Jump to content

The F1 Thread


die hard doonhamer

Recommended Posts

So there you have it. $7m fine and 10% reduction in aero research for £1.86m overspend. Seems fair enough but I'd love to know what they overspent on. 
A lot of bawling that they should be stripped of the title, but with a "minor" overspend then that punishment isn't allowed under the rules that all the teams agreed to.8efce62d28006d54497f7dfc1f0faf03.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, peasy23 said:

A lot of bawling that they should be stripped of the title, but with a "minor" overspend then that punishment isn't allowed under the rules that all the teams agreed to.

Exactly. You can't complain about RB not following the rules and want the FIA to disregard the rules to punish them. 

10% aero time is a fair chunk given the sliding scale for winning the constructors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, flyingscot said:

I'd need to get waders on to get through the Mercedes fans tears. 

That aside I don't get the complaints. The FIA set it out pretty well. They gave notice they were under, FIA thought over, they complied with the investigation, were open and they got a punishment available under the rules.

The whole 'cost cap is dead and everyone should overspend' is just reactionary pish. I'd think if you deliberately overspent it would be more severe and the difference £1m in £118m budgets isn't going to suddenly transform a car. 

$1.8 million extra to spend on a car will make it faster than not having the $1.8 million to spend.   Red Bull have gained an unfair advantage by overspending in a year which directly affects the following year's competition.  They will now have a lasting advantage for the next season (and possibly the one after that if there is no significant technical rule change) so for them, that's $7million well spent if their car remains the best on the track.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the FIA tighten up what it defines as "Minor Overspent" (as has been requested by Brown and Steiner) and increase punishments for breaking them going forward.

 

Edited by Mackie The Staggie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mackie The Staggie said:

$1.8 million extra to spend on a car will make it faster than not having the $1.8 million to spend.   Red Bull have gained an unfair advantage by overspending in a year which directly affects the following year's competition.  They will now have a lasting advantage for the next season (and possibly the one after that if there is no significant technical rule change) so for them, that's $7million well spent if their car remains the best on the track. 

IMO, Red Bull cheated.  They knew they'll get caught, but considering how the rules were set up, the deterrent wasn't really there to stop them (or anyone) from overspending.  The advantage gained far outweighs the cons of being caught.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the FIA tighten up what it defines as "Minor Overspent" (as has been requested by Brown and Steiner) and increase punishments for breaking them going forward.

 

Cutting wind tunnel time and CFD time by 10% will hurt Red Bull, though. This will balance it out. There will be no lasting advantage whilst every other team on the grid can develop their aerodynamics more than RB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Cutting wind tunnel time and CFD time by 10% will hurt Red Bull, though. This will balance it out. There will be no lasting advantage whilst every other team on the grid can develop their aerodynamics more than RB.

Maybe, but I'll still bet that the Red Bull is the fastest car on the track next year even with the lack of aero testing (that might be more down to Adrian Newey been some kind of wizard god who can see wind anyway)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have we accepted it? We felt it was in everyone's interests to close the book. We accept the penalties - begrudgingly, but we accept them," Horner added.

A quite extraordinary way of admitting to cheating.

Horner insisted that the overspend would "absolutely not" tarnish Max Verstappen's 2021 title.

it does, it obviously does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/10/2022 at 21:40, sophia said:

Why have we accepted it? We felt it was in everyone's interests to close the book. We accept the penalties - begrudgingly, but we accept them," Horner added.

A quite extraordinary way of admitting to cheating.

Horner insisted that the overspend would "absolutely not" tarnish Max Verstappen's 2021 title.

it does, it obviously does.

It's amazing that they have been caught cheating, admitted they were cheating and yet are playing the victim card and saying they are the ones who should be getting an apology. They effectively got to pick their own punishment too and are trying not to laugh while telling everyone who detrimental it will all be.

Don't agree that it tarnishes the title but there should have been a harsher punishment. Everyone else stayed within the limit so no reason they couldn't. Their excuses don't cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...