this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
12 points (92.9% liked)

Formula 1

9049 readers
72 users here now

Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series


Rules


  1. Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
  2. No gambling, crypto or NFTs
  3. Spoilers are allowed
  4. Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
  5. Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
  6. Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
  7. Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but don’t want to become formuladank.

Up next


F1 Calendar

2024 Calendar

Location Date
πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ United States 21-23 Nov
πŸ‡ΆπŸ‡¦ Qatar 29 Nov-01 Dec
πŸ‡¦πŸ‡ͺ Abu Dhabi 06-08 Dec

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

What did Honda and Alpine do wrong?

Honda submitted a report with "incorrectly excluded and/or adjusted costs" while Alpine's report submission contained "significant deficiencies" including partial or no procedures being performed

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Is that all?

Purposely excluding costs, or straight up lying about how much things cost, only gets a fine that's a drop in the bucket compared to what they'll make?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Alpines looks to be a complete balls up, as it traditional for Alpine and paperwork, I do not suspect any malicious intent here just plain old incompetence as is to be expected with Alpine. This is the company that made changes to their own version of Oscars contract to their advantage, seemingly forgetting that both the FIA and Mark Weber had their owned signed copies of the original.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Has anyone remade the Ferrari pit wall meme for Alpine yet?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

They have a tractor meme going on if that counts:

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They said there is no accusation / proof that they got an unfair advantage, it was because of the reports sucking that they had to clarify, which sometimes took longer because they stalled.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If it gave them zero advantage they wouldn't spend more, though.

They are business, not charities. They don't voluntarily spend extra money for no reason whatsoever.

And if they did nothing wrong, they wouldn't purposely exclude stuff from their reports, or lie about costs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

Where does it say they did it on purpose? It says they omitted information that was relevant. It also says that they complied with requests for the additional information (one of them immediately, the other after a delay, hence bigger fine). It also says they found it that it didn't give them any advantage.

I'd rather trust the article, than a conspiracy theory.