2016 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand PrixFormula 1 

  • Thread starter Thread starter SVT Cobra GT
  • 391 comments
  • 21,316 views
An unfortunate new development if you're a US fan--for the first time that I know of, NBC has relegated live qualifying to streaming only.

While this is bad, and while I've never used it live, viewing some replays (which, in its own right is a big plus when restricted to streaming) proved to be positive. I like how you can do picture-in-picture and switch between cameras such as the pits, on-boards, etc. WE NEED THAT FOR REGULAR TV (although I'm guessing the F1 app must do this already....don't have a smart device so I wouldn't know).

It is bad for people that don't already have cable of some sort, and bad for people who may not know their login info...although it seems as though I didn't really need them?? I simply clicked my provider and it magically took care of it for me, and so I was able to view race replays. At least it isn't Fox Sports craptier streaming! I guess what I'm saying is that while I'm upset they somehow decided to move the qualifying to online only, it doesn't seem to be the worst possible option.

Also, I know I'm already going to miss the race live, a rare occurrence for me. Will being going to Swedish Car Day in Boston/Brookline instead. Will have to DVR it. Lucky to even have that capability.
 
There shouldn't be any limits on engines. What's needed is a rule that a manufacturer must make its product available to any team that wants it at a price the governing body sets. Be sensible = make a profit. Be silly = take a big loss.
 
There shouldn't be any limits on engines. What's needed is a rule that a manufacturer must make its product available to any team that wants it at a price the governing body sets. Be sensible = make a profit. Be silly = take a big loss.
All it's going to take is one team willing to spend enough to run an entirely new power unit at each race, and your system breaks.
 
And there we have it: Hamilton is taking three brand-new power units and only getting one penalty for it.
The best solution. Take a 30-odd grid penalty in one go which will only mean a 21 place grid drop and get all the power units he needs to see out the season. If they'd only brought the parts needed to get through this race then he would only have been a few places up the grid in front of cars that aren't going to pose a problem anyway. He'll also have lots of nice new tyres and a choice of what he starts on. Without incident I can easily see a 4th or 5th place and still have a lead in the WDC.
 
The best solution. Take a 30-odd grid penalty in one go which will only mean a no.22 grid position and get all the power units he needs to see out the season.
I don't think that's the best solution at all. Teams should be limited to one extra change per weekend unless the extra engine fails.
 
Interesting idea for a new rule in 2017:

What if teams are not allowed to switch PUs until it has reached a certain level of wear/has been damaged in the race... The FIA can test the units to keep teams from faking dyno tests. I feel like that could also spice things up as well as prevent Merc and other teams from doing what they're doing now.
 
All it's going to take is one team willing to spend enough to run an entirely new power unit at each race, and your system breaks.
Except you are completely wrong. I SAID must sell to ANY team that wants it. At a price set by the governing body. Nothing breaks. No one has an advantage.
 
Except you are completely wrong. I SAID must sell to ANY team that wants it. At a price set by the governing body. Nothing breaks. No one has an advantage.
Except for the manufacturer, the ones building the engines. It's all well and good to sell to anyone who wants it, but eventually economies of scale kick in - the more units they produce, the cheaper the cost per unit. Under your system, Mercedes could make twenty-one power units for Hamilton and Rosberg regardless of who they supply elsewhere.
 
Except for the manufacturer, the ones building the engines. It's all well and good to sell to anyone who wants it, but eventually economies of scale kick in - the more units they produce, the cheaper the cost per unit. Under your system, Mercedes could make twenty-one power units for Hamilton and Rosberg regardless of who they supply elsewhere.
And? They WON'T have any advantage from that. New engine for one = new engine for everyone.
 
Where do I say chassis? I don't. What has that got to do with engines? NOTHING.
 
Where do I say chassis? I don't. What has that got to do with engines? NOTHING.
The works teams can build their chassis to work with their engines as they have a total understanding. It's the old argument of works team vs. not works. It's very unlikely you can win in modern F1 as a non-works team.
 
Where do I say chassis? I don't. What has that got to do with engines? NOTHING.
Everything, actually. Your argument is that a manufacturer would not gain an advantage by taking a new engine every race because they would have to supply every client with a new engine. But you're overlooking the way Mercedes currently have a massive performance advantage in the chassis, and so would continue to dominate. The quality of the Mercedes engine would make the other manufacturers unattractive to customer teams, driving them out of the sport unless they wanted to supply a new engine every race - but since they can't match Mercedes on performance, it won't be worth the expense of manufacturing so many engine.

All your system does is consolidate Mercedes' position.
 
Again. Total utter rubbish. Every manufacturer can do the same. Just because one is on top now does not mean it will stay there. Your way means stagnation. That is NOT F1.
 
Every manufacturer can do the same.
They can. That doesn't mean that they will. And that's what you have failed to grasp. Under your system, manufacturers will be obligated to supply to anyone who wants their engine. With Mercedes being the best engine, and the price of engines being fixed, everyone will want a Mercedes engine. Without the threat of component penalties, they could take twenty-one engines in a season, and supply every customer with twenty-one engines. While expensive to begin with, they will be manufacturing on such a scale that the cost per unit will actually start to come down. So teams will be able to get the best-performing engines very cheaply.

Why, then, would the likes of Ferrari, Renault and Honda - or anyone else for that matter - want to continue? They can't beat Mercedes in engine development, and with the second-best power unit, no-one will want to use them. There is no further reason for them to be involved in the sport.
 
They can. That doesn't mean that they will. And that's what you have failed to grasp. Under your system, manufacturers will be obligated to supply to anyone who wants their engine. With Mercedes being the best engine, and the price of engines being fixed, everyone will want a Mercedes engine. Without the threat of component penalties, they could take twenty-one engines in a season, and supply every customer with twenty-one engines. While expensive to begin with, they will be manufacturing on such a scale that the cost per unit will actually start to come down. So teams will be able to get the best-performing engines very cheaply.

Why, then, would the likes of Ferrari, Renault and Honda - or anyone else for that matter - want to continue? They can't beat Mercedes in engine development, and with the second-best power unit, no-one will want to use them. There is no further reason for them to be involved in the sport.
The only reason the others can't beat Mercedes is the rules preventing them from development.

Why has any team ever stayed in when someone else was on top.
 
Oh, wow has this thread gone southwards quickly and it's not even Hamilton's fault. >.>


There shouldn't be any limits on engines. What's needed is a rule that a manufacturer must make its product available to any team that wants it at a price the governing body sets. Be sensible = make a profit. Be silly = take a big loss.

This is like... the worst idea ever?

What you're suggesting is - actually - that all cars should be using a Mercedes engine, because there's simply no reason for any other manufacturers to even try anymore?

In that hypothetical case probably only Ferrari would keep trying for a year or two, and if they don't succeed, give up eventually.

This goes literally against everything F1 stands for since its inception.

Not to mention that you're suggesting a "manufacturer" [ie Mercedes] has to supply everyone with engines at a set price by the FIA [like, what, $50 sound ok?]? Lol...

Even, if it was a more realistic price, it would still completely destroy what F1 is and has ever been and I'm not sure even Mercedes would play ball, they probably have some pride, too, you know.

Oh well, haha, this is hilarious, I can't believe someone would come up with such an "idea".


Just because Hamilton is changing his engine (oh noes!)

Turns out, it was Hamilton's fault, afterall, huh.
 
I think @prisonermonkeys is actually bang on with this one.

The old scenario of 4000 place grid penalties and/or those carrying over to following races was ridiculous but now we have the loophole where a team can introduce as many parts as they want at one event, take the 4000 place penalty and then that's it, they can use all of those units for the rest of the season with no more penalties.

Only allowing them to introduce a single new instance of each component per event unless they can demonstrate the new one also failed would close that loophole.

I mean I don't blame Mercedes for what they've done, all teams would do it, but it is a loophole that needs closing because it's going directly against the original measure of cost saving by restricting components.
 
I think that if you're given a grid penalty that is bigger than the number of cars behind you, then it should continue over to the next race. What's the point of giving a 20-place penalty to someone who starts 21st?
 
What is the point giving the driver a grid penalty for something that isn't his fault? The whole engine restriction rule is fundamentally rubbish.
 
I think @prisonermonkeys is actually bang on with this one.

The old scenario of 4000 place grid penalties and/or those carrying over to following races was ridiculous but now we have the loophole where a team can introduce as many parts as they want at one event, take the 4000 place penalty and then that's it, they can use all of those units for the rest of the season with no more penalties.

Only allowing them to introduce a single new instance of each component per event unless they can demonstrate the new one also failed would close that loophole.

I mean I don't blame Mercedes for what they've done, all teams would do it, but it is a loophole that needs closing because it's going directly against the original measure of cost saving by restricting components.

Damn my erratic connection, I was going to post this exact thing. I think @prisonermonkeys has a point, too... and I fully expect the FIA to close that loophole by the end of the season.

This is a trick that could only ever be used once, anyway.

-

In the meantime, rolling penalty... For every place beyond 20th... you start in the pitlane and add another ten seconds to your starting time (meaning they count down the seconds before you can leave the pitlane after the race has started...)

Sounds fair, in this instance.
 
The only reason the others can't beat Mercedes is the rules preventing them from development.

Why has any team ever stayed in when someone else was on top.

Which changes next year due to the rules stating there will be unlimited development and no tokens. Thus playing into your point, the rules are so fickle due to the king of the hill mentality that happens, that only one team is ever there for a set time.
The works teams can build their chassis to work with their engines as they have a total understanding. It's the old argument of works team vs. not works. It's very unlikely you can win in modern F1 as a non-works team.

Yeah, that'd make perfect sense if their weren't teams on the grid that actually beat the works engine team with the same engine in recent and past history of F1. What I think you mean to say is that it's very unlikely to win F1 these days as a non-works team that doesn't have a significant cash flow of a works team.
 
Last edited:
Back