Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
The minnows of the sport have been living with this issue for decades - being forced to make a choice between further development costs vs repair costs after a shunt. It's funny that now the bigger and richer teams are having to make that choice it's something we should all care about. The teams knew what they were signing up for with the cost cap, and if they didn't envisage this situation then it shows how naïve they are. It absolutely shouldn't change just because Horner has had a moan about it in the press.
Exactly so. S'funny how Horner / Toto weren't moaning about the repair costs when it was a Haas in the wall.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
The minnows of the sport have been living with this issue for decades - being forced to make a choice between further development costs vs repair costs after a shunt. It's funny that now the bigger and richer teams are having to make that choice it's something we should all care about. The teams knew what they were signing up for with the cost cap, and if they didn't envisage this situation then it shows how naïve they are. It absolutely shouldn't change just because Horner has had a moan about it in the press.
This hits the nail on the proverbial head!!
I do agree though that, now we have a cost cap, perhaps they should reduce the penalties for replacing parts.
Favourite driver: Lando Norris
Favourite team: McLaren
Turned down the chance to meet Vettel at Silverstone in 2007. He was a test driver at the time and I didn't think it was worth queuing!! 🤦🏻♂️
The minnows of the sport have been living with this issue for decades - being forced to make a choice between further development costs vs repair costs after a shunt. It's funny that now the bigger and richer teams are having to make that choice it's something we should all care about. The teams knew what they were signing up for with the cost cap, and if they didn't envisage this situation then it shows how naïve they are. It absolutely shouldn't change just because Horner has had a moan about it in the press.
This hits the nail on the proverbial head!!
I do agree though that, now we have a cost cap, perhaps they should reduce the penalties for replacing parts.
What I'd love to see is a rule of "one drivetrain per weekend". So that'd be diff, gearbox, ICU and any hybrid/electrification items. So if you bin it on Saturday in quali, and the gearbox is screwed, you can't race. Tough banana. But you don't get a penalty next weekend when you get a whole new set of everything, and can hopefully not crash.
However I understand that this will need the idea of F1 being entertainment to completely overshadow the idea of F1 having any sort of road relevance, as it'll need a relatively cheap ICU.
The minnows of the sport have been living with this issue for decades - being forced to make a choice between further development costs vs repair costs after a shunt. It's funny that now the bigger and richer teams are having to make that choice it's something we should all care about. The teams knew what they were signing up for with the cost cap, and if they didn't envisage this situation then it shows how naïve they are. It absolutely shouldn't change just because Horner has had a moan about it in the press.
This hits the nail on the proverbial head!!
I do agree though that, now we have a cost cap, perhaps they should reduce the penalties for replacing parts.
What I'd love to see is a rule of "one drivetrain per weekend". So that'd be diff, gearbox, ICU and any hybrid/electrification items. So if you bin it on Saturday in quali, and the gearbox is screwed, you can't race. Tough banana. But you don't get a penalty next weekend when you get a whole new set of everything, and can hopefully not crash.
However I understand that this will need the idea of F1 being entertainment to completely overshadow the idea of F1 having any sort of road relevance, as it'll need a relatively cheap ICU.
The ICE/PU is as cheap/expensive as the manufacturers choose it to be. At the moment they can “sell” the high level of investments because they can use the outcome in other projects. With everything or every (engine) formula, those last few HP are the expensive ones, not the concept. This is also a choice of the teams. Do we go with a 950HP PU of 2 million or a 980HP of 5 million. These are choices the top teams never had to worry about. Mercedes did a cleaver thing for instance with the chassis. Instead of updating their chassis design and manufacturer new ones, they are still using the ones from last year.
As for engine penalties, I’m all for the same kind of rules for PU’s as gearboxes. 7 races straight, is you DNF, you can fit a new one without penalty. Top teams have the choice, do we take the extra cost or not, while on track do don’t have a double penalty of a DNF and a penalty the race(s) after.
The suggestion going around - I think it probably started with Horner et al - that damage should be paid for by the team causing it is interesting. It's a bad idea, as well as being interesting. But it's obviously a Horner public knee jerk response to a couple of bad weekends so no great surprise it's a bad idea.
Couple of examples:
Haas driver has a brake problem (say a brake pad fails for some reason) and taps another car in to the barrier causing lots of damage to the other car. Haas are then presented with a bill for $1m. To Haas that's a lot of money. And it was a mechanical failure of a bought in component, not a driver error. Seems a bit harsh on Haas to make them pay. Sure, it's a bit harsh on the other team but that's racing for you.
Hungary 2021 - Bottas hits Norris who hits Max. Bottas then hits Perez. Should Mercedes pay for all three cars? They only hit two cars. Should McLaren pay for a Red Bull? They were hit and that caused a loss of control so that seems a bit harsh, but then Bottas didn't hit Max's car so why should Mercedes pay for his car?
Go back to a former time - start line stall, someone swerves to avoid the stalled car, collects another car and then a couple of others get damaged too in the ongoing carnage. Who pays? The stalled driver's team? The swerving driver's team? Those that hit others as a result of being hit themselves?
Total nightmare to try and figure that out - and putting it all back on one car means a silly moment by a back marker team could effectively bankrupt them.
But Horner isn't interested in all of that detail, of course.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Do teams have to submit itemized components and prices at the beginning of the season? That way if they send another team a damage invoice, then prices have to match?
Of course you’re going to mark up prices or inflate the damage if another party is going to pay. Do other teams get to audit their work? Insurance adjusters are allowed to.
The engine rules were intended to bring the costs down. That did not work, or insufficiently, so they brought in the overall cost cap.
Professionally I hate these things. Engineers also have an habit of plastering specifications over specifications without checking whether the old rules still make sense.
I think the easiest thing to do is to remove the engine component rules. The teams have a fixed amount of money already, so the goal has been achieved. Let the teams decide whether they want to spend it on engines, windtunnel time, or a gold plated hospitality unit.
Then there still is a penalty for a crash, but I think that is more or less universal in sports. At least F1 doesn’t have to worry about crazy fans with “Opi and Omi” signs.
But it would solve the strange situation that the culprit gets a 5 place penalty and the victims a 20 place penalty.
The suggestion going around - I think it probably started with Horner et al - that damage should be paid for by the team causing it is interesting. It's a bad idea, as well as being interesting. But it's obviously a Horner public knee jerk response to a couple of bad weekends so no great surprise it's a bad idea.
Couple of examples:
Haas driver has a brake problem (say a brake pad fails for some reason) and taps another car in to the barrier causing lots of damage to the other car. Haas are then presented with a bill for $1m. To Haas that's a lot of money. And it was a mechanical failure of a bought in component, not a driver error. Seems a bit harsh on Haas to make them pay. Sure, it's a bit harsh on the other team but that's racing for you.
Hungary 2021 - Bottas hits Norris who hits Max. Bottas then hits Perez. Should Mercedes pay for all three cars? They only hit two cars. Should McLaren pay for a Red Bull? They were hit and that caused a loss of control so that seems a bit harsh, but then Bottas didn't hit Max's car so why should Mercedes pay for his car?
Go back to a former time - start line stall, someone swerves to avoid the stalled car, collects another car and then a couple of others get damaged too in the ongoing carnage. Who pays? The stalled driver's team? The swerving driver's team? Those that hit others as a result of being hit themselves?
Total nightmare to try and figure that out - and putting it all back on one car means a silly moment by a back marker team could effectively bankrupt them.
But Horner isn't interested in all of that detail, of course.
This (paying for damage) has to be a non starter for many reasons, above all can you imagine if the start incident had been judged a racing incident? Marco and co would have an army of lawyers banging on the door to the stewards office.
Same incident, but imagine if Bottas was half a car to either side with his wheel on the white paint?
He could claim that this was the cause of his lockup? Same if he claims Norris moved infront of him and took his air?
Merc could also claim it was Norris who actually hit Max and hitting Norris tipped his car into the other Red Bull?
(let me make it clear here I am NOT claiming that any of above is true, but it is the sort of thing that could be claimed in courts)
The cap would not cover the lawyers costs and there would be a 6 month backlog of cases be seasons end and the teams would be hiring hit men.
Also, what would be the claims v tyre makers? They would withdraw
Interesting stuff here too
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
I think there should be an Ante by the teams for each event, with a refund afterwards. So, each team puts up 300k for the weekend, and all "racing" incidents are paid from this fund, with the remainder being refunded evenly to the teams. If a team is penalized for an incident that caused damage, that team is exempt from the refund.
That would give you 3.6m of revolving coverage, and that could easily be kept outside of the cap.
I think there should be an Ante by the teams for each event, with a refund afterwards. So, each team puts up 300k for the weekend, and all "racing" incidents are paid from this fund, with the remainder being refunded evenly to the teams. If a team is penalized for an incident that caused damage, that team is exempt from the refund.
That would give you 3.6m of revolving coverage, and that could easily be kept outside of the cap.
Basically allow teams to be insure their cars (like in other racing series)
I think there should be an Ante by the teams for each event, with a refund afterwards. So, each team puts up 300k for the weekend, and all "racing" incidents are paid from this fund, with the remainder being refunded evenly to the teams. If a team is penalized for an incident that caused damage, that team is exempt from the refund.
That would give you 3.6m of revolving coverage, and that could easily be kept outside of the cap.
Basically allow teams to be insure their cars (like in other racing series)
They do that?
In amatuer racing here in the States, if your competitor takes you out, tough luck. Basically it’s “don’t race anything you can’t replace”.
There is worry if that you do insure your race car (not a track day car), you incentivize people to actually crash into others.
I think there should be an Ante by the teams for each event, with a refund afterwards. So, each team puts up 300k for the weekend, and all "racing" incidents are paid from this fund, with the remainder being refunded evenly to the teams. If a team is penalized for an incident that caused damage, that team is exempt from the refund.
That would give you 3.6m of revolving coverage, and that could easily be kept outside of the cap.
Basically allow teams to be insure their cars (like in other racing series)
They do that?
In amatuer racing here in the States, if your competitor takes you out, tough luck. Basically it’s “don’t race anything you can’t replace”.
There is worry if that you do insure your race car (not a track day car), you incentivize people to actually crash into others.
There are forms of racingcar insurances. But of course. It’s very very expensive. And next to that, the fear of recklessness because you’re insured, as in other areas where you’re insured (health, car, etc) it doesn’t work like that. Here in the Netherlands we’re insured for about everything at quite a low cost (car, liability, health, travel, home, etc) and we don’t live like “what the hell, I’m insured anyway”. It’s more safe to know that a small accident (like spilling coffee on someone’s laptop) won’t bankrupt you.
But to come back at the “let’s make a pot” style: last weekend HAAS and Williams each has to pay 300.000 for the wrecked Merc and RedBulls.
The only people we hear about this “oh no my budget” are the teams that had unlimited budgets. So. Wolff, Horner and Binotto: welcome to the real world.
Ref my post above, sorry for the dead end vid (without going to you tube) but the part I was referring to, if someone does not want to go there is Sam Collins saying that only parts used are counted under the cost cap.
He used as an example Hamiltons car having a repair to the camera mount with superglue and tank tape rather than replace the nose/wing/mount with a unit they obviously had there waiting as it would mean one more item going on the list under the cap.
So teams can still make as much as they want and it only counts if it is used.
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.
Ref my post above, sorry for the dead end vid (without going to you tube) but the part I was referring to, if someone does not want to go there is Sam Collins saying that only parts used are counted under the cost cap.
He used as an example Hamiltons car having a repair to the camera mount with superglue and tank tape rather than replace the nose/wing/mount with a unit they obviously had there waiting as it would mean one more item going on the list under the cap.
So teams can still make as much as they want and it only counts if it is used.
Similar to how they blow up dozens of engines on the dyno to get 3 to make it for the season...
The suggestion going around - I think it probably started with Horner et al - that damage should be paid for by the team causing it is interesting. It's a bad idea, as well as being interesting. But it's obviously a Horner public knee jerk response to a couple of bad weekends so no great surprise it's a bad idea.
Couple of examples:
Haas driver has a brake problem (say a brake pad fails for some reason) and taps another car in to the barrier causing lots of damage to the other car. Haas are then presented with a bill for $1m. To Haas that's a lot of money. And it was a mechanical failure of a bought in component, not a driver error. Seems a bit harsh on Haas to make them pay. Sure, it's a bit harsh on the other team but that's racing for you.
Hungary 2021 - Bottas hits Norris who hits Max. Bottas then hits Perez. Should Mercedes pay for all three cars? They only hit two cars. Should McLaren pay for a Red Bull? They were hit and that caused a loss of control so that seems a bit harsh, but then Bottas didn't hit Max's car so why should Mercedes pay for his car?
Go back to a former time - start line stall, someone swerves to avoid the stalled car, collects another car and then a couple of others get damaged too in the ongoing carnage. Who pays? The stalled driver's team? The swerving driver's team? Those that hit others as a result of being hit themselves?
Total nightmare to try and figure that out - and putting it all back on one car means a silly moment by a back marker team could effectively bankrupt them.
But Horner isn't interested in all of that detail, of course.
This (paying for damage) has to be a non starter for many reasons, above all can you imagine if the start incident had been judged a racing incident? Marco and co would have an army of lawyers banging on the door to the stewards office.
Same incident, but imagine if Bottas was half a car to either side with his wheel on the white paint?
He could claim that this was the cause of his lockup? Same if he claims Norris moved infront of him and took his air?
Merc could also claim it was Norris who actually hit Max and hitting Norris tipped his car into the other Red Bull?
(let me make it clear here I am NOT claiming that any of above is true, but it is the sort of thing that could be claimed in courts)
The cap would not cover the lawyers costs and there would be a 6 month backlog of cases be seasons end and the teams would be hiring hit men.
Also, what would be the claims v tyre makers? They would withdraw
Interesting stuff here too
Aha… there is a possible 5% overshoot in the budget.. no wonder the big boys are crying so much, they want the FIA to unlock that overshoot.
