Poll: Official 2023 United States Grand Prix Thread - Circuit of the Americas, Austin - Round 19

[sidimmu]

Am I the only person who doesn't really care about this?

Parts of some cars tested were found to be out of spec and as a result, the drivers were punished.

It's done, move on.

100% agree, a random sample is taken to ensure compliance, some of random sample does not meet criteria and gets punished accordingly.
All this talk for then increasing sample sizes into testing every car is just LH or CL fans livid at the decision and that they feel their fav driver is getting picked on, wah wah wah.

 

[MooMoo444]

Glad Ham only lost a 2nd. Losing the win would have been very painful.

 

[cuke2u]

Mark Hughes take on 'plankgate' https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mark-hughes-red-bulls-ride-height-wariness-cost-it-us-gp-pace/

 

[Mesai]

But that itself hints at a problem with the system. To @Feek’s question - either it’s random or it’s not. If it’s not random then we’ve seen how in the past team principals (and presumably others in less visible roles) in all teams have swayed the decision making process. The FIA can’t sit there and say it’s “random testing” on one hand then take pointers, or pull out specific cars as they wish. Because that’s not a fair system, as it puts the onus on the FIA to notice potential violations in the first place. Which in turn means that (1) if your team is very good at hiding things you could get away with it or (2) it’s directly in your interest to call out the opposition to get the FIA to investigate them. Neither of which should be the process.

It matters because yes it’s just one race, but as usual the FIA are affecting more than they realise with Hamilton now looking nigh on impossible to win P2 in the WDC. When he was stood on the podium with P2 you would have bet on him to take it otherwise.

It's not random though. It's random in that the teams have no idea whether they'll be tested, but the FIA pick specific cars i.e. it's not drawn from a hat. Truly picking at random would be pointless as it's a shot in the dark.

The FIA have a ton of data on every car. It's probably not a coincidence that 2 of the 4 tested cars we're out of spec - you can bet that the data correlates to extra plank wear and therefore an illegal car. Whether other cars were in a similar situation or whether it's purely a logistical thing as to why other cars didn't get called up, is a different issue that the FIA should address.

 

[Scam]

Mark Hughes take on 'plankgate' https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mark-hughes-red-bulls-ride-height-wariness-cost-it-us-gp-pace/

Good write-up. Maybe it seems the Merc upgrade was actually a little better than they thought then? Or, to flip it the other way - the only reason RB were slower was because they were running a lot higher than usual? Who knows, it's all conjecture really.

The pic following his paragraph on Verstappen taking Norris near the end made me laugh. Norris defending with all his skillzzz

(I may have edited it slightly)

 

[cuke2u]

Good write-up. Maybe it seems the Merc upgrade was actually a little better than they thought then? Or, to flip it the other way - the only reason RB were slower was because they were running a lot higher than usual? Who knows, it's all conjecture really.

We'll perhaps know more from the next few races if the Mercedes is quicker with the updates, and/or, they've made it more comfortable for Lewis to drive as clearly he wasn't happy before.

 

[bayo000]

It matters because yes it’s just one race, but as usual the FIA are affecting more than they realise with Hamilton now looking nigh on impossible to win P2 in the WDC. When he was stood on the podium with P2 you would have bet on him to take it otherwise.

Nothing to do with him taking himself and almost his team mate out in Qatar? Deffo someone else's fault that he doesn't get P2.

It's a team sport, couple of people in Merc and Ferrari made a bad judgement and two drivers paid for it. McLaren and RB passed so it was clearly possible to run the whole weekend without running into this issue.

 

[jaybee]

If you don't care about this issue then you perhaps aren't understanding the issue. I think there's enough said on it already explaining why it matters. If you can't grasp it by now I don't think you will.

It would have been better if Lewis and Max weren't included in the sample at all, as then we wouldn't have had the bias of people typically supporting one or the other. As a Lewis supporter, all of my views on this plank topic are labelled by most on here as only wanting action to favour Lewis. That's not the case at all, but it doesn't matter how much I say that. I care because I love F1, and want to see fairness, equal opportunity and consistency in terms of rulings and procedures.

 

[Scam]

@jaybee exactly. It's annoying that it's affected Hamilton's chance at P2 in the WDC, but that's not entirely the point. Other teams should be asking why Russell and Sainz weren't tested because it's highly likely they were running at a similar height as their teammate. The unfairness goes all the way down the grid.

 

[bayo000]

If you don't care about this issue then you perhaps aren't understanding the issue. I think there's enough said on it already explaining why it matters. If you can't grasp it by now I don't think you will.

It would have been better if Lewis and Max weren't included in the sample at all, as then we wouldn't have had the bias of people typically supporting one or the other. As a Lewis supporter, all of my views on this plank topic are labelled by most on here as only wanting action to favour Lewis. That's not the case at all, but it doesn't matter how much I say that. I care because I love F1, and want to see fairness, equal opportunity and consistency in terms of rulings and procedures.

If you're serious about that bit then F1 might not be for you. There are 20 cars on the grid and none of them are 100% identical. I started watching F1 in late 80s and it's never been fair, just like any other sport. Actually out of the 4 drivers I'd rank them as Lando, Charles then big gap with Max slightly ahead of Lewis.

As I said,2 cars/teams got it right so it was clearly possible to run the weekend and be compliant. What wouldn't be fair is if all 4 failed and got disqualified without reviewing anyone else.

 

[Jester*]

100% agree, a random sample is taken to ensure compliance, some of random sample does not meet criteria and gets punished accordingly.
All this talk for then increasing sample sizes into testing every car is just LH or CL fans livid at the decision and that they feel their fav driver is getting picked on, wah wah wah.

But it potentially identifies an issue with the Sprint format at certain tracks. It shouldn't matter if you are a Ham or Leclerc fan because how do we know that Sainz's car that got promoted to the podium was in fact in keeping with the plank wear that his teammate failed as you'd hazard a guess they would be setup very similarly.

If you actually do testing, which I am sure many people here do. If I was to take 4 oil samples off one of my transformers and 50% of them failed I'd be firing alarm emails up the ying yang and taking more samples.

Using testing to identify trends then making adjustments down the line, for next year if Austin is still a sprint weekend is not exactly a bad thing. No one wants to see DQ's after the fact.

 

[jaybee]

If you're serious about that bit then F1 might not be for you. There are 20 cars on the grid and none of them are 100% identical. I started watching F1 in late 80s and it's never been fair, just like any other sport. Actually out of the 4 drivers I'd rank them as Lando, Charles then big gap with Max slightly ahead of Lewis.

As I said,2 cars/teams got it right so it was clearly possible to run the weekend and be compliant. What wouldn't be fair is if all 4 failed and got disqualified without reviewing anyone else.

I meant equal opportunity in terms of rules being applied. i.e. Fair treatment and not singled out. I am not for one minute suggesting it become a spec series with the same machinery.
I know what F1 is and have also watched for a long time.

 

[sidimmu]

But it potentially identifies an issue with the Sprint format at certain tracks. It shouldn't matter if you are a Ham or Leclerc fan because how do we know that Sainz's car that got promoted to the podium was in fact in keeping with the plank wear that his teammate failed as you'd hazard a guess they would be setup very similarly.

If you actually do testing, which I am sure many people here do. If I was to take 4 oil samples off one of my transformers and 50% of them failed I'd be firing alarm emails up the ying yang and taking more samples.

Using testing to identify trends then making adjustments down the line, for next year if Austin is still a sprint weekend is not exactly a bad thing. No one wants to see DQ's after the fact.

We dont, but it was not sampled and tested.
I suspect if every sample failed, then yeah the whole grid would be tested as there would be a fundamental issue or confusion within the rules/regulations.

As for real world application, yeah I am sure you'd fire that email off. Once you have tested all others to ensure they have the same problem or concerns, you'd then email with the ones that are non compliant and need work. This is the difference between an operational stand point from an organisation and a regulatory body managing competitors. One has the requirement to be perfect, 24/7/365, the other has the requirement to be perfect for a couple hours every other weekend.

I suspect the Sprint weekends will be gone within the next year or 2.

 

[413x]

100% agree, a random sample is taken to ensure compliance, some of random sample does not meet criteria and gets punished accordingly.
All this talk for then increasing sample sizes into testing every car is just LH or CL fans livid at the decision and that they feel their fav driver is getting picked on, wah wah wah.

Not a fan of either if these drivers.. But if a sample finds an error more testing needs doing.

 

[Eddie99]

@jaybee exactly. It's annoying that it's affected Hamilton's chance at P2 in the WDC, but that's not entirely the point. Other teams should be asking why Russell and Sainz weren't tested because it's highly likely they were running at a similar height as their teammate. The unfairness goes all the way down the grid.

Spot on, if a car which was likely illegal got a promotion to the podium then you know there's a problem with the rules. If one car fails the check then at a minimum they need to test their team mates car, possibly even all the cars that scored points.

 

[sidimmu]

Not a fan of either if these drivers.. But if a sample finds an error more testing needs doing.

No it does not.
Sample taken, non compliant car found, punishment undertaken accordingly.
To then state, oh we now must test everyone because of a failure is stupid.
Imagine all GCSE students needing to re-take their GCSE's because one student in Rye cheated. It does not happen, the cheat gets punished and everyone moves on as they are not sampled or a part of the problem.
A fail does not mean all identical parts/cars/people/tests are then re-assessed.

 

[Eddie99]

Imagine all GCSE students needing to re-take their GCSE's because one student in Rye cheated. It does not happen, the cheat gets punished and everyone moves on as they are not sampled or a part of the problem.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever, it's not like the drivers need to do the race again.

 

[413x]

No it does not.
Sample taken, non compliant car found, punishment undertaken accordingly.
To then state, oh we now must test everyone because of a failure is stupid.
Imagine all GCSE students needing to re-take their GCSE's because one student in Rye cheated. It does not happen, the cheat gets punished and everyone moves on as they are not sampled or a part of the problem.
A fail does not mean all identical parts/cars/people/tests are then re-assessed.

Imagine 25pc of the class in one school were found cheating.
Would you not check the others? Or just the ones you found?

Or you sample 12 ford focuses from a production line.. 4 of them have the same fault.. Are you just going to let the others go out?


I'd say it absolutely warrants a further investigation

 

[413x]

No it does not.
Sample taken, non compliant car found, punishment undertaken accordingly.
To then state, oh we now must test everyone because of a failure is stupid.
Imagine all GCSE students needing to re-take their GCSE's because one student in Rye cheated. It does not happen, the cheat gets punished and everyone moves on as they are not sampled or a part of the problem.
A fail does not mean all identical parts/cars/people/tests are then re-assessed.

Imagine 25pc of the class in one school were found cheating.
Would you not check the others? Or just the ones you found?

Or you sample 12 ford focuses from a production line.. 4 of them have the same fault.. Are you just going to let the others go out?


I'd say it absolutely warrants a further investigation


Because they haven't just found one student in 100s. They've found 2 cars of a tiny sample size.

Edit.. Its actually worse than that.. 50 percent of the cars tested failed? That's significant.

 

[sidimmu]

Imagine 25pc of the class in one school were found cheating.
Would you not check the others? Or just the ones you found?

Or you sample 12 ford focuses from a production line.. 4 of them have the same fault.. Are you just going to let the others go out?


I'd say it absolutely warrants a further investigation


Because they haven't just found one student in 100s. They've found 2 cars of a tiny sample size.

Edit.. Its actually worse than that.. 50 percent of the cars tested failed? That's significant.

It's significant and warrants further investigation if it has impact on other people, services etc etc
So if a car was at fault on production, yes of course.

This is regarding a competition of vehicles in a closed environment with a business needing to survive over the top of it all.

The FIA followed their rules, took a sample, tested sample, people who failed got punished accordingly.
If you didn't get sampled, you got lucky. Will you be lucky again next race? Who knows, that's the risk some of these teams take when they know they are bending the rules.
You are all moaning now because your fav driver got picked up (and you all deny this is the case) and now want to jump down this topic of fairness in a sport, where fairness is never a consideration in sport, it's all about a winner.