Franz Tost confused by Sauber engine call
- Published on 07 Nov 2016 17:08
-
- By: Dominik Wilde
Toro Rosso boss Franz Tost has said that he doesn't know why Sauber have opted to run year-old engines next season.
The Swiss team were struggling financially at the beginning of the year, but were taken over during the summer months, securing their future.
However, they have since decided to take 2016-spec Ferrari engines for next year, a move they insist is not financially motivated.
It is also a decision which has perplexed Tost, whose Toro Rosso team have struggled with un-developed year-old Ferrari engines this year.
"I don’t know all the reasons and background stories why Sauber decided to go with this year’s engine," he said. "I wouldn’t like to be in this situation because it’s a big disadvantage on the performance side to run with last year’s engine."
There had previously been moves to block engine manufacturers from supplying older engines, but although Tost sees the disadvantage they give, he does think it is something which should remain on the table for everyone.
"From the regulation side, I think it should be kept open because a one year old engine is most-often cheaper than the newest specification," he said. "From the performance side the team anyway is disadvantaged, therefore, the regulation should allow it."
Meanwhile, Toro Rosso will return to using current specification Renault engines in 2017.
1
Replies (8)
Login to replydenis1304
Posts: 284
Toro Rosso uses 1 year old Ferrari engines not Renault
www.f1today.net/en(...)-spec-ferrari-units
calle.itw
Posts: 8,527
Yup, and they'll revert to using up to date Renault engines next year, which may or may not be rebadged.
Hemex
Posts: 1,305
Hadn't thought of that one yet. Imagine that, RBR with TAG Heuer and STR with Renault... Tricky thing.
denis1304
Posts: 284
Toro Rosso uses 1 year old Ferrari engines not Renault
denis1304
Posts: 284
sorry for double post
Ram Samartha
Posts: 1,172
How can you get such a basic common knowledge fact wrong in a story and still hit the publish button?
Hemex
Posts: 1,305
By not double checking your own text because you're underpaid as it is. Proofreading costs money! And there's no real penalty, except a few readers complaining every now and then. But who cares!
Ram Samartha
Posts: 1,172
Sorry for the long post. I'm a US F1 fan for over 20 years (a rare thing over here) so I really enjoy good stories and commentary about the sport. The point being, don't you enjoy reading articles that are well written and proofed at least by the writer? That's the bare minimum of writing articles for publication. If you are lucky enough to be able to write and publish articles about F1 AND get paid for it, I tip my glass to you. No matter how much or little the pay is, it's a basic contract with your readers that you will provide them with well written and factually correct articles about a sport we love. I like this site because I can get most of the same stories I can get on just about any other F1 site, but in format that I find easy to navigate and they are the kinds of short summary stories on topics that I like in F1. And it's clear the comments are by real fans. But when you have typos and incorrect statements even in your headings, basically it's just plain sloppy. That's the first thing everyone sees, and then when dare to read the article you come across 2 or 3 typos or incorrect statements, it draws in to question the value of the site as being the best provider of news and articles on topics we all love. I have recently come across 2 other new F1 sites that have same exact list of stories that this site has, listed in the same order and with the same typos in the headings. What's up with that? I like this site a lot, but sometimes it is difficult to even understand complete sentences in the article. If English is not your first language, I understand and leeway is given, but how many readers of this article did not know that STR was using Ferrari engines this year? Really? Apparently only the author. The penalty of poor journalism is simply loss of credibility. I'm really not trying to go off on anybody, it's just with a journalism news site, the bare minimum for submission of articles is the writer reads and corrects whatever s/he wrote. Perhaps I am expecting too much from this site and should go to one of the other major sites, but I actually like this one the best, aside from missing the stuff a basic spell checker would catch. Rant over. Sorry if anyone is offended, that is not my intent.