2021 - Race 19 Brazil

[airshifter]

Apologies for getting pedantic.


Not sure if true (it is not carried on the international version of motorsport.com);
https://it-motorsport-com.translate....&_x_tr_pto=nui

"Hywel Thomas, chief engineer of Brixworth, has prepared an engine 5 for Lewis which must have a life of 2,500 km compared to the 7,000 that normally are required for the resolution of a "standard" power unit. Not being able to change the characteristics of the approved engine components, the Stella engineers worked to take the management strategies of this unit to extremes."

If, true that would explain a lot and go against the very intent of the penalty system, and laughs in the face of the budget cap which does not include the PU costs, but probably still completely legal.

At this level the details matter, so no need for apology.

I had seen that section you found. I never found the true source, so didn't post it here. But I suspect that is exactly what they did, and suspect that at this level of the sport all the engine manufacturers have done fairly exhaustive testing to allow it to be a solution with a high probable cause of success. I'm sure they do the opposite as well, find out how much they can stretch and engine use out if needed.

Even though the glory days of qualification engines and single race engines are gone, they can extract more when they feel it's worth it.


As for the costs and the idea of the budget, I agree. This was one of the reasons I had brought up the thought of relaxing any penalties on budget for accidents that teams had nothing to do with. Regardless of budget cap calculation, it's still a cost of the budget. So potentially millions out of pocket. I couldn't find anything recent, but a few years back there were talks about the engine makers fixing engine costs for budgeting purposes, and they were in the $15 million range. I think the budget cap as we know it is primary aimed at development costs, which are probably insane. Designing and prototyping these things through testing is probably taking a real chunk of change.

[denkimi]

Surprisingly, l happen to agree with you on the fact that it is clear the stewards have been very lenient with Verstappen since he was promoted to the Redbull seat. Other drivers that have done similar have met with stiff punishment. But where shall it end? Do they need a fatality for these clowns to do their jobs properly?

You are again letting you verstappen bias take over. They have been allowing if for everyone.

Just 3 weeks ago alonso pushed giovinazzi off, and then complained giovinazzi had overtaken him outside track limits.
https://youtu.be/DIFK27eIF98
In austria, perez even pushed leclerc into the gravel twice.
https://youtu.be/Dm4ZmUHdXUs

The penalty's for pushing people off track have been a joke for years now. If they would enforce the rule that you have to leave space when someone is besides you, we would see a lot more beautiful overtakes.

[Nitrodaze]

You are again letting you verstappen bias take over. They have been allowing if for everyone.

Just 3 weeks ago alonso pushed giovinazzi off, and then complained giovinazzi had overtaken him outside track limits.
https://youtu.be/DIFK27eIF98
In austria, perez even pushed leclerc into the gravel twice.
https://youtu.be/Dm4ZmUHdXUs

The penalty's for pushing people off track have been a joke for years now. If they would enforce the rule that you have to leave space when someone is besides you, we would see a lot more beautiful overtakes.

Firstly, l don't have a Verstappen bias. Every driver should be criticized if they did something wrong. That is not biased, as l have not unfairly criticized him. If you watched the review by Jonathan Palmer in the YouTube video in the post by Truefan, Jonathan Palmer cited loads of occasions where drivers have been penalized for running other drivers off the track. And he even went as far as to show how very different and more aggressive Verstappen's actions were compared to all those that were penalized in the past.

The inconsistency of the stewarding has produced occasions where a few drivers have got away with running other drivers off the track. Masi's regime has dispensed with the racing convention of giving room to the other drivers. The so-call Masi's elbow; where he claims drivers are allowed to put their elbows out. If this is allowed to go on, all drivers would be properly invited to do the same. And they should not be punished for so doing.

There are a number of unwritten rules in racing between drivers; to not unnecessarily put other drivers in mortal danger. The problem with Verstappen is he has dispensed with those rules and calls it hard racing. I suppose it is great when you are the one dishing it out. It is never great being the recipient of it though.

[airshifter]

https://twitter.com/F0rmulaOne/statu...5Es1_&ref_url=


No big shock here... They have to build the suspense first.

[The Black Knight]

https://twitter.com/F0rmulaOne/statu...5Es1_&ref_url=


No big shock here... They have to build the suspense first.

Some fancy legal arguments ongoing I'd say. It's an especially grey area because the Stewards decided no investigation necessary so RBR arguing there's nothing to review. Interested to see how this one will turn out. It may set an important precedent.

[F1nKS]

Some fancy legal arguments ongoing I'd say. It's an especially grey area because the Stewards decided no investigation necessary so RBR arguing there's nothing to review. Interested to see how this one will turn out. It may set an important precedent.

So one of the stories I read today was that they were only going to review the steward's decision of whether to investigate, not review the actual incident.

I'm not sure if this is really true or not because I have also seen other stories going the other way. There is no real journalism, just click bait stuff and everybody wanting some drama.

[The Black Knight]

So one of the stories I read today was that they were only going to review the steward's decision of whether to investigate, not review the actual incident.

I'm not sure if this is really true or not because I have also seen other stories going the other way. There is no real journalism, just click bait stuff and everybody wanting some drama.

Right of review denied. No surprise but I think they need yo be consistent now moving forward. Their decision to not even investigate Max is embarrassing and laughable.

[Nitrodaze]

Right of review denied. No surprise but I think they need yo be consistent now moving forward. Their decision to not even investigate Max is embarrassing and laughable.

The general argument behind the scenes was, there were no net losses to Hamilton or Mercedes. And a review is likely to have an impact on the relative point differences between both parties and would be adverse to Verstappen and Redbull.

While we can appreciate these points of view, trust and confidence in the steward's office are at their all-time low. And they have set a very dangerous precedent here which they are now required to be very consistent on. As it stands, drivers are allowed to run attacking drivers clean off the track and it does not matter if they go off the track in the process.

I would take a bet of a 100 to one that the stewards would not be consistent on this issue. As they have opened up a pandora box for all manner of defending at the corners. The incompetence of the first decision has now created the sort of foundation for the inconsistency that we have come to find with them, as they would later find at some point that they would have to reign in on the ensuing waywardness that this decision shall produce.

I personally think Masi should resign. He is unfit for the job. This crap is happening and has happened repeatedly on his watch. I am sure anyone picked at random on this forum would do a better job at less money too.

[truefan72]

Right of review denied. No surprise but I think they need yo be consistent now moving forward. Their decision to not even investigate Max is embarrassing and laughable.

yup. It truly is laughable. They have the onboard now and then simply state they decided that they don't want to investigate. Rather than not review. Because if they did review, Max would be getting a penalty.
But worse yet it has now established a dangerous precedent, it is completely fine to get passed and divebomb your opponent and send them and yourself off the track. Then maintain your lead over them. OK got it!

[truefan72]

The general argument behind the scenes was, there were no net losses to Hamilton or Mercedes. And a review is likely to have an impact on the relative point differences between both parties and would be adverse to Verstappen and Redbull.

While we can appreciate these points of view, trust and confidence in the steward's office are at their all-time low. And they have set a very dangerous precedent here which they are now required to be very consistent on. As it stands, drivers are allowed to run attacking drivers clean off the track and it does not matter if they go off the track in the process.

I would take a bet of a 100 to one that the stewards would not be consistent on this issue. As they have opened up a pandora box for all manner of defending at the corners. The incompetence of the first decision has now created the sort of foundation for the inconsistency that we have come to find with them, as they would later find at some point that they would have to reign in on the ensuing waywardness that this decision shall produce.

I personally think Masi should resign. He is unfit for the job. This crap is happening and has happened repeatedly on his watch. I am sure anyone picked at random on this forum would do a better job at less money too.

I agree wholeheartedly about Masi being unfit for the job. And this is simply not just a Mercedes bias thing (although there have been enough rulings and situations to merit that aggravation)
It is the inconsistency and the seemingly incoherence/arbitrary rulings that have irked most. Not to mention the inability (or more likely deliberate ignorance) to get the appropriate data to make a proper ruling at the time. When even a one-eyed drunk could tell that it was worthy of a penalty to max. And yet in Silverstone, it took them no time to issue a drive through penalty with an even more intricate situation.
Oh well