FIA Thread

[ValeVida46]

@AR3-GP

You are conflating processes.

As I've said in the GP thread, teams can protest if they provide evidence and a rule contravention, as Red Bull did with DAS. They do not need to provide a working diagram and intimate knowledge of the system.
So the first avenue is available, and many protests go unpublicised.
Secondly, the FIA can check cars without the need for any controversy. Your suggestion that they don't or wont because of controversy is not applicable and without foundation. It happens frequently and without controversy for 99% of cases and 1 example you cite does not equal the rule. I think it prudent for further discussion to accept the FIA are not perfect but also do not have some team led witch-hunt against Red Bull. Otherwise we are just going round in circles.

Thirdly, the random check process is for all teams. Red Bull had their turn in Oz and a couple of items were checked.
In Jeddah, Mercedes, Aston and Red bull all had a bunch of items checked over including front floor deflection, fuel, exhaust and tyre temp, engine oil, rear wings, Torque control etc. In Bahrain, for RB the list includes front wing deflection test both symmetric and asymmetric and then Floor body, Floor fences, Floor edge wing, Nose, Forward chassis, Mirror housing Sidepod, Coke panel, Engine cover, Front wing Profiles
Mercedes had already had a random check for their rear crash structure and rear wing and clutch release (electrics) in Bahrain and were checked again the very following race for a host of other things. Hamilton's car was brought in and they checked:
Floor body, Floor fences, Floor edge wing, Nose, Forward chassis, Mirror housing Sidepod, Coke panel, Engine cover, Front wing Profiles

This is very important now as some facts over the last 3 races:
In the list of 20 items, Red Bull had about 17 listed items none of those being the suspension. So what do you think a governing body would do when Red Bull's number comes up? Check items they already checked at the previous races and leave out the suspension which they haven't checked?
Why would they consciously ignore a part of the car they haven't checked? Because people might suggest that there is some ghosts in the closet or because the FIA is too scared to check because the new story might get out and it will be "controversial"? Because this is the rabbit hole you are heading into that will lead to endless circular arguments.
The facts are that prior to the suspension being checked in the random check...most of the car was checked in the previous 2 races. So no, it's not weird, or extraordinary at all when you view it alongside the facts.

If for every level of what you are claiming you are asking the reader to suspend belief, you are getting further away from objective reduction and into the realms of that what cannot be proven.
When it comes to hypothesis, making the least assumptions is Valhalla. You are making a host of assumptions to back up a claim that is not substantiated anywhere for a simple random check of items the FIA hadn't checked in the previous 2 races. And of course I disagree with your opinion, but I'm glad we could exchange views amicably.

[AR3-GP]

delete.

[ValeVida46]

People don't tune in for midfield tussles.

Nobody used the midfield tussle in 2014-15 as a reason to continue unabated. At the very least the rules were looked at in the end of 2014 and tweaked which allowed greater scope for convergence which led to a better Ferrari engine during 2016 and into 2017.
Now with Budget caps, advantages are solidified.

Is what it is, if the FIA are happy with teams winning 75% plus of races then gradually what is a niche sport will eventually become even more so with dwindling revenues. There's absolutely no appetite to fix this and literally everyone is reliant on the Red Bull penalty to have some effect in convergence. That can't be right.

[DChemTech]

People don't tune in for midfield tussles.

Nobody used the midfield tussle in 2014-15 as a reason to continue unabated. At the very least the rules were looked at in the end of 2014 and tweaked which allowed greater scope for convergence which led to a better Ferrari engine during 2016 and into 2017.
Now with Budget caps, advantages are solidified.

Is what it is, if the FIA are happy with teams winning 75% plus of races then gradually what is a niche sport will eventually become even more so with dwindling revenues. There's absolutely no appetite to fix this and literally everyone is reliant on the Red Bull penalty to have some effect in convergence. That can't be right.

And without budget caps, advantages were extended, with the sole competition aspect being who had the bigger wallet. Stable regulations and a budget cap at least give smaller teams some chance to catch up as the spending differences are not too big, and leading team will start facing diminishing returns. Add to that the penalties on time resources that teams get that are higher in the rankings, and the setup had the potential to lead to better competition in time, something we did not really see in the merc-dominance era (bar the final year).

[AR3-GP]

People don't tune in for midfield tussles.

Nobody used the midfield tussle in 2014-15 as a reason to continue unabated. At the very least the rules were looked at in the end of 2014 and tweaked which allowed greater scope for convergence which led to a better Ferrari engine during 2016 and into 2017.
Now with Budget caps, advantages are solidified.

Is what it is, if the FIA are happy with teams winning 75% plus of races then gradually what is a niche sport will eventually become even more so with dwindling revenues. There's absolutely no appetite to fix this and literally everyone is reliant on the Red Bull penalty to have some effect in convergence. That can't be right.

And without budget caps, advantages were extended, with the sole competition aspect being who had the bigger wallet. Stable regulations and a budget cap at least give smaller teams some chance to catch up as the spending differences are not too big, and leading team will start facing diminishing returns. Add to that the penalties on time resources that teams get that are higher in the rankings, and the setup had the potential to lead to better competition in time, something we did not really see in the merc-dominance era (bar the final year).

I would agree. There is a budget cap which allowed teams like Haas to outqualify Mercedes in Miami and keep them behind for a good while. There is also sliding scale of aero resources which directly targets the biggest development area that the teams have. Haas had a big floor upgrade for Miami. Mercedes hasn't brought any upgrade yet due to their more limited aero time and budget cap.

The rules right now have been one of the biggest equalizes we have ever seen. The start of 2022 was perfect. Even Mercedes managed to work themselves into relevance by the end of the year, but that team threw their toys out in the beginning of the year and we know what happened next...

[Zynerji]

People don't tune in for midfield tussles.

Nobody used the midfield tussle in 2014-15 as a reason to continue unabated. At the very least the rules were looked at in the end of 2014 and tweaked which allowed greater scope for convergence which led to a better Ferrari engine during 2016 and into 2017.
Now with Budget caps, advantages are solidified.

Is what it is, if the FIA are happy with teams winning 75% plus of races then gradually what is a niche sport will eventually become even more so with dwindling revenues. There's absolutely no appetite to fix this and literally everyone is reliant on the Red Bull penalty to have some effect in convergence. That can't be right.

And without budget caps, advantages were extended, with the sole competition aspect being who had the bigger wallet. Stable regulations and a budget cap at least give smaller teams some chance to catch up as the spending differences are not too big, and leading team will start facing diminishing returns. Add to that the penalties on time resources that teams get that are higher in the rankings, and the setup had the potential to lead to better competition in time, something we did not really see in the merc-dominance era (bar the final year).

I would agree. There is a budget cap which allowed teams like Haas to outqualify Mercedes in Miami and keep them behind for a good while. There is also sliding scale of aero resources which directly targets the biggest development area that the teams have. Haas had a big floor upgrade for Miami. Mercedes hasn't brought any upgrade yet due to their more limited aero time and budget cap.

The rules right now have been one of the biggest equalizes we have ever seen. The start of 2022 was perfect. Even Mercedes managed to work themselves into relevance by the end of the year, but that team threw their toys out in the beginning of the year and we know what happened next...

2024 and 2025 are shaping up to be great racing if the teams can converge on design philosophy this year.

[vorticism]

And without budget caps, advantages were extended, with the sole competition aspect being who had the bigger wallet. Stable regulations and a budget cap at least give smaller teams some chance to catch up as the spending differences are not too big, and leading team will start facing diminishing returns. Add to that the penalties on time resources that teams get that are higher in the rankings, and the setup had the potential to lead to better competition in time, something we did not really see in the merc-dominance era (bar the final year).

Would you say this explains AMR's current success?

2024 and 2025 are shaping up to be great racing if the teams can converge on design philosophy this year.

The convergence will be RB and AMR shaped cars. Unless someone fields a yet seen take on these regs--although I doubt it. There's one sidepod concept which hasn't been developed yet; it's speculative and a bit unusual. I may post about it sometime.

[Zynerji]

As always, we would be interested in seeing it!

[Tiny73]

People don't tune in for midfield tussles.

Nobody used the midfield tussle in 2014-15 as a reason to continue unabated. At the very least the rules were looked at in the end of 2014 and tweaked which allowed greater scope for convergence which led to a better Ferrari engine during 2016 and into 2017.
Now with Budget caps, advantages are solidified.

Is what it is, if the FIA are happy with teams winning 75% plus of races then gradually what is a niche sport will eventually become even more so with dwindling revenues. There's absolutely no appetite to fix this and literally everyone is reliant on the Red Bull penalty to have some effect in convergence. That can't be right.

And without budget caps, advantages were extended, with the sole competition aspect being who had the bigger wallet. Stable regulations and a budget cap at least give smaller teams some chance to catch up as the spending differences are not too big, and leading team will start facing diminishing returns. Add to that the penalties on time resources that teams get that are higher in the rankings, and the setup had the potential to lead to better competition in time, something we did not really see in the merc-dominance era (bar the final year).

I would agree. There is a budget cap which allowed teams like Haas to outqualify Mercedes in Miami and keep them behind for a good while. There is also sliding scale of aero resources which directly targets the biggest development area that the teams have. Haas had a big floor upgrade for Miami. Mercedes hasn't brought any upgrade yet due to their more limited aero time and budget cap.

The rules right now have been one of the biggest equalizes we have ever seen. The start of 2022 was perfect. Even Mercedes managed to work themselves into relevance by the end of the year, but that team threw their toys out in the beginning of the year and we know what happened next...

You talk of these rules being equalisers but let’s not forget that the team at the front broke those rules. We can argue all day about what, if any, difference it made but break the rules they did and they’re also the team out in front by a country mile. So, not really so much of an equaliser is it?

[chrisc90]

And without budget caps, advantages were extended, with the sole competition aspect being who had the bigger wallet. Stable regulations and a budget cap at least give smaller teams some chance to catch up as the spending differences are not too big, and leading team will start facing diminishing returns. Add to that the penalties on time resources that teams get that are higher in the rankings, and the setup had the potential to lead to better competition in time, something we did not really see in the merc-dominance era (bar the final year).

I would agree. There is a budget cap which allowed teams like Haas to outqualify Mercedes in Miami and keep them behind for a good while. There is also sliding scale of aero resources which directly targets the biggest development area that the teams have. Haas had a big floor upgrade for Miami. Mercedes hasn't brought any upgrade yet due to their more limited aero time and budget cap.

The rules right now have been one of the biggest equalizes we have ever seen. The start of 2022 was perfect. Even Mercedes managed to work themselves into relevance by the end of the year, but that team threw their toys out in the beginning of the year and we know what happened next...

You talk of these rules being equalisers but let’s not forget that the team at the front broke those rules. We can argue all day about what, if any, difference it made but break the rules they did and they’re also the team out in front by a country mile. So, not really so much of an equaliser is it?

If you got a 8tenths to a second advantage for spending a million quid, or 1.6million, whatever it was, in a totally different era of regulations....you would have all the teams doing the same.

[ValeVida46]

Convergence?

So convergence of midfield is fine if a team is 1 second a lap up the road?
The 5th race of the 2015 season the midfield was also within a second of each other at the end of Q1.
But then it was a team that wins by 45 seconds and not 35 seconds. One dominates and the other does not...by dictum of I have absolutely no idea.
The goal posts keep changing depending on what flavour car you prefer. Hell even rule breaking is ok because if it was only a small amount every team would be doing it right?

As for Merc period of dominance suggesting only 2021 was a lead up challenge to their car ignores the Vettel Ferrari challenge which was partially brought upon by the engine rule changes at the end of 2014 into 2015 which led to 3 Ferrari wins and a further 12 podiums for Vettel, 40 odd points off Rosberg at the end of the season. Excusing the fact that Vettel finished 102 points behind Hamilton in 2015 and Leclerc finished 146 points behind in 2022, with the Gap to the next best car in 2023 already looking to be over 150 points this season(already 44).
After 5 races the supposedly brilliant AMR is already 30 points behind Perez.
So dominance can be excused if the midfield is shuffled and Haas can hold up a merc for a few laps?
I wonder how that would've sounded to Red Bull fans in 2015....and if Mercedes had flouted a rule in the process...
I imagine we'd be hearing alot about it.

After all it was Christian Horner himself who went ahead and said this before the first race of 2015:

Is it healthy to have this situation? The FIA, within the rules, have an equalisation mechanism and I think it is perhaps something we need to look at.

With Marko threatening to quit at this very stage of the rule cycle in 2015
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/red-b ... 0/5009640/


22 wins from 27 races 2022-23 and counting compared to 23 wins from 27 races in 2014-15, but the previous ruleset had to be changed (and was) but now convergence is mentioned as a reason for no action. That sort of discrepancy requires some serious heavy lifting of "convergence".
And with this being a technical site there would be hope that this statistic might give pause to those that suggest convergence is the best way forward.

[Tiny73]

I would agree. There is a budget cap which allowed teams like Haas to outqualify Mercedes in Miami and keep them behind for a good while. There is also sliding scale of aero resources which directly targets the biggest development area that the teams have. Haas had a big floor upgrade for Miami. Mercedes hasn't brought any upgrade yet due to their more limited aero time and budget cap.

The rules right now have been one of the biggest equalizes we have ever seen. The start of 2022 was perfect. Even Mercedes managed to work themselves into relevance by the end of the year, but that team threw their toys out in the beginning of the year and we know what happened next...

You talk of these rules being equalisers but let’s not forget that the team at the front broke those rules. We can argue all day about what, if any, difference it made but break the rules they did and they’re also the team out in front by a country mile. So, not really so much of an equaliser is it?

If you got a 8tenths to a second advantage for spending a million quid, or 1.6million, whatever it was, in a totally different era of regulations....you would have all the teams doing the same.

You’re missing the point chrisc90, what’s the point of rules if everyone breaks them? Irregardless of the amount 9/10 teams managed to stay within the rules, the team that didn’t has an significant advantage.

[vorticism]

That's a magic million if we're chalking up RB's current status to it. Don't forget they've been the best chassis & aero designers since 2009, and their competitors were apparently barking up the wrong tree conceptually anyway in 2022. Give Merc an extra 1.6m, or 16m, or a 160m, and their concept would still be slower. Not everything has a price tag.

[chrisc90]

You talk of these rules being equalisers but let’s not forget that the team at the front broke those rules. We can argue all day about what, if any, difference it made but break the rules they did and they’re also the team out in front by a country mile. So, not really so much of an equaliser is it?

If you got a 8tenths to a second advantage for spending a million quid, or 1.6million, whatever it was, in a totally different era of regulations....you would have all the teams doing the same.

You’re missing the point chrisc90, what’s the point of rules if everyone breaks them? Irregardless of the amount 9/10 teams managed to stay within the rules, the team that didn’t has an significant advantage.

Overspend then. Simple as that. Throw 2million at your problems and take the 'small hit' in wind tunnel and CFD time. As I said in the cost cap 2021 thread....theres a rule there and the penalty attached to it....Its the team decision whether to overspend a bit and accept the penalty for doing so. Does it give you an advantage? Is it worth the consequences?

Theres a rule about the maximum number of components you can use in a season, once again theres penalties attached to going over the limit. Is it worth running a engine a bit harder and taking a 10 place penalty followed by 5 places the next time you use another engine? Sure worked well for Mercedes in 2021 didnt it.

Bit off topic for this thread though.

[ValeVida46]

We are now at that point where cheating is being proposed to close the gap.