The RACER Mailbag, August 2

Welcome to the RACER Mailbag. Questions for any of RACER’s writers can be sent to mailbag@racer.com. Due to the high volume of questions received, we can’t guarantee that every letter will be published, but we’ll answer as many as we can. Published …

Q: I just watched “Stewart” for the fourth time and I’m amazed about the complete lack of safety in F1 racing at that time. I went to my first Indy/USAC race in Phoenix in 1965 and guard rails were everywhere — Indy, Trenton, Milwaukee… Riverside was different, but spectators were never unprotected. These F1 guys had nothing more than a chain-link fence, a tree, or spectators/camera men to stop them from complete disaster. No wonder so many great drivers were lost in the 1960’s and ’70s. Thank God all of motorsports have gone to great lengths to make racing safer.

Joe, CA

MP: Amen, Joe. It wasn’t until I fractured my wrist while crashing in qualifying at Sears Point, aka Sonoma Raceway, in 1990, where I questioned why the tire barriers atop Turn 2 stopped well short of where an idiot like myself could go headfirst into the end of those tires with the right side of my Formula Ford, and hard into the exposed earth embankment with the left side of the car. I’d driven through the corner countless times before, had seen it from all angles as a fan and spectator, but it never dawned on me that I suffered from the same lack of imagination as the people in charge of safety at the track because my crash wasn’t strange or special.

All of that rock-solid earth should have been fronted by a few rows of tires, but it took getting my hand caught and twisted in the spinning steering wheel to realize it and suggest a fix. I was lucky. Writing this on the evening of what would have been Justin Wilson’s 45th birthday, I’m further reminded how it’s the truly sad and horrific stuff that tends to lead to real innovation.

We’ve come a long way since the days when chain link fencing represented the high-water mark of trackside safety features, although in the case of the 1967 Nurburgring 1000Km, it did a miraculously semi-OK job of catching Andrea de Adamich’s Alfa Romeo T33.  Rainer Schlegelmilch/Motorsport Images

Q: Given Hamilton’s qualifying pace at Hungary, might this signal the beginning of a noticeable upturn for Mercedes?

Aston Martin clearly seems to have gone off the boil after a very impressive start. Makes me wonder if all the effort that has gone into the new facilities has been a distraction, but what is thought to be the real reason?

I really think that de Vries’ departure was premature, but we also know that is how Dr. Marko operates. I’ve read that some in the F1 community also believe that it was premature, and Tsunoda had some very positive thoughts about the detail of de Vries’ feedback. So, what is the general consensus about these latest Dr. Marko maneuverings?

Since it has come to light that there are two or three other teams other than Andretti interested in being on the grid, this makes me worried as to how all this may turn out. Are his chances looking better or worse than before? Clearly he was right about the greed factor, but I also wonder if some of the naysayers are worried about being shown up if Andretti Autosport joins?

Don Hopings, Cathedral City, CA

CHRIS MEDLAND: I’d actually say it won’t be that noticeable in terms of Hamilton and Mercedes — the thing that they seem to do better than their rivals at the moment is be consistently third quickest, while the others generally rotate between P2 and much lower. That steady stream of points is what’s put Hamilton so close to Alonso in the drivers’ standings and opened up a buffer in second for Mercedes in the constructors’.

But Mercedes hasn’t spoken in terms of a major step forward at any stage, with a focus on more radical changes again for 2024, so I expect more of the same post-break.

Aston Martin, meanwhile, is still ahead of where it was last year. That’s the barometer to remember, after what was a huge step over the winter when the new factory will have been the biggest project. But I do think it’s a surprise how Alonso spoke of huge development potential and then it hasn’t delivered on that, so it just seems that Aston got a jump on a direction that McLaren and even Mercedes have since followed.

It was definitely premature for Nyck, but at the same time it wasn’t just about him. Marko felt he’d seen enough to suggest he wasn’t a better prospect than Tsunoda, and had two strong options in Daniel Ricciardo and Liam Lawson. The whole point of that team is to find future Red Bull drivers, not for them to just be good enough to be in F1, and I’d say it’s a move totally in keeping with what Marko has always done. It’s certainly not hurt Perez to have a bit more pressure from Ricciardo being a step closer to a return to that team.

As for Andretti, I think his chances look better than before. From little chats here and there and what I can piece together, his is the most complete and rounded setup that includes an established racing team and global automotive manufacturer. When compared to the others, it stands out as having the best chance. 

I don’t think anyone’s worried about being shown up, though. Haas needed Ferrari support to be competitive straight away, while no other team has come into F1 new in the past 20 years and been able to do that. It could well be that Andretti can be much closer or a midfield runner based on the prescriptive regulations we now have and how tight it’s made much of the field, but all the existing teams back their experience and welcome the sporting challenge. Just maybe not the financial one.