from
https://www.gpfans.com/en/f1-news/68922/verstappen-facing-penalties-as-honda-confirm-red-bull-s-worst-fears/?fbclid=IwAR1V5yRHhyR1XX0z0kv43e7YrSYQSZKAgY59JBygkDerVEesUKoNgxhiKj4

Verstappen facing penalties as Honda confirm Red Bull's worst fears
Ian Parkes & Ewan Gale
Thursday 26 August 2021 17:25 - Updated: 17:28

Honda has confirmed both Max Verstappen and Sergio Perez have lost their
second power units due to irreparable damage, leaving the Red Bull duo
facing near-certain penalties at some stage this F1 season.

Verstappen initially thought his second engine had been spared after his
high-speed, 51g crash at Silverstone following an incident with Lewis
Hamilton as it was used in Hungarian Grand Prix practice before Red Bull
noticed cracks ahead of qualifying.

Article continues under video

Ahead of this weekend's Belgian GP, Honda has revealed the issue is too
severe to repair.

Perez was then involved in the first-lap chaos at the Hungaroring
triggered by Mercedes' Valtteri Bottas, leaving his second PU also too
severe to salvage.

To restrict costs, each driver is permitted to use three power units
across what is still expected to be a 23-race calendar.

This means both drivers will be using their final power units of the
season with the likelihood of 12 races still remaining on the schedule.

Any additional engines fitted will bring grid penalties and the
potential to skew the championship fight in favour of Mercedes and Hamilton.

Way to go Hamilton!

On 8/26/2021 12:59 PM, XYXPDQ wrote:
> Way to go Hamilton!

The consummate professional.

On 2021-08-26 1:11 p.m., a425couple wrote:
> from
> https://www.gpfans.com/en/f1-news/68922/verstappen-facing-penalties-as-honda-confirm-red-bull-s-worst-fears/?fbclid=IwAR1V5yRHhyR1XX0z0kv43e7YrSYQSZKAgY59JBygkDerVEesUKoNgxhiKj4
>
>
> Verstappen facing penalties as Honda confirm Red Bull's worst fears
> Ian Parkes & Ewan Gale
> Thursday 26 August 2021 17:25 - Updated: 17:28
>
> Honda has confirmed both Max Verstappen and Sergio Perez have lost their
> second power units due to irreparable damage, leaving the Red Bull duo
> facing near-certain penalties at some stage this F1 season.
>
> Verstappen initially thought his second engine had been spared after his
> high-speed, 51g crash at Silverstone following an incident with Lewis
> Hamilton as it was used in Hungarian Grand Prix practice before Red Bull
> noticed cracks ahead of qualifying.
>
> Article continues under video
>
> Ahead of this weekend's Belgian GP, Honda has revealed the issue is too
> severe to repair.
>
> Perez was then involved in the first-lap chaos at the Hungaroring
> triggered by Mercedes' Valtteri Bottas, leaving his second PU also too
> severe to salvage.
>
> To restrict costs, each driver is permitted to use three power units
> across what is still expected to be a 23-race calendar.
>
> This means both drivers will be using their final power units of the
> season with the likelihood of 12 races still remaining on the schedule.
>
> Any additional engines fitted will bring grid penalties and the
> potential to skew the championship fight in favour of Mercedes and
> Hamilton.

Yup.

I wonder if perhaps there shouldn't be a rule that if a driver is found
to have caused a collision and it damages his competitor's engine, or
gearbox, or any other component for which a grid penalty will be imposed
should an extra unit then need to be used...

....why shouldn't the at fault driver have the same penalty imposed on
him and at the same race?

Normally, I completely agree that in-race penalties can't restore the
points of a driver who was forced out of the race, but how would it not
be completely equitable to make the at fault driver suffer the same
penalty down the road?

On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 6:20:48 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:

> I wonder if perhaps there shouldn't be a rule that if a driver is found
> to have caused a collision and it damages his competitor's engine, or
> gearbox, or any other component for which a grid penalty will be imposed
> should an extra unit then need to be used...
>
> ...why shouldn't the at fault driver have the same penalty imposed on
> him and at the same race?
>
>
> Normally, I completely agree that in-race penalties can't restore the
> points of a driver who was forced out of the race, but how would it not
> be completely equitable to make the at fault driver suffer the same
> penalty down the road?

Why not just exempt the engine loss due to another driver's at-fault collision? It seems far simpler to allow the extra engine without penalty than to go through the hurdles of assigning engine penalties.

Part of the reason I say this is what happens in a case where a driver causes a multi-car pile up that destroys more than one competitor's engine? Would you just stack the penalties (which would only equal one) or add one grid penalty for each engine at subsiquent grands prix? This would be very messy with appeals and finger pointing all around.

FWIW
DLM

On 8/27/2021 7:40 AM, D Munz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 6:20:48 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I wonder if perhaps there shouldn't be a rule that if a driver is found
>> to have caused a collision and it damages his competitor's engine, or
>> gearbox, or any other component for which a grid penalty will be imposed
>> should an extra unit then need to be used...
>>
>> ...why shouldn't the at fault driver have the same penalty imposed on
>> him and at the same race?
>>
>>
>> Normally, I completely agree that in-race penalties can't restore the
>> points of a driver who was forced out of the race, but how would it not
>> be completely equitable to make the at fault driver suffer the same
>> penalty down the road?
>
> Why not just exempt the engine loss due to another driver's at-fault collision? It seems far simpler to allow the extra engine without penalty than to go through the hurdles of assigning engine penalties.
>
> Part of the reason I say this is what happens in a case where a driver causes a multi-car pile up that destroys more than one competitor's engine? Would you just stack the penalties (which would only equal one) or add one grid penalty for each engine at subsiquent grands prix? This would be very messy with appeals and finger pointing all around.
>
> FWIW
> DLM

Why all the new frantic concern over a very old and continually
recurring situation? Conspicuously and blatantly obvious isn't it.

On 2021-08-27 9:22 a.m., Heron wrote:
> On 8/27/2021 7:40 AM, D Munz wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 6:20:48 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if perhaps there shouldn't be a rule that if a driver is found
>>> to have caused a collision and it damages his competitor's engine, or
>>> gearbox, or any other component for which a grid penalty will be imposed
>>> should an extra unit then need to be used...
>>>
>>> ...why shouldn't the at fault driver have the same penalty imposed on
>>> him and at the same race?
>>>
>>>
>>> Normally, I completely agree that in-race penalties can't restore the
>>> points of a driver who was forced out of the race, but how would it not
>>> be completely equitable to make the at fault driver suffer the same
>>> penalty down the road?
>>
>> Why not just exempt the engine loss due to another driver's at-fault
>> collision? It seems far simpler to allow the extra engine without
>> penalty than to go through the hurdles of assigning engine penalties.
>>
>> Part of the reason I say this is what happens in a case where a driver
>> causes a multi-car pile up that destroys more than one competitor's
>> engine? Would you just stack the penalties (which would only equal
>> one) or add one grid penalty for each engine at subsiquent grands
>> prix? This would be very messy with appeals and finger pointing all
>> around.
>>
>> FWIW
>> DLM
>
> Why all the new frantic concern over a very old and continually
> recurring situation? Conspicuously and blatantly obvious isn't it.

Is it?

I think recent events have simply pointed out an inequity in the current
system.

On 28/08/2021 12:40 am, D Munz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 6:20:48 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I wonder if perhaps there shouldn't be a rule that if a driver is found
>> to have caused a collision and it damages his competitor's engine, or
>> gearbox, or any other component for which a grid penalty will be imposed
>> should an extra unit then need to be used...
>>
>> ...why shouldn't the at fault driver have the same penalty imposed on
>> him and at the same race?
>>
>>
>> Normally, I completely agree that in-race penalties can't restore the
>> points of a driver who was forced out of the race, but how would it not
>> be completely equitable to make the at fault driver suffer the same
>> penalty down the road?
>
> Why not just exempt the engine loss due to another driver's at-fault collision? It seems far simpler to allow the extra engine without penalty than to go through the hurdles of assigning engine penalties.
>
> Part of the reason I say this is what happens in a case where a driver causes a multi-car pile up that destroys more than one competitor's engine? Would you just stack the penalties (which would only equal one) or add one grid penalty for each engine at subsiquent grands prix? This would be very messy with appeals and finger pointing all around.
>
> FWIW
> DLM

Also there's issues of how old / worn was the engine that was 'destroyed', who decides if the
engine is in fact destroyed etc.

Moot point IMO, it's just RBR whinging again (and starting off a chain reaction).
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

On 2021-08-27 10:02 a.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
> On 28/08/2021 12:40 am, D Munz wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 6:20:48 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if perhaps there shouldn't be a rule that if a driver is found
>>> to have caused a collision and it damages his competitor's engine, or
>>> gearbox, or any other component for which a grid penalty will be imposed
>>> should an extra unit then need to be used...
>>>
>>> ...why shouldn't the at fault driver have the same penalty imposed on
>>> him and at the same race?
>>>
>>>
>>> Normally, I completely agree that in-race penalties can't restore the
>>> points of a driver who was forced out of the race, but how would it not
>>> be completely equitable to make the at fault driver suffer the same
>>> penalty down the road?
>>
>> Why not just exempt the engine loss due to another driver's at-fault
>> collision? It seems far simpler to allow the extra engine without
>> penalty than to go through the hurdles of assigning engine penalties.
>>
>> Part of the reason I say this is what happens in a case where a driver
>> causes a multi-car pile up that destroys more than one competitor's
>> engine? Would you just stack the penalties (which would only equal
>> one) or add one grid penalty for each engine at subsiquent grands
>> prix? This would be very messy with appeals and finger pointing all
>> around.
>>
>> FWIW
>> DLM
>
> Also there's issues of how old / worn was the engine that was
> 'destroyed', who decides if the engine is in fact destroyed etc.
>
> Moot point IMO, it's just RBR whinging again (and starting off a chain
> reaction).

They have a legitimate beef.

This is a cost-constrained sport, now, and they're going to suffer a
penalty because another driver caused a huge crash.

On 8/27/2021 11:05 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-08-27 10:02 a.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
>> On 28/08/2021 12:40 am, D Munz wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 6:20:48 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if perhaps there shouldn't be a rule that if a driver is found
>>>> to have caused a collision and it damages his competitor's engine, or
>>>> gearbox, or any other component for which a grid penalty will be
>>>> imposed
>>>> should an extra unit then need to be used...
>>>>
>>>> ...why shouldn't the at fault driver have the same penalty imposed on
>>>> him and at the same race?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Normally, I completely agree that in-race penalties can't restore the
>>>> points of a driver who was forced out of the race, but how would it not
>>>> be completely equitable to make the at fault driver suffer the same
>>>> penalty down the road?
>>>
>>> Why not just exempt the engine loss due to another driver's at-fault
>>> collision? It seems far simpler to allow the extra engine without
>>> penalty than to go through the hurdles of assigning engine penalties.
>>>
>>> Part of the reason I say this is what happens in a case where a
>>> driver causes a multi-car pile up that destroys more than one
>>> competitor's engine? Would you just stack the penalties (which would
>>> only equal one) or add one grid penalty for each engine at subsiquent
>>> grands prix? This would be very messy with appeals and finger
>>> pointing all around.
>>>
>>> FWIW
>>> DLM
>>
>> Also there's issues of how old / worn was the engine that was
>> 'destroyed', who decides if the engine is in fact destroyed etc.
>>
>> Moot point IMO, it's just RBR whinging again (and starting off a chain
>> reaction).
>
> They have a legitimate beef.
>
> This is a cost-constrained sport, now, and they're going to suffer a
> penalty because another driver caused a huge crash.

Drivers, crashes.

> Drivers, crashes.

Which wouldn't be a issue if F1 was still F1.

On 2021-08-27 12:46 p.m., XYXPDQ wrote:
>
>> Drivers, crashes.
>
> Which wouldn't be a issue if F1 was still F1.
>

F1 IS still F1.

I know you want fantasies of manly men behaving in a manly manner...

....but you really have no clue.

Il 27/08/2021 15:22, Heron ha scritto:

> Why all the new frantic concern over a very old and continually
> recurring situation?

Cause in "the old times" rules (about engines) were different?
S

On 8/27/2021 6:35 PM, Slang wrote:
> Il 27/08/2021 15:22, Heron ha scritto:
>
>> Why all the new frantic concern over a very old and continually
>> recurring situation?
>
> Cause in "the old times" rules (about engines) were different?
> S

Rules limiting engines, fuel, tires, testing,
expenditures ... have existed for years.

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

> I know you want fantasies of manly men behaving in a manly manner...

alice baker is woke
> ...but you really have no clue.

fuck you
you clueless
piece of shit
ass hole
trolling
fucking
cock sucker

On 28/08/2021 4:46 am, XYXPDQ wrote:
>
>> Drivers, crashes.
>
> Which wouldn't be a issue if F1 was still F1.

What is it now? F off?

F'in silly thing to say...
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

> ...but you really have no clue.

oh fuck
listen to this fucking idiot
a real piece of shit loser

On 28/08/2021 11:35 am, Slang wrote:
> Il 27/08/2021 15:22, Heron ha scritto:
>
>> Why all the new frantic concern over a very old and continually
>> recurring situation?
>
> Cause in "the old times" rules (about engines) were different?
> S

They've been the same for a few years now though.

It's just RBR bitching because they see Hamilton suffering from long Covid as their best
opportunity of stealing a championship. RBR have always been the same, when things don't go their
way (even when it's their fault) they bitch and moan to who ever will propagate their foot-stamping.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

> ...but you really have no clue.

can you be any more simple?

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 2:41:36 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

> I know you want fantasies of manly men behaving in a manly manner...

How do you know that?
You weird ass creepy faggot.

On 2021-08-27 8:02 p.m., Heron wrote:
> On 8/27/2021 6:35 PM, Slang wrote:
>> Il 27/08/2021 15:22, Heron ha scritto:
>>
>>> Why all the new frantic concern over a very old and continually
>>> recurring situation?
>>
>> Cause in "the old times" rules (about engines) were different? S
>
> Rules limiting engines, fuel, tires, testing, expenditures ... have
> existed for years.

This year, they are tighter than ever, and hence an issue which hasn't
seemed very important is brought to the forefront.

On 2021-08-27 9:25 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
> On 28/08/2021 11:35 am, Slang wrote:
>> Il 27/08/2021 15:22, Heron ha scritto:
>>
>>> Why all the new frantic concern over a very old and continually
>>> recurring situation?
>>
>> Cause in "the old times" rules (about engines) were different?
>> S
>
> They've been the same for a few years now though.

No, they have not been the same.

>
> It's just RBR bitching because they see Hamilton suffering from long
> Covid as their best opportunity of stealing a championship. RBR have
> always been the same, when things don't go their way (even when it's
> their fault) they bitch and moan to who ever will propagate their
> foot-stamping.

How is that different than any other F1 team?