5219 replies to this topic

[Rad-oh-yeah?]

Prete i ucenjuju oni koji su kod Bernija imali povlasten status jer zele to da zadrze i dalje.

[Rad-oh-yeah?]

Ziv je Manor, umro nije (doduse samo model za vazdusni tunel)...
 

Ross Brawn 'excited' by results from F1's aero research
Laurence Edmondson
F1 Editor


Formula One teams have agreed to provide confidential aerodynamic data to Ross Brawn's technical department in order to help shape the future of the sport's regulations.

Since joining F1's management structure as managing director of motorsports, Brawn has built a research team to better understand the impact of car aerodynamics on racing. The department is headed up by former Williams head of aerodynamics Jason Somerville and has been working behind the scenes with CFD models of Manor's 2017 car, which was developed to the current regulations but never raced due to the team's collapse over the winter.

Now that the 2017 season has finished, F1's current teams have also agreed to provide their CFD data from 2017 so that the project can continue to develop a better understanding of why F1 cars struggle to follow each other.

"We've bought the geometry of the old Manor 2017 car because we wanted to have a generic model that we could use in CFD modelling to at least give us a basis," Brawn explained. "We know the Manor car is not a front-line F1 car but the geometry is there for the 2017 regulations and that's all working there.

"We have a model of two cars running together and we've carried out all the initial work. Now the season has finished, the teams are going to start giving us their 2017 cars to have more representative models to look at. We've been putting in place the confidentiality agreements with the teams and they are going to start providing us with representative models to run in our CFD program.

"I'd say the team of people we are putting together is about 75% complete, there's a couple more to join in the new year, and that's all going very well. I'm quite excited about it and there's things that we'll be able to show you early next year that will demonstrate what we are trying to do."

A major change in aerodynamic regulations ahead of the 2017 season saw the cars become significantly faster this year, but data from tyre supplier Pirelli revealed that the amount of overtaking halved compared to 2016.

As a general rule, the more dependent cars are on aerodynamics, the more performance they lose while running in the turbulent air of a car in front and the more difficult it becomes to overtake. While the issue is nothing new in Formula One, the current research project has allowed Brawn's technical team to dig deeper than ever before with CFD tools that are more advanced that the teams'.

"One of the interesting things for us is that we don't have the limitations on the CFD technology and capacity that the teams do with the regulations," Brawn said. "They have quite strict rules about how much CFD they can do and what type of processes they can use.

"We don't have that and it's slightly opened our eyes in a way as to where F1 is and where the world is -- and the world has overtaken F1 by a long way in terms of CFD. So the capacity we have and ability to do what we need to do is far in excess of any F1 team."

[Rad-oh-yeah?]

MEDLAND: The year of what might have been
Tuesday, 19 December 2017
Chris Medland / Images by Hone/LAT; Mauger/LAT
 



When people look back at the 2017 Formula 1 season in years to come, they'll see a campaign that was wrapped up long before the final round, that delivered a fourth consecutive championship double for Mercedes, and that appears on paper to be so similar to what had gone before.

That certainly doesn't tell the full story.

If there is an apt word to sum up the season, it is 'potential'. There was the potential for a titanic battle; the potential to see two of the finest ever scrapping it out on track in relatively equal machinery; the potential for the Mercedes dominance to come to an end; the potential for a youngest ever world champion; the potential for the sport to have a fresh start.

On many counts, that potential went unfulfilled. But it should still be seen as a landmark season for the sport that could lead to an even brighter future.

Liberty Media's takeover and early influence will be covered at another time, but it added to an air of expectation at the start of the season. New regulations meant a chance to shake-up the competitive order, with the increased influence of aerodynamics expected to work in Red Bull's favor.

But it was Ferrari that came out the blocks quickest. Sebastian Vettel's win in Australia – in a close if unspectacular race against Lewis Hamilton – suggested this really could be a classic year. Three wins and three second places from the opening six rounds gave Vettel a 25-point advantage leaving Monaco, so how did that situation turn into both championships being wrapped up by Mercedes with two races still in hand?

It would be too easy to simply point to Ferrari mistakes. A crucial spell late in the season is where the title slipped away, but that only proved so decisive because of the level Mercedes was performing at.

The W08 was dubbed "a diva" by both Hamilton and team boss Toto Wolff, but boy, was it a quick diva. Over those first six races, the Mercedes was on average nearly 0.15s quicker than the Ferrari over a qualifying lap; its biggest advantage being nearly half a second in Bahrain (below). By contrast, the two times a Ferrari was on pole, its margin was less than 0.1s on both occasions.



The signs were there from the start. A car of such raw performance needed taming, but a team of Mercedes' size and resources was always likely to improve as the year went on. While performance was one thing, reliability was a whole other story. Only once – Valtteri Bottas in Spain – did Mercedes suffer a retirement.

Ferrari's inability to match that record proved costly, but the Scuderia's five DNFs was still a clear improvement on the eight failures a year earlier. (Mercedes, by comparison, suffered only three DNFs in 2016, of which two were a result of the collision between Hamilton and former teammate Nico Rosberg in Barcelona).

The dynamic between the drivers was another reason the Silver Arrows proved so hard to beat. Hamilton felt comfortable in the team knowing he was its focal point. While not given de facto number one status, he was aware he had the ability to pull the team around him without needing to fear any political challenge from his new teammate. Hamilton was so confident that he knew by riskily giving Bottas back a position on the final lap in Hungary – with Vettel taking maximum points and Max Verstappen so close behind the second Mercedes — he was putting money in the bank. Ultimately, he never needed to call it in.

While Mercedes grew into the battle as the season went on, the pressure was starting to build on Ferrari as the potential for a first drivers' championship in a decade grew nearer. Vettel led by 14 points over the summer break, but two specific races really turned up the heat.

Hamilton knew how highly-strung Vettel was after their collision in Azerbaijan, where the German lost his head and drove into the side of his rival. It was a weakness Hamilton could play on if he remained consistent, so his performances in Belgium and Italy pushed Vettel to near breaking point.

Spa-Francorchamps was a masterful performance, with Vettel in the slightly quicker car but unable to find a way past the leading Mercedes. Hamilton's racecraft was of the highest quality, with Vettel's big chance - following a Safety Car restart late on (below) – being thwarted by Hamilton opting not to use full throttle on the run to Eau Rouge in order to cause Vettel to have to lift and lose momentum.



A dominant performance in Italy then meant Hamilton led the championship for the first time and his rival knew the importance of capitalizing on a golden opportunity in Singapore. The street circuit had long been earmarked as a Ferrari victory based on its Monaco pace, and Mercedes was only third quickest in qualifying behind the ever-improving Red Bulls.

Even after a stunning qualifying lap and safe in the knowledge he had the fastest car by some distance, Vettel was under pressure because he couldn't afford not to win given Hamilton's recent results. Vettel cracked.

A clean start would very likely have led to maximum points for the German, a result that single-handedly would have ensured an at-most 11-point margin between the two title contenders heading to Abu Dhabi based on the results that followed. Instead, Hamilton produced a stunning drive to take full advantage of Ferrari's double retirement, with three consecutive victories after the summer break representing a run of form reminiscent of Vettel's own march to his second, third and fourth Red Bull titles.

Vettel's failure to qualify in Malaysia and then retirement a week later in Japan were the final nails in the coffin, but without Singapore those issues would not have proven terminal to his title hopes. Ferrari built a car good enough to win the championship, but it needed a near-faultless year from both the team and the driver in much the same way Fernando Alonso produced in 2012. It didn't get it.

The knowledge that the Ferrari and Vettel combination had such potential drove Hamilton on to new heights from mid-season onward, in a display that his own boss described as being "on another level."

"I think he made it into Formula 1 with great talent, ambition and hard work," Wolff said after the final race. "Through the five years he has been with us he has developed as a human being every year. After the rough ride we had last year, he's come back very strong, very rounded, very secure into the 2017 season. This is the main difference I have seen and it has made him perform in an outstanding way in the car."

With tracks often suiting one team or the other, a wheel-to-wheel battle between Hamilton and Vettel was rare. It all came down to dealing with the pressure of taking advantage of the opportunities presented and remaining calm and composed. One driver did that better than the other this year. Mercedes gave Hamilton the environment to thrive, while Ferrari closed ranks from the opening race.

Ferrari didn't get the best out of Vettel, but Mercedes did get it out of Hamilton. So many factors add up to a successful season, but in such a close battle, that was a key one.

[Rad-oh-yeah?]

Analysis: How the Halo will change F1 in 2018



By: Adam Cooper, F1 Reporter
1 hour ago


Formula 1 teams have started receiving the first definitive examples of the halo in recent weeks, giving them the first proper chance to assess the device's impact on the 2018 cars.

Every Halo run on track up to now has been a 'fake', representing only the shape of the design.

The testing gave teams some feedback on the aerodynamic impact, and in Abu Dhabi we even saw some early attempts at directing the airflow, within the permitted limits.

The drivers and the FIA also had an opportunity to assess the effect on visibility and cockpit access.

Three manufacturers, from the UK, Germany and Italy, have been granted the right to produce the Halos by the FIA. Teams decide from which of the three they source theirs, and how many they want – with prices starting from around €15,000.

What the teams could only estimate until now was the structural impact on their cars. Everyone has had to design and build their 2018 chassis to meet the requirements of the FIA's stringent new Halo static load tests, designed to replicate the impact of a wheel assembly.

The teams have had to not only fit the Halo mountings but also bolster the structure around the cockpit.

"There are two tests," said Force India technical director Andy Green. "They're incredibly tough to pass, and if you don't pass them, you don't race.

"Basically they're trying to push the Halo off from just to the side of the driver, with a big hydraulic ram. It's supposed to deform and fail, and the chassis has to remain completely intact, with not a single point of failure.

"You have to break the Halo to prove that the chassis is the strongest part.

"It's been the focus of our efforts for some time. The introduction of it was so late, it caught everyone off guard.

"You're up against trying to design a chassis that doesn't fail, whilst something else is failing around it. It's incredibly difficult to predict how it interacts with the chassis, because it all moves and turns into a different shape.

"We've had a big team of people working on this. The frustrating thing is just the time that we've had to do it.

"If we'd known about this in March we'd have been in a much more comfortable position."

Force India passed the FIA tests on Monday, and the team is understood to be one of the first to do so.

More weight

On top of the crash testing, there is a direct impact on performance that could play a role next season. And that comes not from aerodynamics, but weight.

For 2017 the minimum weight limit went up from 702kg to 728kg to take into account wider cars and bigger wheels and tyres. For 2018 the FIA has added another 6kg, taking the limit to 734kg, to give some margin for the Halo.

However, the Halo, its mountings and the strengthening of the chassis that is now required has more than absorbed that increase.

"I think total installation weight is around 14-15kg," said Green. "About 9kg of that is the Halo, and there's 6kg of mounting, with all the brackets.

"The structure involved in mounting it is phenomenal, with lots of carbon, lots of metallic bits."

In recent years teams have found it easier to produce cars below the weight limit, leaving them with scope to use ballast to aid better distribution.

"I can't see our car having any ballast next year," said Green. "That impacts performance against the teams that can get ballast on their cars, who can spend the money and make the car lighter."

Some teams may have found a way to mount the Halo with less weight added to the chassis than Force India has, and those teams are likely to be the same ones who can afford to save weight elsewhere in the car.

"We've had to save weight as much as possible," said McLaren's Eric Boullier. "We [F1] keep putting things on the car. It's as heavy as a dead donkey, as we say in French.

"We're still in a luxury position, we have some ballast. The team is doing a good job of saving weight. You just have to work hard to make your car lighter.

"A lot of teams are struggling, but they already are struggling now [with the 2017 cars], so it's going to be worse for them."

Pressure on drivers again

The change will make driver weight a bigger issue for the first time since 2013, although some have still complained about struggling to hit the limit during the V6 hybrid era.

Prior to that, taller drivers like Mark Webber regularly voiced concerns about constantly being encouraged to slim down by their teams, questioning the impact on their health.

"With heavier drivers it's going to be harder for the teams." said Green. "It's a decision they make when they employ their drivers.

"Or the teams spend the money and make the car lighter – they do have a choice."

It's clearly going to be an issue for some of the taller drivers on the grid, as it was in the past.

"We are aware of it, there is talk about it," Nico Hulkenberg noted in Abu Dhabi. "It's a political matter and the teams need to agree to change the weight, but some don't want to.

"For me as a taller and heavier driver it's definitely going to be a bit of a penalty.

"The team have already told me there might be some overweight issues for me, and asked me if I could go to a diet. The answer was no!"

Romain Grosjean added: "My car is already very much on the limit if not overweight this year.

"If the Halo is really that heavy, it's going to be a problem. I'll have to lose a bone! Honestly, I'm underweight, and I would be heavier if I had the choice."

Commercial impact

The arrival of the Halo could influence other areas for teams beyond the technical side, as it potentially alters sponsorship opportunities.

"You're not allowed to paint the inside of it, because they don't want the drivers distracted by a particular colour," said McLaren's Zak Brown. "But the outside of the Halo, you can brand.

"It will create extra exposure, but will probably also restrict some of the visibility around the driver.

"The visor is a very valuable spot – that may now become the Halo [instead].

"It all depends on how they're going to address the camera angles and the in-car cameras, whether we can make up some of that visual impairment that we think is going to happen."

Brown has also dismissed suggestions that the backlash from fans towards the Halo will put sponsors off.

"It's early but it will be quite visible, and sponsors want visibility," he said. "I don't see anyone saying 'I don't want to be on the Halo because I don't like the Halo'.

"If that's a spot that generates commercial exposure, then they'll be happy."

[Rad-oh-yeah?]

FIA pokusava da podigne znacaj F2 sampionata:
 

The FIA has changed Formula 1 superlicence rules for 2018, to make it tougher for drivers to participate in grand prix free practice sessions.

Previously, drivers only had to complete 300km (186 miles) in a "representative Formula 1 car" over two days and answer questions on sporting regulations to qualify for a 'free practice only' superlicence, so long as the FIA adjudged them sufficiently capable based on their prior single-seater experience.

To apply for subsequent licences, drivers only needed their team to demonstrate it had briefed them properly on the sporting rules.

From next season, drivers will also need to have completed six races in Formula 2, or accumulated 25 superlicence points in eligible championships during the previous three years, to qualify for their first F1 free practice superlicence.

Drivers reapplying subsequently need to demonstrate they have completed a full season in F2 or amassed 25 superlicence points during a three-year period.

Previous requirements concerning prior F1 mileage, knowledge of the rules, and FIA judgement that a driver "must have consistently demonstrated outstanding ability in single-seater formula cars" remain in force, under article five of Appendix L in the FIA's international sporting code.

Of the extra drivers who appeared in F1 practice sessions during 2017, only Force India reserve Alfonso Celis Jr would have been excluded had the new rules been in place.

Although Toro Rosso practice driver Sean Gelael did not have 25 superlicence points, his F2 experience was sufficient.

The FIA approved further changes to its superlicence qualification structure in September, awarding more points to drivers who succeed in F2 and IndyCar and downgrading the World Endurance Championship, Formula E and European Formula 3.

The FIA has made a concerted effort to better structure and regulate the awarding of superlicences in grand prix racing since Max Verstappen graduated to F1 as a 17-year-old in 2015.

[Rad-oh-yeah?]

The FIA is to clamp down on Formula 1 teams using steering angle to gain an aerodynamic advantage via the use of clever front suspension systems.

A Technical Directive sent by the Charlie Whiting last week made it clear that the governing body believes that in 2017 some teams designed their suspension and steering systems to lower the front ride height in cornering, potentially providing an aerodynamic benefit and hence increasing grip.

Whiting acknowledges that a ride height change under steering lock is normal, but he says that from now on, it cannot exceed 5mm – and that it's up to the teams to provide proof that the systems of their 2018 cars will comply.

The matter was discussed in detail with technical directors at the most recent FIA Technical Regulations Meeting in London, where there were conflicting views as to how much influence suspension should henceforth be allowed to have on aerodynamics.

Sources indicate that Red Bull wanted to retain the freedom to develop suspension under the current regulations, while Ferrari was supportive of tighter restrictions.

Mercedes is understood to have suggested that active suspension should be allowed, with FIA-prescribed software and hardware.

It was three weeks after that meeting that the Technical Directive was sent to the teams, all of whom are already far advanced with their 2018 designs.

Whiting wrote: "It became clear during the season that some teams were designing the suspension and steering systems in an attempt to change the front ride height of the car.

"Whilst some change is inevitable when the steering wheel is moved from lock-to-lock, we suspect that the effect of some systems was a far from incidental change of ride height.

"We also believe that any non-incidental change of ride height is very likely to affect the aerodynamic performance of the car."

Whiting referenced a 24-year-old FIA International Court of Appeal ruling on suspension as a precedent for the interpretation of the key F1 technical regulation that concerns aerodynamic influence.

One section of the regulations reads "any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited," and that may be the wording that the FIA is using to help to justify its stance.

In the latest Technical Directive, Whiting concluded: "It is our view that such steering systems should be treated in the same way as suspension systems, i.e. that the 1993 ICA ruling should apply when assessing compliance with Article 3.8 of the Technical Regulations.

"Hence, any change of front ride height when the steering wheel is moved from lock-to-lock should be wholly incidental.

"We will therefore be asking you to provide us with all relevant documentation showing what effect steering has on the front ride height of your car and, in order to satisfy us that any effect is incidental, we believe that ride height should change by no more than 5.0mm when the steering wheel is moved from lock-to-lock."

It remains to be seen what the impact of the Technical Directive will be, given that teams are so far along with their 2018 cars, and thus might already be committed to their suspension and steering layouts.

The real test may come only if the matter reaches the FIA stewards on a grand Prix weekend, when they will have to make a ruling.

In effect, teams now have to decide whether they can afford to take a risk and carry on with their intended designs, or build their cars to the new interpretation.

One team insider told Motorsport.com: "I suspect it can't be policed anyway, and teams will just ignore it. It is just the FIA's 'view,' it's not actually the 'law'. Nothing will change."

[Rad-oh-yeah?]

 

RACER understands Liberty presented the teams with a multi-page document regarding its plans for the sport in the weeks before Christmas as a starting point for discussions about F1's future direction

[/13/Ален Шмит/]

 

 

RACER understands Liberty presented the teams with a multi-page document regarding its plans for the sport in the weeks before Christmas as a starting point for discussions about F1's future direction

 

 

Negde sam pročitao (moguće da je na Motorsport.com) da je neko već video koncepte bolida predviđene za sledeću aero-revoluciju te da su mu prvi komentari bili "vasionski brod" i slično.

 

Opet se planira nešto poput 2009. aero-revolucije ali sada će barem bolidi biti ugodni za oko. Bron je jednom tokom sezone rekao da će ukinuti preticanje uz DRS ali to će zahtevati nekakvu aero-revoluciju a razvijanje takvog bolida rade u bivšem Manorovom aero tunelu.

 

Kako je krenulo, bolidi će na koncu ličiti onima iz Pantelijinog OPUSa (samo s dužim međuosovinskim razmakom)

 

 

 

[Rad-oh-yeah?]

Ovo na fotkama lici na nove Indikar bolide.

 

[/13/Ален Шмит/]

Upravo tako, bolid budućnosti iz OPUSa ima stranice poput LMP1 prototipa, niske retro noseve (ko sada li elegantnije odrađene), zadnji spojler odrađen u stilu ovdašnjih F1 i Indikar bolida (odišu brzinom i izgledaju agresivno) ali isto tako ultradugačku podnicu koja verovatno privlači bolid asfaltu ko neki neodijumski magnet ili nešto. A celi paket ima eleganciju dizajna Indikar bolida.

 

Mislim da će sledeća aero-revolucija doći uz nove PJ 2020/21 godine. Sklop odnosno pakovanje buduće PJ će uveliko odrediti dizajn poklopca motora i bokova, što će FIA olakšati implementaciju nove aero-revolucije.

[alberto.ascari]

Ovo na fotkama lici na nove Indikar bolide.

Ovde imam lični problem, bolid prestaje da izgleda kao pravi klasični open wheeler.

Ne bih voleo da F1 isprati ovaj trend.

[Rad-oh-yeah?]

??? Ne znam u cemu je problem, ovo za narednu godinu ne izgleda nista zatvorenije otpozadi nego danasnja F1.

 

[Rad-oh-yeah?]

Most open-wheel series will have Halo by 2020
2018 F1 season
2nd January 2018, 11:25
Keith Collantine


The Halo device which is being introduced for the 2018 F1 season will be ubiquitous in worldwide motor sport within two years.

Formula Two and some Formula Three series will also use Halo for the first time this year. David Lapworth, technical director for Prodrive and safety advisor to the FIA, says rolling out the new forward head protection structure to junior categories quickly has been a priority.

“If we can get things like the Halo to be adopted, even in the very focused area of Formula One, that is an achievement,” Lapworth told the FIA’s Auto magazine. “Involving people from the different disciplines in the process can only help. The more people help spread the word and convince the doubters about the science and the work that has gone into it, the better.”

In the research which led to Halo the FIA considered how fatal accidents in championships outside F1 might have been prevented, such as those of Henry Surtees in Formula Two and Justin Wilson in IndyCar.

“We need to recognise that the roll-out is as important as the pioneering,” said Lapworth. “It’s great to have the top-level formulae like F1 being able to engineer new solutions and push the boundaries, but in terms of saving lives the roll-out is where the big numbers come.”

“There are 22 or 24 guys in an F1 race at the weekend, but there are thousands racing in different categories worldwide. So that’s the area that is getting more focused through the discussions we’re having. Let’s consider not just what F1 needs, but how can we make this universal and how can we make it happen as quickly as possible.”

IndyCar, which is not an FIA-run championship, is considering its own cockpit head protection solution but has said it will not use Halo. Formula E intends to introduce the Halo on for its 2018/19 season and most series should have it by 2020.

However Lapworth says there is still progress to be made in accelerating the introduction of new safety technologies to junior championships.

“If there’s an area where we’re getting better, but we can get even better, it would be in reducing the time from the seed of the idea to the implementation. And not just the implementation in F1, but in all the disciplines.”

“Things like the HANS [Head And Neck Safety] device, which we now take for granted 12 years on, probably took 10 years to get from the first tests to widespread adoption in motor sport disciplines in every country.”


2018 Formula Two car launch


Formula Three Americas Championship car launch

[Rad-oh-yeah?]

The Nurburgring is in discussions with Formula 1 bosses regarding a return to the calendar in 2019.

Ongoing financial challenges and a change of ownership has prevented the circuit from hosting F1 grands prix since 2013.

But when Mirco Markfort took over as chief executive officer in March 2016, the venue began formulating a plan to entice F1 back.

Liberty Media is keen to retain European heartland races on the calendar, with the French Grand Prix returning this year for the first time since 2008.

The German Grand Prix is also back after a one-year hiatus, with Hockenheim playing host.

Markfort is keen for F1 to return to the Nurburgring, which had previously alternated with Hockenheim in holding the Germa GP.

He is believed to have met with F1 chief Chase Carey at the season-ending Abu Dhabi GP to discuss the possibility and talks have since continued.

"We really would appreciate to have Formula 1 back at the Nurburgring in 2019," Markfort told Autosport.

"This will only be possible if we take meaningful economic surrounding conditions into consideration.

"We are able to confirm that there had been conversations with the owner of the Formula 1, Liberty Media."

The Nurburgring has hosted 40 grands prix, the first of which took place in 1951 on its infamous Nordschleife layout.

It lost its place on the calendar following Niki Lauda's fiery accident in 1976, but F1 returned on the shortened version of the track for 1984-85 and then again from 1995 as Michael Schumacher's successes caused F1's popularity to surge in Germany.

The Nurburgring faces stiff competition to secure a place on the calendar, with F1 commercial chief Sean Bratches saying last September he had received around 40 expressions of interest from potential venues over the course of the year.

It is believed Liberty's priority is to secure another race in the United States, with Las Vegas, New York or Miami its preferred options.

[Rad-oh-yeah?]

F1 would survive without Ferrari - Brawn
Thursday, 11 January 2018
By Chris Medland / Image by LAT




Formula 1's managing director of motorsports Ross Brawn believes the sport would survive if Ferrari were to quit amid dissent over future regulations.

Ferrari president Sergio Marchionne has been extremely vocal since F1 – under new owners Liberty Media – and the FIA announced initial plans for a new power unit in 2021. Marchionne focused on the lack of power unit uniqueness that the latest proposal would offer, but his threat to pull Ferrari out of the sport after 2020 also comes against a backdrop of Liberty wanting to come up with a more equal model for revenue distribution.
 
Asked if Formula 1 could survive losing Ferrari, Brawn told Sky Sports: "Formula 1 will always survive.

"We all see it. We see world champions that leave the sport and sometimes we've had tragedies in Formula 1. We've always had this, 'Where the sport will go?' And it recovers. It carries on. It will carry on whether I'm in it, whether Liberty is in it, whether Ferrari is in it, they will carry on.

"Will it be better if that happens? I don't think so. I think it will be better if we can find solutions with Ferrari but it has to be around the right parameters. We can't have a situation where we do anything that a team wants, any team – Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, we can't run the sport just based on what the teams want."

Brawn believes Ferrari's complaints surround workable issues, but insists Liberty has limits it is not willing to go beyond even if that doesn't match Ferrari's demands.

"I think they're saying they have important elements in Formula 1 that have to be maintained. I think we've got common ground on a lot of that. They are part of the DNA of Formula 1. We don't want to lose that, but it has to be in the right circumstances. There are boundaries to what we feel is correct for the sport, and hopefully they can work it."