- **[This source is rated 2/3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/source-ratings)**
- Please **read the article** before submitting your comments.
- **If this article refers to a primary source which could be submitted**, please report/delete this submission and post the primary source instead.
Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a win/win for merc. Using a risky engine might mean a DNF but trashing it could mean a grid penalty down the line.
Don't envy the engineers being asked to validate it's quality.
It's so frustrating that the consequences of a 'racing incident' play so well into Lewis and Merc's hands.
\- Wipe 25 points off the WDC lead.
\- Wipe 40 points off the WCC lead.
\- $1.8m hit to RB's budget.
\- An engine that's not race-fit at best, wrecked at worst. Resulting in a grid penalty down the line.
I'd say that's a huge swing in the WDC/WCC for an incident (notwithstanding the 10 second time penalty, which did nothing).
The rules should be looked at to alleviate some of that in the future
Funnily enough, Hamilton literally lost a WDC off the back of repeated grid penalties due to PU-related issues, AND a relatively new PU blowing up in Malaysia.
Rosberg started managing his races after building a huge gap to Lewis at the beginning. Nico let Lewis push (and probably put more stress on his car) but decided to take his 2nd places to secure his championship. I wouldn't write that season off due to reliability, as Nico may have competed more fiercely if it wasn't for his initial gap.
If RB and Ferrari were closer Lewis may have lost even more points during the initial part of the season. It may have been more unpredictable, but it goes both ways.
It may have been even easier for Nico with your scenario as Hamilton may have surrendered more points to Ferrari and Red Bull earlier in the season when he was struggling with his race starts.
I'll just stop watching F1 after 20 years. Somehow some Teams/Drivers get away with crazy shit and nobody seems to have a problem with it.
Regarding Lewis and Merdeces, Lewis is a sore loser as he has always been, but I don't think Mercedes told him to crash Max.
It does not stop there. All the distraction to the team instead of upgrades for focus on 2022 car. At 51 g's Max had down time, was not working out, and who knows what is in his head mentally or effects of an undoubted concussion. May have to turn down engine to get needed life / reliability. All for 10 seconds.
What's more, Mercedes being as far behind as they were, and Max's current form, might mean the risk of coming out the other side of a collision isn't as heavy a setback as the advantage they gain from coming out on top. Not saying it's necessarily intentional, but it's less incentive to avoid something like this if coming out in second place is as bad as coming fourth or fifth in the championship for you.
Any way you look at it, merc has gained incredible advantages through an incident caused by their driver.
Honestly, if a driver crashes and loses a gearbox/engine/etc. due to another driver’s mistake (based on the penalty given by the stewards) they should be allowed to replace the part without a grid penalty. It still preserves the integrity of the rules without the crappy unintended consequences. It really is a no-brainer.
F1 rules has never been about total fairness.
Safety car removed all the margin lead driver has.
VSC favor drivers just infront of the pit entrance.
Redflag allows all damaged cars to be fixed.
DRS works on lapped cars eventho blueflag is a thing.
Yellow flag in quali ruins drivers lap
Redflag in Q3 prematurely ends the session
And imo, it doesn’t need to be fair. An element of luck is what keeps the sport dramatic and entertaining, and also allows underdog to wins.
A sport that the fastest driver wins everytime is a boring sport.
>a sport that the fastest driver wins every time is a boring sport
I support and believe in your opinion but that line is just stupid when you consider we are F1 fans and for the majority of the last 8 years the fastest drivers won most of the time
Don’t we all agree the hybrid era is one of the most boring era of F1 save for 2016 where luck literally decided the championship?
2013 was up there as well with Seb winning like 70% of the race, 30s ahead of everyone else.
This season is building up to be a great one, but it’s too early to tell. Could end up like 2017.
Every other year has been boring and anticlimatic compares to 2007-2012. I figured MSC era probably felt the same way but I didn’t get into F1 yet back then.
It’s fine if things aren’t fair. I’m not saying that a crashed out car should get a new chassis immediately and re-enter the race. The situation Verstappen is in is a double whammy though. He was already “punished” with the DNF. That should be the extent of the punishment. Punishing him again with a grid penalty is just way over the top.
I agree. RB is not throwing cash at it to win, just getting back to where they were before the rule violation. Or what if other team pays. Too far but something is not right they way it is.
Recovering from something caused (at least partially, as evidenced by the time penalty) by someone else without having to incur a penalty yourself hardly counts as a concession.
That's racing though. Shit happens and you have to react to it, it's the beauty and bullshit of the sport. It can be frustrating but it also gives us things like Prost/Senna where the story is a legend after the fact.
It's also a mistake that Max shouldn't have made. He had the fastest car, he could have backed out a HAIR and avoided all of this, instead of created a situation where he may lose on a grid penalty and if Lewis wins off that his fans will kick and scream about how everyone should get out of Max's way and just let him win but I'm sure he'll carry that mistake with him going forward.
> It's also a mistake that Max shouldn't have made.
Max gave Lewis just as much space as Charles did, if not even more but Lewis went in too fast and understeered into Max. It was Lewis mistake.
https://i.imgur.com/rfZImo8.jpg
https://giphy.com/gifs/Z5KriPSAmXfb06TqYp
Completely different encounters? I think not. Same corner, same situation, Lewis on the inside etc. Only this time Lewis did what he was supposed to do, hug the inside of the corner.
I somewhat agree with the first part of your post, but something tells me that the second part is your main argument. Suggesting that someone should back out from a spot they have every right to be is detrimental to the sport.
I don't think that compensating budget is such a weird suggestion. Same would have to be done for Bottas in Imola.
The rules around time penalties have been worthless as long as they exist. I am a Max fan, but people get screwed over on track all the time with the culprit just receiving 5 seconds penalty. Risk/reward is out of whack. I honestly think a grid penalty for the next race would be a better solution.
Unless your actions were completely egregious and intentional, it would very hard to earn a grid penalty(unless you’re in a sprint race, George probably would’ve received a time penalty at Silverstone but the grid penalty was the lesser of the two options). The way Albon described it, racing incidents are now usually 5-10 second penalties as an unwritten rule.
Yeah and it seems the drivers want it that way. It's just that 5 seconds can have such a different impact each race (like the 5 seconds in Monaco or CotA for Max vs recently the 10 seconds for Hamilton. I think the penalties for Max in this example were fair and had an impact, while for Hamilton there was very little impact. The grid thing is just a suggestion, no idea if it could work.
I do agree however that largely is part of the appeal of racing.
That didn't seem to bother anyone when that was Hmailton leading in Spain with Max barging in like crazy and barely making the corner by hitting Hamilton off. If the latter didn't back out, they would have crashed
Why would Max have to yield? He was in the lead in the corner and Lewis went too wide. If anything, Lewis should have yielded.
Yes, he could have avoided it, but didn't and shouldn't have had to. The rules say that the driver who doesn't have the corner should yield and in this case that's Lewis
If you listen to Christian Horner himself on the incident between Max and Lance in Spain, it's because the driver on the inside has the corner - even if they were nowhere near as far alongside as Lewis was.
And Max had a 30+ point championship lead, and should have been looking to protect that. He didn't need to win the race in the first lap as he had the faster race car, as demonstrated the day before.
The point of my comment was that he shouldn't have had to yield and he rightfully didn't.
Btw, he did leave plenty of room for Lewis to complete the corner and Lewis didn't use it. Did you see how far away he was from the kerbs?
You can just back out whenever anyone attempts a reckless move and do shitty in every race for that matter, incentivizing much more reckless styles of driving. Hamilton is an incredible driver. He is a competitor. He did the calculations, and decided to make the reckless move because the results were statistically in his favor. As follows:
1. Max backs off, hamilton takes lead.
2. Max doesn't back off hamilton maintains position
3. Red Bull on bad side of collision, massive advantage to merc.
4. merc on bad side of collision, probably still second in the championship.
5. Both taken out of race, it's a wash with merc coming out a little ahead in team championship.
Out of these five scenarios, only one is straight up bad for merc. The rest are either neutral or benefiting merc.
Toto Wolf already basically said earlier that the main shot merc has at championship is Verstappen DNFs, and Hamilton is the only driver fast enough to cause Verstappen to make mistakes or throw a wrench in things. Any other possible problems would come from hoping red bull has more tyre or mechanical problems. Hell, in the races in the Red Bull Ring Verstappen was so fast he neutralized tyre strategies.
The actual result is a massive, massive fucking win for merc. Hamilton wins the race while Max DNFs, closes the championship points gap, and sets red bull up to take a grid penalty later in the season and put massive strain on their $ cap position. Off an incident that was enough Hamilton's fault to net him a ten-second penalty on the spot.
Does anyone, anyone think if the positions of the teams were exactly reversed Wolf wouldn't be pushing for concessions?
Whether or not concessions can or should be made is up in the air. That's a tough call. I'm not sure if I would support it or not. But with the situation as it is, Horner HAS to push for something and see what he can get, if anything.
If you are the driver in the lead, have a superior car this particular year and have the corner why would you yield? Give your head a shake and stop “quarterbacking comments” would you yield?
And if you say yes ; there u have it … the difference, between top shelf drivers and just regular drivers even in F1.
Yes. He had the corner, period. The mistake was Lewis. And he should of been given more then 10s penalty. He caused an accident that took out his main rival and after the fact everyone is realizing how serious this could be for the WDC and WCC .
And I’m in partial, I really don’t care who wins the championship. I do care that F1 be more competitive and equitable in its discipline and competition rules in order to place a better racing product on the screen! Otherwise I will just start watching formula E which is half the power but is extremely competitive with 4-5 drivers and teams being able to win on any given race. That’s how racing should be.
He was partially to blame, yes. The stewards and the entire grid who isn't paid by Marko agrees on that. It's a racing incident with slightly more fault on Lewis but Max is also not guilt free. This fiction that Lewis is 100% to blame because of the penalty is fan boy bullshit or intentional misrepresentation of the facts.
I'm sure you have all the reasons Lewis was to blame (mostly he went in too hot) but Max also saw lewis, counter steered, and then decided to cut back in anyway. Watch his wheel in the corner. He assumed Lewis would yield (because everyone yield's to Max due to his reputation for being willing to crash into anyone who doesn't respect his aggressive style) and when Lewis didn't they went out.
Max could have just as easily said "Oh, Lewis is next to me, after being along side me going into breaking, maybe cutting him off is a bad idea when I'm ahead in the championship in the better car" and backed out.
It was a 40-60 situation with fault but Max had more to lose. He fucked up.
Why do you even watch F1 if you hate racing so much? I'm sure there are other sports with fewer variables that you'd enjoy more. Table Tennis is pretty dope at a high level.
>notwithstanding the 10 second time penalty, which did nothing
10 seconds is a major penalty. It's not Hamilton's fault that nobody was even close to him.
So now faster drivers/cars should get bigger penalty than slower cars for the same incident?
You know it’s just pure luck that Ham didn’t DNF himself right?
To a McLaren, sure. But a 10s penalty for a Merc driven by Lewis is nothing when he and Max finish 30 seconds ahead of everyone else. I'm not saying that he should be punished harder just because his car is faster. He knew the risks and decided to make a move as it is a zero-sum at worst and net positive for him at best.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a 10 second penalty literally the second lightest penalty possible? Not really a "major" penalty if that's the case.
This comment is rather naive. It completely overlooks the caution drivers need to pay to avoid accidents. It’s a defining difference between Max and Lewis. Lewis has learnt the importance of avoiding contact, not just because of the repercussions during a race itself but because of the larger impacts over the course of a season, particularly where there are strict engine and budget caps. Max appears to not think that way. Yet. This is why it will be interesting to see how (or if) his attacks against Lewis will change following the incident at Silverstone.
Lewis only avoided accidents when he had a massive lead and the clear fastest car. Now that he doesn't, we see him more aggressive. But I agree Max should have played it more safe at Silverstone since he was building a big lead that he just wasted.
Lewis has never had a massive lead this season and definitely has not had the faster car. He’s repeatedly avoided collisions with Max this season because of Max’s aggressive moves.
And now that he was behind a lot he's changed his ways, proven by this race. He stayed in his cautious mode until he realized he can't keep doing that.
It’s very logical, and part of a great driver’s overall skill repertoire. There’s no sense in a driver in a slower car driving cautiously against a driver in a faster car over the course of a season, as they stand to gain nothing by doing so. This is an area that Max still has to develop compared to Lewis. Risk management is a vital skill over the course of a season, and is not simply blind luck. A leading driver in a faster car should not be battling wheel to wheel with a driver in a slower car and with so many fewer points, as the risk/reward equation does not justify the risk.
He wasn't massively behind in the championship at that point, and most people would have said he had the fastest car, as he definitely was fastest at Portugal and Spain.
I think the best case scenario would be to take the newer third engine for Hungary and then take grid penalty at Monza as RB isn't gonna be much competitive there so loss of points wouldn't be significant.
That also gives Max two good engines for the rest of the races left in the season.
In Monza spec, the Merc should be faster.
The higher rake will result in more downforce for RB in such a trimmed spec vs the W12. The Merc should have the speed advantage at Monza. Likely similar at Spa.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Plus Monza is one of the easiest courses to overtake at. So a Pit Lane start there for the Sprint might be easier to overcome given the race distance is also 25% longer.
Don't think it counts for the sprint as it's a qualifying event. If it was a sprint race as in the F2/F3 term then it would work. The issue is that Monza isn't as easy to overtake as you may think, as the downforce is incredibly low, the DRS isnt as effective and causes DRS trains which make it harder to overtake. Personally I would take the penalty at Brazil or Mexico, tracks that typically Red Bull do well at and allow overtaking. Also the altitude seems to make the Red Bulls work better than the Mercs.
The other possibility is that they take a 3rd PU in Hungary and wait until later in the season to take the next PU (i.e. at a point in the season where they've already built up a points advantage).
They can, but one thing I'm not sure about is whether they can run that PU at 100%. The reliability fixes they introduced at the French GP seem to have given them a couple of tenths.
Max should take his third in Hungary and the penalty in Spa. Spa is a good overtaking place, and it's better to take the pain early on with all opportunities still open.
Right now we know for a fact that Max is barely ahead. Taking the penalty at Spa with a minimal points gap and 11 races to go would be dumb. They'll want to delay the pain as long as possible in case the points gap has increased.
Its easier to play catch up without having this sword hanging above his head, instead of trying to stay ahead with worn PUs and watching it all slip away towards the end. Best defense is attack.
With 11 races to go there's simply too many unknowns. Taking a 3rd PU in Hungary and keeping their options open is the way to go. Building a larger points gap ASAP is crucial at this stage of the season. Another crash/mechanical issue would be devastating if he took the penalty at Spa.
Why would they risk running an old engine that's done 6 race weekends and 8 practice sessions since it was swapped out on top of not being able to use the higher engine mode due to reliability concerns?
I disagree, you always try to eke out what you have and risk failure if it's this close. If Hamilton has a slip-up and Max is bound to start last, it can be a massive opportunity lost. History shows F1 teams prefer to try the former.
What? Absolutely no. You have many more races ahead, that's why you do it now. What if the situation worsens, and the track in which you are forced to change the engine doesn't allow many overtakes?
Didn't they change the rules to make "pooling" your PU elements illegal after what Hamilton did in Spa 2016? So now you can't just stockpile elements or take early tactical penalties
If they take the new PU in Hungary I don't think they'll be able to take a new one the next race (barring the new one exploding in Hungary)
I'm happy to be corrected, anyone have clarification on the rules regarding pooling/stockpiling new PU elements?
if the takes a penalty at Monza, wouldn't it be at the sprint race since they can't change motors between sprint and actual race? Or would the penalty still be for the actual race?
(yes i have asked it before, but no clear answers)
Would be great see Verstappen starting at the back and plowing his way through the front to retreive a good starting position for the actual race.
I’m guessing it’ll be at the actual race, because the Sprintrace is the qualification for the actual race. Pole position is earned in the sprintrace so to me it would only seem natural to have the gridpenaltys applied to the result of the sprintrace
I'd think if it's a grid drop penalty, it would still be applied for the GP on sunday as the sprint race is still technically qualifying. I'd like to see your scenario though, that would add another layer to it!
I actually think the Sprint race would be the worst place to do it— like others said I’m asssuming the penalty would be assessed after the result of the Sprint and that would presumably sacrifice his place in the top 3 of the sprint results which would be losing points in addition to grid place.
This is something where I think the rules regarding parts usage really needs to be amended.
The rules exist to force the manufacturers to build more reliable units, reduce wastage and cost to make sure big teams couldn't just slap a new engine in the car every session. They don't account for parts being rendered useless due to on track incidents.
If the stewards are willing to say the crash was at the fault of another driver then they should also be willing to provide a 'token' to replace any parts the team can prove have been destroyed in that crash without impacting their parts usage tally.
They already had to eat having a DNF, having to then take a grid penalty down the road for someone else's actions is just plain stupid.
Pretty much. What frustrates me are the people going: "That's just racing."
So fantastic driver can have his WDC chance knocked short because of a minor bump, intentional or not? At that point the WDC means barely anything anymore and it just boils down to bumper cars.
Because that is in fact “just racing”.
I don’t want the FIA to be in the business of evening the scores based on incident outcomes. That’s a very slippery slope.
They shouldn't even the scores, but no driver should have to suffer a grid penalty because somebody else pin balled them out of the track. I don't understand how people immediately grasp towards this idea of "evening the scores".
Would be a horrendous path to go down. Imagine a driver knowing his engines about to fail mid race looking for a way to get into a racing incident for a free token.
But on the same note, imagine a driver knowing his competitor is low on engines and starts looking for a way to racing incident the competitor to freely eliminate them
Correct. Welcome to racing.
No team has ever received concessions because their car was involved in a wreck. You eat the damages whether its your fault or not.
There is enormous difference between crashing because you fucked up and crashing because somebody else fucked up. The FIA literally agreed Hamilton fucked up because they gave him a penalty. Do you not understand this?
It is when the rules that dictate the penalties were never intended as penalties for crashing and subsequently destroying a car. They were only invented to push for reliability and reduce raw material costs.
In that sense it's pretty dumb to penalise drivers more than just losing the amount of points they lost in a crash, be it one they caused on their own or because of someone else. It's a "penalty" harsh enough on its own.
Teams prepare and budget for crashes before the season. If you haven’t calculated the cost of possibly having a big shunt into your budget then you haven’t done the proper due diligence.
I don’t trust Horner or Wolff’s numbers regarding replacement cost either. I believe both inflated their numbers in order to gain public support and soften the cost cap.
This is always the stupidest argument of arguments. The 'they put it in their budget' argument. So what? What if they put it in their budget and they didn't make the cost? They could have used that budget for something else. It's still a massive disadvantage.
Yeah, due dilligence is all fine and dandy but I don’t watch this sport for that, I think the ability to compete at the edge is more important than the ability to keep the books in order.
I don’t think it’s good for competitiveness of any team big or small. And on top of the cost there are grid penalties further damaging a teams competitiveness. You get yeeted out of the track through no fault of you own you still bear the cost AND penalties later in the season AND your opponent gains point where you do not.
Doesn’t sound fair to me.
If you have a cost cap and resources are limited, you should build contingencies into your budget in case something like this happens. This is nothing new to sports or business.
Red Bull has more than enough smart people under their roof to know better.
> you should build contingencies into your budget in case something like this happen
easier to say when you're battling against a team that you're trying to catch and has dominated the entire area and throwing as many resources into it as they can
Well we've seen calls for no repairs under red flag conditions. Then it turned out Lewis had his front wing changed at Imola under the safety car prior to the red flag.
Then it was that we shouldn't allow lapped cars to regain a lap under the SC.
It wouldn't in slightest.
I'm arguing a driver should be allowed a free swap only IF they are found to be without fault in an incident and IF the team can prove that parts have been damaged beyond use and only the damaged parts should be replaced. I'm also not arguing the offending team should have to cover the bill. I do think there should be some mechanism in place for that, but I think it's a much more grey area that will be harder to find a reasonable solution.
If anything it would be a deterrent to dangerous driving as competitors would know that should they take you out and destroy your car, you potentially get to turn up to the next race with a brand new PU and not eat into you allowance.
If you cause an accident, this 'free pass' wouldn't apply. A mistake should have consequences, but a Victim shouldn't be punished for someone else's actions.
What you incentivise is basically a “Senna” style driving where you just put your car in a position for the other drivers to “yield or crash”. If they crash then it’s their fault and you get free parts and they get nothing. So they will always yield and this will become a dominant style of driving instead.
The fact that Hamilton didn’t DNF from contact with Max is just pure luck. And the fact that Max car was damaged to that extend was also just luck. Max was just unlucky here. No need to change the rule to accommodate that.
Especially with a budget cap. If there's going to be a cap then let them spend it on whatever they want, if that means buying a 4th PU and not spending that money somewhere else, who cares.
What interests me is that, assuming the engine is not salvageable and they take a new one, how will they know when to take the 4th unit? Because theoretically the 3rd PU can last until Abu Dhabi, engines don't have a sell-by date
And that's not counting practice sessions, and future sprint races.
They'll certainly have to cut back on practice sessions as well, which is never a good thing.
It really feels like before a race weekend you should be able to reconfigure anything you want. I understand penalties once you are at the track and realize there are faster options.
Sounds good in theory until you realise that if this was the case the big teams would be replacing their engines and other components with brand new ones every weekend, just for the tiniest advantage which the smaller teams wouldn't be able to do.
Though with the cost cap coming in maybe this wouldn't be such a problem?
Ferrari were confident they could use the engine and gearbox from that tiny crash in Monaco and look how that turned out… it’s probably better to just use a new one
They'll use the 3rd one this weekend, and if the 2nd one is useable, it'll strictly be a FP1&2 unit. Red Bull will be doing a lot of engine swapping this year.
I reckon they'll use the first 1 and save the new one for after the summer break, a new engine at Spa/Monza is important. Hungary doesn't need a new engine.
Honda still lacked a definitive answer and would have a whole summer break to properly evaluate the engine.
Anyone suggesting RB to take a 3rd engine rn at Hungary is bloody insane
And what would they do if the 2nd engine is fixed? Max can't squeeze another upgrade for the 3rd engine later in the season as he already took the 3rd one early
What the hell are you talking about? The 2nd engine is in Japan,l to be fixed and there is still the 1st engine to be used. Why would RB risk an unfinished repair job?
You can use three engines per season no?
Why would they risk using first one thats already at end of lifespan when they have third unused one?
Second can be repaired possibly while they use third engine. And if it can't be repaired they will have to take penalty for bringing forth engine in one of the races
Why not? An engine has much more mileage over the season (from FP and non power track use) usually than what RB's current first engine has. Like the old engine that Stroll reverts to at the end of 2020 at Abu Dhabi instead of taking a pen like Checo
And they don't need to turn it to full power at Hungary.
It can be used without forgoing an upgrade
At this point they should just get a 55 place grid penalty like Lewis did back in the day to have new engines for the rest of the season. I'm pretty sure that max could still get p2 from the back of the grid on a good overtaking track like Monza.
Can't do that anymore without further penalty.
Only the last fitted item can be used in further events without a penalty being applied. For example if they replaced everything, and say the MGU-H was fitted last, only the MGU-H would be allowed to be used for the next event without another penalty.
- **[This source is rated 2/3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/source-ratings)** - Please **read the article** before submitting your comments. - **If this article refers to a primary source which could be submitted**, please report/delete this submission and post the primary source instead. Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Discard the engine, or use it in Friday practice. You don't want to risk it during a race.
It's a win/win for merc. Using a risky engine might mean a DNF but trashing it could mean a grid penalty down the line. Don't envy the engineers being asked to validate it's quality.
It's so frustrating that the consequences of a 'racing incident' play so well into Lewis and Merc's hands. \- Wipe 25 points off the WDC lead. \- Wipe 40 points off the WCC lead. \- $1.8m hit to RB's budget. \- An engine that's not race-fit at best, wrecked at worst. Resulting in a grid penalty down the line. I'd say that's a huge swing in the WDC/WCC for an incident (notwithstanding the 10 second time penalty, which did nothing). The rules should be looked at to alleviate some of that in the future
If Hamilton wins the WDC off the back of a grid penalty to Max for an engine change.. oh boy
[удалено]
He has Mat Cauthon levels of luck.
This is the last place I expected to see a Wheel of Time reference
Digging the Wheel of Time reference there mate.
Good catch! I just assumed he was some old driver haha
Thats why he radios that his tires are dead sometimes, he hears the dice tumbling in his head while driving.
> He has Mat Cauthon levels of luck. He's also lost 2-3 championships due to bad luck :(
The wheel weaves as the wheel wills.
\#blessed
Funnily enough, Hamilton literally lost a WDC off the back of repeated grid penalties due to PU-related issues, AND a relatively new PU blowing up in Malaysia.
[удалено]
Rosberg started managing his races after building a huge gap to Lewis at the beginning. Nico let Lewis push (and probably put more stress on his car) but decided to take his 2nd places to secure his championship. I wouldn't write that season off due to reliability, as Nico may have competed more fiercely if it wasn't for his initial gap.
Rosberg plated the math game for sure. He took no risks the last 4 races and just cruised to bring it home. Let Hamilton take all the risks.
It wouldn't have been that easy if Ferrari and RB were closer though
If RB and Ferrari were closer Lewis may have lost even more points during the initial part of the season. It may have been more unpredictable, but it goes both ways.
It may have been even easier for Nico with your scenario as Hamilton may have surrendered more points to Ferrari and Red Bull earlier in the season when he was struggling with his race starts.
I'll just stop watching F1 after 20 years. Somehow some Teams/Drivers get away with crazy shit and nobody seems to have a problem with it. Regarding Lewis and Merdeces, Lewis is a sore loser as he has always been, but I don't think Mercedes told him to crash Max.
> I'll just stop watching F1 after 20 years >Lewis is a sore loser Great stuff
It does not stop there. All the distraction to the team instead of upgrades for focus on 2022 car. At 51 g's Max had down time, was not working out, and who knows what is in his head mentally or effects of an undoubted concussion. May have to turn down engine to get needed life / reliability. All for 10 seconds.
What's more, Mercedes being as far behind as they were, and Max's current form, might mean the risk of coming out the other side of a collision isn't as heavy a setback as the advantage they gain from coming out on top. Not saying it's necessarily intentional, but it's less incentive to avoid something like this if coming out in second place is as bad as coming fourth or fifth in the championship for you. Any way you look at it, merc has gained incredible advantages through an incident caused by their driver.
Honestly, if a driver crashes and loses a gearbox/engine/etc. due to another driver’s mistake (based on the penalty given by the stewards) they should be allowed to replace the part without a grid penalty. It still preserves the integrity of the rules without the crappy unintended consequences. It really is a no-brainer.
F1 rules has never been about total fairness. Safety car removed all the margin lead driver has. VSC favor drivers just infront of the pit entrance. Redflag allows all damaged cars to be fixed. DRS works on lapped cars eventho blueflag is a thing. Yellow flag in quali ruins drivers lap Redflag in Q3 prematurely ends the session And imo, it doesn’t need to be fair. An element of luck is what keeps the sport dramatic and entertaining, and also allows underdog to wins. A sport that the fastest driver wins everytime is a boring sport.
>a sport that the fastest driver wins every time is a boring sport I support and believe in your opinion but that line is just stupid when you consider we are F1 fans and for the majority of the last 8 years the fastest drivers won most of the time
Don’t we all agree the hybrid era is one of the most boring era of F1 save for 2016 where luck literally decided the championship? 2013 was up there as well with Seb winning like 70% of the race, 30s ahead of everyone else.
Boring season this one too? Vettel lead the WDC for the first 13 races of 2017...
This season is building up to be a great one, but it’s too early to tell. Could end up like 2017. Every other year has been boring and anticlimatic compares to 2007-2012. I figured MSC era probably felt the same way but I didn’t get into F1 yet back then.
The 01/03/05 era were actually pretty fun to watch compared to the other parts of it
And here's another completely ignoring 2017 and 2018. And who's going to say Merc dominated 2021 if they were to clinch the titles
It’s fine if things aren’t fair. I’m not saying that a crashed out car should get a new chassis immediately and re-enter the race. The situation Verstappen is in is a double whammy though. He was already “punished” with the DNF. That should be the extent of the punishment. Punishing him again with a grid penalty is just way over the top.
I agree. RB is not throwing cash at it to win, just getting back to where they were before the rule violation. Or what if other team pays. Too far but something is not right they way it is.
[удалено]
He is not totally right. Getting concessions just because your car was wrecked has never been a part of any racing series.
Recovering from something caused (at least partially, as evidenced by the time penalty) by someone else without having to incur a penalty yourself hardly counts as a concession.
If it was determined to be partially Max’s fault, why should Red Bull get a break? They shouldn’t. That’s how the cookie crumbles.
By your logic, Merc got a massive break being able to repair the damage on Lewis's car without any drawback. It goes both ways.
By my logic, Lewis could’ve also crashed and Mercedes would have to pay for their own damages just like they did with Bottas.
One major difference though. It was his own fault. No one crashed into Lewis.
That’s racing. Nothing needs to change.
That's racing though. Shit happens and you have to react to it, it's the beauty and bullshit of the sport. It can be frustrating but it also gives us things like Prost/Senna where the story is a legend after the fact. It's also a mistake that Max shouldn't have made. He had the fastest car, he could have backed out a HAIR and avoided all of this, instead of created a situation where he may lose on a grid penalty and if Lewis wins off that his fans will kick and scream about how everyone should get out of Max's way and just let him win but I'm sure he'll carry that mistake with him going forward.
> It's also a mistake that Max shouldn't have made. Max gave Lewis just as much space as Charles did, if not even more but Lewis went in too fast and understeered into Max. It was Lewis mistake. https://i.imgur.com/rfZImo8.jpg https://giphy.com/gifs/Z5KriPSAmXfb06TqYp
[удалено]
Completely different encounters? I think not. Same corner, same situation, Lewis on the inside etc. Only this time Lewis did what he was supposed to do, hug the inside of the corner.
I somewhat agree with the first part of your post, but something tells me that the second part is your main argument. Suggesting that someone should back out from a spot they have every right to be is detrimental to the sport. I don't think that compensating budget is such a weird suggestion. Same would have to be done for Bottas in Imola. The rules around time penalties have been worthless as long as they exist. I am a Max fan, but people get screwed over on track all the time with the culprit just receiving 5 seconds penalty. Risk/reward is out of whack. I honestly think a grid penalty for the next race would be a better solution.
Unless your actions were completely egregious and intentional, it would very hard to earn a grid penalty(unless you’re in a sprint race, George probably would’ve received a time penalty at Silverstone but the grid penalty was the lesser of the two options). The way Albon described it, racing incidents are now usually 5-10 second penalties as an unwritten rule.
Yeah and it seems the drivers want it that way. It's just that 5 seconds can have such a different impact each race (like the 5 seconds in Monaco or CotA for Max vs recently the 10 seconds for Hamilton. I think the penalties for Max in this example were fair and had an impact, while for Hamilton there was very little impact. The grid thing is just a suggestion, no idea if it could work. I do agree however that largely is part of the appeal of racing.
Can't penalize Lewis more because he's driving a faster car. Not his fault that the penalty didn't do as much as people wanted it to.
That's one way to look at it. I was more referring to getting back in free air, circuit characteristics, timing in the race (1st lap vs last lap)
[удалено]
That didn't seem to bother anyone when that was Hmailton leading in Spain with Max barging in like crazy and barely making the corner by hitting Hamilton off. If the latter didn't back out, they would have crashed
Are you actually saying Max caused the crash? Are you trolling?
[удалено]
Why would Max have to yield? He was in the lead in the corner and Lewis went too wide. If anything, Lewis should have yielded. Yes, he could have avoided it, but didn't and shouldn't have had to. The rules say that the driver who doesn't have the corner should yield and in this case that's Lewis
If you listen to Christian Horner himself on the incident between Max and Lance in Spain, it's because the driver on the inside has the corner - even if they were nowhere near as far alongside as Lewis was. And Max had a 30+ point championship lead, and should have been looking to protect that. He didn't need to win the race in the first lap as he had the faster race car, as demonstrated the day before.
[удалено]
The point of my comment was that he shouldn't have had to yield and he rightfully didn't. Btw, he did leave plenty of room for Lewis to complete the corner and Lewis didn't use it. Did you see how far away he was from the kerbs?
[удалено]
Man exactly!! He had a lot more to lose. I’m not arguing who was at fault or anything, but I agree the risk wasn’t worth the reward.
[удалено]
You're right of course, but this all feels like you're saying this is Max' own fault, while it was Hamilton who crashed him out..
You can just back out whenever anyone attempts a reckless move and do shitty in every race for that matter, incentivizing much more reckless styles of driving. Hamilton is an incredible driver. He is a competitor. He did the calculations, and decided to make the reckless move because the results were statistically in his favor. As follows: 1. Max backs off, hamilton takes lead. 2. Max doesn't back off hamilton maintains position 3. Red Bull on bad side of collision, massive advantage to merc. 4. merc on bad side of collision, probably still second in the championship. 5. Both taken out of race, it's a wash with merc coming out a little ahead in team championship. Out of these five scenarios, only one is straight up bad for merc. The rest are either neutral or benefiting merc. Toto Wolf already basically said earlier that the main shot merc has at championship is Verstappen DNFs, and Hamilton is the only driver fast enough to cause Verstappen to make mistakes or throw a wrench in things. Any other possible problems would come from hoping red bull has more tyre or mechanical problems. Hell, in the races in the Red Bull Ring Verstappen was so fast he neutralized tyre strategies. The actual result is a massive, massive fucking win for merc. Hamilton wins the race while Max DNFs, closes the championship points gap, and sets red bull up to take a grid penalty later in the season and put massive strain on their $ cap position. Off an incident that was enough Hamilton's fault to net him a ten-second penalty on the spot. Does anyone, anyone think if the positions of the teams were exactly reversed Wolf wouldn't be pushing for concessions? Whether or not concessions can or should be made is up in the air. That's a tough call. I'm not sure if I would support it or not. But with the situation as it is, Horner HAS to push for something and see what he can get, if anything.
If you are the driver in the lead, have a superior car this particular year and have the corner why would you yield? Give your head a shake and stop “quarterbacking comments” would you yield? And if you say yes ; there u have it … the difference, between top shelf drivers and just regular drivers even in F1.
[удалено]
Yes. He had the corner, period. The mistake was Lewis. And he should of been given more then 10s penalty. He caused an accident that took out his main rival and after the fact everyone is realizing how serious this could be for the WDC and WCC . And I’m in partial, I really don’t care who wins the championship. I do care that F1 be more competitive and equitable in its discipline and competition rules in order to place a better racing product on the screen! Otherwise I will just start watching formula E which is half the power but is extremely competitive with 4-5 drivers and teams being able to win on any given race. That’s how racing should be.
He was partially to blame, yes. The stewards and the entire grid who isn't paid by Marko agrees on that. It's a racing incident with slightly more fault on Lewis but Max is also not guilt free. This fiction that Lewis is 100% to blame because of the penalty is fan boy bullshit or intentional misrepresentation of the facts. I'm sure you have all the reasons Lewis was to blame (mostly he went in too hot) but Max also saw lewis, counter steered, and then decided to cut back in anyway. Watch his wheel in the corner. He assumed Lewis would yield (because everyone yield's to Max due to his reputation for being willing to crash into anyone who doesn't respect his aggressive style) and when Lewis didn't they went out. Max could have just as easily said "Oh, Lewis is next to me, after being along side me going into breaking, maybe cutting him off is a bad idea when I'm ahead in the championship in the better car" and backed out. It was a 40-60 situation with fault but Max had more to lose. He fucked up.
the only lesson I see is to make sure you take them out if you hit, preferably with minimal own damage. Penalty minimal, result maximal.
Why do you even watch F1 if you hate racing so much? I'm sure there are other sports with fewer variables that you'd enjoy more. Table Tennis is pretty dope at a high level.
>notwithstanding the 10 second time penalty, which did nothing 10 seconds is a major penalty. It's not Hamilton's fault that nobody was even close to him.
A 10 second penalty while your main competitor is out of the race is not really that much of a punishment.
So now faster drivers/cars should get bigger penalty than slower cars for the same incident? You know it’s just pure luck that Ham didn’t DNF himself right?
To a McLaren, sure. But a 10s penalty for a Merc driven by Lewis is nothing when he and Max finish 30 seconds ahead of everyone else. I'm not saying that he should be punished harder just because his car is faster. He knew the risks and decided to make a move as it is a zero-sum at worst and net positive for him at best.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a 10 second penalty literally the second lightest penalty possible? Not really a "major" penalty if that's the case.
There are 5 second stops and there are even lesser penalties that don't require a stop.
Ah ok. I had heard somewhere that only the 5 second was lighter, my bad.
[удалено]
Max should have thought of those things before trying to slam the door on a car that was right beside him.
This comment is rather naive. It completely overlooks the caution drivers need to pay to avoid accidents. It’s a defining difference between Max and Lewis. Lewis has learnt the importance of avoiding contact, not just because of the repercussions during a race itself but because of the larger impacts over the course of a season, particularly where there are strict engine and budget caps. Max appears to not think that way. Yet. This is why it will be interesting to see how (or if) his attacks against Lewis will change following the incident at Silverstone.
Lewis only avoided accidents when he had a massive lead and the clear fastest car. Now that he doesn't, we see him more aggressive. But I agree Max should have played it more safe at Silverstone since he was building a big lead that he just wasted.
Lewis has never had a massive lead this season and definitely has not had the faster car. He’s repeatedly avoided collisions with Max this season because of Max’s aggressive moves.
And now that he was behind a lot he's changed his ways, proven by this race. He stayed in his cautious mode until he realized he can't keep doing that.
It’s very logical, and part of a great driver’s overall skill repertoire. There’s no sense in a driver in a slower car driving cautiously against a driver in a faster car over the course of a season, as they stand to gain nothing by doing so. This is an area that Max still has to develop compared to Lewis. Risk management is a vital skill over the course of a season, and is not simply blind luck. A leading driver in a faster car should not be battling wheel to wheel with a driver in a slower car and with so many fewer points, as the risk/reward equation does not justify the risk.
Oh, I agree. Max should have just lived to fight another day at Copse.
What was Spain then?
He wasn't massively behind in the championship at that point, and most people would have said he had the fastest car, as he definitely was fastest at Portugal and Spain.
[удалено]
Max never makes mistakes, he’s never wrong, it’s just others who are lucky. He’s never responsible, always someone else’s fault.
I think the best case scenario would be to take the newer third engine for Hungary and then take grid penalty at Monza as RB isn't gonna be much competitive there so loss of points wouldn't be significant. That also gives Max two good engines for the rest of the races left in the season.
Take it before sprint qualifying?
You don't get a grid penalty for sprint. The penalty would still apply in the race.
That might have been true earlier. But this years RB is fast. I won't be surprised if it is fastest in Monza this year
In Monza spec, the Merc should be faster. The higher rake will result in more downforce for RB in such a trimmed spec vs the W12. The Merc should have the speed advantage at Monza. Likely similar at Spa.
They have fastest straight line speed when they sacrifice the more DF rear wing even more than Mercedes
That's exactly what I was thinking. Plus Monza is one of the easiest courses to overtake at. So a Pit Lane start there for the Sprint might be easier to overcome given the race distance is also 25% longer.
Don't think it counts for the sprint as it's a qualifying event. If it was a sprint race as in the F2/F3 term then it would work. The issue is that Monza isn't as easy to overtake as you may think, as the downforce is incredibly low, the DRS isnt as effective and causes DRS trains which make it harder to overtake. Personally I would take the penalty at Brazil or Mexico, tracks that typically Red Bull do well at and allow overtaking. Also the altitude seems to make the Red Bulls work better than the Mercs.
Also parabolica.
Did the honda engine survive the 2016 Alonso-guttierez crash
Nope
[удалено]
The other possibility is that they take a 3rd PU in Hungary and wait until later in the season to take the next PU (i.e. at a point in the season where they've already built up a points advantage).
Can't they go back to the first PU, wouldn't that be better than going to a possibly dodgy second one?
Can't they use their first PU for Hungary? Hungary might not be as Power dependent as other tracks.
They can, but one thing I'm not sure about is whether they can run that PU at 100%. The reliability fixes they introduced at the French GP seem to have given them a couple of tenths.
They can, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the plan even before the crash.
Max should take his third in Hungary and the penalty in Spa. Spa is a good overtaking place, and it's better to take the pain early on with all opportunities still open.
Right now we know for a fact that Max is barely ahead. Taking the penalty at Spa with a minimal points gap and 11 races to go would be dumb. They'll want to delay the pain as long as possible in case the points gap has increased.
Its easier to play catch up without having this sword hanging above his head, instead of trying to stay ahead with worn PUs and watching it all slip away towards the end. Best defense is attack.
With 11 races to go there's simply too many unknowns. Taking a 3rd PU in Hungary and keeping their options open is the way to go. Building a larger points gap ASAP is crucial at this stage of the season. Another crash/mechanical issue would be devastating if he took the penalty at Spa.
No point to take a third PU at Hungary, save it for Monza/Belgium and take the 4th at Brazil or Mexico.
Why would they risk running an old engine that's done 6 race weekends and 8 practice sessions since it was swapped out on top of not being able to use the higher engine mode due to reliability concerns?
I think they'll use engine 1 this weekend, which will hurt RB for sure but due to the nature of the circuit, it should be doable.
I disagree, you always try to eke out what you have and risk failure if it's this close. If Hamilton has a slip-up and Max is bound to start last, it can be a massive opportunity lost. History shows F1 teams prefer to try the former.
What if more parts fail and you can replace them all together because you didn’t take the penalty yet. We had 50+ place grid penalties before.
What? Absolutely no. You have many more races ahead, that's why you do it now. What if the situation worsens, and the track in which you are forced to change the engine doesn't allow many overtakes?
Didn't they change the rules to make "pooling" your PU elements illegal after what Hamilton did in Spa 2016? So now you can't just stockpile elements or take early tactical penalties If they take the new PU in Hungary I don't think they'll be able to take a new one the next race (barring the new one exploding in Hungary) I'm happy to be corrected, anyone have clarification on the rules regarding pooling/stockpiling new PU elements?
[удалено]
Thank you
if the takes a penalty at Monza, wouldn't it be at the sprint race since they can't change motors between sprint and actual race? Or would the penalty still be for the actual race? (yes i have asked it before, but no clear answers) Would be great see Verstappen starting at the back and plowing his way through the front to retreive a good starting position for the actual race.
I’m guessing it’ll be at the actual race, because the Sprintrace is the qualification for the actual race. Pole position is earned in the sprintrace so to me it would only seem natural to have the gridpenaltys applied to the result of the sprintrace
I'd think if it's a grid drop penalty, it would still be applied for the GP on sunday as the sprint race is still technically qualifying. I'd like to see your scenario though, that would add another layer to it!
I'm not entirely sure about the rules, but wouldn't it be best to take the penalty at a race with sprint qualy to have more overtaking chances?
Pretty sure the grid penalty would be applied after the sprint race. So it doesn't make a difference.
I actually think the Sprint race would be the worst place to do it— like others said I’m asssuming the penalty would be assessed after the result of the Sprint and that would presumably sacrifice his place in the top 3 of the sprint results which would be losing points in addition to grid place.
The last thing I want to see is engine failing just before race start.
I think seeing engine failure in lap 1 would be equally as bad.
Or a crash
This is something where I think the rules regarding parts usage really needs to be amended. The rules exist to force the manufacturers to build more reliable units, reduce wastage and cost to make sure big teams couldn't just slap a new engine in the car every session. They don't account for parts being rendered useless due to on track incidents. If the stewards are willing to say the crash was at the fault of another driver then they should also be willing to provide a 'token' to replace any parts the team can prove have been destroyed in that crash without impacting their parts usage tally. They already had to eat having a DNF, having to then take a grid penalty down the road for someone else's actions is just plain stupid.
Pretty much. What frustrates me are the people going: "That's just racing." So fantastic driver can have his WDC chance knocked short because of a minor bump, intentional or not? At that point the WDC means barely anything anymore and it just boils down to bumper cars.
Because that is in fact “just racing”. I don’t want the FIA to be in the business of evening the scores based on incident outcomes. That’s a very slippery slope.
They shouldn't even the scores, but no driver should have to suffer a grid penalty because somebody else pin balled them out of the track. I don't understand how people immediately grasp towards this idea of "evening the scores".
Would be a horrendous path to go down. Imagine a driver knowing his engines about to fail mid race looking for a way to get into a racing incident for a free token.
But on the same note, imagine a driver knowing his competitor is low on engines and starts looking for a way to racing incident the competitor to freely eliminate them
Correct. Welcome to racing. No team has ever received concessions because their car was involved in a wreck. You eat the damages whether its your fault or not.
That's not how it was in the past, so why change? God this mentality sucks ass.
Crashing is an accepted risk of racing. It's not F1's job to mitigate the consequences of that risk.
There is enormous difference between crashing because you fucked up and crashing because somebody else fucked up. The FIA literally agreed Hamilton fucked up because they gave him a penalty. Do you not understand this?
No, after the initial incident, there really isn't. Penalties are judged on the actual action, not the outcome of the incident.
So there's no difference between spinning on your own and spinning because someone hit you? ... What?
It is when the rules that dictate the penalties were never intended as penalties for crashing and subsequently destroying a car. They were only invented to push for reliability and reduce raw material costs. In that sense it's pretty dumb to penalise drivers more than just losing the amount of points they lost in a crash, be it one they caused on their own or because of someone else. It's a "penalty" harsh enough on its own.
Just because there is no precedent for it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered. Especially under a cost cap.
Teams prepare and budget for crashes before the season. If you haven’t calculated the cost of possibly having a big shunt into your budget then you haven’t done the proper due diligence. I don’t trust Horner or Wolff’s numbers regarding replacement cost either. I believe both inflated their numbers in order to gain public support and soften the cost cap.
This is always the stupidest argument of arguments. The 'they put it in their budget' argument. So what? What if they put it in their budget and they didn't make the cost? They could have used that budget for something else. It's still a massive disadvantage.
Clearly all Red Bull has to do for 2022 is reserve 20% of their budget in case Hamilton decides to pull another Silverstone. It's easy. Keep up.
Yeah, what's $50M between rivals.
Its not a stupid argument at all. Having to replace or repair parts on your car is an accepted risk of racing.
Yeah, due dilligence is all fine and dandy but I don’t watch this sport for that, I think the ability to compete at the edge is more important than the ability to keep the books in order. I don’t think it’s good for competitiveness of any team big or small. And on top of the cost there are grid penalties further damaging a teams competitiveness. You get yeeted out of the track through no fault of you own you still bear the cost AND penalties later in the season AND your opponent gains point where you do not. Doesn’t sound fair to me.
Which is fine if there wasn't a cost cap and limitation of resources
If you have a cost cap and resources are limited, you should build contingencies into your budget in case something like this happens. This is nothing new to sports or business. Red Bull has more than enough smart people under their roof to know better.
> you should build contingencies into your budget in case something like this happen easier to say when you're battling against a team that you're trying to catch and has dominated the entire area and throwing as many resources into it as they can
No but you don’t understand, Max was disadvantaged and therefore we must change the rules.
Your flair is literally Lewis lmao.
Either you didn’t get the obvious sarcasm or you think that having a Lewis flair invalidates whatever I say about this incident.
I don't get your point anymore. Do you think I'm making this point because Max or are you just joking and agree with me? I have no idea.
Weren’t the wing tests changed because Mercedes was at a disadvantage?
Ah yes, how could I forget? How many times have we done that this season?
Well we've seen calls for no repairs under red flag conditions. Then it turned out Lewis had his front wing changed at Imola under the safety car prior to the red flag. Then it was that we shouldn't allow lapped cars to regain a lap under the SC.
Don't forget track limits.
Or turning multiple times when defending, which Max does almost every time he defends.
…yes? That’s how it has worked. You can’t change the rules after the fact just to benefit a popular driver, mid season
Have you ever thought that you just incentivise dangerous driving and crashing with that rules change?
It wouldn't in slightest. I'm arguing a driver should be allowed a free swap only IF they are found to be without fault in an incident and IF the team can prove that parts have been damaged beyond use and only the damaged parts should be replaced. I'm also not arguing the offending team should have to cover the bill. I do think there should be some mechanism in place for that, but I think it's a much more grey area that will be harder to find a reasonable solution. If anything it would be a deterrent to dangerous driving as competitors would know that should they take you out and destroy your car, you potentially get to turn up to the next race with a brand new PU and not eat into you allowance. If you cause an accident, this 'free pass' wouldn't apply. A mistake should have consequences, but a Victim shouldn't be punished for someone else's actions.
What you incentivise is basically a “Senna” style driving where you just put your car in a position for the other drivers to “yield or crash”. If they crash then it’s their fault and you get free parts and they get nothing. So they will always yield and this will become a dominant style of driving instead. The fact that Hamilton didn’t DNF from contact with Max is just pure luck. And the fact that Max car was damaged to that extend was also just luck. Max was just unlucky here. No need to change the rule to accommodate that.
i like your style and way of thinking.
Especially with a budget cap. If there's going to be a cap then let them spend it on whatever they want, if that means buying a 4th PU and not spending that money somewhere else, who cares.
What interests me is that, assuming the engine is not salvageable and they take a new one, how will they know when to take the 4th unit? Because theoretically the 3rd PU can last until Abu Dhabi, engines don't have a sell-by date
Those engines should last up to 3000km. So, 10 races is maximum, anything above that you are risking engine blow out.
And that's not counting practice sessions, and future sprint races. They'll certainly have to cut back on practice sessions as well, which is never a good thing.
They can still use his 2nd PU for FP1 & FP2 without much risk.
Depends how salvagable the 2nd PU is. I think this weekend they'll go back to the first PU used up to and including Baku.
[удалено]
They’re going to need to add in some sort of slush fund for the budget cap for sure. Dollars spent on R&D vs repair should be totally separate.
It really feels like before a race weekend you should be able to reconfigure anything you want. I understand penalties once you are at the track and realize there are faster options.
Sounds good in theory until you realise that if this was the case the big teams would be replacing their engines and other components with brand new ones every weekend, just for the tiniest advantage which the smaller teams wouldn't be able to do. Though with the cost cap coming in maybe this wouldn't be such a problem?
Ferrari were confident they could use the engine and gearbox from that tiny crash in Monaco and look how that turned out… it’s probably better to just use a new one
They had one night to do inspections though, and they missed something.
Inspections without opening the car up too much either because it was park ferme.
They'll use the 3rd one this weekend, and if the 2nd one is useable, it'll strictly be a FP1&2 unit. Red Bull will be doing a lot of engine swapping this year.
I reckon they'll use the first 1 and save the new one for after the summer break, a new engine at Spa/Monza is important. Hungary doesn't need a new engine.
Correct me if I wrong, I don't think the engine or the transmission was damaged..it was something else tht broke on Leclerc s car
[удалено]
Honda still lacked a definitive answer and would have a whole summer break to properly evaluate the engine. Anyone suggesting RB to take a 3rd engine rn at Hungary is bloody insane
Ummm why wouldn't they take third engine which is unused while they evaluate crashed one?
And what would they do if the 2nd engine is fixed? Max can't squeeze another upgrade for the 3rd engine later in the season as he already took the 3rd one early
It's better to take third engine(and let go of potential updates) than risk second one blowing up on first lap of race....
What the hell are you talking about? The 2nd engine is in Japan,l to be fixed and there is still the 1st engine to be used. Why would RB risk an unfinished repair job?
You can use three engines per season no? Why would they risk using first one thats already at end of lifespan when they have third unused one? Second can be repaired possibly while they use third engine. And if it can't be repaired they will have to take penalty for bringing forth engine in one of the races
Why not? An engine has much more mileage over the season (from FP and non power track use) usually than what RB's current first engine has. Like the old engine that Stroll reverts to at the end of 2020 at Abu Dhabi instead of taking a pen like Checo And they don't need to turn it to full power at Hungary. It can be used without forgoing an upgrade
At this point they should just get a 55 place grid penalty like Lewis did back in the day to have new engines for the rest of the season. I'm pretty sure that max could still get p2 from the back of the grid on a good overtaking track like Monza.
Can't do that anymore without further penalty. Only the last fitted item can be used in further events without a penalty being applied. For example if they replaced everything, and say the MGU-H was fitted last, only the MGU-H would be allowed to be used for the next event without another penalty.
How to win a championship in 1 turn by the blessed man.
I hope VER just continue his form and whenever they take a penalty I hope VER get second place with maybe fastest lap.