Formula 1 2021

[Zomboid]

I suppose I'm not saying that Lewis (Driver A! The identities aren't the important thing) should be punished further for the incident. I think Max (Driver B) has paid enough of a price for it by having a DNF. To potentially have another future race ruined by grid penalties for which the root cause was an incident for which he wasn't judged to be primarily at fault feels wrong.

 

There should be some kind of allowance for accident write-offs in the power unit restrictions etc. I've no idea how that could work in reality.

 

[Hobby]

I'd agree that write offs shouldn't carry a grid penalty, I can't think of any driver that would deliberately put himself in the fence just to get a new car, though I can see some teams may "write off" a car if they think there's an advantage to replacing it with a new one... (In this case I'm not suggesting that!) As long as the new car is identical to the old one (as much as possible) I'm sure there will be some leeway. I'm not sure they've announced a grid penalty for Max as yet unless I've missed something?

[PaulRhB]

19 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

There should be some kind of allowance for accident write-offs in the power unit restrictions etc. I've no idea how that could work in reality.

Difficult one because then the teams would write off cars in any significant crash to use that allowance! That’s F1 thinking  

 

The penalty is proportionate in that as Masi said it’s for the incident not the outcomes. Motorsport includes a luck element, what you hit, getting beached etc. If you start including the outcome of any off it would become a minefield of legal actions trying to claw back minutes and money. That’s why the system is simple. Stirling Moss was unlucky several times in his career but considered it the lottery of racing. 
Horner would have been better off letting it lie after the day and using it with some dignity at the end of the season. 
“we fought back from that crash and still won” or “we took it on the chin and it probably cost us the title”, not much dignity left once you’ve dragged it to appeal and probably court.

It’s all part of the spectacle of F1, big money, big ‘personalities’ (who would be deemed as bullies in any other industry), big excuses and win at all costs because it’s more about the publicity and money than the actual racing for the team owners. 
The old chesnut of technology filtering down does have a slight touch of reality but as Honda’s engine team have said this week it’s development is focused on balancing the efficiency of the engine against losses to the MGH system so ultimately they aren’t going all out to make the most efficient engine because they need to use the waste heat to power the ‘energy recovery’ system!

How relevant are the company names to the majority of race fans? Do the majority rush out to buy energy drinks to support Red Bull, or an Aston Martin or Ferrari? I suspect that out of all of them Merc probably have the closest thing to mass market influence although Renault are hoping to do the same to promote Alpine. Still mostly people with rather larger incomes than the average fan 

[Zomboid]

4 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Difficult one because then the teams would write off cars in any significant crash to use that allowance! That’s F1 thinking  

Well that's the issue. I don't have any solutions, but I doubt it matters either way since the rulemakers at F1 probably don't canvas opinion from a model railway forum...

 

I think the incident should be left in the past, but if the PU cannot be reused then Max is likely to suffer a grid penalty in future when his allocation is used up.

 

If the championship fight is close I can see the crash being decisive in two races, which it shouldn't be. Even if he were a mid field runner it could be the difference between 4th and 5th in the constructors championship.

[Zomboid]

14 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

How relevant are the company names to the majority of race fans? Do the majority rush out to buy energy drinks to support Red Bull, or an Aston Martin or Ferrari?

It's one of the factors in making the brand desirable. Rich people can buy a Ferrari, and us plebs can aspire to it. If we didn't aspire to such things, the brand would be less valuable.

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

Well that wasn't the point I was making anyway. Driver A was given a 10 second penalty for being more at fault than Driver B for an accident which not only ended Driver B's race, but because of the various rules applying to other aspects has the potential to ruin at least one more. That doesn't feel proportionate.

 

It doesn't seem consistent does it?

 

It was similar to the previous race where Norris was judged at fault for forcing Perez off the track (my view on the incident itself is irrelevant).

Perez lost about 8-10 places because of that incident. If Norris had backed off, he would have lost the place to Perez.

Norris's penalty was 5 seconds. This cost 1 place, but if he had not defended, he would have lost 1 place anyway. He did not really lose out at all.

[RJS1977]

On the other hand, you also get the situations where the innocent  driver suffers little to no damage whilstthe driver at fault suffers a puncture or front wing damage, the resulting pit stop dropping them to the back of the grid, and then they get a penalty on top!

[PaulRhB]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

 

If the championship fight is close I can see the crash being decisive in two races, which it shouldn't be. Even if he were a mid field runner it could be the difference between 4th and 5th in the constructors championship.

Problem is any crash can be decisive and in Rallying frequently a rock pulled out by a previous car can wreck another, or in F1 the drain cover knocked up that destroyed the underside of a car. You have to put it down to the ‘racing gods’ of luck or it just becomes even more complicated than the current rules. 
Max’s elbows out bluff was called and he paid the price, quite a few would say it’s karma for others races he’s wrecked in past seasons with his aggressive style. Remember he’s the one responsible for the recent rules on changing direction under braking  

He’s taken people out in a similar way and defended it in the past. 

[PaulRhB]

2min here and he was far further back than Lewis so should have backed out but didn’t  

 

[mozzer models]

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

2min here and he was far further back than Lewis so should have backed out but didn’t  

 

If i were merc then i would use this to say he did it here & you say it was ok to do it , so why is it wrong for anyone else try & do the same 

[Zomboid]

The thing is a crash happened. One driver had a DNF. The other recieved a penalty during the race.

 

That's all absolutely fine, it's what happens in motor racing. Thankfully we're wibbling about the impact on the sporting side rather than worrying about whether one of the drivers will survive or suffer life changing injuries.

 

What I have issue with is that there may be further fallout in a few races time, which could effectively penalise one of the drivers involved a second time. As an unintended consequence of a well intentioned technical rule. Which could determine the outcome of the title race. And that would be a massive shame, because you want to see these things decided by racing and not artificial rules and penalties.

[Hobby]

If they do drop him down it's pretty certain he'll be back in the top few by the end of the race, other drivers have suffered such penalties before and still gone on to win the championship. If it was a penalty for many races I could understand your concern but at most it will be for one race and even then there's no guarantee they will even impose a penalty so speculation at the moment. Perhaps best to just wait and see, eh!

[PaulRhB]

 

Which could determine the outcome of the title race. And that would be a massive shame, because you want to see these things decided by racing and not artificial rules and penalties.

I agree but the teams signed up to this system and only complain when it hurts them. To be honest I’m sure Merc would probably moan too but not quite such public tantrums. 
Would James Hunt have been champion if it weren’t for Niki’s crash? F1 isn’t always fair but those are the rules. Schumacher effectively decided two titles with a crash too . . .

[newbryford]

 

Difficult one because then the teams would write off cars in any significant crash to use that allowance! That’s F1 thinking  

 

 

 

Teams will always exploit the rules to the limit (and sometimes a bit beyond)

IIRC going back a few years, it used to be that if you finished a race, you weren't allowed to change certain parts without a penalty, but if it was a DNF, then you could.

As a result, there were a number of "retire the car" with a couple of laps to go when the driver wasn't in contention on the day.

[mudmagnet]

2 hours ago, newbryford said:

 

Teams will always exploit the rules to the limit (and sometimes a bit beyond)

IIRC going back a few years, it used to be that if you finished a race, you weren't allowed to change certain parts without a penalty, but if it was a DNF, then you could.

As a result, there were a number of "retire the car" with a couple of laps to go when the driver wasn't in contention on the day.

 

RB 'retired' Perez at the end of the sprint race so that repairs / changes could be made for the main race. 

 

I also wonder if RB are now concerned that LH / Merc have got the bit between their teeth and will not let this championship slide and that RB will be under greater pressure to perform. Does MV have the necessary race craft to withstand LH pressure, especially now that LH has shown his intention that he will no longer yield too much when racing with MV? Have RB reached the end of their car development for 2021, or have sufficient funds or 'development tokens' to push on with improving their car? Have Merc been more careful with their 'tokens' and a little more left?

 

I just hope that the championship is not decided in the courts.

 

 

[Jonboy]

I said to the wife during the race when CH made his first comments that he was simply trying to get into Lewis’s head and I haven’t changed my opinion so far.

[57xx]

7 hours ago, Zomboid said:

What I have issue with is that there may be further fallout in a few races time, which could effectively penalise one of the drivers involved a second time.

 

Why is this one incident any different to any other one that has ever happened in F1? I think it is being blown way out of proportion (not specifically by you, just in general).

Edited July 28, 2021 by 57xx

[57xx]

9 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Max’s elbows out bluff was called and he paid the price, quite a few would say it’s karma for others races he’s wrecked in past seasons with his aggressive style. Remember he’s the one responsible for the recent rules on changing direction under braking  

He’s taken people out in a similar way and defended it in the past. 

 

This to a T. He has been downright dangerous in the past, it's about time it bit him in the @rse. Whether it gets through his ego and makes him take stock is another matter.

[Andrew P]

3 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

Why is this one incident any different to any other one that has ever happened in F1? I think it is being blown way out of proportion (not specifically by you, just in general).

I think mainly because of the words and action of a certain CH.

[RJS1977]

I think also that it's been quite a long time since there was a serious clash between championship rivals on different teams, and rules have moved on. Certainly in the Prost/Senna or Hill/Schumacher days, there was no cost cap or limits on the number of components that could be used.  Additionally, the majority of such clashes tended to happen at the end of the season, so any damage to the car would not affect later rounds of the championship.

[Andrew P]

7 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

I think also that it's been quite a long time since there was a serious clash between championship rivals on different teams, and rules have moved on. Certainly in the Prost/Senna or Hill/Schumacher days, there was no cost cap or limits on the number of components that could be used.  Additionally, the majority of such clashes tended to happen at the end of the season, so any damage to the car would not affect later rounds of the championship.

And there was the ''T'' Car to fall back on for any re starts.

[StuAllen]

I don’t remember Toto making such a big deal about the cost of repairs following Bottas vs Russell at Imola - think that was about $1.4 million. I do think though that having to recover from writing off the car needs to be treated differently from the budget cap. Is the Imola incident the reason why Mercedes aren’t introducing so many upgrades? Also what would happens if there’s no budget left? Imagine if the Max vs Lewis incident happened in the 2nd or 3rd last race of the season and the car couldn’t be repaired as there’s no money left in the pot. That wouldn’t be a good way to win/lose the championship.

[Dunsignalling]

The essence is "you have to be (stay) in it to win it", so stop driving like you are in a car with a freehand number painted on a shark's fin on the roof!

 

Sooner or later, MVs established tactics were going to backfire and affect him more than the other guy, even if it was judged to be marginally less his fault on this occasion.

 

John

 

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

34 minutes ago, StuAllen said:

I don’t remember Toto making such a big deal about the cost of repairs following Bottas vs Russell at Imola - think that was about $1.4 million. I do think though that having to recover from writing off the car needs to be treated differently from the budget cap. Is the Imola incident the reason why Mercedes aren’t introducing so many upgrades? Also what would happens if there’s no budget left? Imagine if the Max vs Lewis incident happened in the 2nd or 3rd last race of the season and the car couldn’t be repaired as there’s no money left in the pot. That wouldn’t be a good way to win/lose the championship.

All the teams have to operate within the budget cap and it's only been through other drivers blinking first and backing down that MV hasn't previously created similar situations for some of those drivers or indeed, himself.

 

LH decided that (for once) he wouldn't and came off best, the incident could have just as easily taken out his car, or both of them. For MV it was a pure case of misadventure; his usual driving style just didn't have its usual intimidatory effect that day.

 

Presumably, if replacing almost his whole car means RB run short of budget later, they could keep MV in championship contention simply by withdrawing their second car.

 

The problem may be (my speculation) that RB have spent so much making their car competitive this season that they have used up the funds that would normally be set aside for such contingencies as writing a car off.

 

If so, that's a chance they were entitled to take, but it would be unfair to other teams if they are allowed to break the budget cap to make up for losing the gamble.

 

John

 

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[PaulRhB]

Danny R left RB because he felt Max got all the breaks from CH. They both went out at Azerbaijan and Max took out Daniels car at Hungary. Azerbaijan was pretty similar in the cause of both not giving in with CH blaming them both but obviously not asking for penalties!

Marko has said to Autosport that they have new angles but can’t say what they are, so they don’t want to give MB chance to analyse it before today’s meeting? How does keeping it secret affect it if the FIA know they will have to openly respond?

It’s certainly looking more like they are playing for that gap to protect them in future races because they know the budget is going to bring them problems. I wonder if they have been running the PU at full output too much and know they have probable parts penalties later? 
It will be interesting to see and no doubt they will blame everything on the crash from now on