bhmnscmm @ bhmnscmm @lemmy.world

Posts

111

Comments

510

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's because it's additional races on the calendar, without the additional overhead cost of going to additional circuits.

More racing means more eyeballs, which means more money for F1.

I agree. I don't think this change is a bad move. Assuming this fine is only issued in truly the most extreme cases of infringement, and not cases of wearing wearing jewelry or making social media posts.

Having a major disincentive like this will definitely make rule breaking more risky.

In what cases has the previous maximum fine even been issued?

But the article says some of those reasons are why this law is needed.

Couldn't the same be said for the supreme court?

Ironically, one of the few explicit stipulations in the constitution about the supreme court says their salary cannot be reduced during their time in office.

Fair enough. All you can do is be the change you want to see--every bit makes a difference.

I didn't think Haas meant the livery when they said they were copying Redbull.

How come? There were actually a few decent races.

I totally get it if it's for human rights reasons though.

How about term limits in congress too?

I thought most of the lack of race pace from Haas was due to tire deg. Anybody have any ideas how moving to a downwash concept would improve that?

I'm not doubting the benefits, I just don't understand aerodynamics enough to get the connection.

If talent plus preparation equals luck, then I wonder in which measure Lance is deficient.

Fair point. I suppose the lack of interest from Renault to renew the contract indicates they wouldn't be required to supply Andretti.

I wonder who they would end up going with if they do enter as a constructor.

past the point of no return.

There's no such thing in business. All that means is that it would be extremely costly to back out at this point.

I thought the regulations required any additional teams to use Renault engines since they have no customers?

Or does Renault just get the first option to be the supplier?

I completely agree.

Time penalties, while better than nothing, are far less exciting than actual racing. Especially when penalties have to be issued after a session ends.

Drivers don't generally exceed track limits more than once at Monaco.

It's tight between Leclerc and Sainz. Carlos has really stepped up his game this season.

I don't know if Charles is just struggling with the car that much more, or if Carlos is better than I thought, but he's been very impressive.

That's what I'm thinking too. The only reasonable argument I can think of is that not all teams have equal access to testing facilities.

Maybe testing time should be allocated like windtunnel time or CFD time?

I understand there is a testing limit as part of leveling the playing-field and reducing costs for teams, but is there a reason why the restrictions are set where they are?

Why not 3 weekends of preseason testing? or 400km for filming days? I've just wondered how they've decided on the specific amounts of testing.

A great testament to how exciting and competitive the field is if you exclude Max.

Hopefully we get another repeat of Singapore before the season ends.

With Tsunoda also committed to AT I don't think Lawson has much hope of getting a seat for the next year or two.

The only chance he has at getting an AT seat is if Ricciardo or Tsunoda move up to RB. At this point he's probably got even odds of back-filling Checo's replacement (if it happens) or moving to a non-RB team like Williams.