And he gets a 10 position grid penalty for his first start.
New engine, the 5th they’ve used.
Alpine (Renault) will stop producing engines in 2025 and from 2026 will become a Merc customer team.
Sad.
I blame Adrian Newey.
Back when KERS first entered the rules Adrian wanted to do a light version himself and Renault were only superficially involved whereas Mercedes themselves got heavily involved in the hybrid system and modelling and controlling it discovering several strengths Adrian (and me if I’m honest) didn’t realise were there.
So once hybrid became a bigger part of the overall engine performance they were years behind.
From my experience I would say their IC engines were the best of them all. The turbo engine never was in a good enough chassis and the V10 did pretty well.
FWIW when Lotus fitted the Honda engine which they (and Honda and the publicity) had assured everybody was the best they were 2 secs per lap slower than us at the same fuel consumption at the first test in 1987, whereas with the much derided (by them and the press which believed them) Renault they were more competitive than that in 1986.
5 Likes
…and from a more superficial POV, we edge ever-closer to a one-make series… 
the end of F1
3 Likes
draweth nearer!
1 Like
Hence me giving the thread the title that I did.
3 Likes
3 Likes
Did the brake bias device also exist in the RB car?
I know there was a lot of media fuss about it, but also reports suggesting that was all it was - fuss, with no actual physical device in existence.
I have talked to a few people in teams and there is no clear view as to what RBR were doing, let alone RB. The rules already outlawed what has been suggested on the internet.
Having said all that I looked at the GPS data before the additional rule and after and there is very clearly a change in how the car compared to other cars. The Car worsened on corner entry which then resulted in worse apex and corner exit. With the current regs, this is what you would see if the brakes were changed at the rear to apply equal pressure, instead of a valve reducing the pressure on one side and increasing it on the other
The differences are small in terms of laptime, but they do add up and are why the RBR has dropped off and has lost their early season dominance.
But correlation is not causation!
8 Likes
Id like to think I “get” F1 more than the casual fan but I’m completely and utterly stumped with yesterday’s stewarding
https://x.com/bradleyphilpot/status/1848121149202575445?s=46&t=JAZ29qzJW_ggL3AI1Le9Xg
Jenson nails it
https://x.com/i_am_pablo78/status/1848117158833779025?s=46&t=JAZ29qzJW_ggL3AI1Le9Xg
“Making” the apex with no intention of making the corner shouldn’t be OK. Max has made it his standard move under duress
(Which isn’t meant to take away from an otherwise excellent defensive drive against Lando. I’m not saying the bloke can’t pedal)
(Damn you, Elon. Links need clicking on)
4 Likes
In the second piece it looks like CH is agreeing.
1 Like
Had Max merely pushed Lando off the track that would have been (well, should have been…) what was under investigation, yet when it came to adjudicating the incident that factor wasn’t really considered because Max had knowingly released his brakes in order to run ahead thru the apex - knowing full well that he would run beyond track limits due to the consequent overspeed.
To me this is pushing ‘gaming’ defensive driving to the point of open, obvious cheating - and this is very much not Max’s first rodeo as JB so rightly implies.
The FIA adjudication report mealy-mouthedly half-acknowledges the situation by noting they gave Norris a 5 second penalty and not the full 10 second penalty that would be the norm…
I wonder how many other drivers aside from Verstappen - with less influential and pushy Team Principles - would have been allowed such enormous latitude…?
4 Likes
Caveat - I’m not a fan of Max Verstappen.
But I found this interesting.
Mercedes-AMG point out that Russell got a 5 second penalty for forcing another driver off track where Verstappen didn’t one when clearly forcing himself and Norris off.
As both Norris and Verstappen were off track, it seems fair for the F.I.A to remove Norris’s 5 second penalty because if both cars are off track then it should be open to who returns to it first and in any position
For example: if Verstappen led Norris by the slightest of margin and forced the two of them off track then Verstappen recovered slower. It would be silly that Norris should have to wait for Verstappen to recover and then give him back the position.
Hmm.
A separate situation to the one where MV was driving to be ahead at the apex rather than make the corner, as the rules say “the car ahead at the apex has the track” (or something to that effect). It’s been argued that an overtake should leave room for the car being overtaken, but MV being ahead at the apex means he was not overtaking (he had already overtaken LN), and as such this rule does not apply and he was not required to leave on-track room for LN.
1 Like
Dang. Autosport seem to feel the same way!
Quiet weekend, apparently
1 Like
A little kharmic adjustment for Verstappen, Chico a no-show, Ferrari resurgent - enjoyable race, but not overmuch to say about it really.
Not at-all pleasing to see RBR drop to third in the Constructors… 
4 Likes
