Taking too long? Close loading screen.
Connect with us

Sports

Renault urges F1 to act in wake of Honda departure

Published

on

Renault says Formula One must consider bringing forward its next change of engine regulations in the wake of Honda’s decision to withdraw from the championship.

Honda will leave F1 at the end of the 2021 season, citing its desire to focus resources on zero-emission technology. Their departure will leave Red Bull and Alpha Tauri with just three options to choose from for its supply for 2022 and beyond – Renault, Ferrari or Mercedes.

Although there is a complete overhaul of technical regulations in 2022, there is no new rules around power units until 2026. F1 motorsport boss Ross Brawn has admitted it is unlikely any new manufacturer will enter the series until those rules come into force.

Renault F1 boss Cyril Abiteboul thinks Honda’s decision to leave means that date needs to be reconsidered.

“I want to be very clear that we take no satisfaction in the Honda situation,” Abiteboul told Autosport. “We need to call it the way it is, it’s not a positive development for F1.

“We want an F1 with car makers, with OEMs, with engine suppliers, and being down to three engine manufacturers is not a positive development.

“We need to draw some clear conclusions from this situation, and it’s something I’ve been urging the governing body to look at more carefully. The engine situation is simply unsustainable. In particular from an economic perspective, but also from a technology perspective.

“I am not sure we can afford this perception. Either we’re capable of changing this perception of the current engine architecture, or probably we need to fast track the adoption of a new architecture, so that we get in a better place in terms of perception again.

“I would expect that this development triggers some harder thinking about the scheduling of the next generation of power trains.”

Honda’s current stint as an engine manufacturer started in 2015, one year after the introduction of the V6 turbo engines. It started a long way off the pace and was unable to ever match the class-leading Mercedes engine, although Honda scored three wins in 2019 with Red Bull. It has another, one each from Red Bull and Alpha Tauri, this year.

Abiteboul thinks Honda’s plight highlights why manufacturers would be so unwilling to commit to a new F1 project, with high costs and no guarantee of being competitive in the short-term.

“The entry ticket is so high in terms of costs, but also in terms of technology. Even if you spend an awful lot it’s going to take you a while before you get there. We’ve seen a demonstration of that [at Renault], although obviously now we’re feeling a bit better.

“But you could be standing on an island and saying it’s all good and fine because we’ve crossed the sea, but that sea is simply too wide and too hard for the sustainability of F1.

“And we need to have more people on that island where we are right now. So we need to do something, we need to think harder about the environmental sustainability of the engine, about the economic sustainability of the engine.

“There has been a bit that has been done, but it’s not enough. We need to be harder on that. Just like we’ve done a lot on the chassis side in the last few months, we need to hit very hard on the engine side if we don’t want F1 to be hurt on this aspect.”

Source

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sports

Augusta National hosts GameDay during Masters

Published

on

ESPN’s College GameDay Built By the Home Depot show has originated from dozens of college campuses across the country since 1993.

On Saturday, Nov. 14, the show will combine two of sport’s greatest traditions — college football and the Masters.

ESPN announced on Tuesday that College GameDay will originate from Augusta National Golf Club, which is hosting the postponed Masters Tournament on Nov. 12-15.

Top matchups that day are No. 9 Wisconsin at No. 13 Michigan and No. 2 Alabama at LSU.

“Any time College GameDay travels to a new destination it’s special, and the opportunity to be on the grounds of Augusta National Golf Club during the Masters is extraordinary,” said Jimmy Pitaro, chairman, ESPN and Sports Content. “As this iconic event coincides with the college football season for the first time, we look forward to getting fans ready for a football Saturday, while also showcasing the Masters and the greatest golfers in the world.”

Longtime ESPN hosts Rece Davis, Lee Corso, Kirk Herbstreit, Desmond Howard and others will broadcast from the par-3 course from 9 a.m. to noon ET.

In its 13th year at the Masters, ESPN will once again televise the first and second rounds from 1 to 5:30 p.m. on Nov. 12-13. There will also be expanded coverage on ESPN+, including exclusive practice-round coverage on Nov. 10-11.

Golf fans will also be able to watch Featured Holes coverage on ESPN+ on holes 4, 5 and 6 in each of the four rounds of the Masters.

Source

Continue Reading

Sports

Trump Hasn’t Gained Ground Since The Debate, And He’s Running Out Of Time

Published

on

One question we posed after the last presidential debate was, Will the presidential race tighten?

Since its peak on Oct. 19, Joe Biden’s lead over President Trump in national polls has narrowed from 10.7 percentage points to 9.4 points, while Biden’s popular vote margin in our presidential forecast also shrank from 8.4 points to 7.9 points. Although, as you can see in the chart below, Biden’s odds have been relatively stable.

So what gives? Is the race tightening? And, if it is, why is our forecast different from our national polling average?

Well, two things. First, we’re still expecting some tightening toward Trump in our forecast, so we’re pricing that in a little in our model. And second, the forecast is mostly based on state polls, which have been more consistent with an 8-point Biden lead than the 9-to-10-point Biden lead we’ve seen nationally. (Remember, if used properly, state polls give you a more accurate projection of the national popular vote than national polls do, which is why our forecast relies on them so heavily!)

But let’s unpack the latest polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the last presidential debate to better answer that question of just how much the race is tightening. Overall, we have six national surveys and eight battleground-state polls, and on average, these 14 polls show essentially no change from before the debate.

Not much has changed since the debate

State and national polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster

Biden lead
Pollster Now Before change
MI Gravis Marketing +13 +9 +4
PA Gravis Marketing +7 +3 +4
PA InsiderAdvantage -3 +3 -6
PA Reuters/Ipsos +5 +4 +1
TX NYT Upshot/Siena -4 -3 -1
TX Data for Progress +1 +1 0
WI Gravis Marketing +11 +8 +3
WI Reuters/Ipsos +9 +8 +1
US IBD/TIPP +7 +5 +2
US Morning Consult +9 +9 0
US Rasmussen Reports -1 +3 -4
US RMG Research +7 +8 -1
US SurveyMonkey +6 +6 0
US Yahoo News/YouGov +12 +11 +1
Average 0

Source: Polls

In fact, the post-debate polls have arguably been pretty good for Biden. Gravis Marketing, for instance, last tested Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in July, but now finds Biden in better shape in all three states, including double-digit leads in Michigan and Wisconsin. Meanwhile, Ipsos and The New York Times Upshot/Siena College found essentially no movement in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. Most national polls also showed little to no change. International Business Daily/TIPP’s five-day nationwide tracking poll had shown Biden declining, but it has recently found his lead back up in the high single digits.

There may have been a bit of tightening before the debate, but at this point, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of the race tightening since the debate. In fact, only two polls found clear, negative shifts for Biden, and they both come from pollsters that might have a particular interest in casting the president’s chances in a positive light.

First, a new InsiderAdvantage survey sponsored by the Center for American Greatness, a conservative media think tank, gave Trump a 3-point lead in Pennsylvania, which marks a 6-point swing in margin from its previous poll in mid-October. We, of course, can’t discount that this might be the case, but the ideological leanings of the pollster’s sponsor do give us pause. Similarly, a national poll from Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research found Trump ahead by 1 point, a 4-point shift from its last survey. But Rasmussen has a well-known GOP house effect, or put another way, it consistently shows better results for Republican candidates compared with other polling firms.

We choose to be very inclusive when it comes to our forecast, so we toss almost everything into the polling kitchen sink. But, on the whole, these recent polls may indicate some post-debate widening in the race rather than tightening, especially if you take the two quasi-partisan polls with a small pinch of salt (which we’d recommend).

Source

Continue Reading

Sports

The Cases Where Amy Coney Barrett’s Presence On The Supreme Court Could Make A Difference Immediately

Published

on

It’s official: Amy Coney Barrett will be the country’s next Supreme Court justice. She was confirmed by a 52 to 48 vote margin, and will be sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House tonight — just in time for Election Day.

Barrett’s ascension to the court was incredibly swift — her confirmation hearings started less than a month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, and this is the closest to an election a Supreme Court confirmation vote has been held. Notably, though, despite this accelerated timeline, Barrett emerged relatively unscathed from her confirmation hearings. This is quite a feat considering both the partisan nature of the hearings and the looming questions over whether the rush to confirm her jeopardizes the court’s legitimacy.

Barrett’s confirmation is incredibly consequential, too, as she will likely shift the center of gravity away from Chief Justice John Roberts and toward the right edge of the court’s conservative wing, which could potentially result in rulings that are significantly outside the mainstream of public opinion.

We won’t have to wait long to see how Barrett rules, either. She faces a slew of hot-button cases right off the bat, including a dispute over religious liberty exemptions, a challenge to the Affordable Care Act and several cases involving controversial Trump administration policies — not to mention any election-related fights that make their way to the court in the next few weeks, plus the fact that Mississippi recently asked the Supreme Court to consider its 15-week abortion ban, which directly challenges Roe v. Wade.

Why Barrett is poised to remake the Supreme Court

As we’ve written before, it’s hard to know exactly how a nominee to the Supreme Court will rule until they’re actually sworn in and begin weighing in on cases. But we do have data on Barrett’s three years as a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and as you can see in the chart below, she was very conservative.

We looked at two separate analyses of her record on the court this month, and we found whether it was in regular opinions or in special en banc decisions in which the entire appeals court ruled together, she was consistently on the right-most edge — if not the most conservative judge on the bench. And she was especially likely to rule in a conservative direction on civil rights issues.

Those findings underscore the idea that Barrett is likely to be a reliable conservative vote on the court. And her confirmation is even more significant because she’s replacing one of the court’s stalwart liberals. If Barrett ends up being ideologically similar to Justice Samuel Alito, who is currently the second-most conservative justice on the Supreme Court, her replacement of Ginsburg could be one of the biggest ideological swings in modern court history.

In this scenario, Justice Brett Kavanaugh would replace Roberts as the court’s new median justice, which could lead to a significant rightward turn on the court, as Roberts is often the lone conservative justice to side with the liberals. He has cast several recent pivotal votes with the liberals, too, including a dispute in which the justices deadlocked 4-4 on whether to halt a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that allowed state officials to count ballots that arrive up to three days late. With Barrett on the court, though, Roberts would lose that “swing justice” role.

In the short term, that means election-related cases could have very different outcomes — even including a new iteration of the Pennsylvania case, which Republican officials recently brought back to the court. And in the long term, conservative legal advocates may respond by bringing even more ambitious cases, questioning long-held precedents.

The hearings could have gone much worse for Barrett — and the court

The idea of confirming anyone to replace Ginsburg before the election was quite unpopular only a few weeks ago. While it’s true that most Supreme Court confirmation hearings are pretty partisan these days, around the time Barrett was named as the nominee, a majority of Americans said they wanted the winner of the election to choose the next justice. And polling by the Economist in mid-October also found that Barrett was the most unpopular nominee in Supreme Court history.

Now, though, Americans may actually have warmed to the idea of Barrett joining the court before Election Day. According to tracking polls by Morning Consult, support for confirming Barrett rose from 37 percent when she was nominated to 51 percent after the hearings were over and a Gallup poll conducted during Barrett’s confirmation hearings found a similar result. Notably, according to that Gallup poll, this was substantially higher than the share who wanted the Senate to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 (41 percent), and is even slightly higher than the support previous nominees since 1987 have received on average (48 percent).

Barrett’s confirmation wasn’t that divisive

Share of Americans who said they were or were not in favor of the Senate confirming each Supreme Court nominee

Nominee In favor Not in favor No opinion
Amy Coney Barrett 51% 46% 3%
Brett Kavanaugh 41 37 22
Neil Gorsuch 45 32 23
Merrick Garland 52 29 19
Elena Kagan 46 32 22
Sonia Sotomayor 54 28 19
Samuel Alito 50 25 25
Harriet Miers 44 36 20
John Roberts 59 22 19
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 53 14 33
Clarence Thomas 52 17 31
Robert Bork 31 25 44
Average for previous nominees 48 27 25

Data was not available for Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Douglas Ginsburg.

Source: Gallup

To be sure, this isn’t universal support for Barrett’s confirmation. Partisan opinion on her confirmation is really divided — according to Gallup, only 15 percent of Democrats wanted the Senate to vote to confirm her, for instance. A deep partisan divide in support isn’t a good sign for the court in general either, as it can reinforce perceptions that the court is itself a partisan institution. But Barrett could have emerged a lot less popular from her hearing — which is why the level of support she does enjoy is pretty notable, especially when you consider most Americans agreed that she’d push the court to the right (54 percent in that Morning Consult poll).

Barrett will be faced with highly controversial cases immediately

Barrett could be immediately faced with tough decisions, too, including voting on the fate of ballot deadlines in several states. There are a number of important or even precedent-altering cases at stake, too, and considering that the Roberts court has already been overturning more precedents with slim 5-4 majorities than any other court in modern history, that trend could further accelerate with Barrett on the court.

The day after the election, for instance, the justices will hear a case in which they’re being asked to reconsider a 30-year-old religious liberty precedent. In that case, the justices will consider whether that precedent makes it too hard for religious people to sue for exemptions. The majority opinion in that precedent-setting case, Employment Division v. Smith, was actually written by the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, but four of the current conservative justices have already signaled they may be willing to strike it down. Barrett could overrule it, and make it much easier for nondiscrimination provisions to be challenged by religious litigants.

And a week after the election, a case involving the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act will come before the court, in which the justices could declare the entire law invalid. Another important signal will be whether Barrett’s presence on the court gives conservatives a fourth vote to hear a case involving Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which the state attorney general described as an “ideal vehicle” for “clarifying” how the court’s precedents on abortion should be interpreted. There are also several important Trump administration policies on the docket a little later this term — including the administration’s attempt to exclude undocumented citizens from the census count used for redistricting, and whether Trump unconstitutionally commandeered Congress’s power when he diverted Defense Department funds to expand the border wall with Mexico. Given that several recent Supreme Court decisions on Trump administration policies — including an attempt to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census — split 5-4, with Roberts casting a deciding vote with the liberals against the Trump administration, Barrett’s presence on the court could make a decision in favor of Trump more likely.1

Barrett made it through her confirmation hearings mostly without controversy, but we’ll see whether that lasts. It won’t take long to get a sense for just how far the Supreme Court’s conservatives are willing to go now that they hold a decisive majority for the first time in decades.

Source

Continue Reading

Trending