Poll: Official 2023 United States Grand Prix Thread - Circuit of the Americas, Austin - Round 19
- Thread starter chrismscotland
- Start date
- Status
We know RB and McLaren potentially did. Looks like Merc and Fer didn't. So what about the other 6 teams? What about Hamilton and Leclerc's teammates?
I'm sorry but if you find 50% of your small sample size suddenly reveals something that hasn't been penalised with disqualifications at any point in recent memory, that would highlight to anyone that something about this specific track has made something go wrong.
This all seems like a massive failing of how they enforce a technical regulation like this.
Compared to Middle East i guessThought it was interesting that Hamilton praised the US for being progressive... must have been those tollerant progressive Americans that booed Max.
Associate
The booing was from the hyper partisan Mexican/Perez fans who were there in huge numbers.
Last edited:
Soldato
I'd certainly agree that, based on finding one car failing they should have checked all of them.
Looks like a win win for Norris, as well as bagging the P2 with Hamilton's DSQ, he's also overtaken Leclerc in the standings due to his DSQ.
If anyone had their ear in the stewards ears, I'd have thought Zak had a lot more to gain from it.
The only losers are Merc. This works for Ferrari too as they have actually gained points on Merc now..
I think we all know it is. They would easily have enough money to have a team to inspect every single car individually, immediately after every race.
Even if it's not track specific, if you're looking for something that is worthy of a DQ then it should be done to the entire field surely. It's nuts that there could be 6-7 runners out there that would have failed the same test yet have gotten away with it, no, correction - been promoted because of the spot checks.
EDIT: And why can't the cars just run as low as they physically can depending on the track? What's the danger anyway? They go too fast? I dont understand this having to run as low as you can to get the performance but "not too low mister otherwise you're a naughty boy"
Last edited:
Caporegime
For any given value of money and people you are going to spend on scrutineering, you can scrutineer more things if you do some proportion of them as a random sample.
And why can't the cars just run as low as they physically can depending on the track? What's the danger anyway? They go too fast? I dont understand this having to run as low as you can to get the performance but "not too low mister otherwise you're a naughty boy"
It was introduced after the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger. As I understand it, it's considered a big risk because if you rely on it for grip then if you lose it because you hit a kerb/bump/other car/whatever then you suffer a massive, sudden loss of downforce making the car completely uncontrollable and likely to collide with the wall at very high speeds.
Fair enough. Isn't that likely to happen quite a lot with these ground effect cars anyway? I mean, that's what porpoising kinda is anyway - when they bottom out. Yeah, I still don't like this ground effect..
Soldato
Rules are rules!
Caporegime
The way they did it with these cars is different and safer, apparently, for reasons I don't understand *shrug*
Last edited:
Soldato
Except when they’re not
Sure it has happened before in the late 90s / early 2000s. This article says Schumacher was disqualified shortly after the rule was introduced in 1994.
The F1 rule breach that led to Hamilton and Leclerc's DSQs
The breaching of one Formula 1 technical rule changed the face of the final United States Grand Prix race order. Edd Straw explains everything you need to know about the rule and why it caught out Mercedes and Ferrari
www.the-race.com
We are not saying that. People are saying samples are fine, but if either:
a) A significant proportion of a sample size fails a test
or
b) Anyone fails any test
Then that test should also then be repeated for all cars. Otherwise what's the point? Sample sizes are to speed up and lower costs of checks yes, but it is to allow you to home in on problem areas to look more deeply at.
EDIT: Imagine last race of the season and title contender 1 gets randomly spot checked for fuel sample and fails getting a Disqualification, but title contender 2 doesn't get selected and is fine to keep the title. We are to shrug that off as luck of the draw and carry on. We just want fairness is all. That's all we ever want with rules. Consistency and fairness.
Last edited:
The minimum ride height was increased I thought earlier this year, or last year as a result of the porpoising issues for safety. This was less about bottoming out and suddenly losing grip, but more about safety of the drivers backs physically due to the impact to the spines?
Lol make up your mind.
What is it, if half the field fail - test everyone
OR
If someone fails, everyone gets tested.
Either are not justification for checking everyone, the sample'd cars got punishment, all other teams risking it get a stern warning from others being penalised. It is then their choice if they wish to continue with the practise.
Move on to next race, take another sample, repeat.
In regards to your edit with further "what ifs", then the car sampled would get DQ'd as they have not complied with the rules. If car 2 is then sampled wiht same thing, guess what same thing. If car 2 has been sampled at the previous 14 races with no issues of compliance, why do you think they should be automatically classed as non compliant for not being sampled.
For reference, sampling is fairness. Anyone can get caught at any time due to being sampled, it is not timely nor financially responsible to test every car for every part/regulation after every race.
Last edited:
- Status