Poll: Brazilian Grand Prix 2021, São Paulo - Race 19

Rate the 2021 Brazilian Grand Prix out of ten

  • Total voters
    168
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Flibster said:
So if a car has a chunk of bodywork come off and technically runs underweight, they shouldn't be allowed to replace it for scrutineering?
Click to expand...
It's a very different issue having random damage (which Mercedes have retired from races for previously) vs a clear performance advantage due to having DRS opened further than allowed.
 
Flibster said:
Vettel in the Aston Martin at Hungary.

That wasn't a technical failure. The fuel wasn't in there to be retrieved. The car was stopped on track post race, so was immediately flagged for a fuel sample. Only 0.3l could be retrieved using every method allowed.
Click to expand...

Quite, yes it was sorry!

Still there was a huge debate about the fuel lift pump failing meaning they could not get the sample out.
The team argued that they knew how much fuel went in, how much the calibrated FIA fuel flow sensor suggested they used, so they KNEW the fuel was indeed in there according to the data.

I think they appealed on the grounds that they should be allowed to replace the broken part to get the sample.

Still, I forget what happened after that. Other than Vettel losing the position :(
 
this_is_gav said:
It's a very different issue having random damage (which Mercedes have retired from races for previously) vs a clear performance advantage due to having DRS opened further than allowed.
Click to expand...

Clear performance advantage? If it was really one side of the wing, it's more like to have destabilised flow and increased drag than helped. And if it was 0.2mm I doubt it made more than the most marginal of differences. Certainly nothing like Hamilton's edge over Max.
 
Flibster said:
But if it's damaged? Only one side was opening further, that's not going to help the aero.
Click to expand...

What? It's drag. Losing even a little bit in certain circumstances will help.


CaptainRAVE said:
Performance advantage to warrant a back of the grid penalty? 0.2mm.
Click to expand...
Cheating to warrant a back of the grid penalty?

It's either legal or it's not.
 
0.2mm!? A pubic hair would not pass through 0.2mm surely?
Is that not within margin of error of the manufacturing tolerances and measuring equipment? I mean come on. That's not making any difference. If anything it would be unbalanced being only on one side.
 
this_is_gav said:
Cheating to warrant a back of the grid penalty?

It's either legal or it's not.
Click to expand...

Oh god your not seriously hanging onto the ‘cheating’ conspiracy theory. Do you realise how small 0.2mm is? From your comments you don’t.

At this point if the championship I’d be up for Max winning, but not like this. Classic FIA lack of common sense.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
Oh god your not seriously hanging onto the ‘cheating’ conspiracy theory. Do you realise how small 0.2mm is? From your comments you don’t.

At this point if the championship I’d be up for Max winning, but not like this. Classic FIA lack of common sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah to think that someone would deliberately design and cause 0.2mm worth of additional opening on one end of the wing unbalanced, and think that it was worth doing so vs a potential disqualification is ridiculous. If you are going to "cheat" they would at least go to town and make it a worthwhile cheat if the penalty would be the same. It's extremely harsh.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
Oh god your not seriously hanging onto the ‘cheating’ conspiracy theory. Do you realise how small 0.2mm is? From your comments you don’t.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "hanging onto the ‘cheating’ conspiracy theory?".

No, I don't for a minute think Merc were cheating deliberately. But was it performance-enhancing=yes. Was it legal=no. It's that simple.
 
this_is_gav said:
What do you mean by "hanging onto the ‘cheating’ conspiracy theory?".

No, I don't for a minute think Merc were cheating deliberately. But was it performance-enhancing=yes. Was it legal=no. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

Was it performance enhancing = no. It would result in an imbalance down the straight. Was any kind of common sense applied = no. Are the FIA idiots = yes. Was Max’s penalty also ridiculous = yes.
 
What the **** is an imbalance on a straight? You want to lose as much drag as possible in the dry, it's that simple. Mercedes did that, whether by design or otherwise.
 
this_is_gav said:
What the **** is an imbalance on a straight? You want to lose as much drag as possible. Mercedes did that, whether by design or otherwise.
Click to expand...

because there would be more airflow on one side, pushing one down more than the other. That’s an imbalance. It’s moot anyway, 0.2mm will have a negligible effect in any way. Contrary to what your trying to argue.
 
IPBA said:
So now stooping to the level of calling me a fanboy. Are you not the same individual who was team Nico and heavily against Lewis, you had a different forum name back then?

Anyway do not bother responding as it will be another childish response from you as we have already witnessed. Have a good night.
Click to expand...


You are confused on another matter as well.

I have had this account with the same name since 2009.

Regarding LH I tell it straight as it is the same with the other drivers and I bet you are one of those people who has never even met the guy I have numerous times he is a complete phony.
 
I think the penalty was a bit harsh but on the other side 'meh', it is what it is. And that's as a Hamilton fan...

The interesting bit, to me at least, is the stewards notice seems to make a point of saying that it passed the 'static' test (e.g. the gap was 85mm or less with no force applied) but failed the 10Nm test, the latter is part of the non-binding technical directive (as Flibster pointed out above). So they're basically saying the rules as written as more guidelines and the TD's are 'more important'.

We kinda knew this anyway, the RB rear wing at Barcelona (and every front wing even today) is clearly a movable aerodynamic device, which is very definitely illegal as per the rules, but is allowed because they pass the test.

Anyway... I quite liked that sprint race/qualifying, so 2-1 for me over the year :p I think Hamiltons performance made the bulk of the enjoyment obviously. I was assuming RB/Verstappen would win this one and the championship would be over, but even if Hamilton can only get 3rd tomorrow (and based off today that seems like the minimum...) if Bottas wins then that's not as bad as it could've been by a long way.

Malt_Vinegar said:
Quite, yes it was sorry!

Still there was a huge debate about the fuel lift pump failing meaning they could not get the sample out.
The team argued that they knew how much fuel went in, how much the calibrated FIA fuel flow sensor suggested they used, so they KNEW the fuel was indeed in there according to the data.

I think they appealed on the grounds that they should be allowed to replace the broken part to get the sample.

Still, I forget what happened after that. Other than Vettel losing the position :(
Click to expand...

The rules state that you can use an external pump if the lift pump had failed, which they tried but still were unable to get the fuel. The rule explicitly forbids removing bodywork which they were trying to get the FIA to allow them to do but in the end admitted/revealed that they had a fuel leak (iirc) and it just wasn't there any more.

So even if they'd been shown leniency to the extent of completely ignoring a rule they were still getting the penalty.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
because there would be more airflow on one side, pushing one down more than the other. That’s an imbalance. It’s moot anyway, 0.2mm will have a negligible effect in any way. Contrary to what your trying to argue.
Click to expand...
It's a flat out section in the dry. If they could take disable half the rear wing entirely, they would.
 
I think the problem is, they either abide by the rules or they don't. IF they decide to make allowances it sets a precedent that the rules aren't worth a **** so as annoying as it is the letter of the(ir) law had to be followed. This is also coming from someone who wants Lewis to get number 8.
 
SKILL said:
I think the penalty was a bit harsh but on the other side 'meh', it is what it is. And that's as a Hamilton fan...
Click to expand...

The car wasn't legal. It's a slam dunk. Whether the penalty is proportionate doesn't come into it. If the car doesn't qualify legally, it doesn't qualify at all. Hamilton had to rely on his practice times just to be allowed to start the sprint race.

SKILL said:
We kinda knew this anyway, the RB rear wing at Barcelona (and every front wing even today) is clearly a movable aerodynamic device, which is very definitely illegal as per the rules, but is allowed because they pass the test.
Click to expand...
No different to the Mercedes rear wings in Baku then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom