Max Verstappen, Sebastian Vettel, Suzuka, 2017

Ferrari failures are “bad luck” – Horner

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Christian Horner says Ferrari’s retirements have been down to “bad luck”.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Ricky has kindly made a start on next week’s stats preview article for me:

22/10/1967 – Denny Hulme secures 1967 drivers’ championship by finishing third in the Mexican Grand Prix.
22/10/2017 – Brendon Hartley’s debut race.

50 years to the day.
Ricky Johnson (@Bamboo)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Fer No. 65, Sebastiaan Huizinga and Carlos!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 59 comments on “Ferrari failures are “bad luck” – Horner”

    1. Hooray ! On time today !

      1. Just watched the MotoGP from Motegi/Japan, what a race in the wet, if F1 can match a race like this all will be well. If you haven’t watched MotoGP do yourself a big,big favour and find a replay of this race.

        1. Misano and Aragon were equally good. This years MotoGP is genuinely good in terms of competition and racing across both intermediate and premier class.

      2. What was ‘on time today?’

        1. @robbie, the roundup, it’s been over 7 hours later than its timestamp at times, gets a bit tedious looking for it when it’s not there.

          1. Ah. Hadn’t noticed. First world problems.

    2. “They’ve obviously had some bad luck. But I feel especially sorry for Sebastian because it’s a killer blow for his championship and, really, for the fans.” (Horner)

      Ferrari’s bad luck is part of Vettel’s demise, but if he hadn’t had that meltdown in Baku and made a very risky, over reactive start in Singapore he would still be in it. He’s lucky he didn’t get a one race ban.

      I feel sorry for Ferrari fans, not Vettel.

      1. Indeed. If Vettel hadn’t done that and just kept his cool behind Hamilton, he would’ve won, because Hamilton’s headrest was going to fail anyway. Every sensible tifoso was fuming at Vettel that day, and maybe still is.

        1. Not really

      2. tgu (@thegrapeunwashed)
        15th October 2017, 12:09

        Chris, I agree, he threw away 38 points, that’s too much in a championship this close. Unlike last year, this championship hasn’t been decided by reliability problems.

        1. Selective thinking there. This year the Championship is not close, as witnessed by the large points gap. To claim last year’s much much closer Championship was decided by reliability, conveniently ignores that the points gap was so slim in the end, less throwing away of points by LH with better starts in several races could have made the difference. There’s NR being nowhere in Monaco, and having the class to let LH by because he considered it a no-brainer. It is about everything that went on, combined, including the factor that last year for example, nobody else was challenging the two Mercedes and able to take points away from both Merc drivers.

          The undeniable reality is that ALL circumstances actually happened to make up every season, and it is folly to isolate only one aspect of the game. It is using arguments of convenience and twisting the stats to suit one’s own agenda. Everything that went on by all the drivers on the grid added up to the final result that occurred. SV has made a few mistakes, has been involved in racing incidents, has had some great races, and has had some untimely reliability late in the season, too late to answer for even with solid reliability from here on in. Sometimes when a driver has unreliability earlier in the season there’s still plenty of season to answer to that. Let the chips fall where they may.

          1. The undeniable reality is that ALL circumstances actually happened to make up every season, and it is folly to isolate only one aspect of the game

            @robbie absolutely bang on, I don’t understand why so many people fail to understand this

            1. Well said! +1
              PS. @flatsix I prefer Vettel to Hamilton btw.

          2. @robbie

            To claim last year’s much much closer Championship was decided by reliability, conveniently ignores that the points gap was so slim in the end, less throwing away of points by LH with better starts in several races could have made the difference.

            I suspect Lewis’s engine not exploding whilst he was in the lead in Malaysia last year would have had more impact on his chances than a few bad starts.

            1. @9chris9 Sure, but you know what? It happens. And that’s the reality. And heading into the last race there was only a handful of points between them in spite of LH’s dnf, thus my claim that there are other factors that could have helped LH too, like better starts. Only a handful of points more without those, and LH could have had the lead and NR would have been the one needing to win that race and have LH below a certain placing. It never comes down to just one thing.

        2. Lol, how can you say it wasnt decided by reliability problems? 50 points lost potentially to reliability…

          1. Yeah sometimes the unreliability strikes a driver more than others and more than in other seasons. Just ask Max who has regularly outperformed DR but you wouldn’t know it if all you looked at was the final standings and points count. But if you want to go back in time and selectively give back drivers their reliability, then give back all the drivers all their woes at the same time. It would be easy to just use a magic time machine and give only one’s favourite driver back perfect seasons, leave the other drivers their imperfect seasons, and said fave driver wins the WDC every year. The team loses when a driver loses too.

      3. Anti-Vettel fans doing the anti-Vettel dance, nothing to see here…

    3. I wonder if Red Bull would be complaining about the oil burning if Renault had the best system?

      After all the off throttle exhaust blowing wasn’t exactly green yet Red Bull/Renault fought hard to keep that system in place as Renault had the best system & Red Bull’s aerodynamics around the back of the car were getting the biggest advantage from it.

      Like with many things in F1, If your the one that came up with or is getting an advantage from something then you think its great, But if it’s something somebody else came up with & is getting an advantage from you think its the worst thing ever & think it should be stopped.

      1. That’s true. Talking about how something is against the “spirit of the rules” is an argument used by people that didn’t find the trick in the first place.

        Otherwise they’d shut up.

      2. I wonder if Red Bull would be complaining about the oil burning if Renault had the best system?

        That’ Team Principal-speak 101.

      3. Couldn’t agree more.
        Innovation in F1 is great until someone else beats you with it.

        And if you can’t beat it, copy it. And if you can’t copy it, try and ban it.

      4. Somebody has to complain against breaches of the rules, no?
        If Ferrari and Mercedes would not have fought the exhaust blowing it might still be there, but they did.
        So now they are under scrutiny for burning oil, and rightly so.
        We should be thankful for the competitiveness of the sport and the level of scrutiny; otherwise it would just be a cheaters game.

      5. It’s always pot kettle black when it comes to Horner, but we’re so use to it now it almost doesn’t need stating!

        1. While I get the Team Principal speak 101 sentiment, I don’t think it applies here. He’s not wrong. They shouldn’t be burning that much oil, and Renault is doing it too, no secret, and indeed Horner must be thrilled with how they’ve been doing this season as RBR, Max’s unreliability aside, so I don’t believe at all that this is just moaning about others’ oil burning advantage. It’s not necessary to do that, so should be clamped down on, which they’re doing. I doubt oil burning is a game changer, and since the top 3 teams are doing it, no one team can have that much advantage over the others with it by burning slightly more. That would be splitting hairs.

          1. @robbie, if they believed that it did not give their rivals that much of an advantage, then why would it be worth Red Bull’s time to dedicate resources to raising the complaint if it yields no net benefit to them?

            Since you raise that claim, have you come across a reliable source that has provided any evidence that Renault were pushing the limits on oil consumption as well? We have seen accusations levelled at Ferrari and Mercedes, and I’ve seen suggestions elsewhere that Honda might be doing the same thing in qualifying trim (explaining why the single lap performance of the McLaren-Honda package has improved), but Renault is not usually mentioned in that list.

            1. Read Motor Sport magazine online.

              The whole oil burning matter is explained there.

              All engines burn oil but Renault choseto not invest in the research and technology required for performance improvements probably because not only were they under financial pressure at that time, they were having trouble keeping their PU actually running at all.

              In other words are able to implement it but won’t spend the money.

              As a result, they happily allow RB to actively lobby against it – nothing new there, but it’s tiring listening to Horner whine on once again when he knows full well why he does not have access to it. To play the green card? I mean really? They pretty much had carte Blanche on these current regulations, screwed up initially and yet he won’t stop moaning about everyone else until RB once again have advantages that no one else can touch.

            2. @anon @Drg I’ve taken from the speedcafe article above that Renault have been exploiting oil burn just as much as Mercedes and Ferrari. If you want to make it a discussion about who has been ‘pushing the limits’ on it that’s fine, but that’s not the point at all. I don’t get the impression Horner has been bent all out of shape over this like the tone seems to be here, nor that he is ‘dedicating resources’ to raising complaints. I don’t see him doing anything other than pointing out a small ‘green hypocrisy’ with it. You and others want to make it into a Horner is evil argument that’s up to you, I’m just not there. I’ve had the vibe this season from Horner that he is quite pleased with their performance and their season in spite of all of Max’s unreliability. For some, anything he says is whining I guess.

          2. 1,2L versus 0.9 L is not splitting hairs. It’s a big difference and that same percentage more in options on quali and overtaking.

    4. Suddenly its clear to me how Mercedes achieved 50% efficiency in their engine.

      1. I’m sure a few months ago Mercedes said they would comply with the current maximum of 900 ml of oil consumption during a race, even though, because of some technicality, they weren’t actually obligated to abide by that regulation.
        Of course, that other way around this problem is to allow everyone to do it, but then where do you stop? Why stop at 4 kg of oil? As Horner said, you may as well be running a diesel engine. Of course, if that is what teams want then all they have to do is submit a proposal to the committee deciding on the new engine specification.

        1. There would be no oil burning needed if F1 got rid of the fuel flow restriction.
          Fuel is a better ‘fuel’ than oil.

          1. @Egonovi If the got rid of the fuel flow restriction 4kg more fuel is still 4kg more fuel.

        2. @drycrust, according to Auto Motor und Sport they’re already running to that directive – they claimed that, because Mercedes initially believed that the FIA would introduce the restriction on all engines in Monza, rather than just new engines introduced after Monza, they’d made sure that their engines complied with the directive.

          If anything, they’ve suggested that the team that has been hurt the most by this decision was Ferrari, and gone as far as suggesting that the recent reliability problems Ferrari have had have been caused by difficulties with retuning their engines to cope with the reduced oil flow rate.

          1. @anon How convenient Mercedes claims they never burned oil and Ferrari is the one losing out. Im sure Ferraris and Red Bulls better performance even on engine tracks past Monza is just a coincidence.

            1. @rethla, Mercedes have never officially made those claims, as Auto Motor und Sport interviewed Mercedes employees “off the record”.

              Also, how exactly are you defining “engine track”? Sepang hasn’t traditionally been seen as one of the harder circuits on the engine – it’s a circuit where, in the past, the apparently underpowered Honda engine was capable of getting McLaren into Q3 and double points finishes at times.

    5. “Burning 4kg of oil in a race, it’s almost a diesel engine.”

      Volkswagen would’ve creamed the competition.

      1. Maybe there is a black market for all their “obsolete” engine management systems.

      2. Yeah right, with NOx emission for sure!

      3. @fer-no65 maybe that’s why Porsche suddenly want to enter

    6. Did Horner manage to keep a straight face as he complained about another team going against the concept of the rules?

      1. Of course he did. Just like Ferrari did when they complained about their suspension system with the same argument and like Merc did when they complained about some flexing wing from Ferrari. Any team complaining about something another team did against the nature of the rulses, safety or whatever is always just thinking about one thing: They have an advantage, let’s kill it…

        1. He’s not complaining about another team, since it is known that Renault are doing it too. He simply doesn’t think that much oil burning is necessary for them all to be doing in a greener F1. But of course that doesn’t stop some people from assuming there’s always an ulterior motive in everything a TP says.

          1. @robbie

            Horner has one motivation, to win world championships. He would only protest against an issue if there were a possible advantage to be gained. He isn’t some environmental white knight who opposes the concept because it goes against the spirit of the competition.

            The Red Bull team more than any other has gone against the spirit or intent of rules and at least once outright broken them and attempted to cleverly conceal their rule-breaking innovation.

            1. @philipgb I wasn’t suggesting, nor do I think Horner is trying to be a ‘white knight.’ I think he’s just pointing out a tiny hypocrisy.

              And all teams have done as you suggest in your second paragraph, throughout F1’s history. As much as you would obviously like to think otherwise, Horner and RBR do not own the patent on that behaviour.

              I think you’re trying to swat a Horner/RBR mosquito of an issue with a cannon here.

            2. @robbie

              I don’t think a casual post on a fan site can ever be likened to a canon 😊

              And true, all teams skirt the edges of the rules. I’d just suggest Red Bull under Horner has done it more, and can’t think of any current teams concealing a rule breaking device like the spring device Red Bull used to get away with their flexing wing.

    7. Horner should shut up. It was not a blow to fans because the title battle is still on. Reliability is now an even 2-2 for Seb and Lewis.

      1. At a stretch, the title battle is still on. Odds are that it is not.

        1. It is the end of the season, therefore the battle should be winding down. What do people want? Lewis has 8 wins to Seb’s 4.

          1. Obviously Horner’s point is that usually what people want is a Championship that goes down to the final race with at least two players mathematically in it. And obviously we all know that wanting and getting are two different things.

            1. @robbie, and we should be glad we don’t always get it because if we did we’d know it was being manipulated behind the scenes. Bernie tried his best, but even he knew it couldn’t be too overt.

            2. Agreed. There is often manipulation to some degree or another. It’s happened in many many seasons. The inconsistency sometimes in enforcing or punishing in varying degrees for the ‘same’ indiscretion happens all the time and has been discussed around here ad infinitum. And yes the attempt is to do it relatively covertly rather than blatantly.

              In NHL hockey if a team gets three penalties in a row you can almost guarantee the next penalty is going to go to the other team.

            3. @Robbie Lewis has been cheated out of enough titles. His fans want to see his legacy restored, not some scripted finish like last year.

            4. @Mclaren ‘Cheated’ out of enough titles? Pardon me while I wretch. You want to go there…ok how about the number of people that have claimed that F1 locked Mercedes PU advantage in (ie. ‘scripted’ F1) with the token system when they changed to the current format. We could play woulda, coulda, shoulda, and cry and moan about how every driver in F1 who isn’t in a works Mercedes has been ‘cheated’ out of wins and titles. But I guess for you it is not enough that LH has had the dominant car for 4 years now.

            5. What makes Horner fit to speak on behalf of all the fans?

    8. @Bamboo RE: COTD; Forgive me, I don’t understand the significance of this stat…

      1. Ah, fellow Kiwis!

        1. (thumbs up emoji)

    Comments are closed.