Formula 1 2020 - General Discussion Thread (See MOD warning on first post)

skipper_G

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Lee McKenzie on CH4 just spoke about Ineos potentially buying 70% of the Merc team

The source of the rumour is an interview EJ gave to the daily mail. Take with a considerable truckload of salt

naughto

flazio wrote: »

C4 highlights are on at 6:30. I'm sure they'll cover all you need.

Want the lot will have to wait for it to appear in sky on demand

chicorytip

GarIT wrote: »

This has actually been floated as a possibility. Kimi is being paid in shares by Alfa and when he joined there was a rumor that he would take over as team principal on retirement and if not a mechanic/engineer at least.

I think it's unlikely but it's a nice thought.

He is paid a basic salary of three million plus performance related bonuses. Any share entitlements are separate from that. Giovinazzi gets two million which is funded by Ferrari as, technically, he's their employee.

Harika

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Lee McKenzie on CH4 just spoke about Ineos potentially buying 70% of the Merc team

https://www.planetf1.com/news/ineos-buy-mercedes/

The article for it

Harika

On other news, new entrants have to pay 200 million euros fee that is split evenly across all other 10 teams.
So F1 is happy to have 10 teams and this entry change will make it more valuable to have a team already. A nice incentive for Haas to stay or sell it for a reasonable price

GarIT

Harika wrote: »

On other news, new entrants have to pay 200 million euros fee that is split evenly across all other 10 teams.
So F1 is happy to have 10 teams and this entry change will make it more valuable to have a team already. A nice incentive for Haas to stay or sell it for a reasonable price

So Williams was sold for 50 million less than an entrance fee. Is that only new? Sickening if they could have gotten that for the team but missed out by two weeks.

El_Duderino 09

Top Dog wrote: »

Yup. Some excel at it like Alonso, many others struggle when the car doesn't suit them.

That's a major weakness when evaluating how good a driver is over their career.

Quality is **** but I love watching the early noughties races. Everything just looks and sounds so rapid compared to the barges of today. Being able to do a few laps with a bit of drizzle is a nice change compared to now as well. Some terrifying onboard stuff through the last couple of bends.

rock22

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Lee McKenzie on CH4 just spoke about Ineos potentially buying 70% of the Merc team

In an interview with Coulthard Wolff hinted he would be stepping down as team principal, without giving a date.
he was also very quick, a few weeks ago again interview with DC,, to stop any discussion regarding Racing Points copying of Mercedes car, And threatening legal action by Stroll.
It does look like Mercedes are looking to get out and Wolff moving to Racing point. It is not clear whose shares Ineos is buying. Latest information I have seen in Mercedes own 60%, Wolff 30% and the late Lauder 10% but that is presumably out of date since Lauder's death.
I think Mercedes own 100% of the engine manufacturing, Mercedes Power trains

quokula

It’s not a good look for Mercedes if, after demanding the 2014 rules, getting a massive headstart and dominating the sport and strangling all excitement and competition out of it for years, if they then walk away before the 2022 rules come in and threaten to force them to suffer the indignity of racing other teams on a slightly more even playing field.

Anjobe

quokula wrote: »

It’s not a good look for Mercedes if, after demanding the 2014 rules, getting a massive headstart and dominating the sport and strangling all excitement and competition out of it for years, if they then walk away before the 2022 rules come in and threaten to force them to suffer the indignity of racing other teams on a slightly more even playing field.

Urgh, such a tired old cliche this one. There is some merit to the argument that Mercedes engine advantage in 2014 through 2016 was due in part to the head start they got in development, but the others have had plenty of time since then to catch up.

What is Ferrari and Renault's excuse for producing weaker engines than Honda, who they themselves had a significant head start over?

What is Ferrari and Red Bulls excuse for producing cars that are not only inferior in terms of engine performance, but in pretty much every other way too?

vectra

Anjobe wrote: »

Urgh, such a tired old cliche this one. There is some merit to the argument that Mercedes engine advantage in 2014 through 2016 was due in part to the head start they got in development, but the others have had plenty of time since then to catch up.

Catch up?
When Merc had such a huge advantage initially, a small step up each season would be more than enough to stay ahead of the rest.

Anjobe wrote: »

What is Ferrari and Renault's excuse for producing weaker engines than Honda, who they themselves had a significant head start over?

Didn't Honda go a different direction with some part of their engine development?
Maybe that would explain how they got ahead?

Anjobe wrote: »

What is Ferrari and Red Bulls excuse for producing cars that are not only inferior in terms of engine performance, but in pretty much every other way too?

I have explained what I "think" is the engine difference in performance.

As for the chassis.
Red Bull chassis is not a bad chassis, they just need to fine tune it a bit more, but to be fair, again Merc are ahead with their dodgy steering and all that.

As for Ferrari, isn't their chassis developed around last years engine?
( even prior to the power surge they had in the second phase of the season)
So now it would be a complete mismatch.

Anjobe

vectra wrote: »

Didn't Honda go a different direction with some part of their engine development?
Maybe that would explain how they got ahead?

Maybe it would, in which case it is Ferrari's and Renault's fault alone (and nothing to do with Mercedes) why they didn't also follow a different direction that would have resulted in them developing a more competitive PU. Well, Ferrari did in fairness, but we all know what happened there!

vectra wrote: »

As for the chassis.
Red Bull chassis is not a bad chassis, they just need to fine tune it a bit more, but to be fair, again Merc are ahead with their dodgy steering and all that.

Yes, it is only DAS that puts Mercedes ahead of RBR, good one![SARCASM ALERT]

vectra wrote: »

As for Ferrari, isn't their chassis developed around last years engine?
( even prior to the power surge they had in the second phase of the season)
So now it would be a complete mismatch.

Again, entirely their on fault, nothing to do with Mercedes.

skipper_G

quokula wrote: »

It’s not a good look for Mercedes if, after demanding the 2014 rules, getting a massive headstart and dominating the sport and strangling all excitement and competition out of it for years, if they then walk away before the 2022 rules come in and threaten to force them to suffer the indignity of racing other teams on a slightly more even playing field.

Mercedes didn't demand the 2014 rules, All the engine manufacturers had input to the 2014 rules. Even some from outside F1 had a voice in the process, but you conveniently ignore that don't you. Same tired argument, making excuses for the failures of 90% of the team's to get better.

quokula

Anjobe wrote: »

Urgh, such a tired old cliche this one. There is some merit to the argument that Mercedes engine advantage in 2014 through 2016 was due in part to the head start they got in development, but the others have had plenty of time since then to catch up.

What is Ferrari and Renault's excuse for producing weaker engines than Honda, who they themselves had a significant head start over?

What is Ferrari and Red Bulls excuse for producing cars that are not only inferior in terms of engine performance, but in pretty much every other way too?

A head start is still a head start, and it's hard to overstate how massive their head start was. All they've had to do is keep developing at a steady pace to guarantee they stay on top. Other teams have had to take big risks and major concept changes to try and make up the deficit, which has at times backfired. This is why Ferrari / Renault / Honda have moved backwards and forwards relative to each other, but the fundamental truth has remained that it is simply not possible for any of them to catch Mercedes.

The engine is so heavily integrated with the chassis that it kind of shows a very limited understanding of F1 if you think the quality of the Ferrari or Red Bull chassis relative to Mercedes is some kind of completely separate issue. Chassis design needs to change when engine concept or supplier changes.

quokula

skipper_G wrote: »

Mercedes didn't demand the 2014 rules, All the engine manufacturers had input to the 2014 rules. Even some from outside F1 had a voice in the process, but you conveniently ignore that don't you. Same tired argument, making excuses for the failures of 90% of the team's to get better.

It's pretty well known that Mercedes were pushing hard behind the scenes, and were developing long before the other manufacturers. One of their execs later admitted that they would have quit F1 if the rules weren't introduced.

Ferrari wanted to keep the V8s that were consistently providing great racing and a much more evenly balanced field (which Ferrari were not at the front of) but eventually succumbed to pressure.

Anjobe

quokula wrote: »

The engine is so heavily integrated with the chassis that it kind of shows a very limited understanding of F1 if you think the quality of the Ferrari or Red Bull chassis relative to Mercedes is some kind of completely separate issue. Chassis design needs to change when engine concept or supplier changes.

OK, can we see some authoritative figure with a greater understanding of F1 support these views?

El_Duderino 09

quokula wrote: »

It’s not a good look for Mercedes if, after demanding the 2014 rules, getting a massive headstart and dominating the sport and strangling all excitement and competition out of it for years, if they then walk away before the 2022 rules come in and threaten to force them to suffer the indignity of racing other teams on a slightly more even playing field.

Yeah but that's not what it's about for them. They've probably gotten all the positive publicity the can get in this stint in F1. Back when they had Hamilton VS Rosberg for the championship, I read they estimated they got publicity that would have cost them $2bn to buy. Now they're dominating to the extent that people are turned off them because of their dominance.

I think people can appreciate Mercedes has done the best job but i also think there would be a wave of schadenfreude if Mercedes don't win a championship. If Mercedes were in a championship battle with anyone from any team then I'd support that driver and that team against Mercedes.

Why not quit while they're ahead? They've hit the top in terms of dominance and kept going in terms of reliability and professionalism. They can only go down from there. Not to mention that Mercedes losing some key people like Wolff would weaken the team and improve the spectacle for the fans

PukkaStukka

Anjobe wrote: »

Urgh, such a tired old cliche this one. There is some merit to the argument that Mercedes engine advantage in 2014 through 2016 was due in part to the head start they got in development, but the others have had plenty of time since then to catch up.

At the start of the hybrid era, Mercedes had a sizeable head start in development and performance, and both engine freezes and engine token systems made them unassailable whilst these persisted. There was catchup in 2017 onwards when development was less fettered.

Fast forward to last year, Ferrari made a huge mid-season jump in power and Mercedes questioned this in circumstances where, as they put it, they felt there should be engine performance convergence after years of the same formula and nobody should be streaking ahead.

Now this year, Mercedes have made the biggest UNQUESTIONED gains again, and they explain it as being due to Ferrari pushing them to breaking point last year. It also came with a comment that people were driven to the end of their health which I take as nod to Andy Cowell's departure. But now, again, rules are frozen on engine and chassis, and budgets are capped. How can anyone consider this a level playing field when it clearly protects anyone with a big advantage, and hinders anyone trying to catch them in doing so? This is the last thing a threatened sport needs.

flazio

Listening to BBC F1 podcast, they raised an interesting point about the lapped cars of Grosjean and Raikkonen. Vettel pointed out that they got two formation laps to really warm up the tyres and brakes which put those down the back with them at a slight disadvantage.
My suggestion on that is that lapped traffic stays lapped and does a pitlane start while everyone on the lead lap takes the grid.

El_Duderino 09

flazio wrote: »

Listening to BBC F1 podcast, they raised an interesting point about the lapped cars of Grosjean and Raikkonen. Vettel pointed out that they got two formation laps to really warm up the tyres and brakes which put those down the back with them at a slight disadvantage.
My suggestion on that is that lapped traffic stays lapped and does a pitlane start while everyone on the lead lap takes the grid.

That's a fair point and the extra lap dud seem to ge a big advantage because they managed to get past the Ferrais at the restart. But sometimes you just have to draw a line and not create rules upon rules upon rules. It's already a complicated sport to explain to prospective fans. More rules might be fairer but not the best thing to do.

Some races have more than half the grid lapped before 75% of the race is complete. Then you'd have half starting from the grid and the rest lining up in the pits driving at pit lane limited speed while everyone in front speeds away. Now the BBC crew would be pretty quick to complain about being robbed of a proper restart if that happened.

vectra

PukkaStukka wrote: »

At the start of the hybrid era, Mercedes had a sizeable head start in development and performance, and both engine freezes and engine token systems made them unassailable whilst these persisted. There was catchup in 2017 onwards when development was less fettered.

Fast forward to last year, Ferrari made a huge mid-season jump in power and Mercedes questioned this in circumstances where, as they put it, they felt there should be engine performance convergence after years of the same formula and nobody should be streaking ahead.

Now this year, Mercedes have made the biggest UNQUESTIONED gains again, and they explain it as being due to Ferrari pushing them to breaking point last year. It also came with a comment that people were driven to the end of their health which I take as nod to Andy Cowell's departure. But now, again, rules are frozen on engine and chassis, and budgets are capped. How can anyone consider this a level playing field when it clearly protects anyone with a big advantage, and hinders anyone trying to catch them in doing so? This is the last thing a threatened sport needs.

In a nutshell ^^

Ikozma

I was very disappointed that riccardo couldn't hold onto 3rd especially after his let's finish what we started quote

It's funny watching the old races and the idea of cars not being able to follow. Without massive tyre advantages nowadays, the cars back then seemed to be far more able to follow back then than they can now. Part of that is down to the tyres being able to hold on whereas now if you don't get past in the the first lap or 2 you're going to just destroy the tyres.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's funny watching the old races and the idea of cars not being able to follow. Without massive tyre advantages nowadays, the cars back then seemed to be far more able to follow back then than they can now. Part of that is down to the tyres being able to hold on whereas now if you don't get past in the the first lap or 2 you're going to just destroy the tyres.

The tyres nowadays are doing far more work. The cars are breaking lap records most weekends this year and the cars are heavier. Hopefully the 2022 aero changes help. But it's hard to know if it'll work

Last time they developed more durable tyres they were criticised for now wearing enough. Back then Seb drive the whole race in monza without a pit stop and he only pitted on the second last lap because the rules say you have to.

Harika

I was wondering that you didn't hear that cars are staying back to preserve tyres as usual dirty air in all those curves should cause loss of downforce

Cork Trucker

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Anything going on in f1 at the moment?

I cancelled the subscription. I’d like to see Raikkonen stay on and Mugello become a permanent race if that helps.

El_Duderino 09

Cork Trucker wrote: »

I cancelled the subscription. I’d like to see Raikkonen stay on and Mugello become a permanent race if that helps.

I'd like if Kimi was good enough to stay on. And likewise it would be good if he Mugello track were able to host an f1 crowd. It's a lovely looking circuit. The safety cars and red cars would probably be a part of the event I unless they redesign things. It would take a bit of work but if they do it it would be a good addition to the calendar.

vectra

Cork Trucker wrote: »

I cancelled the subscription. I’d like to see Raikkonen stay on and Mugello become a permanent race if that helps.

Kimi is Alfa's preferred first choice for next season.
I can see him staying on for another year to "train" Mick Schumacher.
I too would love to see Mugello be a permanent track.

El_Duderino 09

vectra wrote: »

Kimi is Alfa's preferred first choice for next season.
I can see him staying on for another year to "train" Mick Schumacher.
I too would love to see Mugello be a permanent track.

Antonio Giovinazzi is not working out well. Can't blame ferrari for trying to bring through an Italian young driver but he's out of his depth and hasn't adapted. Might keep Kimi in the sport for another year.

What on earth makes you think Kimi would teach a young driver? I'd be surprised if Kimi would grunt at his teammate let alone take the time to coach him.