2023 Season

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

This is what I was getting at.

The cap is based on the amount of races in a season - so, if the cap was determined when the calendar was 24 races, has it been reduced since?
And if so, will teams already have committed to certain expenditure that needs to be reigned in?

And to your point. As we get deeper and deeper into the season, if a race is cancelled, and money has already been spent? I would think they just can't reduce down the cap late in the game. They would need to have a cut-off date in which cap reductions are stopped or the adjustments are minor.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

And to your point. As we get deeper and deeper into the season, if a race is cancelled, and money has already been spent? I would think they just can't reduce down the cap late in the game. They would need to have a cut-off date in which cap reductions are stopped or the adjustments are minor.

Richard

Agreed. Which is why I wonder if the teams would be quicker to support a cancellation rather than a reschedule?

If they are still allowed to run to the budget of a 24-race season but have less rounds to participate in, they free up more money to spend per race.

[chillibowl]

Doesn’t sound like, from that f1.com link at least, they get to spend based on 24 races despite the late cancellation.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Agreed. Which is why I wonder if the teams would be quicker to support a cancellation rather than a reschedule?

If they are still allowed to run to the budget of a 24-race season but have less rounds to participate in, they free up more money to spend per race.

If there is a baseline with a plus amount per race when over 21 races the allowance is for the expenses associated with every race over the 21 races. A cancellation would mean there is no attendance so surely the allowance for that extra race is then deducted from the allowances for extra race events?

[bathurst77]

Whatever happened to Vietnam

[E.B]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Whatever happened to Vietnam

I think 2020 when it was due to first run it succumbed to the Pandemic, and although it had a long contract and backers in place the Mayor of Hanoi who was a major not to mention generous supporter and string puller, who I daresay gave a lot of green lights, got thrown in the slammer for a long stint on account of his involvement in a number of major frauds.

Without him the race had few supporters in high places, and little funding. IIRC the local Govt said it was not going to be even a consideration for many years yet.

I daresay the $60million hosting fees per year said mayor had agreed to is a bit of a stumbling block in his absence.

[S griffin]

It was never going to happen, especially after the pandemic. So we can forget about it. With one man behind it, no one was going to take over the project when he went down. It's consigned to the scrapheap. But it's no great loss either, I never felt it would be that good anyway

[chillibowl]

leaving a month long break after only 3 rounds was really a terrible choice.

no doubt costly and difficult to organize, but if they couldn't find a replacement race, then they should have added a test or something and given the other teams a chance, if they wanted it, to try and bridge their gap to RB and of course to keep us punters busy with something new to complain about!

i share Alonso's pain!

https://www.instagram.com/p/CrJfQ4uthKW/?hl=en

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

leaving a month long break after only 3 rounds was really a terrible choice.

no doubt costly and difficult to organize, but if they couldn't find a replacement race, then they should have added a test or something and given the other teams a chance, if they wanted it, to try and bridge their gap to RB and of course to keep us punters busy with something new to complain about!

Thoughts...

1. Why is anyone owed special dispensation to try to "catch up" to whoever is leading the series? And wouldn't RBR also use this period to move forward as well? Or are they expected to not do any work during that time?

2. I would argue that a month break is actually beneficial to the team in the way you are asking for. This break gives them time to do development on new parts, vs. having to do that AND perform race activities. They do however lose the ability to validate new bits during free practice. But as I call out above, RBR also is doing work as well.

3. As an F1 fan, I do miss the racing in the gap.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Why is anyone owed special dispensation to try to "catch up"

I re-read my post and the above is probably overly strong as I don't think you were asking for any special breaks for the non-RBR teams. But overall, I would say the process of "catching up" is one that happens race by race, season by season. I may need to see if I can find some old posts, but before last season, I fully expected some teams to get the new regulations wrong and given the cost caps, I fully expected it to take more than one or two seasons to see tighter performance and (cross fingers) less single team dominance. I think even this season we are starting to see teams coalesce around specific technical concepts. Of course that probably means in a few years most of the cars will look very similar (more than now).

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

leaving a month long break after only 3 rounds was really a terrible choice.

no doubt costly and difficult to organize, but if they couldn't find a replacement race, then they should have added a test or something and given the other teams a chance, if they wanted it, to try and bridge their gap to RB and of course to keep us punters busy with something new to complain about!

i share Alonso's pain!

https://www.instagram.com/p/CrJfQ4uthKW/?hl=en

I remember in the early to mid '70s, the Argentine and Brazilian GPs would be held in January, then the South African GP at the beginning of March, with the season getting underway in Europe at the end of April.

[chillibowl]

honestly, more borne out of frustration for not having anything to talk about for the past couple of weeks and while we are all used to the summer break, a month long break this early in the season is, and just speaking for myself, has killed any momentum/excitement a young season should have imo.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I re-read my post and the above is probably overly strong as I don't think you were asking for any special breaks for the non-RBR teams. But overall, I would say the process of "catching up" is one that happens race by race, season by season...

i thought it a fair point but yes indeed, i meant for all teams to have an equal chance to develop within the constraints of their budgets of course and not for just the non RB teams...and of course i am ignoring all of the logistical and financial issues with scheduling in season tests!

but my preference is to see that action happen on track and not back in the factories and while races offer an opportunity to develop one's car session by session, when races get cancelled and that time on track is lost, is it wholly unreasonable to expect (as fans) for that time to be made up via an in season test?

flip side of course is maybe some teams have been able to use this time wisely and will come back stronger....maybe it's the anticipation thats killing me?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I remember in the early to mid '70s, the Argentine and Brazilian GPs would be held in January, then the South African GP at the beginning of March, with the season getting underway in Europe at the end of April.

and if there was an internet back then, no doubt i would have been doubling complaining about that length of a two month break so early in the season!

[E.B]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I remember in the early to mid '70s, the Argentine and Brazilian GPs would be held in January, then the South African GP at the beginning of March, with the season getting underway in Europe at the end of April.

Look at 1965..... South Africa on Jan 1st, next round Monaco May 30th! Basically 5 months between round 1 and 2.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by E.B

Look at 1965..... South Africa on Jan 1st, next round Monaco May 30th! Basically 5 months between round 1 and 2.

But there were a few non championship rounds between them...

[Teretonga]

https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-...led-inversion/

This is as relevant a thread as any....
RBR suspension design analysed by Gary Anderson in a way that is understandable to most non-technical people on this forum.
At one point he says that excessive car movement (over half a mm at the front and no more than a mm at the rear will create issues that cause aerodynamic imbalance and give the driver an issue because of handling imbalance.

It interesting that Horner is saying that Ricciardo is getting back to his old self as he spends time with RBR including some simulator time...
Is his issue in cornering and not knowing what the car was going to do at McLaren a consequence of handling/suspension design that resulted in abrupt changes that made driving difficult.....

[Born Racer]

Very insightful. Thanks for that, Teretonga. Red Bull are certainly not just aero specialist one-tricl ponies.

[Greem]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/si...rash/10459917/

Interesting. No more gravel there.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Greem

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/si...rash/10459917/

Interesting. No more gravel there.

Indeed. Very interesting. Will the lack of gravel make it better of worse?

[Greem]

I'm unsure tbh. Obviously there will be nothing there that can cause a car to dig in and flip like Zhou did, but equally there will be less material there to slow an errant vehicle.

I guess I'll judge it when I'm next there!

[bathurst77]

While I enjoy the sprints
I do wonder if it takes shine off Sunday.
If I was only going to the track one day, I would go on sprint saturday, You get to see qually and a race as well as supports.

Maybe they should have even more race weekends formats through the year.
Some weekends standard 2 hour sunday weekend we have had for years
some weekends instead of A 2 hour sunday race, two or three short races over the day or over the weekend.
Some weekends sprint saturday 2 hours sunday.
and other mix and match or formats.

Keep the strategists working hard and make it more entertaining.
Also gives different races a unique special event.

[Tourer]

Can't help feeling that the structure of one hour's practice (less than that with red flags) then into Parc Ferme for the whole weekend is a step too far.

Would make more sense to me if the practice session was 90 minutes and stoppages added, so that the teams got the full 90. Then qual, then another qual but maybe take the cars out of parc ferme after Saturday's qual, so the teams can tweak them for the two races and back into parc ferme as usual at the conclusion of the sprint.

Just feel that would work better, make the competition more "real" and give us maybe some better racing (although writing this before the GP so might be pre-judging).

[chillibowl]

right!

and after a month break, some extra running time/set up time would have definitely added to the proceedings.

[sizzle]

The less practice running the better I think, stops them fine tuning to the minute detail.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by sizzle

The less practice running the better I think, stops them fine tuning to the minute detail.

In these days of colossal amounts of data and virtual running, I do feel that it's a pity that teams don't get to run the actual car more in a way. I also reckon there are more virtuous routes to mixing up the competition than limiting track time.

Your point about fine tuning is an interesting one - does having less track time benefit the smaller teams and give them a chance to show their strategic prowess and catch the bigger teams out, who have less time to relentlessly perfect their operation, or does it actually benefit the bigger teams and prevent the smaller ones from having more chance to close up?