|
Post by Boomer on Aug 9, 2021 15:15:15 GMT -8
^ Even I am afraid to say what I really think anymore...
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Aug 9, 2021 15:30:03 GMT -8
It seems like they could have done SOMETHING to pull the fuel cell or whatever to see what was really there. I mean, the DQ was huge and I am surprised that the team wouldn't sit there and take the car apart until they could get the fuel out (if it was actually there). Trying to prove later that there should have been sufficient fuel seems like a losing strategy. DQ for such a infraction should be limited to loss of Points earned for both Driver and Manufacturer. Following positions should retain the points THEY ACTUALLY EARNED.
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Aug 9, 2021 16:01:30 GMT -8
It seems like they could have done SOMETHING to pull the fuel cell or whatever to see what was really there. I mean, the DQ was huge and I am surprised that the team wouldn't sit there and take the car apart until they could get the fuel out (if it was actually there). Trying to prove later that there should have been sufficient fuel seems like a losing strategy. Could have but that's not allowed. Seems like you didn't read the part where Aston realized that they didn't have any more in the tank than the .3 pulled out.
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Aug 9, 2021 16:34:38 GMT -8
It seems like they could have done SOMETHING to pull the fuel cell or whatever to see what was really there. I mean, the DQ was huge and I am surprised that the team wouldn't sit there and take the car apart until they could get the fuel out (if it was actually there). Trying to prove later that there should have been sufficient fuel seems like a losing strategy. DQ for such a infraction should be limited to loss of Points earned for both Driver and Manufacturer. Following positions should retain the points THEY ACTUALLY EARNED. Do they get to keep the trophy for participating?
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Aug 9, 2021 19:46:39 GMT -8
DQ for such a infraction should be limited to loss of Points earned for both Driver and Manufacturer. Following positions should retain the points THEY ACTUALLY EARNED. Do they get to keep the trophy for participating? They get to put the 2nd place trophy in the incinerator.
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Aug 9, 2021 21:18:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by pushtopass on Aug 10, 2021 3:49:12 GMT -8
It seems like they could have done SOMETHING to pull the fuel cell or whatever to see what was really there. I mean, the DQ was huge and I am surprised that the team wouldn't sit there and take the car apart until they could get the fuel out (if it was actually there). Trying to prove later that there should have been sufficient fuel seems like a losing strategy. Could have but that's not allowed. Seems like you didn't read the part where Aston realized that they didn't have any more in the tank than the .3 pulled out. But at the time they THOUGHT they had more. I mean, if you are going to be appealing based on all sorts of scenarios it seems you would also at least pull the car apart right then and there. If they could have demonstrated the fuel was in the fuel cell but hadn't made it to the FIA sampler then I would guess their case would be much stronger.
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Aug 10, 2021 7:28:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Aug 10, 2021 7:49:25 GMT -8
Could have but that's not allowed. Seems like you didn't read the part where Aston realized that they didn't have any more in the tank than the .3 pulled out. But at the time they THOUGHT they had more. I mean, if you are going to be appealing based on all sorts of scenarios it seems you would also at least pull the car apart right then and there. If they could have demonstrated the fuel was in the fuel cell but hadn't made it to the FIA sampler then I would guess their case would be much stronger. There's still the appeal to consider but you don't have an option to ask the FIA to interpret the rule in a different way. It's like asking for them to use less weight in a different spot on a wing deflection test.
|
|
|
Post by Carlo_Carrera on Aug 10, 2021 16:48:59 GMT -8
They are f’ed.
|
|
jmjgt
Member
Posts: 3,311
|
Post by jmjgt on Aug 11, 2021 11:21:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Aug 12, 2021 7:28:55 GMT -8
Appeal withdrawn. Should never have been filed. Only Ross Brawn could have argued this one.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Aug 12, 2021 13:45:12 GMT -8
Appeal withdrawn. Should never have been filed. Only Ross Brawn could have argued this one.And that is because Ross Brawn is the one (or one of ...) who devised this, and the other technical restrictions, that have beaten-down F1 to it's current sorry state.
|
|
jmjgt
Member
Posts: 3,311
|
Post by jmjgt on Aug 12, 2021 14:59:27 GMT -8
Appeal withdrawn. Should never have been filed. Only Ross Brawn could have argued this one.And that is because Ross Brawn is the one (or one of ...) who devised this, and the other technical restrictions, that have beaten-down F1 to it's current sorry state. In this case the FIA was correct. The reason we have these fuel regs is because the first turbo era brought designer fuels that were changed (literally) according to the time of day and weather. The big teams had mini labs mixing brews for every contingency right in the paddock every event. They can still basically do the same today but the sample they hand the FIA at the start of qually better be the same thing pumped out of the tank at the end of the race.
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Aug 12, 2021 16:53:38 GMT -8
Appeal withdrawn. Should never have been filed. Only Ross Brawn could have argued this one.And that is because Ross Brawn is the one (or one of ...) who devised this, and the other technical restrictions, that have beaten-down F1 to it's current sorry state. Nah, you're way off. I was thinking of the Ferrari barge board incident in Malaysia '99. Both Ferrari's were disqualified from first and second after the race when the bargeboards were found to be illegal. Within a week Ferrari won the appeal even after admitting they were illegal by creating tolerances that the FIA agreed to. www.motorsportmagazine.com/articles/single-seaters/f1/farce-1999-title-deciderWhen it comes to clever it was all Brawn.
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Aug 12, 2021 18:51:23 GMT -8
And that is because Ross Brawn is the one (or one of ...) who devised this, and the other technical restrictions, that have beaten-down F1 to it's current sorry state. In this case the FIA was correct. The reason we have these fuel regs is because the first turbo era brought designer fuels that were changed (literally) according to the time of day and weather. The big teams had mini labs mixing brews for every contingency right in the paddock every event. They can still basically do the same today but the sample they hand the FIA at the start of qually better be the same thing pumped out of the tank at the end of the race. Any you need a full liter to compare with the Qualy sample? Pish Tosh. They got a third of a liter - what their hands are too shakey to make the comparison. If they had not gotten ANY fuel the DQ would be FULLY justified. Did the 1/3 liter that they actually go compare with the qualifying sample? This whole thing smell red tide.
|
|
jfme
Full Member
Posts: 576
|
Post by jfme on Aug 12, 2021 19:09:21 GMT -8
I know rulez are rulez
But WTF is the advantage of 2/3 of a quart of gas gives?
Seems disproportionate considering punting a car offtrack is worth 5 second penalty and wrecking 1/3 of the grid is a 5 spot penalty. A grande cup of gas cant be worth more than thousands of a sec/lap
|
|
jmjgt
Member
Posts: 3,311
|
Post by jmjgt on Aug 12, 2021 19:47:36 GMT -8
^ ^^ It's all moot, everyone agreed on the amount, everyone agreed on the procedure.
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Aug 12, 2021 21:14:48 GMT -8
I know rulez are rulez But WTF is the advantage of 2/3 of a quart of gas gives? Seems disproportionate considering punting a car offtrack is worth 5 second penalty and wrecking 1/3 of the grid is a 5 spot penalty. A grande cup of gas cant be worth more than thousands of a sec/lap There's no comparison. The 5 sec penalties or any penalty of that type are for a sporting regulation infraction. The litre of fuel for sampling is required for under the technical regulations any violation of which almost always result in a DQ. There aren't exceptions because these are considered much more severe. You could ask how a wing flexing 1 mm too much is an advantage, doesn't matter there is no leeway given. Edit: I doubt the fuel sample from Vettels car was even checked simply because there wasn't enough of a sample to meet the FIA requirements.
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Aug 13, 2021 3:38:58 GMT -8
I know rulez are rulez But WTF is the advantage of 2/3 of a quart of gas gives? Seems disproportionate considering punting a car offtrack is worth 5 second penalty and wrecking 1/3 of the grid is a 5 spot penalty. A grande cup of gas cant be worth more than thousands of a sec/lap There's no comparison. The 5 sec penalties or any penalty of that type are for a sporting regulation infraction. The litre of fuel for sampling is required for under the technical regulations any violation of which almost always result in a DQ. There aren't exceptions because these are considered much more severe. You could ask how a wing flexing 1 mm too much is an advantage, doesn't matter there is no leeway given. Edit: I doubt the fuel sample from Vettels car was even checked simply because there wasn't enough of a sample to meet the FIA requirements. Which is bullshit to the max.
|
|