Binnoto reckons guilty drivers teams should pay for damage!
Discussion
Ferrari reckon that when a teams driver is guilty of causing an accident, then the guilty drivers team should stump up for the rebuild cost.....
Can anyone ever see that happening?
I personally reckon the only winners will be the lawyers as they argue out how damage is due, and whether the driver was guilty etc etc etc
Could sneak a few upgrades in at your competitors expense
Can anyone ever see that happening?
I personally reckon the only winners will be the lawyers as they argue out how damage is due, and whether the driver was guilty etc etc etc
Could sneak a few upgrades in at your competitors expense
Never going to happen, unless they want to turn the sport into a courtroom drama 
Not that I would wish for a big crash, but this kind of talk kind of makes you wish one of the Ferraris (or a RB for that matter) causes an incident at the next race. It would be interesting to see the reaction from them then
Not that I would wish for a big crash, but this kind of talk kind of makes you wish one of the Ferraris (or a RB for that matter) causes an incident at the next race. It would be interesting to see the reaction from them then
Personally I've always thought that it's something that should exist in all levels of racing. If the stewards put the blame on a driver with penalties, fines, points etc then why shouldn't they be held accountable for the costs they've inflicted?
There have been drivers in other series who have had to stop racing altogether or for a season because of the cost of damage caused by others.
There are many incidents where there is zero doubt where blame lies so even only using them it could save many innocent teams/drivers a lot of money.
There have been drivers in other series who have had to stop racing altogether or for a season because of the cost of damage caused by others.
There are many incidents where there is zero doubt where blame lies so even only using them it could save many innocent teams/drivers a lot of money.
Kraken said:
Personally I've always thought that it's something that should exist in all levels of racing. If the stewards put the blame on a driver with penalties, fines, points etc then why shouldn't they be held accountable for the costs they've inflicted?
There have been drivers in other series who have had to stop racing altogether or for a season because of the cost of damage caused by others.
There are many incidents where there is zero doubt where blame lies so even only using them it could save many innocent teams/drivers a lot of money.
To be fair, I gave up Caterham racing for this reason...... couldn't justify the level of stupidity out there resulting in my car being written off. If I did it myself, fair enough, but there was no recourse for someone being negligent and wreck-less costing you a fortune!There have been drivers in other series who have had to stop racing altogether or for a season because of the cost of damage caused by others.
There are many incidents where there is zero doubt where blame lies so even only using them it could save many innocent teams/drivers a lot of money.
Jasandjules said:
Part of the risk of racing is it not?
Ordinarily, yes. However, the issue here is not that teams don't have the funds to repair damaged cars but that the rules prevent them from spending more money.I suspect that the FIA are going to have to make an exemption of some sort for accident damage.
ralphrj said:
Jasandjules said:
Part of the risk of racing is it not?
Ordinarily, yes. However, the issue here is not that teams don't have the funds to repair damaged cars but that the rules prevent them from spending more money.I suspect that the FIA are going to have to make an exemption of some sort for accident damage.
You have a budget for damage repairs, if you go over budget on that, then yes, you have less to spend elsewhere. that's where you manage your risk, how much parts cost etc.
If your current wing cost's £250k to replace, then design a wing that cost's £100k to replace. Think a bit more about why that wing cost's so much and how you can do it cheaper. Do you need to create a whole new wing or can they be made from incremental parts etc.....
F1 teams will need to re-assess what's important to them?
super7 said:
You have a budget for damage repairs, if you go over budget on that, then yes, you have less to spend elsewhere. that's where you manage your risk, how much parts cost etc.
Every team will have a budget for damage repairs (especially if one of your drivers is called Mazepin) but the team bosses are talking in particular about damage caused by the poor driving of others which is something that they cannot mitigate against.There is another issue of appropriate penalties for drivers who cause damage in a cost-capped F1. Bottas has been given a 5 place grid penalty for causing an avoidable accident. Perez's radiator was holed and lost all of the cooling fluid. If he has to take an extra powerunit as a result he will have to take a 10 place grid penalty.
ralphrj said:
Every team will have a budget for damage repairs (especially if one of your drivers is called Mazepin) but the team bosses are talking in particular about damage caused by the poor driving of others which is something that they cannot mitigate against.
They can mitigate against it the same way they mitigate against self-inflicted damage - the budget set aside for repairs. One of the worst aspects of the inept management of Mosley was the lawyering that went on. We sometimes had to wait months to discover the results. Nowadays, I get irritated by a slow internet connection. Even those who committed acts of gross danger, such as setting fire to the pits, all but got away with penalties, while others, who did nothing unusual, got the highest penalties ever imposed. Lawyering matters does not make things fairer in F1. Evidence would suggest the exact opposite.
Bottas made a mistake; he braked too late. There was no deliberation in his act. Drivers do it all the time, especially in the wet where grip levels are low. One could suggest that he should have taken it easy, but then the same should have gone for all those who were passing him. It's a fine call. Or, to put it another way, it's what F1 is all about.
If he'd done it deliberately, then he should have received a harsher penalty, but then there can be few who would suggest that Verstappen didn't, later on in the race, deliberately bang wheels with another car. One accidental, one deliberate, the only difference being outcome.
Let's leave it to precedent and, if that is insufficient, the ideas on those with the best interest of the sport as a whole to make changes. You might not like the rules as they stand. What makes you think you'll like the rules changes?
If you start adding damages to a penalty then we'll get aggravating factors, such as hospital visits, hurt feelings, and loss of advertising revenue.
No thanks.
Bottas made a mistake; he braked too late. There was no deliberation in his act. Drivers do it all the time, especially in the wet where grip levels are low. One could suggest that he should have taken it easy, but then the same should have gone for all those who were passing him. It's a fine call. Or, to put it another way, it's what F1 is all about.
If he'd done it deliberately, then he should have received a harsher penalty, but then there can be few who would suggest that Verstappen didn't, later on in the race, deliberately bang wheels with another car. One accidental, one deliberate, the only difference being outcome.
Let's leave it to precedent and, if that is insufficient, the ideas on those with the best interest of the sport as a whole to make changes. You might not like the rules as they stand. What makes you think you'll like the rules changes?
If you start adding damages to a penalty then we'll get aggravating factors, such as hospital visits, hurt feelings, and loss of advertising revenue.
No thanks.
Zetec-S said:
ralphrj said:
Every team will have a budget for damage repairs (especially if one of your drivers is called Mazepin) but the team bosses are talking in particular about damage caused by the poor driving of others which is something that they cannot mitigate against.
They can mitigate against it the same way they mitigate against self-inflicted damage - the budget set aside for repairs. ralphrj said:
The cost cap is USD 145m. Each car costs USD 2-3m. There are 23 rounds in the championship. Either (or both) of your cars could be damaged beyond repair in any session at any GP. For a team to mitigate that entirely would require a budget for accident damage of between USD 92m and 138m.
I think a team could apply for an exemption to the cap if their cars were damaged by actions of other drivers in every GP. Likely to happen? No.
Massive can of worms that no one will gain from. The only people that will want this are the people involved in sorting out who owes what. It all plays out even in the end, plus it’s racing it’s just a risk you take. Absolute nonsense. Ferrari have had their fare share of howlers, so has RB, so has merc everyone has.
ralphrj said:
Zetec-S said:
ralphrj said:
Every team will have a budget for damage repairs (especially if one of your drivers is called Mazepin) but the team bosses are talking in particular about damage caused by the poor driving of others which is something that they cannot mitigate against.
They can mitigate against it the same way they mitigate against self-inflicted damage - the budget set aside for repairs. Forget who is to blame - it comes from the same pot. That is their mitigation. If they budget for, say, 4 rebuilds in a season, it doesn't matter if the cause of the accident is their own driver or someone else. They have the budget to rebuild 4 times. If they have less accidents then great, if they have more than that then they need to start digging down the back of the sofa.
If you start making other teams pay, or allowing an overspend, the risk of abusing the budget cap rule increases.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff