Of course they are, they went like full on-season development costs over the spending limit, which according to different sources means up to 0,5 sec a lap
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Even if they overspent that much that number still makes no sense. If a couple of million more made such a big difference then before the budget cap the top teams should have been like half a minute a lap faster than the slower teams given they were spending 200+ million more per year.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Haas is right though. They got screwed by race control like what, 3 times this season? But Perez and Alonso drive around with parts hanging off and the stewards just ignore it. I understand they feel hard done by.
And as usual the stewards are making a joke of themselves again. Punt somebody out of the race you get a 5 second penalty. Have your car do a wheel and smash into a wall without it being your fault but somehow still being able to finish the race and you get a 30 second penalty.
The FIA seem able to deduct points retroactively given what they did to Alonso after Austin (pending appeal and/or common sense). Does that make it more likely RB’s overspend penalty will result in points deductions? Probably not, given how they black and orange flag Magnussen every chance they get yet Checo drives with a damaged endplate unhindered.
The FIA’s governance of F1 is a travelling clown show.
And let’s take a moment to appreciate that Stroll blamed Alonso for going too fast. Buckle up, Lance, cuz next year could be rough.
The FIA’s governance of F1 is a travelling clown show.
And let’s take a moment to appreciate that Stroll blamed Alonso for going too fast. Buckle up, Lance, cuz next year could be rough.
Last edited:
oh yeah how dare you go faster than me when you overtake, let me just change direction quickly in front of you while you have sent it
It wasn't that long ago when the top cars lapped half the field and last quarter by several laps.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Audi to team up with Sauber for F1 debut
Audi choose Sauber as the team with which it will enter Formula 1 from the 2026 season.
www.bbc.com
I forgot to mention that Checo trailed the safety car in Singapore by more than ten lengths three times but was given two warnings and just a single penalty (thus preserving his win and ensuring the FIA didn’t have to change the podium results). Gasly trails once in Austin in somewhat extenuating circumstances (after a sharp turn, when the car ahead rabbited away, vs. Checo’s decision to do so when directly behind the much slower safety car) and he gets an immediate time penalty. This is after the bullshit penalties he got in Suzuka for what the FIA later (amazingly) admitted was their fault. Was the officiating always this consistently incompetent, vindictive and preferential (aside from Ferrari International Assistance, which was mostly before I started watching in ~2010)?
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Red Bull: F1 team receive $7m fine & 10% aero research reduction
Last edited by a moderator:
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
RBR overspent 500k. Nothing an amount that tells me they were obviously trying to cheat but I guess they were definitely trying to get as much out of the rules as they thought they could away with.
10% reduction in aero time is a fair penalty I think. Won't completely destroy their competitiveness for next year but is probably big enough to make others realize they probably want to stay with the budget cap if only going over a couple hundred grand can already cost them that much wind tunnel time.
10% reduction in aero time is a fair penalty I think. Won't completely destroy their competitiveness for next year but is probably big enough to make others realize they probably want to stay with the budget cap if only going over a couple hundred grand can already cost them that much wind tunnel time.
£5.6 million (or even whatever that adjusted £1.9 million is) is 500k of what currency exactly?
£5.6 million (or even whatever that adjusted £1.9 million is) is 500k of what currency exactly?
From the BBC article.
It’s weird that there isn’t a reduction in their future budget(s), perhaps not equivalent to the penalty but at least equivalent to their overspend (with the remaining penalty to be paid as a fine). It would also be interesting if someone could correlate Horner’s estimate of a 10% windtunnel time reduction being worth 0.25-0.5s.
I don’t know if other teams accounted for that notional tax credit so it’s unclear if the FIA is assessing the penalty based on a 1.9mil or 0.4mil overspend.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
The rules don't allow penalties impacting budget.
I wouldn't read too much into what Horner is saying. It's not like he's going to say it hardly makes a difference. Saying it could cost up to 0.2~0.5 seconds a lap makes it feel like a good penalty. It's also not that easy to calculate the impact as all teams are different. Williams has like what, 40~50% more windtunnel time compared to the top 3 teams? But their car isn't particularly fast.
I wouldn't read too much into what Horner is saying. It's not like he's going to say it hardly makes a difference. Saying it could cost up to 0.2~0.5 seconds a lap makes it feel like a good penalty. It's also not that easy to calculate the impact as all teams are different. Williams has like what, 40~50% more windtunnel time compared to the top 3 teams? But their car isn't particularly fast.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Looks like I'll be watching hypercar racing a bit more going forward. Did not realize Peugeot joined this year!
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
It's not. The Ferrari is designed to run under the new LMD(h) WEC/imsa rules. Previously those rules were referred to as the hypercar class but over time they changed and it became LMD(h).
That McLaren is just a trackday toy, not road legal or eligible for any racing category. Kinda like the track versions of the Aston Martin valkery or the track version of Gordon Murray's t50. Ferrari also has/had something similar with their FXX cars though those are all based on road going models.
