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

Rate the USA race out of ten

  • Total voters
    84
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
the problem with saying 50% of the sample failed or even 1 car failed then test all cars, what about flipping it the other way. 1 car passed the test so lets test all cars so make sure they also pass. I don't know how long it takes to scrutineer a car but it wasnt until 01.30 i believe when the final DSQ's were announced, thats 3-4 hours after the race, how many people do they have checking the cars? how many are checked concurrently? testing all cars could potentially cause delays into the next race ??

I really don't understand the logical loops people are jumping through to make this a conspiracy against Merc saying RBR are forcing the FIA into cheating etc, most ignoring Charles also got the DSQ.... i got to wonder how heavy the tin foil hats are, they must be into the metric tonne range by now.
 
sidimmu said:
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.
Click to expand...

Note the OR there.
I am saying people have been asking for one or the other. I don't mean both.
You seem to be trying to teach us what a sample is repeatedly. *Claps hands.*
 
Considering the millions you would think they could test all the cars. No problem with the rules just seems like they could be testing some things on all cars.
 
AlphariusOmegan said:
the problem with saying 50% of the sample failed or even 1 car failed then test all cars, what about flipping it the other way. 1 car passed the test so lets test all cars so make sure they also pass. I don't know how long it takes to scrutineer a car but it wasnt until 01.30 i believe when the final DSQ's were announced, thats 3-4 hours after the race, how many people do they have checking the cars? how many are checked concurrently? testing all cars could potentially cause delays into the next race ??

I really don't understand the logical loops people are jumping through to make this a conspiracy against Merc saying RBR are forcing the FIA into cheating etc, most ignoring Charles also got the DSQ.... i got to wonder how heavy the tin foil hats are, they must be into the metric tonne range by now.
Click to expand...
People's own anger and their mental loops are just immeasurable, especially if they have had a bad couple of seasons.
 
jaybee said:
Note the OR there.
I am saying people have been asking for one or the other. I don't mean both.
You seem to be trying to teach us what a sample is repeatedly. *Claps hands.*
Click to expand...
Well I think it is clear there seems to be a misunderstanding about the point or purpose of sampling.
I can read, especially items I have typed myself. I was stating your logic for resolution off of the back of "sampling" does not add or make sense. Not to mention you are then penalising other teams for a sample they have not been a part of, well that's not exactly fair is it.
If you take sample, that sample is then which is tested/punished as a result. Take a weight bearing rope, many diff brands, types, models etc etc, if a sample fails the test, that model/brand is sampled further, not every provider and model available.
 
The point is being missed over and over again.
Bumpiest track on calendar + sprint weekend and lack of time to setup/check cars = some teams ran too low and got plank wear beyond expectations.
I know what would be fair... let's test 4 cars randomly, find 50% of that sample size failed, then penalize the 2 failures without checking at least their team mates cars (which are highly likely to also fail) and let everyone else off.

These are the rules, but they should override in situations like this with common sense, and increase the sample size for this specific, highly relevant test in these exceptional circumstances, to 100% of cars in the interest of fairness.
 
It's a problem that's not really easy to fix - this particular example is an oddity in that it's reasonably likely to think a few of the other cars on the grid also ran out of spec - but that probably doesn't really apply to many other aspects of scrutineering in terms of likelihood of other cars being affected, if Lewis and Charles were found to have failed due to a fixed part being out of spec, you might reasonably expect the other Merc/Ferrari to be similar but that's it.

It's the sort of thing that's not really worth writing a dedicated set of rules around, for the once in a blue moon that a few cars might have run too low, just leave them to take the risk as to whether they're going to get sampled and how brave they are with ride height.
 
jaybee said:
The point is being missed over and over again.
Bumpiest track on calendar + sprint weekend and lack of time to setup/check cars = some teams ran too low and got plank wear beyond expectations.
I know what would be fair... let's test 4 cars randomly, find 50% of that sample size failed, then penalize the 2 failures without checking at least their team mates cars (which are highly likely to also fail) and let everyone else off.

These are the rules, but they should override in situations like this with common sense, and increase the sample size for this specific, highly relevant test in these exceptional circumstances, to 100% of cars in the interest of fairness.
Click to expand...
Thats not fairness though lad.

You punish the sample that you have formally agreed to test.
You cannot go changing the test or sample size, post event and post all testing because you want to due to seeing bad results.
Instead, you tested the cars you said you would, you found the cars out of spec and punished accordingly.

When someone is arrested down a street and their property searched, every other owner should then have their property searched in the interest of fairness against all residents of that street and a 100% sample size taken when a single failure is found. See a problem with this yet?
 
Last edited:
my opinion is

either stick with the randomness of the testing sample and abide by just that and the teams takes their chances

OR

employ a lot more people so that you can test all cars for all areas post race every race.
 
sidimmu said:
Thats not fairness though lad.

You punish the sample that you have formally agreed to test.
You cannot go changing the test or sample size, post event and post all testing because you want to due to seeing bad results.
Instead, you tested the cars you said you would, you found the cars out of spec and punished accordingly.

When someone is arrested down a street, every other owner should then have their property searched in the interest of fairness against all residents of that street and a 100% sample size taken when a single failure is found. See a problem with this yet?
Click to expand...

So what you are saying - which I totally respect - is that we must stick to the rules set out and always follow them in terms of sampling and testing? We cannot make up rules on the spot or alter them as deemed fit even in exceptional circumstances?
I refer you to Abu Dhabi 2021.
 
Last edited:
You also have the issue that in scenarios like this, the governing body almost certainly don't want to be testing the whole field because of the sheer media embarrassment they'd face when they disqualify about 15 cars for having planks too worn.
 
jaybee said:
So what you are saying - which I totally respect - is that we must stick to the rules set out and always follow them in terms of sampling and testing? We cannot make up rules on the spot or alter them as deemed fit even in exceptional circumstances?
I refer you to Abu Dhabi 2021.
Click to expand...
Yes we must, as you stated thats the only way for fairness and a single way forward.
So yes, we must follow the rules, the FIA set out a sample percentage, they follow sample percentage and punish sample which has failed.

Oh you, "let me whip out AD21 as a counter point", grow up LHFan2015.
 
sidimmu said:
Yes we must, as you stated thats the only way for fairness and a single way forward.
So yes, we must follow the rules, the FIA set out a sample percentage, they follow sample percentage and punish sample which has failed.

Oh you, "let me whip out AD21 as a counter point", grow up LHFan2015.
Click to expand...

The point was more that the FIA do and have changed the rules as and when they deem fit historically. Teams dob each other in all the time and they get looked at just because. If the FIA want to override something in the interest of the sport, they do. This could have been one where they could but yes, the media embarrassment from DQing half the grid was probably not something liberty could stomach. What we can expect is that "they" will do what is best for the interest of the sport usually.
 
Is there anywhere we can read how the random car number selection process for scrutineering takes place? Is it documented anywhere?

Funny how Max and Lewis were chosen among the entire grid isn't it.
 
Last edited:
jaybee said:
The point was more that the FIA do and have changed the rules as and when they deem fit historically. Teams dob each other in all the time and they get looked at just because. If the FIA want to override something in the interest of the sport, they do. This could have been one where they could but yes, the media embarrassment from DQing half the grid was probably not something liberty could stomach. What we can expect is that "they" will do what is best for the interest of the sport usually.
Click to expand...
One bad example and now your point is "the FIA change and do as and when they see fit", well yeah as the owner of the series, they should make changes as and when needed. This case is not one of them though.

If the other teams suspected any foul play, they could have requested the FIA to look at the car in question, given none have, none saw the problem in it. Or here's the wild thing, all the other teams were also not in compliance and were praying they don't get sampled because, playing the sample game is still playing the game.

FIA took an approach, took a sample, punished accordingly. If other teams had a problem, well they have the ability to raise a complaint and chose not to.
jaybee said:
Is there anywhere we can read how the random car number selection process for scrutineering takes place? Is it documented anywhere?

Funny how Max and Lewis were chosen among the entire grid isn't it.
Click to expand...
Is there any documents to confirm how a random selection is taken?
Pure coincidence.
 
Last edited:
jaybee said:
Is there anywhere we can read how the random car number selection process for scrutineering takes place? Is it documented anywhere?

Funny how Max and Lewis were chosen among the entire grid isn't it.
Click to expand...
yes, i've read it what they do is roll a D30 dice twice, then if it doesnt land on 44 they roll again until it does.
 
Last edited:
Kenai said:
You also have the issue that in scenarios like this, the governing body almost certainly don't want to be testing the whole field because of the sheer media embarrassment they'd face when they disqualify about 15 cars for having planks too worn.
Click to expand...
So what's more important, fairness in sport or saving the embarrassment of the FIA?

I'm just watching Ted's notebook and he's pointing out (pre DQ news) that Alonso retired due to floor damage that they don't know where it came from. Stroll who performed quite well had upgrades too.. We very well could be in a situation where half the grid wore their planks down a lot more than usual due to lack of free practice and the track being extremely bumpy. At the very least it should be investigated further. I bet the other teams packed their planks away and jetted them off the Mexico pretty darn sharpish.
 
Last edited:
Scam said:
So what's more important, fairness in sport or saving the embarrassment of the FIA?

I'm just watching Ted's notebook and he's pointing out (pre DQ news) that Alonso retired due to floor damage that they don't know where it came from. Stroll who performed quite well had upgrades too..
Click to expand...
I think the on-going operation and survival of the formula is more important.
The amount of testing people are asking for would destroy the finances and/or calendar due to logistic issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom