2023 Bahrain Grand Prix - Sakhir, March 03 - 05

[Sevach]

2nd stint.

https://i.imgur.com/OEqVcdb.jpg

Much more representative I think. AMR much better deg than the Fer, especially after bringing the tyres in a bit easier.

The RB soft tyre deg over that stint should be seriously worrying for anyone going forwards. 1:37.6 consistently on the soft over 19-20 laps. Whilst the Ferrari seen around 0.7-1second of deg on the hard over the same distance.
*not taking into account traffic/battles/overtakes etc.

Impressive from Alonso, he kept his powder dry and and when he turned it on he had serious pace.
Red Bull getting better tire usage with soft vs hards is just humiliating.

[SiLo]

I'll withold judgement on the year after 1 race, but I will say it doesn't look good. Red Bull didn't make a world of changes to their car and it's miles ahead of everyone, at least at Bahrain. Aston and Mercedes were pretty close until it was clear the deg on the Aston was much better, so we might have some excitement between those teams in the early rounds.

Regarding all this cost cap discussion, I think long term it's good for the sport, but we won't see the benefit until the teams have similar resources in terms of quality of things like wind tunnels. Right now, all the cost cap will do is lock in performance differences for longer because other teams cannot try more things to close the gap to whoever is in front. If you make the wrong decision in terms of car development now, the punishment is that you have to restart rather than be running multiple things in parallel.

[ValeVida46]

I'll withold judgement on the year after 1 race, but I will say it doesn't look good. Red Bull didn't make a world of changes to their car and it's miles ahead of everyone, at least at Bahrain. Aston and Mercedes were pretty close until it was clear the deg on the Aston was much better, so we might have some excitement between those teams in the early rounds.

Regarding all this cost cap discussion, I think long term it's good for the sport, but we won't see the benefit until the teams have similar resources in terms of quality of things like wind tunnels. Right now, all the cost cap will do is lock in performance differences for longer because other teams cannot try more things to close the gap to whoever is in front. If you make the wrong decision in terms of car development now, the punishment is that you have to restart rather than be running multiple things in parallel.

I think we might see one of the great driver seasons for Fernando. His radio messaging has been fantastic too, I hope he gets a window this season to get a win or 2 under his belt. Kudos to Aston too for a huge improvement. Fallows earning his keep.

Mod edit: off-topic comment removed

[DChemTech]

Right now, all the cost cap will do is lock in performance differences for longer because other teams cannot try more things to close the gap to whoever is in front. If you make the wrong decision in terms of car development now, the punishment is that you have to restart rather than be running multiple things in parallel.

I disagree on this aspect. With free spending, we did not typically see that if one if the teams were behind, they could spend more to catch up: the top 3 spent about the same.
The only thing that happened was that the gap between the top 3 and the rest was widened, because all in the top 3 could try different avenues to get ahead further, whilst for the other teams it was not really an option because their budgets were limited anyway.

[TimW]

I'll withold judgement on the year after 1 race, but I will say it doesn't look good. Red Bull didn't make a world of changes to their car and it's miles ahead of everyone, at least at Bahrain. Aston and Mercedes were pretty close until it was clear the deg on the Aston was much better, so we might have some excitement between those teams in the early rounds.

Regarding all this cost cap discussion, I think long term it's good for the sport, but we won't see the benefit until the teams have similar resources in terms of quality of things like wind tunnels. Right now, all the cost cap will do is lock in performance differences for longer because other teams cannot try more things to close the gap to whoever is in front. If you make the wrong decision in terms of car development now, the punishment is that you have to restart rather than be running multiple things in parallel.

The cost cap does not lock in performance differences, not having a cost cap does. Nothing stops the leading team from spending the most, as they will have the most income (F1 + sponsorship). We saw that until 2020, when Mercedes had the biggest budget of all teams.

[Godius]

Congratulations to Alonso. He had wonderfull race and wonderfull drive. He would be 3d without Leclerc dnf if he were able to start good.

I agree with you. Alonso his race pace was gold, he should be able to challenge Leclerc for podiums in grand prix's. Maybe challenge RBR for wins at specific circuits.

[cplchanb]

I'll withold judgement on the year after 1 race, but I will say it doesn't look good. Red Bull didn't make a world of changes to their car and it's miles ahead of everyone, at least at Bahrain. Aston and Mercedes were pretty close until it was clear the deg on the Aston was much better, so we might have some excitement between those teams in the early rounds.

Regarding all this cost cap discussion, I think long term it's good for the sport, but we won't see the benefit until the teams have similar resources in terms of quality of things like wind tunnels. Right now, all the cost cap will do is lock in performance differences for longer because other teams cannot try more things to close the gap to whoever is in front. If you make the wrong decision in terms of car development now, the punishment is that you have to restart rather than be running multiple things in parallel.

The cost cap does not lock in performance differences, not having a cost cap does. Nothing stops the leading team from spending the most, as they will have the most income (F1 + sponsorship). We saw that until 2020, when Mercedes had the biggest budget of all teams.

Actually...not quite true... it was ferrari with the biggest budget with their heritage bonus

[Jester Maroc]

The ironic thing now is that the cost cap is working right against what it was supposed to achieve. It would only work on the assumption that all teams started out in 2022 within a couple of tenths of each other. Now when the RB concept is the proven winner, they have a 2 year development advantage which no one will be able to catch up to with limited resources. Had the 2021 regulations been kept, we would have had at least 3 teams within 2 tenths of each other both last year and this year, and amazing seasons for years to come.

I don't understand this 'blame the regulations' thing. Regulatory changes have been constant in the sport. Some teams get it right and some wrong. Without the cost cap, the teams were going bankrupt and the sport was in self destruction mode. In 2012, they were thinking of implementing RRA (resource restriction agreement) of which, Brawn was the biggest proponent.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/ross- ... 7/4452037/

Mercedes has been involved in talks with Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull Racing to try and reach agreement on the RRA, following disagreements about various aspects of the deal teams are currently working to.

Those discussions have not produced a positive outcome, but Brawn thinks it vital efforts are ramped up to try and get the matter sorted.

"The RRA is very important," he said. "We have to find some means of restraining the costs in Formula 1, as technical and sporting regulations can only go so far.

"The concept is very important, but it does need everyone to commit to it and work together to find the best solution to having an RRA system.

"We are committed to it, and we are going to persevere to try and make sure it is applied properly and is part of the future of F1, because without it we are at higher risk."

I agree, the teams were all given ample time to study, research, and develop their concepts around the 2022 regulations. And regulation change has always been a cycle in F1, which has rewarded teams that innovate the best with a significant lead. The only time recently that regulations can be blamed was 2021, when the floor was arbitrarily regulated without consultation with all teams, and this hurt MB and RP.

But the 2022 regulations were done transparently with input from the teams.

[Big Tea]

Like the W11 with everyone elses hands tied behind their backs because of cost cap!

I dont like the cost cap idea since it cripples competition.

There needs to be a better way.

To me, if there is a cost cap, the construction rules do not need to be so tight, as it was supposedly to save costs.
With things so closely regulated any tiny edge is going to be enormously expensive, and there is no way an enterprising team can grab an edge by doing something different or unexpected because it is ruled out.

As long as the cost cap is met, why are al the restrictions needed?


I agree some are for safety or to be 'green', but there is no wriggle room with or without spare cash and geniuses engineers and designers. it is like Lego, you use what's in the box, you can not add anything

You're missing the point.

Let me try explaining it this way. Without the restrictive regulations, the field spread would be even larger. In many ways the regulations tell you HOW to build an F1 car within a given performance window. Without such "guard rails" preventing the designers from straying too far from one another, one team would end up even further ahead than RB, and others even further behind than Haas and because the design space was so big, it would be even harder for a team to try and copy a successful design.

But so often the new innovations are what change things for a decade or more. Wings, Turbo engine (which was already allowed) Rear engine, even fan cars or 6 wheelers and disallowed things like CVT.

I can see the point of prohibiting things like ultra expensive active suspension, but even that today would not be colossally expensive, as it was as so much could not be bought in and programmed.
It is the teams that think outside the box that innovate, and this is now closed of to them even if it fits within the cost cap. Imagine Haas turning up one year with a Wankel or turbine CVT weighing half a standard engine set.

[DChemTech]

To me, if there is a cost cap, the construction rules do not need to be so tight, as it was supposedly to save costs.
With things so closely regulated any tiny edge is going to be enormously expensive, and there is no way an enterprising team can grab an edge by doing something different or unexpected because it is ruled out.

As long as the cost cap is met, why are al the restrictions needed?


I agree some are for safety or to be 'green', but there is no wriggle room with or without spare cash and geniuses engineers and designers. it is like Lego, you use what's in the box, you can not add anything

You're missing the point.

Let me try explaining it this way. Without the restrictive regulations, the field spread would be even larger. In many ways the regulations tell you HOW to build an F1 car within a given performance window. Without such "guard rails" preventing the designers from straying too far from one another, one team would end up even further ahead than RB, and others even further behind than Haas and because the design space was so big, it would be even harder for a team to try and copy a successful design.

But so often the new innovations are what change things for a decade or more. Wings, Turbo engine (which was already allowed) Rear engine, even fan cars or 6 wheelers and disallowed things like CVT.

I can see the point of prohibiting things like ultra expensive active suspension, but even that today would not be colossally expensive, as it was as so much could not be bought in and programmed.
It is the teams that think outside the box that innovate, and this is now closed of to them even if it fits within the cost cap. Imagine Haas turning up one year with a Wankel or turbine CVT weighing half a standard engine set.

To that I agree - it would be great if the cost cap went hand in hand with more development freedom and teams taking genuinely different philosophies. For such at thing, the cost cap is essential - otherwise it's just more budget means more room to try things, extending the lead of the rich teams even further.
I would be really curious to see who, given the same max. resources, would come up with what.

It would also be great if driver salaries were included in the cap - such that a team would need to balance between spending on car vs. spending on driver.

[SiLo]

Right now, all the cost cap will do is lock in performance differences for longer because other teams cannot try more things to close the gap to whoever is in front. If you make the wrong decision in terms of car development now, the punishment is that you have to restart rather than be running multiple things in parallel.

I disagree on this aspect. With free spending, we did not typically see that if one if the teams were behind, they could spend more to catch up: the top 3 spent about the same.
The only thing that happened was that the gap between the top 3 and the rest was widened, because all in the top 3 could try different avenues to get ahead further, whilst for the other teams it was not really an option because their budgets were limited anyway.

You misunderstand my point. It's not about the cost cap being wrong or bad, it's that this initial period will feel that way because getting it right from the start will have a bigger benefit.

[SiLo]

I'll withold judgement on the year after 1 race, but I will say it doesn't look good. Red Bull didn't make a world of changes to their car and it's miles ahead of everyone, at least at Bahrain. Aston and Mercedes were pretty close until it was clear the deg on the Aston was much better, so we might have some excitement between those teams in the early rounds.

Regarding all this cost cap discussion, I think long term it's good for the sport, but we won't see the benefit until the teams have similar resources in terms of quality of things like wind tunnels. Right now, all the cost cap will do is lock in performance differences for longer because other teams cannot try more things to close the gap to whoever is in front. If you make the wrong decision in terms of car development now, the punishment is that you have to restart rather than be running multiple things in parallel.

The cost cap does not lock in performance differences, not having a cost cap does. Nothing stops the leading team from spending the most, as they will have the most income (F1 + sponsorship). We saw that until 2020, when Mercedes had the biggest budget of all teams.

2020 was just the culmination of their project with incoming rule changes set. Ferrari had a bigger budget almost every year. Before cost cap it meant the gap between top and lower teams was bigger. For the first few years here we might see a single team with a big gap and then the rest relatively close.

Personally, I think the cost cap era is more likely to produce a single dominant team vs a top three like we have had before, because it's too expensive to run parallel development programs.

[DChemTech]

Right now, all the cost cap will do is lock in performance differences for longer because other teams cannot try more things to close the gap to whoever is in front. If you make the wrong decision in terms of car development now, the punishment is that you have to restart rather than be running multiple things in parallel.

I disagree on this aspect. With free spending, we did not typically see that if one if the teams were behind, they could spend more to catch up: the top 3 spent about the same.
The only thing that happened was that the gap between the top 3 and the rest was widened, because all in the top 3 could try different avenues to get ahead further, whilst for the other teams it was not really an option because their budgets were limited anyway.

You misunderstand my point. It's not about the cost cap being wrong or bad, it's that this initial period will feel that way because getting it right from the start will have a bigger benefit.

I got that point, yes, I just meant to say that in practice it doesn't really happen; the top teams all spend around the same, and there was one that clearly outperformed the others - we didn't really see one of the teams suddenly chipping in a lot more because they were off-track, and catch up with the top because of that.
And for the non-top 3, they were financially limited anyway - meaning they just fell further behind.
As such, I think the cost cap does not change the situation at the front too much (it's as hard to catch up as it was), but at least it pulls the rest closer together.

[SiLo]

I disagree on this aspect. With free spending, we did not typically see that if one if the teams were behind, they could spend more to catch up: the top 3 spent about the same.
The only thing that happened was that the gap between the top 3 and the rest was widened, because all in the top 3 could try different avenues to get ahead further, whilst for the other teams it was not really an option because their budgets were limited anyway.

You misunderstand my point. It's not about the cost cap being wrong or bad, it's that this initial period will feel that way because getting it right from the start will have a bigger benefit.

I got that point, yes, I just meant to say that in practice it doesn't really happen; the top teams all spend around the same, and there was one that clearly outperformed the others - we didn't really see one of the teams suddenly chipping in a lot more because they were off-track, and catch up with the top because of that.
And for the non-top 3, they were financially limited anyway - meaning they just fell further behind.
As such, I think the cost cap does not change the situation at the front too much (it's as hard to catch up as it was), but at least it pulls the rest closer together.

I think it makes it harder BECAUSE they can't run parallel programs now. Previously they could research various concepts because they had the money and people to do it. Suddenly the don't so getting it right the first time is even more important.

[TimW]

I think it makes it harder BECAUSE they can't run parallel programs now. Previously they could research various concepts because they had the money and people to do it. Suddenly the don't so getting it right the first time is even more important.

Most teams could not do that anyway before the cost cap. Yes it may make it more difficult for Mercedes' specific situation to catch up, because of not getting it right the first time, and more importantly, stubbornly sticking with it and wasting money on a dead end. But without the cost cap I very much doubt that AM would be able to do what they have achieved now (if only because they would not have been able to poach the engineers from RB).