Horner: Qualy modes should be banned!

[Big Tea]

I hope you are aware that RedBull account for 4 cars on the grid. Two of which are keeping Honda in the game. Hypothetically, if RedBull pull the plug, you're also saying farewell to Honda. The less "competitors" you have, the more it diminishes the achievement of those that remain.

Have you considered that maybe its time for the whole circus to come to an end.

I feel sure that if Red Bull did pull the plug there would be someone to swoop in and take up the boss team if not the lesser. Possibly Honda would do this.

Red Bull leaving would probably not mean the departure of the teams that now wear the livery (but it may )

[DiogoBrand]

We should make some sort of a bingo with subjects we can expect at the start of every season, like:
- Horner asking for a rule change that will mitigate one of their opponents' advantages
- Ferrari threatening to leave F1
- Brawn saying they need to study how to improve overtaking
- Boullier saying they have a big update coming
- Someone saying McLaren has a really competitive chassis that isn't helped by the engine
- Someone from Honda saying it's a simple detail that's preventing them from being competitive
- Someone criticizing Pirellis for being too durable
- Someone criticizing Pirellis for not being durable enough
- A failed attempt at some sort of budget cap

Edit, more:
- Hamilton saying the opposition is really close this season
- Verstappen winning as driver of the race

What else can we put here?

[TAG]

-Grossjean complaining about his brakes.
-Vettel complaining about blue flags.
-Vijay Mallya being banned from entering yet another country.

[Phil]

Please keep in mind that F1 racing is also about engines' competition, not only aerodynamic or chassis or driver. It has always been the case and I hope that the engines' will keep having a big impact on F1 results.

Yes, but back then, the manufacturers weren't part of the competition themselves. We had engines by Honda, by Ford, by Alfa Romeo, Yamaha, Renault, BRM. Arguably, they didn't care how many teams they supplied. Once the (engine-) manufacturers entered and started buying/running their own teams, it started to become political who and why to supply. One could argue it's a conflict of interest.

As I said, Mercedes are happy to supply two teams in Williams and Force-India with their own gem of an engine. Those two teams don't even have a quarter of the financial budget that Mercedes has. They're no competition. They are allies. Same applies to Ferrari and them supplying Sauber and Haas. How do you think Renault feels now that they are back in the game and running their own engine? Why do you think they want to quit RedBull? Because RedBull has been a bit vocal in the past few years? Yes, that's a good excuse I'll admit, but reality is, they don't like being beaten by a customer. Or, they probably are as long as they are not in contention for the WDC/WCC, but that will change when they catch up.

In other words, half of the grid in todays F1 is a formality, some added cars to add to the illusion of a competitive sport.

Instead of criticizing or crying all the times when they can't not match with the level of their competitors, Red Bull really need to manufacture their own engine. Or may be they can convince engines' manufacturers such as BMW, Audi, Cosworth, Illmor, etc. to come into the competion.

You see, the rules don't encourage this. The engines are too complex, too expensive, require too much knowledge and experience. And not enough testing. It's not a plug and play part. They are huge, require extensive testing, cooling and packaging considerations. Assuming a manufacturer does have billions to sink, how would they come to terms with current regulations of 3 engines allowed? 3 engines equals 3 specs. Everything beyond that is penalized with grid penalties. This pretty much nullifies any incentive to come in and be competitive.

Why are these restrictions in place? Because the sport and the engines are too expensive, so in order to protect the financially broke teams, they have these measures in place. Open the regs to make the sport more friendly to new manufacturers and you might also force out the small privateer teams. I'm willing to guess F1 would gladly force out all the small teams if enough of the big guys joined in... but there's little to suggest that will actually happen. And now that they are talking about the new regs... well, Mercedes and Ferrari are flexing their muscles, threatening to pull out.

So yes Dans79, maybe it is time for the circus to end. Although I admit, I really love watching it... even if it's just a real competition between the top 3-4 guys.

[dans79]

Why are these restrictions in place? Because the sport and the engines are too expensive, so in order to protect the financially broke teams, they have these measures in place. Open the regs to make the sport more friendly to new manufacturers and you might also force out the small privateer teams. I'm willing to guess F1 would gladly force out all the small teams if enough of the big guys joined in... but there's little to suggest that will actually happen. And now that they are talking about the new regs... well, Mercedes and Ferrari are flexing their muscles, threatening to pull out.

1. People want close racing where almost any team can win and be competative
2. People want it to be cheap to operate a team
3. F1 is a design formula
4. F1 is cutting edge technology

These points are not mutually inclusive, and that's the core of the issue. And I do mean the core, every issue people gripe about in f1 leads back to these points as far as i'm concerned.

[wesley123]

You see, the rules don't encourage this. The engines are too complex, too expensive, require too much knowledge and experience.
And not enough testing. It's not a plug and play part. They are huge, require extensive testing, cooling and packaging considerations.

I always thought that the full ICE package was a bad idea. It essentially locks out guys like Cosworth who have no way to make a competitive package.

There are enough manufacturers capable of making the electric package, but can't actually join without an engine which they can't make

Assuming a manufacturer does have billions to sink, how would they come to terms with current regulations of 3 engines allowed? 3 engines equals 3 specs. Everything beyond that is penalized with grid penalties. This pretty much nullifies any incentive to come in and be competitive.

Honda took the chance and essentially dropped in a new ICE virtually every race. But as long as you didn't join immediately you just end up catching up, and when you finally have caught up, the ruleset has changed.

I also don't think the ruleset encourages manufacturers to join. While the hybrid does suit current trends they can simply just join Formula E for like 1% of the budget. So essentially the FIA has boycotted it's own series by introducing FE.

Outside of that, manufacturers can't actually show anything off, as every engine has essentially the same setup. Porsche had a very interesting hybrid system in their car, had all the room to show it off at Le Mans, but has no way to show this tech in F1, making joining completely pointless. The same goes for Audi, or even Williams as the flywheel was only allowed in 2009

It's ironic really, because by growing the business, which can be fairly lucrative, they have locked out everyone, and locked in the current teams, essentially holding them hostage.

[henry]

Why are these restrictions in place? Because the sport and the engines are too expensive, so in order to protect the financially broke teams, they have these measures in place. Open the regs to make the sport more friendly to new manufacturers and you might also force out the small privateer teams. I'm willing to guess F1 would gladly force out all the small teams if enough of the big guys joined in... but there's little to suggest that will actually happen. And now that they are talking about the new regs... well, Mercedes and Ferrari are flexing their muscles, threatening to pull out.

1. People want close racing where almost any team can win and be competative
2. People want it to be cheap to operate a team
3. F1 is a design formula
4. F1 is cutting edge technology

These points are not mutually inclusive, and that's the core of the issue. And I do mean the core, every issue people gripe about in f1 leads back to these points as far as i'm concerned.

Excellent appraisal.

I would add:

5. People expect F1 to have the fastest road racing cars on the planet. (And get quicker every year)

Not only mutually non inclusive but mutually exclusive in my opinion.

We’re also missing that the best, fastest, most charismatic driver should always win, but not dominate.

[Schumix]

Yes, but back then, the manufacturers weren't part of the competition themselves. We had engines by Honda, by Ford, by Alfa Romeo, Yamaha, Renault, BRM. Arguably, they didn't care how many teams they supplied. Once the (engine-) manufacturers entered and started buying/running their own teams, it started to become political who and why to supply. One could argue it's a conflict of interest.

Are you suggesting that Red Bull is not currently playing political games, pushing to change the rules that suit them better?
Have you seen Horner charge against the Renault power train just after Melbourne race? Do you think that a prestigious company such as Mercedes or Ferrari will accept that one of their clients damage their brand image?

As I said, Mercedes are happy to supply two teams in Williams and Force-India with their own gem of an engine. Those two teams don't even have a quarter of the financial budget that Mercedes has. They're no competition. They are allies. Same applies to Ferrari and them supplying Sauber and Haas. How do you think Renault feels now that they are back in the game and running their own engine? Why do you think they want to quit RedBull? Because RedBull has been a bit vocal in the past few years? Yes, that's a good excuse I'll admit, but reality is, they don't like being beaten by a customer. Or, they probably are as long as they are not in contention for the WDC/WCC, but that will change when they catch up.

Are you suggesting that in the past all the F1 teams had the same budget, that there was no budget difference between them? Where are those teams today? Why did they left F1 competition?
We all know that budget difference has always been in F1, since the begining of this sport.

In other words, half of the grid in todays F1 is a formality, some added cars to add to the illusion of a competitive sport.

Do you think that Horner proposal will improve this situation? According to me, it is NO.

You see, the rules don't encourage this. The engines are too complex, too expensive, require too much knowledge and experience. And not enough testing. It's not a plug and play part. They are huge, require extensive testing, cooling and packaging considerations. Assuming a manufacturer does have billions to sink, how would they come to terms with current regulations of 3 engines allowed? 3 engines equals 3 specs. Everything beyond that is penalized with grid penalties. This pretty much nullifies any incentive to come in and be competitive.

I remember that one of the F1 engine manufacturer that pushed the most for these engines was Renault, backed by Red Bull.

Why are these restrictions in place? Because the sport and the engines are too expensive, so in order to protect the financially broke teams, they have these measures in place. Open the regs to make the sport more friendly to new manufacturers and you might also force out the small privateer teams.

According to me, as I said already, F1 competition is also about engines' rivalry. And I will add that Red bull clearly knows it. In addition, please to remind that Renault, backed by Red Bull, was one of the engine manufacturer that pushed the most for these complexe and expensive power units. For example, Ferrari didn't want at all these engines!

What is going on is that Red Bull wants the FIA to artificially level the power of the engines. All they want is to propose to F1 fans an aerodynamic and chassis championship. And they do so because these are their strong points and they know that, in these conditions, they will always be in front.
Aerodynamic and chassis require huge ressources. And Red Bull has these ressources. What they currently need is to find the ressouces in order to get a power unit that matches the ones of their contenders.

I'm willing to guess F1 would gladly force out all the small teams if enough of the big guys joined in... but there's little to suggest that will actually happen. And now that they are talking about the new regs... well, Mercedes and Ferrari are flexing their muscles, threatening to pull out.

Ferrari is there since the beginning of this sport. Mercedes is a legend on this sport.
We have already seen many teams coming in this sport, win titles and leave at the first occasion they have. Isn't it?
Maybe Ferrari and Mercedes want F1 teams to be present in a long term vision. And maybe they want to protect what is the root of this sport: a fierce and brutal competition.

[Big Tea]

Please keep in mind that F1 racing is also about engines' competition, not only aerodynamic or chassis or driver. It has always been the case and I hope that the engines' will keep having a big impact on F1 results.

Yes, but back then, the manufacturers weren't part of the competition themselves. We had engines by Honda, by Ford, by Alfa Romeo, Yamaha, Renault, BRM. Arguably, they didn't care how many teams they supplied. Once the (engine-) manufacturers entered and started buying/running their own teams, it started to become political who and why to supply. One could argue it's a conflict of interest.

As I said, Mercedes are happy to supply two teams in Williams and Force-India with their own gem of an engine. Those two teams don't even have a quarter of the financial budget that Mercedes has. They're no competition. They are allies. Same applies to Ferrari and them supplying Sauber and Haas. How do you think Renault feels now that they are back in the game and running their own engine? Why do you think they want to quit RedBull? Because RedBull has been a bit vocal in the past few years? Yes, that's a good excuse I'll admit, but reality is, they don't like being beaten by a customer. Or, they probably are as long as they are not in contention for the WDC/WCC, but that will change when they catch up.

In other words, half of the grid in todays F1 is a formality, some added cars to add to the illusion of a competitive sport.

Instead of criticizing or crying all the times when they can't not match with the level of their competitors, Red Bull really need to manufacture their own engine. Or may be they can convince engines' manufacturers such as BMW, Audi, Cosworth, Illmor, etc. to come into the competion.

You see, the rules don't encourage this. The engines are too complex, too expensive, require too much knowledge and experience. And not enough testing. It's not a plug and play part. They are huge, require extensive testing, cooling and packaging considerations. Assuming a manufacturer does have billions to sink, how would they come to terms with current regulations of 3 engines allowed? 3 engines equals 3 specs. Everything beyond that is penalized with grid penalties. This pretty much nullifies any incentive to come in and be competitive.

Why are these restrictions in place? Because the sport and the engines are too expensive, so in order to protect the financially broke teams, they have these measures in place. Open the regs to make the sport more friendly to new manufacturers and you might also force out the small privateer teams. I'm willing to guess F1 would gladly force out all the small teams if enough of the big guys joined in... but there's little to suggest that will actually happen. And now that they are talking about the new regs... well, Mercedes and Ferrari are flexing their muscles, threatening to pull out.

So yes Dans79, maybe it is time for the circus to end. Although I admit, I really love watching it... even if it's just a real competition between the top 3-4 guys.

As with everything Phil, once big money moves in sport comes a poor 3rd or 4th. The guy who put his hand in his pocket, or went knocking on doors to point their name on the car for cash to get newer better stuff has been replaced by a group of people who sit around a table with their tablets and flip charts and probably never go t the race except for the hospitality.

I liked the old days, but Ron was the last of the real owners. I know Frank Williams is still there but when Headd sold up he was just a passenger guided by the board as much as Merc. Today the object is publicity with a break even financially and the quality of racing is irrelevant.

Horner does have a point, but he as likely to have made it to get Red Bull in the news as any other reason.
He did get an instant reaction from me, but that is what he wanted.

[Gaz.]

Sport is not fair and F1 has never been fair. Honda powered cars won 6 WCCs on the spin in the 80s then immediately afterwards Renault won 6 on the spin and in the naughties Ferrari engines won 6 on the spin, just look at the WCC over the years to show some dynastic eras:

I never argued that F1 has been fair. You're probably right, it has never been. Though I'd argue that there is quite a difference between then and now: Back then, the whole sport was cheaper, the stakes overall lower. It allowed many teams, entrepreneurs, such as Williams, Sauber, Jordan even Ferrari and McLaren and many others to join and compete. The sport wasn't dominated by huge corporations worth billions. They were small racing teams at the time and when they entered. Some of them worked with engine manufacturers but even then, those engines were nothing compared to what they are now. While the sport was dominated by few, it still allowed small teams and entrepreneurs to enter and grow.

Fast forward to today and some of those small teams are now backed by corporations worth billions. Ferrari has the backing of Fiat, Renault, Mercedes and Honda have entered themselves. These companies have the ability and the infrastructure in place to compete both financially but also technically. The sport since has grown exponentially, but so has the cost of entering and competing. It is no longer possible for a small team to enter and compete, not without the backing of a multi billion corporation with necessary infrastructure in place.

Even McLaren, one of the most successful teams in F1, is reduced to being a mere customer without the ability to compete with a competitive power-unit of their own. They are just as reliant on their engine supplier as the 6 other customer-teams.

It is no longer possible for small racing teams to enter. F1 has become too expensive so that it is only a viable business venture for the biggest car manufacturers, of which only 4 are currently interested enough in participating and only one or two (Mercedes and Ferrari) of those are somewhat competitive.

Ultimately all of the engine manufacturers and all of the teams voted in favour of these hybrids except Ferrari on most occasions who still wanted V8s. Even Monisha was in favour of the hybrids before they were introduced.

Sadly, this just shows you the depths of how much the sport is broken. Williams and Force-India who are contracted to Mercedes will do and say whatever Mercedes wants. Same applies to Sauber and Haas, customers of Ferrari. The only customer team who is financially strong and independent enough to be vocal enough is RedBull. All others will do and say as their engine suppliers demand. There was a time when both Sauber and Force-India were willing to stand up and fight for more financial equality, but even that had its limits.

Ferrari is/was happy enough to engage romantically with Mercedes as long as it suits them. Now that Liberty and the FIA are trying to achieve more equality beyond the current agreements and are threatening to leave. Ferrari is also happy as long as they believe they can catch Mercedes with their own power-unit. Once they realize that there is no way they can beat them, they too will pursuit their own agenda to succeed. Either way, the 4 engine-manufacturers are dictating terms and the future of a total of 5 independent teams too. Teams with great heritage and racing pedigree. Teams that once contributed to build the sport to what it is today - and still do. Without them, we'd just have a grid of 6-8 cars.

Some are arguing about if F1 could survive without Ferrari. Can it survive without Mercedes and Renault too? Or will it survive with just having Mercedes, Ferrari and perhaps Renault at the expense of Williams, Sauber and McLaren too? At what point will McLaren pull the plug if they are limited to an engine that can't compete? At least Williams, Force-India, even Sauber are living off F1. They will fight till the end, but they are at the mercy of their financial sponsors.

The sport was once driven by racing teams building race cars. It is now driven by the might of a few big car brands that merely look at F1 as a means to promote their image and sell cars. Effectively running an expensive ad-campaign.

Sorry Phil, I'm not familiar enough with this forum to multiquote and address each point in turn, so I hope my reply is clear.

Regarding the first paragraph- how far back do you want to go? In the very first season Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Talbot and Ferrari were present, and it's always been expensive as noted by the very next season being run to F2 regs due to a lack of money. Mercedes and Bugatti raced in the mid 50s so works teams are not a new thing nor are big corporations with Imperial Tobacco sponsoring Lotus in 1968 when the FIA allowed open sponsorship and Marlboro sponsoring Mclaren from 1974. Williams had an airline sponsoring them, among others.

There has always been an engine that was 'the one to have' whether it was a Cosworth DFV, a Honda 1.5T, a Renault V10 or a Mercedes 1.6 hybrid. Even when the V8s were virtually equal Horner moaned that the BMW had more power and Merc had better KERS, though I'm sure he quite liked the fuel economy of his Renault and that the FIA enabled the power deficit to be addressed but not the fuel economy and off throttle blowing for Merc and Ferrari. I remember in the 90s Benetton struggled with a Ford V8 while Ferrari pranced about with a V12 and Williams had a V10. The engines in use now were discussed for years by all of the teams. Renault and BMW were pushing hard for 4cyl hybrids from 2008, and Monisha Kaltenborn was quite happy to echo Mario Theissen's thoughts that F1 should move to a greener image and it was she who voted in favour of these engines along with every team principle including Christian Horner - twice infact, December 2010 and then May 2012 when they changed from 4 to 6 cylinders. If you order the chicken vindaloo but it's too hot you still have to pay for it and Horner now doesn't like what he's ordered.

Second paragraph- how far back do we need to go before you find a small team regularly sticking it to the big boys without being backed by Benson and Hedges and Honda, to use Jordan as an example? I've been watching since 1986 I don't remember any underdog sponsored by the Dog and Duck giving Mclaren, Williams or Ferrari a hard time and I don't count Williams as a small team either, they had big corporate sponsors all through the 80s and 90s with factory engines for most of it.

Look at the classification for Japan 1987 vs 2017 behind the winner:

2nd- 17.4s vs 1.2
3rd- 17.7 vs 9.6
4th- 1m 20 vs 10.5s
5th - 1.25 vs 32s
6th- 1.36 vs 1.07
7th- +1 lap vs 1.11
8th- +1 lap vs 1.28
9th - DNF vs 1.29
10th- +1 lap vs + 1 lap
11th- + 2 laps vs +1 lap
12th- + 2 laps vs + 1 lap
13th- + 3 laps vs +1 lap
14th- +4 laps vs + 1 lap
15th- DNF vs + 2 laps
16th- DNF vs DNF

Interestingly both races had a Palmer racing in it.

The sad fact is that the average life span of an F1 team is just 3 years, many were one season wonders.

Regarding Mclaren- https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/82858 ... edes-split

Mclaren voted in favour of these engines despite knowing they would be a customer as they don't make their own engines and they did indeed have a Mercedes engine for the first year and what did they do with it? They finished 5th behind Ferrari and RBR despite having a superior engine and barely half the points of Williams and Dennis also moaned that they weren't allowed access to 'the source code' to do their own engine mapping- is that really a surprise that a team that doesn't have an engine dyno is prohibited to self map their engines? Did they really think they'd do a better job than Brixworth and if this is the case why have Honda struggled for three years?

Regarding your 5th paragraph- when Williams also voted for the hybrids they had a Cosworth at the first vote and a Renault at the second. Williams didn't secure Merc engines until May 2013 and even then we don't know if it was the Wolff connection, or that the Merc engine was cheaper or gut feeling but you cant say Frank was bought when he had a Cosworth in his cars.

If the manufacturers take their ball home after 2021 then so be it, it's up to Liberty and the FIA to flex their muscles, I won't shed a tear if they walk but as you point out Williams, FI, and sauber would fight to the end but RBR will win every single race under the 2021+ regs in that instance which would be even more boring than what is happening now, especially as it would require three car teams so every podium would be an RBR one. It's a tricky situation but F1 survived it before when Honda, Toyota, Renault and BMW left within a short period of each other, one never really went away as a supplier and one came back.

Regarding your last paragraph (I am so sorry if you're scrolling around on a phone) well isn't that the point of RBR, to promote the fizzy drinks of a large beverage company? In this regard they are no better than Renault, Honda or Mercedes. At least Ferrari pretend that selling cars funds their racing.

[strad]

Mercedes is a legend on this sport.

.
Really?
Mercedes raced in the Grand Prix series pre war, then raced their cars in 54 and part of 55 (until Le Mans) then pulled out then they rejoined modern F1 as an engine supplier in 1994.

[foxmulder_ms]

I'm sorry, but I find your repeated remarks about "Horner being a joke and hoping they'll leave the sport" incredibly ignorant and short-sighted.

I hope you are aware that RedBull account for 4 cars on the grid. Two of which are keeping Honda in the game. Hypothetically, if RedBull pull the plug, you're also saying farewell to Honda. The less "competitors" you have, the more it diminishes the achievement of those that remain. Renault loses a customer who is now paying for engines (rebadged or not), decreasing their revenue too. Sure, the pie slices become fewer, so in theory, the remaining teams may get more from the overall money pie. But long term? Who's next? McLaren? At what point will they pull the plug because as far as I see it, their expenses in F1 are immense. At what point will they (or their sponsors) figure and realize that this venture is too expensive for too little return? All indicators are that this year will show how willing McLarens sponsors are willing to keep the tap flowing. Switching to Renault and losing large sums of sponsorship money of Honda will hurt when the results they are targeting are not met. Being stuck with Renault, once they start voicing criticism, will you call them a joke too and hope they leave the sport?

I see fundamental problems in the sport here. Instead of criticizing the critics, I think challenging the root of the problems and issues are more constructive. Horner is as little a joke for complaining about a disparity in engine performance than Ferrari is about criticizing/clarifying suspensions designs they can't copy or Mercedes clarifying the second oil tank they discovered Ferrari were using last Canadian GP. It's all part of the game. Just wait; If Ferrari find themselves unable to challenge Mercedes, they will fight the political game just as much as any team (and have done so far on numerous occasions, in the past and recent-past).

That is cute.. People in the sport don't think about it and I should? lol. By the way, I think there is not much wrong with the sport. I think competition is very healthy. There are three teams with potential to reach to wins, midfiled is very tough. Engines are almost at 50% thermal efficiency, marvel of technology. Add better marketing in social media and more importantly online F1 TV to reach people easier... Sounds great to me!

Horner is just trying to win off track. It is not good sports, unfair and annoying. F1 will be okay to replace them with other companies with interest, heck they may be even car or tech ones Suggesting banning the competition's hard earn advantage is blasphemy for me. I was totally against banning blown diffusers too! Banning smt is inhibitory for development. Rules should aim at development like curbing number of engines that could be used in a season or limiting amount of fuel.

I am much more open minded when it comes to new tech in formula. 4 wheel drive with electric engines driving fronts. Bring moving aero parts or side skirts back etc... All good. Cars are getting too speedy, lower the gas amount further! I would be okay with tesla joining with an all electric car. Mercedes gas burning hybrid engine against tesla! That will be fun. or google with a self driving F1 car. How's that!

Mclaren blaming everything on Honda was very much annoying too. That is why I am rooting for Honda's success. Mclaren has the same engine with Redbull and as we see they are nowhere close so they were half of the problem evidently.

[adrianjordan]

We should make some sort of a bingo with subjects we can expect at the start of every season, like:
- Horner asking for a rule change that will mitigate one of their opponents' advantages
- Ferrari threatening to leave F1
- Brawn saying they need to study how to improve overtaking
- Boullier saying they have a big update coming
- Someone saying McLaren has a really competitive chassis that isn't helped by the engine
- Someone from Honda saying it's a simple detail that's preventing them from being competitive
- Someone criticizing Pirellis for being too durable
- Someone criticizing Pirellis for not being durable enough
- A failed attempt at some sort of budget cap

Edit, more:
- Hamilton saying the opposition is really close this season
- Verstappen winning as driver of the race

What else can we put here?

- Mclaren are running too much drag to make their PU look bad
- Alonso is only in it for the money
- Mclaren are strapped for cash and will become the next Williams

[orchman92]

We should make some sort of a bingo with subjects we can expect at the start of every season, like:
- Horner asking for a rule change that will mitigate one of their opponents' advantages
- Ferrari threatening to leave F1
- Brawn saying they need to study how to improve overtaking
- Boullier saying they have a big update coming
- Someone saying McLaren has a really competitive chassis that isn't helped by the engine
- Someone from Honda saying it's a simple detail that's preventing them from being competitive
- Someone criticizing Pirellis for being too durable
- Someone criticizing Pirellis for not being durable enough
- A failed attempt at some sort of budget cap

Edit, more:
- Hamilton saying the opposition is really close this season
- Verstappen winning as driver of the race

What else can we put here?

- Mclaren are running too much drag to make their PU look bad
- Alonso is only in it for the money
- Mclaren are strapped for cash and will become the next Williams

- A driver/team principal says "for sure"

can be used all season long for bonus points

[keithcollantine]

It was revealing that when Horner suggested banning party modes he did so immediately after* saying they were pushing Renault to develop their own.

If you can't join 'em, ban 'em...

*i.e. seconds later, in the same interview