2018 Rolex Australian Grand PrixFormula 1 

  • Thread starter Jimlaad43
  • 369 comments
  • 19,975 views
I noted that as well, though I hadn't thought that maybe the guy controlling the lights was on the wall itself. My interpretation was that of him saying "Gunther look, I had my arms crossed! Not my fault, please don't fire me!"
 
Dresden
It will be interesting to see how the season pans out. Concerning for me is the way a top car (Bottas Merc) starts down the grid and struggles to even pass anybody. Wow, the rules of the sport have gone backwards since I was young. Imagine a top car back in the 80's or 90's staying at the back. Incredible.

And Hamilton could not even get close to the back of Vettel when he was within spitting distance. Again, this rule about saving power units is ruining all the racing.

Perhaps the sport should sit out one year and have a think about the direction they want to go. Because the need for safety first, lowering financial costs second and catering to fans last is not working.
Click to expand...

Yes it is worrying but we don't have to go back that far to see the top drivers easily getting past the slower cars albeit thanks to DRS. Bottas might be a problem and the track. The other drivers have done a good job in recent years.
 
Man, they're pulling out all the stops with finding excuses. Thought this was done already. Just take the result and move on.
 
UnkaD
Man, they're pulling out all the stops with finding excuses. Thought this was done already. Just take the result and move on.
Click to expand...

The fact is the fact - Mercedes had the performance in hand to peg the gap but didn't do so because they messed up the calculations. At least they're admitting it ;)
 
I think the use of the word "glitch" is overdramatic - The software is probably fine but had the wrong numbers input into it. It's hard not to believe they thought they had the necessary gap because it certainly looks like Hamilton had the pace to close the lead down to below 10 seconds had they felt it worth doing so.
 
TenEightyOne
The fact is the fact - Mercedes had the performance in hand to peg the gap but didn't do so because they messed up the calculations. At least they're admitting it ;)
Click to expand...
Ok we got it but last year Ferrari lost 4 races they could have won (China VSC, Barcellona VSC, Baku Penalty, Singapore Crash). They had the performance but a combination of bad luck and messing things up stopped their run for the title. The point is none of this Lewis Hamilton biased media made a huge deal about it. They just praised their driver as if misfortunes of others have not been decisive. This is exactly what tends to annoy all the people wanting to read an unbiased race report. Sounds like this year is going to be more of the same, that's the point.
 
Force India and Mclaren want the FIA to investigate the bond between Ferrari and Haas after the progress Haas made to make sure that the Haas isn't in fact a Ferrari underneath .
 
Let me ask this; where does the FIA stand on teams having unique vehicles? What if Ferrari gave them a generous amount of information and the car was a near perfect copy? (I doubt it is). Is there an actual rule against this? Can larger, faster teams provide what almost amounts to a customer car to a junior team?
 
TheElbows
Let me ask this; where does the FIA stand on teams having unique vehicles? What if Ferrari gave them a generous amount of information and the car was a near perfect copy? (I doubt it is). Is there an actual rule against this? Can larger, faster teams provide what almost amounts to a customer car to a junior team?
Click to expand...

This article explains what is and isn't allowed. I also learnt from it that the front suspension of the Haas car is bought directly from Ferrari...
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/rivals-call-for-haas-ferrari-relationship-investigation-1019469/

I think eyebrows would have been raised based on the fact Haas seemed like the 4th best team in Australia anyway, but it's very telling that the appearance of the designs are also very similar. It is very difficult to justify how an entirely different design team would come up with exactly the same solutions / ideas / concepts in every design element without some information crossing from the Ferrari team itself.

If I were at Haas, I'd quickly be reminding people that the focus shifted from the 2017 car to the 2018 design very early last season...
 
Haas read the rules, bought everything they were allowed to and designed the rest themselves (well, Dallara for a bit), but everything is legal. Force India and McLaren are just doing Christian Horner's old trick of moaning because someone did a better job than them and using "for the good of the sport" as an excuse.
 
Not sure it's exactly breaking news.. Seriously, STR did it already back in the days. They also have been capable of scoring a GrandPrix win in 2008, nobody batted an eye.
Not to mention BrawnGP won 2009 championships with a car that should have been an Honda F1 car. They also had a controversial double decker diffuser. Everything fine.

This McLaren Force India complaint sound more like sour grapes that were particularly sour.
 
Jimlaad43
They kinda did because customer cars were banned for the next season.
Click to expand...
Still Ross Brawn somhow managed to buy Honda F1 assets for a symbolic pound and win both titles... then selling the team to Mercedes, long story short.
 
Jimlaad43
Haas read the rules, bought everything they were allowed to and designed the rest themselves (well, Dallara for a bit), but everything is legal. Force India and McLaren are just doing Christian Horner's old trick of moaning because someone did a better job than them and using "for the good of the sport" as an excuse.
Click to expand...
Alain Prost, in his pre-race TV interview, also expressed his irritation, and suggested that something was to be done about it.

My guess is that the nature of the circuit and the inevitable development battle might result in Australia being the Haas team's best qualifying positions for the entire 2018 season.
 
So you can add Renault (another team just behind Haas but crucially behind Haas) to the teams complaining about Haas' supposedly using rules to their advantage...

Toro Rosso used to do the same sort of thing (talking about after the years they just used a 3rd and 4th Red Bull chassis) but nowadays it is their own car completely. The early season benefits are balanced later in the season when you can't change those components how you would like, or even if Ferrari change something for themselves so you have to move with them. Their development will likely be hampered as a result.
 
Tajima
Still Ross Brawn somhow managed to buy Honda F1 assets for a symbolic pound and win both titles... then selling the team to Mercedes, long story short.
Click to expand...
None of which has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with Red Bull selling/giving their chassis to Toro Rosso.

One team selling a franchise to another team is not even remotely the same thing.
 
Tired Tyres
None of which has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with Red Bull selling/giving their chassis to Toro Rosso.

One team selling a franchise to another team is not even remotely the same thing.
Click to expand...
You can use how much caps lock you want it's not going to change the fact 2009 was one of the most bizarre seasons in F1 history but everything was perfectly fine according to FIA. That's why would be rather surprising if they take some sort action against Haas, whatever it is.
 
Pezzarinho17
This article explains what is and isn't allowed. I also learnt from it that the front suspension of the Haas car is bought directly from Ferrari...
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/rivals-call-for-haas-ferrari-relationship-investigation-1019469/

I think eyebrows would have been raised based on the fact Haas seemed like the 4th best team in Australia anyway, but it's very telling that the appearance of the designs are also very similar. It is very difficult to justify how an entirely different design team would come up with exactly the same solutions / ideas / concepts in every design element without some information crossing from the Ferrari team itself.

If I were at Haas, I'd quickly be reminding people that the focus shifted from the 2017 car to the 2018 design very early last season...
Click to expand...

I don't know about that... If you look at the 2018 Ferrari and the 2018 Haas they are quite different, and it's fair to say that they could have taken the ideas and concepts Ferrari came up last year and apply them to their own car and made them work. It's going to be very difficult for them to prove anything without having anyone on the inside giving them up. I mean, look at 'Spygate'... that only came out after it got 'accidentally leaked'.

I think this is more the teams trying anything to peg back a team that's made good progress over the winter.


The real test of how good the Haas is will be Bahrain, where overtaking is far easier.
 
Tajima
Not to mention BrawnGP won 2009 championships with a car that should have been an Honda F1 car.
Click to expand...

Tajima
Still Ross Brawn somhow managed to buy Honda F1 assets for a symbolic pound and win both titles... then selling the team to Mercedes, long story short.
Click to expand...

Brawn bought the lot, IP and all. That doesn't make the Brawn a customer car.

Tajima
They also had a controversial double decker diffuser. Everything fine.
Click to expand...

Controversial because the other teams didn't have it and weren't as fast. Once the legality was confirmed all the other teams had it and Brawn spent the remainder of the season gallantly hanging on in what had become a marginally worse car.

Tajima
This McLaren Force India complaint sound more like sour grapes that were particularly sour.
Click to expand...

The teams are following the same method as in your Brawn 2009 example... how much is legal and how much of that method can they adopt themselves? As Gunther Steiner said they shouldn't be complaining, they should be working out why they aren't doing a better job with more money and people. W
 
TenEightyOne
Brawn bought the lot, IP and all. That doesn't make the Brawn a customer car.
Click to expand...
Ok but you can agree with me the car was developed by Honda. Brawn kept the same drivers as well. What FI and McL are sarcastically questioning in the motorsport article is "how a team in its third season can be that fast? Is it magic?"
So I mentioned STR winning a Gp in 2008 with basically a RBR chassis and BrawnGp winning both titles in its very first (and only) year. Was it magic?
 
Tajima
Ok but you can agree with me the car was developed by Honda. Brawn kept the same drivers as well. What FI and McL are sarcastically questioning in the motorsport article is "how a team in its third season can be that fast? Is it magic?"
So I mentioned STR winning a Gp in 2008 with basically a RBR chassis and BrawnGp winning both titles in its very first (and only) year. Was it magic?
Click to expand...
There is still a complete lack of logic going on here.

You are comparing apples and oranges. One team allowing another team to run the same chassis has literally nothing to do with one team selling the franchise to someone else.

If Haas are running a Ferrari chassis then they are breaking the rules. If they are not then they are not breaking the rules.
 
Tired Tyres
There is still a complete lack of logic going on here.

You are comparing apples and oranges. One team allowing another team to run the same chassis has literally nothing to do with one team selling the franchise to someone else.

If Haas are running a Ferrari chassis then they are breaking the rules. If they are not then they are not breaking the rules.
Click to expand...
I just mentioned two borderline cases that have been endorsed. The point (and you still don't get it, OMG) was to reply to FI McL about "is it magic" sarcasm. But we can agree to disagree so let's move on. 👍
 
Tajima
So I mentioned STR winning a Gp in 2008 with basically a RBR chassis and BrawnGp winning both titles in its very first (and only) year. Was it magic?
Click to expand...

Vettel's STR3 was not a winning car in any other race of the season - not even close. At Monza 2008 we saw the raw talent of Vettel coupled with, for once, a perfect setup from STR. You could add that they had some luck too, no other driver's setup coped with the torrential rain as well as his. Not magic, a combination of luck, conditions and talent. The car finished 6th in the Constructors' championship that year .

I already covered Brawn's "double diffuser" idea, and as you pointed out they benefitted from several years of development. They also switched to a Mercedes engine which was arguably far superior to the Honda lump. Once other teams had established that the diffuser was legal they built them too and Brawn's advantage evaporated but it was too late for the other teams to catch them.

If Haas continue to perform at the level that they did in the Australian GP (wheelnut crossthreading aside) then you can be sure that we'll see teams looking at customer-parts options if they feel it's the only way to close the gap. If they don't then everyone will put it down to being one of those days :D
 

Latest Posts

Back