Some unfinished business
Suzuka 2014
Japanese Grand Prix
A closer look at the back of the F1 grid
News
M. Schumacher
Posted By: James Allen  |  06 Feb 2013   |  1:29 pm GMT  |  67 comments

The announcement of Luis Razia as second driver at Marussia means that the two halves of the 2013 F1 grid have a very different character; with stability in the front half and wholesale change in the second half of the grid, which features five drivers who have never started a Grand Prix before.

Whereas among Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, Lotus, Mercedes and Force India there are currently only two driver changes; Hamilton to Mercedes, replaced at McLaren by Perez and a new driver at Force India.

The other five teams have seen enormous change.

Sauber has two new drivers, Hulkenberg has started 39 races and Gutierrez 0
Toro Rosso Retains the same drivers – Ricciardo has just 31 starts and Vergne 20
Williams has Maldonado with 39 starts and Bottas with 0
Caterham has Pic with 20 starts and Van der Garde with 0
and Marussia has Chilton and Razia who have no GP experience.

This in itself is interesting, but of course new blood has to come in and they have to start somewhere.

But, going deeper, this year’s grid, especially the bottom half, is a sign of the changing times, particularly with experienced fee-earning drivers like Kovalainen, Glock and Kobayashi making way for less experienced drivers with budget; this is partly forced by the recession of the last four years, but also by the costs the teams are incurring with a massive set of rule changes for 2014.

Many teams have been forced to take drivers with budget ahead of drivers who need to be paid, in order to build up a war chest to make a 2014 car and buy a supply of the expensive new 1.6 litre V6 turbo engines.

It could be avoided if the teams could get their act together and agree a cost control mechanism, which meant that the teams could survive on their share of the sport’s commercial revenues plus some sponsorship and could work with the sport to ensure that the best drivers available are coming through the junior categories and into their cars.

Sadly F1 does not work like that.

What will all of this do to the racing? Time will tell.

However, as we posted here a few months ago, where F1 must be very careful over the next few years, is that it continues to have a conveyor belt of superstar drivers, drivers with international box office appeal, for the future.

Vettel, Alonso, Button, Raikkonen, Schumacher – all made their debuts with the teams listed above (or antecedents of them e.g. Minardi/Toro Rosso)

How many of the drivers outlined above in the lower half of the grid can be considered possible stars of the future? Drivers who inspire the public (like in the photo above) driver whom the public will pay good money to watch, both in the grandstands and on their Pay TV services?

Possibly Bottas, but beyond that?

Featured News
MORE FROM JA ON F1...
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
67 Comments
  1. guy hancock says:

    Fans and commentators frequently talk of “paid drivers” and how they only get seats because they bring money to the teams.
    However, I think this overlooks the fact that the “big name” drivers will bring money to a team. If Alonso, Vettel or Hamilton moved to a mid-field team, don’t you think that sponsors (either attached to the driver or new players attracted by the driver’s appeal) would get involved with that team? And if they did, what is the difference?

    1. James Allen says:

      They “attract” money, rather than “bring” money..Important difference

      1. fendermeister says:

        +1

      2. Fernando Cruz says:

        Yes, important difference. Even so many fans and commentators are wrong when they frequently talk of “pay drivers” and how they only get seats because they bring money to the teams. Because almost all young talents coming to F1 now have to bring money and most of them would have deserved to get good F1 seats on merit, thanks to the results they got in junior series.

    2. Christian Hepworth says:

      This isn’t a bad point, but it’s more like along the lines of teams would take the driver anyway, and if they attract a sponsor it’s a bonus. What we’re seeing now is teams only taking drivers if they have the sponsors (and their cash) confirmed upfront.

      1. MB73 says:

        This is a mechanism in the sport that will never go away.. Topdrivers like Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel and so on, will Never change to a real mid/backfield team, its totally illogical for all the obvious reasons..

        And for the future, upcoming stars will always get picked out by the top/midfield ànd lower teams from the other classes of motorsport.. I don’t see the problem here..

        Lets see what these guys can do and get to know them a little bit, and then judge. First time a saw Petrov I was not that enthusiastic either, but he showed some nice things, and certainly wasn’t bad for the sport or anything. Glock, Kovalainen weren’t that glamorous either, good drivers for sure. Senna was a big name that could attract people/sponsors and sells good mechandise, but then again, some people might say that that was the big reason he got the seat in the first place.. And so it goes on and on..

        The only one I am really going to miss, out of the drivers that lost their seat because of paid drivers, is Kobayashi..!

      2. Greg says:

        I agree regarding Kobayashi, I think McLaren should be added to the pay driver list. I can’t see any other reason why Perez got a drive there, he had some good race results and this was all to do with being out of the top 10 and tyres.
        Kobayashi’s drive in Japan was genuine pace and deserved the drive in my eyes.

        But money talks and McLaren are going to have to pay for engines.

      3. Chris Chong says:

        +1

        I shed a tear when it sank in that Kobayashi wouldn’t be piloting the new Sauber. I really hope he gets a drive next year (though it wouldn’t hurt if he ends up replacing an underperforming driver in one of the top teams).

      4. Guy Hancock says:

        It seems to be more of an issue for the mid-range drivers who neither have the track record of major success nor the new driver with baking.

  2. madmax says:

    What will all of this do to the racing?

    Create a lot of crashes I presume.

    1. Simmo says:

      Maldonado and Grosjean will be happy…

    2. Rudy says:

      Sooner or later, the new driver generation that teams will put their eyes onto, besides sponsorship, will be those who have an advanced degree of engineering, aerodynamics, thermal efficiency and the like. The future (according to FIA) is already been shown.

  3. ram says:

    it is going to be somey wild diriving at the back of the grid …with a lot many young drivers with a lot at stake .. it may be their only chance at getting a crack at F1 … not a good thing

  4. Spyros says:

    It’s absolutely amazing to me, that people believe that natural competitors could possibly ever agree, HONESTLY, about cutting costs AND policing themselves.

    I didn’t like Max Mosley. But Formula 1 has only ever worked as a dictatorship.

  5. Maarten says:

    Of course as a Dutchman I should be obliged to say Giedo, but I am not going to do that…I think he is a bit below par. Missing the F1 X-factor. I do have hopes voor Nyck de Vries.

    OT: If you were counting Sauber as well, then I still have good hopes for Hulkenberg!

    But the rest of them, no warm feelings yet…although I do not know enough about mr. Chilton, he does look camera friendly which always helps with the girls and sponsors.

    1. CarlH says:

      In my opinion Chilton is just average. If Marussia wanted to hand out a seat to a young British driver on talent alone James Calado would have been more deserving.

      But then again, who knows? Maybe Chilton will prove me wrong.

      1. **Paul** says:

        I reckon Razia is in different league to both of the drivers you mention. You never know with F1 though, some drivers excel in the sport like MSC, but hadn’t really excelled greatly in lesser series of racing.

      2. Maarten says:

        Yeah, that’s what I also always think…the most successful (statistically, not looking for a row) F1 driver was average in all other series before F1….so maybe some of them will prove us wrong!

      3. Lee says:

        Hardly true at all! MSC may not have quite towered as he did in F1 over everyone else in junior formulae, but he won multiple German and European karting championships. In 1989 he entered the German F3 series, won it in 1990, along with the Macau GP. He also finished 5th in World Sportscar in 1990 despite only competing in a third of the races. Hardly ‘average’! Haha

  6. Scott D says:

    We may even get to watch a race between all the safety cars…

  7. Chris says:

    I guess the best time to judge will be at the end of the season.

    Having said that, I think I know where your going with this article James, and I totally agree.

  8. Señor Sjon says:

    There is a thin line between a sport who is to expensive, to a sport where teams enter to make a profit. A few small teams in the eighties/nineties tried that if I remember correctly.

    There is way more happening in F1 these days, the series seems a bit directionless. It doesn’t know if it wants to be all out entertainment or if it wants to be a sport.

    Why could teams in the nineties compete with budgets that are nowadays not enough to make the crash tests? The plethora of feeding series has the same. There used to be a strict F3 > F3000 > F1 path, but now it is GP2/WSR/DTM for instance.

    I would love to see more technical freedom, Schumacher stated that in his prime, the driver could gain a second. But with the tight developing nowadays, it is hardly a tenth. Everything is optimized to extremes. I can post a whole list of things I would like to see changed. To name a few:
    * wider cars means more mechanical grip. Less aero depencancies
    * more powerfull engines mean it is easier to have more than one racing line, overpower available can compensate for the other racing line due to be able to compensate for the ideal line. Something that isn’t possible now due to engine restrictions.
    * no DRS gimmicks
    * no disproportionate aero rules. The front wings look silly on these cars. Clean bodywork untill the front wing with dozens of winglets. To add insult, there is a very small and high rear wing.
    * wet tires that actually work on a wet track
    * able to change setup for raceday
    * able to choose your tires for the race, hell limit it to one compound, to be chosen before Q per driver.
    * no rev limits. If they want a ballistic engine? Let’s have it. The 2014 rules specify a lot in the engine department
    * the list goes on and on.

    1. F1fanSince11 says:

      Nice comment except I think you meant F1>F3000>F3 rather than they way you wrote it (F3 > F3000 > F1) which would imply F1 was a stepping step to F3000!

      It’s simple but many people are oblivious/ignorant to such things :)

      1. Señor Sjon says:

        You must read > as ‘go to’ and not as the mathematical term (bigger/smaller).

    2. MB73 says:

      Why the teams can’t compeet with the same budget as in the ninties..??? Natural evolution in engineering, the result of the fact that we want F1 to be the best of what mankind has to offer..

      You want more technical freedom and make the sport run on a lower budget, and be the best it can be…?? Not possible

  9. Arno Nonymous says:

    What puzzles me the most is that some teams change both of their drivers.
    From my naive point of view, this is a stupid move. Goven that the catr changes too, which is the case, how can the teams possibly know if their drivers are any better or worse that their predecessors? Data analysis might tell you the braking point is pretty early and the accelerator is being pushed a bit late, but is it because the car is handling worse or the drivers are not able to handle it properly?
    And what about experience? An experienced driver is more likely to complain about something that doesn’t feel quite right, while a new driver will have a hard hard time to judge if something feels “right” or just “different” with something like a GP2 car in comparison, something you feel in an F1, like brakes, power output and grip, should feel rather feel overwhelming, while in comparison to other F1 cars it might rather feel sluggish.
    So why do teams change both drivers and, especially for Marussia, going for two rookies looks like pure despair. Caterham, who go for a rookie and a driver that has just seen his first season, with none of these having any comparison to their last years car, rob themselves of valuable input. When they entered F1 they did just the right thing, now did they lose their senses or is it a sign they’re closing the grip, taking the risk to rob themselves of better, more consistent results from a more experienced driver.

    1. Simmo says:

      The trap STR fell into last year, and the back markers are about to do the same…

  10. iceman says:

    It’s a bit of a return to normal, in a way. We’ve been spoiled in the last handful of years with the depth of talent down the grid. At least the pay drivers of today are usually a league ahead of some of the no-hopers we’ve seen in the past.

    1. Jimbob says:

      +1. We used to have some truly awful drivers in the smaller teams just because they had some money. At least now they’ve all competed at an international level, most of them successfully as well. I can’t say that I’ve been following GP2 like I used to follow F3\F3000 but all of the new drivers have at least won races in GP2 haven’t they? That in itself proves they’re not hopeless.

  11. I guess most of us will only be watching the guys at the front of the grid

  12. forzaminardi says:

    I’m always a bit suspicious when people wonder if paydriver mean there won’t be any real stars to replace the top drivers when they call it a day. The truth is, of course, that drivers only become stars when they start running consistently at the front or winning races. I doubt very much that the casual (i.e. watches now and then, but doesn’t really ‘follow’ the sport) fan knows much about Sergio Perez, for example, or even Romain Grosjean. If and when they win a race then they’ll become big name ‘stars’.

    At the same time, if we suppose that Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton, Button, Webber, Kimi and Massa decide to retire tomorrow and McLaren, Ferrari, Lotus and Red Bull are forced to hire the ‘back of the grid’ drivers mentioned to replace them then we might say the overall quality of the field will be lessened. But would even a real follower of the sport know the difference? The drivers who are doing the winning are regarded as the best and really there’s no objective measure to compare like for like.

    1. Kevin L says:

      I disagree.

      Schumacher started his first race for Jordan, and his quality was immediately evident. Enough for Benetton and Briatore to snap him up. Two WDC with Michael after 3 years.

      Alonso made his debut in a Minardi – again, his quality stood out very early, and was then with Renault. Of course, Briatore was Alonso’s manager, and had identified that very early on. Alonso joined Renault in 2003. Two more WDCs to follow in 2005 and 2006.

      Webber started out in Minardi as well, and went through Williams/Renault/Jaguar drives before landing back in Red Bull. Again, he competed very well against all team mates – until he ran up against the wunderkind.

      Remember the furore when Kimi made his debut at Sauber after only a handful of races? Remember how his quality stood out?

      And even though Vettel and Hamilton came through their respective programs and started out with top teams (Vettel in the RBR clone in STR), their ability was pretty evident early on, I think.

      So, to follow your argument, I don’t think a driver needs to win before they become a star, someone to watch.

      Of the current drivers outside of the listed stars, I think there are a handful of drivers that have shone some quality. Some “rough diamonds” that could really shine with some (or a lot) of polish.

      Maldonado has shone that he has the speed and the temperament. Now he needs to marry that with consistency, which I think was starting to happen towards the end of the season. Hulkenberg is coming along nicely. Grosjean has the speed, and now needs to learn to make the right decisions – when to push, when to hold, when to go for the pass.

      McLaren obviously see something in Perez – something more than Maldonado. I mean, if you were sponsoring Williams, and McLaren came knocking, surely you would have a long and hard think about switching camps, no?

      1. Señor Sjon says:

        Point is:
        1) the driver had more chance to excell due to nature of F1. The difference a driver can make is greatly reduced nowadays.
        2) all the now greats came from religious testing in F1 cars. Which driver since the testing ban has broke really through? Perhaps Perez, but after his McLaren signing he wasn’t very impressive in the Sauber.

        Remember testing ban is in place since 2009, so we are entering the fourth year of no testing for young guns. I really want to know what a guy like Frijns could do, but as a Sauber test driver, he has no opportunity to test.

  13. Michael Powell says:

    It’s misleading to think that the best drivers end up in Formula One. They have to be good at car handling, but also photogenic, well spoken, fit, the right size, and able to fit in modestly to a sponsor polluted schedule.

    Ugly, gruff, and incoherent Essex boys need not apply. Even if their dad owns a supermarket chain.

  14. zombie says:

    ..or make it possible to run “customer cars” like Motogp does with customer bikes. That will ensure teams, and real teams with enthusiasm like the now dear-departed Super “friend” Aguri can survive giving chance to deserving drivers like Glock or Kovi.

    Another option is to have 2 varieties of cars run in the pack using 2 different set of rules.Like introducing a fully electric cars in the regular F1 pack.

    1. James Clayton says:

      No no no to a two tier formula. Whenever I watch races in a series that has multiple tiers I get totally confused. The person who came in tenth being the top of his category, the person in 11th the bottom of his….

      anything but that

  15. Rich B says:

    it’s a big come down after having one of the most competitive driver field ever in 2012.

    buget cap is the only true way to solve big costs, but the teams with massive pockets won’t let it happen, it seems like they only care for themselves not f1 on the whole in cases like this. self inportance comes with compitition though.

    1. JimmiC says:

      It’ll still be competitive I think, it’s just – like the economy – the gap between the great and the not so great is a bit wider

  16. Jwalker90 says:

    I wish the drivers well, they have to start somewhere, but I really can’t see Marussia being competitive with their line up, and in terms of development, I don’t think there is enough experience to carry the team forward.
    Bottas looks like a talent, as does Gutierrez, I think Williams and Sauber will do fine.
    I expect more of the same from Torro Rosso, but now is the time for their drivers to step up as there could be a move to Red Bull on the cards. I don’t know how much longer Webber will want to stick around.
    Caterham have taken a step back. Pic didn’t really impress me and Van der Garde has been on the fringes for so long, you have to wonder why no one wanted to take him on.

  17. eric weinraub says:

    Do teams ever measure the costs of paying drivers versus the costs of replacing cars destroyed by petulance and inexperience?

    1. MB73 says:

      I haven’t seen such things the last few years, big errors because of inexperience…only Maldonado and Grosjean took a lot of damage, but those are also two guys which have shone potential..

      But it is an interesting way to look at it ;-)

  18. CarlH says:

    From the group above I would say Hulkenberg and Bottas (as far as is possible to know; he hasn’t even started a race yet) stand out as potential stars.

    As for the likes of Ricciardo and Vergne, I can’t see them being anything more than Mark Webber types. Good, solid drivers, but probably lacking the last little spark that would see them win a championship.

    I fear that once the likes of Alonso, Raikkonen, Webber and Button retire it will be a few years of seeing who can stay on the same racing lap as Vettel (and possibly Hamilton) for the longest.

    1. Fernando Cruz says:

      Rosberg, Hulkenberg, Grosjean, Perez, Maldonado, Bottas…

      I think there will be a lot of very good ones to give Hamilton or Vettel a hard time once Raikkonen, Alonso and Button retire. And maybe Kubica can still be back, who knows?

  19. Glennb says:

    5 rookies and 5 World Champions make up half the field. Does the 107% rule apply for 2013?
    I can see some drivers/teams having some trouble qualifying if that’s the case. For a rookie in a ‘back of the field’ car to consistently get within 7% of say Vettels time will be a masterstroke.

    1. Greg (Aus) says:

      The new regulations on DRS in qualifying might tighten the field up a little in that respect I think. The improved aero and hence more liberal use of the DRS during qualifying was a definite benfit to the front running teams compared with the backmarkers.

      1. Glennb says:

        Fair comment Greg. I do hope that’s the case. I have always been against free DRS during qualifying. It just didnt make sense.

  20. Lawrence says:

    James, how likely is it that the 2014 engine design regulations will be used? I believe the FIA have not yet said the teams have to use 1.6L V6 turbo engines yet.

    1. James Allen says:

      It’s too late to turn back now, even though there are some who would like to

      1. Stephen Taylor says:

        If Marussia are still on the grid in 2014 what engine supplier would they use? Surely Cosworth would not build an engine for one team a team who would surely be at the back anyway, or would they?

      2. David Turnedge says:

        Cosworth will build engines for one team if they pay them for it. What Cosworth won’t do it subsidise one team to make engines for them.

        Why two or three small teams don’t band together and share engine costs in order to stay in F1 is anyone’s guess.

        F1 might be the pinnacle of motor sport (debatable) but it certainly isn;t the pinnacle of rational business sense.

  21. Boydf1crazy says:

    Hamilton is on a mid-field team,now we are going to have another season of children taking out the front runners, that is not exciting racing.

  22. Ron W says:

    How much is it actually about the driver any more? Just like in the Olympics, each ‘Sportsperson’ has a massive team behind them essentially optimising them to the best they can be. The person with the best team behind them, wins. Granted, it did used to be about grit and determination, but now it is about interpreting the data and changing to suit. The only difference between Track & Field athletes and F1 drivers is that that F1 drivers will not win unless they have the best car. And we can clearly see this from the timesheets. Pick any two drivers from the grid for comparison and the difference between them is not going to be more than one second. Whereas the difference between the best and worst car on the grid can be upto seven seconds. So we know that Hamilton is on £20million/yr. Let’s say a ‘pay’ driver brings £10million. Well, that’s a net difference of £30million which is probably in the region of 30-50% of the total yearly operating cost of Marussia. On that basis, why wouldn’t you have a pay driver?!

  23. simon mawdsley says:

    Worth remembering that a certain Damon Hill acheieved a lot less in 3 years in F3000 than Max Chilton has in 3 years of GP2. Though I will happily accept I know nothing of the details behind Damons F3000 campaign.

  24. Bayan says:

    I see your point James but as an F1 fan first, i think I would still follow F1 (sadly) even if we were going through a dark period of lacking megastars. I just hope that the top teams would continue to attract talent.

    1. Nature hates a vacuum. If the current crop of superstars all left then new ones would be created to fill the void. It becomes an opportunity for a young, confident driver to stand out, gain some publicity and a new star is born. The F1 machine would create its stars – maube not in the same mould as Senna, Mansell or Webber (i.e. confident, outspoken, straight talking) but more corporate like Vettel, Alonso, Button (yes, Jenson was a brash, young, confident, possibly even arrogant driver at one stage of his career until Honda started taking the rough edges off and mcLaren polished him up).

  25. Nige says:

    Really hope force India take a good experienced payed driver. They are a good team that needs a solid platform to build on. Hieki would be my preferred driver. He deserves to stay in F1 as he is too good a driver not to be in F1.

  26. JEZ Playense says:

    I think some true racers will find their way through the financial maze to the forefront of racing which is F1.

    Imagine a mountain which is never climbed because of cash restraints??

  27. Doug says:

    When we look at the wide range of driver ages, is it not safe to say the drivers are made and not born into the role? Most athletes spend a great deal of there careers in the development phase. Experience is everything and it must be acquired on route to the top.

    Rookie drivers will always be under scrutiny until some success comes there way. This is part of the learning curve. Dealing with media and fan pressure is part of the game. These young guns are under extreme pressure to perform from day one.

    Not just anyone can jump in a F1 car and keep it on the track. Training and preparation must be intense and should not be taken lightly.

  28. Fernando Cruz says:

    Peter Windsor talks about the waste of talent and money in the last F1 Racing magazine. I agree that drivers like Bruno Senna, Kamui Kobayashi, Heikki Kovalainen, Timo Glock, Adrian Sutil, Jaime Alguersuari, Sebastien Buemi or Vitaly Petrov should have an alternative series outside F1 (it could be named GP1) to exploit their potential. At a time most of F1 teams struggle to find sponsors, money drivers can bring is what keeps F1 alive and it is a shame there are so many (all talented and most of them with big budgets) without a drive in F1. Windsor may be wrong about numbers (ex: he said Van Der Garde had about four times more sponsorship than Bruno Senna) but he is right when he suggests WEC or DTM are not the right series for so many talented, young and healthy drivers coming out of F1.

  29. Jack Naven says:

    If anyone’s interested I wrote an article about Razia’s chances here http://fiveredlights.co.uk/2013/02/01/stay-strong-luiz/

    and about how good I think Glock is here

    http://fiveredlights.co.uk/2013/02/04/the-could-have-been-champions-timo-glock/

  30. James Clayton says:

    We’ve still got more top rate drivers than I can ever remember. So what if the second rate ‘almost there’ drivers now *pay* for their seats, when before they were being paid.

    Last season I re-watched was 2003. Star drivers Räikkönen, Schumacher, Montoya. Drivers making a name for themselves to watch out for the future: Webber, Alonso and Button

    This year. Star Drivers: Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Räikkönen arguably Button and Webber Names to watch for: Perez, Grosjean, Hulkenberg and Maldonardo.

    I don’t think things are really that bad at all..

  31. John Gibson says:

    It’s not just at F1 level, though. Many of the junior formulae appear to be in their death throes at the minute (one glance at the proposed four-round British F3 championship is a good indicator of that), and the ones with decent grids seem to me to have a growing number of well-off journeymen populating them. Who, among the junior drivers, is really talked about? da Costa and Frijns look like exciting talents but it’s very mediocre beyond that IMO. Financing a motorsport career has never been more difficult since the 1950s.

  32. Big Al 56 says:

    What no one seems to mention is the utterly pointless waste of money the change of engine regs is. Every time change is made it costs money. This happens every time where something is manufactured. Caual viewers couldn’t care less what the engine is. It would be better to oncentrate on the chassis and other ancillaries which change every year anyway. There are still too many pointless rules. Bring back customer cars I say. Then we could have two official cars and two customer cars from each manufacturer. This would almost certainly avoid the HRT malaise.

  33. Chromatic says:

    “Five have never started a grand prix” .. plus Grosjean, Maldonado, and slow starter Webber.
    I hope they all get away OK in melbourne. Or maybe they should start under the safety car

  34. MR says:

    The F1 grid could now really be considered a 9 team entry list, with Williams teetering on the edge of leaving that list. With Eccelstones penchant for distant third world country races and now pay drivers added into the mix, it doesnt bode well for the next few years. Where will B.E be in a few years – retired possibly – and a sport in unchartered waters left behind needing to get back to reality. The reality is that third world countries love of football will never change and their F1 interest is likely to fade pretty quickly, as is their understanding of the costs of F1 in relation to their social standing in their respective countries. Harsh and perhaps contraversial statment but another reality in my non-expert F1 fan 1970′s circa opinion.

  35. Franklin Schumacher says:

    I think this year there will be a direct relation between the number of rookies on the grid and the increment of safety cars per race.
    Ja

  36. Ram says:

    Narain in the fray for Force India … that is what the local media suggests here… why is FI taking so much time to decide on Bianchi/Sutil/

LEAVE A COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Top Tags
SEARCH News
JA ON F1 In association with...
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer