Soldato
Which is what's telling AM there's 1.44L left in the tank...
Poll: Hungarian Grand Prix 2021, Budapest - Race 11/23
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Which is what's telling AM there's 1.44L left in the tank...
It doesn't matter. The tank could be full to brimming, but if the team can't provide a litre on request, they are in breach of the regulations and the mandated punishment is disqualification from the race. It's not about how much fuel is in the car, it's about providing the stewards with a one litre sample of it.
The team can argue what they like about how much fuel is in the car, that's not the rule they've broken, and (rather like RB's nonsensical appeal to try and get Hamilton a harsher penalty), I'd be surprised if the FIA consider the details. They'll more than likely dismiss the appeal on the basis of not actually addressing what they've been penalised for.
Soldato
I know, made that point a week ago!
This whole discussion about the appeal is just Seb fans wishing upon a star that he gets to keep his second place, but I think it looks very unlikely.
Soldato
Who knows. For all we know it might even be the scrutineers themselves who have suggested appealing on the basis that X doesn't equal Y but they were bound by the rules of the event to DSQ as things stand.
We've no idea on what basis the appeal will be heard. While AM could be clutching at straws with seemingly nothing to lose, we can't do anything other than speculate until more information comes to light.
We've no idea on what basis the appeal will be heard. While AM could be clutching at straws with seemingly nothing to lose, we can't do anything other than speculate until more information comes to light.
but you have to look at the reason for the rule existing which is presumable to ensure teams don't gain advantage from under-fueling or whatever, if there is physically 1.4l still left in the tank like AM claim then the fault lies with the system or procedure that's in place and AM have been DQ through no fault of their own. ie. faulty pump. If it's the case that the tank was physically empty and it's not bad math from AM then that could point to a problem with the onboard sensors being unreliable? it needs investigating either way really.
I'm not a Vettel fan and like I said I think with him stopping on track he either ran out or AM were concerned at the time so they are most likely just trying it on, but if it's a problem with pumps or sensors then imagine if Hamilton or Verstappen run into the same fate at some point and it impacts the Championship in a crucial way.
Caporegime
No, it's so they can get the 1l sample to test for compliance with the rules regarding fuel composition.
Doesn't matter the reasons. If the team disagrees with the rules, then they need to lobby to have the teams agree to change it, and in the meantime comply with it as they have presumably been doing for the last few years.
If you fall foul of the rules you've been racing under for years, you're not going to get out of it by coming up with a load of justifications as to why the rules should suddenly not apply to you when it's inconvenient. That's a different discussion from "did they break the rule?". The reason why the rule is so cut and dried is exactly so this kind of discussion and questioning of the rule can't take place. There's simply no arguing with "did you supply the litre of fuel or not?" The reasons behind it don't matter and are not taken into consideration.
Associate
They have lost the DQ review but say they will appeal the verdict.
Their argument is that they followed the rules. If the FIA are mandating pumps and sensors as part of their procedures to check for compliance of those rules then those items of equipment need to be reliable to avoid wrongful disqualifications. Like I said, it should be investigated either way.
But they didn't follow the rules... The rule says they need to provide a 1L sample, they didn't. Job done.
I read they provided 'new evidence' that showed that an electrical/pump failure essentially caused the system to purge itself and there simply wasn't 1L of fuel remaining anymore. That was rejected at 'right to review' because it is obviously isn't relevant.
I assume they'll try to convince the appeals court that a malfunction should be a mitigating factor, not sure how much success they'll have with that and it won't be for ages...
Associate
Even if the appeals court does agree, that it should be a mitigating factor I would assume it first needs a change in the rules in which currently there are no exceptions. And change in rules can be applied from the introduction of the rule but would not be applied to the last race so I would think the DQ will stay.
My understanding is the appeals court could alter the punishment, perhaps not remove it entirely as it would still be a rules breach but alter/reduce it...
I could be wrong/IANAL but the stewards are essentially given a look up table, infringement X = punishment A, B or C. In this case the infringement = DQ, no options. The Hamilton/Verstappen incident had (I believe) the three options of 5s penalty, 10s penalty, and stop-and-go, they picked the piddle one. As far as I know the appeals court could turn the DQ into a 5s penalty, or in the Silverstone incident into a DQ, if they felt that was a more appropriate punishment.
Or they could just do nothing, which I think is far more likely frankly.
Soldato
Which, in essence, is what the FIA have done, even if Aston Martin proved there was a fuel leak it is not admissible evidence under the rules..
"Aston Martin would have had to present facts that actually more than 1 litre of fuel was remaining. The explanation why this requirement could not be met is not relevant to the decision as to whether a breach of the regulations has occurred."
"Aston Martin would have had to present facts that actually more than 1 litre of fuel was remaining. The explanation why this requirement could not be met is not relevant to the decision as to whether a breach of the regulations has occurred."
but if there were 1.4l in the tank like AM were originally claiming then in that case it's merely a procedural error, much like Ocon not returning to the pits like he should have done and not getting disqualified. You have to show common sense at times instead of taking legalism to the extreme.
You can't just interpret the rules the way you want to. If it's not written as the rule, then it's not the rule. This rule in particular has no interpretation, and not even any leeway on the punishment for breaking it. It doesn't matter what AM says was in the tank, nor even what was actually in the tank, what matters is if AM could supply a 1L sample from the fuel tank, and they couldn't.
You're basically arguing that they should be let off because AM say they had a really good reason to be let off, but there's no provision for that in the rules. There's no extenuating circumstances and if there were, it wouldn't matter.
The fact that AM had Vettel stop the car as soon as they could on the track is circumstantial evidence that they were underfuelled and ran out before being able to complete the race, which actually is supported by the fact they couldn't supply a fuel sample.
You're missing the point. The requirement isn't for AM to prove that there was a litre of fuel in the tank, it is for them to provide a litre of fuel so that it can be tested (plus some set aside if the tests need to be repeated). AM failed to produce the required volume for the sample (the reasons why the sample can't be provided don't matter you either provide the required volume or you don't) and are therefore DQ'd as per the rules.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,038
It’s the simplest slam dunk rule in F1. Their appeal never stood a chance, but equally they have to try.
Soldato
Because people in the F1 forum think they know more than all the engineers, sporting directors, stewards, and rule makers, so it tends to go beyond mere discussion of the event. It's always the same on this forum. Best just to only tune into the bits you are interested in.