Quote Originally Posted by ouvreur View Post
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.

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.
as just said above, tires are the same. fuel is the same. lots of other parts are the same. at this point u should complain for a rollcage damage because the frame is imposed by fia?

anyway, there's a limit in everything, and drivers must comply with it. it sounds very like the argument about the rim that "wasn't strong enough" (for the same driver, if i recollect rightly). of course, you can aim for the best, of course, people will work on making things better. but failure happens anyway. and everybody have to comply with the current state of the art. then things can (and clearly have to) improve, but to me, this is a pointless complaint. and it's not like ten car didn't started in 2 races. it was a couple of car after previous crashes/hit.