|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
31 Jan 2019, 13:23 (Ref:3880877) | #3376 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
2 Feb 2019, 04:57 (Ref:3881264) | #3377 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
2 Feb 2019, 08:33 (Ref:3881278) | #3378 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,789
|
Then surely Stroll F1 is ripe for the picking as a Junior team? Given Williams has reportedly snubbed the idea?
Unless Mercedes aren't interested in the politics and just carry on winning. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk |
||
__________________
Midgetman - known as Max Tyler to the world. MaxAttaq! |
2 Feb 2019, 12:17 (Ref:3881311) | #3379 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,396
|
Stroll is good enough for a seat with a top team. I think his motivation will be up now he's in a better car
Of course Merc care about winning, that's why they are here Let's see what happens |
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
2 Feb 2019, 14:08 (Ref:3881330) | #3380 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,941
|
Not really, it just means MB should get a move along to purchase their second team. Second teams is a great model in F1, be it Honda and Super Aguri, Red Bull and Toro Rosso, or Ferrari and Alfa Romeo. Force India was available yet MB didn't act to buy it, which was unwise.
|
|
|
2 Feb 2019, 14:09 (Ref:3881331) | #3381 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,396
|
I think he could shine. He’ll do well and might get a few results with a bit of luck. But Mercedes will still be at the top
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
2 Feb 2019, 23:05 (Ref:3881487) | #3382 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Harte wnut, your theory is great, but it has no real bearing on how F1 actually works. Firstly, the most important "voting" takes place in whatever the group is now called, and only six teams have a vote, whilst the FIA and FOM have 6 votes apiece, meaning that the FIA and FOM can outvote the teams if they want to stop ideas being forwarded to the next stage. At that 2nd stage, a vote includes all the teams and requires unanimity amongst the teams if a proposal is to be introduced within a certain period. If the proposal is to be introduced outside of that restricted time sphere, then, if I am correct, there is no requirement for a vote and the FIA/FOM can impose it on the teams. In the case of changes mandated for safety reasons, the FIA/FOM can again impose the change within the time constraint. However, having said all that, there is probably no doubt that certain teams do align themselves concerning future regulations at the early stages of prospective changes. All true. Liberty has however made noises about increased representations from the teams, and then there is the process kicked off by Sauber and FI in the EU mentioned by Chillibowl. I think that the powers that be, Merc and Ferrari, are stacking the decks to make sure that any democracy that breaks out goes in their favour. Hopefully Liberty and the FIA will stick together and ignore the lot of them. When did a manufacturer ever do anything to a Motorsport category other than wreck it, then walk away? |
||
|
2 Feb 2019, 23:08 (Ref:3881488) | #3383 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Quote:
Also Stroll is spending a lot of money to make sure that the Mercedes PU finishes up near the front of the field in his car, so it would be better for Mercedes to steal a Ferrari customer if they are going to spend money on a second team, looks unlikely. Williams or McLaren? Voting Groups RBR & STR Mercedes, FI, Williams Ferrari, Alfa (Sauber), Haas Renault, McLaren Last edited by wnut; 2 Feb 2019 at 23:18. |
||
|
3 Feb 2019, 11:22 (Ref:3881638) | #3384 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,396
|
I doubt that Mercedes have any interest in Stroll. Stroll just wants a car he can do well in. We’ll see what other teams Merc supply, but I expect Ferrari to keep supplying teams. I highly doubt McLaren would use Merc engines again and Williams, who knows where they will be come the end of the year?
I think the voting is a bit unfair though, teams should vote independently |
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
4 Feb 2019, 01:49 (Ref:3881788) | #3385 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,076
|
Agreed. Stroll senior is looking at FI as his sons toy/platform. Letting MB in on the act will mean losing control and moving the teams focus away from Stroll. The whole F1 exercise is pocket money to Stroll... he doesnt need or want the potential problems of partners in the team. My opinion / thoughts.
|
||
|
4 Feb 2019, 07:47 (Ref:3881830) | #3386 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
If Mercedes looks after FI (Stroll Snr.) they would be expected to vote in Mercedes interest to keep the engine deal?
In other words Merc don't need to spend money on FI to get the best possible performance from them, the money could be better spent controlling another team to increase Mercedes' voting block, FI will vote the Mercedes way. These votes should be by secret ballot to ensure dissenting teams do not face manufacturers' wrath. |
|
|
4 Feb 2019, 18:30 (Ref:3881934) | #3387 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,744
|
Quote:
but about the concern that these 'slave' teams will just help the big teams via voting blocks...i suppose i am less concerned. as you highlighted wnut, it was Sauber (who have arguably been a 'slave' team for the longest) and Force India (who have arguably done the most/most successful of the 'slave' teams) who have spoke out the loudest against the current order/masters. alternatively, if one looks at what has happened over the years (specifically with issues surrounding the current engine regs) its collusion between Merc and Renault for example, which is of much bigger concern than collusion between Ferrari and Haas could ever hope to be. at the end of the day, two engine manus working together have more control (and perhaps rightly so) then one engine manu and their 'slave' team. anyways, this is F1 and indeed it is all smoke and mirrors so who really knows whats going on. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
4 Feb 2019, 20:05 (Ref:3881952) | #3388 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,557
|
I believe that some while ago that one of those two teams withdrew their complaint to the EU Commissioners. As I say, it was some time ago, and I cannot now remember whether the complaint is still under investigation or not.
|
||
|
4 Feb 2019, 23:33 (Ref:3881978) | #3389 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,857
|
Quote:
I can't see it being something like Mercedes and Renault worked together to what... hoodwink Ferrari? I don't see it. It is nearly impossible for each to come up with completely different proposals. There was going to be some level of agreement and no doubt alliances when negotiating specific parts of the spec. I just don't see any "collusion". Lets say there was commonality in what each manufacture wanted. Clearly they would have only advocated for things they felt they would excel at, plus try to mitigate things they might feel are weaknesses. If there was true collusion between a Mercedes and Renault, then they would have negotiated for X, Y and Z and then actively collaborated (traded data) on X, Y and Z. In reality they all walked away with a specification and built their respective solutions in secret with the goal to crushing each other. Clearly there can only be one winner and as we all know... Mercedes got it right in a big way. Overall, I don't see how the prior engine regulation negotiations are any type of indicator as to the issue with respect to voting blocks created by "technology partners" (which is a nice euphemism for the second tier slave teams). Quote:
Richard |
|||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
8 Mar 2019, 10:53 (Ref:3889114) | #3390 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 342
|
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...-2019/4348938/
Fastest lap of top 10 finishes will get a bonus point??? I seem to remember this was always a rule that was in the top 10 rules that used to be in F1. Just checking but it's not April 1st? |
|
|
8 Mar 2019, 15:05 (Ref:3889169) | #3391 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,396
|
Can think of a lot worse rules. At least it won’t mean we’ll see drivers outside the top ten bolting on a fresh set just to get the point
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
8 Mar 2019, 21:03 (Ref:3889226) | #3392 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,857
|
Quote:
If there is a way to game this, someone will figure it out! Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
8 Mar 2019, 23:57 (Ref:3889254) | #3393 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,203
|
|||
|
10 Mar 2019, 18:51 (Ref:3889493) | #3394 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,396
|
I think it’s the right time to make this change
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
11 Mar 2019, 23:57 (Ref:3889783) | #3395 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,372
|
If nothing else, the "point for fastest lap - as long as you're already in the top ten" being announced so close to the season's first race should get the fantasy championship mathematicians jumping!
Honestly don't know how much difference it'll make but it may well result in greater gaps in points - not sure that extra point available at each GP will assist those trying to make up ground all that much, unless the points totals are very close at the top. Something else to talk about though - including who actually set the fastest lap compared to who got the point for it (setter of fastest lap my not finish the race or may finish outside top ten). |
||
__________________
“We’re far from having too much horsepower…[m]y definition of too much horsepower is when all four wheels are spinning in every gear.” ― Mark Donohue |
12 Mar 2019, 00:29 (Ref:3889788) | #3396 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,704
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
12 Mar 2019, 00:57 (Ref:3889791) | #3397 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 657
|
HISTORY RE-WRITTEN: How fastest lap points would have swung a key championship
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...eNhi18rsY.html 2008 ACTUAL RESULT 1. Hamilton – 98 points 2. Massa – 97 points RESULT WITH POINTS FOR FASTEST LAP 1. Massa – 100 points (three fastest laps) 2. Hamilton – 99 points (one fastest lap) |
|
__________________
'We've paid the price': Stop calling us cheats all-conquering and highly controversial Ford Mustang |
12 Mar 2019, 01:15 (Ref:3889796) | #3398 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,583
|
And all the other points system changes since then
|
||
__________________
Seriously not taking motorsport too seriously. |
12 Mar 2019, 01:16 (Ref:3889797) | #3399 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,219
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
12 Mar 2019, 06:55 (Ref:3889816) | #3400 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,003
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Are more rule changes necessary ? | Marbot | Formula One | 51 | 27 Sep 2009 17:19 |
F1 future rule changes | TheNewBob | Formula One | 57 | 20 Dec 2006 09:19 |
Sensible ideas for future technical regs anyone?/Rule changes - more to come [merged] | AMT | Formula One | 74 | 12 Nov 2002 16:09 |
Future Tourer Future | Crash Test | Australasian Touring Cars. | 13 | 17 Jul 2002 23:01 |