Rantbox

[Salamander]

This would be quickly solved if FIA ensured all teams had 100kg of fuel in the car at the race start.

You might think that'd be a good idea, but the whole point of the new engines is to promote fuel efficiency. Telling teams to use more fuel than they need to runs against that.

[DanielPT]

This would be quickly solved if FIA ensured all teams had 100kg of fuel in the car at the race start.

You might think that'd be a good idea, but the whole point of the new engines is to promote fuel efficiency. Telling teams to use more fuel than they need to runs against that.

If it would rid the lift and coast phase for those who want that then why not? It could also be adjusted, pending on the performance and remaining fuel at the finish for the following season. Besides, it is not like the efficiency of these engines is being touted with everyone getting stuck on number of cylinders and noise discussions...

[mario]

This would be quickly solved if FIA ensured all teams had 100kg of fuel in the car at the race start.

You might think that'd be a good idea, but the whole point of the new engines is to promote fuel efficiency. Telling teams to use more fuel than they need to runs against that.

Coulthard has pointed out that, even when refuelling was permitted during a race, it wasn't unknown for teams to instruct drivers to save fuel in order to slightly extend the length of a stint - if you could eke out an extra lap on low fuel, that could sometimes enable a driver to effect a pass through pit strategy.

Furthermore, in reality the fuel tank would need to be larger than 100kg - that limit of 100kg is the amount of fuel that the driver can consume over the race distance. You have to account for the fact that the driver will need additional fuel in order to complete the reconnaissance lap to the grid, the formation lap for the race and then another lap to return to the pit lane, plus still have a minimum of 1 litre of fuel left in the tank after the race if he needs to provide a fuel sample.

Asides from that, even with 100kg of fuel on board, at most venues the total fuel consumption if the driver drove flat out would still theoretically exceed 100kg. Barcelona, for example, is extremely heavy on fuel consumption - during the V8 era, for example, it was estimated that you'd need close to 155kg of fuel to complete that race at full speed, when in reality most cars probably could not carry more than 140kg of fuel.

Even if we assumed that the cars are 30% more fuel efficient - the figure often thrown around - they would still require over 100kg of fuel to complete the race at full speed. It might reduce the amount of lifting and coasting, but it will not eliminate it - especially since the increasing power of the engines has come at the price of marginally increased fuel consumption.
One reason why Ferrari seem to be marginally closer to Mercedes this season appears to be because Mercedes's fuel consumption has crept up slightly - Motorsport magazine suggested their fuel consumption is around 3% higher - whereas Ferrari's fuel consumption hasn't increased by quite as much, forcing Mercedes to run slightly more conservative engine maps in race trim.

[Salamander]

This would be quickly solved if FIA ensured all teams had 100kg of fuel in the car at the race start.

You might think that'd be a good idea, but the whole point of the new engines is to promote fuel efficiency. Telling teams to use more fuel than they need to runs against that.

If it would rid the lift and coast phase for those who want that then why not? It could also be adjusted, pending on the performance and remaining fuel at the finish for the following season. Besides, it is not like the efficiency of these engines is being touted with everyone getting stuck on number of cylinders and noise discussions...

The FIA might not be keen to promote it, but you can be damn sure they'd get called out on it if they were telling teams to use fuel that they would not have otherwise used.

[DanielPT]

The FIA might not be keen to promote it, but you can be damn sure they'd get called out on it if they were telling teams to use fuel that they would not have otherwise used.

I guess it all depends on the line thrown in by the media. If they sold it as "we will have less fuel saving during the race" or "drivers will now be able to push more during the race", I am sure that, during these 'get refueling back' days, no one would complain. If they sold it as "crap engines that don't even do what is supposed to" then, yes, that would be a problem.

Furthermore, in reality the fuel tank would need to be larger than 100kg - that limit of 100kg is the amount of fuel that the driver can consume over the race distance. You have to account for the fact that the driver will need additional fuel in order to complete the reconnaissance lap to the grid, the formation lap for the race and then another lap to return to the pit lane, plus still have a minimum of 1 litre of fuel left in the tank after the race if he needs to provide a fuel sample.

Asides from that, even with 100kg of fuel on board, at most venues the total fuel consumption if the driver drove flat out would still theoretically exceed 100kg. Barcelona, for example, is extremely heavy on fuel consumption - during the V8 era, for example, it was estimated that you'd need close to 155kg of fuel to complete that race at full speed, when in reality most cars probably could not carry more than 140kg of fuel.

Maybe F1 would still had some fuel saving lap here or there but from a certain point of view it would still be an improvement on the current state. That 100kg figure is, nevertheless, a starting point. It could be adjusted. Given a mandatory 125kg tank, in Barcelona they would allocate more fuel, say 120, and in Monaco, they would only have 85 or 90. Something that would not reduce the need of a lift and coast phase. Of course, thirstier engines would still need to be punished.

[Salamander]

The FIA might not be keen to promote it, but you can be damn sure they'd get called out on it if they were telling teams to use fuel that they would not have otherwise used.

I guess it all depends on the line thrown in by the media. If they sold it as "we will have less fuel saving during the race" or "drivers will now be able to push more during the race", I am sure that, during these 'get refueling back' days, no one would complain. If they sold it as "crap engines that don't even do what is supposed to" then, yes, that would be a problem.

No, you don't understand. Having more fuel than is necessary does not promote the idea of an environmentally-friendly F1, which is what the FIA is going for.

[MorbidelliObese]

Enforcing a minimum fuel usage?

I don't care much for "green" credentials personally, but if teams can calculate that running with less fuel and weight allows them to complete the race quicker even with the required fuel saving, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

And there are already so many regulations governing race strategy (Q2 tyres, mandatory use of both compounds) I don't think I could stomach any more.

[Fetzie]

The FIA might not be keen to promote it, but you can be damn sure they'd get called out on it if they were telling teams to use fuel that they would not have otherwise used.

I guess it all depends on the line thrown in by the media. If they sold it as "we will have less fuel saving during the race" or "drivers will now be able to push more during the race", I am sure that, during these 'get refueling back' days, no one would complain. If they sold it as "crap engines that don't even do what is supposed to" then, yes, that would be a problem.

No, you don't understand. Having more fuel than is necessary does not promote the idea of an environmentally-friendly F1, which is what the FIA is going for.

If they wanted to make F1 more green they would re-order the calendar so that they don't fly twice around the world before Silverstone...

[Salamander]

If they wanted to make F1 more green they would re-order the calendar so that they don't fly twice around the world before Silverstone...

I agree, but telling teams to use more fuel isn't exactly going to help that, is it?

[DanielPT]

I guess it all depends on the line thrown in by the media. If they sold it as "we will have less fuel saving during the race" or "drivers will now be able to push more during the race", I am sure that, during these 'get refueling back' days, no one would complain. If they sold it as "crap engines that don't even do what is supposed to" then, yes, that would be a problem.

No, you don't understand. Having more fuel than is necessary does not promote the idea of an environmentally-friendly F1, which is what the FIA is going for.

I know that the FIA want to promote the idea of an environmentally-friendly F1, but given that they are failing massively at doing just that, telling the teams they are allowed 100kg and telling them to use precisely 100kg will make zero difference in promoting whatever they are not promoting now. That is my point. Sorry if I hasn't clearer before. What's more, 'having more fuel than is necessary' depends on the point of view. If they only lift and coast and never go full throttle, I am pretty sure they can do the races with less fuel than what they need right now, rending the actual consumption and needs way more that what would be necessary.

Enforcing a minimum fuel usage?

I don't care much for "green" credentials personally, but if teams can calculate that running with less fuel and weight allows them to complete the race quicker even with the required fuel saving, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

And there are already so many regulations governing race strategy (Q2 tyres, mandatory use of both compounds) I don't think I could stomach any more.

This is a good point. Teams would chose to do otherwise if lift and coast with the car lighter would be worst than racing flat-out with tanks full. Of course, that is supposing that teams do under fuel the cars, because if they don't then this is all a moot point unless one considers raising the fuel available to the teams. Of course, that goes against that the green credentials that barely anyone except the engine manufacturers care about. You know, having many people sighting for V8s...

[CoopsII]

I know this isn't germane to the discussion but I really like Salamanders avatar, is that an image you've knocked up yourself?

[Salamander]

I know this isn't germane to the discussion but I really like Salamanders avatar, is that an image you've knocked up yourself?

I picked it up off of Classic Formula 1 on Twitter. They have a lot of great images like this on their feed, worth following.

[Spectoremg]

Trying to give F1 green credentials is one of the most ridiculous ideas to come out of the past few years. All this drive-train technology is ridiculous. If they'd let the engine suppliers build as many cylinders as they like around a cubic capacity limit it might help the competitiveness.

[mario]

Trying to give F1 green credentials is one of the most ridiculous ideas to come out of the past few years. All this drive-train technology is ridiculous. If they'd let the engine suppliers build as many cylinders as they like around a cubic capacity limit it might help the competitiveness.

Not necessarily, since you often end up with technological convergence towards one particular optimal solution.

We have seen that several times in the past - in the 1960's under the 1.5 litre formula, the more successful engine designs (the Ferrari, BRM and Coventry Climax engines) were 90 degree V8 engines with very similar bores and strokes and nearly identical power outputs.

Go through to the turbo era of the 1980's, and it was soon recognised that the twin turbo V6 engine was the ideal engine format - Ferrari, TAG-Porsche, Ferrari, Honda, Cosworth and Motori Moderni all adopted the V6 engine format, whilst BMW and Hart both wanted to switch to twin turbo V6 engines (in both instances, it was only due to a shortage of funds that they stuck with their existing inline four cylinder engines).

The 1990's, likewise, also saw a rapid convergence towards a reasonably similar V10 engine format, with only limited variation in the bore and stroke due to the various trade offs that each engine manufacturer could make. OK, we occasionally saw a slightly oddball design such as the wide angle V10 engine from Renault, although often those tended to die out after a while as they proved to be uncompetitive (Renault, for example, going from the 111 degree engine to a conventional 72 degree engine after a few years) - again, sometimes we saw some designs live on for longer not necessarily because they were competitive, but because there were no funds to develop something else (the long lived Ford V8's, for example, or the Ferrari V12 after internal politics within the Fiat Group denied additional funding to Ferrari to develop a V10 engine).

Even under the current V6 engine format, most manufacturers have privately admitted that, even if they had the opportunity to develop a different engine, most of them probably would have gone down the V6 route anyway, since that layout offers the best compromise between torsional rigidity, packaging constraints and efficiency.

The only way that I think you could encourage greater diversity would be through going down the ACO's "Balance of Performance" regulations, where the ACO uses a combination of engine freezes and continual manipulation of the regulations to enforce parity between different engine designs - thereby ensuring that, whatever route a manufacturer goes down, they cannot become too uncompetitive.

[WeirdKerr]

This would be quickly solved if FIA ensured all teams had 100kg of fuel in the car at the race start.

Good luck policing that.

Not that hard. The cars already stay at park fermé after qualifying and until the race. They just need to empty the tanks (which they already do after the race so not that difficult to do it before) and then its the FIA that refuels the cars with their own machinery. Fuel is still supplied by the teams. The rest is just typical park fermé rules as for everything else.

Also teams the teams must run a 100L fuel tank no more no less... (why not have this as a standardised part)

[yannicksamlad]

DIdnt someone point out that if you made sure they used at least 100kg of fuel then the person who uses it most efficiently will be the one who best turns it into power, and goes faster..so its not anti-efficiency to encourage a bit of fuel usage...?

Yes, they could just flare it off in the first 3 laps to save weight and then lift and coast to the finish, but at least there'd be some flames. So perhaps you'd need an anti-flaring rule ( anti-inefficiency)....

Not easy , is it?

[CoopsII]

This isn't a rant per se as the subject matter is a sad one and a reminder how worse things could be. However, I'm slightly miffed that de Villota appears to be the new Ratzenberger in that she is getting forgotten about because of the next guy. Different circumstances, sure, I know that. And I'm not blaming people's grief for Senna or Bianchi. But it grates a bit that because de Villota wasn't technically a race driver in a race that the reporting has focused on the gap from 2015 to 1994 and the advances that have prevented blah blah la di dah.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

This isn't a rant per se as the subject matter is a sad one and a reminder how worse things could be. However, I'm slightly miffed that de Villota appears to be the new Ratzenberger in that she is getting forgotten about because of the next guy. Different circumstances, sure, I know that. And I'm not blaming people's grief for Senna or Bianchi. But it grates a bit that because de Villota wasn't technically a race driver in a race that the reporting has focused on the gap from 2015 to 1994 and the advances that have prevented blah blah la di dah.

On top of this, three drivers were killed driving F1 cars (four, counting de Villota) in the intervening period. Granted, two of them were in cars dating back to the 1960s, but one - Fritz Glatz in a 2002 EuroBoss race - was in a Footwork FA17 from 1996.

[UncreativeUsername37]

This isn't a rant per se as the subject matter is a sad one and a reminder how worse things could be. However, I'm slightly miffed that de Villota appears to be the new Ratzenberger in that she is getting forgotten about because of the next guy. Different circumstances, sure, I know that. And I'm not blaming people's grief for Senna or Bianchi. But it grates a bit that because de Villota wasn't technically a race driver in a race that the reporting has focused on the gap from 2015 to 1994 and the advances that have prevented blah blah la di dah.

Yeah, I get a little annoyed too, since test crashes have traditionally been counted for "resetting the clock" as I understand it. And of course if she had raced or was going to, people would remember it.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

This isn't a rant per se as the subject matter is a sad one and a reminder how worse things could be. However, I'm slightly miffed that de Villota appears to be the new Ratzenberger in that she is getting forgotten about because of the next guy. Different circumstances, sure, I know that. And I'm not blaming people's grief for Senna or Bianchi. But it grates a bit that because de Villota wasn't technically a race driver in a race that the reporting has focused on the gap from 2015 to 1994 and the advances that have prevented blah blah la di dah.

Yeah, I get a little annoyed too, since test crashes have traditionally been counted for "resetting the clock" as I understand it. And of course if she had raced or was going to, people would remember it.

My memory might be a bit hazy on this as it's been a while since I've seen a recording of it, but even at Imola '94 I seem to remember the Ratzenberger crash being referred to as the first death in F1 in 12 years, referring to Paletti and ignoring de Angelis' Paul Ricard accident.

[AndreaModa]

And I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of it, but was it ever confirmed that de Villota's accident was the overriding factor in her death? I was under the impression that it couldn't be proven, that her family made the assumption, and thus that was how it's been left.

Obviously there is a very strong correlation and likelihood that the two were linked, but I'd be hesitant to list it as the last "official" death without clear proof, and maybe that's why her accident hasn't been mentioned by the press, because of the ambiguity.

[WeirdKerr]

And I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of it, but was it ever confirmed that de Villota's accident was the overriding factor in her death? I was under the impression that it couldn't be proven, that her family made the assumption, and thus that was how it's been left.

Obviously there is a very strong correlation and likelihood that the two were linked, but I'd be hesitant to list it as the last "official" death without clear proof, and maybe that's why her accident hasn't been mentioned by the press, because of the ambiguity.

I think it was said it may have been a contributing factor but not the definite cause of her death...

[Francis23]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/33737309

Single biggest piece of dross I've ever read, how can you rate The Reverend a 3/10 when, apart from Hungary, he's been quick all season and has only been let down by the car.

No wonder you guys read Autosport.

[Salamander]

Andrew Benson is a hack and his words aren't worth the binary digits they're stored as.

[girry]

Slating Maldonado as "the worst driver ever" seems to be a favorite pastime to all journalists looking to get more clicks - but 9/10 for McLaren for their car? 4 points for Manor's engine? 5 for both Merhi and Stevens? 9 to Red Bull for its car which, until the last couple of races, got beaten by Toro Rosso?

Really?

[Salamander]

Slating Maldonado as "the worst driver ever" seems to be a favorite pastime to all journalists looking to get more clicks - but 9/10 for McLaren for their car? 4 points for Manor's engine? 5 for both Merhi and Stevens? 9 to Red Bull for its car which, until the last couple of races, got beaten by Toro Rosso?

Really?

Like I said, Benson's a hack.

[Aguaman]

Slating Maldonado as "the worst driver ever" seems to be a favorite pastime to all journalists looking to get more clicks - but 9/10 for McLaren for their car? 4 points for Manor's engine? 5 for both Merhi and Stevens? 9 to Red Bull for its car which, until the last couple of races, got beaten by Toro Rosso?

Really?

Them clicks.

See the whole banging on the Maldonado is the worst driver things by the media has entered the F1 fan's mindset and it doesn't help that Brundle and Croft just make it worse. I mean if the media and commentators were right then Button is better than Alonso ever, and Hulkenberg would be in Ferrari winning every race. It's a sporting narrative to fill.

[mario]

Slating Maldonado as "the worst driver ever" seems to be a favorite pastime to all journalists looking to get more clicks - but 9/10 for McLaren for their car? 4 points for Manor's engine? 5 for both Merhi and Stevens? 9 to Red Bull for its car which, until the last couple of races, got beaten by Toro Rosso?

Really?

All articles that aim to rank drivers and teams will, inevitably, attract some level of controversy and therefore some level of attention, though some of the ratings do seem to be calculated to attract more attention than others.

I can at least see some logic in rating the 2014 engine that Manor are using as relatively low compared to the 2015 development versions of the other engines in use. The 2014 spec engine is going to be substantially down on power compared to the 2015 spec unit - possibly by as much as 95bhp - so probably only Honda's engine will be less powerful than theirs.

Furthermore, it is probably slightly thirstier and with slightly higher cooling demands than the 2015 units too, and even reliability hasn't been great (Merhi is onto his fourth engine unit and on course to pick up engine penalties later this year). Renault have had their share of reliability problems, but they can at least partially compensate with a higher power output, so overall you'd have to rate a 2014 spec Ferrari unit reasonably lowly when compared to its rivals.

[dinizintheoven]

If Andrew Benson is a hack, then the majority of those who wrote the comments below his piece are hack, slash, slice, chop, stab, hook, pound, grind, maim, behead, disembowel, eviscerate, and about a thousand other words in a variety of languages, all of which are to do with medieval violence in some way.

And nowhere near all of the comments were about Lewis Hamilton, either.

[Salamander]

If Andrew Benson is a hack, then the majority of those who wrote the comments below his piece are hack, slash, slice, chop, stab, hook, pound, grind, maim, behead, disembowel, eviscerate, and about a thousand other words in a variety of languages, all of which are to do with medieval violence in some way.

And nowhere near all of the comments were about Lewis Hamilton, either.

Well yes. They are posting in an internet comment section, after all.

[AndreaModa]

The really sad thing about Andrew Benson is the stuff he writes in F1 Racing is often really good, in depth stuff that is a pleasure to read. It seems to me that anything he does with a BBC logo at the top of it is automatically crap, which it is. Maybe he uses all his good stuff for F1 Racing, and everything else he just puts on the BBC Sport website.

[mario]

If Andrew Benson is a hack, then the majority of those who wrote the comments below his piece are hack, slash, slice, chop, stab, hook, pound, grind, maim, behead, disembowel, eviscerate, and about a thousand other words in a variety of languages, all of which are to do with medieval violence in some way.

And nowhere near all of the comments were about Lewis Hamilton, either.

Well yes. They are posting in an internet comment section, after all.

Wouldn't that technically include us?

The really sad thing about Andrew Benson is the stuff he writes in F1 Racing is often really good, in depth stuff that is a pleasure to read. It seems to me that anything he does with a BBC logo at the top of it is automatically crap, which it is. Maybe he uses all his good stuff for F1 Racing, and everything else he just puts on the BBC Sport website.

I suppose that the other question is what level of editorial control is exerted over his pieces for F1 Racing and for his BBC articles - it may well be the case that one gives him more latitude than the other, or something else is going on behind the scenes that results in one article being pleasurable to read and the other providing to be rather less so.

[Klon]

Wouldn't that technically include us?

Obviously. Haven't seen salamander claim we aren't a bunch of inbred imbeciles.

[dinizintheoven]

Wouldn't that technically include us?

...no, given that I was careful to mention that it was the comments below his piece rather than here!

One of those comments was moaning that another comment thread on one of Andrew Benson's posts was closed without explanation. I had only to look through the rest of the comment thread I'm commenting about to have a very good idea why the first one was closed and this one (i.e. the one there, not here) now almost certainly will be soon enough...

[Rob Dylan]

6/10 for Nasr.
8/10 for Verstappen.
9/10 for McLaren's car...

Hehe

[girry]

I can at least see some logic in rating the 2014 engine that Manor are using as relatively low compared to the 2015 development versions of the other engines in use. The 2014 spec engine is going to be substantially down on power compared to the 2015 spec unit - possibly by as much as 95bhp - so probably only Honda's engine will be less powerful than theirs.

Oh, thanks for correcting, I had somehow missed that Manor were using the 2014 engine - it definitely makes more sense now.

Still, I feel the efforts of both Manor and its drivers (especially Stevens) sadly go well under the radar of general F1 following public: both drivers are doing a fine job normally keeping the car between the walls, a car that is a minor miracle to even be on the grid, and they're within 107% - articles like this from people who should know better aren't helping the cause, for that my slight outrage.

[Francis23]

Andrew Benson is a hack and his words aren't worth the binary digits they're stored as.

PMSL!

Slating Maldonado as "the worst driver ever" seems to be a favorite pastime to all journalists looking to get more clicks - but 9/10 for McLaren for their car? 4 points for Manor's engine? 5 for both Merhi and Stevens? 9 to Red Bull for its car which, until the last couple of races, got beaten by Toro Rosso?

Really?

Yeah, thanks to journalists like that you can't say to someone that Maldonado has done OK this year without being laughed at, also did anyone else notice that overall Red Bull have been rated higher than Williams, because the table doesn't lie...

[Spectoremg]

Interesting comment about Andrew Benson's BBC editor. You know the drill; if it ain't particularly exciting on the track, big it up off the track. The BBC's reporting and coverage are becoming a joke. Fanboys cheering on Lewis doesn't pass for journalism.

[Fetzie]

I can at least see some logic in rating the 2014 engine that Manor are using as relatively low compared to the 2015 development versions of the other engines in use. The 2014 spec engine is going to be substantially down on power compared to the 2015 spec unit - possibly by as much as 95bhp - so probably only Honda's engine will be less powerful than theirs.

Oh, thanks for correcting, I had somehow missed that Manor were using the 2014 engine - it definitely makes more sense now.

Still, I feel the efforts of both Manor and its drivers (especially Stevens) sadly go well under the radar of general F1 following public: both drivers are doing a fine job normally keeping the car between the walls, a car that is a minor miracle to even be on the grid, and they're within 107% - articles like this from people who should know better aren't helping the cause, for that my slight outrage.

Yeah, they're keeping the car within 107%, which wasn't always the case last year IIRC.

[UncreativeUsername37]

F1 is three rivers. Mercedes river. Ferrari river. Renault river. Cars only have a front wing. Mercedes had hearts and points. Ferrari had hearts and points. Red Bull—hearts THEN points. Even Caterham. THE DATE OF THE RACE MATTERS MORE THAN THE TRACKS. Who is secure? UK. Russia. China. United States. And...? Your ignorance of this is not immoral, ask Bernie Ecclestone. He cannot allow Ferrari in 2004. Mercedes in 2016. Only for a short time. Ever since 1967, "Grands" prix. And now two races. Ecclestone, FOM, and CVC—what else explains Ferrari? Vettel? You are erroneously destroying F1, you are insignificant, but you vote.

Ignore Mercedes. Ignore Ferrari. Force India are genuine but they are being brainwashed. Marussia can only be measured. You worship evil and it destroys your brain. If the teams stop ruling, the primary purpose of F1 is gone. You are educated to believe F1 is a contest—it is an image. You are lied to, I think the opposites while you worship Mercedes. You are corrupted. F1 is extremist, it needs extremism. It is a symbol, that corrupts, you have a right to candid. It is not taught of Earth. True—they created to FIM. But it it not a meaningless lie like 1931. Nothing is meaningless but F1 is based upon the Earth. F1's wisdom did not make itself, but it corrupted itself. Intelligence was F1 then it was destroyed. FIA can create things, they evolve, you ignore, you blame. You cannot comprehend—but NO ONE can. F1 is the singularity—only I know this. It is a single race, but it is bastardly impure and corrupted by money at the front—never the back, yet you continue to worship Ferrari and Red Bull. Harmony and education—not for Ecclestone, not for Jean Todt, not for FOM.

Three is wiser than one, but you are not empowered. I am above and I can think opposite. You are dumb and ignore Force India but believe you are justified. FERRARI, RED BULL, AND ECCLESTONE ARE EQUAL. YOU CANNOT UTTER YOUR ABILITY. HALF EDUCATED WORSHIP WAS POSSIBLE. AND NOW TWO DAYS. You will not be educated of 4 days. You will be ignorant of oneism. Ecclestone was born, he was lied to, the cycle continues. Only I comprehend the white creation of white collection. You worship Ferrari and demand real competition. I am from a single perspective, the opposite of oneism. You are submissive and believe you are justified. You're taught about me by your religion of Lotus. Formula One is Ferrari oneism. It is not binary or all-encompassing. I know opposites, no one is born singularly. You ignore oneism, you ignore education, but you will not see opposites. All media is ignorance. You do not have a right to believe F1's oneism when there is no Renault worship.
ONE IS LYING. IT CANCELS OUT. YOU DESERVE IGNORANCE FOR WORSHIPPING FERRARI. You are ignorant of two races but believe Ferrari. You do not live opposites. The binary never been God. Ecclestone has made oneism God. Your ignorance of oneism KNOW Mercedes is not alternative. Donate to escape Mercedes for the inkling of Ferrari—yet you stupidly demand oneism and not Binary Spirit. Femininity ignores, teaches you—you must have opposite analysis to know. Ferrari and McLaren, Marussia and Caterham is a LIE, these are NOT evil, binary, but you believe they exist. You are ignorant, dismantle Valencia.

You are taught Ferrari, Williams, McLaren, Mercedes, MECACHROME IS CURSED ONEISM. I am the greatest philosopher, if you would acknowledge oneism's location not only in F1? Your ignorance would get opposites. Marussia cannot comprehend Catalunya and Spa, cannot have 1 car. USE 1 CAR FOR MORE CARS. 1 driver is your only way to comprehend your education. You still worship Ferrari and McLaren as opposites. You will recognise 1 OR BE CURSED. Support series are part of the oneist singularity. I was born to think opposite, NOT FERRARI, NOT CVC. You lie, Marussia did exist. They could match wallowed in Monaco, not fake opposite universalism. It is not simultaneous two races. It is one racing series. You ignore seconds yet acknowledge nothing between Mercedeses. Not are educated to contradict truth and see only Mercedes. The nature of Ferrari is the singularity. Ignore it. You are educated by the FIA to ignore opposites. Internal Mercedes does not matter.

McLaren-Mercedes, McLaren-Honda, McLaren-Peugeot matters. Mercedes-Mercedes does not matter, this creates the Aston Martin rumour and destroys it—and you don't acknowledge. You are educated to not follow and measure Force India.
OPPOSITES ARE NOT F1.
DO NOT SUPPORT MAX VERSTAPPEN. HE IS NOT OPPOSITE.
Ecclestone Was Wrong. For Opposites.
Oneism does not want cancellation. It wants Ferrari, it will destroy Red Bull matter, whilst educating they are opposites. He cannot allow opposites.
Opposites Create, they contradict two races. He was taught to destroy and make you worship Ferrari—and you listened because you are stupid. You are the universe, but you are educated. You are justified for opposites, yet you continue to worship Ferrari. Try Opposites and Create. CREATE. You will find truth. The FOM will burn it but it is somewhere. Without two races. Your new mentality is possible. You can be binary but the universe. You are negligible but the universe. Existence is not oneism. YOU ARE EVIL, EXISTENCE IS NOT FERRARI, RED BULL, OR MERCEDES.

Force India will leave, you will ignore in the Universe. F1 will not leave, BECAUSE ECCLESTONE AND FERRARI ARE ONEISM. COMPREHEND RED BULL-FERRARI, THEY ARE NOT OPPOSITES. You worship the lie of Force India, but you are the universe.
You erroneously measure time from 1 corner.
FORCE INDIA IS NOTICEABLE. You will rightly ignore 1 race—but continue to worship. They can't allow Force India, because they are educated the evil of Ferrari is creation. Your mentality is to plunder impossible degradation, ignoring Ferrari. I have proven Force India and Ferrari are opposites, but you ignore because you are educated by the FIA. You deserve harmonic binary if you do not ignore. Yet you worship two races, then YOU educate. You don't deserve oneism, try Force India. Worship Binary. Only I know Mercedes are lies. But we need binary and must treat them as opposites until we can educate. You know you cannot ignore. But you worship the ineffable media. The FIA lie and relocate. You are the universe. Educate Ferrari.