GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Jericoke on October 22, 2023, 11:59:36 PM
-
Heroes
Max/Newey. I feel like Red Bull is coasting on a strong car design, and other teams are able to catch up as RBR has already turned their attention to creating a dominant 2024 car. When you can create a car that wins while coasting, you've done a great job. And kudos to Max, the win wasn't a given, he had to drive smart to get it.
Hamilton. Sometimes a driver is given the opportunity to show what they can do, and they take it. Today was one of those days for Hamilton. I don't think a win was really in the cards, even if Mercedes had gotten the strategy perfect, Red Bull had wiggle room to adjust their strategy.
Norris. A strong day. Still driving like a future champion, just waiting for his time to rise.
Zeroes
Mercedes. In the past they were able to create wins and gains through superior strategy, but they always seem to making the wrong calls. Not as bad as Ferrari was known for, but they're definitely leaving more points on the table than they used to. I don't know that they could have won, but the drivers were clearly frustrated that things weren't going well.
American custom paint jobs. The Red Bull looked awful. The Haas was ugly. The Williams was a monstrosity. It really felt like a European view on what Americans like, rather what Americans actually like. (Or maybe I'm wrong: I'm Canadian, not American)
I don't know that I'd give a zero for Piastri and Ocon coming together. It's racing, it happens.
I understand why track limits are important to call, but as a fan it's frustrating that it's becoming such a big problem. Maybe a bigger penalty will make drivers more cautious, or maybe a car redesign is on order, or maybe a marking that is more visible, say, a line on the track that the drivers can line their nose up with to see the track limits?
Greg Abbott. Governor of Texas, like many American politicians, a divisive figure, and not popular in Austin. Sure the crowd was booing Max, but they were also booing their governor. (This isn't the place to list reasons why people may hate him, but if you're curious they're not hard to find)
-
I think Austin is in a blue section of Texas. Abbott way to Trumpy conservative for the locals. I doubt F1 appeals to the average Texas conservative, they are more into NASCAR.
-
News flash: Hamilton and Leclerc have been DQ'ed for skid plate violations. Merc said the short time between the Sprint and the GP, combined with the bumpy track was probably the cause. The FIA said too bad, so sad, you're gone.
-
Heroes
...and other teams are able to catch up as RBR has already turned their attention to creating a dominant 2024 car.
I am hoping that at least Mercedes have been working on their 2024 car since they ditched their previous design philosophy about 3 seconds after the lights went green in Bahrain back in March. Hopefully the improvements they've made will be even more meaningful in their 2024 car than in their current car.
I can't handle another season of 20+ wins for Max, as much as it is obviously deserved.
-
RBR have the dominant car and (as much as I have a mouth full of bile to say this) Max is a very good driver and knows how to get the best out of the car when required.
Until the new regs come in play and cars are redesigned, we will continue to watch Max run away with them all.
Mclaren have cars that can win and both drivers are getting better and better. They will both be future champions, I believe.
The Hamilton disqualification due to skid plate wear begs the question, why was Russell not found with the same issue?
The same can be asked of Leclerc and Sainz.
Merc continue to take too long to make the on-track decisions that are required to be able to quickly respond to what other teams are doing. This screws the chances that Hamilton & Russell might have to really compete.
I too found the various paint jobs to flash American flags was an obvious choice to pander to the masses and hope to gain some fans as they notice their flag on some cars. I can fully understand HASS doing it as they are an American owned team.
RBR and Williams ...not so much.
And why was this paint decision made only for an American race? They all race in many countries with all different flags. Why don't we see those flags flashing by on cars?
-
I was away at a conference all weekend so I just finished watch the race a few minutes ago.
One rules related question: Are the teams allowed to change the underbody plank for a fresh one before the race starts?
As for RBR & Williams paint: The States are a major market for Red Bull. It makes sense they would appeal to the market. (I have a theory that the reason Americans drink so much Red Bull is related to the reason that American pharmaceuticals adverts have to remind their customers not to take drugs that they are allergic to.)
Williams may have done it since they have the only American driver on the grid.
-
Teams can't change the plank in parc fermé, except for provable accident damage. So those planks have been stuck on those cars since the chequered flag flew in FP1.
-
The Hamilton disqualification due to skid plate wear begs the question, why was Russell not found with the same issue?
The same can be asked of Leclerc and Sainz.
Only four cars were selected to have their planks checked, MV, LN, LH and CL with the last two failing.
Surely with a 50% fail rate would it not have been prudent to check the other cars which if the fail rate stayed at 50% or above would show the track has an issue.
-
Ah, Andy, this is the FIA we're talking about. Logic, common sense, and reason have no place in their methods. In fact, those qualities seem in short supply in a good many places these days.
-
Ah, Andy, this is the FIA we're talking about. Logic, common sense, and reason have no place in their methods. In fact, those qualities seem in short supply in a good many places these days.
Very true Ik.
-
The Hamilton disqualification due to skid plate wear begs the question, why was Russell not found with the same issue?
The same can be asked of Leclerc and Sainz.
Only four cars were selected to have their planks checked, MV, LN, LH and CL with the last two failing.
Surely with a 50% fail rate would it not have been prudent to check the other cars which if the fail rate stayed at 50% or above would show the track has an issue.
As much as I hate to give RBR credit, I suspect the reason they seemed (almost) beatable is because they did have their ride height adjusted properly. Mercedes took a gamble and lost. If they checked more cars (which I agree, they should have), then we'd look at the possibility of less than 8 cars finishing legally. That would be quite a scandal that I sort of get the FIA not wanting to precipitate.
-
The Hamilton disqualification due to skid plate wear begs the question, why was Russell not found with the same issue?
The same can be asked of Leclerc and Sainz.
Only four cars were selected to have their planks checked, MV, LN, LH and CL with the last two failing.
Surely with a 50% fail rate would it not have been prudent to check the other cars which if the fail rate stayed at 50% or above would show the track has an issue.
Andy, & Lonny too, the FIA do not have strange logic but a necessary pragmatic approach due to time constraints for keeping F1 circus on the road with such a packed programme of 23 races.
Below is a link to an explanation of how FIA post scrutineering takes place and the time factors in play for smooth running of the worldwide shipping & travel.
It should be noted that Liberty/FOM would be breathing down FIA neck more than usual if delays caused by extra longer checks made by FIA Scrutineers caused extra freight costs or missed flights/road haul/shipping.
Note too that all F1 scrutineering procedures need to be easily applied & deliverable for every race on schedule, so ease of road travel or flights between Texas & Mexico can't be treated as a special case.
For once it can be said FIA are being consistant with just Four cars chosen randomly for checks, and no further cars called in although race scrutineers have the power in rule book to do so if they wish.
Perhaps the scrutineers were as suprised as anyone else at plank/skid plate wear, inc teams Dsq'd, so are inclined to believe there are special factors of track/lack of practice involved. Unfortunately once failure noted Dsq is the only remedy for Merc & Ferrari cars.
https://www.fia.com/news/fia-insights-how-fias-process-post-race-legality-checks-ensure-fairness-formula-1-0
-
Looks like another zero was was the drop in U.S. audience figures. TV viewership dropped for the third straight year. It was well below the weekend's NASCAR Cup race at Homestead Florida. It was on a par with the previous day's lower tier NASCAR Xfinity Series race, which had to compete with some major collage football games. Attendance at COTA was down by about 12,000 from last year.
-
the FIA do not have strange logic but a necessary pragmatic approach due to time constraints for keeping F1 circus on the road with such a packed programme of 23 races.
Unfortunately, this is not consistent from the FIA - either from the perspective of theory (which does indeed require every plank of every finisher to be checked every race, and has done since at least 2000. The only other mandatory-for-all-finishers check is weight) or practise (2 cars checked 2023, with precedent to either check team-mates of disqualified cars or - admittedly reaching back to Imola 2005 - automatically disqualifying team-mates of cars in situations where it is suspected a check of the relevant part is redundant).
If the link claims consistency (I have not checked it yet), then the link is wrong.
Attendance at COTA was down by about 12,000 from last year.
On multiple occasions, the Channel 4 commentary claimed it was a sell-out crowd.
1) Quite a few in the main grandstand were disguised as empty seats
2) The hill was full - this being the hill full of people who'd bought heavily-discounted tickets at Costco
3) At least one grandstand never got constructed, with the people who were due to be in that grandstand moved. I gather Las Vegas has the same issue, albeit sightlines are being claimed as the motive in that case.
-
If the link claims consistency (I have not checked it yet), then the link is wrong.
No the linked FIA page doesn't claim consistancy. :nono:
I was simply making a point about consistancy of standard operating policy in force by FIA scrutineers at F1 Races for a good few years, i.e. checking random cars after an event.
-
On multiple occasions, the Channel 4 commentary claimed it was a sell-out crowd.
1) Quite a few in the main grandstand were disguised as empty seats
2) The hill was full - this being the hill full of people who'd bought heavily-discounted tickets at Costco
3) At least one grandstand never got constructed, with the people who were due to be in that grandstand moved. I gather Las Vegas has the same issue, albeit sightlines are being claimed as the motive in that case.
I presume the EU has proper rules about reporting 'attendance', but North American sports leagues/entertainment venues are very good at 'selling out' by selling their tickets in a block to ticket resalers. So the race probably was sold out, from the point of view of COTA organizers, just that TicketMaster or StubHub or whoever had piles of unsold seats.
NHL and MLB games really suffer from tickets 'sold' being far more numerous than butts in seats.
-
Las Vegas pre-sold huge blocks of tickets to hotels who bundled them into packages with room, meals, drinks and other perks. Some even included Paddock Club privileges. Those sales were made before tickets went on sale to the general public.
-
I presume the EU has proper rules about reporting 'attendance', but North American sports leagues/entertainment venues are very good at 'selling out' by selling their tickets in a block to ticket resalers. So the race probably was sold out, from the point of view of COTA organizers, just that TicketMaster or StubHub or whoever had piles of unsold seats.
The EU does have attendance rules. However, their rules allow any event which sold all tickets available for the sets existing at the time of the performance, and that had a defined maximum number of permitted tickets (e.g. it had a rule about how many people could be put in the general admission area and that many tickets were sold), to describe itself as "sold out", even if the number of seats was reduced, the price of tickets was reduced, some seats never got constructed (and the tickets for them never put on sale or subsequently withdrawn) or (not mentioned in my previous post) some of the tickets were sold for free/given away (a common thing at certain levels of sports, including most non-F1 British motorsport, is to supply free tickets to children and the carers of people with disabilities. The "sellout" rules even allow venues to send batches of free tickets to schools, for example, on a proactive basis and still use the tag). It can also still be used even if none of the people who bought tickets turns up (provided the reason was outside the control of the organiser e.g. weather).
Selling in blocks is allowed, but when doing so there are rules about checking all those tickets were sold on (as hotels would do), used directly (e.g. school tickets) or returned (the latter, if no subsequent sale/distribution occurs, rules out using "sell-out" to describe the event once the returns come in, though there is allowance for adverts that went to print in the gap but aren't published until after returns begin to arrive). Failure to monitor this prevents the use of "sold-out". (I think the EU requires any group of above 9 tickets to be treated as a block, but some countries may use a lower threshold and the UK currently requires monitoring of any group of more than 6 tickets).
The American system sounds like it allows even more ways for a sellout crowd to be, well, not sold-out.