F1 2021 – spoilers here

How much does an ICE cost and how close are they to the budget cap?

I saw a rumour that Merc might be taking another engine penalty.

No idea if true, but I do wonder if they’ve worked out that losing 5 places on the grid is outweighed by turning the engine up to 12 & replacing it every race

Yeah, I pointed this out a couple of pages back and questioned whether the penalty was really harsh enough given that this is an option only really available to the teams with the deeper pockets.

Am I right in saying each car has three engines per season, go over the three engines and you’re into grid penalties?

But unlimited engines/grid penalties subject to cost caps?

iirc, this season at least, engine replacements are outside of the cost cap.

I’d actuallyquite like to see Merc replace the engine every round and have Hamilton on a charge up the field – it makes for an interesting race.

The shrieking from Red Bull if Merc do that and win the WCC and Hamilton wins the WDC, will be epic, hilarious, and not entirely unjustified. But hey, thems the rules.

Its possible then he might take a new engine for the Saudi race.

I can’t see him gambling at Qatar though, there are a few question marks over how difficult it will be to overtake so qualifying position and no penalties might be crucial.

iirc, this season at least, engine replacements are outside of the cost cap.

Ah, in that case Scotroutes has a point.
If it does turn out to be a good idea will RB be able to do it, they must have some spare engines (I don’t know hownlong it takes to make one and they may not have another six…)
We could see McLaren and Ferari getting the last few poles unless they join in and do the same.

<p lang=”en” dir=”ltr”>"We’re still hoping that at some stage with everybody having to change their engine, we will end up on pole position!"<br><br>Guenther Steiner may have lost the will to live this season, but at least he hasn't lost his sense of humour 😄 #F1 pic.twitter.com/yTYf9h4WPT</p>— PlanetF1 (@Planet_F1) November 2, 2021

<script async src=”https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js&#8221; charset=”utf-8″></script>

Mercedes’ request for review rejected

No idea if true, but I do wonder if they’ve worked out that losing 5 places on the grid is outweighed by turning the engine up to 12 & replacing it every race?

Strategy is strategy 🙂 . Max, he’s coming for you and it doesn’t seem to matter how far back he starts. No wonder the Head of Engineering strategy was on the podium on Sunday.

If you like to see overtaking in F1, then this is almost as good as a reverse grid.

Mercedes’ request for review rejected

Not surprised, and for the reasons the FIA gave

“The stewards often must make a decision quickly and on a limited set of information. At the time of the decision, the stewards felt they had sufficient information to make a decision, which subsequently broadly aligned with the immediate post-race comments of both drivers involved.

Had they felt the forward-facing camera video from [Verstappen] was crucial in order to make a decision, they would have simply place the incident under investigation – to be investigated after the race – and rendered a decision after this video was available. They saw no need to do so.

According to Tito, this was entirely expected. Playing the game as he alluded to.

“We wanted to trigger a discussion around it because probably it will be a theme in the next few races and I think that objective is achieved.

The shrieking from Red Bull if Merc do that and win the WCC and Hamilton wins the WDC, will be epic, hilarious, and not entirely unjustified. But hey, thems the rules.

Yup. Just evens things up from the favourable treatment Verstappen is getting from the authorities anyway. 🙂

The bottom of the Red Bull barrel must be nearly worn through by now!… 🙂

Red Bull threaten protest over “score marks” on Mercedes rear wings in Qatar

The bottom of the Red Bull barrel must be nearly worn through by now!

People forget that there’s always another barrel under the current barrel.

People forget that there’s always another barrel under the current barrel.

I’ve got to say at the beginning of the season I was fairly ambivalent towards the prospect of Hamilton and Mercedes getting another championship. It’s good to see another team challenging them.

But honestly after the cumulative antics of Horner, Marko and Vestappen I’m 100% Team Lewis and Toto

Horner is forgetting that the scrutineers kept hold of the Mercedes rear wing in Brazil for further examination. I’m pretty sure if it was illegal we’d have found out then.

To be honest Mercedes protesting the decision if they’d lost or if they had been adversely affected, fair enough, but protesting “robust” driving (I am assuming that’s what the FIA decision amounted to and amounts to) when you’ve won and it didn’t really affect you adversely in any way seems petty.

But hey, F1, pettiness is what it’s all about. Or motor racing. Or something.

Someone needs to run Max off in the same manner this race. “Valtteri, it’s James…”

igm
Full Member

To be honest Mercedes protesting the decision if they’d lost or if they had been adversely affected, fair enough, but protesting “robust” driving (I am assuming that’s what the FIA decision amounted to and amounts to) when you’ve won and it didn’t really affect you adversely in any way seems petty.

But hey, F1, pettiness is what it’s all about. Or motor racing. Or something.

But they were affected, Max should have had a penalty which could have made a 3 point change in the constructors had it allowed Bottas to be in front.

Also (IMHO) it sets a bad precedent. If you have a run off, you can use it to prevent an overtake without risk of a penalty.

They were protesting why it wasn’t investigated during the race when very similar incidents have been investigated and penalties awarded or the incident was cleared as OK.

In Brazil the stewards had there ‘whatever’ head on.

For me it was just racing – forceful racing, but just racing.

iirc, this season at least, engine replacements are outside of the cost cap.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Listening to Horner after the press conference he’s adamant Mercedes are doing something illegal, so illegal that the scrutineers, cameras or RB can prove it.

Either RB are on to something, or they are getting desperate………

Ps very apt username @multi21

But they were affected, Max should have had a penalty which could have made a 3 point change in the constructors had it allowed Bottas to be in front.

Disagree.

The incident, where either deliberately or in the heat of the racing moment Max failed to hit the apex ran wide and caused Hamilton to also run wide, did not prevent the overtake – delayed it yes but not meaningfully in the context of the race. Nor did the incident prevent Bottas taking 2nd. He wasn’t going to and he didn’t.

So Mercedes did not lose out from the incident in any way.

Should it have been a penalty? Dunno. That’s why qualified FIA types get to make that call not us.

And Mercedes protested the decision even though the incident had not cost them anything.

Just gamesmanship from Mercedes.

Perhaps Red Bull should have suggested that running an illegal (ok not very but still) rear wing should have excluded Hamilton from that entire weekend? There’s a case for it. He didn’t set a time in qualifying so has to rely on a practice time to get into the race as I recall – but was he using the same rear wing in practice? Probably. All times deleted – DNS for that weekend.

But they didn’t. They’re chasing other things though.

Are RB engaged in gamesmanship? Yes.
Are Mercedes engaged in gamesmanship? Yes.

Welcome to F1.

Nor did the incident prevent Bottas taking 2nd. He wasn’t going to and he didn’t.

A five second penalty for Max for such antics would have relegated him to third place. Perhaps Bottas could just take Max out at Turn 1 in the last GP? It’s a team sport, after all.

Perhaps Red Bull should have suggested that running an illegal (ok not very but still) rear wing should have excluded Hamilton from that entire weekend? There’s a case for it. He didn’t set a time in qualifying so has to rely on a practice time to get into the race as I recall – but was he using the same rear wing in practice? Probably. All times deleted – DNS for that weekend.

But they didn’t. They’re chasing other things though.

See my comment above – the scrutineers impounded Hamiltons rear wing!! Didn’t just check it on the car, but took it off for further inspection which is not usual. How much checking did it need or did they just use it as a coffee table all weekend! 🙂

Perhaps Newey is just pissed that he’s missed a trick.

And Mercedes protested the decision even though the incident had not cost them anything

The stewards have been very clear in the past (eg Max/Lewis at silverstone) that the consequences of an incident are not considered when deciding what penalty should be applied.

As for rear wings, they are throwing everything they can at it because they think it’s the silver bullet that gives Merc the speed. It’s obviously passed scrutineering and usually designers will run things past the FIA tech delegate to get the OK before they bolt them to the car, then it’s up to another team to complain if they think the tech delegate’s decision is wrong. All that normally happens is a technical directive is then issued to clarify a grey area, which usually means the team that were getting an advantage have to make a change, but as the car had passed scrutineering for previous events those results still stand.

So RB is trying to kill Merc’s top speed advantage before Jeddah/Abu Dhabi, but I’m not sure they’ll get any retrospective action.

It failed. That’s not in question.

They disqualified his qualifying.

So how did he end up on the grid?

The rules used to be that if your FP times were sufficient you could still start the race and he did so I assume that’s how he ended up on the grid.

But if he was using the same wing in FP then the reasonable assumption is that those times should be struck off too.

Hence full weekend DQ / DNS.

I agree they had it and they deemed it illegal. The only question is whether that gets him thrown out of one session (qualifying) or all sessions where he used it.

A five second penalty for Max for such antics would have relegated him to third place.

That’d just end up heading to court as RB will say that they turned down the wick. I reckon they’d win too, but nobody wants the championship to end up decided in court at the end of the season

 that running an illegal (ok not very but still) rear wing

Point of order; the rear wing didn’t fail to meet the regulations, it failed because it couldn’t pass the test set out in the accompanying technical directive. I think I’m right in saying that Mercedes could’ve raced in Brazil with that wing if they’d chosen to.

A five second penalty for Max for such antics would have relegated him to third place. Perhaps Bottas could just take Max out at Turn 1 in the last GP? It’s a team sport, after all.

Deliberately crashing in F1? The very thought of it.

So how did he end up on the grid?

Coz them’s the rules. The only way he wouldn’t have been on the grid is if his practice times were way outside the 107% rule and he was deemed to be too slow and a danger.

Getting thrown to the back of the grid or made to start from the pitlane is hardly a new development.

Re the wing – it failed on one side due to the mechanism/mounting being damaged and loosening, allow that fraction of a mm excess movement. So there would be no evidence that it was like that for previous sessions – it may have been, it may not, but they can only evidence that it was like that at the end of the qualifying session.

My opinion is Red Bull have been caught napping. They had such a pace advantage at the start and middle of the season they backed off development in the expectation that most top teams would be concentrating on next years cars. I don’t think they expected Mercedes to develop this years car so much.

Apart from pointing out that they’re all at it (ok in a slightly confrontational way but please accept I’m playing devils advocate a little – ain’t no angels in F1), I’ve been trying to find what RB have been saying about that Mercedes wing.

As far as I can tell:

They didn’t protest the arguably lenient penalty for the DRS that failed the test, because they think it’s a red herring (probably not even a deliberate one).

They think the Mercedes rear wing flexes.

They accept it passes the static tests.

They think there are odd marks on the end plate. They’ve called them scratches but talk about them as if they’re stress fractures in the paint/ resin finish.

I think they believe something that is stable and rigid in still air is moved or destabilised in moving air.

One of the verticals perhaps that is strong provided it stays vertical (in line with the compression force of the wing), but as airflow moves around it is moved slightly offline and losses it’s rigidity. That will happen to some extent.

Now it might not be exactly that but something like that, so put that idea in mind and listen again to the RB / Merc press conference thingy.

I suddenly hear “we know what you’re doing to make your wing move” and “so what, it passes the tests, we can do it”.

And it it passes the test of legality, it’s effectively legal.

PS – @thegreatape fair point we don’t know that the wing was like that in FP.

@the-muffin-man but if the wing was like that in FP those times should have been struck and he’d have no time inside 107%

Red Bull need to get their own wing in order – they are currently repairing Max and Sergio’s wings – again!

And Red Bull are meant to be good with wings! 🙂

iirc, this season at least, engine replacements are outside of the cost cap.

As I understand it, there are two things here. Engine manufacturers are required to supply engines at a fixed price (15 million?) to customer teams. The obvious thing to do would be to make an accounting charge of the same amount against the manufacturer teams’ budgets. I assume that will include engines for pre-season practice, plus 3 engines per car for the race season. Problem is, if you have a situation like Merc have now with unreliable engines, it seems commonsense that Merc should pay the costs for the replacement engines and that customer teams have the same access as the works team. But, if a driver crashes and wrecks the engine or the customer team designs the car without enough cooling and wrecks the engine, then it seems reasonable that the team should pay. I’d be amazed if the contracts didn’t specify every imaginable scenario for who pays for extra engines.

As far as I know, the engine manufacturers don’t have a cost cap for engine development so Merc can just build as many engines as they want outside the teams’ cost cap as long as the customer teams aren’t charged extra if they’re forced to replace engines due to reliability problems. That unlimited budget obviously opens up ways of transferring car development costs back to the engine program. For example, you could do reliability testing of gearboxes on an engine dyno under the guise of engine development. Obviously, the teams have all thought through this stuff and the engine manufacturers will all be fighting to skew the regulations to favour their own situation

And Red Bull are meant to be good with wings! 🙂

Like it. 👍

They’re probably filing some scratches in

Red Bull need to get their own wing in order – they are currently repairing Max and Sergio’s wings – again!

Now a suspicious person might think that RB are building their wings to minimum specs to get maximum flex.

Now a suspicious person might think that RB are building their wings to minimum specs to get maximum flex.

You’ve just described every team

Now a suspicious person might think that RB are building their wings to minimum specs to get maximum flex.

What’s suspicious about that? The entire essence of F1 is to extract every ounce of performance, so if RB aren’t doing that then why not?

And Red Bull are meant to be good with wings!

“Red Bull gives you wings; Mercedes gives you better ones”?

If it does turn out to be a good idea will RB be able to do it, they must have some spare engines

Horner has said that the Honda PU has negligible falloff over its service life, so they won’t benefit from doing that—they’ll only change an engine if there’s elevated risk of a DNF. Mercedes on the other hand have an unusually high falloff, so fresh ICEs will make a real difference for them, especially if they think they can burn them faster without significantly increasing the risk of a failure.

My opinion is Red Bull have been caught napping. They had such a pace advantage at the start and middle of the season they backed off development in the expectation that most top teams would be concentrating on next years cars. I don’t think they expected Mercedes to develop this years car so much.

Which puts a different perspective on Lewis publically whinging about Mercs lack of intention to do so earlier in the season. Totally hoodwinking RB perhaps? Who knows, but the thought amuses me 😀

Just watching an interview from Horner with Sky, discussing the ‘scoring’ on Mercs wing. They’d just spoken to Andrew Shovlin about it and he said there wasn’t any, and happy to prove it. They put that to Horner and he said that it was definitely there (since Hungary) and they they should (wait for it…) do their own research.

I’m now fully convinced there is nothing wrong with Mercs wing

I’m now fully convinced there is nothing wrong with Mercs wing

Agreed. But is it flexing unduly? Not illegally of course. No, no, no.

And if Mercedes say it fine, who are, we’ll everyone else, to judge? 😉