2025 McLaren F1 Team

[Ben1980]

Unsure if people are deliberately misconstruing the point.

The fia admitted there was a grey area, and in effect a loophole that existed, but wont going forward.

The point was, its made that there is so much over a hairs width, yet an accepted grey area and a weakness in the current system over something else. Why can't they be on top of things.

I don't remember any criticism of the "grey areas" from you when Mclaren was running a since banned DRS flap on their way to the 2024 WCC which was decided by 14 points, some of which were obtained in races with that banned DRS flap. So bringing the subject of gray areas up now suggest other motivations.

Finally, there is no grey area. Verstappen's power unit experienced vibrations. The engineers couldn't see it. They were no longer there in the new PU. This is the basis for a reliability PU change post-mortem.

That's my point on grey areas. There really shouldn't be any.

The Fia said, this was a weakness in tge system, so it is a grey area, and will be tightened up next year. I understand it, but teams just saying we are all right guys compared to the total scrutiny on others, is just a bit mad.

Paul Monaghan said:
"Personally it's a grey area. As far as I'm concerned we justified to ourselves what we were going to do. If we're questioned on it we will justify it."

[venkyhere]

Its funny though that 0.12mm or whatever is banged to rights, but Red Bull taking a nice new engine for sh%ts and giggles, no one has a bloody clue. ( not against RB just using an recent case)

For how long are Mclaren f-a-n-b-o-y-s going to burst their spleens over the new engine that Redbull took in Interlagos. They got the grid position penalty commensurate by the rules, didn't they ?

I don't give 2 sh%ts about the engine change, thats not my point, which i clearly said.

My point was its crazy that they have admitted to a grey area on that situation, yet are so rigid over 0.12mm ( which is also fair) its just a sign of muddled thinking.

And fboy Come on now.

Oh, like that... my bad then. I apologize.
Well, 'inconsistency with stewarding rules/penalties, with FIA imposed fines/penalties' is soemthing that will require another thread altogether. We have had so many mind-numbing examples of 'stupidly cruel' to 'pathetically lenient' meted out over a range spanning 'inconsequential/uncontrollable' to 'diabolical/deliberate' mistakes/crimes on/off the track. The rules are what they are, however illogical/stupid they seem to so many of us. However, they exist. That's the point. What is the use of debating over their 'merit' , when we as observers have no say in their formation or interpretation ? Just move on.
And if you want me to prove my sense of irreverence to the 'merit' of the operating/scrutiny mechanisms of the FIA/stewards, there was the 'tyre water' allegation stupidly filed as 'finding demand' by CH, and the FIA did their study and the fee for the waste-of-time was the standard 'finding request fee'. I was of the opinion that such airheaded claims aimed to just 'waste time' should be imposed with 5x the standard fee and included in the budget cap.

[Farnborough]

Unsure if people are deliberately misconstruing the point.

The fia admitted there was a grey area, and in effect a loophole that existed, but wont going forward.

The point was, its made that there is so much over a hairs width, yet an accepted grey area and a weakness in the current system over something else. Why can't they be on top of things.

No, you're misrepresentation of the "only 0.12mm" is the core point here.

Clearly ignored what's been discussed, in that this dimension is only the measure used to define the rules .... specifically not how much the car ran lower to the ground. It was running, throughout the race and qualified on pole in its setup to take advantage of enhanced pace each and every lap. Thats accumulation of race time because the stup used. They chose it to get pace, while risking too much with the information they had accumulated in FP.

This being a technical forum, and your resistance to acknowledge that series of fact, makes the comparison you're forwarding niave at best.

They deserved the DQ not question about it. Don't think ove ever disputed it. It was a complete mess up by the team.

Its just mad, that the whole organisation can fairly dq a team on a hairs width, yet when questioned on the RB change, accept that they don't know really, and its a grey area.

Its just mad how they can be so stringent yet also so wooly. And, I'm sure there are other grey areas they don't know what to do with.

No, its nad that you're intransigent in representing pure engineering terms/tolerances/accumulation of pace gains in this way.

It's not 0.12mm lower ride height.

It's the accumulation of gain they had throughout running the car too low to sustain clearance by this critical measurement after the race.
The two are not the same.

If someone took €12 or whatever currency you have, out of your bank balance every week, you'd soon notice the accumulation. That's illustrative of this scenario.

[Ben1980]

No, you're misrepresentation of the "only 0.12mm" is the core point here.

Clearly ignored what's been discussed, in that this dimension is only the measure used to define the rules .... specifically not how much the car ran lower to the ground. It was running, throughout the race and qualified on pole in its setup to take advantage of enhanced pace each and every lap. Thats accumulation of race time because the stup used. They chose it to get pace, while risking too much with the information they had accumulated in FP.

This being a technical forum, and your resistance to acknowledge that series of fact, makes the comparison you're forwarding niave at best.

They deserved the DQ not question about it. Don't think ove ever disputed it. It was a complete mess up by the team.

Its just mad, that the whole organisation can fairly dq a team on a hairs width, yet when questioned on the RB change, accept that they don't know really, and its a grey area.

Its just mad how they can be so stringent yet also so wooly. And, I'm sure there are other grey areas they don't know what to do with.

No, its nad that you're intransigent in representing pure engineering terms/tolerances/accumulation of pace gains in this way.

It's not 0.12mm lower ride height.

It's the accumulation of gain they had throughout running the car too low to sustain clearance by this critical measurement after the race.
The two are not the same.

If someone took €12 or whatever currency you have, out of your bank balance every week, you'd soon notice the accumulation. That's illustrative of this scenario.

I'm not arguing this at all. The team clearly crossed the line and breached the rules. It was a fair DSQ as fair as any can be. It was completely deserved.

[Farnborough]

I can see that, but your comparison to an engine change as some sort of mitigation is misguided.

This is absolute and very clearly infringement of well known hard rules. The other far more esoteric and unwise to pitch as some sort of equivalence.

Its certainly annoying for the team to squander such hard earned points up to just before this race. For me, them trying to explain it with critique of the rules, after emphatically running significant risk, is not in accord with their stated desire for fairness.

[AR3-GP]

----

[Ben1980]

I can see that, but your comparison to an engine change as some sort of mitigation is misguided.

This is absolute and very clearly infringement of well known hard rules. The other far more esoteric and unwise to pitch as some sort of equivalence.

Its certainly annoying for the team to squander such hard earned points up to just before this race. For me, them trying to explain it with critique of the rules, after emphatically running significant risk, is not in accord with their stated desire for fairness.

The rules is fine. Its just how can it be so stringent ( fairly) yet at the other end, not really stringent at all. As admitted by the fia. It can all seem a bit messy.

But thats sport. Cough "ronaldo suspension " cough

[Farnborough]

I can see that, but your comparison to an engine change as some sort of mitigation is misguided.

This is absolute and very clearly infringement of well known hard rules. The other far more esoteric and unwise to pitch as some sort of equivalence.

Its certainly annoying for the team to squander such hard earned points up to just before this race. For me, them trying to explain it with critique of the rules, after emphatically running significant risk, is not in accord with their stated desire for fairness.

The rules is fine. Its just how can it be so stringent ( fairly) yet at the other end, not really stringent at all. As admitted by the fia. It can all seem a bit messy.

But thats sport. Cough "ronaldo suspension " cough

The rules, all of them are known and layed out for them all to understand. You imply there's collusion by the FIA to bring RB into the game to raise competitive spectacle.

After LV Lando had a virtually insurmountable points advantage at +42 over Max, until taken into account the actions of solely this team in the choices they made against known risk. The FIA or anyone else for that matter, are not responsible for this eventuality coming about. That's the problem right there. There's no logical exchange of mitigation or equivalent tradeoff.
Any other competitor would, and absolutely should, get the same treatment in regard to defined plank wear.

[f1isgood]

McLaren gets caught doing illegal things and gets penalised. End of story.

McLaren fans - But oh that Brazil engine. This summarizes this thread with Ben. It's a pointless discussion. Moreover, I recall Alpine saying something which was not true not too long ago with regard to a certain Mclaren driver..... so why should I believe the teams claiming that the FIA said anything? Absolutely no reason to do so.

[Ben1980]

I can see that, but your comparison to an engine change as some sort of mitigation is misguided.

This is absolute and very clearly infringement of well known hard rules. The other far more esoteric and unwise to pitch as some sort of equivalence.

Its certainly annoying for the team to squander such hard earned points up to just before this race. For me, them trying to explain it with critique of the rules, after emphatically running significant risk, is not in accord with their stated desire for fairness.

The rules is fine. Its just how can it be so stringent ( fairly) yet at the other end, not really stringent at all. As admitted by the fia. It can all seem a bit messy.

But thats sport. Cough "ronaldo suspension " cough

The rules, all of them are known and layed out for them all to understand. You imply there's collusion by the FIA to bring RB into the game to raise competitive spectacle.

After LV Lando had a virtually insurmountable points advantage at +42 over Max, until taken into account the actions of solely this team in the choices they made against known risk. The FIA or anyone else for that matter, are not responsible for this eventuality coming about. That's the problem right there. There's no logical exchange of mitigation or equivalent tradeoff.
Any other competitor would, and absolutely should, get the same treatment in regard to defined plank wear.

Not a chance do i believe there is collusion.

All I wanted to point out was how the same organisation can be so strict ( fairly) yet also not strict on something else, which they admit was a weakness.

I don't think they are dodgy, though probably have been in the past I'm sure

If anything, I think F1 has become so big, its starting to outgrow them. But thats another subject.

[Seerix]

This reminded me of those good times with Honda, where McLaren took 105 place grid penalty between 2 drivers on 1 Grand Prix

[Ben1980]

This reminded me of those good times with Honda, where McLaren took 105 place grid penalty between 2 drivers on 1 Grand Prix

A more innocent time.

[Slahinki]

The rules is fine. Its just how can it be so stringent ( fairly) yet at the other end, not really stringent at all. As admitted by the fia. It can all seem a bit messy.

But thats sport. Cough "ronaldo suspension " cough

The rules, all of them are known and layed out for them all to understand. You imply there's collusion by the FIA to bring RB into the game to raise competitive spectacle.

After LV Lando had a virtually insurmountable points advantage at +42 over Max, until taken into account the actions of solely this team in the choices they made against known risk. The FIA or anyone else for that matter, are not responsible for this eventuality coming about. That's the problem right there. There's no logical exchange of mitigation or equivalent tradeoff.
Any other competitor would, and absolutely should, get the same treatment in regard to defined plank wear.

Not a chance do i believe there is collusion.

All I wanted to point out was how the same organisation can be so strict ( fairly) yet also not strict on something else, which they admit was a weakness.

I don't think they are dodgy, though probably have been in the past I'm sure

If anything, I think F1 has become so big, its starting to outgrow them. But thats another subject.

It's a bit amazing to me that all these other posters fly oh so neatly past your point and just plain refuse to understand what you're saying.

[Henk_v]

You don't see tennis playes discuss the proportionality of the rules regaring "in" and "out" ..

[venkyhere]

"proportionality of penalty to the margin of violation" is a sentence invented by McLaren PR and nicely dropped in by Andrea Stella ; as if the the entire binary system of 0 and 1 is flawed and that the transistor should never have been operated in it's saturation zone and should have only been operated in it's linear zone to get used only as an amplifier for listening to music. We wouldn't have computers, but it would have been 'a perfect proportional use' of semiconductors.

Can we stop trying to wind time back and move on from this topic please ?