2021 Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[Jolle]

My point is Horner's point, duh, everyone knows Masi directed Toto to the stewards which was a mistake as well.

Speaking after the race, Horner said: "I don't think the stewards should be interfered with. I went to see the stewards because I heard Toto was up there presenting a case and you want it to be fair and balanced.

"I don't think it's right that team principals should be able to go and lobby the stewards. They should be locked away so that they're not influenced. For me, that was unacceptable that he had gone up there."

I agree with Horner here regarding the stewards. But I'd also include the race director. I don't see why the teams should be allowed to lobby the race director either. After all, the race director has the power to send "incidents" to the stewards. So the team shouldn't be able to radio him and say "that's a penalty!", etc., because that is indirect lobbying of the stewards.

There is so much more conversation than just that. Information about the track conditions for instance. As a team you have to communicate somehow with “the people in charge” at certain points during the weekend or during the race.

[Just_a_fan]

My point is Horner's point, duh, everyone knows Masi directed Toto to the stewards which was a mistake as well.

I agree with Horner here regarding the stewards. But I'd also include the race director. I don't see why the teams should be allowed to lobby the race director either. After all, the race director has the power to send "incidents" to the stewards. So the team shouldn't be able to radio him and say "that's a penalty!", etc., because that is indirect lobbying of the stewards.

There is so much more conversation than just that. Information about the track conditions for instance. As a team you have to communicate somehow with “the people in charge” at certain points during the weekend or during the race.

Yes, but that's different. Even that can be a form of lobbying - the teams try to push an agenda that suits their car/drivers at that moment e.g. "it's too wet" if their car is struggling, "it's dry enough, bring in the safety car" if their car is handling the conditions.

If you allow some lobbying then you either allow all lobbying or someone has to make a subjective call on whether something is allowed to be raised or not. And that leads to bias / accusations of bias.

Horner's call to Masi was really directed at the stewards because he knows they're listening. But he thinks that's OK but taking a drawing to them isn't OK. That's hypocrisy, isn't it? Double standards, certainly.

[Wouter]

The control unit is another part where they are only allowed two each season.
The ICE is sealed. They can change wirelooms, plumbing, outside sensors, spark plugs etc but don’t open the block.
From the top of my head they have 3 ICE’s, 3 Turbo’s and 3 K units. I might be mistaken but 2 K and CE and eight exhausts.

All are sealed. If you break a seal and use it after, it’s counted as a new unit.

.
Can you explain to me why Honda disassembled the entire PU in Sakura, to see if it is still usable, if that PU counts as a new one, because the seal is broken?
Then it would be much better for them to immediately use a new, fresh, unused 3rd PU?

Yamamoto also hopes that the PU can still be used after they have completely disassembled and checked it.
That doesn't match your story.

.
Haven't read the news, but probably they ment to disassembled as far as they could. So bare block, probing it anyway they could. An open seal = scrap engine or for testing days.

.
2021 Formula 1 Technical Regulations

5.23 Replacing power unit parts
Refer to the table in Appendix 3 of these regulations.
The parts listed as “EXC” in the table referred to above may be changed without incurring a penalty under Article 5.7.2 of the F1 Sporting Regulations.
If changing any of these parts involves breaking a seal this may be done but must be carried out under FIA supervision.
Any parts changed may only be replaced by parts homologated in accordance with Appendix 4 of
these Regulations.

[dans79]

2021 Formula 1 Technical Regulations

5.23 Replacing power unit parts
Refer to the table in Appendix 3 of these regulations.
The parts listed as “EXC” in the table referred to above may be changed without incurring a penalty under Article 5.7.2 of the F1 Sporting Regulations.
If changing any of these parts involves breaking a seal this may be done but must be carried out under FIA supervision.
Any parts changed may only be replaced by parts homologated in accordance with Appendix 4 of
these Regulations.

That sentence can't be read in isolation.
When it says ”If changing any of these parts", it's referring to the non-homaginated parts pointed out in the previous sentence.

As a side note, you quoted the 2022 regulations. For 2021 that's article 5.22

[Wouter]

Post deleted.

[dans79]

file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/2021_formula_1_technical_regulations_-_iss_2_-_2020-03-06.pdf

Ok this is the issue. You are looking at an outdated set of the 2021 regulations (2020-03-06).

The article an even the referenced appendix number changed.

2021 technical regulations.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -06-28.pdf

2022 technical regulations.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -07-08.pdf

[Jolle]

.
Can you explain to me why Honda disassembled the entire PU in Sakura, to see if it is still usable, if that PU counts as a new one, because the seal is broken?
Then it would be much better for them to immediately use a new, fresh, unused 3rd PU?

Yamamoto also hopes that the PU can still be used after they have completely disassembled and checked it.
That doesn't match your story.

.
Haven't read the news, but probably they ment to disassembled as far as they could. So bare block, probing it anyway they could. An open seal = scrap engine or for testing days.

.
2021 Formula 1 Technical Regulations

5.23 Replacing power unit parts
Refer to the table in Appendix 3 of these regulations.
The parts listed as “EXC” in the table referred to above may be changed without incurring a penalty under Article 5.7.2 of the F1 Sporting Regulations.
If changing any of these parts involves breaking a seal this may be done but must be carried out under FIA supervision.
Any parts changed may only be replaced by parts homologated in accordance with Appendix 4 of
these Regulations.

The spirit of this regulation is to be able to “fix” a terminal flaw in your engine, not to repair it after a crash or/and normal wear. For instance, when you can show the FIA that you used a bad batch of bearings.

[diffuser]

My point is Horner's point, duh, everyone knows Masi directed Toto to the stewards which was a mistake as well.

Speaking after the race, Horner said: "I don't think the stewards should be interfered with. I went to see the stewards because I heard Toto was up there presenting a case and you want it to be fair and balanced.

"I don't think it's right that team principals should be able to go and lobby the stewards. They should be locked away so that they're not influenced. For me, that was unacceptable that he had gone up there."

I agree with Horner here regarding the stewards. But I'd also include the race director. I don't see why the teams should be allowed to lobby the race director either. After all, the race director has the power to send "incidents" to the stewards. So the team shouldn't be able to radio him and say "that's a penalty!", etc., because that is indirect lobbying of the stewards.

It's been going on since they had radios. This is the first year they actually broadcast those communications.

[Just_a_fan]

My point is Horner's point, duh, everyone knows Masi directed Toto to the stewards which was a mistake as well.

I agree with Horner here regarding the stewards. But I'd also include the race director. I don't see why the teams should be allowed to lobby the race director either. After all, the race director has the power to send "incidents" to the stewards. So the team shouldn't be able to radio him and say "that's a penalty!", etc., because that is indirect lobbying of the stewards.

It's been going on since they had radios. This is the first year they actually broadcast those communications.

Yes, I know.

[diffuser]

I agree with Horner here regarding the stewards. But I'd also include the race director. I don't see why the teams should be allowed to lobby the race director either. After all, the race director has the power to send "incidents" to the stewards. So the team shouldn't be able to radio him and say "that's a penalty!", etc., because that is indirect lobbying of the stewards.

It's been going on since they had radios. This is the first year they actually broadcast those communications.

Yes, I know.

I think that stewards need to be more of a permanent pool, full time job if you will. A pool of 2 or 3 teams to do all the races. The pool would then discuss all calls after a race weekend in an attempt to get more uniform decisions. What happened at Silverstone isn't a problem related to that. The Stewards aren't made of sugar. Pretty sure that they can says stuff like "Thank you and goodbye Toto." Like in any sports, you can speak to the refs. The refs can also shoo you away when they don't want you there.


Again I think this is a molehill.

[Rodak]

The interesting part is the head and the body, I’ve worked with drivers who had there seatbelts pretty loose (not very safe) and drivers who wanted them as tight as possible. I assume that in F1 as they are all professionals the belts are always really tight so that makes the body pretty much 1 with the safety cell and therefore the force that the safety cell faces is pretty much all the force the body also faces.

No, the reason you have them tight is to stop there being any free slack which can see the body accelerated and then stopped against the belts as a sudden jolt - which snaps your neck, a friend of mine died like this because of slack belts while competing, his co-driver walked away with nothing more than bruises.

You keep the belts tight to remove that free play but the belts themselves stretch a lot in an impact to reduce the acceleration force on the body - it's not uncommon for the belts to be a good few inches plastically deformed after a hard hit, and it's why the regulations for roll over bars and the halo, etc, have such a large distance from the drivers head.

More than that, the belts keep you from moving around. Of course the seat is molded to the driver and supports the torso, but tight belts also insure you are not bracing against the wheel. A six point harness in a single seater really limits movement and it's not possible to strap yourself in, so have a crew person you really like fasten the crotch straps.......

[TNTHead]

The interesting part is the head and the body, I’ve worked with drivers who had there seatbelts pretty loose (not very safe) and drivers who wanted them as tight as possible. I assume that in F1 as they are all professionals the belts are always really tight so that makes the body pretty much 1 with the safety cell and therefore the force that the safety cell faces is pretty much all the force the body also faces.

No, the reason you have them tight is to stop there being any free slack which can see the body accelerated and then stopped against the belts as a sudden jolt - which snaps your neck, a friend of mine died like this because of slack belts while competing, his co-driver walked away with nothing more than bruises.

You keep the belts tight to remove that free play but the belts themselves stretch a lot in an impact to reduce the acceleration force on the body - it's not uncommon for the belts to be a good few inches plastically deformed after a hard hit, and it's why the regulations for roll over bars and the halo, etc, have such a large distance from the drivers head.

More than that, the belts keep you from moving around. Of course the seat is molded to the driver and supports the torso, but tight belts also insure you are not bracing against the wheel. A six point harness in a single seater really limits movement and it's not possible to strap yourself in, so have a crew person you really like fasten the crotch straps.......

... and more so, with the tight belts the eigen frequency of the whole body (of the spine, around 6 Hz) is shifted upwards, depending on mass and stiffness of the body cell. This way excessive shock vibrations at the eigen frequency of the spine is avoided.

For labor spaces normally the ISO 2631-1 standard is used to evaluate possible health risk due to shock and vibration. I assume this standard (or any labor space related standard) is not applicable for a F1 cockpit...

[rowano]

This thread is getting ridiculous. There’s a race thread if you want to continue talking about the race. Page after page of who dunnit and now we are talking about who said what to stewards and why, and the interpretations of the rules. Please use the appropriate threads and keep the board clean for all.

[Tizz]

The interesting part is the head and the body, I’ve worked with drivers who had there seatbelts pretty loose (not very safe) and drivers who wanted them as tight as possible. I assume that in F1 as they are all professionals the belts are always really tight so that makes the body pretty much 1 with the safety cell and therefore the force that the safety cell faces is pretty much all the force the body also faces.

No, the reason you have them tight is to stop there being any free slack which can see the body accelerated and then stopped against the belts as a sudden jolt - which snaps your neck, a friend of mine died like this because of slack belts while competing, his co-driver walked away with nothing more than bruises.

You keep the belts tight to remove that free play but the belts themselves stretch a lot in an impact to reduce the acceleration force on the body - it's not uncommon for the belts to be a good few inches plastically deformed after a hard hit, and it's why the regulations for roll over bars and the halo, etc, have such a large distance from the drivers head.

More than that, the belts keep you from moving around. Of course the seat is molded to the driver and supports the torso, but tight belts also insure you are not bracing against the wheel. A six point harness in a single seater really limits movement and it's not possible to strap yourself in, so have a crew person you really like fasten the crotch straps.......

... and more so, with the tight belts the eigen frequency of the whole body (of the spine, around 6 Hz) is shifted upwards, depending on mass and stiffness of the body cell. This way excessive shock vibrations at the eigen frequency of the spine is avoided.

For labor spaces normally the ISO 2631-1 standard is used to evaluate possible health risk due to shock and vibration. I assume this standard (or any labor space related standard) is not applicable for a F1 cockpit...

I'm not sure how tight belts would limit the frequency of movement of your spine as your spine is embedded in relatively soft tissue. Isn't it more to limit the movement of a single vertebrae relative to its neighbour ?
The problem with your head moving relatively to your body is, as I understand, supposed to be taken care of by the HANS. Ever tried one ? It feels really awkward...
As for tight belts... My personal experience is in touring cars. You really want to be slowed down with the car otherwise your chest will take a decent hit against the belts when you slam the brakes. In formula cars however I remember when one of Montoyas friends (I think from Indycar) tried a F1 car. He was not aware of the stopping power and was too losely belted. He slid down the cockpit so far they hardly could see his helmet.

[the EDGE]

Casting my mind back to France am I right I’m thinking all cars started on PU number 2 except the Honda powered cars?

And is it right I seem to remember that RB had PU concerns towards the end of the race in at least 1 of the cars?