I'm a Raikkonen fan, and I don't see Vettel as unlikeable at all. He's probably a bit arrogant - but you could say the same for quite a few top drivers, including Alonso. I think Vettel seems like a pretty okay guy, infact I think if you take most drivers out of the car, they're pretty good blokes - your surroundings will change how you behave, and you're obviously not going to be the same person you are with friends, family in everyday life as you are in a F1 car, where you're under significant pressure and have to react to things quickly.

I think most people dislike the dominance of RBR, and it doesn't help Vettel that RB are a relatively new team (at least in their recent incarnation) to F1, and so he isn't driving for a team that has an established fanbase, like Ferrrai or Mclaren. What happened in Malaysia was wrong, but other drivers in the past have not only ignored team orders, but done/been involved in much worse than Vettel, yet haven't got consistent boos. As for the race itself, it was pretty dull except the last 10 laps.

Nice to see Claire Williams being non-pc by describing the race as processional when 'Kred Tavitz' (rather rudely) butted in to her conversation live on air

You do know what FIA stands for don't you?

There were certainly some very odd steward decisions today.

Ferrari International Assistance

Why do people have to let saying the same stupid old stuff get in the way of discussing things properly. Webber and Alonso got treated exactly the same its just webber has previous reprimands so now he has a grid drop. Thats how the reprimands work.

If anything merited a penalty it was Red Bull running webbers car until it went on fire. There was no water in the engine for the previous two laps. They new what was going to happen eventually.

Why indeed.

Indeed, but then do we actually take any notice of that Ferrari hypocrite

I think Red Bull are a team that are very hard to take to because they feel inauthentic. After all, Red Bull is first and foremost a soft drinks brand. They are not a manufacturer steeped in motor sport history like Ferrari or Lotus, nor an independent team built simply out of a desire to go racing like Williams or Sauber. That makes them difficult to support.

I know, I know... In the modern era of F1, most teams are like that. But most at least licence themselves a heritage name, or are owned by a couple of entrepreneurs with a particular interest in racing. With Red Bull, it's just all so bloody corporate. They swept in, bought not one team but two, spent loads of money, hired themselves the best designers, started winning and didn't stop. It's all a little... soulless.

Not having a dig at the individuals involved in the team - they clearly love racing and are bloody good at it! But the team as an entire entity is pretty difficult to love.

Lotus are a re-badge though, trading off the old name, like Ford tried to do with Jaguar in F1

Of course - in reality Red Bull are probably no more corporate than many other teams on the grid. But they do appear so, simply because they've embraced a well-known, non-Motorsport identity and done it so openly. It somewhat takes away the mystique of those big marquee motor racing brands that a soft drinks company can jump in and run rings around them. Its just my impression that it does hold Red Bull back in people's affections somewhat (along with numerous other factors - from the caution of their racing, Sebs attitude, the treatment of Webber. Etc).

That is nothing but being a snob.

All I know is how F1 feels for me now. I have been watching F1 for 30 years, and this is my lowest point. I completely forgot that the Singapore GP was even on, in fact I have only watched 2 races from start to finish this season. Complete dominance of a sport is boring in any way, but this has become immensely tedious, there is not even that much action behind the leader. I have no idea how this can be fixed but it needs to be in some way. This is far worse than the Schumacher processional years.

Although further down the field the racing can be quite competitive and while it isn't their fault, up front the dominance of RB/Vettel is just like the situation during the Ferrari/Schumacher years and it doesn't make for good viewing. Hopefully the significant rule changes next season will change that otherwise it will yet ano boring uncompetitive season.

Meanwhile there is at least some amusing news about Raikkonen being 'almost' paid nearly £7m a year and Webber getting a 10 place grid penalty for accepting a lift from Alonso.

All in all F1 rather needs a wake-up call.

Agree with all the above...and fwiw my two 'penneth...

I'd give grid position points for qualifying (so if 20 cars on the grid) 1st in quali = 20pts down to 1pt for 20th place.

Then I'd reverse the grid and have a rolling start behind the safety car......

For the race itself - award double quali points - winner 40 pts , last place 2 pts....

More excitement, more overtaking - the best drivers will rise to the top!

Well I just hope next year is like 2004. Can you imagine it we go from four years of Red Bull winning back to a year when Ferrari win all the races. People would struggle to be more negative and say they are even more bored watching even less races. Perhaps not even finding out what happened at a race but still going on a forum or twittering sky to moan.

I can guarantee the boos would be even louder by mid season.

I would suggest that if people get upset by Ferrari winning all the races, rather than RBR, it'd simply confirm the idea that the thing which pisses most people off is when one team manages to dominate the sport rather than any particular dislike for a specific team.

If every year was like 2010, I doubt many F1 fans would complain, regardless of who won in the end.

Its not all the car, Vettel has a fair bit of skill as well. If it was all the car, then RBR would have a 1-2 every race. Both RBR drivers would be first/second in the WDC. However this is not the case.


The best bit about F1 at the moment is the start and the first 3-4 laps. They should never tamper with the start. A rolling start is a very bad idea. I prefer to keep it as it is.


Agree with some of the comments, not the most exciting of races. There was some action behind Vettel but not much. Although the last 10 laps were the best of the race. However with street circuits were space is limited and over-taking areas a premium, its always going to be the case. Its the same a Monaco, its the same at Singapore and will be the same for any future street circuit, like New Jersey.

The steward (Warrick) made to some funny decisions. Especially asking Hulkenberg to give the place back!

I dont see why people are having a go at RBR for being so dominant. They should have a go at the other teams for not being able to compete. Having a go at RRB for winning is like having a go at someone/team for excelling in their field. A bit like having a go at Usain Bolt for winning everything at 100/200m track events. Seems a stupid thing to do, IMHO. I would rather people had a go at the other teams for not being as good as RBR.

I really do not care who wins I just want to see competitive races.

Rolling starts are a bad idea IMO.

I know the acceleration of an F1 car at any speed up to about 150mph is pretty phenomenal but the maximum acceleration is, obviously, going to happen when you start at 0mph so that creates the maximum potential for there to be a differential between those who get it right and those who don't.

If there were pile-ups at the first corner of every F1 race then, sure, rolling starts would be a good way to mitigate that problem but, as things are, I'm not sure what problem rolling starts would solve.

You've only got to look at yesterday's race for two perfect examples of the relative merits of those two systems.
At the start Rosberg (briefly) got past Vettel due to getting a better start whereas, after the s/c, nobody was able to take advantage in any meaningful way.

We shouldn't forget that the driver's steward is only one of three (?) stewards at each race and one would hope that Warwick was in a minority over decisions such as the one about Hulk' as well as the one about Webber but, unfortunately, Warwick often seems to come across as a bit of a jobsworth so I fear not.

I'm not disputing that. Vettel and the car are one. Vettel has utterly mastered how to extract 100% performance for the RB9, and has tailored his driving style to ensure this is achieved. This is something that Andrew Benson alluded to in a recent article, and it's something Webber can't do as well as Vettel.

Pretty sure if we had five years of 1988 it would take a load of people a long time to get unhappy about it.

My concern about next year is that we may end up with Raikkonen and Alonso both being very fast, but taking points off each other whilst fighting for second place, whilst Vettel charges off into the distance in the lead. I guess this is down to how well the new engines work though. Could it be a bit like Prost beating Piquet and Mansell in 1986, where Williams got the constructors' crown but a McLaren driver took the drivers championship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_F...inal_standings

I may be wrong

Would you be happy about it?