2 so far...Darth-Piekus wrote: ↑23 May 2021, 16:44I was actually reading the times wrong. In any case 3 Podiums for Norris and Mclaren this year. Already set a record compared to years before. Now on to the next step.
Norris only had 1 podium this year (Imola).Darth-Piekus wrote: ↑23 May 2021, 16:44I was actually reading the times wrong. In any case 3 Podiums for Norris and Mclaren this year. Already set a record compared to years before. Now on to the next step.
Honestly, I feel bad for Charles, but him not starting was a big relief in terms of championship points for McLaren. They only lost 3 points to Ferrari in what will probably be the toughest track for them compared to Ferrari this season.Ground Effect wrote: ↑23 May 2021, 16:45If you look up the phrase “Damage Limitation” from today, you’d probably be referred to McLaren, 2021 Monaco Grand Prix
Exactly, too bad for Charles, home GP blues again. We lost any hope for points with Daniel at the start. In hindsight, maybe an overcut would have worked?Emag wrote: ↑23 May 2021, 16:46Honestly, I feel bad for Charles, but him not starting was a big relief in terms of championship points for McLaren. They only lost 3 points to Ferrari in what will probably be the toughest track for them compared to Ferrari this season.Ground Effect wrote: ↑23 May 2021, 16:45If you look up the phrase “Damage Limitation” from today, you’d probably be referred to McLaren, 2021 Monaco Grand Prix
I’ll include it in Wikipedia!!!Ground Effect wrote:If you look up the phrase “Damage Limitation” from today, you’d probably be referred to McLaren, 2021 Monaco Grand Prix
Nobody said anything about asking the sponsors, that is something you have introduced from somewhere.SmallSoldier wrote: ↑23 May 2021, 16:22I have a feeling that the team doesn’t ask their sponsors if they should or shouldn’t protest... That’s the team’s decision and the sponsors shouldn’t have a say on it... On the other hand, finishing high in the Championship is better rep for the brands than any potential negative perception that has a very low chance of happening (you still haven’t said why there would be a negative reaction... You say it’s possible, which I agree, but on what terms?)... If there is a negative reaction, it will also be short term lived and at the end, what will matter is how to the year ends for the teammwillems wrote:I've already explained why.El Scorchio wrote: ↑23 May 2021, 10:44
Why on earth would any (non trash clickbait) media outlet report that a team protesting something on another car is running scared of a challenge? Hasn’t happened before as far as I recall and I don’t see it happening here if McLaren protest flexible rear wings.
In the last few years: (that I recall off the top of my head)
Red Bull with DAS
Red Bull with party mode
Red Bull/Merc with Ferrari engine
Renault with RP brakes
None of these teams who protested has a damaged reputation or backlash because of it. If anything, Ferrari and RP are the only two from the above examples and they were both being protested about. Red Bull’s reputation and brand would have fallen through the floor if protesting was damaging. Why would it be different for McLaren with this?
Because when it escalates beyond a normal protest and to a higher arbitration, it stops being something that makes it to a small F1 article and makes more print in the kind of places where they like to spin a story.
For Mercedes, it isn't a coincidence that they just started complaining about it when they feel a challenge from Red Bull. Horner and Wolff had been discussing it for a while. This was no "I just noticed, and blurted it out in the interview" from Hamilton. Everyone knew and Merc orchestrated it to be as innocuous a protest as possible. The reality is they are struggling on track so they are pushing back off it. They are feeling it and looking for ways to get breathing space. When you spend time saying you welcome competition and then start arbitration when you do feel it, people can go to town on that if they want, and I have no doubt they will if it goes beyond a protest. Do you want that just to bring it forward a few races. Possibly but I think it is just bluster and they won't get their hands dirty.
Logic doesn't come in to how things are perceived, and taking legal action to try and swing a championship in your favour (Merc) or to bring RB closer to you (Mclaren) would be percieved differently inside of F1 than out (Which would be less forgiving). This kind of action would reach outside of F1 more than events normally would and that negative reception is a risk to the brands.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If it was risky, the team would have told him "It is critical to save fuel". They didn't, so I wouldn't worry too much about that.
We didn’t protest RP because Renault did it for usmwillems wrote:Nobody said anything about asking the sponsors, that is something you have introduced from somewhere.SmallSoldier wrote: ↑23 May 2021, 16:22I have a feeling that the team doesn’t ask their sponsors if they should or shouldn’t protest... That’s the team’s decision and the sponsors shouldn’t have a say on it... On the other hand, finishing high in the Championship is better rep for the brands than any potential negative perception that has a very low chance of happening (you still haven’t said why there would be a negative reaction... You say it’s possible, which I agree, but on what terms?)... If there is a negative reaction, it will also be short term lived and at the end, what will matter is how to the year ends for the teammwillems wrote: I've already explained why.
Because when it escalates beyond a normal protest and to a higher arbitration, it stops being something that makes it to a small F1 article and makes more print in the kind of places where they like to spin a story.
For Mercedes, it isn't a coincidence that they just started complaining about it when they feel a challenge from Red Bull. Horner and Wolff had been discussing it for a while. This was no "I just noticed, and blurted it out in the interview" from Hamilton. Everyone knew and Merc orchestrated it to be as innocuous a protest as possible. The reality is they are struggling on track so they are pushing back off it. They are feeling it and looking for ways to get breathing space. When you spend time saying you welcome competition and then start arbitration when you do feel it, people can go to town on that if they want, and I have no doubt they will if it goes beyond a protest. Do you want that just to bring it forward a few races. Possibly but I think it is just bluster and they won't get their hands dirty.
Logic doesn't come in to how things are perceived, and taking legal action to try and swing a championship in your favour (Merc) or to bring RB closer to you (Mclaren) would be percieved differently inside of F1 than out (Which would be less forgiving). This kind of action would reach outside of F1 more than events normally would and that negative reception is a risk to the brands.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not saying it will go either way.
My only point is that there is more to it than the protest itself, there will be commercial and brand considerations. it doesn't matter how strong they are because I wasn't arguing they would be strong. I just argued that your notion that there were no other considerations might not be true and it's not a case of we can protest so we will.
We didn't protest Racing point but by your logic we would have. So you can see already that they way you put it across does not necessarily stack up with recent decisions.
