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

namloc1980

Williams, Renault, Ferrari and McLaren have worked the RP decision, as have Racing Point themselves from the opposite perspective.

mickdw

rock22 wrote: »

I don't think that is a summary of it. According to the FIA document, RP did not use the design in on the 2019 car but used the Mercedes CAD files to design the BD's for the 2020 car.



Mercedes gave RP the actual parts in Jan 2020 even though Rp already had the CAD files. Clearly Mercedes knew then that the parts were not for the 2019 car.

They did use the mercedes front brake duct design for 2019 legally and FIA said now that they are happy for those and modifications of those to stay on the car for 2020.
Its the rear ducts that are the issue. RP got the designs also for 2019 car, didnt suit their aero so didnt run them but changed to mercedes design rear ducts for the 2020 car which is illegal.

AMKC

My God the Sky F1 commanterie is absolutely atrocious. There are about as exciting as watching paint dry actually scrub that watching paint dry would be more exciting than listening to these clowns. Useless the lot of them. They would put people off the sport honestly.

H3llR4iser

The most troubling part of the Racing Point situation is how they banged the drum of "we had the FIA checking all out processes, the car is entirely legal!", the FIA saying "we are satisfied the car is legal", only for the whole thing to start crumble as soon as their hand was actually forced into looking further into the matter.

If the FIA were really that "up to speed", how the heck did they miss the fact RP were given CAD designs for a "listed part" on January 6th? Considering it's an area where the rules were changing from 2020, it would have made even more sense to pay specific attention to these parts being first includes in the list. Yet, they somehow "missed" the whole thing. What else did the FIA "miss"?

What else did they "forget" to check out? This situation is unfortunately bringing a structural issue with the FIA to light - one that a few posters here highlighted: while it is true that Mercedes' dominance is the result of the team's incredible work AND the others kinda sh1tting the bed, it's also true that previous "dominations" (be it from McLaren, Williams, Ferrari or Red Bull) had the regulating body move relatively quickly to bring competitiveness back up. Since 2014, the whole FIA seems to have been more than content with one team running away with it. If now they "didn't see" the top team basically passing designs to their satellite one, this kind of doubt gains a lot of legitimacy.

Jordan 199

AMKC wrote: »

My God the Sky F1 commanterie is absolutely atrocious. There are about as exciting as watching paint dry actually scrub that watching paint dry would be more exciting than listening to these clowns. Useless the lot of them. They would put people off the sport honestly.

Mute the sound and become your own commentator.

"Is the wheel loose on that car... yes it is!!'

"That mechanic is gonna get fired cuz he didn't put the wheel on properly innit."

"Is that smoke coming from the arse of that car...no it is not. Me eyes must have been deceiving me."

weisses

Everyone knows by now how bad the commentary is as it is brought up every fuppin race weekend

I get it ....

SureYWouldntYa

How would any commentator make practice sound interesting in any case, genuinely

El_Duderino 09

User given 24hr ban for ignoring multiple warnings

H3llR4iser

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

How would any commentator make practice sound interesting in any case, genuinely

Truth is, they're not great but they're not too bad either. The only things I'd point out are the bias, Brundle's incredible propensity to constantly say the same things (some of which are also patently false, like the mirrors on F1 cars being useless) and a certain general lack of charisma - Murray Walker made a TONNE of mistakes each race, but the way he made them was actually making it worth watching ("How's good 'ol Murray gonna screw up today? Is it gonna be the "Dallara on screen, he shouts Ferrari" one?).


That said, there's MUCH worse - for example, at least the current Sky team don't wander away from the action on track too often or for too long and if they do, it's usually about some news that has relevance in the immediate.

SureYWouldntYa

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Truth is, they're not great but they're not too bad either. The only things I'd point out are the bias, Brundle's incredible propensity to constantly say the same things (some of which are also patently false, like the mirrors on F1 cars being useless) and a certain general lack of charisma - Murray Walker made a TONNE of mistakes each race, but the way he made them was actually making it worth watching ("How's good 'ol Murray gonna screw up today? Is it gonna be the "Dallara on screen, he shouts Ferrari" one?).

That said, there's MUCH worse - for example, at least the current Sky team don't wander away from the action on track too often or for too long and if they do, it's usually about some news that has relevance in the immediate.

I like Croft and Brundle anyway unlike most, I'm much too young to have listened to Murray live but as with anything when the voice you grew up with is no longer around you aren't going to like the new one

Brundle is a bit of a bingo card alright but obviously knows his racing stuff, Coulthard on C4 would probably be a bit better

Now of the few highlights of James Allen I've heard in highlights I found him to be quite annoying, Crofty is much much better than him

Burkie1203

H3llR4iser wrote: »

The most troubling part of the Racing Point situation is how they banged the drum of "we had the FIA checking all out processes, the car is entirely legal!", the FIA saying "we are satisfied the car is legal", only for the whole thing to start crumble as soon as their hand was actually forced into looking further into the matter.

If the FIA were really that "up to speed", how the heck did they miss the fact RP were given CAD designs for a "listed part" on January 6th? Considering it's an area where the rules were changing from 2020, it would have made even more sense to pay specific attention to these parts being first includes in the list. Yet, they somehow "missed" the whole thing. What else did the FIA "miss"?

What else did they "forget" to check out? This situation is unfortunately bringing a structural issue with the FIA to light - one that a few posters here highlighted: while it is true that Mercedes' dominance is the result of the team's incredible work AND the others kinda sh1tting the bed, it's also true that previous "dominations" (be it from McLaren, Williams, Ferrari or Red Bull) had the regulating body move relatively quickly to bring competitiveness back up. Since 2014, the whole FIA seems to have been more than content with one team running away with it. If now they "didn't see" the top team basically passing designs to their satellite one, this kind of doubt gains a lot of legitimacy.

Otmar was just on sky sports F1. The Mercedes parts were not listed last year and thats what they are running now, a process that began in 2018 apparently.

He also made a good point about how alpha tauri run red bull parts and Haas did likewise with Ferrari.

pjohnson

As popular as it is to claim they are bad immediately after seeing Kvyat loose his car on replay Brundle said it was a tyre failure and that Kvyat was powerless to prevent anything.

He was 100% right.

namloc1980

Burkie1203 wrote: »

He also made a good point about how alpha tauri run red bull parts and Haas did likewise with Ferrari.

It's not that great a point really, he's just trying to confuse the issue. Alpha Tauri and Haas can run all the Ferrari and RB non-listed parts they want within the rules. The issue here is that the rear brake ducts are a listed part for 2020 and as such must be designed and developed by the team themselves, but RP simply copied the rear brake ducts from last year's Merc.

muckwarrior

pjohnson wrote: »

As popular as it is to claim they are bad immediately after seeing Kvyat loose his car on replay Brundle said it was a tyre failure and that Kvyat was powerless to prevent anything.

He was 100% right.

So did Coulthard and Webber.

Rodney Bathgate

The ex-drivers are generally competent. I always liked Brundle going back to when he was with Walker, and appreciated Coulthard doing the Channel 4 / Setanta coverage.

The ‘lead’ commentator is there for filler and rarely adds anything of merit other than filling empty airtime.

I couldn’t tell you who lead is on Sky / Now TV, same with the Channel 4 / Setanta when it had full race coverage. Croft or Legard or something?

Dont be at yourself

The overall Sky production and presenters are fantastic. 'Crofty' is probably the worst of the lot, but his commentary is mostly grand -- it's hyperbolic, but Brundle is a great foil.

Overall there's a decent mix of the lightweight entertainment features with Jonny Herbert etc, mixed in with more detailed segments from Kravitz, Chandock etc. There's some amount of content produced each week, and certainly something for everybody.

H3llR4iser

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Otmar was just on sky sports F1. The Mercedes parts were not listed last year and thats what they are running now, a process that began in 2018 apparently.

He also made a good point about how alpha tauri run red bull parts and Haas did likewise with Ferrari.

That's precisely the point - these were parts that were "not listed" last year, and are now - it would be reasonable for the FIA to be extra vigilant about them, as any team could claim "ah sorry, we didn't realize".

The fact both Racing Point and the FIA claimed, repeatedly to this point, that "everything was scrutinized and came back legal" is the sticking issue - what they're saying is either patently false, or the scrutinizing wasn't conducted nearly as well as they claim.

The comparisons with Haas/Toro Rosso or whatever are pointless - they are just using some parts that, by regulation, they can buy straight out of the other teams - all under the sunlight and declared. They're not saying "we designed this!" while running Red Bull/Ferrari parts.

Again, I know a lot of people in here have a bit of a hard on for Racing Point as it used to be Jordan, but these days are long gone. Also, if Eddie Jordan pulled a stunt like RP is this year...well, he would've found a way not to get caught and possibly not even arouse suspicion

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's not that great a point really, he's just trying to confuse the issue. Alpha Tauri and Haas can run all the Ferrari and RB non-listed parts they want within the rules. The issue here is that the rear brake ducts are a listed part for 2020 and as such must be designed and developed by the team themselves, but RP simply copied the rear brake ducts from last year's Merc.

With possession of the CAD files, no less.

pjohnson wrote: »

As popular as it is to claim they are bad immediately after seeing Kvyat loose his car on replay Brundle said it was a tyre failure and that Kvyat was powerless to prevent anything.

He was 100% right.

The problem with Brundle is that him getting these things right hinges on the level of prejudice he has about the driver in question. Many times in the past he kept accusing drivers of making mistakes when it was clear a mechanical issue causing an off - his favourite "victims" having been Vettel, Grosjean and most of all, Rosberg. One would expect better from him.

Acosta

The 2 or 3 seasons of Coulthard together with Brundle on the BBC was the best of all various different commentator combinations that I've seen. Murray and Brundle were good also. I probably would have enjoyed Murray and James Hunt based on the clips I've watched. I'd have Peter Collins or Legard over Crofty Croft.

Faugheen

Acosta wrote: »

The 2 or 3 seasons of Coulthard together with Brundle on the BBC was the best of all various different commentator combinations that I've seen. Murray and Brundle were good also. I probably would have enjoyed Murray and James Hunt based on the clips I've watched. I'd have Peter Collins or Legard over Crofty Croft.

As much as Croft can be annoying, he is infinitely better than Collins or Legard.

The hyperbole here is incredible at times. Collins is one of the worst commentators I’ve ever come across.

Acosta

Faugheen wrote: »

As much as Croft can be annoying, he is infinitely better than Collins or Legard.

The hyperbole here is incredible at times. Collins is one of the worst commentators I’ve ever come across.

Collins was awful. I've heard Legard do it a few times on 5live since he got dropped from the tv coverage and would still say he's better that Croft.

fuerte1976

Hulk 3rd.. Podium material surely

Cork Trucker

Coulthard/Brundle only went on for one season, 2011.

Collins and Legard are equally as bad as Croft, I’d stick Jonathan Palmer into that group as well. Murray Walker was the F1 commentating king, he’ll never be replicated. Hunt was excellent alongside him with his no BS approach. Then Walker/Brundle from 97-01, of course each missed a few races in between. James Allen was another insufferable bore, him and Croft together would have some fantasies about Hamilton.

Acosta

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Coulthard/Brundle only went on for one season, 2011.

Collins and Legard are equally as bad as Croft, I’d stick Jonathan Palmer into that group as well. Murray Walker was the F1 commentating king, he’ll never be replicated. Hunt was excellent alongside him with his no BS approach. Then Walker/Brundle from 97-01, of course each missed a few races in between. James Allen was another insufferable bore, him and Croft together would have some fantasies about Hamilton.

Ah yeah. Not sure why I thought it was longer. Fond memories of Montreal in the wet that went on for about 6 hours and involved bird watching and all sorts of random commentary. That was a great season all round. I was disgusted when Sky broke the band up.

SureYWouldntYa

Acosta wrote: »

Ah yeah. Not sure why I thought it was longer. Fond memories of Montreal in the wet that went on for about 6 hours and involved bird watching and all sorts of random commentary. That was a great season all round.

It must have been some commentary, when they played Canada 2011 on the F1 rewinds on youtube few months back I seen a few comments on youtube and reddit wishing they stuck with the commentators during the red flag period for the bird watching

PopePalpatine

fuerte1976 wrote: »

Hulk 3rd.. Podium material surely

Knowing his luck, if he gets it the FIA would expunge RP's results anyway.

Cork Trucker

I’m wondering is the RP saga a watered down version of spy gate.

Cork Trucker

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Knowing his luck, if he gets it the FIA would expunge RP's results anyway.

Or better still, the two Merc’s take each other out, Hulkenberg wins the race and the FIA exclude RP. Wishful thinking where the Mercedes are concerned.

Cork Trucker

Acosta wrote: »

Ah yeah. Not sure why I thought it was longer. Fond memories of Montreal in the wet that went on for about 6 hours and involved bird watching and all sorts of random commentary. That was a great season all round. I was disgusted when Sky broke the band up.

Sky has done more harm than good for F1.

Cork Trucker

Verstappen full of praise for Hulkenberg. Anyone fancy a bet on him being considered for the second Red Bull seat in 2021, stranger things have happened.

H3llR4iser

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Knowing his luck, if he gets it the FIA would expunge RP's results anyway.

Cork Trucker wrote: »

I’m wondering is the RP saga a watered down version of spy gate.

Most likely. Also, if they end up taking some heavier action against RP, my money is on the absurd "team loses points but not the drivers" they've been doing previously.