Yeah. For such a technical sport, they already push rules to the limits and deliberately have legal teams to "interpret" rulings to their benefit. I do believe in certain cases though some common sense has to be taken. No team would realistically go out and start also trying to add 0.2mm of additional gap to claw back any supposed advantage. It's highly unrealistic and clearly linked to a failure or fatigue here.
Poll: Brazilian Grand Prix 2021, São Paulo - Race 19
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
- Status
Yeah. For such a technical sport, they already push rules to the limits and deliberately have legal teams to "interpret" rulings to their benefit. I do believe in certain cases though some common sense has to be taken. No team would realistically go out and start also trying to add 0.2mm of additional gap to claw back any supposed advantage. It's highly unrealistic and clearly linked to a failure or fatigue here.
Rules is rules though. If they allow tolerance it would be a very slippery slope..
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,278
Can't wait for all the new loop holes next year. LOL
Same. Brawn was pretty confident that there won’t be any and that they’ll clamp down on any that are found. I do hope no one team runs away with it due to a loophole though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
No I don't for a minute think Mercedes did anything deliberate. They pushed the limits in a close title battle and went a little too far. You can't start trying to plea for common sense to technical infringements though - sometimes it might seem harsh, but either a car is legal or it isn't. It's pretty black and white.
Don
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,038
- Location
- In a house
And this is the problem.
If there is any doubt, the teams have to build in tolerance WITHIN the rules set to allow for deviations without penalty.
However. They are always pushing, so it's sure to happen occasionally.
As I understand it, max needs to ensure he maximises his lead this race, as Mercedes are expected to the strong in the remaining races.
This is an exciting end to a championship and I am relishing the drama, intrigue and development shown by all involved.
The only way to have great championships is when two or more top teams have top drivers fighting it out on a very close playing field.
We have that, and it is to be savoured. As a fan of the sport, this is fantastic, and I am loving it
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
I’ve no issue with a penalty for anyone if the car is illegal, but saying that there was such a low margin of error because it was likely broken annoys me. If you’re acknowledging that there’s damage there and it’s already passed the static test then throw the investigation out.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,670
The problem is that if there is any interpretation of ‘damage’ the teams will exploit it. Crash/contact damage to a front wing/barge boards is only ever going to generally increase drag. The teams are smart enough to engineer the drs to ‘fail’ and open beyond permitted opening at a high speed track. If the car had failed after a rear collision I think the view would be different, but the cars need to always stay within the tolerance and be over engineered to compensate for forces. We have already seen both merc and RB exploit the amount of wing flex to the degree that the FIA changed the test. The limit will always be pushed so that inspection is past and the car can perform beyond when beneficial.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 24,936
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Maybe the FIA ruler was 0.2m long?
True. Although a less severe penalty would be sufficient to prevent that, I don't know whether the Stewards are actually allowed to do that in this case?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 24,936
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Yea they could have just given him a 5 place or 1pm play e grid pen instead.
The rule is fine as it is. Yes it's harsh in case like this but introducing any sort of tolerances or tiered penalty system would just make it difficult, confusing and opened for interpretation. This way it's black and white and everyone know where they stand if a part is outside of specifications.
Imagine coming up with a system to suit all the parts. Some being slightly out may have bigger impact than others and penalty would have to reflect that.
Also as soon as you introduce tolerances you can bet that teams would design to that if they knew it gives them performance benefit.
Imagine coming up with a system to suit all the parts. Some being slightly out may have bigger impact than others and penalty would have to reflect that.
Also as soon as you introduce tolerances you can bet that teams would design to that if they knew it gives them performance benefit.
It's not a question of "tolerances", it's a question of a clearly broken part. Even if they were able to rig that for some marginal performance benefit, a 5-place penalty would vastly outweigh that. As I said, I think the stewards acted in a manner consistent with precedent so I don't have a big problem, but I do think they should look at this for the future. The punishment here vastly outweighs the infraction.
But sounds like Merc knew the part was faulty going into quali, they gambled and it didn't pay off.
I agree that the punishment outweighs the infraction but still think it's the fairest way to deal with incidents like this. There's no chance of bias from stewards towards particular drivers.
The design of the wing is legal and one side failed causing it to be 0.2mm too big so you are DQ
You can crash on the way to the grid, replace half of the front end and be fine?
I'm not sure where the line is. If the distinction is it failed by itself rather than caused by damage, then if merc found a bit of video of a stone hitting the rear wing they would have been in the clear? If part of your suspension fails during qualifying you're now dq?
You can crash on the way to the grid, replace half of the front end and be fine?
I'm not sure where the line is. If the distinction is it failed by itself rather than caused by damage, then if merc found a bit of video of a stone hitting the rear wing they would have been in the clear? If part of your suspension fails during qualifying you're now dq?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,278
I hope not in order to keep the championship alive a little longer.
Unlikely that a suspension failure would give you extra performance. You’re also assuming Merc are honest about it being damage, not that it’s impossible; mistakes happen.
Give any F1 team a hand and they’ll take the whole body; these guys will do whatever it takes and is what makes the cars such engineering marvels. Rules are rules; do better quality control next time.
Where does this come from? It directly contradicts what is said in the decision document "[h]ad the Competitor recognized this problem during qualifying they surely would have sought, and the FIA Technical Department confirmed, they would have received permission to fix the parts or tighten bolts if needed."
They always claim to treat everyone equally but if your the fastest car in a straight line and your competitors are kicking up a fuss about your rear wing then maybe its less likley to be accepted as damage and instead the wing is taken away for inspection.
- Status