This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
Turn 2 is quite a short corner, so I don't think it will impact us much, but as you say turn 16-18 could hurt us. It is basically one long corner and that is what hurts out car. Thankfully not long after that corner there is a braking zone, so it could scrub some time, but it's not the worst situation ever, which would be going onto a long straight after that section.
Turn 2 has no braking, that why I flagged it. If the driver is able to keep the PU full throttle, the corner is power limited. That is the PU isn't able to get the car up to the maximum speed the car can handle in that turn, in that case the Merc PU will ensure McLaren are one of the best trought turn 2. If the driver comes off the throttle for turn 2, it implies turn 2 is grip limited and some cars will be faster than McLaren through there.
I don't think anyone will come off the throttle at 2. But the other section we speak about will put a lot of energy into the tyres and the car won't be happy about it.
Turn 2 has no braking, that why I flagged it. If the driver is able to keep the PU full throttle, the corner is power limited. That is the PU isn't able to get the car up to the maximum speed the car can handle in that turn, in that case the Merc PU will ensure McLaren are one of the best trought turn 2. If the driver comes off the throttle for turn 2, it implies turn 2 is grip limited and some cars will be faster than McLaren through there.
I don't think anyone will come off the throttle at 2. But the other section we speak about will put a lot of energy into the tyres and the car won't be happy about it.
I think I agree with you but that isn't factual.
Yeah its just my opinion nothing ground in fact here. I'm fairly confident on this one though.
Don't be too worried about the Ferrari engine update too much just yet. Remember this track didn't suit McLaren anyway, Sainz flying through the field was probably mostly because like Sainz said he was concentrating setting the car up purely for race pace with zero qualy sim runs. Also Leclerc being up front is nothing unusual, the guy is super fast. Let's see how it goes.
Finally, everyone knows that Red Bull is a joke and Max Verstappen is overrated.
Even though I might get dinged for bring this up in this forum, I'm gonna bring it up anyways. I think that Norris not getting penalized for crossing the white line on pit entry (Russia with Love) is one of the problems with F1 rules. Something like that should not be open for interpretation. They've opened the door to, in the event that if Norris would have hit someone that was on the other side of the white line then the ruling would have been completely different. I mean, we all know Norris didn't cross the white line on purpose, he did it cause he was having a crazy time trying to control his car. It doesn't change the fact that he crossed the white line. It's no different to track limits (when they are enforced) here they chose not to enforce a track limit that isn't optional.
As much as I was happy that Norris didn't get a penalty, in the over all picture for the sport of F1, it was wrong. As much as the Car and PU regulations are black and white, too many of the sporting regulations are left to interpretation by the Stewarts(like when you have to leave space in a turn). That leads to comments by drivers and teams that the Stewarts are bias, eventually leading to a black eye on the FIA. The FIAs eyes have been blackened on numerous occasions this year.
If the rule is you can't cross the line, then boom give out the penalty. Everyone can see he crossed the line.
Solution:
1 - write the rules to not require interpretation.
2 - Fore warn the Stewarts and ding them when they do.
Even though I might get dinged for bring this up in this forum, I'm gonna bring it up anyways. I think that Norris not getting penalized for crossing the white line on pit entry (Russia with Love) is one of the problems with F1 rules. Something like that should not be open for interpretation. They've opened the door to, in the event that if Norris would have hit someone that was on the other side of the white line then the ruling would have been completely different. I mean, we all know Norris didn't cross the white line on purpose, he did it cause he was having a crazy time trying to control his car. It doesn't change the fact that he crossed the white line. It's no different to track limits (when they are enforced) here they chose not to enforce a track limit that isn't optional.
As much as I was happy that Norris didn't get a penalty, in the over all picture for the sport of F1, it was wrong. As much as the Car and PU regulations are black and white, too many of the sporting regulations are left to interpretation by the Stewarts(like when you have to leave space in a turn). That leads to comments by drivers and teams that the Stewarts are bias, eventually leading to a black eye on the FIA. The FIAs eyes have been blackened on numerous occasions this year.
If the rule is you can't cross the line, then boom give out the penalty. Everyone can see he crossed the line.
Solution:
1 - write the rules to not require interpretation.
2 - Fore warn the Stewarts and ding them when they do.
The problem is that method in this case will completely go against the spirit of the rules and safety. At the end of the day the drivers do have an obligation to be safe while driving. Enforcing the rule the way you proposed is essentially incentivises him to stay out on slicks after accidentally crossing the line in weather that is simply too wet to be on slicks. I've seen some people compare it to the Hamilton incident where he broke his wing then crossed the bollard into the pits but the difference there is that Hamilton never intended to enter the pits till well after the entry. Norris didn't endanger any other cars with his move.
It's one thing to enforce a rule hard and fast which I generally agree with however that can't be done in a way that encourages dangerous driving.
Even though I might get dinged for bring this up in this forum, I'm gonna bring it up anyways. I think that Norris not getting penalized for crossing the white line on pit entry (Russia with Love) is one of the problems with F1 rules. Something like that should not be open for interpretation. They've opened the door to, in the event that if Norris would have hit someone that was on the other side of the white line then the ruling would have been completely different. I mean, we all know Norris didn't cross the white line on purpose, he did it cause he was having a crazy time trying to control his car. It doesn't change the fact that he crossed the white line. It's no different to track limits (when they are enforced) here they chose not to enforce a track limit that isn't optional.
As much as I was happy that Norris didn't get a penalty, in the over all picture for the sport of F1, it was wrong. As much as the Car and PU regulations are black and white, too many of the sporting regulations are left to interpretation by the Stewarts(like when you have to leave space in a turn). That leads to comments by drivers and teams that the Stewarts are bias, eventually leading to a black eye on the FIA. The FIAs eyes have been blackened on numerous occasions this year.
If the rule is you can't cross the line, then boom give out the penalty. Everyone can see he crossed the line.
Solution:
1 - write the rules to not require interpretation.
2 - Fore warn the Stewarts and ding them when they do.
The problem is that method in this case will completely go against the spirit of the rules and safety. At the end of the day the drivers do have an obligation to be safe while driving. Enforcing the rule the way you proposed is essentially incentivises him to stay out on slicks after accidentally crossing the line in weather that is simply too wet to be on slicks. I've seen some people compare it to the Hamilton incident where he broke his wing then crossed the bollard into the pits but the difference there is that Hamilton never intended to enter the pits till well after the entry. Norris didn't endanger any other cars with his move.
It's one thing to enforce a rule hard and fast which I generally agree with however that can't be done in a way that encourages dangerous driving.
The situation reminds me of when Verstappen was investigated for overtaking Stroll under yellow flags in Holland. Technically he broke the rules, but the reality was the speed difference between the 2 at the time meant that despite Max immediately breaking he was unable to avoid the pass. Logic prevailed and no penalty was issued
In their decision not to issue Lando a penalty the stewards went to lengths to explain that Lando had significantly slowed before attempting to enter the pit and they considered this a mitigating factor, i.e. had Lando not slowed significantly and slid over the line he would have been penalised. for me, again logic prevailed
In the Heath and safety world we live in now
Surely making Lando do another lap on slicks on such a wet track reckless? If he had a massive crash and potentially injured himself, a fellow driver, a marshal or god for bid a spectator.. or worse
He did the right thing to cross the line and pit for a wet choice of tyre.
Logic prevailed?
Don't be too worried about the Ferrari engine update too much just yet. Remember this track didn't suit McLaren anyway, Sainz flying through the field was probably mostly because like Sainz said he was concentrating setting the car up purely for race pace with zero qualy sim runs. Also Leclerc being up front is nothing unusual, the guy is super fast. Let's see how it goes.
Also they had an amazing race with their uncompetitive car last season... maybe the Ferrari chassis/ aero perfectly suited Turkey and now having a more powerful PU it but them on potentially race winning pace. Similar to what Mclaren achieved in Monza ‘20/21
I have a suspicion that Austin might be similar to Silverstone which Leclerc nearly won so I don’t have high expectations
Even though I might get dinged for bring this up in this forum, I'm gonna bring it up anyways. I think that Norris not getting penalized for crossing the white line on pit entry (Russia with Love) is one of the problems with F1 rules. Something like that should not be open for interpretation. They've opened the door to, in the event that if Norris would have hit someone that was on the other side of the white line then the ruling would have been completely different. I mean, we all know Norris didn't cross the white line on purpose, he did it cause he was having a crazy time trying to control his car. It doesn't change the fact that he crossed the white line. It's no different to track limits (when they are enforced) here they chose not to enforce a track limit that isn't optional.
As much as I was happy that Norris didn't get a penalty, in the over all picture for the sport of F1, it was wrong. As much as the Car and PU regulations are black and white, too many of the sporting regulations are left to interpretation by the Stewarts(like when you have to leave space in a turn). That leads to comments by drivers and teams that the Stewarts are bias, eventually leading to a black eye on the FIA. The FIAs eyes have been blackened on numerous occasions this year.
If the rule is you can't cross the line, then boom give out the penalty. Everyone can see he crossed the line.
Solution:
1 - write the rules to not require interpretation.
2 - Fore warn the Stewarts and ding them when they do.
The problem is that method in this case will completely go against the spirit of the rules and safety. At the end of the day the drivers do have an obligation to be safe while driving. Enforcing the rule the way you proposed is essentially incentivises him to stay out on slicks after accidentally crossing the line in weather that is simply too wet to be on slicks. I've seen some people compare it to the Hamilton incident where he broke his wing then crossed the bollard into the pits but the difference there is that Hamilton never intended to enter the pits till well after the entry. Norris didn't endanger any other cars with his move.
It's one thing to enforce a rule hard and fast which I generally agree with however that can't be done in a way that encourages dangerous driving.
Here is the thing, the line when crossed is dangerous behaviour, that is why there is a rule. You're arguing that prohibiting dangerous behaviour will encourage it.
If the rules don't have any wiggle room. Then teams/drivers will factor that into the risk of staying out longer. Rules require consequences to change behaviour. If the penalty doesn't change behavior then the penalty must be increased until it does.
Guys looking beyond the USGP, can someone just remind me and help explain Mexico, it’s altitude, and why it has historically hurt Mercedes engines?
I remember someone once saying as well that you need good mechanical grip in Mexico but I never really understood the science behind that point.
Appreciate any thoughts
Wasnt high altitude bad for Mercedes engine due to a smaller turbo? And Renault was better because theirs was bigger. The question is if Mercedes updated their design.
If i would get the money to start my own F1 team, i would revive Arrows
Guys looking beyond the USGP, can someone just remind me and help explain Mexico, it’s altitude, and why it has historically hurt Mercedes engines?
I remember someone once saying as well that you need good mechanical grip in Mexico but I never really understood the science behind that point.
Appreciate any thoughts
Some say that is because the smaller size of their turbo: bigger one can compensate the lack of air on high-altitude tracks. But I can't say is this true or not
