598 replies to this topic

[Ivanhoe]

As argued before, straight line performance is not the same as straight line top speed. It's about 'time spent' on the straights, which is the average speed on the whole straight.

[Squeed]

5km/h vs 9.2km/h.

If you are quoting data, please do it correctly.

 

I don't answer to you, find someone else to bitch and moan about your team losing to. 

[Requiem84]

I don't answer to you, find someone else to bitch and moan about your team losing to.

All I’m asking is that we keep the facts clear. That’s the basis for a good discussion.

[ARTGP]

That was anticipated though, at least partly due to running an old engine

 

Sure, but there still seems to be a subset of viewers who don't think Mercedes have any straightline advantage at all and bring up rounds like Qatar to obfuscate matters.

 

Example: 

Didn't see a slow red bull I the straights in qatar

 

 

 

There was a AMUS article which said Merc was gaining between 2 to 5 tenths on the straights in Brazil and Mexico.

Edited by ARTGP, 29 November 2021 - 16:55.

[shure]

So what would you have the FIA do? Refuse Mercedes taking a new engine on the speculation that Mercedes is taking it not because they’re worried about engine reliability but because they want to extract a performance gain? If so, what happens if the Mercedes engine fails during a race after the FIA prevents them from taking a new one by claiming that Mercedes don’t need to do it for reliability? Could look interesting if Mercedes then took them to court, given the amount of money involved in the sport.

 

“So what’s happened here then?”

”Well we’re supposed to be allowed to change engines and take a penalty for doing so. But we were prevented from doing so because the spirit of the regulation on taking new engines is for reliability reasons. We told the FIA we did need to take the new engine for reliability reasons but they didn’t believe us and prevented us taking a new engine”.

“Then what happened?”

”Well the engine failed because it was too old and not reliable. We weren’t lying. The FIA prevented us from exercising what is allowed by the regulation because they mistakenly believed we were not within the spirit of the regulation. They were wrong and it has cost us this much $$$$$$$ in championship funding, sponsorship, reputational loss…….”

 

Exactly, a mere whine thread because nothing can be done about it and rightly so.

 

edit: btw that article and Brawn’s quotes is the most nonsensical thing I’ve read today, and believe me that’s a surprise for me too because I’ve spent most of my day reading employee justifications about why refusing the covid vaccination isn’t a breach of their employment contract when their employment contract working for aged care specifically notes that is indeed a part of their contract. But anyways….

 

“If you exploit a loophole in the future, you can be shut down at the next race, which you could never do now.”

It’s not clear how the new rule will work if two or more teams have taken advantage of the same loophole, with Brawn explaining that the ‘double diffuser’ from 2009 would have been allowed as three teams were running it, not just one.

“There were three teams that had it [the double diffuser], so it would have carried on – but if one team stands out there with a solution that has never been conceived, and has never been imagined, and destroys the whole principle of what is trying to be done, the governance would allow, with sufficient support from the other teams, to stop it. This is a whole different philosophy.”

 

So what Brawn is saying is that if one person steals, it’s a problem but if you steal with another person it’s no problem at all because 2 thieves don’t really stand out like one does. So if we have 1 team exploiting a loophole, and 10 remaining teams suffering then it clearly means it’s not in the spirit of the regulation. But if you have 2 teams exploiting a loop hole, and 9 remaining teams suffering then that “is a whole different philosophy”. So if Red Bull finds a loophole, all they really need to do is share it with their sister team Alpha Tauri and then it’s 2 teams so it’s no longer exploiting a loophole. Wrong becomes right as long as it’s 2 not 1. 

I'd have them write proper rules and let a properly qualified person use a computer to do it, instead of the local village idiot using crayon.  And given that Merc have already admitted they did it purely for performance reasons I don't see the court scenario above enfolding in the same way 

 

For the short term, there's not a lot they can do.  But hopefully they are taking notice and will give more than 10s thought to the next regulations and write things that can't be circumvented so easily.  I did write a tentative proposal myself earlier somewhere in this thread ( I think), so it's not that hard.  In  a nutshell, while there should be provision for replacing faulty units, taking a penalty shouldn't be a strategic choice and the consequences should be severe enough to give pause for thought.  I mean, you'd hope the FIA don't actually enjoy them and their rules being made a laughing stock.

 

And yes, RB's comments above just add yet another layer of confusion, unfortunately

[w1Y]

Sure, but there still seems to be a subset of viewers who don't think Mercedes have any straightline advantage at all and bring up rounds like Qatar to obfuscate matters.

Example:



There was a AMUS article which said Merc was gaining between 2 to 5 tenths on the straights in Brazil and Mexico.

And now all the goal posts have moved and people are arguing semantics. The point is you all quoted horners 27kph difference or whatever it was.

The reality is it was nowhere near that.

Red bull were finding it relatively easy to overtake in Qatar so they were finding steaight line speed on a track with less straight lines.

I guess when we race cars now your only allowed to say its a good job by a team if they are faster in the corners.

Edited by w1Y, 29 November 2021 - 18:01.

[Requiem84]

And now all the goal posts have moved and people are arguing semantics. The point is you all quoted horners 27kph difference or whatever it was.

The reality is it was nowhere near that.

Red bull were finding it relatively easy to overtake in Qatar so they were finding steaight line speed on a track with less straight lines.

I guess when we race cars now your only allowed to say its a good job by a team if they are faster in the corners.

I actually never quoted Horner to substantiate the speed delta as I do my own research.

‘You all quoted Horner’ is nonsense. Don’t put words in other people’s mouth please.

Edited by Requiem84, 29 November 2021 - 18:07.

[w1Y]

Don’t put words in other people’s mouth please.

Sure. I'll keep a note.

So there isn't much to fuss over is there. The rules about engine changes.

That's been discussed to death now. I'm not sure what else there is to talk about.

[Requiem84]

Sure. I'll keep a note.

So there isn't much to fuss over is there. The rules about engine changes.

That's been discussed to death now. I'm not sure what else there is to talk about.

 

You're free to not visit the thread if you don't think it's interesting to discuss .

 

I still think it's interesting to discuss whether the rules are working as intended. And it's also still interesting to talk about the Brazil spec ICE of Hamilton in terms of what it delivers in HP and how Mercedes did this etc. 

[ARTGP]

I guess when we race cars now your only allowed to say its a good job by a team if they are faster in the corners.

 

Mercedes finding performance in a straight line is commendable. As has been discussed, they seem to achieve it through a combination of rear suspension witchcraft, spicy engines, and possibly rear wing.

Edited by ARTGP, 29 November 2021 - 18:45.

[NoForumForOldPole]

witchcraft? That's easy - throw Toto to the river and if he drowns - no witchcraft, if he swims however...

Edited by NoForumForOldPole, 29 November 2021 - 22:25.

[OneAndOnly]

No offence but it’s a daft question. How on earth would I or anyone else know without access to the date.

Are they running the engines harder - yes absolutely without doubt.. are they breaking any rules - no absolutely they are not breaking any rules.

It’s really that simple

Without looking at data you were pretty sure about where does performance difference comes from. 
I never said they were breaking rules. Too many people in this thread are replying to mythical post where someone accuses Mercedes of cheating. It's like you want to imply it. With such big swing in performance it's perfectly legitimate to ask questions and have normal discussion about it. Btw I am NOT accusing Mercedes of cheating. My point is that rules are bad since it's very easy to circumvent whole point of given rule. 
 

[Sash1]

 

 

I still think it's interesting to discuss whether the rules are working as intended.

 

When rule states if x then y and you do x followed by y (new ice = 5 place grid drop), then the rules are working as intended. That's all there is to it. 

Else it would have to state: If your x fails in race z, then y a the nex race (blow an engine in a race, take a new ice + 5 places grid drop. Then you have a rule with an intention, working as intended.

 

It is as simple as that. If you don't agree because you see some 'spirit of the rule', then complain about the rulemaker. Not a team that is using a rule as it is written. 

[Requiem84]

When rule states if x then y and you do x followed by y (new ice = 5 place grid drop), then the rules are working as intended. That's all there is to it. 

Else it would have to state: If your x fails in race z, then y a the nex race (blow an engine in a race, take a new ice + 5 places grid drop. Then you have a rule with an intention, working as intended.

 

It is as simple as that. If you don't agree because you see some 'spirit of the rule', then complain about the rulemaker. Not a team that is using a rule as it is written. 

 

That's not how the concept works actually.

 

The purpose of the rules is (afaik) twofold: Firstly, limiting development costs by the freeze and by limiting the use of parts. Secondly, the purpose of the rules is to create more parity. To achieve this purpose, the manufacturers are being deterred from using more elements than X. The deterrent is obviously a penalty. 

 

But as Mercedes not demonstrated, that penalty is not actually a sufficient deterrent at all. As you can see from all of my posts on this topic, I am not complaining about Mercedes' behavior. I think they actually played it very smartly. 

 

What I do think is that the (penalty) rules need to be improved for future years. If this will not be improved, all manufacturers will spend a lot of money and time to develop ICE's that can run harder for a limited number of races. That will lead to a cost war. 

[Huffer]

That's not how the concept works actually.

 

The purpose of the rules is (afaik) twofold: Firstly, limiting development costs by the freeze and by limiting the use of parts. Secondly, the purpose of the rules is to create more parity. To achieve this purpose, the manufacturers are being deterred from using more elements than X. The deterrent is obviously a penalty. 

 

But as Mercedes not demonstrated, that penalty is not actually a sufficient deterrent at all. As you can see from all of my posts on this topic, I am not complaining about Mercedes' behavior. I think they actually played it very smartly. 

 

What I do think is that the (penalty) rules need to be improved for future years. If this will not be improved, all manufacturers will spend a lot of money and time to develop ICE's that can run harder for a limited number of races. That will lead to a cost war. 

 

I broadly agree with this. The problem we have is that the rules were changed for Honda, so that the required frequent engine changes wouldn't be too damaging to them as they tried to get to grips with the hybrid format. So we've ended up with a situation where the rules were intentionally changed to ensure that there wasn't a significant impact when it came to PU penalties. 

 

In truth, the rules should have have been amended before last season as it became clear that Honda's reliability was no longer a major issue. I'm still a bit miffed as to why this didn't happen in 2019.

[Requiem84]

I broadly agree with this. The problem we have is that the rules were changed for Honda, so that the required frequent engine changes wouldn't be too damaging to them as they tried to get to grips with the hybrid format. So we've ended up with a situation where the rules were intentionally changed to ensure that there wasn't a significant impact when it came to PU penalties. 

 

In truth, the rules should have have been amended before last season as it became clear that Honda's reliability was no longer a major issue. I'm still a bit miffed as to why this didn't happen in 2019.

 

Yeah, the issue often times with rules (in general, it's not a specific F1 situation) is that they are working for a specific situation. But once that situation changes, the rules usually stay in places and then don't really work anymore. 

 

I remember 'back in the day', where Renault was also suffering from reliability a lot in 2017. If I recall it correctly, if you exceeded the potential grid penalty (i.e., you'd qualify on P10, but you'd have 20 places grid penalty due to new PU elements), the remaining part of the penalties resulted in a 5 / 10s time penalty during that race (or the following race). That lead to very unpleasant situations for RB in any case and a lot of things which were hard to understand for us viewers. 

 

It's difficult to strike a balance between not being too strict and also not too lenient. 

 

Nevertheless, I'll say it again for anyone who only reads the first part of a post and the last sentence: good job Mercedes for spotting this opportunity!

[Ivanhoe]

Exactly, we have been reading in here that the grid penalties were reduced to facilitate Honda/Red Bull, but that wasn't the case really. Until 2017 the grid penalty system was as followed:

 

The first time a 5th element is used, a ten grid place penalty, first time a 5th of any of the remaining elements is used,a five grid place penalty.

The first time a 6th element is used, a ten grid place penalty, first time a 6th of any of the remaining elements is used,a five grid place penalty, and so on.

 

That changed in 2018, but had nothing to do with Honda, but everything with reducing the maximum number of PU elements from 4 to 3 and adjusting the penalty system. Since 2018 the penalty system for any of the PU elements is as followed:

 

The first time an additional element is used, a ten grid place penalty. The next times an additional element is used, a five grid place penalty

 

The penalty's are not necessarily less harsh and it certainly didn't have anything to do with Honda/RBR.

 

What did have to do with Honda is the rule change in 2016 and that has everything to do with what Requiem84 was quoting above, that teams (mainly Honda/McLaren) were facing drive through and 10 second stop and go penalties in the next race when the full grid place penalties couldn't be applied. That's why this part of the Sporting Regulations was deleted in 2016. 

 

[gillesfan76]

That's not how the concept works actually.

 

The purpose of the rules is (afaik) twofold: Firstly, limiting development costs by the freeze and by limiting the use of parts. Secondly, the purpose of the rules is to create more parity. To achieve this purpose, the manufacturers are being deterred from using more elements than X. The deterrent is obviously a penalty. 

 

But as Mercedes not demonstrated, that penalty is not actually a sufficient deterrent at all. As you can see from all of my posts on this topic, I am not complaining about Mercedes' behavior. I think they actually played it very smartly. 

 

What I do think is that the (penalty) rules need to be improved for future years. If this will not be improved, all manufacturers will spend a lot of money and time to develop ICE's that can run harder for a limited number of races. That will lead to a cost war. 

 

Was it just Lewis and Mercedes that benefitted from this engine change and penalty or did we only start talking about it after he benefitted? Because as far as I can remember, Max started from the very back of the grid in the Russian GP after taking a full power unit penalty (not just a 5 place grid penalty for ICE change like Lewis) and came all the way from very last to P2, but all I can remember back then was a lot of people quite validly saying how wonderful and valiant a drive that was. No mention of how the rule was being bastardised. In fact no mention how his Monza 3 place grid penalty was not even able to be applied at the Russian GP because the team used a loophole to take the power unit penalty that put him all the way at the back. Kind of like if one was able to take a stop and go penalty by including a pit stop into the stop part of the stop and go penalty (which of course you can’t, because it would make the whole penalty meaningless).

 

But carry on.

[Dhillon]

Max would have finished 7th in Russia without the rain.

[ARTGP]

Was it just Lewis and Mercedes that benefitted from this engine change and penalty or did we only start talking about it after he benefitted? Because as far as I can remember, Max started from the very back of the grid in the Russian GP after taking a full power unit penalty (not just a 5 place grid penalty for ICE change like Lewis) and came all the way from very last to P2, but all I can remember back then was a lot of people quite validly saying how wonderful and valiant a drive that was. No mention of how the rule was being bastardised. In fact no mention how his Monza 3 place grid penalty was not even able to be applied at the Russian GP because the team used a loophole to take the power unit penalty that put him all the way at the back. Kind of like if one was able to take a stop and go penalty by including a pit stop into the stop part of the stop and go penalty (which of course you can’t, because it would make the whole penalty meaningless).

 

But carry on.

 

I think you are starting to lose the context of the thread. The discussion has to do with manufacturers taking excessive engine changes for performance reasons and whether the penalty system is sufficient to prevent this (because that is specifically why we have the engine penalty system in place, to prevent excessive cost associated with short lived "spicy engines" ).  Max took a 4th PU due to a crash which damaged an engine. Mercedes are on the record stating they took a 5th PU for performance reasons and have taken 6 PUs for Bottas while their customers have only used 4 PU.

Edited by ARTGP, 30 November 2021 - 17:10.

[Squeed]

I broadly agree with this. The problem we have is that the rules were changed for Honda, so that the required frequent engine changes wouldn't be too damaging to them as they tried to get to grips with the hybrid format. So we've ended up with a situation where the rules were intentionally changed to ensure that there wasn't a significant impact when it came to PU penalties. 

 

In truth, the rules should have have been amended before last season as it became clear that Honda's reliability was no longer a major issue. I'm still a bit miffed as to why this didn't happen in 2019.

 

The obvious answer is that the teams who control the PU decisions...Ferrari, Merc, RB and Alpine...didn't want the rules amended.  

[ARTGP]

The obvious answer is that the teams who control the PU decisions...Ferrari, Merc, RB and Alpine...didn't want the rules amended.  

 

To me, it's likely that F1 and it's teams have so many bigger "fires" to put out, that something like this just doesn't enter the conscious, until someone successfully exploits it. 

 

Look at DAS. The steering regulations never came under scrutiny, until Mercedes successfully exploited the ambiguity in them.  FIA lack the ability to "fix" things, until someone shows them how it can be exploited.

 

If you are Ferrari/Renault/Honda, which direction do you think they want the regs to go now that Mercedes have shown what is possible in the current rules?  Do those other manufacturers want to spend money to chase Mercedes, or would they rather the FIA rethink the regulations? In this financial climate, the latter is the most likely.

Edited by ARTGP, 30 November 2021 - 17:13.

[Squeed]

To me, it's likely that F1 and it's teams have so many bigger "fires" to put out, that something like this just doesn't enter the conscious, until someone successfully exploits it. 

 

Look at DAS. The steering regulations never came under scrutiny, until Mercedes successfully exploited the ambiguity in them.

 

They presented the DAS system to the FIA a year before they developed it, and the FIA even gave them guidance on how they could and could not use the wheel to activate it.  Now you see the technology making it's way to high end luxury sports cars, although it is computer controlled.  To me, the two things are not comparable.  

 

With the previous engine rules, you could take the multiple penalties in one race and stockpile PU's with a 172 place grid penalty, for example.  The new rule prevents stockpiling in that manner.  Everyone on the grid is against draconian penalties, and most TP's I've read seem to believe that 4 PUs is the right number for the current # of races.  I don't doubt that they'll tweak the rules somehow in the near future, but I don't think that an over-reaction to an example of how the current rules allows for a tactical ICE change will be the answer.  

 

If I had to guess, I'd say that we'll go to 4 PUs per season, back of the grid penalty for each additional unit (whether it's just the ICE or the entire PU).  

[Requiem84]

Was it just Lewis and Mercedes that benefitted from this engine change and penalty or did we only start talking about it after he benefitted? Because as far as I can remember, Max started from the very back of the grid in the Russian GP after taking a full power unit penalty (not just a 5 place grid penalty for ICE change like Lewis) and came all the way from very last to P2, but all I can remember back then was a lot of people quite validly saying how wonderful and valiant a drive that was. No mention of how the rule was being bastardised. In fact no mention how his Monza 3 place grid penalty was not even able to be applied at the Russian GP because the team used a loophole to take the power unit penalty that put him all the way at the back. Kind of like if one was able to take a stop and go penalty by including a pit stop into the stop part of the stop and go penalty (which of course you can’t, because it would make the whole penalty meaningless).

 

But carry on.

I’ll keep it short:

 

1) Did Mac take a new PU for performance reasons, or because he lost one due to Silverstone

2) Where would Max have ended without the lucky last minute rain? (Yes, he actually got overtaken by an Alpine in the dry!).

 

That’s two mistakes in a row. Best read the context of the discussion before jumping on your keyboard.

[gillesfan76]

I’ll keep it short:

 

1) Did Mac take a new PU for performance reasons, or because he lost one due to Silverstone

2) Where would Max have ended without the lucky last minute rain? (Yes, he actually got overtaken by an Alpine in the dry!).

 

That’s two mistakes in a row. Best read the context of the discussion before jumping on your keyboard.

 

I don’t really care what teams say. They all say a lot. What they do is more important. In any case, I have zero problem with Max and Red Bull taking PUs for whatever reason they want. It’s allowed right?

 

At the end of the day, Red Bull still looked strategically regarding where and when to take the engine penalty. Who knows where he would have ended up without rain, likely not P2, maybe P5, P7, P8 who knows. Didn’t happen though. He still came all the way back from last.

 

The FIA has given very specific penalties regarding various components. All the teams knew this, all the teams had the opportunity to consider strategic use of this. The most important thing in F1 is this and as long as this is met: It’s the same for everyone.

 

Is it the same for everyone? If so, then it’s ok. It’s when it’s ok for some, not the others that’s the problem. Norris getting penalised for pushing Checo slightly off track while staying within it himself while Max not getting any penalty for trying to push Lewis towards Colombia; that sort of inconsistency is crap. Consistency is key so it can be same for everyone to take advantage of, or not.

[TheFish]

I might be wrong but to give the FIA a little credit, we haven't really seen teams take 1 element for a performance boost previously? Normally teams take an entire PU, pretty rare to just see a new ICE.

[Ivanhoe]

I might be wrong but to give the FIA a little credit, we haven't really seen teams take 1 element for a performance boost previously? Normally teams take an entire PU, pretty rare to just see a new ICE.

Good point, we've seen it with the CE and ES, but not so much with the ICE, TC and the MGU's. Think it's fair to say they never thought of this situation.

[SenorSjon]

Usually there wasn't a big deficit in wear between components. 

[pdac]

Good point, we've seen it with the CE and ES, but not so much with the ICE, TC and the MGU's. Think it's fair to say they never thought of this situation.

 

They never think of a lot of things. That's because they never think. That may be because they are incapable of thinking. But, it's not something that I would consider to be a total surprise or, indeed, something that could not have been foreseen by a reasonably competent rule maker.

[shure]

I might be wrong but to give the FIA a little credit, we haven't really seen teams take 1 element for a performance boost previously? Normally teams take an entire PU, pretty rare to just see a new ICE.

yes fair point.  I suspect that's largely down to the reportedly heavy degradation that the Merc engines are suffering from.  It's less attractive for eg Honda currently, because they don't lose much performance anyway, so the benefit is not as stark.  Kind of ironic that Merc's failure to create an engine that can give its drivers consistent performance has given them a bigger benefit at the end of the season than if they'd done it properly from the start.  So on this occasion being "bad," relatively speaking, has actually proven to be very fortunate for them and given them an unexpected opportunity which their rival can't fully take advantage of even if they wanted to

[shure]

I don’t really care what teams say. They all say a lot. What they do is more important. In any case, I have zero problem with Max and Red Bull taking PUs for whatever reason they want. It’s allowed right?

 

At the end of the day, Red Bull still looked strategically regarding where and when to take the engine penalty. Who knows where he would have ended up without rain, likely not P2, maybe P5, P7, P8 who knows. Didn’t happen though. He still came all the way back from last.

 

The FIA has given very specific penalties regarding various components. All the teams knew this, all the teams had the opportunity to consider strategic use of this. The most important thing in F1 is this and as long as this is met: It’s the same for everyone.

 

Is it the same for everyone? If so, then it’s ok. It’s when it’s ok for some, not the others that’s the problem. Norris getting penalised for pushing Checo slightly off track while staying within it himself while Max not getting any penalty for trying to push Lewis towards Colombia; that sort of inconsistency is crap. Consistency is key so it can be same for everyone to take advantage of, or not.

You're not comparing like for like, though, to be fair.

 

Red Bull changed their PU because theirs was damaged due to the actions of a competitor.  It wasn't a choice thing.  Otherwise their other PUs would have had to go for much longer than they had been designed for.  And given there's no obligation to run a PU until it pops, before replacing it (ie they rotate PUs throughout the year anyway, based on specific track demands), there's nothing unusual in them choosing the right moment to make the change (as they would when introducing any of the original PUs anyway).   Merc elected to change theirs because they saw that it would give them a significant competitive advantage, not because they had reliability concerns for their existing units (as they have themselves already stated).  It's completely voluntary and wholly strategic.  Regardless of where you stand on the "should they / shouldn't they" debate, it's a wholly different scenario for both teams and driven by very different circumstances.  I don't think it's fair to give the impression they are the same.

[gillesfan76]

yes fair point.  I suspect that's largely down to the reportedly heavy degradation that the Merc engines are suffering from.  It's less attractive for eg Honda currently, because they don't lose much performance anyway, so the benefit is not as stark.  Kind of ironic that Merc's failure to create an engine that can give its drivers consistent performance has given them a bigger benefit at the end of the season than if they'd done it properly from the start.  So on this occasion being "bad," relatively speaking, has actually proven to be very fortunate for them and given them an unexpected opportunity which their rival can't fully take advantage of even if they wanted to

 

You’re assuming it was a failure by Mercedes to create a PU with higher initial output that then falls away faster, that they can then take advantage of the rules regarding taking engine component penalties. It could well be a failure, and ironic as you said. Or it could be something they’ve designed strategically. Could be a case of push the engine harder for a shorter time, then take strategic penalties. Cue outcry.

 

You're not comparing like for like, though, to be fair.

 

Red Bull changed their PU because theirs was damaged due to the actions of a competitor.  It wasn't a choice thing.  Otherwise their other PUs would have had to go for much longer than they had been designed for.  And given there's no obligation to run a PU until it pops, before replacing it (ie they rotate PUs throughout the year anyway, based on specific track demands), there's nothing unusual in them choosing the right moment to make the change (as they would when introducing any of the original PUs anyway).   Merc elected to change theirs because they saw that it would give them a significant competitive advantage, not because they had reliability concerns for their existing units (as they have themselves already stated).  It's completely voluntary and wholly strategic.  Regardless of where you stand on the "should they / shouldn't they" debate, it's a wholly different scenario for both teams and driven by very different circumstances.  I don't think it's fair to give the impression they are the same.

 

I don’t understand the point of this post. I’m not saying anything different to you in terms of stating the facts, only difference is the outrage. Not sure why you’re getting a different impression than what I’ve said. I wholly agree with you that Red Bull changed theirs for reliability reasons and likely Honda has designed their engine to have better reliability and less degradation. My point is simply that the rules are the same for everyone. Honda could’ve done what Mercedes did with their engine characteristics. Big power for shorter, take engine component penalties. Red Bull could have thought of this. Rules same. If one team thought of it and another didn’t, too bad so sad.

 

This is F1. If the rules say you can change engine components but must pay a penalty, sure I can see how many teams just interpret the penalty as a negative and try to build the most reliable and consistent engines they can. But if another team thinks, hey we can use that. A 5 place penalty isn’t so bad to get a whole new ICE, that’s a great cost-benefit ratio. We’ll use that. That’s just brilliant thinking and strategy if they can make it work. If instead it means they lose 25 points because starting 5 points behind in a race gets them caught in a turn 1 melee, then too bad for them, it didn’t work. There’s no way the FIA can rule change something like that mid-way through the season either. It would have to prove unequivocally that the intent of the change PU/components with penalty rule is there to force reliability as Mercedes can just as well argue that they simply saw that rule as a design constraint and a constraint within the overall budget restrictions. But if they can still meet their budget limit while changing out the engine components and taking their prescribed grid penalties, who is to say that should be stopped mid-season?

[Requiem84]

You’re assuming it was a failure by Mercedes to create a PU with higher initial output that then falls away faster, that they can then take advantage of the rules regarding taking engine component penalties. It could well be a failure, and ironic as you said. Or it could be something they’ve designed strategically. Could be a case of push the engine harder for a shorter time, then take strategic penalties. Cue outcry.

 

 

I don’t understand the point of this post. I’m not saying anything different to you in terms of stating the facts, only difference is the outrage. Not sure why you’re getting a different impression than what I’ve said. I wholly agree with you that Red Bull changed theirs for reliability reasons and likely Honda has designed their engine to have better reliability and less degradation. My point is simply that the rules are the same for everyone. Honda could’ve done what Mercedes did with their engine characteristics. Big power for shorter, take engine component penalties. Red Bull could have thought of this. Rules same. If one team thought of it and another didn’t, too bad so sad.

 

This is F1. If the rules say you can change engine components but must pay a penalty, sure I can see how many teams just interpret the penalty as a negative and try to build the most reliable and consistent engines they can. But if another team thinks, hey we can use that. A 5 place penalty isn’t so bad to get a whole new ICE, that’s a great cost-benefit ratio. We’ll use that. That’s just brilliant thinking and strategy if they can make it work. If instead it means they lose 25 points because starting 5 points behind in a race gets them caught in a turn 1 melee, then too bad for them, it didn’t work. There’s no way the FIA can rule change something like that mid-way through the season either. It would have to prove unequivocally that the intent of the change PU/components with penalty rule is there to force reliability as Mercedes can just as well argue that they simply saw that rule as a design constraint and a constraint within the overall budget restrictions. But if they can still meet their budget limit while changing out the engine components and taking their prescribed grid penalties, who is to say that should be stopped mid-season?

 

Who's asking to change the rule mid season? I think you are arguiing against thin air...

 

Most people agree Mercedes played it very smart and they deserve kudos for their approach. No need to change anything this year, or to accuse Mercedes of foul play. 

 

BUT, if the rules won't change for 2022 and beyond, there will be another arms race between Manufacturers to design ICE's that can be optimized for less races but with more power. That will increase costs for Renault, Ferrari and Honda. The aim of the current PU rules is to limit PU costs and to converge at greater parity. Therefore, for the future, the rulemakers should think about the effectiveness of the current (penalty) rules. 

 

PS: currently PU's aren't part of the budgetcap

Edited by Requiem84, 01 December 2021 - 13:22.

[gillesfan76]

Who's asking to change the rule mid season? I think you are arguiing against thin air...

 

Most people agree Mercedes played it very smart and they deserve kudos for their approach. No need to change anything this year, or to accuse Mercedes of foul play. 

 

BUT, if the rules won't change for 2022 and beyond, there will be another arms race between Manufacturers to design ICE's that can be optimized for less races but with more power. That will increase costs for Renault, Ferrari and Honda. The aim of the current PU rules is to limit PU costs and to converge at greater parity. Therefore, for the future, the rulemakers should think about the effectiveness of the current (penalty) rules. 

 

PS: currently PU's aren't part of the budgetcap

 

Fair enough then if that’s all there is to it. Personally I’d like there to be such a thing, should mix up the grid a bit and see front runners having to start behind a bit more often and watch them come through the pack.

[jjcale]

I see that the FIA has adopted a new test for the Merc wing ... obviously Merc were too fast and the FIA wants this to be a Brazil 08 style 1 point nail biter come Abu Dhabi. 

 

No problem ... but remember when SLH wins the title it will have been him versus first his team (who didnt want to do proper updates to car and if he didnt throw his toys out the pram would have meekly surrendered their titles on the false hope that they would be better off under the coming rules by making this sacrifice to the racing gods); him versus his useless and counterproductive teammate (... a real back stabber, who almost seems to have had bung from other side at some point this season); him versus the FIA; him versus all the other drivers who jump out of MV's way but fight LH like their lives depend on it; him versus the booing ignoramuses who pass for fans in the Netflix era; him versus the media and Liberty who all want to see a new champ as its better for their business; even him versus himself with his own nerves, ageing body, slowing reflexes, depression and other frailties that had to be to be battled, tamed and overcome.   

 

This will be the greatest WDC in F1 history ... it will have been literally an act of sheer will to achieve this feat ... one man against the world. 

 

  

[Requiem84]

I see that the FIA has adopted a new test for the Merc wing ... obviously Merc were too fast and the FIA wants this to be a Brazil 08 style 1 point nail biter come Abu Dhabi. 

 

No problem ... but remember when SLH wins the title it will have been him versus first his team (who didnt want to do proper updates to car and if he didnt throw his toys out the pram would have meekly surrendered their titles on the false hope that they would be better off under the coming rules by making this sacrifice to the racing gods); him versus his useless and counterproductive teammate (... a real back stabber, who almost seems to have had bung from other side at some point this season); him versus the FIA; him versus all the other drivers who jump out of MV's way but fight LH like their lives depend on it; him versus the booing ignoramuses who pass for fans in the Netflix era; him versus the media and Liberty who all want to see a new champ as its better for their business; even him versus himself with his own nerves, ageing body, slowing reflexes, depression and other frailties that had to be to be battled, tamed and overcome.   

 

This will be the greatest WDC in F1 history ... it will have been literally an act of sheer will to achieve this feat ... one man against the world. 

 

  

 

Are you one those guys who got stuck in that pub in the UK which was snowed in?

 

On a more serious note, I missed that the FIA actually imposed new RW tests. I though the tests where only to determine the correct test for 2022 and have no bearing on 2021? (shouldn't this be discussed in the Mercedes RW topic?)

 

PS: it will also be Hamilton vs his Baku finger, versus the wet spot in Imola, versus his team call in Turkey to pit, versus the pit wall in Russia, versus his car in Monaco.. so yes, he indeed had many adversaries this year....

[as65p]

This will be the greatest WDC in F1 history ... it will have been literally an act of sheer will to achieve this feat ... one man against the world. 

 

    

[shure]

You’re assuming it was a failure by Mercedes to create a PU with higher initial output that then falls away faster, that they can then take advantage of the rules regarding taking engine component penalties. It could well be a failure, and ironic as you said. Or it could be something they’ve designed strategically. Could be a case of push the engine harder for a shorter time, then take strategic penalties. Cue outcry.

 

 

I don’t understand the point of this post. I’m not saying anything different to you in terms of stating the facts, only difference is the outrage. Not sure why you’re getting a different impression than what I’ve said. I wholly agree with you that Red Bull changed theirs for reliability reasons and likely Honda has designed their engine to have better reliability and less degradation. My point is simply that the rules are the same for everyone. Honda could’ve done what Mercedes did with their engine characteristics. Big power for shorter, take engine component penalties. Red Bull could have thought of this. Rules same. If one team thought of it and another didn’t, too bad so sad.

 

This is F1. If the rules say you can change engine components but must pay a penalty, sure I can see how many teams just interpret the penalty as a negative and try to build the most reliable and consistent engines they can. But if another team thinks, hey we can use that. A 5 place penalty isn’t so bad to get a whole new ICE, that’s a great cost-benefit ratio. We’ll use that. That’s just brilliant thinking and strategy if they can make it work. If instead it means they lose 25 points because starting 5 points behind in a race gets them caught in a turn 1 melee, then too bad for them, it didn’t work. There’s no way the FIA can rule change something like that mid-way through the season either. It would have to prove unequivocally that the intent of the change PU/components with penalty rule is there to force reliability as Mercedes can just as well argue that they simply saw that rule as a design constraint and a constraint within the overall budget restrictions. But if they can still meet their budget limit while changing out the engine components and taking their prescribed grid penalties, who is to say that should be stopped mid-season?

I think that's a pretty logical conclusion, given how Mercedes were concerned at the beginning of the year.  I doubt they're all Oscar nominees.  Merc messed up, but then found a way out.  I think it's stretching credulity somewhat to imagine this was all part of some master plan Palpatine would have been proud of.  Aside from anything else, if that is genuinely the case then they've knowingly shafted all their customers with a sub-par product on the off chance they might find themselves in a bit of a title pickle towards the end of the year.  They could do all that but not figure out that the new rules won't favor their low rake concept?  Not bloody likely.

 

My point was that you were comparing RB and Merc's situation when describing RB's strategic introduction of their PU and saying it shouldn't be OK for some and not for others.  Given Merc's situation is pretty unique, that doesn't ring true and it's not a fair comparison

 

The argument on seeing the rule as a design constraint is not an argument Mercedes can make, given Toto already mentioned a couple of months ago that he was concerned a team might do exactly what he's doing now.  He can't say that and then feign innocence of what the rules were designed for.  I don't think we need to make any assumptions when the evidence overwhelmingly points to Mercedes making a late strategic choice, which in all likelihood wouldn't even have happened had they built a more robust PU in the first place.

[Eyeshield]

Is it now safe to say there is no such thing? Was it all a hoax?

[BRK]

Quite the contrary. Red Bull kicked up a fuss and the straightline performance advantage was back to pre Brazil levels. Either because they don’t want to draw any more attention to it or, if rumours are to be believed, they’re holding the spice back for the season finale..

[robefc]

Quite the contrary. Red Bull kicked up a fuss and the straightline performance advantage was back to pre Brazil levels. Either because they don’t want to draw any more attention to it or, if rumours are to be believed, they’re holding the spice back for the season finale..

They kicked up a fuss about the RW though, not the engine, right?

[robefc]

Quite the contrary. Red Bull kicked up a fuss and the straightline performance advantage was back to pre Brazil levels. Either because they don’t want to draw any more attention to it or, if rumours are to be believed, they’re holding the spice back for the season finale..

Where are these rumours coming from?

[Requiem84]

In Qualifying the ICE didn't make the difference. In the race the ICE was a monster. Routinely gaining 3 tenths or more on the longer straights.

Whereas Bottas was struggling to overtake an Alpine.

Edited by Requiem84, 06 December 2021 - 06:35.

[teejay]

In Qualifying the ICE didn't make the difference. In the race the ICE was a monster. Routinely gaining 3 tenths or more on the longer straights.

Whereas Bottas was struggling to overtake an Alpine.

 

Surely it makes the biggest difference in soooper dooooper full maxxed out mode? 

[Requiem84]

Surely it makes the biggest difference in soooper dooooper full maxxed out mode?

?

[teejay]

?

 

You said the ICE makes the biggest difference in the race? 

 

I'm asking why you think that? Surely it makes more difference the more it's turned up, and it's fair to assumed its cranked to full volume only on quali runs. 

[Requiem84]

You said the ICE makes the biggest difference in the race?

I'm asking why you think that? Surely it makes more difference the more it's turned up, and it's fair to assumed its cranked to full volume only on quali runs.

You do realize they can’t change settings between Q and Race?

[teejay]

They can change settings all the time - it's mapping they cannot change. 

 

Listen to any of the multiude of onboard replays - constant discussions about strats and modes etc across all teams. 

[Requiem84]

They can change settings all the time - it's mapping they cannot change.

Listen to any of the multiude of onboard replays - constant discussions about strats and modes etc across all teams.

That’s ERS modes, which are unrelated to the ICE.

The ICE is the new PU element as of Brazil of course.