2024 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[DGP123]

Got tired of the Alonso to Mercedes stuff about a month ago.

The only reason Alonso would want to go to Mercedes, is for money, and to keep himself in the spotlight. Other than that, I don’t see the point. The guy needs to retire. He’s been hanging around like a bad smell for about two regulations now, in a desperate hope, that he lucks into a title winning car. If he thinks Mercedes is his answer, then the guy is delusional. He won’t achieve anything at Mercedes, because it’s quite clear that it’s a team in decline.

[KimiRai]

in a desperate hope, that he lucks into a title winning car.

That's most of the grid

[zibby43]

Someone help me understand what James Allison is saying https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-w ... /10587033/

I can only see "we can't get this right, how RedBull, Ferrari and McLaren have managed, so please make changes to chassis rules for 2026, so that we can be back in the game" said in a more tech-winded, beating-around-the-bush, manner.

Did you see where both George Russell and Max Verstappen said that the cars are too low and their spines are being destroyed by bumps? These ground effect cars derive performance from being as low to the ground and as stiffly sprung as possible. Did you also see where the drivers are all saying dirty air is worse?

Allison is basically saying you can achieve closer racing by other means, not just ground effect regs that aren't proving to be the greatest thing since sliced bread (for a variety of reasons).

Ferrari and McLaren have got it so right that they'll each finish 250+ points (minimum) behind RB in the WDC and WCC.

Did you see 2022 season ? How close the fight was for P1 for the first half of the season ? And how cars were able to follow very close ? Just because one team did a good job 'developing' the car from a 'first time right' concept , and others are lagging behind, doesn't make the regulation a failure. The fact that the wake is again dirty now, is because teams have found clever ways to exploit loopholes in the rules and make their cars faster, fallout being following closely is not as easy as 2022.
Allisons rant is classic sour grapes.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/wolff ... /10588118/

Horner in 2015:

“Mercedes have done a super job,” said Horner back then. “They have a good car, a fantastic engine and they have two very good drivers.

“The problem is that the gap is so big that you end up with three-tier racing. That is not healthy for F1.

“They [the FIA] have a power output so they can see what every power unit is producing. They have the facts. They could quite easily come up with a way of some form of equalisation.”

What Allison said pales in comparison to this plain-as-day call for rules to be changed in order to specifically peg back the dominant car.

Wasn’t the last time Horner did it. Man, people have short memories I guess lol.

[napoleon1981]

Did you see where both George Russell and Max Verstappen said that the cars are too low and their spines are being destroyed by bumps? These ground effect cars derive performance from being as low to the ground and as stiffly sprung as possible. Did you also see where the drivers are all saying dirty air is worse?

Allison is basically saying you can achieve closer racing by other means, not just ground effect regs that aren't proving to be the greatest thing since sliced bread (for a variety of reasons).

Ferrari and McLaren have got it so right that they'll each finish 250+ points (minimum) behind RB in the WDC and WCC.

Did you see 2022 season ? How close the fight was for P1 for the first half of the season ? And how cars were able to follow very close ? Just because one team did a good job 'developing' the car from a 'first time right' concept , and others are lagging behind, doesn't make the regulation a failure. The fact that the wake is again dirty now, is because teams have found clever ways to exploit loopholes in the rules and make their cars faster, fallout being following closely is not as easy as 2022.
Allisons rant is classic sour grapes.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/wolff ... /10588118/

Horner in 2015:

“Mercedes have done a super job,” said Horner back then. “They have a good car, a fantastic engine and they have two very good drivers.

“The problem is that the gap is so big that you end up with three-tier racing. That is not healthy for F1.

“They [the FIA] have a power output so they can see what every power unit is producing. They have the facts. They could quite easily come up with a way of some form of equalisation.”

What Allison said pales in comparison to this plain-as-day call for rules to be changed in order to specifically peg back the dominant car.

Wasn’t the last time Horner did it. Man, people have short memories I guess lol.

Unlike 2015, currently there are windtunnel penalties for the fastest team. So it is much hard for RB to what Merc did in 2015, times in which Merc was also spending substantially more than anyone else. If you want to watch racing where there are BOP adjustments, that is covered by other classes. F1 is not for you.

[zibby43]

Did you see 2022 season ? How close the fight was for P1 for the first half of the season ? And how cars were able to follow very close ? Just because one team did a good job 'developing' the car from a 'first time right' concept , and others are lagging behind, doesn't make the regulation a failure. The fact that the wake is again dirty now, is because teams have found clever ways to exploit loopholes in the rules and make their cars faster, fallout being following closely is not as easy as 2022.
Allisons rant is classic sour grapes.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/wolff ... /10588118/

Horner in 2015:

“Mercedes have done a super job,” said Horner back then. “They have a good car, a fantastic engine and they have two very good drivers.

“The problem is that the gap is so big that you end up with three-tier racing. That is not healthy for F1.

“They [the FIA] have a power output so they can see what every power unit is producing. They have the facts. They could quite easily come up with a way of some form of equalisation.”

What Allison said pales in comparison to this plain-as-day call for rules to be changed in order to specifically peg back the dominant car.

Wasn’t the last time Horner did it. Man, people have short memories I guess lol.

Unlike 2015, currently there are windtunnel penalties for the fastest team. So it is much hard for RB to what Merc did in 2015, times in which Merc was also spending substantially more than anyone else. If you want to watch racing where there are BOP adjustments, that is covered by other classes. F1 is not for you.

I don't understand your reply. Mostly because you didn't understand mine. I'm arguing against calling for rules changes to penalize the fastest team for doing the best job.

That's not what Allison was doing with his recent comments, unlike Horner back in 2015. Allison was speaking philosophically about the next rule set, echoing comments and sentiments expressed by Verstappen, Russell, and now Lando Norris.

Next, the "penalties" that exist now are a bit of a joke. There are ample opportunities for exclusions under the budget cap, and you can "game" the wind tunnel rules in the name of "cooling development."

Re: spending, it was nip and tuck with spending between Ferrari and Mercedes in the "uncapped" era. The revisionist history that Mercedes spent "substantially more" than other top teams is inaccurate. Between 2016 and 2019, Ferrari out-spent Mercedes 2x: https://www.essentiallysports.com/f1-ne ... l-ferrari/

Finally, to your point about the hybrid era: Ever hear of the token system? It's ironic, just how the tokens helped inadvertently bake in Merc's advantage, the new rules have effectively done the same for RB.

[Cs98]

Did you see where both George Russell and Max Verstappen said that the cars are too low and their spines are being destroyed by bumps? These ground effect cars derive performance from being as low to the ground and as stiffly sprung as possible. Did you also see where the drivers are all saying dirty air is worse?

Allison is basically saying you can achieve closer racing by other means, not just ground effect regs that aren't proving to be the greatest thing since sliced bread (for a variety of reasons).

Ferrari and McLaren have got it so right that they'll each finish 250+ points (minimum) behind RB in the WDC and WCC.

Did you see 2022 season ? How close the fight was for P1 for the first half of the season ? And how cars were able to follow very close ? Just because one team did a good job 'developing' the car from a 'first time right' concept , and others are lagging behind, doesn't make the regulation a failure. The fact that the wake is again dirty now, is because teams have found clever ways to exploit loopholes in the rules and make their cars faster, fallout being following closely is not as easy as 2022.
Allisons rant is classic sour grapes.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/wolff ... /10588118/

Horner in 2015:

“Mercedes have done a super job,” said Horner back then. “They have a good car, a fantastic engine and they have two very good drivers.

“The problem is that the gap is so big that you end up with three-tier racing. That is not healthy for F1.

“They [the FIA] have a power output so they can see what every power unit is producing. They have the facts. They could quite easily come up with a way of some form of equalisation.”

What Allison said pales in comparison to this plain-as-day call for rules to be changed in order to specifically peg back the dominant car.

Wasn’t the last time Horner did it. Man, people have short memories I guess lol.

Wolff has already fallen into the trap. He lobbied hard for floor changes and succeeded, partly why it's harder to follow now than 2022. They angled for active suspension, talking about how it would be such a neat solution in the media. It's all the same story, whether you are asking the FIA to peg someone else back or prop your own team up doesn't matter, it serves the same purpose. "Please come and solve our problems for us". "Make us more competitive". It's what teams do.

[organic]

Did you see 2022 season ? How close the fight was for P1 for the first half of the season ? And how cars were able to follow very close ? Just because one team did a good job 'developing' the car from a 'first time right' concept , and others are lagging behind, doesn't make the regulation a failure. The fact that the wake is again dirty now, is because teams have found clever ways to exploit loopholes in the rules and make their cars faster, fallout being following closely is not as easy as 2022.
Allisons rant is classic sour grapes.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/wolff ... /10588118/

Horner in 2015:

“Mercedes have done a super job,” said Horner back then. “They have a good car, a fantastic engine and they have two very good drivers.

“The problem is that the gap is so big that you end up with three-tier racing. That is not healthy for F1.

“They [the FIA] have a power output so they can see what every power unit is producing. They have the facts. They could quite easily come up with a way of some form of equalisation.”

What Allison said pales in comparison to this plain-as-day call for rules to be changed in order to specifically peg back the dominant car.

Wasn’t the last time Horner did it. Man, people have short memories I guess lol.

Wolff has already fallen into the trap. He lobbied hard for floor changes and succeeded, partly why it's harder to follow now than 2022. They angled for active suspension, talking about how it would be such a neat solution in the media. It's all the same story, whether you are asking the FIA to peg someone else back or prop your own team up doesn't matter, it serves the same purpose. "Please come and solve our problems for us". "Make us more competitive". It's what teams do.

Norris, Max are also advocating for a solution. It's not just one team complaining

[Cs98]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/wolff ... /10588118/

Horner in 2015:

“Mercedes have done a super job,” said Horner back then. “They have a good car, a fantastic engine and they have two very good drivers.

“The problem is that the gap is so big that you end up with three-tier racing. That is not healthy for F1.

“They [the FIA] have a power output so they can see what every power unit is producing. They have the facts. They could quite easily come up with a way of some form of equalisation.”

What Allison said pales in comparison to this plain-as-day call for rules to be changed in order to specifically peg back the dominant car.

Wasn’t the last time Horner did it. Man, people have short memories I guess lol.

Wolff has already fallen into the trap. He lobbied hard for floor changes and succeeded, partly why it's harder to follow now than 2022. They angled for active suspension, talking about how it would be such a neat solution in the media. It's all the same story, whether you are asking the FIA to peg someone else back or prop your own team up doesn't matter, it serves the same purpose. "Please come and solve our problems for us". "Make us more competitive". It's what teams do.

Norris, Max are also advocating for a solution. It's not just one team complaining

I'm talking about the article. If they want to improve ride for 2026 when the rules are being completely overhauled anyways that's different.

[cplchanb]

Did you see 2022 season ? How close the fight was for P1 for the first half of the season ? And how cars were able to follow very close ? Just because one team did a good job 'developing' the car from a 'first time right' concept , and others are lagging behind, doesn't make the regulation a failure. The fact that the wake is again dirty now, is because teams have found clever ways to exploit loopholes in the rules and make their cars faster, fallout being following closely is not as easy as 2022.
Allisons rant is classic sour grapes.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/wolff ... /10588118/

Horner in 2015:

“Mercedes have done a super job,” said Horner back then. “They have a good car, a fantastic engine and they have two very good drivers.

“The problem is that the gap is so big that you end up with three-tier racing. That is not healthy for F1.

“They [the FIA] have a power output so they can see what every power unit is producing. They have the facts. They could quite easily come up with a way of some form of equalisation.”

What Allison said pales in comparison to this plain-as-day call for rules to be changed in order to specifically peg back the dominant car.

Wasn’t the last time Horner did it. Man, people have short memories I guess lol.

Unlike 2015, currently there are windtunnel penalties for the fastest team. So it is much hard for RB to what Merc did in 2015, times in which Merc was also spending substantially more than anyone else. If you want to watch racing where there are BOP adjustments, that is covered by other classes. F1 is not for you.

problem is the windtunnel penalties arent near enough these days equalise as we saw these last 2 years especially the last. RB was supposed to be punished for their 2021 cheating but it had virtually zero effect for their progress. they had more than enough resources within their allocation to maintain the status quo while others had to spend more resources not only to catch up but to cut the deficit. just look at toyota at wec. if they didnt get BOPed they wouldve been sailing away themselves. if anything this current era needs some form of equalisation due to the prescriptive cost cap regs.

[organic]

Wolff has already fallen into the trap. He lobbied hard for floor changes and succeeded, partly why it's harder to follow now than 2022. They angled for active suspension, talking about how it would be such a neat solution in the media. It's all the same story, whether you are asking the FIA to peg someone else back or prop your own team up doesn't matter, it serves the same purpose. "Please come and solve our problems for us". "Make us more competitive". It's what teams do.

Norris, Max are also advocating for a solution. It's not just one team complaining

I'm talking about the article. If they want to improve ride for 2026 when the rules are being completely overhauled anyways that's different.

Which article? This is the original article quoted in the chain of quotes

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-w ... /10587033/

And this is fundamentally Allison talking about the regulation setters making better decisions for 2026, and is not complaining about Merc's current situation

"Red Bull are doing a good job and the rest of us have a duty to do a better job. I don't think that's the fault of the regulator"

“I don't think there's anything wrong in particular with ground-effects floors,” he said.

“But the particular layout of these ones, that have a response to rear ride height that is not particularly good for the cars, that isn't something that we should carry into 2026.”

[Cs98]

Norris, Max are also advocating for a solution. It's not just one team complaining

I'm talking about the article. If they want to improve ride for 2026 when the rules are being completely overhauled anyways that's different.

Which article? This is the original article quoted in the chain of quotes

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-w ... /10587033/

And this is fundamentally Allison talking about the regulation setters making better decisions for 2026, and is not complaining about Merc's current situation

"Red Bull are doing a good job and the rest of us have a duty to do a better job. I don't think that's the fault of the regulator"

“I don't think there's anything wrong in particular with ground-effects floors,” he said.

“But the particular layout of these ones, that have a response to rear ride height that is not particularly good for the cars, that isn't something that we should carry into 2026.”

Nope, the autosport article in the comment I responded to, obviously.

[napoleon1981]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/wolff ... /10588118/

Horner in 2015:

“Mercedes have done a super job,” said Horner back then. “They have a good car, a fantastic engine and they have two very good drivers.

“The problem is that the gap is so big that you end up with three-tier racing. That is not healthy for F1.

“They [the FIA] have a power output so they can see what every power unit is producing. They have the facts. They could quite easily come up with a way of some form of equalisation.”

What Allison said pales in comparison to this plain-as-day call for rules to be changed in order to specifically peg back the dominant car.

Wasn’t the last time Horner did it. Man, people have short memories I guess lol.

Unlike 2015, currently there are windtunnel penalties for the fastest team. So it is much hard for RB to what Merc did in 2015, times in which Merc was also spending substantially more than anyone else. If you want to watch racing where there are BOP adjustments, that is covered by other classes. F1 is not for you.

I don't understand your reply. Mostly because you didn't understand mine. I'm arguing against calling for rules changes to penalize the fastest team for doing the best job.

That's not what Allison was doing with his recent comments, unlike Horner back in 2015. Allison was speaking philosophically about the next rule set, echoing comments and sentiments expressed by Verstappen, Russell, and now Lando Norris.

Next, the "penalties" that exist now are a bit of a joke. There are ample opportunities for exclusions under the budget cap, and you can "game" the wind tunnel rules in the name of "cooling development."

Re: spending, it was nip and tuck with spending between Ferrari and Mercedes in the "uncapped" era. The revisionist history that Mercedes spent "substantially more" than other top teams is inaccurate. Between 2016 and 2019, Ferrari out-spent Mercedes 2x: https://www.essentiallysports.com/f1-ne ... l-ferrari/

Finally, to your point about the hybrid era: Ever hear of the token system? It's ironic, just how the tokens helped inadvertently bake in Merc's advantage, the new rules have effectively done the same for RB.

Spending: The damage was done before 2016 and 2019. Infact the insane spending of mercedes even prior to the rules going live is where the damage was done. Fact is while Ferrari was close later in the rule set, no1 else really was. Not even RB.

Penalties, fact is that there are penalties now, and not in that time.

As for your token analogy. Merc indeed can't spend their way out of things. This has exposed the inefficiency of the organization.

[JordanMugen]

“The problem is that the gap is so big that you end up with three-tier racing. That is not healthy for F1.

“They [the FIA] have a power output so they can see what every power unit is producing. They have the facts. They could quite easily come up with a way of some form of equalisation.”

What Allison said pales in comparison to this plain-as-day call for rules to be changed in order to specifically peg back the dominant car.

Horner is making no comment on the dominant car at all?!

He is voicing concerns about the dominant engine and how much power the Renault lacks compared to it. Horner would have been more than happy to lease customer Mercedes-Benz engines for 2016.

The calls are not unusual, even in 2023, Renault were making the same calls again. Horner was again in favour of Renault's proposal:

I think that would be fascinating for everybody to see, and I think that if there is a deficit under homologation, then it’s something that we should be sensible about - otherwise, you’re locked in for two years. I wouldn’t be averse to a sensible discussion.

https://news.yahoo.com/fia-wants-equali ... 04397.html

I'm arguing against calling for rules changes to penalize the fastest team for doing the best job.

That's not what Allison was doing with his recent comments, unlike Horner back in 2015.

Horner was referring only to engines! Nothing about constructor performance whatsoever.

Red Bull-Mercedes would have been more than happy to compete with Mercedes-Mercedes in the 2016 Formula One World Championship. Instead the supply was allocated to Manor-Mercedes who went bankrupt...

[JordanMugen]

I'm talking about the article. If they want to improve ride for 2026 when the rules are being completely overhauled anyways that's different.

Strict oscillation metrics seem the best way to do it, 2026 cars will be the same suspension rules with lower profile tyres (16" plan abandoned, just smaller diameter instead) so I don't see how they can ride better.

Someone help me understand what James Allison is saying https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-w ... /10587033/

I can only see "we can't get this right, how RedBull, Ferrari and McLaren have managed, so please make changes to chassis rules for 2026, so that we can be back in the game" said in a more tech-winded, beating-around-the-bush, manner.

Allison is calling for regulations to be less ride height sensitive in 2026 but I doubt rule makers will listen, as ride height is obviously key to venturi tunnel ground effects.

Did you also see where the drivers are all saying dirty air is worse?

The FIA raised the floor edges in 2023 which made the regulation package less effective unfortunately, but it is what it is.

I assume the 2026 regulation package will drop the floor edges back down to the reference plane.

[cplchanb]

“The problem is that the gap is so big that you end up with three-tier racing. That is not healthy for F1.

“They [the FIA] have a power output so they can see what every power unit is producing. They have the facts. They could quite easily come up with a way of some form of equalisation.”

What Allison said pales in comparison to this plain-as-day call for rules to be changed in order to specifically peg back the dominant car.

Horner is making no comment on the dominant car at all?!

He is voicing concerns about the dominant engine and how much power the Renault lacks compared to it. Horner would have been more than happy to lease customer Mercedes-Benz engines for 2016.

The calls are not unusual, even in 2023, Renault were making the same calls again. Horner was again in favour of Renault's proposal:

I think that would be fascinating for everybody to see, and I think that if there is a deficit under homologation, then it’s something that we should be sensible about - otherwise, you’re locked in for two years. I wouldn’t be averse to a sensible discussion.

https://news.yahoo.com/fia-wants-equali ... 04397.html

I'm arguing against calling for rules changes to penalize the fastest team for doing the best job.

That's not what Allison was doing with his recent comments, unlike Horner back in 2015.

Horner was referring only to engines! Nothing about constructor performance whatsoever.

Red Bull-Mercedes would have been more than happy to compete with Mercedes-Mercedes in the 2016 Formula One World Championship. Instead the supply was allocated to Manor-Mercedes who went bankrupt...

honestly by publicly flogging renault, begging around for new engines and then come crawling back to them by hiding behind the aston martin badge RB created their own poison pill. no wonder merc refused to budge on their supply.