2021 AMG Mercedes F1 Team

[zibby43]

[PlatinumZealot]

He should be able to get a free engine and gearbox since the accident is beyond the control of Mercedes correct?

[dans79]

He should be able to get a free engine and gearbox since the accident is beyond the control of Mercedes correct?

I checked the sporting regulations earlier today, and no they can't use more than the standard allocation no matter what.

[SmallSoldier]

He should be able to get a free engine and gearbox since the accident is beyond the control of Mercedes correct?

They can use a new Gearbox without penalty... But if they need a new engine (or individual components) those count towards their allocation for the year (therefore, they will be facing penalties towards the end of the season)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Juzh]

I'm not 100% sure Shovlin is talking about PU when he says some bit are beyond repair. It could only be bits of car itself and perhaps gearbox.

[nzjrs]

https://youtu.be/K2_Ww-Ozc2U

Highlight of this video was watching his mind get blown by gnocchi.

[Jolle]

He should be able to get a free engine and gearbox since the accident is beyond the control of Mercedes correct?

That is not how racing works.

[El Scorchio]

He should be able to get a free engine and gearbox since the accident is beyond the control of Mercedes correct?

That is not how racing works.

The penalties for a big accident now are extremely harsh. Especially if the accident isn't your fault.

One incident like this in a race for either Verstappen or Hamilton could decide the title if it is a big enough one to mean gearbox/engine penalties. I get all the cost reasons behind it, but I'm not sure that's how racing should work either.

Even a blown engine could do it. You'll lose (potentially 25) points for the race you DNF in, coupled with further loss of points from starting down the grid at the following race if you exceed your allocation of parts.

[Jolle]

He should be able to get a free engine and gearbox since the accident is beyond the control of Mercedes correct?

That is not how racing works.

The penalties for a big accident now are extremely harsh. Especially if the accident isn't your fault.

One incident like this in a race for either Verstappen or Hamilton could decide the title if it is a big enough one to mean gearbox/engine penalties. I get all the cost reasons behind it, but I'm not sure that's how racing should work either.

Even a blown engine could do it. You'll lose (potentially 25) points for the race you DNF in, coupled with further loss of points from starting down the grid at the following race if you exceed your allocation of parts.

Racing is always been about budgets. Backmarker teams always has this disadvantage that any crash would have to come out of their development budget (or in extreme cases, tracktime by skipping practices, instruct drivers not to take any risks etc). Managing your budget has always been part of the sport. Bigger sponsor, more money is faster car, etc etc. Teams also always took risks in how to spend their budget and resources, develop this car or start with the next one?
With the maximum PU’s and the budget cap this just gets an extra dimension. How sharply will you use your PU’s? How much damage will you budget? How flexible will you build in your team?

There is a good chance this championship will come down to who has the least DNF’s (as RedBull is known to push the envelope on that one). Will that be unfair? No, building an reliable car is one of the important aspects of F1/racing.

[zibby43]

https://youtu.be/K2_Ww-Ozc2U

Highlight of this video was watching his mind get blown by gnocchi.

[Wouter]

[cheeRS]

That is not how racing works.

The penalties for a big accident now are extremely harsh. Especially if the accident isn't your fault.

One incident like this in a race for either Verstappen or Hamilton could decide the title if it is a big enough one to mean gearbox/engine penalties. I get all the cost reasons behind it, but I'm not sure that's how racing should work either.

Even a blown engine could do it. You'll lose (potentially 25) points for the race you DNF in, coupled with further loss of points from starting down the grid at the following race if you exceed your allocation of parts.

Racing is always been about budgets. Backmarker teams always has this disadvantage that any crash would have to come out of their development budget (or in extreme cases, tracktime by skipping practices, instruct drivers not to take any risks etc). Managing your budget has always been part of the sport. Bigger sponsor, more money is faster car, etc etc. Teams also always took risks in how to spend their budget and resources, develop this car or start with the next one?
With the maximum PU’s and the budget cap this just gets an extra dimension. How sharply will you use your PU’s? How much damage will you budget? How flexible will you build in your team?

There is a good chance this championship will come down to who has the least DNF’s (as RedBull is known to push the envelope on that one). Will that be unfair? No, building an reliable car is one of the important aspects of F1/racing.

I agree about racing being about budgets, risk of DNFs, efficiency, etc.

However, the crash/penalty system definitely needs a big revision if they're still going to have mandated engine and gearbox allocations. It's one thing to have blown an engine or gearbox, but when those are damaged beyond repair due to a not-at-fault crash, it becomes silly. Like El Scorchio said, even if it's "fair" by the rules, it would be a tragedy for fans if the WDC was decided in this way.

For example, at the penultimate race, Perez inadvertently takes out Hamilton and the Merc's engine is toast. Now, Lewis is ahead by 5 points for the last race, but gets a huge grid penalty for an extra PU and components beyond his allocation. Lewis gets up to 4th position, but Max easily wins the race and it wasn't really much of a finale.

I realize that this scenario is legal and possible, but that needs to change. Not-at-fault crashes should be exempted from this rule. Or, even better, get rid of the grid penalties and deduct WCC points instead.

[Marty_Y]

The penalties for a big accident now are extremely harsh. Especially if the accident isn't your fault.

One incident like this in a race for either Verstappen or Hamilton could decide the title if it is a big enough one to mean gearbox/engine penalties. I get all the cost reasons behind it, but I'm not sure that's how racing should work either.

Even a blown engine could do it. You'll lose (potentially 25) points for the race you DNF in, coupled with further loss of points from starting down the grid at the following race if you exceed your allocation of parts.

Racing is always been about budgets. Backmarker teams always has this disadvantage that any crash would have to come out of their development budget (or in extreme cases, tracktime by skipping practices, instruct drivers not to take any risks etc). Managing your budget has always been part of the sport. Bigger sponsor, more money is faster car, etc etc. Teams also always took risks in how to spend their budget and resources, develop this car or start with the next one?
With the maximum PU’s and the budget cap this just gets an extra dimension. How sharply will you use your PU’s? How much damage will you budget? How flexible will you build in your team?

There is a good chance this championship will come down to who has the least DNF’s (as RedBull is known to push the envelope on that one). Will that be unfair? No, building an reliable car is one of the important aspects of F1/racing.

I agree about racing being about budgets, risk of DNFs, efficiency, etc.

However, the crash/penalty system definitely needs a big revision if they're still going to have mandated engine and gearbox allocations. It's one thing to have blown an engine or gearbox, but when those are damaged beyond repair due to a not-at-fault crash, it becomes silly. Like El Scorchio said, even if it's "fair" by the rules, it would be a tragedy for fans if the WDC was decided in this way.

For example, at the penultimate race, Perez inadvertently takes out Hamilton and the Merc's engine is toast. Now, Lewis is ahead by 5 points for the last race, but gets a huge grid penalty for an extra PU and components beyond his allocation. Lewis gets up to 4th position, but Max easily wins the race and it wasn't really much of a finale.

I realize that this scenario is legal and possible, but that needs to change. Not-at-fault crashes should be exempted from this rule. Or, even better, get rid of the grid penalties and deduct WCC points instead.

Totally agree with this, the drivers shouldn't be penalised with grid penalties if a engine blows the manufacturer or team should lose constructors points instead imo.

[dans79]

I think the bigger issue is the over regulation of the sport. The RULes have pushed everyone into exorbitantly expensive R&D, with the need for everything to be as reliable as possible, efficient as possible.

in my personal opinion stuff would be much cheaper if we went back to everything only needing to last a weekend, with a dose of common sense. active aero and suspension would also most likely drastically reduce cost.

[Tizz]

I think the bigger issue is the over regulation of the sport. The RULes have pushed everyone into exorbitantly expensive R&D, with the need for everything to be as reliable as possible, efficient as possible.

in my personal opinion stuff would be much cheaper if we went back to everything only needing to last a weekend, with a dose of common sense. active aero and suspension would also most likely drastically reduce cost.

It is a difficult call whether or not this will this will be cheaper in the end and requires profound knowledge of the costs of design, test and production. It used to be like that but I think they left this strategy when teams in financial trouble did no longer have parts for the wings, the gearbox and so on and hardly could participate at all.