The F1 Thread

[doulikefish]

Looking forward to the 10hr special on sky F1 about this 

[sophia]

On 09/10/2022 at 16:42, Day of the Lords said:

A post claiming all anyone does on this thread is take the piss out of Hamilton which goes on to show 2 posts out of about 20 proves a point alright.

Maybe not the one you were thinking though

At a quick count there are eighteen posts on the last two pages and the same amount of references to Lewis.

I guess some threads find their own cultural rhythm.

 

[scottsdad]

I hope they deduct 7.5 points from Verstappen.

 

[Iminavest]

[doulikefish]

[Raidernation]

McLaren wrote a letter going “waaaah, wasaah, waaaah, cheating!”

[V.Aye.R]

I've really enjoyed Horners antics the past couple of years. 

He's clearly a knob but he seems to get under Toto's skin on a regular basis. 

The Craig Levein of F1*

 

*but is a winner. 

[vikingTON]

Nurse, patient Hamilton is mewling about "integrity" again. 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/20/lewis-hamilton-warns-f1-over-budget-cap-if-red-bull-are-not-penalised-heavily

[Boo Khaki]

Well he's correct about one thing -

Quote

They might as well not have a cost cap in the future.

Get rid of it completely. It's turned the sport as dull as ditchwater. So f**k if TinPotRacing are struggling for cash. You don't go into F1 to save money.

[Sarto Mutiny]

Nurse, patient Hamilton is mewling about "integrity" again. 
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/20/lewis-hamilton-warns-f1-over-budget-cap-if-red-bull-are-not-penalised-heavily

No vested interest from the bold Lewis here, oh no

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

Well he's correct about one thing -

Get rid of it completely. It's turned the sport as dull as ditchwater. So f**k if TinPotRacing are struggling for cash. You don't go into F1 to save money.

The cost cap was introduced last season, which went down to the final lap. This year has been poor but that's more down to Ferrari being fucking useless when faced with any decision more complex than deciding what they want for tea rather than any spending restrictions.

There's been some bollocks written about how big a difference a breach made (Ferrari's half a second being the most laughable) and it's debatable how much, if any, difference it made to last season. However,  Hamilton is right that there needs to be a proper penalty. It's not going to be title stripping, as much as Sky and chums might try and push that agenda, but it needs to be something meaningful if they're going to keep the cost cap.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Stu

[Boo Khaki]

13 minutes ago, Stu said:

The cost cap was introduced last season, which went down to the final lap. This year has been poor but that's more down to Ferrari being fucking useless when faced with any decision more complex than deciding what they want for tea rather than any spending restrictions.

There's been some bollocks written about how big a difference a breach made (Ferrari's half a second being the most laughable) and it's debatable how much, if any, difference it made to last season. However,  Hamilton is right that there needs to be a proper penalty. It's not going to be title stripping, as much as Sky and chums might try and push that agenda, but it needs to be something meaningful if they're going to keep the cost cap.

I meant it more as a general rant about the 'cost cutting' F1 has been obsessed with for years. It markets itself as the pinnacle of motorsport, it's a prototype formula, yet there's next to no in-season development, no tyre war, the ridiculous stipulations on tyre usage, standardised parts, almost total reliability, and demands on suppliers to supply mandatory numbers of teams. All of it is horseshite that diminishes F1.

[flyingscot]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

I meant it more as a general rant about the 'cost cutting' F1 has been obsessed with for years. It markets itself as the pinnacle of motorsport, it's a prototype formula, yet there's next to no in-season development, no tyre war, the ridiculous stipulations on tyre usage, standardised parts, almost total reliability, and demands on suppliers to supply mandatory numbers of teams. All of it is horseshite that diminishes F1.

It's obsessed with cost cutting as costs were getting ridiculous and there was a strong chance of more teams and manufacturers just walking away as it wasn't affordable. Ford, Toyota, Honda all packing up and going within 2 years spooked F1. 

I think certain development aspects could be tweaked within a cost cap, but I don't think you can really turn back the clock. 

1 hour ago, Stu said:

It's not going to be title stripping, as much as Sky and chums might try and push that agenda, but it needs to be something meaningful if they're going to keep the cost cap.

Do we suspect the FIA aren't overly confident in the regulations and the breech hence we've heard precious little detail? I've seen a couple of articles suggesting Newey's salary arrangements are an issue. 

[Mackie The Staggie]

The fact that the FIA are offering an "accepted breach agreement" to RedBull  is utter bullshit.  It will be worded in such away to not annoy Horner spice and Mad Helmet Marko, it’s such utter cowardice and weakness from the FIA….but all very consistent from them.  A couple years ago, there were claims that Ferrari’s engine was non-compliant, the FIA investigated and found this to be the case (basically, they cheated the fuel flow rate and burned additional oil to generate greater power).  The FIA then negotiated with Ferrari there punishment, and for some reason, most likely because they did not want to piss off old man Ferrari, and agreed to keep the findings and eventual punishment private.  I don’t know any other sport where a team/individual who has been found guilty of cheating gets to have a say in their punishment, let alone make demands to keep the findings and punishment a secret.

Onto RedBull, we have seen previously that if a car fails scrutineering due to ride height or lack of fuel available to test they have been thrown out of sessions/races, this should be no different when it comes to the budget cap (whether we agree with a budget cap or not).  It’s clear that RedBull have cheated the budget to some degree, the question of how much since the term ‘Minor overspend’ relates to anything between $50,000 to $7,000,000 still needs to be made clear.  The FIA should be throwing the book at them, there should be substantial penalties for breaking the cap limit, but because of how everything finished last season, these legitimate demands get dragged into the toxic nature of Mercs v RedBull/Lewis v Max arguments.

Take the personalities involved out of the equations and the FIA have a very simple task, however add in Lewis/Max into and then everything reverts back to the toxic bullshit which the past 2 years have suffered from.

[Boo Khaki]

3 minutes ago, flyingscot said:

It's obsessed with cost cutting as costs were getting ridiculous and there was a strong chance of more teams and manufacturers just walking away as it wasn't affordable. Ford, Toyota, Honda all packing up and going within 2 years spooked F1. 

I think certain development aspects could be tweaked within a cost cap, but I don't think you can really turn back the clock. 

Indeed not, but I think they were barking up the wrong tree with the whole idea of 'keep costs low so we create a formula full of big manufacturers competing on a level playing field'. That is not what F1 has ever been about, and nor should it ever become like that. If that's the sort of series you want, just make it a silhouette series with standardised mechanics, standardised costs, and be done with it. For all the fears of 'big manufacturers' leaving the sport, there's a counter argument that says that's exactly what they should be striving for in order to return it to a genuine, innovative, privateer series.

It always gets stale when the sport is dominated by one team for an extended period, but it's not quite as bad when the domination is through year on year innovation and a bit of quirky out of the box thinking. I don't think I've ever been as bored as watching a completely soulless entity like Merc win year after year, by doing not much more that building a rock solid reliable car purely because there isn't really any scope for doing anything innovative. Try it, and if you get it slightly wrong you end up with a turd that you can't do much about because of the testing restrictions. Audi trampled everything in Sportscar for nearly 15 years and that was dull as hell as well, but at least they got the odd challenge from Toyota, Peugeot, or Porsche, as short lived as that was. I think there's a tipping point where having the resources of a massive corporation just throttles the life out of innovation because there are no real grey areas or avenues left unexplored. It's pretty ridiculous that they've had to rely on complete and total rewrites of the rulebook to invigorate a sport that used to be about purple poles and out of the box thinking, although in fairness the FIA really started that atrophy themselves back in the late 90's when they shat themselves over speeds and safety and did everything they could to make the cars virtually undriveable. But, in essence, they caused the stagnant, stifling nature of F1 themselves with the preoccupation with reducing cornering speeds, specs that created ridiculously unstable cars, and nonsense like testing bans and prohibiting setup changes between sessions. It was much more entertaining and interesting when it was more of a free-for-all, and not necessarily just because of on-track stuff.

[Todd_is_God]

Cost caps are never genuinely effective in *most* sports anyway, as the teams with the lowest budgets can't afford to reach them anyway.

[Stu]

3 hours ago, flyingscot said:

It's obsessed with cost cutting as costs were getting ridiculous and there was a strong chance of more teams and manufacturers just walking away as it wasn't affordable. Ford, Toyota, Honda all packing up and going within 2 years spooked F1. 

I think certain development aspects could be tweaked within a cost cap, but I don't think you can really turn back the clock. 

Do we suspect the FIA aren't overly confident in the regulations and the breech hence we've heard precious little detail? I've seen a couple of articles suggesting Newey's salary arrangements are an issue. 

I wondered that too, which might be why they're offering them a deal - bit like offering someone a plea bargain. Wouldn't surprise me if Red Bull have exploited some loop hole - Newey's salary being paid by some sub-contractor that is used by the race team (and Alpha Tauri). Seem to remember they tried that one before so they could use the same design for both car.

3 hours ago, Mackie The Staggie said:

The fact that the FIA are offering an "accepted breach agreement" to RedBull  is utter bullshit.  It will be worded in such away to not annoy Horner spice and Mad Helmet Marko, it’s such utter cowardice and weakness from the FIA….but all very consistent from them.  A couple years ago, there were claims that Ferrari’s engine was non-compliant, the FIA investigated and found this to be the case (basically, they cheated the fuel flow rate and burned additional oil to generate greater power).  The FIA then negotiated with Ferrari there punishment, and for some reason, most likely because they did not want to piss off old man Ferrari, and agreed to keep the findings and eventual punishment private.  I don’t know any other sport where a team/individual who has been found guilty of cheating gets to have a say in their punishment, let alone make demands to keep the findings and punishment a secret.

Onto RedBull, we have seen previously that if a car fails scrutineering due to ride height or lack of fuel available to test they have been thrown out of sessions/races, this should be no different when it comes to the budget cap (whether we agree with a budget cap or not).  It’s clear that RedBull have cheated the budget to some degree, the question of how much since the term ‘Minor overspend’ relates to anything between $50,000 to $7,000,000 still needs to be made clear.  The FIA should be throwing the book at them, there should be substantial penalties for breaking the cap limit, but because of how everything finished last season, these legitimate demands get dragged into the toxic nature of Mercs v RedBull/Lewis v Max arguments.

Take the personalities involved out of the equations and the FIA have a very simple task, however add in Lewis/Max into and then everything reverts back to the toxic bullshit which the past 2 years have suffered from.

I think that's a large part of it. If it was the other way round and Mercedes had been found guilty and Red Bull were wanting them penalised after losing the title I think more folk would be agreeing. Because it's the other way round it's being seen as sour grapes, even though Ferrari and McLaren (and probably others) have been calling for punishment.

Still, if the FIA and Red Bull do cut a deal it will at least keep the Hamilton weirdos on Twitter occupied.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Stu

[Miguel Sanchez]

[vikingTON]

7 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

I meant it more as a general rant about the 'cost cutting' F1 has been obsessed with for years. It markets itself as the pinnacle of motorsport, it's a prototype formula, yet there's next to no in-season development, no tyre war, the ridiculous stipulations on tyre usage, standardised parts, almost total reliability, and demands on suppliers to supply mandatory numbers of teams. All of it is horseshite that diminishes F1.

Bring back refueling. It provides an extra layer to strategy (fresh tyres v low fuel - a competent sport and tyre manufacturer could make the trade-off not at all obvious between the two). Drivers would also be encouraged to push much harder throughout the race (with less damage to the tyres) to stay competitive - which means more mistakes being punished. 

It would also be more efficient and therefore environmentally friendly than lugging around all the fuel on board from the start - just set the same or even a smaller maximum fuel consumption for the race. 

[Mr. Brightside]

5 hours ago, Mackie The Staggie said:

Onto RedBull, we have seen previously that if a car fails scrutineering due to ride height or lack of fuel available to test they have been thrown out of sessions/races, this should be no different when it comes to the budget cap (whether we agree with a budget cap or not).  It’s clear that RedBull have cheated the budget to some degree, the question of how much since the term ‘Minor overspend’ relates to anything between $50,000 to $7,000,000 still needs to be made clear.  The FIA should be throwing the book at them, there should be substantial penalties for breaking the cap limit, but because of how everything finished last season, these legitimate demands get dragged into the toxic nature of Mercs v RedBull/Lewis v Max arguments.

Is it? According to the FIA, which Red Bull disagree with.