Horner: Qualy modes should be banned!

[AJI]

He was taken totally out of context. It should have read:
Horner: [Mercedes] Qualy modes [for Lewis] should be banned!

[Steven]

And which media outlet was responsible for this attention seeking?

[Big Tea]

So they start the weekend in party modem and the driver is told to short shift?
Red Bull cars get blown away sooner.

[Juzh]

So would it be fair to allow other teams thoroughly inspect the Redbull's aerodynamics

They can, with a camera. Really easy to do.

[Sieper]

And they do, Ferrari copies the RBR diffusor to the MM.

personally, I think a power mode is fine, if you make an engine that can do it, then do it, the only part which I do have problems with is the extra gain by burning engine lubricants. That for me should be ruled out. I think you then take about 20 HP away (was numbered to be about that amount of HP, which is 0.2 / 0,3 seconds, the rest is due to the Merc engine being a better engine and it is only fair (imho) to use any advantage you legitimately have.

[Wass85]

They aren't allowed to delve deep and fully inspect the car though. Surely they should all be allowed to properly investigate the Redbull car.

[Phil]

His doesn't work, so it needs to be banned - every team handles this way, and that won't ever change.

It's not his, it's his engine suppliers that doesn't work.

Some of you have a very warped perception of what constitutes a fair sport. I've outed myself numerous times as a Mercedes and Hamilton supporter, but being a supporter of the dominating team does not make me blind to a few flaws in current F1 regulations:

- We have only 4 engine suppliers in a sport with 10 teams
- We have 10 teams that can build and construct cars/chassis.
- We only have 3 factory-works-teams, that being Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault
- 7 teams are mere customers. They don't exactly have free choice as to which engines they want to run.
- the engines are a significant factor in determining who can compete with whom and for what

RedBull obviously isn't a factory-works-team. They are a mere customer. They don't exactly have a free choice as to what engine they can run. They wanted Mercedes engine, yet Mercedes don't want to supply them. They wanted Ferrari engines, but Ferrari don't want to supply them. As per the existing contracts and the regulations in place, they are forced to run either Renault or Honda engines, both which are not exactly competitive.

Obviously, none of these customer teams have the ability to simply become engine-suppliers themselves and create their own engine. If one of the largest manufacturers in Honda can't simply come and do it and fails, how could any team/company do so. The engines are too complex, expensive and the (engine) regulations in place do not allow this or encourage it. The only means a team like RedBull and 6 others have to compete is on the chassis and aero side - the area of their expertise. The engine isn't theirs, they have no influence over what Renault does and supplies.

How is this fair? This is by definition a two tier championship. The only true competitors with a level playing field within this sport are Mercedes vs Ferrari vs Renault. No customer team has the complete ability to compete in all areas. It is therefore quite logical that Horner/RedBull are criticizing the one aspect of the sport they have no control over: the engine.

If the other remaining 6 customer teams weren't dependent (financially and otherwise) on their engine, they would probably be more vocal too.

Imagine for a second this scenario: What if Mercedes suddenly decided to buy Michelin and somehow found a way for the sport to accommodate them using their own tires. What if for some reason, these tires are much better than whatever Pirelli supplies the rest and at every race, we would see Mercedes lapping at 2 second quicker than the rest. Would that be fair? Would it be fair to force the remaining 9 teams to become their own tire manufacturer to compete in this area too? Is that the idea of a fair and level sport? No doubt, we would still have some people downplaying the "tire factor" and simply applauding Mercedes for the better car that they have built.


I don't mind having an engine driven F1. In fact, I love the engines from a technological view point and I am amazed and can only marvel at what Mercedes have constructed and bettered with every year since. But this isn't fair in a sport with only 3 factory-teams competing against their own customers. What the sport needs are 10 engine suppliers with their own teams battling each other. If this is not possible, then why allow the engine to become/to be a significant factor in who wins and doesn't?

The answer to that is simple: F1 allowed the teams too much power at the risk of losing them. If the governing body of F1 was in full control, they would have never allowed this to happen. I am by no means a fan of RedBull and Horner, but this isn't healthy by any stretch of imagination and at this rate, the sport will be destroyed. The essence of competition is that anyone participating has the means to compete. If this can not be ensured, what's the point of calling it a competition?

[Big Tea]

His doesn't work, so it needs to be banned - every team handles this way, and that won't ever change.

...

This may sound bad, but it is not intended as a 'retort' to your post.

https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/01/03 ... d-in-2016/

Look how much Red Bull spends in F1 years. They could easily have funded their own engine and could have been in from the design stage guiding it in the direction they want. Cash they do not spend here is used to develop the car over and above the team cars who have to fund, or at least justify their own engine, and supply to the other teams.

Considering this, and the response engine suppliers have had off them is there any wonder they are having a problem getting a supply?

Had they embarked on an engine program and supplied 4 other teams, I could sympathize if their engine was getting slagged off, but not under the circumstance. Add to this the number of times they have 'pushed the envelope' (which all teams do, or should do) to the outer limit at least, and I have no sympathy at all for them.

[McHonda]

- My advice for Horner: hire better and quicker drivers. Same for Ferrari, that's how you challenge the leaders. It could have been RB winning it by accident but they both messed up.

- Red Bull's dishonesty has no boundaries. They are the prime contributors for current pure model of racing (minus engines) and take no responsibility for it.

- The only person that can match them in hypocrisy is Ross the smuggest of them all Brawn. He worked diligently on getting rid of evil DRS, proposed simpler wings, Ferrari showed him middle finger blocking it and the topic disappeared.

- Now crocodile tears are flowing because you can't overtake in Australia on a one-stopper, in the biggest DF cars ever even with impure DR device. Where's the logic Ross?! Where are designed with a ruler FWs ?! I'm sorry .

Drivers are the last thing they need to upgrade. Who's got a better driver pairing than Red Bull?

They just want and need what they can't have, a better engine. Just run of the mill self interest like everyone else on the grid.

[CBeck113]

His doesn't work, so it needs to be banned - every team handles this way, and that won't ever change.

...

Sorry, he didn't do anything about "parity" or have the rules changed to be fair while winning four consecutive championships with Renault, so you shouldn't have wasted your time discussing fairness on his / RB's behalf.
My personal belief is that there should only be one software setting for the entire weekend, all the rest should only be handled by the driver's right foot. It's not about fair anyway - this is a business, and every advantage will be exploited, and you either recognized these exploits, or you lose. That's racing.

[Maritimer]

I quite like the qualifying modes. We can't have dedicated engines anymore so whycnot let them turn the wick up for a few laps to show what these cars are fully capable of? Imo they should bring the hypersoft to every track for qualifying as well, give em full beans every race.

[strad]

I'm inclined to disagree with Horner on the one hand but on the other how far away is this from having special hand grenade qualifying engines which were banned some time ago?

[Just_a_fan]

With the era of driving conservatively in races well upon us, I like seeing the cars in full attack mode at least once per event.

Horner can go and whistle. He was all "they should all do better" in RedBull's winning years. Goes around, comes around Christian.

[the EDGE]

With the era of driving conservatively in races well upon us, I like seeing the cars in full attack mode at least once per event.

Horner can go and whistle. He was all "they should all do better" in RedBull's winning years. Goes around, comes around Christian.

Quite right

only 1 team can be the winner, this sport has always had a dominating team, 1/2 the field has had their day & always will, and all the other teams knew this to be the case long before they joined F1

However, what Christian says about not being able to choose a supplier does actually make sense. How is it fair that RB can never win the championship as things stand, because they can not access a supplier with enough power

It’s different from not being able to win because the chassis is not up to the job because all teams build their own chassis

Is it right that only works teams stand realistic chance of winning?

This is supposed to be either a sport or entertainment depending on what way you look at it, not a moving advertisement to sell cars

The problem however goes all the way back to the regulations, in hindsight choosing such a complicated PU configuration using technology in its infancy was bound to throw up such huge margins & be rediculously expensive. I really hope they choose to simplify thing next time round, or at least stick with what they have for another 5 years so performance has a chance to converge

[iotar__]

With the era of driving conservatively in races well upon us, I like seeing the cars in full attack mode at least once per event.

Why would lack of Q3 mode change full attack? It's the same argument as with quicker cars = pushing 100%. Problem is why now? Horner's media shouting starts in a specific context, race and team. He doesn't bring numbers and reference points like gap in Q 0,7 s to ~3 of drivers Q . How much of that is:
- a driver, very good vs flawed lap?
- engine/Q3 mode on a specific track vs chassis,
- Ferrari vs Mercedes, RB vs Ferrari? Why start a discussion without basic info?

Here's something (AMuS) https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text= On top of perfect performance from the drivers they say they're losing 30 to 55 hp. RB claim they're equal and Merc claim they're (slightly) ahead in corners. Googlish:

"Red Bull states that the Mercedes engine has between 30 and 55 hp more than the Renault V6. "Less in normal mode, significantly more in full power mode in qualifying."

- 55 HP where? In Australia since it's the race in question? Did Hamilton have 55 HP more in Q3? How does it translate into a lap time? Would that be 0,7 s? They don't bother with specifics.
-Equal set up, car characteristics, drag, DF, rake, wheelbase? Would they be setting up the car the same way so they'd be missing this amount of HP (30-55)? Number in headlines is enough.