I agree who ever it is ( of those available ) Just a 1 year deal , I wanted Ocon , but the age thing is a stopper to that . You don't think Pdr ?
Palmer would be a better choice but still it wouldnt be a strong line up. I have a feeling Paddy is going to help williams bring a good car next year
Kubica is testing alongside Stroll for Williams pretty soon I think? I guess it depends how ready and quick he is, but they seem interested to give him a chance.
I'm hoping /certain that they have been putting most of their efforts into next years car . They just need a better option to drive alongside Stroll ( who IMHO is starting to show some talent ) . its the age thing that will cause them issues IMHO .
I think Kubica should get it. Maybe he's not as good anymore, but at least it shows some ambition. Massa, Palmer... Ericsson? Hard to persuade anyone to care about Williams with those guys behind the wheel. Strange to think a year ago we thought a lineup of Button-Bottas was likely. Now Palmer-Stroll...
I actually think Button out of retirement would be the strongest driver, assuming Kubica can't regain full race fitness.
Palmer needs a drive................ If its just a one year deal, they ideally need someone with a bit of experience alongside Stroll so it would do as a stop-gap until the driver market gets sorted for 2019. As Bando said, it wouldn't be a strong line-up, but probably less of a risk than Kubica/di Resta. Stroll looks far better than at the start of the year, so would expect him to further improve next year as well. Williams need to sort their car though. Has it really developed since 2014? The concept of quick in a straight line and crap in the corners hasn't done them very well since then.
So instead of upping the PUs allowed..... The FIA has confirmed that it's reducing the number of components teams are allowed to use next year by even more. This year, teams are allowed to use four of each component of the power unit. Next year that’s set to drop to three - but only for the engine, turbocharger, and MGU-H. All the other bits that make up the power unit - the control electronics, MGU-H and energy stores - will be reduced to just two for the whole season. With 21 races on the 2018 calendar, that means that some parts will have to last for a massive 11 races if teams hope to escape penalties - more than double the lifespan required from them this year. That’s a serious step. Things are bad enough this season already. With six races still to go, eight drivers have already gone over their limit of four elements on at least one of the PU components. Poor Stoffel Vandoorne has used as many as 10 of some of his elements. But yeah, using just two all year is a totally realistic goal…
They have lost the plot..... At this rate the championship could be won by Sauber just turning down their PUs power and just wining as they had no penalties!!!
This makes no sense in isolation. There's been complaints from all angles about penalties making quali almost irrelevant. Perhaps they intend to revise the penalty system? Dock constructors points instead of grid places? Returning to Williams' conundrum, I suspect Palmer might get the nod, but I don't see why. Next year's Williams is unlikely to be better than this year's Renault, so a slow and steady driver is going to trundle round outside the points, whilst a faster, erratic driver might score the occasional points finish. If it were my decision, I'd risk Kubica, or look further afield at Buemi. If Kubica isn't up to it, then I suspect Palmer will happily stop twiddling his thumbs and step in mid-2018.
I was just trying to say F1 is supposed to be fastest cars and drivers but it is being hampered by stupid penalties. Docking constructors points would be much better. Until you remember that FIA entry fee is based on constructors points previous year!!!! Williams might, I really hope they are, be the surprise of 2018. They have had Paddy so hopefully he is taking all his Merc knowledge and putting it to good use. I think Kubica may be good. He will certainly help publicity and promo wise. If he can't take successive races then, as you say Palmer or would do OK as a standin.
Toro Rosso might be better off just using one engine per race and attach a tow cable to the the second car.
Maybe if they strip the engine and gearbox out of the second car and replace the driver with a mannequin. On second thoughts, just do that with both cars.
I think this is a strange move by the FIA to follow through on their plans to reduce the allowances further. Given the issues this year and the debate it has raised regarding rule changes and fairness, it would have been prudent to have probably left the allowances as they were. This is a complex issue which needs a total rethink. On the one hand we want the sport to be the pinnacle of performance, but we also want to make fair financially for all to compete - which would also increase the spectacle of the sport. On the other hand, the sport is trying to prevent gross overspending and the ability to gain advantages over competitors by replacing power components for both performance and reliability gains. If we look at the current situation, it is effectively a 3 team competition with Merc at the front due their excellent power unit. I don't believe Merc should be disadvantaged as they have earned their right to have lead in this new era. However, do the rules actually prevent them from increasing their advantage? If we go back to last season when Lewis made the comment that he had more engine failures than any of their customers combined (and Rosberg the year before), and this year again the works team seem to be struggling more than their customers in the reliability stakes. This is evidence alone that the works team are pushing the performance envelope far beyond what the customer teams are either allowed to do, or wish to do - possibly because of the.....penalties. Here the debate starts, if a team are prepared to run their systems at such superior and optimum performance levels over a competitor and sacrifice reliability, then why shouldn't they be punished? If a team can replace all components and start from the back of the grid (in fact they often stock pile in this situation) and through performance advantages finish ahead of the majority of the field and probably their direct competitors (Driver or Constructor) who are competing within the allowances, is that fair? Maybe the penalties are such that they are not enough to deter this philosophy, maybe instead of grid penalties they should take time penalties, or a combination? Something has to be done to make it fair and consistent for everybody, they all know the rules, they all sign up and race yet bitch when they get penalties for performance related reliability issues. The accumulative grid penalties are pointless and ineffective, but time waits for no man especially in a sport that is measure against the clock. These teams are risking reliability for the gain of tenths, so a 5 or 10 sec time penalty for certain component changes would possibly control this better?
Horner has already said that this is utterly bonkers . We will this year or next , have a Championship decided by grid penalties . Madness
Surely the point of F1 is competitive racing and optimum performance. They should go hand in hand but as you rightly point out, it would disadvantage certain teams at the moment, Every customer should have the ability to run their power unit at the maximum ability, like the works team. As we need the sport to be faster and more spectacular, we need to scrap the penalties. Obviously that gives license for the performance envelope to be pushed further but providing that it is enforced that each customer benefits and gets the same hardware and software/mapping, we wouldn't get that skewed bias in favour of a works team that we currently have. (Merc Quali mode for example) Assuming you keep the parc ferme from Quali to the race, to ensure no one puts a brand new set of components?
Like I said, Merc/Ferrari/RB could put brand new power units in every race, but Williams/FI every 3 or 4. The spend differential would be massive and the performance advantages would be obvious. I agree it would probably be far simpler to abolish all penalties, but we all have to accept that it will become a spending war between the top teams. One rule I would like to see, is that a manufacture can not run a new spec engine with out offering it to all customer teams and it must be provided with no performance disadvantage, whatever the technicalities. People will argue that the works teams will just refuse to supply, but that would open up opportunities for a cosworth type company to supply 3 or 4 teams.
