• blackn1ght@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    Four and a half seconds would be insane. Could they fall foul of the 107% rule, assuming that this would indeed be the case?

    • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not likely. They would most likely need to be about 5-6 seconds off the pace for that. But even were that to happen, I think FIA would ignore it. Sponsors would be livid otherwise.

      • smeg@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Sponsors should cough up a bit more cash to build a better car then!

        • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Well, the budget cap doesn’t really let them. Although I was thinking more about general F1 sponsors and not the team’s sponsors. It would be a bad look for the sport if some cars were excluded from running due to the 107% rule, so I assume they would just handwave it were it ever to come up.

          • smeg@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I guess f1 has changed hands since the last time we saw the 107% rule in action, but I think it would be a worse look if some of the cars were so laughably slow that they couldn’t even qualify but were let in anyway

            • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              The last time a car was excluded due to failing to comply with the 107% rule was in 2012. They’ve already waived it tons of times since then, most recently for Sargent and De Vries (2023) and Stroll (2021).

              • smeg@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                I know it’s waived when you crash in qualifying, because you’ve usually demonstrated in practice that the car is fast enough. The original purpose was to keep out cars (not necessarily drivers) that didn’t have the pace, right?

                • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Well, yes, but the original purpose came from a very different era in the 90s, where you had really poor pay drivers and also teams that pretty much were only interested in showing up to the race to be seen for sponsorship purposes and were never even intending to actually race. It was intended to keep unserious cars out, and I would be highly surprised if they barred Aston from racing in Australia even were they 5 seconds off the pace.

  • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    The two takeaways thus far seem to be: Red Bull will be winning by large margins again and Aston are astronomically shit.

  • utjebe@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I thought it’s the same engine as in Red Bull… Kind of lost track how it got rebranded in the last years.

    • Jumi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Red Bull is using RBPT which are built by old former Honda engineers, meanwhile AM is using Honda which are built by new Honda engineers.