EPTFormula 1 Discussion - Page 134
| Forum Index > Sports |
Join the TLnet's F1 Fantasy before the season begins!  https://fantasy.formula1.com/ Code: ce956688bf Thank you KobraKay for making the league. :D | ||
|
LennX
4572 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8278 Posts
Congrats Max! | ||
|
Penev
28536 Posts
| ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
| ||
|
Penev
28536 Posts
![[image loading]](https://www.formula1.com/content/dam/fom-website/sutton/2022/Japan/Sunday/1431903059.jpg.transform/9col/image.jpg) E: For anyone wondering why full points were awarded: ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iXxup13.jpg) E: The race obviously was resumed is the most important thing | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On October 09 2022 14:41 Excludos wrote: It's insane to me that the track is fully wet, it's pouring rain, and the teams are STILL not using the wet compound. Those tyres needs some serious fixing if super-wet conditions still aren't good enough to use them I remember Kimi talking in an interview several years ago about the wet tires. He said that basically the Pirelli full wet tires don't work for the purpose and only work in a tiny window where the track is wet but it's not raining heavily. He compared them to the old wet tires from Bridgestone and Michelin since he used both and said that those tires could handle a very wet track and rain way better than Pirelli's can. A lot of the older drivers have said similar things. I suppose most of the younger drivers have never used anything else so they don't know what they're missing. I feel like it's been an open secret since at least 2014 or 2015 that Pirelli's wet tires are garbage but many years later Pirelli still haven't done anything meaningful about them to fix the issues. It's obvious that the window for them to be useful is too specific when they are supposed to be a general wet weather tire. Drivers have said for years that the Pirelli wet tires don't clear enough water away effectively which causes hydroplaning in the worst case scenario and at best makes it so the tires don't heat up enough and lose grip. It seems like these new big heavy cars make the issue worse since they require more mechanical grip and the tires aren't capable of it. edit: Oh, and that tractor issue is completely unacceptable. I saw the video from the tractor with Gasly driving right near it. That was terrifying. That could have been Japan 2014 all over again. There are so many simple things that could have been done to avoid that happening and they did none of them. Even something as simple as waiting until all cars are collected by the safety car before allowing tractors onto the track just to be sure nobody was going fast. The race director has control of all of this. It shouldn't happen. | ||
|
Oleo
Netherlands283 Posts
Anyway the problem in those conditions where wet tyres may work is that there is too much spray you will never be able to use them anyway until they fix that. The finish was such a clusterfuck: Its the final lap, no it isnt, finish flag, keep going, wait we are done. (they did flag one lap early by the way). You are not champion, cause <75% distance = 75% points, wait we wrote the rule wrong, it is full points, but Leclerc got second place, but penalty so yes you are champion!! | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
This could get interesting. I feel a bit bad for Verstappen because no matter what now it seems like with at least some people there might be asterisks around his titles despite him being a great driver the last few years and likely having little to do with whatever financial funkiness Red Bull was doing. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8278 Posts
On October 11 2022 00:29 Ben... wrote: Ooh, the FIA just confirmed that Red Bull and Aston Martin breached the cost cap rules last year. Unlike the rumours that said Red Bull was far over the spending cap, based on how the FIA worded their statement it seems like Red Bull didn't majorly (which in this case means >5% over the cost cap) violate the cost cap, but still did breach it non-the-less (several team principals were quick to point out that even a million or two extra over the cap would allow a team a meaningful performance advantage since they can use the money to develop the car more). The FIA also mentioned procedural breaches for Red Bull and Aston Martin but it isn't clear what they mean. They're still figuring out what to actually do about this so there's still more news to come on the topic. This could get interesting. I feel a bit bad for Verstappen because no matter what now it seems like with at least some people there might be asterisks around his titles despite him being a great driver the last few years and likely having little to do with whatever financial funkiness Red Bull was doing. There are sooo many people throwing themselves on the "Red Bull should lose the championship!" train over this, as if a minor spending breach is somehow the biggest scandal in F1 history, and not something that could literally happen to any team at any year due to unforeseen expenditures (Like, say, totalling 3 cars in the span of 2 races through no fault of your own). It doesn't help that Toto and Binotto are trying to milk this for what it's worth, pretending that "every $500k spent is akin to 0.5 seconds a lap time!", as if that could in any way shape or form have any root in reality. This is by far the dumbest story I've seen people argue over in a long time. Next up we'll be arguing whether FIA should be chopping off hands of drivers who touch other's cars I really liked the idea I saw somewhere where production of parts shouldn't be part of the budget in the first place, only R&D. This would both make it easier for the teams to predict the cost (no unexpected expenditure), and for FIA to police as well, as there would be less to hide behind. None of the teams are going to produce 100 extra front nose cones just because they can, as there would be no benefit from it, and the parts that does have benefits in changing often, like the ICE, already have rules regarding how many you can use, and aren't even part of the budget in the first place. | ||
|
Aristodemus
England2014 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8278 Posts
On October 11 2022 02:27 Aristodemus wrote: What Binotto said is that $5m is equivalent to .5sec a lap. Which is the part that is absolute bullshit On October 11 2022 02:27 Aristodemus wrote: and if that is the case every team would have done it if the consequences are minor. This should be a severe penalty, but I highly doubt it will be. Aston Martin didn't overspend, just filed the returns incorrectly The thing about economics is that it's very hard to predict. No team sets out to break their budget, because that could easily lead them from a minor offence to a major one. If we don't keep the punishment for minor breaches exactly that, minor, then there will always be a massive asterix after every WDC is crown, because we all know 8 months down the line it might get taken from them because team X decided that their team deserved catering and went 80 cents over budget. It's a minor violation, and should be punished as such. It's not the massive scandal Binotto and Toto is trying to make it out to be, and we're going to see this happen likely every every so often with different teams, as you can't really budget for things like "Mazepin totaling the car 4 races in a row in the last 5 races" or something along those lines | ||
|
Aristodemus
England2014 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8278 Posts
On October 11 2022 05:48 Aristodemus wrote: Well neither me or you can equate money to performance to be fair. Either way there will be a shitstorm if they get a small fine and a slap on the wrist. Oh absolutely not, that's my entire point; no one can. It's literally impossible to say "every X dollar spent earns you Y seconds in lap time", because that's not how economics works, how racing works, or physics for that matter. It's just blowing air for the sake of drumming up a bigger scandal than what it really is I think slap on the wrist (aka, a small fine) is exactly all they're going to get. At worst they might get a small budget restriction for next season (Which, honestly, is what I'd consider a fair punishment. Go X amount over one year, get X amount to use next year. Forces your budget to even out over the long run). There is absolutely zero ways they are going to change the outcome of the 2021 season for a minor infringement | ||
|
Penev
28536 Posts
Anyway, looking at Red Bull's initial response, it seems likely they'll appeal. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On October 11 2022 07:03 Excludos wrote: At worst they might get a small budget restriction for next season (Which, honestly, is what I'd consider a fair punishment. Go X amount over one year, get X amount to use next year. Forces your budget to even out over the long run). I think this is ultimately what the FIA should do. If they go with a financial penalty for Red Bull and it's just some small fine that doesn't impact them materially, then it will probably become open season for teams to overspend by 4.999999999% since at worst they'll only get a slap on the wrist fine that doesn't matter. If getting caught overspending hurts them in future seasons, then they will take things more seriously. | ||
|
Penev
28536 Posts
Minor Overspend breach (<5% Cost Cap) can result in Financial Penalties and/or Minor Sporting Penalties. Only a Material Overspend breach (>5% Cost Cap) if confirmed before the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel will result in a mandatory Constructors’ Championship points deductions and can result in additional Financial Penalties and/or Material Sporting Penalties. www.fia.com | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On October 11 2022 09:56 Ben... wrote: I think this is ultimately what the FIA should do. If they go with a financial penalty for Red Bull and it's just some small fine that doesn't impact them materially, then it will probably become open season for teams to overspend by 4.999999999% since at worst they'll only get a slap on the wrist fine that doesn't matter. If getting caught overspending hurts them in future seasons, then they will take things more seriously. I think the main problem with just a fine is that money spent now in F1 means you carry that performance advantage forward. Reducing out the budget doesn't change that for the following season, not until probably the last quarter of the season, and if you overspend multiple years in a row, you could be a third of a second up the road for several seasons. It needs to come with a real development penalty, eg. 10% reduced wind tunnel/CFD allocation for a minor overspend for the next 2 seasons, and then 5% for every million dollars or portion thereof afterwards to a minimum of 10% remaining allocation. | ||
|
Penev
28536 Posts
Also the notion of "if the penalty is not harsh enough everyone is going to aim for 4.99% over" is not really a problem. Let them. They will still be waaay under where they used to be. The goal was to significantly reduce the total costs which will be met with or without teams going less than 5% under the cap. Teams that do so get minor penalties but when they go over further only than the real hurting should start. A lot of people have been riled up again over something that's a lot less problematic than it has been made out to be. Deliberately so, by people who knew the rules about a minor breach beforehand. | ||
|
Aristodemus
England2014 Posts
The FIA are strange, take a look at McLaren from 2007, $100m fine and thrown out of the constructors. Renault fixed a race and got off much lighter. | ||
|
Penev
28536 Posts
It looks serious because a lot of people make it out to be serious. Look it up on the FIA site, I even posted the link and the most relevant part here. Look for yourself and don't make the mistake of thinking that what so much people are saying (repeating) with the truth. | ||
| ||
