Associate
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2019
- Posts
- 1,003
Are you suggesting they are wrong? I wonder who is right, Mercedes engineers that looked at the wind tunnel numbers, or Stumble Bum on OCUK forums.
Motorsport Off Topic Thread
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
I'd also like to see the FIA put in some black and white wording about punishment if it happens again 5% over should be exclusion from the constructors etc
Just hire Perez you don't have to tell him to finish further down the order
You mean the same Sergio Perez that's *checks notes* yes, 3rd in the drivers standings, just 2pts behind 2nd? That one? Looks like we've got a new resident loony
There was no ambiguity, RB just overspent. If 9 teams can come in under and 1 over that's not because of ambiguity.
It's not really 10% though is it, it's 10% on the 'Coefficient' so as mentioned if you win the WCC you get 70% reduced by 10% to 63%, not 60%. So actually by winning this year they've nicely minimised the punishment, cause that makes perfect sense...
Overall it seems a little light tbh, as mentioned especially if you're in a close fight then spend away and break the cap be a couple of mil' and job done. That's not to say I want them to change the title but at least make it an actual 10% reduction, or the initial 25% that RB whinged about and got reduced.
Last edited:
As a result of winning the championship they lose 24 hours.
As a result of their punishment, they lose a further 5.5 hours.
For teams at the sharp end of the grid, they're going to be expecting to operate in the 70/75/80% bands anyway, so reference to the 100% you get for finishing 7th is neither here nor there in that sense.
Whilst it's obviously very valuable time to them (and so is the CFD), losing 5.5 of your 56 hours doesn't seem a particularly massive punishment. More so in the context of a team that have clearly hit upon a winning aero design already.
Losing 10% of the resource that tells you whether your car's design theory will work is pretty significant. I bet teams would take 10% more CFD or wind tunnel time instead of £500k.
As previously stated in this thread; Any reduction in CFD time, an F1 teams main aerodynamic development resource, is a large penalty. There’s no actual on car testing or track development until preseason testing. If you bring a lemon to that you’re up against it from the get go, as we saw with Merc this year. So it’s a definitive punishment.
It’s not complex to grasp, even without an appreciation for the process etc.
It’s not complex to grasp, even without an appreciation for the process etc.
Last edited:
LOL at RB fine.... the comedy that is f1 and rules continues... Verstappen will now have 2 asterisks against his world championships....
Nearly 2Million overspend is a lot of extra performance, funny how the car is so much faster this year... and that 10% loss in wind tunnel/cfd will mean next to nothing when they're already ahead because of the overspend... they know their car works so they're basically only doing iterative upgrades anyway.
And lets be honest here, while they can say the 2mil overspend is for 'non car things' the 2million that would have been used from the budget will have gone somewhere else... likely on the car development etc.
The fine is nothing, they used to spend more than the cap each year so it's nothing and it seems like it's coming from outside of the budget cap which basically means has zero impact on RB.
I can't wait to hear Merc and Ferrari responses to this because can you just imagine the difference in performance of their cars if they'd have overspent by nearly 2mil....
Nearly 2Million overspend is a lot of extra performance, funny how the car is so much faster this year... and that 10% loss in wind tunnel/cfd will mean next to nothing when they're already ahead because of the overspend... they know their car works so they're basically only doing iterative upgrades anyway.
And lets be honest here, while they can say the 2mil overspend is for 'non car things' the 2million that would have been used from the budget will have gone somewhere else... likely on the car development etc.
The fine is nothing, they used to spend more than the cap each year so it's nothing and it seems like it's coming from outside of the budget cap which basically means has zero impact on RB.
I can't wait to hear Merc and Ferrari responses to this because can you just imagine the difference in performance of their cars if they'd have overspent by nearly 2mil....
Another one who didn't read.
Merc had a flawed car from the start - £500k wouldn't have changed that. Ferrari on the other hand, £500k could've bought them a team strategist.
Really? Imo losing 10% on top of any other reduction seems harsh enough for a "minor breach". All I'm saying that this punishment should be enough to deter any other team from braking the rules on purpose. Sure in RB's case, having Newey, it probably doesn't affect them as much as it would other teams but it's still a significant penalty. Saying that, Newey could probably achieve in those 5.5hrs more than other teams can in 10 or 15 hrs
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2015
- Posts
- 530
everyone seems to be of the opinion that the overspend went directly into the development of the car, the FIA themselves say that this is not the case, most of the overspend was attributed to an incorrectly applied TAX REBATE. it does come across as just RBR bashing because it's RBR, the problem is the headlines all lead with the fine when the WT and CFD reductions are what will hurt RBR next season, also don't forget that the Ferrari's were competitive against the RBs and at times were even faster, Merc just went the wrong direction with the nopods and pride forced them to continue down that route far longer than they really should have.
Really? Imo losing 10% on top of any other reduction seems harsh enough for a "minor breach". All I'm saying that this punishment should be enough to deter any other team from braking the rules on purpose. Sure in RB's case, having Newey, it probably doesn't affect them as much as it would other teams but it's still a significant penalty. Saying that, Newey could probably achieve in those 5.5hrs more than other teams can in 10 or 15 hrs
It's all a matter of opinion at this point.
I feel when levying a punishment like this, which is designed to be punitive, there needs to be some context considered in what that punishment actually achieves.
In the context of a team who have clearly already found a very very good aero design philosophy, knocking their 70% coefficient to 63% I personally don't think is likely to really actually impact them or their ability to compete all that much. In the same way a $7m fine is nothing to teams that used to spend $300m+.
If they'd finished third last year and turned up this year with a car that looked like it was driving through treacle rather than air - then 10% would be hugely impactful on their ability to catch up. Or if this punishment was being dished out last year whilst everyone was designing totally new cars to the new regulations, again, that would be a huge impact.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,372
- Location
- Bucks
Funny how?
Funny that Merc designed an atrocious 22 car where they spent (on record) HALF THE SEASON not understanding how it actually worked.
Funny that Ferrari made so many mistakes from huge strategy errors, driver in-fighting and weird driver and reliability errors?
Not sure how you walk away from this season and blame RB for the obvious failures of two teams and then say 1.7mil in 2021 = instant redemption for said teams in 2022. Great logical argument!
Last edited:
It was, it was deemed minor and not to gain advantage. I'd expect any team clearly breaking the cap in order to gain advantage would face much stricter penalty. I agree that the fine doesn't achieve anything and why I've not even bothered to mention it. I don't see why their current performance should have any weight on the punishment given. If it was Williams or Hass would you say that they should be let off lightly because their cars are rubbish?
Current performance absolutely has to have weight on punishments that by their nature will vary based on whether the starting point for that performance is good or not. Restricting the ability to develop aero for a team that has one of, if not the best, aero packages on the grid is not much of a punishment compared to doing the same to a team that needs to play catch up on their aero design.
This is why I say it's opinion. You evidently feel that 10% reduction is enough of a punishment for what they did. I don't, as I don't think that 10% is going to make all that much difference to them, and is as much of a non-punishment as a fine is to a team with loads of money.
If they had an average car this year, were languishing in 3rd or 4th place and needed to do absolutely loads of aero work over the winter to get back near the front, then 10% would feel about right or maybe even a bit harsh.
Where "atrocious" means the third best car on the grid...
Actually, that raises a good point: how much of Mercedes problems this season come down to their reduced wind tunnel and CFD time? And how does that effect how we view the penalty applied to Red Bull?
I doubt they are massively bothered about the loss of cfd/wind tunnel time as they’ve already built a rocket ship off the bat. The regs aren’t changing for a while and their updates will yield smaller speed increases anyway.
I’d say they’ve done quite well out of it.
I’d say they’ve done quite well out of it.
£50 could have bought them a better strategist.