rbirules
+92Laatste reacties
Popular on GPBlog
1
Chaos at Red Bull only grows: Tsunoda distrusts Verstappen and where is Marko?
1202 times read
2
Tsunoda on Verstappen help: 'He wouldn't tell the truth'
1118 times read
3
Hamilton in jibe at Red Bull: 'Not surprised to see from them'
732 times read
4
Newey's wife responds to Marko: 'That doesn't make sense'
724 times read
+0
rbirules
Car (speed without DRS, with DRS) at Spa: Red Bull - 320.5, 340.8 gain of 20 kph Ferrari - 318.3, 337.3 gain of 19 kph McLaren - 311.6, 326.9 gain of 15 kph Merc (Ham) - 319.8, 333.0 gain of 13 kph Merc (Rus) - 303.2, 327.5 gain of 24 kph! Hamilton had a low downforce rear wing, Russell had a high downforce rear wing. Hamilton was thus able to stay close to the RB and Ferrari in terms of top speed, but once he was no longer part of a DRS train and the RB had DRS behind him he was passed as the RB then had 20 kph more speed. The low downforce RW is why Lewis didn't gain as much speed with DRS open, less drag to reduce, and it's why Russell gained even more than the RB or Ferrari with DRS open because he had more drag to lose. The RB19 is just the most aero efficient car, though the Ferrari was close (but it eats tires), which means it's usually the fastest in terms of top speed (after accounting for differences in rear wing).08-08-2023 20:44
+0
rbirules
He may or may not have meant to imply that but it's not what he said. His position means that his words reach a lot of people, so I would think or at least hope, he'd be more careful with them. It's a very silly (to put it nicely) thing to say, regardless. Red Bull received a penalty. Full stop. Nobody knows how much it has affected them. In terms of WCC and WDC standings they are still at the top, but they may have had to delay some updates, or skip some entirely so that they don't take away CFD and wind tunnel time that they had planned for next year's car (like every team does). Every team faces that trade off, but due to the penalty, the decision is even harder for RB. But Ted didn't convey that level of nuance (at least according to this story). Kravitz does his own credibility (if he cares about such things) a disservice by making categorically false statements like this. But it's gotten him attention, and creating talking points . . .19-06-2023 21:21
+0
rbirules
There's a difference between saying "a penalty's affect will be mitigated because RB have Newey and are already on the right development path" and "it's not really a penalty at all is it?". The first still shows they are penalized but the effects were minimized because of how strong the team is (Newey getting most of that credit). The second is implying that a penalty has to have a predetermined outcome on results, or it's not really a penalty, which is a different thing all together. The extreme end of that line of thinking is that each team would need to be penalized differently for the same offense because each team has different capabilities in terms of meeting objectives while serving a penalty that reduces their resources available to meet said objectives. It is categorically false to say "it's not a penalty at all". RB paid a fine, and are now having their CFD and wind tunnel resources reduced by 10% as punishment. Full stop.19-06-2023 18:29
+0
rbirules
I agree "penalties are not there to prevent someone from winning". That seems to be the stance Kravitz is taking with his comments, and I was merely pointing out what a silly position that is, which you seem to agree with. Red Bull have build a great car because they have a great engineering team and found a really good development. The penalty will slow their progress down that path, but probably not enough that other teams on other paths (or teams that have switched to the same path as Red Bull, but much later) will catch up to them. But we won't know that for sure until later this year or even next year, which again, makes Kravitz's comments even sillier as he's claiming to already know that it wasn't a penalty when the effects of it haven't played out (the punishment isn't even over yet).19-06-2023 21:35
+0
rbirules
Again, back to one of my original comments here, there's a difference between "having Newey, and a great team of engineers, and knowing which development path to follow means that this penalty won't impact their standings very much" and "then it's not really a penalty at all, is it?" are very different statements. Sorry if I hold the comments of somebody who is part of a broadcast that is distributed all over the world to a higher standard than anonymous posters on a message board that say whatever comes to mind as soon as they think it without giving much thought to how it will come across. It is a penalty. Full stop. Any comment to the contrary or that even insinuates that it's not a penalty (at all), is categorically wrong. Not all penalties impact standings, nor will they all impact teams in the same way. A team that knows which direction to go but is slowed down that path is affected by a penalty. Those effects might not materialize in the standings, but there's still an impact on the RB19 and/or RB20. Kravitz's actual statement has already been proven wrong by anybody that understands what the word penalty means. Even if their initial design was good enough to shift focus to 2024 early, the penalty then impacts how much work they can now do on the RB20. No matter what car they are working on (or both simultaneously) they are currently being punished, and thus limited in how much they can work on that car. I think we're actually in agreement over where RB will likely finish in the standings despite this penalty, but we couldn't disagree more on the semantics of the comments made. The mental gymnastics needed to twist Kravitz's straight forward statement into what you are suggesting is too much for me. Maybe it's a cultural difference, and this is a common way to express what you are suggesting Ted meant in England, but based on the reaction of others on here I'm guessing that's not the case. If it were then Hamilton's Silverstone 2021 penalty wasn't really a penalty, neither were either of his penalties at Brazil in 2021, nor were either of Max's grid penalties at Spa or Monza in 2022, or any time penalty that doesn't change the order of the race results.20-06-2023 04:18
+0
rbirules
The Silverstone example was brought up because Kravitz's whole line of thinking is built around "it's not a penalty if you are still able to win/dominate", thus Hamilton's 10 second penalty in Silverstone "is not a penalty at all, is it?" if he was still able to win the race. It's the exact same argument. Either RB is brilliant in overcoming the 10% reduction in wind tunnel and CFD, just like Lewis was in overcoming a 10 second penalty, or neither is a penalty at all because it didn't prevent the offender from winning. Same argument could be made for any penalty (grid penalty for new PU elements, safety car infringement, pushing a driver off, etc.) if the party being penalized still wins that race, or that championship.19-06-2023 18:36
+0
rbirules
Only way to reschedule (without having four or more races in a row) is to shorten the summer break by a week, which I doubt will happen.17-05-2023 20:53
+0
rbirules
Leclerc reliability DNFs: -Spain -Baku Leclerc race ending crashes: -France Verstappen reliability DNFs: -Bahrain -Australia Max could have DNF'd five more times (four more than Leclerc did) and still won this year.22-11-2022 14:47
+0
rbirules
Agreed. He would have started P3 if not P2 in the race most likely. From there he would have been in an optimal position to capitalize on any Ferrari strategy mistakes. It's unfortunate for Max that three issues he had in qualifying all occurred on the hardest tracks to overtake (Monaco, Hungary, Singapore). Hungary he was able to move up from 10th to 1st but there passing on track is at least possible, whereas in Monaco you're lucky to see one on track overtake in an entire race. Singapore is in between Monaco and Hungaroring in terms of difficulties in passing on track, but the weather made it worse.02-11-2022 20:30
+0
rbirules
There was an article on here last week, or rather a summary of another article (AMuS I think) just like this one, where RB/Horner said that Newey was one of the top three exclusions and that Marko wasn't in the cost cap because he's not part of RBR (or whatever the entity that runs the F1 team is called). Marko's responsibilities are outside the team (driver academy, etc.) and thus doesn't need to be included in the cap.19-10-2022 03:39