[Team] Williams: Do they have a spare tub?

[Aysedasi]

As has been said earlier, is Sargent actually financially viable bearing in mind the damage he has caused - to cars and reputation?

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

As has been said earlier, is Sargent actually financially viable bearing in mind the damage he has caused - to cars and reputation?

I guess that would depend on his contract - is damage factored into the original figure or is there a "pay as you crash" element to it as well?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

I guess that would depend on his contract - is damage factored into the original figure or is there a "pay as you crash" element to it as well?

In a way, it really doesn't help. Sure, he may provide "funding" to pay for repair, but the budget is fixed. So any money spent to repair/rebuild the car takes away budget from elsewhere. It is the budget hit that hurts the teams when drivers crash cars.

Richard

[Richard C]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...ment/10525541/

Interesting article. Williams seems to be supporting him, but also saying that breaking parts means he will be using older spec going forward. Both a question of logistics and lead time on building them.

As to my comment above, it sounds more like he is not hurting their budget, but rather he is now going to just use older 2023 spec parts that they already have. Which will not help him or the team gain points.

Richard

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard C

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...ment/10525541/

Interesting article. Williams seems to be supporting him, but also saying that breaking parts means he will be using older spec going forward. Both a question of logistics and lead time on building them.

As to my comment above, it sounds more like he is not hurting their budget, but rather he is now going to just use older 2023 spec parts that they already have. Which will not help him or the team gain points.

Richard

His lack of performance is hurting their budget significantly for sure.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

His lack of performance is hurting their budget significantly for sure.

Someone made the point earlier that Albon has scored all of Williams points. But even if they had double the points (some from Logan) they would still be far away from Alpine. Maybe if it was not all Albon they might just feel safer with a larger gap to Haas who is behind them. And I think that is more about funding than budget. Are they spending to the max?

I do think Williams is putting a happy face on the situation in the article I posted above. I mean there is no way to be happy about the crashes.

Richard

[peebee2]

They are supposedly maxed out, hence requesting the additional capital allowances.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

They are supposedly maxed out, hence requesting the additional capital allowances.

Not doubting your comment about them being maxed out. But I think the capex topic is probably not related to something such as costs of car repair and replacement of parts.

I think the Williams argument regarding additional capital allowances is more that if you are behind the curve and don't have modern facilities and tooling, that any "catch up" spending is fixed to $36M over four years and Williams needs more than that to make that happen. They want the $36M value increased. It's not the yearly budget they are stuck up against, but the four year capex budget.

In short, if you are Mercedes or Ferrari, you showed up in the budget cap era with nice facilities, tooling, etc. So for them, the $36M/4yr capex limit can be used for ongoing modernization. But if you are someone like Williams in which modernization will bust that cap. So for them, to achieve parity, any big modernization may take more than four years. They may be in "catch up mode" for a long time.

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/ba...olff/10505405/

Richard

[peebee2]

Point was if they had space under budget cap they could use that for capital expenditure.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Point was if they had space under budget cap they could use that for capital expenditure.

I may be misunderstanding how the capex budget cap works (need to read the regulations), but I think my point is Williams is bumping up against the $36M/4yr limit not the per year limit. I assume they CAN spend more than $36M/4yrs but are not allowed to do so.

They might be bumping up against both limits (which Logan is not helping with)

Richard

[Richard C]

I just tried to quickly look through the financial regulations to understand how the CapEx budget cap works. If I am understanding it correctly, that budget is separate from the main operating budget (which I think is current $135M/yr).

I think there is a rolling window in which over a four year period (looking backwards) that you can only spend $36M over that time (avg of $9M/yr). I "think" if you do overspend on the CapEx, then the overage comes out of your operating budget. There also seems also be additional CapEx spending regulations on wind Wind Tunnels.

Richard

[chunterer]

I think Horner pretty much ruled this out at Suzuka?

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by chunterer

I think Horner pretty much ruled this out at Suzuka?

I thought he said a "loan" drive was an option

[GTRMagic]

If Williams are repairing Mr Sargent’s accident damage with previously used or manufactured spare parts, and they intend to make no more to replace them, does that mean the costs attributed to repairs are incorrect as they are effectively’free’ as a sunk cost?

[Sandgroper]

SO they want him to stay in 2024 so its reported.

hmmm

[E.B]

Being the only seat unconfirmed, Williams dont have to scurry round and make a quick decision.... its not like if they are looking at driver X then team Y is going to snap him up. They can take thir time, see how Logan improves (if he does) and scrutinise any options they have closer.
I get the feeling they:
a) would rather not start from scratch again with another rookie, and...
b) would rather look at a potential longer term project over the alternative Lawson type 12 month deal and then be in the same position as now in 12 months time. They would rather it seems groom their own stock over grooming say Lawson who likely will jump back to the Mothershipship in 12 months.

I dont see Red Bull relinquishing their mid / long term ties with Lawson as they did with Albon.

[S griffin]

Williams are standing by Sargent for now. They feel crashes are just part of the learning process and getting into Q3 at Zandvoort shows he has the speed

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Williams are standing by Sargent for now. They feel crashes are just part of the learning process and getting into Q3 at Zandvoort shows he has the speed

An expensive learning process.

[steve_r]

Sargent is a rookie, so the odd mistake is expected. But the high standard of most rookies these days, and the patience with underperformance being probably lower than it used to be. The only other full time rookie on the grid is making clear progress, and then you add in the good performances by Lawson, and the comparisons do not show Sargent in a great light.

[Skam85]

Latifi was better than Sargeant.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Latifi was better than Sargeant.

Really?

Certainly slower than Logan for a start, both equally accident prone though!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Latifi was better than Sargeant.

I really haven't looked at statistics (qualifying time deltas, accident rates), IMHO, I feel like Sargeant is faster than Latifi, but at the moment more accident prone. It's probably easier to get Sargeant to calm down than for Latifi to speed up.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I really haven't looked at statistics (qualifying time deltas, accident rates), IMHO, I feel like Sargeant is faster than Latifi, but at the moment more accident prone. It's probably easier to get Sargeant to calm down than for Latifi to speed up.

Richard

If you do want an assessment - driverDB:

Latifi - 1,590 points
Sargeant - 1,740 points

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

If you do want an assessment - driverDB:

Latifi - 1,590 points
Sargeant - 1,740 points

Are those points for the same number of races?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Are those points for the same number of races?

'The Driver Ranking at Driver Database uses the Elo rating system as its foundation.
Over 20,000 race results form the basis of the calculations. The rating is based on the average rating for the driver's last 20 races. Each driver starts out with a rating of 1500. The Driver Ranking is 100% objective as the championships are not ranked or graded, it's all maths.
Beating a driver with a higher rating will see a bigger increase in rating points than beating a driver with a lower rating. DNF's are skipped in the calculations as it is not always possible to find out reasons for them for all series.'