com that the crowd capacity for this year’s event could be increased, as it is already on target to sell-out.

Last year’s hugely successful event attracted 336,174 fans, second only to Silverstone’s British Grand Prix.

Following its return to the Formula 1 calendar after a 23-year absence, the President and CEO of live event promotions giant CIE, Alejandro Soberon, has pledged an “even better experience” in 2016.

“We were very happy with the way it went last year, but there are always areas for improvement,” he told Motorsport.com.

“We have been on sale now for three weeks, and we’re at 80, 81 per cent of the objective for this year already. So we’re fine, and there’s been a lot of interest from foreigners to come – that has increased from last year’s event.

“We’re pretty optimistic about this year’s race. We’re even considering increasing the capacity a little bit over last year.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that it’s going to be another solid sell-out.”

Huge economic benefits

Soberon pointed to the recent economic impact report that stated the event contributed $232.8 million to the Mexican economy – as well as $277.8 million of media global exposure.

“Last year was challenging, but we were very proud that Mexico was able to surprise the world,” he stated.

“The profile of the event has created a lot of awareness, and we truly believe that the concept of the race in Mexico was a winner – such as integrating the stadium into the fan experience. That worked out very well.

“We have a team that is working very hard to give fans an even better experience this year. We’re happy, but we’re busy.”

[skalls]

Why would Pirelli want to continue the qualifying format? It is quite possible the most asinine thing I've seen in any sporting event. I don't think anyone wanted any changes to qualifying in general.

[MIKA27]

Haas admits debut result way beyond expectations

Haas F1 team owner Gene Haas says the American outfit would have been happy with its cars just making it to the end of the Australian Grand Prix.

Romain Grosjean secured a sensational result for the team in its first-ever F1 race, the Frenchman finishing in sixth place after benefitting from the red-flag period triggered by the crash between teammate Esteban Gutierrez and McLaren's Fernando Alonso.

Haas admits the result was way beyond the team's expectations.

"I don't think we even targeted points," said Haas. "The goal was for both cars to finish the race. I think if both cars had finished the race, just from attrition would have basically got us a 10th place.

"Five cars I think fell for various reasons, so we just needed to go beyond that. Not only did we go beyond that, we actually exceeded that by getting up to sixth.

"That came back to the tyre strategy of putting a set of mediums on there, and running them for 39 laps. That comes back to Grosjean being able to save his tyres, and that takes a lot of experience to know that, 'if I save these tyres, and do not race these guys, it'll pay off in the later laps.'

"It's all a strategy. You've got to understand your strategy and stay with your strategy. That's sometimes hard to do."

Rivals will come around to Haas' approach

Team boss Gunther Steiner said on Sunday that the result would have been impossible without Ferrari's help, and while Haas says rivals undermine his squad's approach, he is convinced they welcome the competition.

"They'll probably do all of that and more," he said when asked if other teams undermined its approach.

"We were doing NASCAR for a long time, so we're a little thick skinned. I wouldn't be worried about what they're going to do with me. I went to the press conference yesterday, and they had the team principals there.

"They were all very welcoming and warm about it. I think they like good competition. If we can provide them with good competition, they'll welcome that and appreciate that. That's what racing is about.

"You don't want to come here and win races easily, because what's the point of that? When you win a race, you want to know that you beat someone who gave it his all.

"And when you do that, that's what makes you feel really good about it."

[MIKA27]

Ricciardo ’not far off’ leaders in Melbourne

Daniel Ricciardo's superb drive to fourth at the Australian Grand Prix was somewhat overlooked in the aftermath of a race that included its fair share of controversy and drama – but he says he wasn’t far off Mercedes and Ferrari in some parts of...

Ricciardo also set the fastest lap, helped by being the last man to make a pit stop.

“It was good, obviously the P4 is a better result than we expected, so I'm happy with that,” said Ricciardo.

“More than anything I'm happy with the pace we've got. Still, as expected, we're not as quick as Ferrari and Mercedes. But in parts of the race, we were not far off.

“I think we matched them in certain stages, and at the end with the option we were able to do the fastest lap.

“At the end I was having fun, it was good. Even at the beginning we didn't really make any ground at the start, but we were able to pass cars, and that was refreshing – being able to pass cars around [Albert Park] isn't always easy.”

Having a ball

While he didn’t quite get the home race podium he so badly craves, Ricciardo did admit that he ‘had a ball’ during the Melbourne race.

“I came on the radio and said it's just good to be racing again, I'm having a ball out here,” he added.

“Then at the end obviously with the option I was able to put in a few qualifying laps. I thought there was a podium on at a few stages, I was sitting third and second, but I knew we had to pit again.

“I was hoping that Vettel and Lewis would have a bit of a battle at the front, but anyway, it's not a bad day.”

Ricciardo is hopeful that the team can continue to make progress.

“Genuinely, I think the pace wasn't bad. Hopefully it's not a one-off, and I definitely feel we've got a good chassis behind us. I think we can keep this up and then by Montreal or something we'll have a good update.”

[MIKA27]

FIA unlikely to delay ‘halo’ if ‘better’ device emerges

FIA race director Charlie Whiting says it is unlikely the motorsport governing body will put its plans to introduce the 'halo' cockpit protection device on hold even if another 'better' concept emerged.

The FIA has been forging ahead with rigorous testing of the 'halo' concept, which was given a surprise public airing earlier this month when Ferrari briefly fitted an early prototype to its car during pre-season testing.

Though the device has proven divisive amongst drivers, with the likes of Daniel Ricciardo, Sebastian Vettel and Nico Rosberg in favour and Lewis Hamilton and Nico Hulkenberg staunchly against it, the FIA says its research and development is now well developed, hinting it could well debut as early as 2017.

It comes as Red Bull Racing revealed renderings of its interpretation for cockpit protection during the Australian Grand Prix, which features a frontal screen in front of the driver.

Though it is a design preferred by some, Whiting feels the 'halo' offers the 'best all-round protection', though he adds the FIA would be reluctant to delay development even if it 'felt there was another better concept coming'.

“I don't think we would delay if another one was emerging,” he said. “We are on a course for the Halo as that has been tested thoroughly and we feel that it offers the best all-round protection. We do have, as I said earlier, a thorough risk assessment to on a number of different accident scenarios.

“We want to make sure we are not going to make things worse in certain circumstances, so that has to be done. But I don't think we would delay it because we felt there was another better one coming.”

[MIKA27]

Manor: Work to be done but credit to drivers

Manor's racing director Dave Ryan says he's pleased with the progress his team has made compared to 12 months ago but is aware of how far it still has to push and gave huge credit to his two rookie drivers Pascal Wehrlein and Rio Haryanto.

Despite Haryanto suffering a retirement due to a technical issue and Wehrlein finishing the last of the final runners in 16th, Ryan says positives can be taken from Melbourne considering last year the team failed to turn a wheel around Albert Park.

With its all-new Mercedes power and Williams transmission the Manor looked to be on the pace, especially in the hands of Wehrlein, but after the German lost out to his rivals due to the ill-timed red flag he struggled with tyre degradation and a braking issue that forced him to limp home at the back of the field.

Ryan says the Manor technical team has held its hands up at the problems and shifted any blame away from both his rookie drivers competing in their maiden F1 Grand Prix.

“We can take some real positives from our first race of the season,” Ryan said. “It's clear we've made a good step forward from last year and the pace in the early part of the race showed the potential in the package. At the same time, we've learned a lot about where we need to improve.

“Pascal did a great job and was flying in the first half of the race. Rio also got a good start and was managing the cars around him really well. After the red flag things took a turn for the worse, starting with the problem that led to Rio's retirement. We let him down today so reliability will be our highest priority ahead of Bahrain and at the same time, we have to look at where we've lost out in performance terms.

“We've struggled with the tyres and that was a big factor for Pascal in the second half of his race. Operationally there's also work to be done.

“Credit to the drivers, who can be pretty proud of the job they've done here with a lot of pressure on young shoulders. There's a good opportunity to improve now ahead of Bahrain and we'll leave no stone unturned when we're back at the factory.”

[LLC]

Why would Pirelli want to continue the qualifying format? It is quite possible the most asinine thing I've seen in any sporting event. I don't think anyone wanted any changes to qualifying in general.

My guess is they are using this as leverage to negotiate something else they want but are having a hard time getting. No idea what, but if they need leverage for something this is a good move. Hated the new format so hope it changes back as we though it was going to.

[mgravito]

WILLIAMS SET FASTEST PITSTOP TIME IN MELBOURNE

While it was Silver Arrows driver Nico Rosberg secured the first win of the new seasonat the Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne, it was the Williams team who were the fastest in the pits.

A mere 2.35 seconds – no more than a brief moment in time. That’s all the Williams crew needed to turn around the FW38 of Valtteri Bottas, making the British team a split second faster than their Mercedes colleagues, who sent race winner Nico Rosberg on his way in 2.65 seconds during his race stop.

Williams also achieved the third-fastest stop of the race with a time of 2.72 seconds for Brazilian driver Felipe Massa, proving the Williams crew’s consistency.

There were a total of 26 pit stops during the 58 laps of the Australian Grand Prix. Pit crews beat the three-second benchmark in eleven of them.

This is why I don't miss refueling. I remember watching that pitstop with the overhead shot and just think to myself how beautiful it was. It's poetry in motion when they synchronize for these immensely quick pit stops. I love it.

[MIKA27]

The Debacle That Was Qualifying At The Melbourne Grand Prix

The first race of the year is rarely one with much gossip. The focus is on what was happening on the track and not in the Paddock.

The biggest talking point in the paddock was, of course, the disgraceful debacle that was qualifying. It made F1 look amateurish and one needs to ask how and why such a stupid thing could have occurred. What is obvious is that someone, somewhere made a mistake and none of the checks and balances worked. To explain what happened and how, one first needs to understand the system, which is as clear as Mississippi Mud Pie. Some have blamed the teams, others have taken shots at Bernie Ecclestone and some have had a go at the FIA. Lots of reporting has aimed at the F1 Commission, but this is really a red herring. The F1 Commission is a rubber-stamping body that can only accept or reject proposals. It is not allowed a mind of its own. Even if it was, the political situation is such that its members generally vote things through and do not rock the boat, either because their objections are overruled and there is no point in stirring up trouble, or because they really don’t care about the sport. It is a similar story with the second rubber-stamping body – the World Motor Sport Council.

The reality is that the new qualifying was the work of the F1 Strategy Group or, in other words, the eight voting parties involved: these are the FIA, the Formula One group, Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren, Red Bull, Williams and Force India. The FIA and the Formula One group each have six votes, the teams have one vote each. The Strategy Group is where this problem came from.

Now here’s the thing. It took me five whole minutes to get a very clear picture of what was going to happen with the new rules.

The Q1 and Q2 sessions would be fraught with difficulty because of time, tyres and traffic. There would be no second chances and the action would be disjointed. No-one would be able to react to other times being set and so ultimately it would be a question of everyone running as fast as possible at the start of the sessions. Those who went earliest might get a chance of a second run (as we saw with Jolyon Palmer), but that would involve speed and discipline. The team would need to guess whether its time was good enough before deciding on a second run. If they waited too long, the run would be stopped by the clock.Explaining it all to the public, they said, would be tough. In Q3, they added, it would be over with five minutes to go. You might as well go grab a coffee.

And that was exactly what happened.

The question, therefore, was very simple. If the cleverest people in the paddock all said that it wouldn’t work, why on earth did the Strategy Group vote it through?

There are two possible answers to this: politics, and/or arrogance. I don’t know which is right, but it has to be one or the other. When you stop to think about it, it may be a similar case to Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, with the Emperor being sold on the idea of an invisible suit of clothes and no-one daring to say that they don’t see it, until the inevitable “But he isn’t wearing anything at all”…

The decision to go ahead was taken in late February and announced by the FIA, which explained that the goal of the new regulations was to deliver “a faster, more spectacular FIA Formula One World Championship”.

The thinking behind a change in qualifying, such as it was, is as follows: by getting qualifying to scramble the grid, one can inject more action into the races. This is not as artificial as drawing starting positions from a hat, as used to happen. For the last 80-odd years the fastest driver has been given the best starting position because it is logical. The sport does not want to see undeserving drivers at the front (as happens in GP2) where drivers with limited talent can win races by being put to the front with the reversed top 8 system. It is a major flaw which, for me, undermines the credibility of the series because when overtaking is tough, slower drivers stay ahead and win.

“Two proposals were on the table,” Mercedes’s Toto Wolff said. “One was the reverse grid idea and the other was this one. We voted for the least worst solution. You can’t say no, no, no, all the time, so this time we felt maybe it’s worth exploring and see how it is.”

Under the rules of the Strategy Group, if the FIA and Formula One vote together then the teams can do nothing, except if Ferrari decides to use its veto on any decision, sporting or technical, which it has a right to do. But if there is a stupid idea that might make the FIA and Formula One look bad, then there is no reason that Ferrari would veto it, if it knows it is a bad idea. Similarly, one can argue that the teams look bad if a daft idea is adopted, so one can imagine the Formula One group doing that, given the current political situation. The truth is that the voting structure means that there must be alliances and thus there must, therefore, be politics.

The Formula One group’s legal people are threatening to overturn the Ferrari veto, arguing that there are clauses in the hyper-secret FIA-Formula One group 100-year commercial deal. It is impossible for anyone to say whether this is fact or fiction. And here is the key: the motivations of those involved are different. Formula One wants the best possible show in order to try to drive more revenues. The teams want to win, but they want a fair system, while the FIA under Jean Todt seems to have abdicated all responsibility and has signed away its right to do as it pleases, in exchange for large amounts of money. One can disguise this by pretending its all about consensus decision-making, but I think a sensible High Court judge, faced with the facts, would conclude that the motivation was that the FIA President wanted money to fund his other ambitions. If that is not the case, he’s not doing enough to convince people of anything.

I do not believe that the eight people who voted this through are stupid enough for this to have occurred. For me, this is all about blame-shifting and scoring points off one another in the overall fight for control in F1. The teams are happy to see the FIA and Formula One being weakened by bad decisions and so may have agreed to the system knowing it would fail – because it would have useful consequences. Formula One may have had the same thought process, believing that a public failure would weaken the manufacturer credibility. It is either this, or they are all not competent.

It is increasingly clear that the current political structure must be broken up if the sport is to thrive. But that will not happen because no-one wants to give up the power that they have won. The whole system is stuck and the only real hope, is that European Competition Directorate might arrive and order all parties to find solutions or face the bureaucrats doing it for them.

The other thing that is bizarre is the complete lack of any reaction from the FIA after the teams met in Australia and said that they want to change the qualifying. There was no sign of either the FIA President or the CEO of the Formula One group.

They were not the only ones missing, by the way, the crowd in Melbourne was down 24,000 compared to the four-day figure last year, from 296,000 to 272,000.

Beyond that there was not much real gossip in Melbourne. The race was very good and the action generated one key question: will the track now have to get rid of its sand traps? Fernando Alonso’s accident was a clear indication that the sand trap is not the right thing for safety. Alonso’s car was up-ended by the change of surface and the sand trap caused it to fly for something like 50 metres, without losing much speed. In safety terms, flying is never good. In my opinion, this is much more important a question than the halo.

[capitalpg]

IS THE MERCEDES PLAYGROUND IN F1 OVER?

Helmut Marko is not so sure Ferrari is really ready to challenge Mercedes in 2016, while media – particularly in Italy – are predicting the demise of the German team’s domination in Formula 1.

On the face of it, it might be said Sebastian Vettel only lost victory in Melbourne because of the red flag and a tyre choice blunder by the Maranello team.

“The Mercedes playground is over,” wrote La Gazzetta dello Sport, while Tuttosport agreed: “It is clear that Mercedes will not be the sole ruler this season.”

Corriere della Sera added: “Not all losses are the same. Mercedes won in Australia but only thanks to Ferrari’s mistakes.”

Red Bull’s Dr Marko, however, has a different theory, telling Kleine Zeitung newspaper that “Mercedes will be trying to conceal their (true) superiority” at races this year.

But Auto Motor und Sport claims Mercedes’ advantage in the twisty third sector in Melbourne was just 77 thousandths over Vettel.

“In qualifying they turn on the power and they are gone,” said the German. “But we can compete with them in the corners.”

No matter the real gap to Ferrari, teammates Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton at least look set for a close battle in 2016.

Mercedes team chairman Niki Lauda thinks an immediate win in 2016 was exactly what German Rosberg needed as he bids to break Hamilton’s run of titles.

“If it would have been the other way round and Lewis had won he (Rosberg) would have suffered because he always suffers when Lewis is there,” he is quoted by the Daily Mail. “So, for him this race is important to mentally stay strong and have a good baseline for the next one.”

The Austrian and F1 legend thinks part of Mercedes’ problem last Sunday was Vettel’s much better start as he leapfrogged the silver-clad pair to lead early.

“The race was half-decided on the start because Ferrari did an incredible start,” Lauda said. “We screwed up (and) we have to find out why”.

“I am afraid we see more of this because Ferrari is quick and there is no question about it. It is going to be exciting and I look forward to the next one.”

I'm cautiously optimistic we'll have a competitive season ahead. Hoping some drama builds within the Mercedes camp between Nico & Lewis that results in loss of focus - one can wish:)

Ferrari can not afford to make asinine pit strategy decisions again as I may throw something at the TV.... Just stupid.

[MIKA27]

MARKO: IF MERCEDES WANTED THEY COULD LAP THE ENTIRE FIELD

The big question after Melbourne is whether Ferrari can really challenge, and put an end to, Mercedes’ dominance of Formula 1 in 2016.

Sebastian Vettel looked set to win the season opener last Sunday until the red flag and a tyre choice blunder, but not everyone is convinced.

“Mercedes can hide their superiority,” Helmut Marko, the outspoken Red Bull official, told Auto Bild. “If they want, they could lap the entire field.”

Indeed, many believe that the true gap between Mercedes and Ferrari was demonstrated in qualifying.

“I think it’s more or less what we expected,” Kimi Raikkonen, referring to Ferrari’s closeness to Mercedes in the race, is quoted by El Confidencial.

“On Saturday people went crazy because the difference in qualifying was very large, but there were special circumstances. In the race, it was more or less what we expected,” he added.

McLaren-Honda’s Jenson Button agrees: “Ferrari are definitely closer, which is good. It’s great for the sport and we need that.”

Ferrari’s 2016 car is the first project that has been implemented from start to finish by its highly-respected technical boss James Allison, who this week is grappling with some tragic news.

La Gazzetta dello Sport reports that the Briton’s wife Rebecca, with whom they have three children, has died suddenly of meningitis.

“We at Ferrari are united with him and his family during this period of profound sorrow,” the Maranello team confirmed.

[MIKA27]

BELIEVE IT OR NOT: ALONSO AND RAIKKONEN ENGINES SURVIVED MELBOURNE

The engine, gearbox and monocoque aboard Fernando Alonso’s otherwise-mangled McLaren-Honda survived his famous crash in Melbourne last Sunday.

Marca, a Spanish sports daily, estimated the damage caused by the shattered carbon-fibre and other disposable components at EUR 300,000, after Alonso barrel-rolled through the gravel after a 300kph impact with Esteban Gutierrez.

But the report said the only real damage to the actual chassis was the mounting points of the suspension, meaning it could return to service later this season.

“The engine and gearbox were also spared,” added Marca, which is good news for Alonso amid the tight long-life restrictions on those components.

Max Mosley, the former FIA president, said the most important thing is that F1’s safety advances saved Alonso’s life.

“Those sort of serious racing accidents, you do expect the driver to walk away,” he told the Times. “That wouldn’t have been the case 20 years ago.

“It was quite an impressive crash,” added Mosley. “I am very much in favour of the halo. Eventually they will come up with a solution. It’s the sort of thing that ought to be done.”

Meanwhile, Italy’s Autosprint reports that the engine aboard Kimi Raikkonen’s flaming Ferrari last Sunday has apparently also survived, as it was reportedly a turbo overheating problem.

“If we had seen on the telemetry that it was a problem with the power unit,” confirmed team boss Maurizio Arrivabene, “we would have asked Kimi to immediately turn it off rather than have him return to the box.”

[skalls]

How the hell could all that stuff survive that crash?

Wow

[MIKA27]

FATHER DEFENDS VERSTAPPEN’S MELBOURNE TANTRUM

Max Verstappen has found some allies – his father Jos among them – in the wake of his anger and outbursts at the Australian Grand Prix.

The teen Dutchman was widely criticised after fuming on the radio that a bungled pitstop and being stuck behind Toro Rosso teammate Carlos Sainz was “a f*cking joke”.

But his father, aptly known during his own career as ‘Jos the boss’, defended him, “I think it’s good to have aggression.”

“For sure he is not the kind of driver who says only ‘Yes’ and ‘Amen’ — his desire only to win comes from within and it’s something very positive about him,” he added to Globo Esporte.

And Tom Coronel, another well-known Dutch racing driver, said it is refreshing to see a personality like Max’s shine so strongly in modern F1.

“Max spat fire like a dragon because he is young and wants to succeed,” he told De Telegraaf newspaper. “Luckily for us he is honest and no ‘commercial talker’, demonstrating that he is a real guy.”

MIKA: Of course his father agrees! He's one of the biggest dummy spitters of all in F1 when he was driving and had a number of personal run-ins with the law, attempted murder (Which was later dropped), assault and battery. Jos has 106 starts, only 2 podiums, and 17 career points in all those years. Not the best role model IMO.

[MIKA27]

How the hell could all that stuff survive that crash?

Wow

Exactly so why on earth do we need the Halo?

Formula 1 vehicles are an amazing feat of engineering and safety.

[MIKA27]

BOTTAS HOPES NEW NOSE BOOSTS MIDPACK WILLIAMS

Valtteri Bottas says it is too early to become overly disappointed with the pace of Williams’ 2016 car.

The Finn finished just eighth in Australia, having qualified in the midfield.

“It is difficult to say much about the pace in qualifying as I didn’t get any clear air and then I got the (gearbox change) penalty, but it is clear that we need to improve relative to the fastest cars,” he is quoted by Turun Sanomat newspaper.

“We are not satisfied with where we were in Australia,” Bottas added, “but we will see how we go in Bahrain, where we will have new parts on the car.”

The centrepiece of the Bahrain upgrade is a new ultra-short nose, but it is believed that will actually only be fitted to teammate Felipe Massa’s sister car.

MIKA: So long as they dont re-introduce the Walrus concept

[MIKA27]

STEWART BELIEVES HAMILTON MAY RETIRE AFTER FOURTH TITLE

One more Formula 1 world title could be enough to satisfy Lewis Hamilton’s ambition believes Sir Jackie Stewart, who like Hamilton is a triple world champion.

Briton Hamilton has always said his goal was to match the championship tally of another triple title winner, Ayrton Senna, but the 31-year-old has just commenced the quest for a fourth.

“He will win more than three world titles,” Stewart told the German broadcaster Sky at the Australian grand prix. “At least four or five.

“Maybe with his lifestyle he will say ‘After the fourth title I will go into the music business’,” the 76-year-old added.

Indeed, Hamilton’s off-track interests are notably growing, as he delves into the worlds of music, fashion and celebrity.

“With his chains and his earrings he attracts a lot of attention, but that’s his style,” said Stewart. “For certain markets this is certainly positive, but it is unconventional for formula one.”

“He has made a lot of money and has been incredibly successful. He is now 31; I retired at 34,” Stewart concluded.

[MIKA27]

SPARKLING WINE REPLACES CHAMPAGNE ON THE F1 PODIUM

Champagne will not be sprayed on the Formula 1 podiums in 2016.

In January, we reported that the sport’s long-time champagne sponsor Mumm is leaving the sport, with reports saying the $5.5m it paid per year was deemed “insufficient” by Bernie Ecclestone. Mumm is now the official champagne partner of Formula E.

So after the chequered flag waved in Melbourne last Sunday, it was magnums of ‘champagne’ supplied by Chandon, the new McLaren sponsor, that were waiting on the podium for Nico Rosberg, Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel.

The only glitch is that Chandon Brut is actually a brand of chardonnay, not champagne, with McLaren describing it as a “vibrant sparkling wine with a boundless conquering spirit”.

F1’s champagne history dates back to 1950, when after a grand prix in the Champagne region of France, a large bottle was presented to the winner.

But it was not until 1966 when, at Le Mans, Jo Siffert’s accidentally shaken bottle was inadvertently sprayed into the crowd, starting the tradition.

[MIKA27]

VASSEUR HAPPY WITH DRIVERS AFTER MELBOURNE

New Formula 1 team boss Frederic Vasseur says he is happy with Renault’s drivers after the first race weekend of 2016.

As the French carmaker returns to full works status this year, it inherited Jolyon Palmer’s race contract from predecessor Lotus.

New boss Vasseur, fresh from his own junior team ART, then failed to secure from McLaren the services of his reigning GP2 champion Stoffel Vandoorne, opting instead for the McLaren refugee Kevin Magnussen.

But Frenchman Vasseur says he is happy with the pair and told L’Equipe, “I am equal to both drivers. We chose them. They won in the junior championships.

“In Australia, both of them were successful. I’m happy with the way Jolyon had his debut grand prix, and the same can be said about the job from Kevin in the second stint of the race after the puncture.

“If after the tests you had told me Renault would go at the same pace as McLaren and Force India, I would have voted for it with both hands,” Vasseur smiled.

As for whether he is enjoying his new F1 adventure, Vasseur answered: “Compared to before? I do not see any difference. Wherever you are, you always want to win.”

But when asked if F1 is more tiring than his other ventures, he added: “In the past year, working DTM, GP2 and Formula E, I had 26 race weekends. This year, it is only 21!”

[MIKA27]

TYRE RULES HAVE SPICED UP F1 SAYS PIRELLI BOSS

In the aftermath of an intriguing season opening Australian Grand Prix, Pirelli chief Paul Hembery is sure the new tyre selection rules have succeeded in spicing up Formula 1.

Although the rules are complex, teams and drivers are essentially now allowed to choose three compounds of tyres for each grand prix.

Towards the chequered flag in Melbourne, for instance, it resulted in a fascinating battle between the Mercedes cars on the medium compound and Ferrari’s Sebastian Vettel on the super-soft.

“This goes to show how the new regulations have helped to open up a number of different approaches to strategy, with nine of the 16 finishers taking advantage of all three compounds on offer and five completely different strategies covering the top six places,” said Hembery.

And an interesting battle could take place once again in Bahrain next weekend, when the medium, soft and super-soft tyres will once again be seen.

That is because while Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg have each selected just one medium compound for the weekend, the Ferrari drivers will have three.

It means the Ferraris will instead have two fewer sets of the soft tyres apiece than their silver-clad title rivals, with La Gazzetta dello Sport describing Mercedes’ approach as “aggressive”.

[MIKA27]

New Sky deal to end live free-to-air F1 coverage in UK after 2018

Sky Sports has extended its deal to remain "the home of Formula 1" in the UK and Ireland until 2024 in a deal which will bring to an end live free-to-air coverage of the sport.

The subscription-based broadcaster originally secured the exclusive broadcast rights to Formula 1 for the 2012 season but agreed a deal with the BBC, which permitted the free-to-air broadcaster to show ten races live and the remainder as a delayed highlights package.

That same deal has now been taken up by Channel 4, with the UK broadcaster seeing out the remainder of the BBC's original seven-year contract.

Sky's new deal will eventually put an end to live free-to-air coverage once Channel 4's deal ends in 2018 - though highlights from every race will still be shown on a free-to-air basis according to Sky. It's not clear how exactly this will happen.

"This is a brilliant deal that takes Sky's partnership with F1 to the next level," commented Barney Francis, managing director of Sky Sports. "Since 2012, we have demonstrated unrivalled commitment to F1, offering fans innovations including a dedicated channel and the very best broadcasting talent.

"We are absolutely delighted that we are strengthening our coverage for viewers even further, with live and exclusive F1 from 2019 and the chance to watch in Ultra High Definition for the first time from next season. We are pleased to support F1 and look forward to working with them to progress, develop and enhance coverage of the championship during the agreement."

Formula One Group CEO Bernie Ecclestone added: "I am delighted that we will continue to work together. Sky's commitment to the sport and standard of coverage is second to none."

[MIKA27]

Vettel: Ferrari will push Mercedes

After giving Mercedes a scare at the Australian Grand Prix, four-time World Champion Sebastian Vettel has claimed that the current World Champions should expect more of the same pressure for the rest of the season.

During the race in Melbourne, Vettel and his teammate Kimi Raikkonen were leading the pack after an impressive start saw them jump the two Mercedes’.

However, due to a flawed race strategy, Ferrari ended up surrendering their lead as Raikkonen suffered a retirement and Vettel had to do an extra pitstop compared to Mercedes, who only stopped once after the red flag incident.

Despite giving up their racing winning position, the German has remained optimistic on Ferrari’s chances and said that he was impressed by how the car performed compared to last year.

"Of course we expect more this year," the 28-year-old told f1i.com.

"Last year was a bit unknown. I think we were happy to be on the podium after the season that Ferrari had in 2014 and I had in 2014. This year we obviously come with more expectations.

"Naturally, when you finish second in the Constructors you want to challenge for first. I think we managed to close the gap more than anyone else so there are plenty of positives.

"At home in Maranello there has been a lot of work going into this car and I think this is the right car that should allow us to put a lot of pressure on these guys.

"We know that the benchmark is high but as I said, we are on the right track, things are coming together.

"All in all, we are a lot closer so plenty of positives."

[MIKA27]

Force India against qualy change

Force India team principal Bob Fernley is strongly against Formula 1 going back to their old qualifying format after just one race weekend.

The team bosses across the grid held a meeting on the morning of the Australian Grand Prix and decided that the Strategy Group and F1 Commission would decide whether they are going to continue to use the new elimination-based qualifying format.

As a result of them scrapping the new format in favour of the old, Fernley questioned the decision and called it unprofessional, feeling it was rushed and not even given a chance to be played out.

"When you are making a decision where the end result was to influence the race, how the hell can you make the decision to abandon it before you have had the race?" he told Autosport.

"That was my argument on Sunday, and I still feel that now.

"We didn't vote for it [to be changed back]. I asked for it to be noted that we were strictly against it on principle and time should be given for it.

"I hope that more people will take our position with a bit of time to think about it. The tyres, the qualifying, everything had an impact on this race. Maybe we should wait a little bit more.

"You should not have a knee-jerk reaction. You should let the process go through, and then step back in the calm light of day, pick out what was good and say can we use that?

"Do we need to tweak a few areas? Did we get something terribly wrong? You can address all of them, you don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water."