F1 2023: US GP - Austin (Oct 22)

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by dfox

The sprint race was incredibly boring. I'd have rather watched more FP, honestly. Go back to the old format or get rid of it.

Checo lucked out in the end for sure, but if three of the 5 people that finished above him were running an unfair advantage, including one who is still finishing above him because the car was never checked for wear (Sainz), was it really luck, or would he have actually been on podium with all legal cars?

Whether or not the sprint race was boring or not isn't really part of my post.

But indeed if they do a check on a sample number of cars, and find that half of them don't meet the rules on the same aspect, checking the rest of the cars on that aspect would make sense, and for teams finishing outside of the top 10....they might be there because of that.
I mean alpine was also unexpectedly quick (despite Ocon's dnf), so who knows more cars might have ran too low.
If it really turns out that some teams gamble with the ride height and other teams dont, then the ones that loose that gamble and fail to meet regulations should be punished for that. In that situation the FIA owes that to the teams that don't gamble with that setup and play it safe.

[3798j]

One of the better F1 racing "cheats"...
"In 1997, photographer Darren Heath couldn’t understand why a rear brake rotor on the McLaren MP4/12 F1 car was glowing red even as the car accelerated out of corners. He found a clue inside the cockpit, where he spotted a second brake pedal. What gives? Designer Steve Nichols had realized that giving drivers the ability to independently apply one rear brake enabled them to dial out understeer, helping the car turn more sharply and allowing the team to run less front wing. It took awhile to perfect the brake-steer apparatus. But after the new-for-1998 MP4/13 kicked holy butt in the season opener at Australia using effectively a form of four-wheel steering, the system was prohibited, the usual penalty for building a better mousetrap."

[dfox]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Whether or not the sprint race was boring or not isn't really part of my post.

I mean, it is related, I just left the dots unconnected... teams always complain that they have limited time to get their cars set up, and ride height could have been better dialed in if teams had more FP. Clearly seen with 4 cars starting from the pits for this race - because they needed to make changes that they otherwise would have made before FP3.

I think the current sprint race format brings minimal to the overall experience for fans, but it puts teams and racers in a position where they can't adequately dial in their car before the race, and on last week's race, that's arguably resulted in two top drivers being disqualified...

I don't think Ferrari and Merc would have "risked" the floor height, I think if they had more FP time to see how much wear the wood plank would have taken that they'd have adjusted the ride height. But they didn't get that time, and didn't have the ability to make changes even if they did realize it might be an issue at some point unless they were willing to start from the pits...

[3798j]

From Motorsport.com...

"In both Hamilton and Leclerc's case, they ran longer first stints on the medium tyre in order to create a strategic offset to Verstappen and Norris.
This could have opened the door for extra plank wear in this period of the race, when the car was still quite heavy with fuel."

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/h...ules/10536935/

[GuidoK]

But then how didn't this issue exist in Baku?
Also a bumpy track and just 1 FP session.
I think here they just took a chance, a chance RB and McLaren didn't take.
It made MERC and Ferrari fast on a track that would normally favour RB and Mclaren.
Too much coincidence in my book.

Anyhow, RB and McLaren got it right, MERC and Ferrari didn't. So it can be done. The race, sprint and practice format is equal for everyone.
They've been driving with planks underneath for what? 30 years now?
So the experience on how to dial it in and what effects potential wear and how much and where exactly should be known extensively by now.

[3798j]

"We have already seen times this year, like with Alpine in Baku, where teams have realised after the sprint that the ride heights were too low and there was a risk of the plank being worn too much in the main race. Cars have been pulled out of parc ferme to make ride height changes, and started from the pitlane."

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/h...ules/10536935/

[3798j]

"The sporting regulations permit technical delegate Jo Bauer to carry out “at his discretion, any checks to verify the compliance of the cars entered in the competition”.
Accordingly, no cars had their floors checked following the Japanese GP, one was looked at after the Qatar sprint race and three cars assessed in the immediate aftermath of the full-length Qatar GP."

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/t...6707/10536707/

[HeelToeShift]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

But then how didn't this issue exist in Baku?
Also a bumpy track and just 1 FP session.
I think here they just took a chance, a chance RB and McLaren didn't take.
It made MERC and Ferrari fast on a track that would normally favour RB and Mclaren.
Too much coincidence in my book.

Anyhow, RB and McLaren got it right, MERC and Ferrari didn't. So it can be done. The race, sprint and practice format is equal for everyone.
They've been driving with planks underneath for what? 30 years now?
So the experience on how to dial it in and what effects potential wear and how much and where exactly should be known extensively by now.

Agreed. I also believe they should have stripped the Sprint points from both disqualified drivers as well knowing they'd have had an unfair performance advantage there too - even though Max still dominated that race.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

But then how didn't this issue exist in Baku?
Also a bumpy track and just 1 FP session.
I think here they just took a chance, a chance RB and McLaren didn't take.
It made MERC and Ferrari fast on a track that would normally favour RB and Mclaren.
Too much coincidence in my book.

Anyhow, RB and McLaren got it right, MERC and Ferrari didn't. So it can be done. The race, sprint and practice format is equal for everyone.
They've been driving with planks underneath for what? 30 years now?
So the experience on how to dial it in and what effects potential wear and how much and where exactly should be known extensively by now.

Well, Merc came to Austin with a huge floor revision. Maybe just a poor decision by Toto since he knew they wouldn't have much FP to dial in the setup. Ferrari didn't change anything, so who knows there.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by dfox

Checo lucked out in the end for sure, but if three of the 5 people that finished above him were running an unfair advantage, including one who is still finishing above him because the car was never checked for wear (Sainz), was it really luck, or would he have actually been on podium with all legal cars?

As we know by now, the Technical Delegate only scrutineered the planks of the cars raced by the podium finishers and the pole sitter: two cars complied (minimum 9mm) and two didn't (<9mm). No time to scrutineer all technical aspects of all cars after races. Samples.

Ferrari and Mercedes do not dispute the DSQ decisions and no team requested additional scrutineering of other cars (for example the cars of Sainz and Russell) (even if the regulations would allow any such request - probably not - then still it could not be granted once the cars have been released to the teams).

Toto Wolff: "Turning to the race result and the disqualification, set-up choices on a sprint weekend are always a challenge with just one hour of free practice - and even more so at a bumpy circuit like COTA and running a new package. In the end, all of that doesn't matter; others got it right where we got it wrong and there's no wiggle room in the rules. We need to take it on the chin, do the learning, and come back stronger next weekend."

So officially P3 and P5 instead of P3* and P5* for Sainz and Russell for this race.

Maybe a journalist could query Vasseur and Wolff whether the plank set-up of their other cars (Sainz and Russell) was identical to the one that ended with DSQs for Leclerc and Hamilton. As they will almost certainly reply that the set-up was different (either because it's the truth or for convenience reasons to avoid a second DSQ), they could be asked to explain the reasons for the (deliberate) difference. Each driver has his personal preferences and driving style, of course. They could also reply that they don't want to revert to that issue anymore, turned the page and now look forward to the next race.

Anyways, it's a warning for all teams and drivers: comply with technical regulations or risk DSQ.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Oh no ! Please not this way.

Hopefully Mercedes and Ferrari appeal the decision.

However, there is virtually no chance to get the harsh DSQ decision overruled because size is objectively measurable and it was not disputed by Mercedes and Ferrari that, even with the tolerance for wear allowed by the rules, the rear skid of both cars failed to comply. But maybe an appeal to give it a try to ask for an alternative penalty than DSQ. But almost certainly to no avail (car does not comply = DSQ).

Small consolation that the cars of Russell and Sainz complied.

The consequences could be crucial for Perez securing #2 in the WDC.

WCC: gonna be a hot Autumn for Mercedes and Ferrari.

Logan Sargeant scored his first point in his home race.

Attachment 3305725

Attachment 3305726

I don't think Sainz and Russell were measured. Only 4 cars were. P1-P3 and someone else.

[HeelToeShift]

Originally Posted by Artemis

As we know by now, the Technical Delegate only scrutineered the planks of the cars raced by the podium finishers and the pole sitter: two cars complied (minimum 9mm) and two didn't (<9mm). No time to scrutineer all technical aspects of all cars after races. Samples.

Ferrari and Mercedes do not dispute the DSQ decisions and no team requested additional scrutineering of other cars (for example the cars of Sainz and Russell) (even if the regulations would allow any such request - probably not - then still it could not be granted once the cars have been released to the teams).

Toto Wolff: "Turning to the race result and the disqualification, set-up choices on a sprint weekend are always a challenge with just one hour of free practice - and even more so at a bumpy circuit like COTA and running a new package. In the end, all of that doesn't matter; others got it right where we got it wrong and there's no wiggle room in the rules. We need to take it on the chin, do the learning, and come back stronger next weekend."

So officially P3 and P5 instead of P3* and P5* for Sainz and Russell for this race.

Maybe a journalist could query Vasseur and Wolff whether the plank set-up of their other cars (Sainz and Russell) was identical to the one that ended with DSQs for Leclerc and Hamilton. As they will almost certainly reply that the set-up was different (either because it's the truth or for convenience reasons to avoid a second DSQ), they could be asked to explain the reasons for the (deliberate) difference. Each driver has his personal preferences and driving style, of course. They could also reply that they don't know, turned the page and now look forward to the next race.

Anyways, it's a warning for all teams and drivers: comply with technical regulations or risk DSQ.

I think the latter is the key. Now, will they risk another DSQ for the performance. It's incredible that Max with a suboptimal ride height sailed away in the Sprint and despite starting 6th, and the brake issue which led to tire issues he was still able to win the race. Just imagine how much slower Ham and Lec would have been had they ran a legal height - 15-20 seconds further behind seems to be the consensus given even a mm or two yields huge benefits.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by dfox

The sprint race was incredibly boring. I'd have rather watched more FP, honestly. Go back to the old format or get rid of it.

The sprint races are horrible. They amount to meaningless parade laps.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by HeelToeShift

I think the latter is the key. Now, will they risk another DSQ for the performance. It's incredible that Max with a suboptimal ride height sailed away in the Sprint and despite starting 6th, and the brake issue which led to tire issues he was still able to win the race. Just imagine how much slower Ham and Lec would have been had they ran a legal height - 15-20 seconds further behind seems to be the consensus given even a mm or two yields huge benefits.

Supposedly Russell and Sainz both ran a different setup than their teammates. Which included having a higher rear ride height. Not for fear of being DQ'd, they just felt more comfortable with those setups. My guess is Hami would have been back closer to Russ, had he been running similar ride height.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

I don't think Sainz and Russell were measured. Only 4 cars were. P1-P3 and someone else.

These post race tests happen every weekend for various items on the car. They are done at random. There is simply not enough time to complete the checks on every car. The teams and the oraganizers start packing up almost immediately. FIA says the randomness of the checks is hoped to be enough of a threat to stop any team from seeking an advantage.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by M3WC

These post race tests happen every weekend for various items on the car. They are done at random. There is simply not enough time to complete the checks on every car. The teams and the oraganizers start packing up almost immediately. FIA says the randomness of the checks is hoped to be enough of a threat to stop any team from seeking an advantage.

That's correct. Scrutineering report: see here (PDF - 4 pages: see pages 3 above and 4 below).



Article 3.5.9. e) of the 2023 Formula 1 Technical Regulations:

[dfox]

Totally understand the historic nature of the plate and all that, but seems a little antiquated with how many sensors are on the cars these days... seems it would be easier to have some electronic wear sensor that just goes off if there's too much wear - no need for some guy to make a judgement call on whether to look or not. Would be in the best interest of driver safety too, all that bouncing can't be good for the body...

[Car-Addicted]

The real shame for me is that this ruling didn't come down before the camera's left. I just love me an industrial size Hamilton whine fest.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by dfox

Totally understand the historic nature of the plate and all that, but seems a little antiquated with how many sensors are on the cars these days... seems it would be easier to have some electronic wear sensor that just goes off if there's too much wear - no need for some guy to make a judgement call on whether to look or not. Would be in the best interest of driver safety too, all that bouncing can't be good for the body...

Jo Bauer ain't just "some guy". He took over the job from the late Charlie Whiting in 1997 when the latter was appointed as Race Director.

Drivers would go nuts if the already discomforting porpoising would equally trigger some sort of 'plank alert' during each hump.

[Fillip]

It was a great race to watch but honestly speaking I am a bit disappointed with Hamilton's disqualification. He had a really good race and ended up disqualified.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

The real shame for me is that this ruling didn't come down before the camera's left. I just love me an industrial size Hamilton whine fest.

Certainly missed the 'pardon my French' outpourings when it was put to him and of course Chas.

[HeelToeShift]

Originally Posted by Fillip

It was a great race to watch but honestly speaking I am a bit disappointed with Hamilton's disqualification. He had a really good race and ended up disqualified.

I don't understand this argument. The ONLY reason he had a good race was because his car was illegal. If he had been legal he would have been back where Rus was.