I’m not sure why this makes a difference? Pundits are paid to give an opinion, whether on an official broadcast or not. The issue here isn’t that he is giving a biased opinion. The issue is really that you’ve first made the assumption that an opinion which benefits Lewis must be biased in the first place. I can’t speak for Ted, but I believe 99% of people who hold the view that Hamilton was robbed last year including me would equally strongly hold that view if it was any of the other 18 drivers on the grid. Therefore to me it isn’t biased, it’s just an opinion which he is paid to offer.
F1 2022 Season
- Thread starter pauldyson1uk
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Pearl clutching.
It added another dimension to the strategy. Start empty and speed off, go super heavy and try a no stopper... etc. I have positive memories ofit during the Schumi/Hakkinen, Schumi/Hill seasons, I'd like to see a return of it.
But then again if the future of F1 is people not being able to say the truth on official F1 content... who the feck cares anymore? We've gotten used to F1 races being flogged off to any flogging dictatorship over the years but if this becomes the norm they can move FIA/Liberty etc. headquarters to north Korea for all I care.
I don’t see how it is biased commentary though. The point would have equally been the same if roles were reversed or indeed any other driver other than Hamilton was involved.
So trying to phrase it as bias is just a bullshit sound bite really for fans who want to latch on to something to latch on to. The reality is RB just didn’t like the opinion, not that it’s biased. And that’s fine by the way, and if they don’t want to speak to Sky then don’t speak to Sky.
His win % is 70% while Schumacher in a 13 wins season was 72,2% and Vettel had 68,4% win percentage in his 13 wins season.
If Max wins next 2 races his win percentage will ve better then Schumacher's at 72,7%. So it's not just about many races.
To be fair Ferrari was faster car in first races and he will probably be second in each race he DNFed in. People are forgetting how fast Ferrari looked at the start of the season. Some people started to speculate after third race if anyone can beat Leclerc (which was stupid to do but still).
0,37% overspends, really.
People forget that their submission was around 5 mil bellow cost cap, as it's seems all the did the same to be safe, and they went over because of probably some stupid accounting rules.
If they could make another submissive with the knowledge they have now they would be probably millions below. It's on them they didn't do dry run etc. but to pretend it mattered on the performance front anyway is just crazy.
Yeah they clearly went over because of stupid accounting rules not because they spent the money.
Not averse to it. But the reason 2 compounds works is only when you’ve got something on the cusp of a 2 stop or 1 stop race. Or, on the odd occasion, where teams seem confused about data on longevity and reality (like yesterday).
With 3 compounds, every race will be a two stopper (assuming tyres in their current form and not changed on durability). And by large I’d expect teams to do the same thing generally. I could be wrong though and tbh am not averse to it being tried.
Mexico GP Race Result
| Rank | Driver | Number | Team | Grid | Pits | Fastest Lap | Race Time | PointsPts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Max Verstappen | 1 | Red Bull | 1 | 1 | 1:22.046 | 1:38:36.729 | 25 |
| 2 | Lewis Hamilton | 44 | Mercedes | 3 | 1 | 1:22.062 | 15.186 behind | 18 |
| 3 | Sergio Perez | 11 | Red Bull | 4 | 1 | 1:21.775 | 18.097 behind | 15 |
| 4 | George Russell | 63 | Mercedes | 2 | 2 | fastest overall lap 1:20.153 | 49.431 behind | 13 |
| 5 | Carlos Sainz Jnr | 55 | Ferrari | 5 | 1 | 1:22.199 | 58.123 behind | 10 |
| 6 | Charles Leclerc | 16 | Ferrari | 7 | 1 | 1:22.603 | 1:08.774 behind | 8 |
| 7 | Daniel Ricciardo | 3 | McLaren | 11 | 1 | 1:22.022 | 1 lap behind | 6 |
| 8 | Esteban Ocon | 31 | Alpine | 10 | 1 | 1:23.279 | 1 lap behind | 4 |
| 9 | Lando Norris | 4 | McLaren | 8 | 1 | 1:23.402 | 1 lap behind | 2 |
| 10 | Valtteri Bottas | 77 | Alfa Romeo | 6 | 1 | 1:23.363 | 1 lap behind | 1 |
| 11 | Pierre Gasly | 10 | AlphaTauri | 14 | 1 | 1:22.277 | 1 lap behind | 0 |
| 12 | Alexander Albon | 23 | Williams | 17 | 1 | 1:22.914 | 1 lap behind | 0 |
| 13 | Guanyu Zhou | 24 | Alfa Romeo | 12 | 1 | 1:22.260 | 1 lap behind | 0 |
| 14 | Sebastian Vettel | 5 | Aston Martin | 16 | 1 | 1:23.086 | 1 lap behind | 0 |
| 15 | Lance Stroll | 18 | Aston Martin | 20 | 2 | 1:22.463 | 1 lap behind | 0 |
| 16 | Mick Schumacher | 47 | Haas | 15 | 1 | 1:23.641 | 1 lap behind | 0 |
| 17 | Kevin Magnussen | 20 | Haas | 19 | 1 | 1:23.300 | 1 lap behind | 0 |
| 18 | Nicholas Latifi | 6 | Williams | 18 | 2 | 1:23.709 | 2 laps behind | 0 |
| 19 | Fernando Alonso | 14 | Alpine | 9 | 1 | 1:22.866 | did not finish completed 63 laps | 0 |
| not classified | Yuki Tsunoda | 22 | AlphaTauri | 13 | 1 | 1:23.403 | did not finish completed 50 laps | 0 |
But but but we went over the cost cap cos my version of excel does the formulas wrong, init.
What’s the difference between 2nd and 3rd in the constructors? As in, difference in wind tunnel time. Difference in prize money. What else? I wonder because potentially for a team where finances aren’t an issue (Merc, Ferrari), at this stage would you even want to come 2nd over 3rd? Wondering if it explains perhaps whatever Ferrari decided to do to their cars yesterday.
Not hearing from Horner during the race was a plus.
I did not think it was biased, it was just Ted being Ted, but also not shocked Red Bull took offense to it, nobody like being called cheats (even if you are, maybe!)
The cheating point has nothing to do with Abu Dhabi though. Putting cost cap aside (as I don’t think that was Ted’s point was it?), Abu Dhabi wasn’t about calling RB cheats it was just about how the set of circumstances robbed Lewis the title. Which really had nothing to do with Red Bull but the inference is that as a result Max’s title is worth less because Lewis should have won.
In my opinion that’s just reality. Even if you assume what Masi did was fine, it’s still true because Lewis was stupidly unlucky to not with that race thanks to Latifi being Latifi (without which he’d have casually gone on to win).
Naturally Red Bull are upset about that opinion because it implies Max was lucky to win. But they can’t change the facts unfortunately.
Oh and yes, Horner personally should boycott all media outlets across the world indefinitely. Please.
Well you can also say that crash that Lewis responsible for costed them over 1 milion and just 2 races later Bottas has crashed in Max which resulted in another costly repear. So if Mercedes wanted to win fairly and not within bumper cars rules that would also resulted Red Bull not being over cost cap.
Because other teams weren’t involved in crashes that year? You know, like the damage caused by Max driving on Lewis’ head?
I already established that it's Hamilton's fault through eating all the caviar in RB's hospitality suites.
You know what they say... the truth hurts.
If you cannot understand how Hamilton was robbed, not just of the race but of an 8th WC, then you either didn't see the race, or you don't understand the rules. Which by the way, the FIA apologised for and sacked the race director.
What rubbish. Horner yet again making himself look stupid.
....Max was very upset by it. Grow up.
It’s a bit sad that ted has re stirred this pot even it is true, Horner said during that race they need a miracle to catch Lewis, enter masi. That’s just facts. No fanboy, no horse in the race, just what happened. Shame f1 has become so tribal
i reckon they should have to use all
of the compounds at the same time, say two rear hards, soft front left, medium front right. that would separate the men from the boys.
Minimum stops for Monaco definately. The rest of the season? Should be a choice. No to refuelling from me as well.
Maybe im out on my own on this, in the thread but i think ballast would have a huge change to F1. If max had to carry an additional 65kg of weight as championship leader, he wouldnt have been sleep-driving himself to consecutive victories.
However on the flipside. RedBull utterly nailed the rule changes and produced their best car since vettel years at RedBull. It really is on Mercedes and Ferrari shoulder to produce a car next season that can challenge.
Will be interesting to see if RedBull lose the straight line speed advantage next season, i dont doubt that Ferrari and Mercedes will have Shell and Petronas working overtime to get their fuel addatives sorted out. Optimise ERS deployment. Add to that weight reduction, making their cars less draggy (RB have set the template).
However probably more important than anything, nail the suspension setup.
It certainly does, as Mercedes know very well. Spending hundreds of millions more than other teams before the budget caps came in
That was very boring race.
It has to be said, strategies this year from all teams except Red Bull have been mostly poor, it's like they get different set of 10 different compounds every weekend and not the same tires they have used for 20 races now. Also I don't get how they don't learn anything from 3 full practice sessions before every race.
Russel learned mid race and insisted that he can go on medium-soft strategy from that point and yet his pit crew didn't agree with it for some reason.
It has to be said, strategies this year from all teams except Red Bull have been mostly poor, it's like they get different set of 10 different compounds every weekend and not the same tires they have used for 20 races now. Also I don't get how they don't learn anything from 3 full practice sessions before every race.
Russel learned mid race and insisted that he can go on medium-soft strategy from that point and yet his pit crew didn't agree with it for some reason.
The top three teams were evenly matched coming into the budget cap dry run in 2020, more ten's of million difference rather than the conjecture of 'hundreds of millions more'.
https://www.essentiallysports.com/f...f1-teams-including-mercedes-red-bull-ferrari/
| F1 Teams | Budget Between 2015 & 2019 | ||||
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | |
| Mercedes | $527.6M | $352M | $352.1M | $400M | $484M |
| Ferrari | $474.7M | $483.3M | $295.3M | $410M | $463M |
| Red Bull | $532.5M | $286.2M | $284M | $310M | $445M |
| McLaren | $528.3M | $246.4M | $240.8M | $220M | $269M |
| Alpine (Renault/Lotus) | $149.8M | 199.8M | $195.4M | $190M | $272M |
| Aston Martin (Racing Point/Force India) | $147.3M | $119.2M | $117M | $120M | $188M |
| AlphaTauri (Toro Rosso) | $156.1M | $132.8M | $130.6M | $150M | $138M |
| Alfa Romeo (Sauber) | $117.2M | $126M | $123.8M | $135M | $132M |
| Williams | $217.7M | $139.6M | $136.3M | $150M | $141M |
| Haas | NA |
Everyone played it safe bar Ricciardo yesterday. To your point above, they learn as much as they can but they never run a car at full weight with fuel until the race, so they'll rely a lot on data from previous races to help there. However the variables of weather, track temperature, and track condition will always impact strategy to some point where they can't guarantee an absolute strategy.
Pirelli should probably go a bit more aggressive on compound choices next year to open up a variety of strategy choices.
Yet even they managed to comply with the rules.
How do you know that. Based on what actual data because I was not aware that teams published their spend.
What percentage of the car development budget was their over spend? That would be a more relevant metric.
How many other teams made this "mistake"?
Dodgiest team on the grid.
Extra weight would, bring all the cars closer, but also add extra wear and tear , costing the top teams more in the long run, came see any team wanting it really.
Next season, hopefully we will see a few teams in it, Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes.
It seems that Red Bull learns from somewhere wher others don't then.
I don't see how after all practice session Mercedes drivers come out and say "hards are shit", despite their team choosing hards to be used in more than half of the race. How exactly did they decide hards are good option if they didn't do any testing before?
I guess I would just draw a clear distinction between something said on a broadcast during a race versus someone talking about it on a panel. I agree with his take of course - Lewis was absolutely robbed - but I can also understand why Verstappen would be annoyed that this is being brought up out of nowhere in the middle of a race for everyone to hear. Again, I would say that if Ted had done this after a race or in some other medium that would be entirely fair - but I personally don't think Verstappen is being overly precious here if that makes sense.
Based on what they want to be true.
Damn, now Verstappen has two asterisk titles.
Verstappen, Horner, and the rest of Red Bull are perfectly within their rights to refuse any interviews with Sky, like Fergie with the BBC for years.
However, given that Sky have paid an awful lot for broadcasting rights, those refusals should be fined every time, just like Fergie was. Then at least it becomes principle as well as pettiness.
However, given that Sky have paid an awful lot for broadcasting rights, those refusals should be fined every time, just like Fergie was. Then at least it becomes principle as well as pettiness.
Based on last two sentence it's not worth responding but i still will.
The loudest rumor is that they didn't included Newey's salary since he is in top 3 earners but the contract they have with Newey makes him outsourced partner and couldn't be excluded. They had this type of contract with him for years and if that is right they will surely change it this season. So the additional cost that pushed them from way below cost cap to over it didn't come out of development budget since it was accounting error and not overspend.
People fail to understand that a lot of things are excluded from the budget and team like Mercedes with all the additional costs for drivers salary, top 3 earners, marketing budget and others things that are excluded still spend a lot more than a team like Haas.
So narative that Red Bull gained some sort of big advantage by going 400k pounds over all other teams which spend the same is very naive since it's not the case.
Their first submission as I said was 5 mil below, many teams probably left themselves even more leeway and some others probably went much more to the limit and the money spend which is included in the cost cap from team to team varied in the millions. Not even mentioning costs that are excluded.
And you say that 400k significantly impacted results in those circumstances...
Yes in the end they were over and have to pay big fine and are heavily impacted from reduction of wind tunnel testing but those punishment have much bigger negative impact that the money overspend could have positive impact. To be fair like all punishments should have.
Not even any anecdotal evidence.
Red Bull has such an advantage that it doesn't need to learn, the car will be faster than the field so they'll be able to make any tyre strategy work.
Hards were probably chosen to go longer for Mercedes, on the chance that the Mediums would drop off for Red Bull. This was their only chance to win the race, they wouldn't have been able to match the strategy and pace of Red Bull. So the strategy they played was to go longer on both compounds, and the harder compounds have particularly worked well for Mercedes this year and from their data then would suggest that going to medium again wouldn't work for tyre life and also they would need to stop again to put on a different regulatory compound. Quickest route to the finish was a one stop yesterday.
What disrupted that strategy was that Red Bull were very good on tyre wear in this race, and made the medium last (only one driver, Norris, went longer on mediums in a race this year than Red Bull in Mexico). I don't think Hamilton could have improved from 2nd, but the gamble Mercedes should have made was to put Russell on a more aggressive strategy to put pressure on Perez. However to try an insinuate that the race was lost by Mercedes due to strategy, and not because of the speed differential to Red Bull, is a bit disingenuous.