Formula 1 2018: General Discussion Thread

Joeface wrote: »

not really a bad thing , penalties are a little useless to combat this for Toro Rosso m if the engine improves enough you will get through the back markers and be able to race the midfielders . worth the penalites

It's a good thing, for RedBull and Honda. As unlike McLaren they won't bitch and moan about the penalties and it gives Honda the opportunity to catch up. Okay I said that years ago already, this time with the working RB-Honda relationship I am more positive.

Not this year anyway gives Honda breathing space for the rest of the season just to sort out the engine if they can.

That’s interesting news about Honda.

The penalties are supposed to prevent massive engine development spending wars which is a good idea in principle. But in This case it’s actually hindering Honda from doing much needed development.

Hopefully this amnesty by RB will give Honda the scope to experiment and make RB competitive next year.

Cookie_Monster wrote:

So whats to stop merc or ferrari doing exactly the same with sauber or williams?

Their engines are pretty much proven. Renault don't need to either they have a bench mark in Red Bull and data from three teams.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So whats to stop merc or ferrari doing exactly the same with sauber or williams?

Nothing at all, but then those engines actually work so they don't need to

vectra wrote: »

But isn't there always that hope of further improvements?
I can see Merc and Ferrari taking penalties in the second half of the season.

Agreed, I expect the same. And when they do plan a strategic engine penalty, it would make sense to introduce an upgrade at the same time so they get a performance benefit. But the gains for them are probably smaller and harder to come by now as they've developed their power units so well.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So whats to stop merc or ferrari doing exactly the same with sauber or williams?

As other posters have said, there’s nothing to stop merc or Ferrari doing it. But they dont have the kind of direct ownership of other teams as red bull has.

I can’t see any team agreeing to be Ferrari’s bitch. They gave sponsorship and championship position to worry about where TR is owned and partly funded by RB.

mickdw wrote: »

In theory, the other teams cannot do it as my understanding of the rules is that all supplied teams need to run the same spec engine. Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault, all supplying more than 1 team would be pushing it by trying to run a development programme with any single team while keeping a more reliable engine in their primary team cars. Honda, having only the one team to supply can go with development engines without worrying about anything. Its a no brainer for redbull.

They are indeed to supply the exact same spec engines to the customer teams - I believe the rule was set in specifically to avoid both having too much difference between specs, and to prevent "test lab teams".

Even if the rule didn't exist, the only viable "victim" would be Williams, with all other teams including Sauber, now being regular point contenders.

Insane fantasy scenario: Ferrari could be in the unique position of potentially being able to circumvent the rule. If FCA wanted to invest a "bit" (read, an absolute sh1tload) of money into a separate engine development team, they could create one under the Alfa Romeo Automobiles S.p.A. brand; Then a "schism" happens where a bunch of key people "leave" Ferrari for Alfa; The Milanese brand develops it own engine starting on "data" brought in by the former Ferrari employees, they end in the back of the Saubers, then start updating these units. At some point, some engineers "leave" Alfa Romeo and go back to Ferrari, bringing the Biscione's engine "secrets" with them. Rinse repeat both ways.

Problem is, it IS an insane scenario and most likely the benefits won't justify the cost. Also, I can imagine the FIA stomping on the concept like an out of control 747...

Prisoner 6753 wrote: »

Embarrassing to say the least.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/headlines/2018/7/2018-mclaren-_weaker-than-last-years-car--brown.html

He does not instill confidence

TCP/IP wrote: »

Agree totally he is a bluffer 100%
Though I am biased as I am certainly not a McLaren fan for some reason cant warm to that team and never could I blame Ron Dennis but at least he was extremely competent.

I think he should go but will probably be allowed fumble along for a year or 2, then they will probably bring Whitmarsh (who wasn't great either) or Ron back
They are a team I want to like but like you I can't warm to them. I think it might be to do with how clinical they want everything to appear to be, they don't like someone having a personality. I imagine if a mechanic spilt a drop of oil in there technical center he'd be fired in the spot

mickdw wrote: »

I liked Ron and Whitmarsh.
Whitmarsh would be a good man to return I think. Straight talking, no bullsh1t manager who at least ran the team when they were winning races and fighting for championships.

There's talk among many of the pundits that the matrix management structure they use is the problem there. I thought that was brought in by whitmarsh, but might be wrong. I think that only worked because of Ron anyway. Everyone knew he was the boss as bad as he was. But to bring either back be a step backward. They need fresh ideas not old ones.

The? What's the mega surprise? Oh wait, it's a surprise. No seriously, are you referring to something?

skipper_G wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

I liked Ron and Whitmarsh.
Whitmarsh would be a good man to return I think. Straight talking, no bullsh1t manager who at least ran the team when they were winning races and fighting for championships.

There's talk among many of the pundits that the matrix management structure they use is the problem there. I thought that was brought in by whitmarsh, but might be wrong. I think that only worked because of Ron anyway. Everyone knew he was the boss as bad as he was. But to bring either back be a step backward. They need fresh ideas not old ones.

Who better to sort out a management structure than the man who brought it in.
I firmly believe it's more about having the work force on board with ya than the management layout. Clearly from a situation where staff are unhappy and on verge of strike, a management change that addresses this is the most important thing. I believe the staff wanted whitmarsh back.

OSI wrote: »

2 year extension for Hamilton.

You are correct

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/44884683