Motor Sport
-
Stella said something like “we didn’t expect them to pit under the safety car” as though that was a valid excuse. Like dude, incident at lap 8, 25 lap tire limit, 57 lap race. This shit isn’t hard. As @Bridger said, “do the math.” The fact that Stella said that out loud like it wasn’t something to be incredibly mortified about is wild to me and makes me think he isn’t team principal caliber. They built a great car, maybe he should move to tech leadership because he clearly doesn’t have a handle on strategy and it seems like a TP should understand everything at least at a high level.
At least they’ll have Courtenay next season when it may be too late if they don’t nail the regs but Singh and Stella just don’t get it. And papaya rules are idiotic.
The pattern with McLaren strategy, and I’ve now seen enough that I’m confident about this pattern, is that they are too conservative, they don’t cope with changing conditions, and they are terrible under pressure.
-
Saw an interesting discussion concerning the last race where the hypothetical was laid out: Max needs 1st with Lando placing 4th to win the WDC. Oscar needs 1st with Lando placing 5th. Lando needs to place 3rd to win the WDC.
If Max is in 1st, Oscar 2nd with no hope of passing Max, and Lando is in 4th….what does McLaren do? Do they order Oscar to help Lando in securing 3rd…or is everyone on their own?
The way that this season has progressed has proven anything is possible.
“Not all of us can do great things. But we can do small things with great love.”
-
@goosehd I think we all know what McLaren would do: cover their eyes.
-
@Tago-Mago Maybe lewis's old team, i wouldn't be too surprised if a Merc made contact with Max in the finale....
-
by the way: I'm not hearing what I would consider to be a sufficient amount of fuss over the 25-lap stint rule. Has this happened before? Why ONLY in Qatar? If they wanted a two-stopper, why not just enforce 2 stops like they've done earlier this season (Monaco)? Did Pirelli admit they have some kind of design flaw? I'm curious if the teams provided feedback about this, it seems like everyone's just like "okay, new rule, we'll go along with it", but it really screws with strategy, or at least highlights some teams lack thereof.
edit: i just saw they did an 18 lap stint cap a couple of years ago, i dont remember that at all. I guess this is just a thing they pull out of their asses every so often just to keep it interesting.
-
@WhiskeySandwich the rationale for it was that the circuit has these huge pieces of "gravel" that are very sharp and they found slices in the rubber of the tires. This was an unexpected development so they added that rule late as a safety measure. It's not like they could reformulate the compound or add kevlar belts at that point, so I think it was the right move.
-
@mclaincausey Seems to me like its just a thing of chance that they saw an opportunity to slap a rule on. I read it was just based on tire deg last time.... anyway, I thought the idea was to avoid the gravel. Seems like it is a case of "we have trouble here, so we'll make it your problem"...Where every other time it's just an accepted risk.
-
@WhiskeySandwich I'm with you on this - the rule completely ruined the race and made it artificial. Yes it made it exciting for Verstapen to win - but he wouldnt of won if it was for the safety car/25 lap rule - and I dont believe it was a master strategic move by RB - every team apart from Maclaren came in.
For me, F1 recently feels like it makes up the rules every race.
And I can not believe that they say they can't afford to have paid stewards (F1 has so much excessive money spent on it) - it would make so much sense, to have the same stewards each race - then any penalty one week shoud be the same the next week!
insta
@saturdaytypefever
@steve_ironheart -
It’s a garbage track but I see no reason to disbelieve the gravel narrative.
Think it, be it.
-
@Steve …I agree about your strategy comment, but what I do question is McLaren’s decision not to. When the whole field seemingly comes to the same decision then you have to wonder how they came to theirs.
“Not all of us can do great things. But we can do small things with great love.”
-
@goosehd I can only think they were worried about having to stack them, then Norris would probably of dropped behind 1 or 2 drivers - so they are thinking its not fair to hinder one driver? I dont know though, I would imagine Norris coming out say 4th at 7 laps is better than coming out 5th at 47 laps!
@mclaincausey I agree, I think that was the reason - still why use sharp tyre ripping gravel?
-
@goosehd two words Andrea Stella
-
@mclaincausey I just think it’s odd that they claimed it was degradation, but also that this specific track has particularly sharp gravel (which didn’t affect the decision in 2023 from what I gather. Kerbs did, which were smoothed). And why, rather than accepting responsibility for shitty gravel or weak tires and noting it with enough advance to correct the issue, they figured the 26th lap on any given compound is going to cross the safety threshold. It’s misplaced accountability and a wonky solution.
I don’t know what the timeline was for adding several gravel traps to multiple tracks on the circuit this year, but I question the solution in this case being an arbitrary lap count for all compounds. They’re turning racing into a parade.
I’m all for two-stop GPs and have no problem with arranging compounds to encourage them, but I just don’t buy the claim it’s for safety. A puncture could happen on 1 lap or 50, that’s just the risk the teams assess and take.
-
@WhiskeySandwich they didn’t find out about it until looking at the tires after sprint qualifying. Pirelli said the cuts were very deep if not quite to the belts.
Anyway Qatar isn’t an F1 quality circuit and it shouldn’t be on the calendar in the first place. But I’ll take Occam’s Razor here. I think the same idiots who had too sharp kerbs are also dumb enough to have gigantic, sharp rocks as “gravel.” The pictures of the “gravel” were shocking, they fill the palm of a hand and are jagged, not tumbled in any way.
-
For one of the world’s most over-specified sports, I would have thought the FIA could/would have dictated circuit requirements to venues.
I mean, Qatar could spare a few more foreign workers to replace the gravel.
-
“Hey grab the biggest rock you can find for a photo.”
. Surely the FIA has specs and requirements for the gravel at F1 tracks. They have specs for absolutely everything, including the apparent safety threshold for the exact number of laps you’re at increased risk of gravel puncture.
-
-
Clearly you want there to be a conspiracy for some reason but I am not aware of any hard enforcement. I found this “recommendation” and the gravel didn’t meet it: “They are normally about 25cm deep and filled with spherical gravel stones of a diameter of between 5 and 16 millimeters.
These specifications have been drawn up because they have been calculated to give the best frictional resistance possible, needed to stop a skidding and out of control F1 car.”
Let me ask: what would be the rationale for the conspiracy anyway? To make a bad circuit even worse for what? An even more processional race that is less entertaining?
-
I'm just giving a hard time where a hard time is due. It's not directed at you @mclaincausey and it's not a "conspiracy". I'm simply saying the rule is as silly as the people making it It doesn't help using rocks as scapegoats for some phantom danger via punctures. If I were a racing driver, I'd be more concerned about being hit in the visor with one of those asteroids.
High tire deg, and aggressive kerbs aside, if the FIA were to say "We need to establish a regulation for trackside gravel that we overlooked, in the meantime, the best we can come up with is 25 lap recommendation." it'd probably go over better....although many teams would probably ignore it. They don't have a limit otherwise afaik, and slices thru a tire is a one-off and unpredictable occurrence that lap count has zero bearing on.
I'm always skeptical about the necessity of creating new rules that appear arbitrary and disproportionate to the supposed risk. I choose to be critical of regulations and restrictions or mandates that seem inappropriate in their justification. I guess our opinion just differs on the proportionality between freedom/flexibility and regulation/safety, and that's okay, we can agree to disagree.
