Q: I understand that the F1 ‘World Destruction Championship’ that has been making rounds on social media is compiled by some guy on the internet and not an official standings, but it also looks to me to be plausible from a rankings standpoint, and James Vowles said he was worried about Williams being under the cost cap due to the number of crashes.
My confusion here is that there are components on the car that are regularly replaced even if the car isn’t crashed, and also parts like wings that are only used on certain tracks. Obviously not every part is replaced every race, and some parts can be reused after a crash as well. How much of an F1 car is non-perishable, and would removing crash damage from the cost cap lead to better racing?
Will, Indy
CM: I’ll admit I don’t trust those rankings either, because Pierre Gasly was viewed as having caused no crash damage to his Alpine, but he did damage his car. Incidents like running wide over a curb and damaging the floor so that it needed replacing or repairing is a costly mistake made by a driver and Gasly definitely did that, but it didn’t appear in those totals as it wasn’t an obvious crash to observers.
But the actual question you ask is very complex, because teams create spares of every part even if it’s something that could technically run a whole season. The chassis, for example, could do the entire year if they wanted, although they are still regularly stress-tested so you need back-ups. Similarly, things like the steering wheel can do an entire season but you always have spares, especially for potential glitches or technical issues.
As you point out, every component that is involved in a crash is assessed to see if it can be repaired rather than scrapped, and other parts are sometimes refurbished after certain mileage. Basically this is the long route of explaining why it’s impossible to quantify how much of a car, if any, is non-perishable.
There is a crash damage allowance built into the cost cap in the sense that the cost cap goes up as the number of races increases, both due to the components needed and the risk of damage. I actually think the cost cap is at quite a good level as it stands. We still see hard racing and drivers are not taking it easy just because of the cost of damage, but it will reward teams and drivers who manage to avoid major incidents.
Removing crash damage would become so complex that I don’t think we’d ever land on acceptable figures or declarations from teams, and it would just cause more problems than it would solve.
![](https://racer.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/85/2024/12/1020460239-LAT-20241122-GP2422_225325SMG_4016.jpg)
Q: Has the number 0 been an option for the drivers to pick since the rule change in 2014? I was always under the assumption that they were only allowed 2 through to 99, with the exception of the 1 reserved for the champion, and 17 which was retired for Bianchi.
Danny, Southend-on-Sea, England
CM: You also can’t use a number that has been raced in either of the previous two seasons, which is why 5 has only just become available again to Gabriel Bortoleto after being used by Sebastian Vettel until 2022. As far as I’m aware, the number 0 is not an option, and when the regulation was originally announced it said drivers would be choosing between 2 and 99. But the FIA did say it’s never been asked, so it doesn’t actually know!
Q: I enjoyed reading that Rwanda has confirmed a bid to host an F1 race in the future. Since there is no permanent road racing circuit in the vicinity, I can only guess they would create a street circuit around the BK Arena or Amphora Stadium. I’m all for it.
But I’m curious about why I haven’t heard much about a proposed F1 return to Kyalami. Here’s a link to a YouTube video, obviously produced by Red Bull, featuring David Coulthard and a local ‘spinning’ champion to help pull off the well-written bit. Press releases that spawn articles don’t cost a lot of money. This video had to cost a huge amount of dollars, or pounds, or rand.
Does Chris Medland have any more info?
Bill Tybur, Tempe, AZ
CM: Kyalami was definitely a target for F1 and actually got pretty close in recent years, but I was told the financial commitments from the race organizers just weren’t there to make it a reality. F1 is looking for a solid platform in Africa, and a confirmed home for a race for multiple seasons rather than one that doesn’t have the stability long-term.
Kyalami is a great track and is being upgraded, but the commercial side around it that didn’t come together. That doesn’t mean it can’t in future, but perhaps it will take another race being a success elsewhere first to really get that side of it in place.
From the latest I’ve heard in the paddock the Rwanda track is being designed by Alex Wurz’s company – much like the one in Qiddiya in Saudi Arabia – and would actually be a permanent venue a little outside of Kigali near where a major new international airport is being built.