Printable View
That would be the only and fair act at the moment ...Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
The question just arises as to how much to give to Tänak, whose car was stopped between two stages, and the moment when he was fighting for the first place. And how much to give to Evans, whose hybrid unit broke down after his off.
I wonder if Toyota claiming Evans' retirement was down to hybrid reasons, is just in case any retrospective action is taken to redress the absurdly unfair Tanak situation...
Granted, they're not going to amend the results for Sweden, but if any concessions are granted to Ott as a result of what happened to him, perhaps TGR are hoping they can benefit too.
I don't think they should be able to, but still. You can't blame them for trying!
Results cannot be changed afterwards. But notice that Tänak was 1.1s from the lead with intact car when hybrid unit broke. Evans was almost an hour behind with smashed front
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMwG6_fW...jpg&name=large
Some comparisons between the pace of Rally1, Rally2 and Rally3 from Monte and Sweden. There's a slow, medium and fast stage from each rally.
It seems that:
- Rally1 is ~2 s/km faster than Rally2
- Rally2 is ~2 s/km faster than Rally3
Normally not, unless there has been a protest, and the results aren't final. In this case, they are final, so no question of any retrospective change. What I was thinking was, that if there was a chance of some benefit being granted to Tanak / Hyundai in this case of the hybrid unit failing and mandating retirement (for example a free replacement unit, or some other financial or sporting concession), Toyota would claim the same problem, to try to get the same benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
I think it will be interesting to compare times on stages in Croatia regarding WRC17/Rally1 spec cars because most of the stages are same (for sure in case of dry weather during the rally) - first comparable rally in season.
i don't get this idea about hybrid failure reward, it's a part of the cars that can fail, like any other, and doesn't mean much that it isn't produced by the manufacturer, there's a lot of them in every rally car. it's like asking time back for a puncture, any time that a driver says "i didn't touch anything".
i think this discussion is a bit biases toward the new tech...
I don't agree. The teams have been made to use this equipment, there is no choice of supplier, the specification and design is dictated to the teams who effectively have to build their cars around it. Other than the FIA monitoring systems and TV equipment, there's nothing else like this in Rally1 cars - and those aren't performance / reliability critical parts anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by wyler
In the case of Tanak, it failed in a situation where it simply should not have done so. It's not like he was going 1000x harder than anyone else, even before the issue began to develop he was only 4.2 seconds up on Lappi. These hybrid units need to be able to deal with the stresses of rally drivers trying to drive fast, otherwise what is the point of them?
If it were the case that teams could either outsource or develop their own e-drive systems, we would not be having this conversation. But the fact is, they don't, and we've already seen one high-profile example of a team and a driver being let down by a part they have no choice but to use. It's fair enough to ask for a less severe consequence than having to retire the car and take 10 minute penalties for each missing stage in this case.
Tyres? Currently some of the transmission parts are shared?Quote:
Originally Posted by ouvreur
I don't think there are any transmission parts that are shared. Ford use Sadev, Hyundai use Ricardo, Toyota use Xtrac.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
Tyres, there is some similarity, but they are obviously far more vulnerable to both bad luck and driver error. They're also much more of a known quantity than hybrid power units. I can't think of many situations where it can be proved beyond doubt that a tyre has failed because of a manufacturing or design fault.