727 replies to this topic

[Ivanhoe]

w1Y, on 27 Nov 2021 - 21:59, said:

For me the PU thing is no more a grey area than Red Bulls rear wing. In fact it's probably less given one 'could' be classed as cheating (I said could not is is) where as the PU is I'm fact punished through penalties.

Don’t know about that. Both probably intentionally did something against the spirit of the rules, but within the written rules. In Red Bull’s case however, the Sporting regulations explicitly stated that FIA could change the rules in season. Better check that before you decide messing around in the grey area I guess. 

[sketchy2001]

ARTGP, on 27 Nov 2021 - 22:06, said:

There is a story here which is what will happen to the grid drop regulations next season. The engine penalty system is designed encourage manufacturers to use as few power units as possible. So when a manufacturer finds a loophole in the regulations in order to chase performance, then people are going to discuss whether the regulations are effective. The FIA is going to have the discussion as well.

 

Have you given any thought to how the regulations might be improved?

Yes, there is a story here about penalties for exceeding PU allotments but that isn't the title of the thread is it?

 

This thread appears to have become about Mercedes is cheating (by following the rules) based mostly on an allegation by Christian Horner that there was something fishy about the speed of LH in Brazil, something that is not really proven when speeds are assessed by "realistic" comparisons.

 

This feels very much like Ivanhoe's favourite retort, that an argument is being created as to why Lewis/Merc do not deserve the title if they win and that Max/RB were the plucky under-dogs throughout - only losing (if they do) because they were cheated by the system.

 

As to how the regulations can be improved?  There are myriad ways, all of which will be criticised for one reason or another because it isn't "fair" in one particular situation and there will be (social)media outrage about it when that situation occurs.

 

Here's one, strong penalties directed at restricted resources rather than grid drops (often criticised)?  How about $1 million of cost cap per PU item used over allocation, coupled with 1% reduction in both windtunnel and CFD allowances for the current year.  Straight out of the box, I predict that people would complain that teams shouldn't be penalised because of the (in)action of their engine supplier, next! 

[LightningMcQueen]

This is an amusing thread, Mercedes cleverly taking advantage of a regulation introduced to assist Honda.

I mean, I think we’d all agree that Honda have reached an impressive level of performance? Partly because this rule allowed them to introduce as many updates in season as they wanted across RBR and their vanishing sister team (now THAT is dubious) .

So it’s is RBR have also benefitted from the exact same revaluation in prior years and this one.. an awful lot of short memories on here

[Tony Mandara]

LightningMcQueen, on 28 Nov 2021 - 10:19, said:

This is an amusing thread, Mercedes cleverly taking advantage of a regulation introduced to assist Honda.

I mean, I think we’d all agree that Honda have reached an impressive level of performance? Partly because this rule allowed them to introduce as many updates in season as they wanted across RBR and their vanishing sister team (now THAT is dubious) .

So it’s is RBR have also benefitted from the exact same revaluation in prior years and this one.. an awful lot of short memories on here

I'd say more 'selective' than 'short'.

To answer the OP's question..
"What if Mercedes win the championship on a grey rule?". Then they've won the championship legitimately. Since a grey area is not the 'illegal' area which you so desperately want to make it out to be.

Edited by Tony Mandara, 28 November 2021 - 10:34.

[danmills]

The problem is ultimately down to the fact if anyone other than Mercedes did it there'd be less uproar.

Credit to them for being the best. But many are bored of the status quo.

The rule would be great if we suddenly saw Ferrari or Mclaren closer to the front, but when the front just gets futher away than they already are its silly.

The penalties should linger every time the engine is used, the rule break is fine, but the burden needs to be heavy enough to question its worthiness of breaching.

[Ivanhoe]

danmills, on 28 Nov 2021 - 10:58, said:

The problem is ultimately down to the fact if anyone other than Mercedes did it there'd be less uproar..

I very much doubt there would be less uproar if RBR Honda were doing this engine trick in the last few races.

[Requiem84]

The problem is that a group of people always seems to think Mercedes is singled out.

That is ironic, as RB, Ferrari or any team in the history of F1 has been singled out when the competition was this tight.

[LightningMcQueen]

Ivanhoe, on 28 Nov 2021 - 11:13, said:

I very much doubt there would be less uproar if RBR Honda were doing this engine trick in the last few races.

There is no trick and there is no uproar. Just some fans with selective memories or who are more than happy to be hypocritical.

[YorkF1Fan]

YamahaV10, on 27 Nov 2021 - 16:50, said:

It's very unbecoming of Mercedes fans to be blowing everything about Horner out of proportion. He's clearly living rent free in your heads. All of you are just sitting at the edge of your chairs , waiting for something that you can snap about again.

The team that's behind in pace is always the team protesting. Mercedes did it all summer and has technical directives to show for it. One for wings and one for slowing down RB's pit stops

I've just figured it out, this is Mr Horner isn't it? would explain a lot 

[YorkF1Fan]

Think some people will be upset if it just turns out that Merc's increase in performance just comes from a mix of a few things like just understanding the car more, having the Silverstone update correct the car's rear end issues from the start of the season which meant they could finally use the suspension trick. Maybe a new fuel (think it's still legal to do that this season). But things like that don't get the headlines like blurry twitter video and photos that don't really show anything 

[MichaelPM]

2005 Renault bring a spicy engine for both their drivers to secure the WCC - https://www.f1technical.net/news/1150

 

Quote

“The strategy throughout the season – be it with a new engine, or halfway through a two-race cycle – has been to provide our drivers with the best possible compromise between performance and reliability. Obviously, for China, the reliability demands are somewhat different, as the engine only needs to complete a single race weekend, and the specification of the engine takes account of that.”

 

 

2021 Renault change Alonso's engine so it can be run harder over fewer races - https://www.motorspo...e-gain/6707061/

 

Quote

Alpine executive director Marcin Budkowski said that having a fresh engine for Alonso would allow it to run the power unit more aggressively over the six races remaining in the campaign.

“At some point it becomes advantageous to have another engine in your pool because of the performance of the engine and also for performance and reliability,” he explained.

“It's a cursor you move. If want to make an engine last longer, you have sacrifice performance or the other way around. So we looked at the circuits that were remaining, and this is the one where it was easiest to overtake.

 

“Then obviously it gives you the benefits of your extra engine for more races.”

 

I don't recall this much uproar from either instance.

Was it one of Martin's grid walks or a scene from Drive To Survive when Christian asked Cyril on the grid if they could get more power? Maybe he could try that with Honda.

Edited by MichaelPM, 28 November 2021 - 11:51.

[Radman]

YorkF1Fan, on 28 Nov 2021 - 11:26, said:

I've just figured it out, this is Mr Horner isn't it? would explain a lot 

Im pretty sure it is too, or his PA

[Clatter]

MichaelPM, on 28 Nov 2021 - 11:50, said:

2005 Renault bring a spicy engine for both their drivers to secure the WCC - https://www.f1technical.net/news/1150

 

 

 

2021 Renault change Alonso's engine so it can be run harder over fewer races - https://www.motorspo...e-gain/6707061/

 

 

I don't recall this much uproar from either instance.

Was it one of Martin's grid walks or a scene from Drive To Survive when Christian asked Cyril on the grid if they could get more power? Maybe he could try that with Honda.

 

Penalty was start from the back of the grid. It's not that Merc are changing engines for performance that I have an issue with, it's that they have highlighted the stupidity of the rules that the penalty is less for taking more. The penalty should increase for each subsequent element taken, not reduce. Personally I didn't realise that was the rule until now.

[Deeq]

ARTGP, on 27 Nov 2021 - 22:06, said:

There is a story here which is what will happen to the grid drop regulations next season. The engine penalty system is designed encourage manufacturers to use as few power units as possible. So when a manufacturer finds a loophole in the regulations in order to chase performance, then people are going to discuss whether the regulations are effective. The FIA is going to have the discussion as well.

Have you given any thought to how the regulations might be improved?

I say loosen the rules..25 units/year.
Min 1
Max 25

[MichaelPM]

Clatter, on 28 Nov 2021 - 12:26, said:

Penalty was start from the back of the grid. It's not that Merc are changing engines for performance that I have an issue with, it's that they have highlighted the stupidity of the rules that the penalty is less for taking more. The penalty should increase for each subsequent element taken, not reduce. Personally I didn't realise that was the rule until now.

Let me play devil's advocate with how your take on how the rule should be.

 

The FIA announce that they saw your post and decided to introduce the Clatter rule of engine penalties.

2022 will see Renault introducing their new engine and let's say it suffers from high degradation and reliability is not all there after 5 races.

They figure out that for a new engine there is a huge advantage with it running in qualifying mode for a full race distance.

The 2022 car designs prove themselves a full success with less turbulence, closer following and easier non-drs overtaking.

Alpine throws a new engine into their cars for every round with the first few being minor penalties but still being able to steam through the field and win.

Now here's the kicker, there are limited number of grid positions, the penalties mean nothing after the first full grid drop and both titles are already done with a record streak of 1-2 finishes.

People will come on here then and say why did Clatter suggest such a stupid rule?

[Sam1]

LightningMcQueen, on 28 Nov 2021 - 11:23, said:

There is no trick and there is no uproar. Just some fans with selective memories or who are more than happy to be hypocritical.

Yes the same was said against redbull when they were wining you cant have your cake and eat it 

[ARTGP]

MichaelPM, on 28 Nov 2021 - 14:44, said:

Let me play devil's advocate with how your take on how the rule should be.

 

The FIA announce that they saw your post and decided to introduce the Clatter rule of engine penalties.

2022 will see Renault introducing their new engine and let's say it suffers from high degradation and reliability is not all there after 5 races.

They figure out that for a new engine there is a huge advantage with it running in qualifying mode for a full race distance.

The 2022 car designs prove themselves a full success with less turbulence, closer following and easier non-drs overtaking.

Alpine throws a new engine into their cars for every round with the first few being minor penalties but still being able to steam through the field and win.

Now here's the kicker, there are limited number of grid positions, the penalties mean nothing after the first full grid drop and both titles are already done with a record streak of 1-2 finishes.

People will come on here then and say why did Clatter suggest such a stupid rule?

 

The first penalty isn't "minor". Currently, the first grid drop is 10 places, per element. So a full PU change is back of the grid, and an ICE is 10 places. From there, you increase, as OP suggested. Currently, we decrease.  This invites abuse for performance reasons.

Edited by ARTGP, 28 November 2021 - 15:25.

[YamahaV10]

LightningMcQueen, on 28 Nov 2021 - 10:19, said:

This is an amusing thread, Mercedes cleverly taking advantage of a regulation introduced to assist Honda.

I mean, I think we’d all agree that Honda have reached an impressive level of performance? Partly because this rule allowed them to introduce as many updates in season as they wanted across RBR and their vanishing sister team (now THAT is dubious) .

So it’s is RBR have also benefitted from the exact same revaluation in prior years and this one.. an awful lot of short memories on here

That's if you believe the reason for Brazil was the new ICE which i don't. Everyone knew the rules at the start of the season. Logic would dictate that Mercedes would have used this strategy all year and would have won the championship already. They didn't just stumble across the idea with 4 races left.

Which means something else is the reason for the speed.

[ARTGP]

Deeq, on 28 Nov 2021 - 13:39, said:

I say loosen the rules..25 units/year.
Min 1
Max 25

 

This favors the manufacturer teams who can and will simply open the checkbook and "buy" 25 engines. The smaller teams won't be able to do that. 

[Clatter]

MichaelPM, on 28 Nov 2021 - 14:44, said:

Let me play devil's advocate with how your take on how the rule should be.

The FIA announce that they saw your post and decided to introduce the Clatter rule of engine penalties.
2022 will see Renault introducing their new engine and let's say it suffers from high degradation and reliability is not all there after 5 races.
They figure out that for a new engine there is a huge advantage with it running in qualifying mode for a full race distance.
The 2022 car designs prove themselves a full success with less turbulence, closer following and easier non-drs overtaking.
Alpine throws a new engine into their cars for every round with the first few being minor penalties but still being able to steam through the field and win.
Now here's the kicker, there are limited number of grid positions, the penalties mean nothing after the first full grid drop and both titles are already done with a record streak of 1-2 finishes.
People will come on here then and say why did Clatter suggest such a stupid rule?

There are other penalties that can be used in conjunction with grid penalties. Either way, reducing the penalty is not the way to go.

[shure]

MichaelPM, on 28 Nov 2021 - 11:50, said:

2005 Renault bring a spicy engine for both their drivers to secure the WCC - https://www.f1technical.net/news/1150

 

 

 

2021 Renault change Alonso's engine so it can be run harder over fewer races - https://www.motorspo...e-gain/6707061/

 

 

I don't recall this much uproar from either instance.

Was it one of Martin's grid walks or a scene from Drive To Survive when Christian asked Cyril on the grid if they could get more power? Maybe he could try that with Honda.

You really had to go back to 2005? 

 

Hate to break it to you, but what Renault "did" 16 years ago(!) was not only very different to today but actually very much in keeping with both the letter and spirit of the rules.  In 2005, a new rule was introduced stating that engines had to last "two complete grand prix weekends."  Alonso's engine was for China, the last race of the season.  A 19-race season.  I'll leave you to work it out...

 

I admit I missed Alonso's one, mainly because I don't really follow anything that's happening with the Renault team, generally speaking.  The lack of "uproar" is likely due at least in part because they aren't involved at the sharp end so don't get as much attention.  But I view it in much the same way as Hamilton's PU change tbh.  Sorry

[Squeed]

Sparky68, on 26 Nov 2021 - 23:11, said:

So what is it w1Y , did Merc need to flout the rules or not to keep RBR behind?

 

Name 1 time in the history of RB's F1 team that they refused to exploit an allowance in the rules to gain an advantage because Horner and Marko decided it just wasn't aligned with the spirit of the rules? 

[Deeq]

ARTGP, on 28 Nov 2021 - 15:07, said:

This favors the manufacturer teams who can and will simply open the checkbook and "buy" 25 engines. The smaller teams won't be able to do that.

So be it, the sport should be run as a sport not handikapp some to assist others. It is a capitalistic sport after all..
if you cant take the heat..
Long lasting engines, tyres...soon batteries..to drive to a delta 😡

I dislike when other teams win or worse dominate and I am most furios then to my Ferrari..but the Merc dominion is abominable cause its facilitated by FIAs uter stupidity.
The opposition is firmly tied behind the pole..taking a punch after onether for nearly a decade, And there is no end in sight!

Edited by Deeq, 28 November 2021 - 19:00.

[Dhillon]

The smaller teams have ‘nil’ chance of fighting for championship anyways.
These costly complicated hybrid engines have been a disaster.

[w1Y]

Dhillon, on 29 Nov 2021 - 06:16, said:

The smaller teams have ‘nil’ chance of fighting for championship anyways.
These costly complicated hybrid engines have been a disaster.

When was the last time a small team fought for thw championship. I don't include Brawn because that car had so much money spent on it.

[gillesfan76]

How on earth does this topic have 15 pages? There’s literally nothing grey about what Mercedes is doing, it’s perfectly fine. No one, not even Horner or Marko, actually knows what Mercedes is or isn’t doing. FIA hasn’t said anything but most importantly, nothing is even being investigated. What on earth is the discussion about?

[gillesfan76]

ARTGP, on 27 Nov 2021 - 20:42, said:

The change in Monza and Turkey was justified. Hamilton and Bottas could not finish the season with 3 PUs. Hamilton's second PU failed in Zandvoort. Bottas's PU also actually failed somewhere, I don't recall.  They had 10 place grid drops.

 

But things changed only because Merc openly admitted to taking Hamilton's 5th PU for performance reasons. Every Merc customer team will finish the season with 4 PUs.   Why does Hamilton need 5 and why does Bottas need 6? Engine pooling for performance reasons.  So naturally the subject comes up.

 

What a strange discussion. Mercedes exploiting the rules to the fullest, why isn’t Red Bull doing the same? Meanwhile Red Bull has a sister team that is actively aiding the main team, again I’ve no problem with it and if Mercedes complained about that, I’d be saying Red Bull is exploiting the rules to the fullest, why isn’t Mercedes doing the same?

 

If the FIA have made a rule with a loophole, kudos to the teams that exploit it and up to the FIA to close that off next chance they get. People so so so so so desperate for Mercedes to not win the championship that they’ve completely lost their marbles. 

[Ivanhoe]

That's a fair point gillesfan76. We also have the 'Spicy engine' thread where the same subject is discussed. So I see no good reasons to keep this thread alive for the moment.