The Official Formula One Thread!

[77T]

Having expanded the width of the white line defining the marked track surface, RUS stayed “on the track”.

Just an example below:


That shows the original Friday white line width being that which is to the left of the blue line I superimposed. RUS surely went to the right of that blue line.

But because all of the white paint to the right of that blue line is Saturday/Sunday track width, RUS would have had to put all 4 tires to the right hand side of that wide white line (the edge is where I superimposed a red line).




He didn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[77T]

No further action on the SC2:SC1 max time reports - good reasons for NFA.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JP.]

I watch new F1 and it's quite entertaining.

A bit sterile sometimes though.

The 1986 season blows my mind. 1500 hp monster analog turbo cars and the starting grid full of personalities and talent.

Lauda quit in the previous year but you still had 5 world champions Senna, Rosberg, Prost, Piquet, Mansell. Then you had Arnoux, Laffitte, Berger, Alboreto, De Angelis...

The amount of talent was amazing and taming those monster cars wasn't easy. Just look at the highlights of this race. Amazing!

[SMD]

Originally Posted by 77T

Having expanded the width of the white line defining the marked track surface, RUS stayed “on the track”.

Just an example below:


That shows the original Friday white line width being that which is to the left of the blue line I superimposed. RUS surely went to the right of that blue line.

But because all of the white paint to the right of that blue line is Saturday/Sunday track width, RUS would have had to put all 4 tires to the right hand side of that wide white line (the edge is where I superimposed a red line).




He didn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Helpful. Probably my disdain for Russell showing through.

[enjoythemusic]

Congrats to the F1 Academy for another exciting season. Look forward to seeing the ladies being part of F1.

[77T]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Congrats to the F1 Academy for another exciting season. Look forward to seeing the ladies being part of F1.

Yep watched all 3 races and was better than an ordinary F4 event.

The Winner today was 18yo.



Jessica Edgar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jatco]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Congrats to the F1 Academy for another exciting season. Look forward to seeing the ladies being part of F1.

X2 ..

[77T]

Legality Planks!
Cars 44 & 16
HAM & LEC




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jatco]

Originally Posted by 77T

Legality Planks!
Cars 44 & 16
HAM & LEC




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Seriously
Do they check for proper underwear too...(I suppose so) Geeze!!

[77T]

In a race configuration, yes...
3.5.9.
e. The thickness of the plank assembly measured normal to the lower surface must be 10mm ± 0.2mm and must be uniform when new. A minimum thickness of 9mm will be accepted due to wear, and conformity to this provision will be checked at the peripheries of the designated holes.

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by jatco

Seriously
Do they check for proper underwear too...(I suppose so) Geeze!!

Close, it’s a little embarrassing when a man’s wood is a little smaller than the required 9mm.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GG2dF5...dlIHNlaW5mZWxk

[77T]

It shrinks?

[jatco]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

Close, it’s a little embarrassing when a man’s wood is a little smaller than the required 9mm.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GG2dF5...dlIHNlaW5mZWxk

Love that skit...
Kudos my friend, that settles that question....

[77T]

If you've never seen one, here is a decent article explaining the changes from last year:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/n...ging/10354916/

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by 77T

It shrinks?

Like a frightened turtle.

[77T]

All other cars have passed their post-race scrutineering.

Hearing began a little over an hour ago for the 44 & 16 planks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jatco]

How or why would those cars differ from all others? Is/was that a set up issue from the get go?

[77T]

Both HAM & LEC are DQ’d

All other cars move up in final classification. LEC’s decision is pasted below. Same info for HAM.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[prnceofpersia23]

Sargeant with his first point after the DQ’s.

First American point in 30 years.

Well done!

[INC]

Hmm... even though I agree that all rules should be followed, I think DQ is an overkill even if the decision was correct by to the rules. I think in such a case a 5-10 position change or a 5-20 second time penalty would be more reasonable, as it is obvious that it was not a case of fraud, but really just a coincidence, which, moreover, no one wanted to happen. In addition, it is not even certain that they gained a significant advantage I think both LEC and HAM deserved the points. So I think it would be reasonable to change the rules so that in such cases it is not mandatory to make a DQ decision.

Also, as usual, I should mention that PER was terrible again and it was extremely lucky for him that HAM was disqualified because without it he would have lost his 2nd place by the end of the year. That is why I am now sure that PER will be fired at the end of this year, because RBR can not allow him race so scandalously for another year.

And of course it's worth mentioning that if Alonso had a chance to finish, he could have scored a lot of points.

Anyway, it was a great race, it was nice to see the fight for the winning again :)

[77T]

Originally Posted by jatco

How or why would those cars differ from all others? Is/was that a set up issue from the get go?

The track’s bumps required a higher ride height and some teams gambled. So in a sense it is a set-up choice.

With just FP1 to figure that out, and parc ferme after Sprint Shootout SQ, some cut it too close and lost more than the allowed 1mm as the plank was scoured by the track surface.

I’m not sure if the new MB upgrades provided more aero downforce at the fences or skirts to deflect the floor, but the same result may have caused Ferrari’s issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[77T]

Originally Posted by INC

Hmm... even though I agree that all rules should be followed, I think DQ is an overkill even if the decision was correct by to the rules. I think in such a case a 5-10 position change or a 5-20 second time penalty would be more reasonable, as it is obvious that it was not a case of fraud, but really just a coincidence, which, moreover, no one wanted to happen. In addition, it is not even certain that they gained a significant advantage I think both LEC and HAM deserved the points. So I think it would be reasonable to change the rules so that in such cases it is not mandatory to make a DQ decision.

To the change the standard penalty for a technical infraction is one of the foundational cornerstones in all sports. It would begin a slide in regulation methinks. Consider the following:
“In all societies where there is competition - there must be laws to regulate that competition. The extent to which that competition is carried, whether by intensity or sophistication, determines the degree of complexity
of the necessary laws; and the extent to which those laws are willingly accepted determines, no less, the
degree of civilization of that society.”
- - Thales of Miletus.

Sporting and Technical Regulations spring forth in all competition from that rationale.

In-race decisions about track limits allow for 3 transgressions before penalizing - that is a subjective choice.

But post-race decisions about technical compliance are objectively measured to the fineness of a watchmaker’s precision. All drivers/teams know before taking the track that those infractions carry a heavy penalty.

Whether it affords a sporting advantage has no bearing on meting out a DQ. A time or position penalty would allow a non-compliant car to finish ahead of a compliant car. That’s a non-starter for Motorsports IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by 77T

The track’s bumps required a higher ride height and some teams gambled. So in a sense it is a set-up choice.

Exactly, and the teams gambled and lost. A bummer for the teams, no doubt, yet the engineers knew full well what they were doing during setup.

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

Whether it affords a sporting advantage has no bearing on meting out a DQ. A time or position penalty would allow a non-compliant car to finish ahead of a compliant car. That’s a non-starter for Motorsports IMHO.

I believe that there is no fundamental difference between our opinions. For example, I completely agree with what you wrote: If a non-compliant car gets an advantage due to a known infraction, then that car should be disqualified. Without consideration, I think so too. However, even if we agree on this, we must consider Hunt's 1976 precedent, when Hunt was able to retain his points, which ultimately helped him to his only world championship title.

Therefore, I think that if it can be proven, or more than likely, that neither the team nor the competitor intended to infringe or break the rules, then disqualification as the only possible sanction cannot be proportionate.

But that's just my humble opinion.

[77T]

I may have misled you by my prose.

I’m saying it doesn’t matter whether it gave a sporting advantage or not - DQ is fair.

If I am .1 Kg underweight, I am non-compliant and should be DQ’d. Even though .1 Kg provides no advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[enjoythemusic]

Agree with Paul.

Heck, in SCCA my rear wing was ever-so-slightly barely too high per regs and thus my pole position qual time was DQ'ed [and that was one heck of a race at the rough-and-tumble NHIS (now NHMS) driving from last on the starting grid to earn a second-place finish]. The rear wing was 4mm too high during qual (you raise ride height for NHIS as it is a cr@p track with major surface irregularities back then). i didn't realize it during setup (my bad) and let's face it 4mm is not much at all. thus pretty much no 'big' gain... the part was out-of-spec per the rules, and thus all my qual times were DQ'ed.

Am sure the teams are aware of the rules... and the possible penalties.

[SDGT3]

It's a long standing rule. I remember Schumacher being DQed after a race win for the exact same thing.

[SDGT3]

Same corner

[77T]

Good illustration of bottoming on the kerbs. Due to the wear pattern measured:

I think it was more uniform than that due to the center of the floor bottoming out at some points on the track. A full fuel load while the tires weren’t up to full pressure and sidewall height had this happening more in the first 2 laps.

The DQs had a points swing for Ferrari per a good article that explains all the factors:
“Following the disqualifications, however, Ferrari claimed 15 points from Sainz’s promotion to P3, with Mercedes taking just 10 for Russell’s P5. Across the whole weekend, including points from the Sprint, that meant Ferrari outscored Mercedes 24 to 18.

The upshot of that was that Ferrari closed to within 22 points of second-placed Mercedes in the constructors’ standings, with four Grand Prix weekends – including a final Sprint weekend in Brazil – remaining.”

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...ePtPjEWWQ.html




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[INC]

Originally Posted by 77T

I’m saying it doesn’t matter whether it gave a sporting advantage or not - DQ is fair.

I didn't intend to say that DQ is not fair. What I would like to say is, this penalty is not in all circumstances proportional. Accordingly, I didn't blame anyone for the DQ of HAM and LEC, because I agree with you, the rules must be obeyed.

But honestly, this case I think, NO ONE deserved the DQ for such a thing, which was not foreseen! For example let us see their teammates, who had no problems at all with the very same cars. The only difference been, that these guys wanted to race harder, faster, stronger. And that's all what caused the infridgement. And exactly that follows, that I think, it may worth to add some more penalty options because of these cases.