Formula 1 2021 - General Discussion Thread (Read 1st post rules)

El_Duderino 09

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

We don't really, Ocon signed for 3 years with Alpine. That to me means no ties to Merc...at all.

No it doesn't. It doesnt preclude other contractual obligations with Mercedes e.g. he can sign for whoever he likes but Mercedes can call him home at any time they want or at predetermined points like after the end of s season, or they have to pay a buyout payment but have the choice to buy him out. Who knows?

Frank Bullitt

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No it doesn't. It doesnt preclude other contractual obligations with Mercedes e.g. he can sign for whoever he likes but Mercedes can call him home at any time they want or at predetermined points like after the end of s season, or they have to pay a buyout payment but have the choice to buy him out. Who knows?

That is complete conjecture on your part. I could equally say Ferrari could have the same sway, doesn't make it true.

He has no contractual obligations with Mercedes, none.

duploelabs

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

That is complete conjecture on your part. I could equally say Ferrari could have the same sway, doesn't make it true.

He has no contractual obligations with Mercedes, none.

Except the team boss is also his agent

pjohnson

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No it doesn't. It doesnt preclude other contractual obligations with Mercedes e.g. he can sign for whoever he likes but Mercedes can call him home at any time they want or at predetermined points like after the end of s season, or they have to pay a buyout payment but have the choice to buy him out. Who knows?

For someone who "doesnt have a clue" you sure love repeating incorrect claims.

the_pen_turner

duploelabs wrote: »

Except the team boss is also his agent

and co owner of merc team

muckwarrior

I know he's not the first example of it, but it seems a bit bizarre that a team principal can also be a driver agent. How is it not a conflict of interests?

bennyx_o

https://twitter.com/MercedesAMGF1/status/1405193540796289027?s=19

Grosjeans test in the Mercedes postponed

El_Duderino 09

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

That is complete conjecture on your part. I could equally say Ferrari could have the same sway, doesn't make it true.

He has no contractual obligations with Mercedes, none.

Yeah I know. I said "for example" at the beginningand "who knows?" at the end to signify that it's an example and that it was conjecture. Its also true that a co tract with Alpine doesn't preclude a contract with Mercedes and it's conjecture based on the fact that we have conflicting information from sources within
within f1, where your Ferrari point is just made up based on nothing.

We have conflicting information so we can't be sure wither way. Why is this such a big deal to some people?

El_Duderino 09

pjohnson wrote: »

For someone who "doesnt have a clue" you sure love repeating incorrect claims.

I'm admitting I don't know because we have conflictinginformation. You're asserting your claim with certainty you couldn't possibly have based on conflicting information. We'll just have to acceot the uncertainty and wait and see what happens.

Why is it such a big deal to you anyway? It's a pretty trivial point to get worked up over.

El_Duderino 09

muckwarrior wrote: »

I know he's not the first example of it, but it seems a bit bizarre that a team principal can also be a driver agent. How is it not a conflict of interests?

He had part ownership of both Williams and Mercedes for a while. He had to be given time to sell the shares in Williams when he bought into Mercedes. That seems like a pretty clear conflict of interest too. But ultimately its a sport and an entertainment as well as a business.

I remember when Ferrari were selling engines to Sauber in about 1998 and if a ferrari fell behind a Sauber, Jean Todt would toddle down to sauber and ask them to over and let the Ferrari past. Implication was that there was a quick negotiation like free engines at the next race in exchange for allowing the Ferrari past.

F1 isn't just about pure sport, or pure business, or pure entertainment. It's a blend of the three.

klose

Re: Ocon, isn't it common place for drivers to have clauses to allow them move to more competitive teams if the situation arises? I've heard it mentioned a couple times about Max.

barryribs

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/57476106
Pirelli investigated their own tyres and to the shock of absolutely no one, the found that their tyres were fine. Its hard to think of a worse tyre manufacturere in F1 without a tyre war going on.

flazio

barryribs wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/57476106
Pirelli investigated their own tyres and to the shock of absolutely no one, the found that their tyres were fine. Its hard to think of a worse tyre manufacturere in F1 without a tyre war going on.

Discussed a bit in the race thread.

AMKC

bennyx_o wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MercedesAMGF1/status/1405193540796289027?s=19

Grosjeans test in the Mercedes postponed

Awe that's a pity. I would say Silverstone would be a good place to let him do it if he can then. Doubt he would make Austria for it. What track do you think he will get to drive one on?

AMKC

flazio wrote: »

Discussed a bit in the race thread.

Is there is race thread. I never knew lol.

El_Duderino 09

barryribs wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/57476106
Pirelli investigated their own tyres and to the shock of absolutely no one, the found that their tyres were fine. Its hard to think of a worse tyre manufacturere in F1 without a tyre war going on.

I have no love for Pirelli but i think that's harsh. They keep telling the teams to not d1ck about with the tyre pressures because it can cause tyres to fail and the teams keep d1cking about with tyre pressures and they tyres failed. How is that Pirelli's fault?

Joeface

COLD tire pressure checks this weekend as well

El_Duderino 09

Joeface wrote: »

COLD tire pressure checks this weekend as well

That's a good step. They were testing the tyres pre-race, so the teams started overheating the tyres using the tyre blankets so they would pass the pressure test but then cool down so they pressure would be lower during the race. They limited tyre blankets to the ideal tyre temperature as a result, but teams are always doing their best to get around the rules.

Next year they will have standard temperature and pressure sensors on the tyres which will feed back during the race. So that should be the end of it. Given that the teams are doing all they can to run the tyres below the legal pressure (recommended because going below the legal limit increases risk of the tyre distorting at high speed and failing - as happened twice in Baku), I can't see how the tyre failure is Pirelli's fault.

barryribs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I have no love for Pirelli but i think that's harsh. They keep telling the teams to not d1ck about with the tyre pressures because it can cause tyres to fail and the teams keep d1cking about with tyre pressures and they tyres failed. How is that Pirelli's fault?

Both teams have said that they complied with Pirelli's instructions at all times and Pirelli have no obligation to make tyres so close to the limit. Almost every year there is one race where there are multiple tyre failures, meaning that they are not properly constructed to withstand the load, or are not robust enough to allow teams to run on them.



But you're probably right, its not Pirelli's fault, not the teams fault, like Jenson said - voodoo magic caused it.

El_Duderino 09

barryribs wrote: »

Both teams have said that they complied with Pirelli's instructions at all times and Pirelli have no obligation to make tyres so close to the limit. Almost every year there is one race where there are multiple tyre failures, meaning that they are not properly constructed to withstand the load, or are not robust enough to allow teams to run on them.



But you're probably right, its not Pirelli's fault, not the teams fault, like Jenson said - voodoo magic caused it.

Is it voodoo magic? I hadn't considered that.

I'd say it's just down to the teams getting around the tests and running the tyres lower than the regulations permit, against the manufacturer's instructions.

The tests are done before the race, so they do their best to test compliant and then run the pressure lower during the race. The teams want the regulation pressure reduced so they can gain performance, and Pirelli want to increase the pressures to increase safety.

You say it's nobody's fault, I think the cause is pretty clear. If you were Pirelli and you told the teams and the FIA that running the pressures below the regulations increases the chances of a tyre failure. The FIA set the regulation pressure and the teams insist on running the pressures as low as possible during the race, would you accept responsibility when their tyres fail and they were running the pressures lower than you wanted?

You say it's voodoo. I think it's much simpler than that. Teams always try to get around regulations and try to gain as much performance and come as close to failure as possible without actually causing a failure. This time the two teams whose tyres failed erred slightly on the wrong side.

Frank Bullitt

duploelabs wrote: »

Except the team boss is also his agent

So? That is a far cry from being contractually obligated to a team.

Frank Bullitt

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I know. I said "for example" at the beginningand "who knows?" at the end to signify that it's an example and that it was conjecture. Its also true that a co tract with Alpine doesn't preclude a contract with Mercedes and it's conjecture based on the fact that we have conflicting information from sources within
within f1, where your Ferrari point is just made up based on nothing.

We have conflicting information so we can't be sure wither way. Why is this such a big deal to some people?

Can't say we do. We have an official contract announcement with a team, and then you have rumours.

El_Duderino 09

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

Can't say we do. We have an official contract announcement with a team, and then you have rumours.

People sign contracts all the time and both parties will give very different understandings of what the contract means.

There are 4 potential parties involved and we've only heard from one of them - Alpine. And they gave the one version that they want to argue which is that they have full control of the driver. We haven't heard from Ocon, Mercedes or Wolff (acting as Ocon's manager). They're under no obligation to tell us anything.

I'll just stick to the unconventional approach of not pretending like I know information that I couldn't possibly know. You can do as you please, obviously.

Frank Bullitt

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

People sign contracts all the time and both parties will give very different understandings of what the contract means.

There are 4 potential parties involved and we've only heard from one of them - Alpine. And they gave the one version that they want to argue which is that they have full control of the driver. We haven't heard from Ocon, Mercedes or Wolff (acting as Ocon's manager). They're under no obligation to tell us anything.

I'll just stick to the unconventional approach of not pretending like I know information that I couldn't possibly know. You can do as you please, obviously.

Grand, you can stick with the conspiracy theory approach, I will stick with the known facts.

mickdw

Very harsh on pirelli.
Tyre testing and testing in general is so limited now that they are in a tricky situation. Experience, science and simulation can only do so much. They have to produce a tyre that can live with the different demands from all the different cars, live with teams running the tyres with stupidly low pressures and deal with teams running the tyres past the recommended lap limit. You will get unexpected outcomes in this type of scenario when putting real tyres on the tarmac has been so restricted testing wise.
Dont forget, they were originally told to produce tyres that would add to excitement by drastically losing performance at end of life.

El_Duderino 09

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

Grand, you can stick with the conspiracy theory approach, I will stick with the known facts.

Ah that's being silly. I can't see your reason for getting caught up on this point. It's pretty trivial. We have different people telling us conflicting info and they only cover small parts of the situation. What can we say except "I don't know"?

Why would you or I need to pretend we know the whole story when neither of us could possibly know?

Frank Bullitt

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah that's being silly. I can't see your reason for getting caught up on this point. It's pretty trivial. We have different people telling us conflicting info and they only cover small parts of the situation. What can we say except "I don't know"?

Why would you or I need to pretend we know the whole story when neither of us could possibly know?

I can't really understand your point though. Ocon has just signed a 3 year deal with Alpine, yet you think/say he is still a Merc driver. He is managed by Toto yes, but it is clear that Russell is fav to step into that, Ocon clearly sees this and has stuck to Alpine (great move for both with the marketing etc and rule change).

There is no conflicting info.

flazio

Wasn't Flavio Briatore Alonso's manager throughout his McLaren, Ferrari and Renault days?

quokula

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is it voodoo magic? I hadn't considered that.

I'd say it's just down to the teams getting around the tests and running the tyres lower than the regulations permit, against the manufacturer's instructions.

The tests are done before the race, so they do their best to test compliant and then run the pressure lower during the race. The teams want the regulation pressure reduced so they can gain performance, and Pirelli want to increase the pressures to increase safety.

You say it's nobody's fault, I think the cause is pretty clear. If you were Pirelli and you told the teams and the FIA that running the pressures below the regulations increases the chances of a tyre failure. The FIA set the regulation pressure and the teams insist on running the pressures as low as possible during the race, would you accept responsibility when their tyres fail and they were running the pressures lower than you wanted?

You say it's voodoo. I think it's much simpler than that. Teams always try to get around regulations and try to gain as much performance and come as close to failure as possible without actually causing a failure. This time the two teams whose tyres failed erred slightly on the wrong side.

You seem to be making stuff up - there is zero evidence that either team didn’t comply with the recommended tyre pressures - in fact all evidence is to the contrary, that they did comply, and you’re just advancing a conspiracy theory that two completely different teams with completely different car designs somehow both magically got around the limits in a way nobody can prove or measure.

I have sympathy for Pirelli, it’s near impossible for them to make good tyres with the extreme testing limits and the seriously overweight unfit for purpose hybrid cars, but they have produced absolutely nothing to suggest the tyre failure was anyone else’s fault.

Pen Rua

In Sky’s F1 Show (available on YouTube) they ask Ocon if the Mercedes dream is over. He says he is still “managed by Mercedes” (direct quote). He says he will be a “full Alpine driver” for the next 3 years with “no interaction” with Mercedes.