2021 Formula 1 Thread

[abm89]

I don't recall any constructors' championship winners in the hybrid turbo era except Mercedes. Mostly by over 250 points.

I don't know why you're bringing that up. I specifically mentioned overall tire performance.

Two blowouts from Baku were the public reason for the compound change. One assumes that more analysis was done, but we're not privy to it. I don't recall any other unexplained tire failures this season before Silverstone. But maybe that was coincidence.

This is purely conjecture. There are reports that Pirelli stated the blowouts were due to improper running conditions (ie. pressures), and they enforced checks in the subsequent races, not a compound swap (to correct myself). I couldn't find anything about a compound swap, but Verstappen's pace at Silverstone makes that argument a moot point.

Everyone pushes the envelope. Be it RB trying to include a horsepower increase in an engine swap, to Ferrari doing whatever they were doing in 2018-2019, to DAS. And 1000 other initiatives. Some have been good for the sport, others not so much. I'm not sure if Mercedes lives within the rules, or is just better at hiding it.

True, but my point earlier outlined how the teams go about exploiting those gray areas. There is a notable difference between making the changes and getting clarifications on the interpretations of the rule-set before running the parts in competition.

Clearly, they sold their 2019 car plans to Tracing Point - that was not a case of clever copying. Might have been Stoll's indiscretion, but a transaction takes two parties.

Again, wildly accusative claims. There was never any proof that the car design it self was sold to Racing Point. With technology today, it is easily possible to design a look-alike car with imaging technology. The one thing that IS a fact with that saga is that the rear brake duct designs were not introduced in 2019, thus rendering them illegal to use in 2020 based on the rules. Listed parts are allowed to be shared between teams so long as they followed that rule. The front duct designs were introduced in 2019 thus being legal. Now, if you want to scrutinize the handling of the FIA allowing the team to continue to use the rear brake ducts in 2020, that's a totally different argument. Combine this with the fact that Racing Point had the FIA check over what they were doing throughout the design process, it is hard to believe that the whole car design was outright sold from Mercedes. More info on that issue and how it a solution was approached for 2021 here.

[DLSTR]

Alfa Romeo urges F1 rules rethink after Norris pitlane entry incident
By:
Adam Cooper
Sep 30, 2021, 4:26 AM


Alfa Romeo boss Fred Vasseur believes Lando Norris should have received a penalty for crossing the pit entry white line during the Russian Grand Prix, as he pushes for a wider Formula 1 rules rethink.

Norris' pit entry incident was a major point of discussion after the Sochi race on Sunday, and many observers were surprised when the McLaren driver received a reprimand rather than the five-second penalty and one licence point that are usually associated with the offence.

The significance was that those five seconds would have made his day even worse, dropping him from seventh place to ninth, behind the Alfa Romeo of Kimi Raikkonen and the Red Bull of Sergio Perez.

It certainly looked like the offence was a slam dunk. When he headed to the pitlane to take intermediates with two laps to go Norris lost control in the pit entry, and his whole car slide across the line and back onto the track. He managed to gather it up and jink back into the pitlane, but in post-race interviews he conceded that a penalty and a further demotion was likely.

When Raikkonen took the chequered flag his Alfa Romeo team was so sure that Norris would be penalised that the Finn was told that his eighth place on the road was expected to become seventh.

To make matters worse for Alfa Romeo, Raikkonen was one of the most recent recipients of a five-second penalty for a pit entry offence, at Mugello last year, one that dropped him from eighth to ninth place in the final results.

It’s no surprise therefore that the news that Norris had received only a reprimand on this occasion was received with incredulity in the Alfa Romeo camp, and not least by team principal Vasseur.

The Norris verdict came in the slipstream of a series of recent FIA decisions that have impacted the Swiss team and left him rueing what Vasseur sees as an apparent lack of consistency.



That list is topped by the awarding of points after two laps behind the safety car in Spa – an outcome that created a 10-point swing to Williams in the battle for eighth place in the constructors’ championship, potentially costing Alfa millions of dollars in prize money.

“I'm very sad for Lando, because he did a fantastic weekend in Sochi,” Vasseur told Autosport. “But it's not because you like the guy and he deserved to win that we have to change the rule. The rule is crystal clear, that if you cross the line, you have to be penalised.

“It was the case on tons of occasions, for 10 times less than this, with [Yuki] Tsunoda in Spielberg, with Raikkonen last year in Mugello. And exactly the same condition with Lewis in Hockenheim in 2019.”

Hamilton’s 2019 German GP penalty was technically for going to the wrong side of the pit entry bollard, not the crossing line, but it earned the same five-second penalty.

If you go further back there were more severe penalties for pit entry offences. Felipe Massa received a drivethrough penalty in his final race for Ferrari in Brazil in 2013 for crossing the entry line when he made a stop in the race, while in a different scenario Sergio Perez also received a drivethrough penalty in the 2012 Monaco GP, although on that occasion the stewards cited a “late pit entry and impeding another driver”.

Intriguingly there is also a precedent for giving a reprimand and not a time penalty for a pit entry offence in a race – and again it involved Hamilton at Hockenheim, this time in 2018. On that occasion he was heading into the pits, and went to the correct side of the bollard, but then opted to cross the line and return to the track.

The stewards subsequently justified the decision to give a reprimand by saying that that “the driver and the team candidly admitted the mistake and the fact that there was confusion within the team as to whether to stay out or to enter the pits and that led to the infringement.”

They added that “that the infringement took place during a safety car period,” and that “at no time was there any danger to any other competitor and the change in direction was executed in a safe way.”


Last weekend’s verdict explained why the stewards had awarded a reprimand and given Norris the benefit of the doubt, noting that he was travelling slowly and that “we do not consider that the crossing of the painted area was intentional or predictable in the circumstances.”

However, Vasseur insists that Norris’s slide back onto the racing line in Sochi was deserving of the usual time penalty.

“I will say that it's even worse in these conditions,” he said. “Because when Tsunoda put a wheel on the white line in Spielberg, it was not a safety issue, it was not a gain of time, because like when you are at the pit exit you go straight if you touch the white line, you are not faster. But he got penalised.

“And nobody complained about this that day, because the rule was clear, you put the wheel on the line, you are penalised.

“Last week, the advantage for Lando was mega. Because in this situation either you take five seconds or you do another lap in the wet on slicks, and you're losing perhaps 25 seconds.

“And probably the five-second penalty is not enough. Because I remember when Lewis took the penalty in Hockenheim [in 2019], 99% of the paddock complained that it was too small.

“Now we are starting to find let's say, not reasons, but the explanation around the incident, and we are looking stupid. The rule is crystal clear. In that rule you never had a consideration about what is the advantage, is it the right circumstance?”

Vasseur sees the Norris decision as an example of too much interpretation on the part of the stewards.

“The question for me is that if we open the door to this kind of discussion each time that someone will put a wheel on the white line we will try to find a good reason,” he explains. “And we will go to the stewards and explain and show the data, and it's an endless discussion.

“I'm scared that the last couple of weekends we had far too many issues. I remember that in quali in Monza a driver [Nikita Mazepin] blocked [Antonio] Giovinazzi, and he didn't get penalised because the team didn't inform him. It's a joke.


“Nobody considered this point before. We did exactly the same in Monaco three years ago, Giovinazzi got penalised, and I didn't complain because we f*cked up the lap of someone.

“It is tough to consider and to try to understand the reasons behind the mistake. It's a new discussion.”

Alfa and Vasseur were also left fuming at the Emilia Romagna GP earlier this year when Raikkonen received a 30-second penalty for not entering the pitlane after spinning before the rolling restart.

Even the stewards acknowledged at the time that there were apparently contradictory regulations, but the penalty was still applied. It dropped him from ninth to 13th.

“I think that when they took the very tough decision against Kimi in Imola they didn't consider that the start of the story came from the race director also,” Vasseur explained. “The rule is clear that the race director is supposed to signal the rolling start after several laps, not when you are in the pitlane.

“We had far too many polemics over the last six or seven events. I think that we have to stick to the rules, and this is it. If you have a look, Spa was a disaster.

“In Sochi we had a driver [Fernando Alonso] over the kerb at Turn 2, and he didn't come back by the normal escape way. And when we asked the race director he said, 'it's okay, they didn't get an advantage'. But it's not the rule.

“The rules are complicated, but even when they are crystal clear we are trying to complicate the situation.”


Vasseur admits that the Norris saga was a final straw after the various situations that have impacted his team this season and says, "at one stage it's starting to be a lot".

“If you have a look at the last five or six events, we had controversy. And it's not good for the sport, it's not good for my team, it's not good for my shareholders. But first, we look stupid.”

For Vasseur, the regulations should be black and white, with less wiggle room for interpretation.

“As long as that we have a rule in place, let's stick to the rule. Our sport is complicated. When we had the case in Imola, I had a look at the sporting regulations of 10 years ago. It was two times less pages!

“I had a long discussion with a couple of my colleagues, and in the end I'm really frustrated with this, because as I said everybody's trying to become more and more professional, the general level of every single topic in the paddock is going up, and this kind of decision is nonsense.”

It’s rare for a team boss to act like a football manager and go public on a referee’s decision, but Vasseur has no qualms about doing so.

“I know that I will probably have to go back to the stewards, and I will get fined for my words, and I will probably be banned for one race. I hope it would be a good way that I can stay at home with my family! But I have to react.”

[God-Speed]

The Biggest Complaint I have with FIA in F1 is the the Inconsistency!!

[Hotrodz]

Originally Posted by God-Speed

The Biggest Complaint I have with FIA in F1 is the the Inconsistency!!

I agree 100%

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[ZCanadian]

Originally Posted by abm89

I don't recall any constructors' championship winners in the hybrid turbo era except Mercedes. Mostly by over 250 points.

I don't know why you're bringing that up. I specifically mentioned overall tire performance.

Two blowouts from Baku were the public reason for the compound change. One assumes that more analysis was done, but we're not privy to it. I don't recall any other unexplained tire failures this season before Silverstone. But maybe that was coincidence.

This is purely conjecture. There are reports that Pirelli stated the blowouts were due to improper running conditions (ie. pressures), and they enforced checks in the subsequent races, not a compound swap (to correct myself). I couldn't find anything about a compound swap, but Verstappen's pace at Silverstone makes that argument a moot point.

Everyone pushes the envelope. Be it RB trying to include a horsepower increase in an engine swap, to Ferrari doing whatever they were doing in 2018-2019, to DAS. And 1000 other initiatives. Some have been good for the sport, others not so much. I'm not sure if Mercedes lives within the rules, or is just better at hiding it.

True, but my point earlier outlined how the teams go about exploiting those gray areas. There is a notable difference between making the changes and getting clarifications on the interpretations of the rule-set before running the parts in competition.

Clearly, they sold their 2019 car plans to Tracing Point - that was not a case of clever copying. Might have been Stoll's indiscretion, but a transaction takes two parties.

Again, wildly accusative claims. There was never any proof that the car design it self was sold to Racing Point. With technology today, it is easily possible to design a look-alike car with imaging technology. The one thing that IS a fact with that saga is that the rear brake duct designs were not introduced in 2019, thus rendering them illegal to use in 2020 based on the rules. Listed parts are allowed to be shared between teams so long as they followed that rule. The front duct designs were introduced in 2019 thus being legal. Now, if you want to scrutinize the handling of the FIA allowing the team to continue to use the rear brake ducts in 2020, that's a totally different argument. Combine this with the fact that Racing Point had the FIA check over what they were doing throughout the design process, it is hard to believe that the whole car design was outright sold from Mercedes. More info on that issue and how it a solution was approached for 2021 here.

I couldn't leave this alone...

I don't know why you're bringing that up. I specifically mentioned overall tire performance.

Um, how about because the change to the current generation car was THE BIGGEST single change in Formula 1. Merc got the chassis to work with the tires from the get go. Everyone else was left struggling. Clearly, tires are the number one factor in modern racing.

This is purely conjecture. There are reports that Pirelli stated the blowouts were due to improper running conditions (ie. pressures), and they enforced checks in the subsequent races, not a compound swap (to correct myself). I couldn't find anything about a compound swap, but Verstappen's pace at Silverstone makes that argument a moot point.

You are making my point for me. Why, if not for the publicized reason of safety after the blowouts, would a change (that appears to have worked to Mercedes advantage) have been made. Oh wait, maybe I answered my own question.

Again, wildly accusative claims. There was never any proof that the car design it self was sold to Racing Point. With technology today, it is easily possible to design a look-alike car with imaging technology. The one thing that IS a fact with that saga is that the rear brake duct designs were not introduced in 2019, thus rendering them illegal to use in 2020 based on the rules. Listed parts are allowed to be shared between teams so long as they followed that rule. The front duct designs were introduced in 2019 thus being legal. Now, if you want to scrutinize the handling of the FIA allowing the team to continue to use the rear brake ducts in 2020, that's a totally different argument. Combine this with the fact that Racing Point had the FIA check over what they were doing throughout the design process, it is hard to believe that the whole car design was outright sold from Mercedes. More info on that issue and how it a solution was approached for 2021 here.[/QUOTE]

How about the lack of legal action (or any comment whatsoever) from Mercedes? If Renault or Red Bull had pulled onto the grid in 2020 in a Mercedes clone, do you think they would have been silent? I rest my case on that one.

[abm89]

Um, how about because the change to the current generation car was THE BIGGEST single change in Formula 1. Merc got the chassis to work with the tires from the get go. Everyone else was left struggling. Clearly, tires are the number one factor in modern racing.

Anyone who has watched F1 in the turbo-hybrid era knows that Mercedes's biggest weakness until 2019 was overworking their tires. By comparison to Ferrari and Red Bull, they could not do longer stints, especially on the softer compounds, which is why you saw Mercedes run the harder compounds as a race tire. That's pretty clear. AMG got the jump on everyone due to their superior power-unit design and a decent enough aero package, not the tires. In 2017 and 2018, they were finally caught by Ferrari who were clearly better on their tires, but were able to capitalize on the Italian team's mistakes.

You are making my point for me. Why, if not for the publicized reason of safety after the blowouts, would a change (that appears to have worked to Mercedes advantage) have been made. Oh wait, maybe I answered my own question.

Teams running into tire trouble because of running the pressures outside of the recommended parameters is not new. Neither is the FIA working with Pirelli issuing directives to stop teams from doing this. There's no evidence to suggest the FIA's motive for this change would be to help Mercedes.

How about the lack of legal action (or any comment whatsoever) from Mercedes? If Renault or Red Bull had pulled onto the grid in 2020 in a Mercedes clone, do you think they would have been silent? I rest my case on that one.

Again, pure speculation on what "could" or "would" have happened. By FIA rules, Everything but the rear brake ducts were legal and above-board. Was it sporting of Racing Point to do this? There is a valid argument for someone to say that it was not in the "spirit" of the rules.

However, if I had to speculate, Mercedes was not worried about a copy-cat car because understanding their concept does not come with the car itself (see Aston Martin's relative performance this year). On top of that, Red Bull would not have copied the Mercedes design as they strongly believe their philosophy of a shorter wheelbase, high-rake design is superior for aerodynamic grip. They've ran this style of car since the 2010s to great success, so other than their power-unit, why would they change?

I'm sure there are plenty of things we aren't privy to as fans, but there's no hard evidence that the FIA is fixing things in Mercedes's favor. Otherwise, they wouldn't have introduced multiple rules to reel them back. The shadiest thing they've done in recent times was their "private agreement" with Ferrari after the technical directive was issued for the fuel flow rates.

[DLSTR]

Um, how about because the change to the current generation car was THE BIGGEST single change in Formula 1. Merc got the chassis to work with the tires from the get go. Everyone else was left struggling. Clearly, tires are the number one factor in modern racing.

ABM89-Anyone who has watched F1 in the turbo-hybrid era knows that Mercedes's biggest weakness until 2019 was overworking their tires. By comparison to Ferrari and Red Bull, they could not do longer stints, especially on the softer compounds, which is why you saw Mercedes run the harder compounds as a race tire. That's pretty clear. AMG got the jump on everyone due to their superior power-unit design and a decent enough aero package, not the tires. In 2017 and 2018, they were finally caught by Ferrari who were clearly better on their tires, but were able to capitalize on the Italian team's mistakes. --SPOT ON! Race after race endless commentating on this tire issue!!

You are making my point for me. Why, if not for the publicized reason of safety after the blowouts, would a change (that appears to have worked to Mercedes advantage) have been made. Oh wait, maybe I answered my own question.

ABM89-Teams running into tire trouble because of running the pressures outside of the recommended parameters is not new. Neither is the FIA working with Pirelli issuing directives to stop teams from doing this. There's no evidence to suggest the FIA's motive for this change would be to help Mercedes.
--Plenty of teams doing this! Add illegal tire warming as well

How about the lack of legal action (or any comment whatsoever) from Mercedes? If Renault or Red Bull had pulled onto the grid in 2020 in a Mercedes clone, do you think they would have been silent? I rest my case on that one.

ABM89-Again, pure speculation on what "could" or "would" have happened. By FIA rules, Everything but the rear brake ducts were legal and above-board. Was it sporting of Racing Point to do this? There is a valid argument for someone to say that it was not in the "spirit" of the rules.

However, if I had to speculate, Mercedes was not worried about a copy-cat car because understanding their concept does not come with the car itself (see Aston Martin's relative performance this year). On top of that, Red Bull would not have copied the Mercedes design as they strongly believe their philosophy of a shorter wheelbase, high-rake design is superior for aerodynamic grip. They've ran this style of car since the 2010s to great success, so other than their power-unit, why would they change?

Winner!Ding! Just a Billionaire taking shortcuts - they still have not won a race and Lance is not a good driver -barely average overall!!

ABM89-I'm sure there are plenty of things we aren't privy to as fans, but there's no hard evidence that the FIA is fixing things in Mercedes's favor. Otherwise, they wouldn't have introduced multiple rules to reel them back. The shadiest thing they've done in recent times was their "private agreement" with Ferrari after the technical directive was issued for the fuel flow rates

- Ding!! No proof anywhere of FIA favoring Mercedes! Jealous teams complaining-- YES!!

[danegrey]

Originally Posted by DLSTR

[B]


- Ding!! No proof anywhere of FIA favoring Mercedes! Jealous teams complaining-- YES!!

[DLSTR]

Future Power Unit/Fuel for F1 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/58775836

Could changes to Formula 1 attract another new car company?

[DLSTR]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1...urite/6681618/


Formula 1 Opinion
F1 2021's final seven races: Where Red Bull or Mercedes is the favourite
By:
Alex Kalinauckas
Oct 6, 2021, 4:39 AM
OPINION: Formula 1’s current campaign is the closest the championship has witnessed in five years, with Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes narrowly leading Max Verstappen and Red Bull with seven races left. Here’s how those venues favour the title protagonists

The 2021 Formula 1 season is rather different to the four most recent campaigns.

On the eve of the 16th race of the 2020 championship, Lewis Hamilton had already wrapped up the title of a season that was at its penultimate point (and he was in fact absent after contracting COVID-19).

While that campaign was rather unique in modern times thanks to the pressures the infernal pandemic created, the same race number in the previous three years had Hamilton in command over his closest rival (65 points over Valtteri Bottas heading to Sochi in 2019, 40 in front of Sebastian Vettel before the same event in 2018, and 34 ahead of the German going to Japan in 2017).

Not since Nico Rosberg headed to Malaysia with an eight-point lead over Hamilton in 2016 has a title fight been as close as the two-point difference between the Briton and Max Verstappen right now.

There are other differences to those championships as things stand in 2021. The condensed and truncated 2020 was essentially already at its end, but compared to ‘normal’ years in 2016-2019, the current campaign still has more ground to cover. Seven races, in fact, as F1 heads for a record-breaking season length now Qatar has been confirmed as Australia’s replacement.

It is a brutal run to the end of the calendar year, but at the very least F1 personnel have the intrigue of a close fight between two brilliant drivers and teams to follow. If the final (just over one) third plays out as the rest of the season has done, the championship protagonists should expect a close fight to the finish, and, surely, more controversy too.

The constructors’ championship also hangs in the balance right now, although things are currently weighted more favourably towards Mercedes compared to Red Bull. The Black Arrows squad leads by 33 points, with Sergio Perez’s total being just 49.07% of Verstappen's making the difference (Bottas has 61.25% of Hamilton's points).

The 2021 title run-in also has a rather different look compared to previous ‘normal’ campaigns, with the upcoming race in Turkey back for a second year. Plus, Qatar’s arrival – set to be for just a single year at the Losail track before a new circuit is constructed for the event’s post-football World Cup return in 2023 – and the new race in Saudi Arabia.

But it’s still possible to thread the 2021 form book through the final schedule and assess which venues might favour one of the title protagonists over the other.

Starting in Turkey, where Hamilton took a famous win to seal his seventh world title a year ago. He was magnificent in the wet race but struggled on the grip-less track surface in qualifying (where the new, oily track had perplexed Mercedes even in the dry practice) and registered his worst qualifying result of the season. Verstappen arguably should’ve taken pole and then spun away his shot at winning the race while fighting Perez (then at Racing Point, which led the race’s first half with Lance Stroll).

The Istanbul Park surface has been water-blasted to make it rougher and therefore improve grip ahead of this weekend’s race, where Pirelli has also brought tyres one compound step softer (C2-C4). Mercedes must hope these differences will cure the tyre warm-up problems it encountered in 2020. The problem facing the team is that Red Bull is much faster in 2021 overall, and the tyre warm-up issue has been costly at other events earlier in the year (such as Monaco and Baku).

Perhaps the biggest factor that could yet impact the outcome of this super-close season is reliability

The following round at Austin is firm Hamilton and Mercedes territory historically. But while that adds up to five wins in eight races (and five overall for Mercedes), Red Bull has been able to shake Mercedes’ strongholds at Paul Ricard and Silverstone already in 2021.

The Texas track’s combination of fast and flowing first sector, plus long back straight – similar to the French and British venues – might just give Red Bull and edge. That said, Mercedes’ Silverstone update has brought it closer on chassis performance in the high-speed stuff where Red Bull excels.

Mexico and Brazil have been firm Red Bull tracks in the pre-2020 years, with their high-altitude settings typically favouring Honda’s jet-engine inspired power unit. The much thinner air at the former venue may also benefit Red Bull further as drag will be less of a consideration to trim out. The absence of these races gave Mercedes an even simpler task to crush its opposition with the dominant W11 a year ago.

Qatar will be the biggest unknown, but its lack of very high-speed turns means Red Bull’s biggest strength may be somewhat blunted. The team’s Baku form, however, should bode well for Jeddah’s fast, street-track setting once December arrives – although the course’s immense run of small turns might yet spring a few surprises Mercedes can seize on. And there’s the performance of the tyres to consider on such a demanding layout, as Verstappen discovered to his cost in Baku.

Abu Dhabi will be different this time around, with the changes being made at the Yas Marina layout to improve overtaking. This is very much a welcome move given the tedious events the track previously produced – even if there is still doubt about how effective the changes will be (overtaking may even only be possible in one place, the chicane between the two long back straights).

But Red Bull can look back with confidence on Verstappen’s 2020 domination of the season finale, where Mercedes again struggled getting the soft tyres working ideally.

But perhaps the biggest factor that could yet impact the outcome of this super-close season (any performance gaps at the remaining seven races should be pretty small, whichever team is on top), is reliability.

Mercedes faces serious concerns over Hamilton’s remaining engine pool after the fresh unit Bottas took at Monza had to be removed and inspected after a problem was discovered in Sochi.

Toto Wolff says: “We're having a few balls in the air, because you need to have the right balance between making sure that you really sort out all the gremlins that you have in the power unit, not only for this year but also for next year's power unit.”

So, it’s far from given Hamilton won’t, at the very least, have to take a grid penalty in a bid to avoid the fiery Malaysia DNF that gave Rosberg the ultimately decisive 15-point boost heading away from that race in 2016…

Red Bull has already taken the grid penalty pain – last time out for Verstappen at Sochi. But the late-race swing in the rain that meant the Dutchman rose to second ultimately minimised the impact of taking a fourth engine and ratcheted up the pressure of this intense title fight.

[DLSTR]

So savvy and clever is FA. Smartest man on the grid period!! Most likely is utterly correct here.

Alonso: Reaction to Sochi F1 move proves different rules for different drivers
By:
Luke Smith
Oct 7, 2021, 7:32 AM
Fernando Alonso believes the reaction to his first lap move through the run-off area in Sochi proves there are “different rules for different people” in Formula 1.
Alonso: Reaction to Sochi F1 move proves different rules for different drivers

Two-time F1 world champion Alonso was spotted taking the escape route at Turn 2 during his reconnaissance laps to the grid ahead of the Russian Grand Prix two weeks ago, before repeating the move on the opening lap of the race.

The FIA took no action against Alonso as he was deemed not to have gained any advantage, but the Spaniard’s move attracted attention as it ensured he also did not lose any places at the braking zone.

Asked about his move ahead of this weekend’s Turkish Grand Prix, Alonso said he straight-lined Turn 2 to “see the questions here in Istanbul”, claiming the reaction proved his actions were under added scrutiny.

“[it was] just to confirm when I do things, they have a different behaviour, and a different repercussion on the following event,” Alonso said.

“So now, maybe they change the run-off area in Lap 1 in the first couple of corners.

“I’ve been the idiot on-track for most of the championship while I’ve been overtaken from the outside of the asphalt by many people for the first couple of races.

"Even in Austria, I remember Austria 1 and Austria 2, and nothing happened. There were no questions on the following race.

“Now after Sochi, there is a question. It’s a confirmation."

Alonso was left feeling angry in Austria after Daniel Ricciardo’s pass on him outside of regular track limits on the opening lap, making him feel “a little bit stupid”.
Read Also:


The Alpine driver believed the response to what he did in Sochi was “a confirmation of many things”, adding: “There are different rules for different people, or different, let’s say, talks the week after for different people.”

Alonso then made reference to McLaren driver Lando Norris’s crossing of the white line at pit entry in the closing stages of the Russia race that saw him escape a penalty and only land a reprimand following a stewards’ investigation.

“Let’s see, the next one that crosses the white line on the pit entry, let’s see which nationality he is and which penalty he will get,” Alonso said.

[ZCanadian]

I believe that Alonso has complained about the use of the escape route in the first corners of many races in the past, and he pulled that stunt because, well, if you cannot beat them then might as well join them. I think the old fox was brilliant in doing so. Unfortunately, it's going to create a problem when half of the grid decides to use that as track instead of being squeezed in the corner. But hey, not the driver's problem.

Not so sure about the "different rules" comment - most have done it because they were pushed off or to avoid a collision. In Fernando's case, he intentionally took that route on the formation lap in order to plan his route. It was clear that this was his path of choice, and the resulting questions are because of that, not because he happen to have been out there.

As for Lando, yes he should have received the penalty. I think you posted Vasseur's comments on that further up thread. I love Lando, but he doesn't get special treatment because he was on his way to his first win when he threw all of his toys out of the crib when it started to rain and his pit wall suggested he pit for inters!

Worst part about F1 isn't the inconsistency, though. It's Lewis' wardrobe. See what he turned up wearing in Istanbul? :-) Good thing he can drive!

[JARblue]

[DLSTR]

Originally Posted by ZCanadian

I believe that Alonso has complained about the use of the escape route in the first corners of many races in the past, and he pulled that stunt because, well, if you cannot beat them then might as well join them. I think the old fox was brilliant in doing so. Unfortunately, it's going to create a problem when half of the grid decides to use that as track instead of being squeezed in the corner. But hey, not the driver's problem.

Not so sure about the "different rules" comment - most have done it because they were pushed off or to avoid a collision. In Fernando's case, he intentionally took that route on the formation lap in order to plan his route. It was clear that this was his path of choice, and the resulting questions are because of that, not because he happen to have been out there.

As for Lando, yes he should have received the penalty. I think you posted Vasseur's comments on that further up thread. I love Lando, but he doesn't get special treatment because he was on his way to his first win when he threw all of his toys out of the crib when it started to rain and his pit wall suggested he pit for inters!

Worst part about F1 isn't the inconsistency, though. It's Lewis' wardrobe. See what he turned up wearing in Istanbul? :-) Good thing he can drive!

LH has fashion friends. He is using and wearing their designs to assist them in marketing. Such is the celeb world. Oh well his personal life to live.

Hope we have a good sound race managed well by the Stewards and others!

[DLSTR]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/pi...ssive/6683374/

Pirelli fears Turkish GP tyre choice too "aggressive"

By: Adam Cooper
Oct 8, 2021, 12:58 PM
Pirelli Formula 1 boss Mario Isola admits that the company has gone too "aggressive" on its compound choices for the Turkish GP.

After drivers struggled to find grip on the newly-resurfaced track last season, Pirelli went one step softer for this year's race, switching from the C1, C2, C3 combination to the C2, C3 and C4.

However, having made that choice, Pirelli learned that the characteristics of the track had been changed after the race promoter decided to water-blast it, a process that has helped to generate more grip.

During Friday practice ahead of the Turkish GP drivers suffered graining on the softs, and Isola believes that teams will now try to avoid using them in the race if they can.

Teams will probably only have data gathered from FP1 and FP2 to plan their strategies for qualifying, as Saturday's FP3 session is likely to be wet, but their data gathering was made more complicated by Friday's changing wind levels.

There is also still a chance that qualifying itself could be wet, but if slicks are used in Q2, teams will have to make a call on whether to commit to starting on the medium or soft.

"I believe that the soft is quite an aggressive choice," said Isola. "Consider that when we selected the tyres, the three compounds for this race, we were not aware of this superficial treatment that they were planning. So looking at the data from last year, we decided to go one step softer.

"The soft is quite an aggressive choice. And I believe that some teams were using the soft today just to get rid of them, and focus on the medium and hard for the race, if they want to plan a one-stop strategy."

Although it is common for the fastest drivers to try to go through Q2 on the medium rather than the soft, Isola believes that more will attempt to do so this weekend, encouraged by a relatively small delta of 0.3-0.4s between the two.

"I believe that we will see more than two or three cars trying to qualify on the soft, because the delta lap time between the soft and the medium is very small.

"So it's not like one second, where you take a big risk to go through Q2 with a medium instead of the soft, with this small difference, probably more cars are trying to qualify on the medium compound."

Isola confirmed that the treatment undertaken by the promoter had made a significant difference to grip levels, as reported by drivers today.

"The level of grip increased quite a lot. This is probably due to the fact that we don't have the bitumen on top, and let's say the stones are visible, and therefore generating more grip compared to last year.

"The increase in grip is clear, because the lap times are four to five seconds quicker than last year. So I believe that there is no doubt on the increase the level of grip.

"We were expecting some graining, and the graining is visible on all the three compounds, especially on the softer one, and especially on the front right. The graining on the inside shoulder is accelerating the wear.