|
|
Post by snuffmoviestar on Aug 13, 2021 4:18:19 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.  There's no need to test the fuel of a disqualified car.  Some semi-interesting opinion being offered here. We want hard and draconian rules regarding track limits but leniency regarding really easy to understand technical regulations that have been in place for years. Perhaps we just needed something to complain about to feel useful?  |
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Aug 13, 2021 4:43:27 GMT -8
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 has been covered previously in this thread. There are 4 distinct samples kept out of the liter.
|
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Aug 13, 2021 4:55:07 GMT -8
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 has been covered previously in this thread. There are 4 distinct samples kept out of the liter.
Bullshit on top of bullshit on top of bullshit. Test what you have then penalize 5 seconds because there wasn't enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Carlo_Carrera on Aug 13, 2021 5:30:31 GMT -8
^ ^^ It's all moot, everyone agreed on the amount, everyone agreed on the procedure. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Aug 13, 2021 7:03:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Aug 13, 2021 7:26:17 GMT -8
This has been covered previously in this thread. There are 4 distinct samples kept out of the liter.
Bullshit on top of bullshit on top of bullshit. Test what you have then penalize 5 seconds because there wasn't enough. Edit: I swear it's a coincidence but it is National Kool Aid Day.  |
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Aug 13, 2021 8:26:43 GMT -8
Bullshit on top of bullshit on top of bullshit. Test what you have then penalize 5 seconds because there wasn't enough. Edit: I swear it's a coincidence but it is National Kool Aid Day. Is that in honor of Jim Jones - or a more recent purveyor of the same kind of beverage? |
|
jmjgt
Member
Posts: 3,311
|
Post by jmjgt on Aug 13, 2021 8:58:51 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 exactly why the car needed to be disqualified, there was only enough to do ONE test. If that test came back negative not only would there not be a 2nd independent test to back it up, Aston would also not have a sample of their own to test on appeal. So why bother? |
|
|
|
Post by Codfish on Aug 13, 2021 9:12:43 GMT -8
Which is exactly why the car needed to be disqualified, there was only enough to do ONE test. If that test came back negative not only would there not be a 2nd independent test to back it up, Aston would also not have a sample of their own to test on appeal. So why bother? How dare you let facts interfere with a good rant...? You're spoiling all the fun...  |
|
jmjgt
Member
Posts: 3,311
|
Post by jmjgt on Aug 13, 2021 10:53:33 GMT -8
Which is exactly why the car needed to be disqualified, there was only enough to do ONE test. If that test came back negative not only would there not be a 2nd independent test to back it up, Aston would also not have a sample of their own to test on appeal. So why bother? How dare you let facts interfere with a good rant...? You're spoiling all the fun... I can't just sit there when i see a protracted  standing in the way of some quality thread-jacking.  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Aug 13, 2021 11:18:50 GMT -8
"...everyone agreed.."
This is the problem, I believe. The participants in the F1 game are compelled to agree to rules and penalties that are excessively tested and enforced. How many times does a fuel sample really need to be tested? Are these people so corrupt that none of them can be trusted? I guess so!
|
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Aug 13, 2021 11:47:18 GMT -8
"...everyone agreed.."
This is the problem, I believe. The participants in the F1 game are compelled to agree to rules and penalties that are excessively tested and enforced. How many times does a fuel sample really need to be tested? Are these people so corrupt that none of them can be trusted? I guess so! Excessively so! They don't even trust themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Aug 13, 2021 12:27:08 GMT -8
There's a lot of 'hey you kids! get off my lawn' in this thread  |
|
jmjgt
Member
Posts: 3,311
|
Post by jmjgt on Aug 13, 2021 13:07:15 GMT -8
"...everyone agreed.."
This is the problem, I believe. The participants in the F1 game are compelled to agree to rules and penalties that are excessively tested and enforced. How many times does a fuel sample really need to be tested? Are these people so corrupt that none of them can be trusted? I guess so! Not in this case, the way it's set up there's equal opportunity for both sides to make their case is a sample fails, but there needs to be enough for ALL parties to test. Besides, what makes you think the teams had nothing to do with the i liter requirement? It takes YEARS to hammer out sporting agreements with the teams over details just like this one. |
|
|
|
Post by mmi16 on Aug 13, 2021 13:18:37 GMT -8
"...everyone agreed.."
This is the problem, I believe. The participants in the F1 game are compelled to agree to rules and penalties that are excessively tested and enforced. How many times does a fuel sample really need to be tested? Are these people so corrupt that none of them can be trusted? I guess so! Not in this case, the way it's set up there's equal opportunity for both sides to make their case is a sample fails, but there needs to be enough for ALL parties to test. Besides, what makes you think the teams had nothing to do with the i liter requirement? It takes YEARS to hammer out sporting agreements with the teams over details just like this one. And that is the F'n PROBLEM. F1 creates its own problems - endlessly! They have never seen anything they couldn't make into a problem. It is one thing to Pee in the bottle - it is another thing to pee in the bottle so 100 people can test it independently. |
|
jmjgt
Member
Posts: 3,311
|
Post by jmjgt on Aug 13, 2021 13:27:41 GMT -8
Not in this case, the way it's set up there's equal opportunity for both sides to make their case is a sample fails, but there needs to be enough for ALL parties to test. Besides, what makes you think the teams had nothing to do with the i liter requirement? It takes YEARS to hammer out sporting agreements with the teams over details just like this one. And that is the F'n PROBLEM. F1 creates its own problems - endlessly! They have never seen anything they couldn't make into a problem. It is one thing to Pee in the bottle - it is another thing to pee in the bottle so 100 people can test it independently. The only "problem" is you don't agree with the process, all the parties involved did and that's why the matter has been settled. Now lets all head over to the Belgium GP thread where things have gone all pear shaped. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Aug 13, 2021 13:28:18 GMT -8
^ It is we F1 fans that are being shortchanged by having our favorites DQ'ed for "technical" issues outside their control.  |
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Aug 13, 2021 15:09:27 GMT -8
^ I guess you should ask for your money back ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Codfish on Aug 13, 2021 15:28:35 GMT -8
Something tells me if LuLu were the one DQ'd for this leftover fuel business - there would be considerably less bitching going on here... |
|
jmjgt
Member
Posts: 3,311
|
Post by jmjgt on Aug 13, 2021 15:45:50 GMT -8
^ It would be about the same, but it would be coming from a single source.  |
|
standing in the way of some quality thread-jacking. 
Korean cable TV is lousy. no more NASCAR nor NHRA