IDK, but there certainly should be. A defective track caused the damage, not the team. Now the damaged components had some age on them so that should be factored in when a new one is substituted. But still, there should be some level of compensation and/or spending cap waived for this.
This is an odd take. Why not just watch the race? No oneâs forced to watch the show.
1 Like
Previously f1 has payed for the damages, so Iâm not sure why they didnât this time. Or maybe they just covered the costs, but it still counted towards the cap
Again, if your audience has to take measures to interact less with the sport because they are literally cringing thatâs not a good strategy.
There was some quote that Vasseur was going to approach the promoter for compensation, which in this case is Liberty/F1.
I donât care for the showy aspect so I just watch the race. Always have done. I also have no interest in attending a live race irrespective of the show. Why would I watch one corner when I can see the whole thing on a TV and not have to deal with crowds?
2 Likes
I thought it was cringey. Especially the spoken poem at the start. Doesnât mean I should give up watching my favorite sport just because one race was way over the top.
Thereâs a balance that has to be made between show and sport these days, and while f1 is currently a decent bit over the top with the show right now, some show is still required. The show/sport ratio of the 70s and such is no longer possible
itâs not one race. Itâs the entire outlook Liberty has and trying push forward with. Reverse Grids (which are actively being lobbied for) are the ultimate cringe to me.
I heard that a NASCAR drivers success depends on whether the others allow the driver to tow with them. As I see it, itâs somewhat of a popularity contest and outsiders are not treated the same as the good ole boys. Danica had no chance, she wasnât even a boy.
Reverse grids are never going to happen, there have countless silly ideas that have been lobbied. It just always happens. Read about some of Bernieâs ideas for instance. Just because there are more and more showy things, doesnât mean you should stop watching the races.
1 Like
It is unfortunate what happened to Ferrari, but I do not think they should be compensated in any way. It is not the first car torn up by a track failure. It will not be the last. If they start doing that, what other on track problems are compensated for? It hurt Ferrari no more than any other crash they were involved in this year that was not their fault.
Reverse grids was given star billing in their latest fan survey - F1 Fan Voice alongside separate Sprint Championship ideas etc⌠This is 100% what Liberty want. I think weâd already have them had Mercedes and a few others not vetoed the idea in 2020. But we got SPrint races instead. Basic Psychology 101 - Door in Face Technique. Now we have Sprint Races theyâll implement the âfoot-in-doorâ technique.
F1 didnât, the track did.
This thread was deadsville for a while.
If nothing else, Vegas was a smashing success from a discussion/publicity standpoint. Any publicity is good publicity or something.
1 Like
A LOT of discussion about The Marvels. Itâs a historic flop.
Not all publicity is good publicity.
1 Like
Ah gotcha. That makes more sense
Iâm interested to see this FP1 session at Abu Dhabi, lots of young drivers.
Iâm especially interested to see what Jake Dennis can do. I always felt like he didnât get a fair crack at it.
2 Likes
I think itâs reasonable for teams to expect a track thatâs in good shape, inspected appropriately and does not damage their cars while on the racing line.
Should that not be the standard?
Sure, itâs racing and things can happen⌠that doesnât mean there should not be some sort of compensation when the organizer fails in their duty to provide a track that doesnât damage a car while on the racing line.
Off track, all bets are off. But on the track I think itâs fitting that it should be the standard.
I donât think doing so sets a precedent for more concessions either. The track surface should not severely damage cars on the racing line at the self-proclaimed highest level of the sport.
3 Likes
So now we go from a cringy show, screwy schedule, but unexpected excitement on track weekend to a weekend that has traditionally produced a snooze fest on track. Not really a fan of the Vegas track in general, but I am even less of a fan of Yas Marina.
2 Likes
Absolutely that should be the standard. A standard is what we measure things against. They failed. Maybe due to bad luck. Probably due to failed planning. I still do not think they should pay damages.
I think the standard should be that under full course caution you should not be run over. In 1994 reigning champ Nigel Mansell was run over, under caution, on the warm up lane, taking him out of the Indy 500. They did not, to my knowledge pay his team for their loss.
If a driver, or track, or team fails to meet the standard too often they should not be allowed to participate in (or hold) races.
If not move on to the next race and chalk it up to racing luck. As Kenny Schroeder says. All accidents are partially your fault. If you werenât racing you would not have been in the accident.
Standards without consequences are just suggestions.
In my mind I separate the facility\track from the driverâs on track activities. When Mansell was hit, there were significant consequences for both parties. Not the case in Vegas. The track shouldnât get a free pass.
Schroederâs soundbite only emboldens my point⌠In Vegas the track emerged without consequence (At least that Iâm aware of), yet were partially at fault.
Anyway, Iâve said my piece.