2024 Season Bickering and Moaning

[chrisc90]

Thread to vent your anger on how bad the rules are again, how fast RB are compared to everyone else after 8 hours of running, moans, rants and everything else to avoid clogging the testing thread up.

PS: - keep it civil, no driver comparisons, attack the post and not the poster etc etc.

[JordanMugen]

Do they bring some new alien technology to the table? No. They simply pick apart some of the best ideas of other teams (which they seemingly understand better than those teams) and create an amalgamation of good ideas that works instantly. It's not an issue of rules, it's an issue of one team knowing what the **** they are doing whilst the others have been trying to push square pegs through round holes.

Adrian Newey:

We realised that everyone else will copy our previous year's car. If we had only relied on further development, we would have been vulnerable.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... rain-2024/

If Red Bull Racing found a path with a lot of development potential, why didn't the others do so as well? :raises eyebrow:

It is still speculation for now, as obviously the Alpine-Renault (or McLaren-Mercedes or Aston Martin-Mercedes et cetera et cetera) may still bring exactly that step and dominate the season, of course. Alpine would be particularly reliant on the budget cap to win the WDC and WCC (if they do so) as it is crucial to their whole strategy of winning the F1 World Championship in a cost-effective manner, so the idea that the budget cap is not important to an Alpine WDC & WCC is silly.

[Cs98]

Do they bring some new alien technology to the table? No. They simply pick apart some of the best ideas of other teams (which they seemingly understand better than those teams) and create an amalgamation of good ideas that works instantly. It's not an issue of rules, it's an issue of one team knowing what the **** they are doing whilst the others have been trying to push square pegs through round holes.

Adrian Newey:

We realised that everyone else will copy our previous year's car. If we had only relied on further development, we would have been vulnerable.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... rain-2024/

If Red Bull Racing found a path with a lot of development potential, why didn't the others do so as well? :raises eyebrow:

They did do well at adapting the RB19 concept and improving from where they were. Looking at the times I would expect Ferrari, Merc, McLaren, and AMR to be faster than RB19 come quali next week, by a margin.

[stonehenge]

You can call it bickering and moaning, but I do think this Red Bull dominance raises some problems for F1. In particular the cost cap and aero testing restrictions.

Yes, it's true that the field is narrower. But one, the rules are also much more restrictive, so the field should automatically be more narrow than in previous rules, and two, what does it matter that the field is narrower if one team is still way out front? Us nerds may find the midfield battles interesting, but it's not what gets people to subscribe to Sky, ESPN+, or whatever channel it's on in their country.

And there's a good argument to be made that in such a restrictive set of rules, the budget cap is actually more harmful for competitiveness, because if one team finds something that all the other teams didn't, they have an advantage that can't be made up. Without the budget cap, Mercedes and Ferrari would've probably thrown enough money at their cars in the last couple of years to get closer to Red Bull. Also, with the budget cap and testing restrictions, teams take much longer to reach diminishing returns in their development. So the field actually takes longer to converge than it would if we had the current technical regulations with the spending and testing rules from previous eras.

I'm definitely not saying I have an answer here, I'm not even sure there is a right one; but I do think this is a huge dilemma for F1 if you recall what they promised this era of regulations would accomplish: a tight field with close racing and multiple teams fighting for the world championship. Two more Max-RB-dominant seasons will put F1 in a very uncomfortable position.

[PapayaFan481]

You can call it bickering and moaning, but I do think this Red Bull dominance raises some problems for F1. In particular the cost cap and aero testing restrictions.

Yes, it's true that the field is narrower. But one, the rules are also much more restrictive, so the field should automatically be more narrow than in previous rules, and two, what does it matter that the field is narrower if one team is still way out front? Us nerds may find the midfield battles interesting, but it's not what gets people to subscribe to Sky, ESPN+, or whatever channel it's on in their country.

And there's a good argument to be made that in such a restrictive set of rules, the budget cap is actually more harmful for competitiveness, because if one team finds something that all the other teams didn't, they have an advantage that can't be made up. Without the budget cap, Mercedes and Ferrari would've probably thrown enough money at their cars in the last couple of years to get closer to Red Bull. Also, with the budget cap and testing restrictions, teams take much longer to reach diminishing returns in their development. So the field actually takes longer to converge than it would if we had the current technical regulations with the spending and testing rules from previous eras.

I'm definitely not saying I have an answer here, I'm not even sure there is a right one; but I do think this is a huge dilemma for F1 if you recall what they promised this era of regulations would accomplish: a tight field with close racing and multiple teams fighting for the world championship. Two more Max-RB-dominant seasons will put F1 in a very uncomfortable position.

Agreed. Conversely, if we have a budget cap, why do we need such restrictive rules. Just let teams decide where to spend their money.

[JordanMugen]

You can call it bickering and moaning, but I do think this Red Bull dominance raises some problems for F1. In particular the cost cap and aero testing restrictions.

Yes, it's true that the field is narrower. But one, the rules are also much more restrictive, so the field should automatically be more narrow than in previous rules, and two, what does it matter that the field is narrower if one team is still way out front? Us nerds may find the midfield battles interesting, but it's not what gets people to subscribe to Sky, ESPN+, or whatever channel it's on in their country.

Balance of performance is horrendous and unacceptable. It is more wrestling than spot, totally unacceptable.

If Yamaha and Honda built a poor bike -- they need to bide their time to build a better bike! It's that simple.

And there's a good argument to be made that in such a restrictive set of rules, the budget cap is actually more harmful for competitiveness, because if one team finds something that all the other teams didn't, they have an advantage that can't be made up.

Alpine's entire case for world championship victories hinges on the budget cap!!!

There is no budget cap in MotoGP, yet Honda and Yamaha do NOT improve in heaps and bounds. That the lack of budget cap is a remedy for designers who do not understand motorcycle aerodynamics (or Venturi car aerodynamics) is a simplistic and incorrect view.

[stonehenge]

You can call it bickering and moaning, but I do think this Red Bull dominance raises some problems for F1. In particular the cost cap and aero testing restrictions.

Yes, it's true that the field is narrower. But one, the rules are also much more restrictive, so the field should automatically be more narrow than in previous rules, and two, what does it matter that the field is narrower if one team is still way out front? Us nerds may find the midfield battles interesting, but it's not what gets people to subscribe to Sky, ESPN+, or whatever channel it's on in their country.

Balance of performance is horrendous and unacceptable. It is more wrestling than spot, totally unacceptable.

If Yamaha and Honda built a poor bike -- they need to bide their time to build a better bike! It's that simple.

I agree, but I'm worried that if Red Bull continues to dominate F1/Liberty will look at stuff like BoP. Most casual viewers won't know/care. F1 simply cannot afford two (or more) seasons like the last one. For the good of the sport I pray it'll be closer or god knows what will happen.

[JordanMugen]

I agree, but I'm worried that if Red Bull continues to dominate F1/Liberty will look at stuff like BoP. Most casual viewers won't know/care. F1 simply cannot afford two (or more) seasons like the last one.

Utter nonsense.

Since 1983, 50% of seasons have been won in dominant manner, it is totally normal. Mercedes GP won 7 constructor's title in a row, primarily by taking the unsporting decision to withhold Mercedes customer power units from Red Bull Racing from 2016 onwards despite Red Bull Racing being solvent and willing to pay, unlike the selected team for the supply - Manor Racing - who went bankrupt.

How many potential race victories and world driver's championships did Ricciardo and Verstappen lose while driving with Renault units 50hp down and unreliable? Yet the sport went on...

[stonehenge]

I agree, but I'm worried that if Red Bull continues to dominate F1/Liberty will look at stuff like BoP. Most casual viewers won't know/care. F1 simply cannot afford two (or more) seasons like the last one.

Utter nonsense.

Since 1983, 50% of seasons have been won in dominant manner, it is totally normal. Mercedes GP won 7 constructor's title in a row, primarily by taking the unsporting decision to withhold Mercedes customer power units from Red Bull Racing from 2016 onwards despite Red Bull Racing being solvent and willing to pay, unlike the selected team for the supply - Manor Racing - who went bankrupt.

How many potential race victories and world driver's championships did Ricciardo and Verstappen lose? Yet the sport went on...

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying what *I* think is good or bad for F1, I'm saying the commercial rights holders will not tolerate it. Whether you like Liberty as an owner or not, they are a company that wants to maximize profitability and they a continued decline in viewership numbers will absolutely push them to make changes.

[RonMexico]

You can call it bickering and moaning, but I do think this Red Bull dominance raises some problems for F1. In particular the cost cap and aero testing restrictions.

Yes, it's true that the field is narrower. But one, the rules are also much more restrictive, so the field should automatically be more narrow than in previous rules, and two, what does it matter that the field is narrower if one team is still way out front? Us nerds may find the midfield battles interesting, but it's not what gets people to subscribe to Sky, ESPN+, or whatever channel it's on in their country.

And there's a good argument to be made that in such a restrictive set of rules, the budget cap is actually more harmful for competitiveness, because if one team finds something that all the other teams didn't, they have an advantage that can't be made up. Without the budget cap, Mercedes and Ferrari would've probably thrown enough money at their cars in the last couple of years to get closer to Red Bull. Also, with the budget cap and testing restrictions, teams take much longer to reach diminishing returns in their development. So the field actually takes longer to converge than it would if we had the current technical regulations with the spending and testing rules from previous eras.

I'm definitely not saying I have an answer here, I'm not even sure there is a right one; but I do think this is a huge dilemma for F1 if you recall what they promised this era of regulations would accomplish: a tight field with close racing and multiple teams fighting for the world championship. Two more Max-RB-dominant seasons will put F1 in a very uncomfortable position.

The budget cap was designed to make Liberty money

[stonehenge]

You can call it bickering and moaning, but I do think this Red Bull dominance raises some problems for F1. In particular the cost cap and aero testing restrictions.

Yes, it's true that the field is narrower. But one, the rules are also much more restrictive, so the field should automatically be more narrow than in previous rules, and two, what does it matter that the field is narrower if one team is still way out front? Us nerds may find the midfield battles interesting, but it's not what gets people to subscribe to Sky, ESPN+, or whatever channel it's on in their country.

And there's a good argument to be made that in such a restrictive set of rules, the budget cap is actually more harmful for competitiveness, because if one team finds something that all the other teams didn't, they have an advantage that can't be made up. Without the budget cap, Mercedes and Ferrari would've probably thrown enough money at their cars in the last couple of years to get closer to Red Bull. Also, with the budget cap and testing restrictions, teams take much longer to reach diminishing returns in their development. So the field actually takes longer to converge than it would if we had the current technical regulations with the spending and testing rules from previous eras.

I'm definitely not saying I have an answer here, I'm not even sure there is a right one; but I do think this is a huge dilemma for F1 if you recall what they promised this era of regulations would accomplish: a tight field with close racing and multiple teams fighting for the world championship. Two more Max-RB-dominant seasons will put F1 in a very uncomfortable position.

The budget cap was designed to make Liberty money

Care to elaborate?

[Tvetovnato]

You can call it bickering and moaning, but I do think this Red Bull dominance raises some problems for F1. In particular the cost cap and aero testing restrictions.

Yes, it's true that the field is narrower. But one, the rules are also much more restrictive, so the field should automatically be more narrow than in previous rules, and two, what does it matter that the field is narrower if one team is still way out front? Us nerds may find the midfield battles interesting, but it's not what gets people to subscribe to Sky, ESPN+, or whatever channel it's on in their country.

Balance of performance is horrendous and unacceptable. It is more wrestling than spot, totally unacceptable.

If Yamaha and Honda built a poor bike -- they need to bide their time to build a better bike! It's that simple.

And there's a good argument to be made that in such a restrictive set of rules, the budget cap is actually more harmful for competitiveness, because if one team finds something that all the other teams didn't, they have an advantage that can't be made up.

Alpine's entire case for world championship victories hinges on the budget cap!!!

There is no budget cap in MotoGP, yet Honda and Yamaha do NOT improve in heaps and bounds. That the lack of budget cap is a remedy for designers who do not understand motorcycle aerodynamics (or Venturi car aerodynamics) is a simplistic and incorrect view.

I was also extemely sceptical about BoP at first, but after a season of following WEC and IMSA as closely as F1 last year, I have a different opinion now. It’s not about penalizing teams who are doing better than others, it’s about bringing everyone into a window of performance where you hopefully don’t see a team run away with things and make it completely boring. No one can sit back and do nothing and wait for a helping hand, you still have to work hard to make a difference and be able to win. It becomes a parameter you have to take into account when designing the car to make it work in as many conditions as possible and make sure you operate perfectly to execute a flawless race. Hence, the best team and best drivers will still make the difference.

A cost cap setup has the potential to achieve a similar result, but never in the way F1 operates by doing major rule changes every five years or so. Just when the field starts to converge for real, the rule change comes and ruins it all, and we end up with situations like this. The cost cap is counterproductive as heck now, with RB walking away with this title and next years as well. I guarantee that the same thing will happen in the next overhaul, and the only ones who are happy are either the same people who starts a moaning thread like this, or Mercedes or Ferrari fans or whatever team gets it right.

Yes, other teams should do better and bla bla and we should celebrate the genius of Newey for producing a fantastic car or Cowell for producing a great engine in the Merc days, but who really cares? It’s simply not worth waiting 10 years for a 2021 season to happen again (if we are lucky). But with the way the F1 show is being more and more Americanized in the past few years, I have a feeling anyway we won’t have to wait that long for something to change in this direction.

[AR3-GP]

You can call it bickering and moaning, but I do think this Red Bull dominance raises some problems for F1. In particular the cost cap and aero testing restrictions.

Yes, it's true that the field is narrower. But one, the rules are also much more restrictive, so the field should automatically be more narrow than in previous rules, and two, what does it matter that the field is narrower if one team is still way out front? Us nerds may find the midfield battles interesting, but it's not what gets people to subscribe to Sky, ESPN+, or whatever channel it's on in their country.

And there's a good argument to be made that in such a restrictive set of rules, the budget cap is actually more harmful for competitiveness, because if one team finds something that all the other teams didn't, they have an advantage that can't be made up. Without the budget cap, Mercedes and Ferrari would've probably thrown enough money at their cars in the last couple of years to get closer to Red Bull. Also, with the budget cap and testing restrictions, teams take much longer to reach diminishing returns in their development. So the field actually takes longer to converge than it would if we had the current technical regulations with the spending and testing rules from previous eras.

I'm definitely not saying I have an answer here, I'm not even sure there is a right one; but I do think this is a huge dilemma for F1 if you recall what they promised this era of regulations would accomplish: a tight field with close racing and multiple teams fighting for the world championship. Two more Max-RB-dominant seasons will put F1 in a very uncomfortable position.

The budget cap was designed to make Liberty money

Care to elaborate?

If teams are spending less, they can't make a case for increasing the prize money share which is a negotiated percentage of the revenue from Liberty. Under the old regs, the teams would negotiate for more prize money in the Concorde agreement to be sustainable. This comes at the expense of Liberty's own profits.

[stonehenge]

The budget cap was designed to make Liberty money

Care to elaborate?

You could argue that Liberty doesn't have to pay out as much prize money, when the teams don't need as much money for their survival. In this way, they can keep a larger percentage of the revenue while also not starving the teams who are the animals in the zoo so to speak...

Per current Concorde Agreement the team prize pot equates to 50% of F1’s commercial rights profit. The budget cap doesn't affect the prize money, at least not in the way you're suggesting.

[AR3-GP]

Care to elaborate?

You could argue that Liberty doesn't have to pay out as much prize money, when the teams don't need as much money for their survival. In this way, they can keep a larger percentage of the revenue while also not starving the teams who are the animals in the zoo so to speak...

Per current Concorde Agreement the team prize pot equates to 50% of F1’s commercial rights profit. The budget cap doesn't affect the prize money, at least not in the way you're suggesting.

The current concorde agreement expires in 2025.