Jump to content
IGNORED

Formula One 2021 - DRAMA - #Michael Messy


T Pot
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, merman said:

 

And Lewis didn’t get any help from the virtual/safety car periods?

 

Yes, it was an outstanding drive from Lewis. Yes, he deserved to take the lead for a great pass on Max. But he had a lot of luck there.

 

I'm not sure they were a big help to be honest, the way he was ploughing through the field anyway it just slowed down his overtaking IMO :P 

 

Bit of an odd one to throw in versus a dubious "disqualified from entire qualification - go to the back of the field".

 

I am not exactly Lewis Hamilton Fangirl Number 1, indeed if he were up against anyone else I could very easily be cheering someone else on (in 2016 I found both he and Nico equally unlikable).  But I recognise I am not exactly objective either because I find Red Bull as a team awful - they treat their drivers terribly, anyone who leaves seems to suddenly come out with a shining personality that was missing all along, they have dubious tactics and Max in particular drives pretty dirty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't even slightly dubious.

 

And that's not a fan position either way.  What he ran in qualifying was not legally an F1 car, therefore he did not run in qualifying.  Toto can whine about tolerance all he likes, if there was a 0.2mm tolerance he'd make the thing 0.2mm bigger because it's an advantage.  There IS already a tolerance, it's 0-the size in the regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dudley said:

It wasn't even slightly dubious.

 

And that's not a fan position either way.  What he ran in qualifying was not legally an F1 car, therefore he did not run in qualifying.  Toto can whine about tolerance all he likes, if there was a 0.2mm tolerance he'd make the thing 0.2mm bigger because it's an advantage.  There IS already a tolerance, it's 0-the size in the regulations.

 

I must admit to being a bit confused about the whole thing. 

 

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the following is broadly true:

 

The wing is basically the same wing they have been using all season and has passed all previous checks. 

No attempts were made by Mercedes to  circumvent the rules. It has been accepted that the failure to adhere to the rules was inadvertent and out of Mercedes control. 

The wing seems to have been damaged during the session. Most of the wing complied but due to the damage the right hand side of the wing was too large. 

Its a zero sum game, for whatever reason if the car does not comply to the standards during a session you are disqualified. 

 

I think the above is true and I get all of that but it leaves a few questions. 

 

Firstly, if a bird, for example, had flown into the wing during qualifying, can they repair or replace the wing mid session or are they automatically disqualified? After all, inadvertently they were running a car during part of the session which did not conform to the regulations. 

If they do not repair the damage during the session can they do it afterwards or is it again, instant disqualification? 

Now, in a race situation, can a car suffer damage but manage to lump to the end of the race but then be disqualified because it fails a technical check because of the damage sustained. Think of someone losing a wheel or front wing on the final lap and then limping over the line, are they disqualified because, well, the car was missing a wing when it finished? 

 

I'm a bit confused because we see bits falling off cars all the time, is it simply luck that the bits that fly off in a collision are not linked to the regulations? Can you run a few laps of a race, spot the damage, pit for repairs and then not be disqualified even if you were not technically compliant during those laps you completed before pitting? See Russell running Bottas tyres for a few laps last year. We had a spring fly off Barrichello's car which nearly killed Massa yet that car must have then passed the regulations checks, even though ten minutes earlier bits of it were falling off the car onto the track. 

 

It just seems weird that damage to a car, once it has started the session can result in a instant disqualification. I mean, that doesn't seem weird but if it is the rule that any part of the car which has to comply with the regulations cannot suffer damage during a session without the car being disqualified you would have through we'd have seen a few more examples of it over the years. I mean, Hamilton in Silverstone 2020 finished the race with only three wheels on the car. You'd have thought there is a rule somewhere that states that the car has to have 4 tyres and they all need to have a pressure of X (indeed, I am sure that is a rule). Yet, in the Silverstone race Hamilton finished the race with clearly a tyre that did not conform to the regulations but nothing happened. 

 

What am I missing? It just seems this is a new area of the rules - if you suffer damage during a race or qualifying session and that damage means you cannot comply with the technical regulations you get disqualified - well that has pretty big implications really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red Bull pressure on the FIA. It most likely would have made it through to race day and been fixed. 

I didnt like the way the Red Bull guy spoke to the Race director but it seems to work for them. It was a slam dunk 5 seconds. 

 

Funny how we still don't have the on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ruling mentioned they accept it was due to a mechanical failure, but without an “obvious cause” it means disqualification. If there’d been a crash, bird strike or even a dramatic failure then no problem, and Mercedes tried to pin it on max poking the car for that reason, but as there was no obvious external cause they got the ban hammer. I guess that makes sense in as much as teams could otherwise do something like have a flimsy piece of cotton   Etc restricting it to the required limit when it would open to 90cm with it, knowing full well the cotton would break at race pace and then allow the wing to be legally open wider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best example I read was Vettel's DQ from Hungary. The 1L of fuel is a simple pass / fail test and if there's not enough in there for whatever reason it's a fail. Same with Hamilton's DRS, the gap required is 85mm and if that isn't met it's a fail. Various other parts falling off the car like the bargeboards, front wings etc aren't tested like that so if the car finishes without them the team is allowed to replace like for like to pass the test. Or you can just crash into someone on the cooldown lap like Vettel did when hit Stroll in Malaysia and was allowed to keep his race result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MrPogo said:

The ruling mentioned they accept it was due to a mechanical failure, but without an “obvious cause” it means disqualification. If there’d been a crash, bird strike or even a dramatic failure then no problem, and Mercedes tried to pin it on max poking the car for that reason, but as there was no obvious external cause they got the ban hammer. I guess that makes sense in as much as teams could otherwise do something like have a flimsy piece of cotton   Etc restricting it to the required limit when it would open to 90cm with it, knowing full well the cotton would break at race pace and then allow the wing to be legally open wider.

 

Although I understand that Mercedes were not given a chance to identify what had gone wrong. 

 

Is this obvious cause thing a formal thing? As you say, teams could do something like a flimsy piece of cotton and the cause would in that case still be obvious. The, it is OK if it is obvious why it went wrong sounds like a slippery slope. Dear FIA, the reason the tyres were not of the correct pressure was because still's thumb is a bit dodgy and didn't manage to inflate them to the correct pressure. 

 

6 minutes ago, ryodi said:

The best example I read was Vettel's DQ from Hungary. The 1L of fuel is a simple pass / fail test and if there's not enough in there for whatever reason it's a fail. Same with Hamilton's DRS, the gap required is 85mm and if that isn't met it's a fail. Various other parts falling off the car like the bargeboards, front wings etc aren't tested like that so if the car finishes without them the team is allowed to replace like for like to pass the test. Or you can just crash into someone on the cooldown lap like Vettel did when hit Stroll in Malaysia and was allowed to keep his race result. 

 

I guess it all comes down to what is tested and what is not. Weird that Hamilton's three wheels in Silverstone isn't a technical violation of, at least, tyre pressure. 

 

For the record, I just think there should be an element of common sense applied. Vettel was that he didn't have enough fuel in the car, that's not a problem. A wing that was fine at the start and then not fine at the end does imply something unintended happened in the middle.

 

Basically, and actually I'd apply this to Vettel as well, there should (to be determined by the Stewards) be some leeway between 'fine' and 'disqualified'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, mexos said:

 

I think it would be pretty damning and I don't think we will ever see it.

There's definitely input behind the scenes for the "show" as such. "Do not release this footage to DQ Max as it'll tarnish the F1 brand and title fight."

 

They were ok to nail Lewis and the rear wing though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, merman said:

 

And Lewis didn’t get any help from the virtual/safety car periods?

 

Yes, it was an outstanding drive from Lewis. Yes, he deserved to take the lead for a great pass on Max. But he had a lot of luck there.

 

Spot on, he didnt - if anything he lost time while Perez backed him up for a bit. Bottles was the one who gained from the VSC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for going line by line, it's a long post! :D 

 

42 minutes ago, McCoy said:

I must admit to being a bit confused about the whole thing. 

 

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the following is broadly true:

 

The wing is basically the same wing they have been using all season and has passed all previous checks. 

 

Correct, but the wings are also configurable, so I don't think this is relevant.  It could be that the wing was configured to only open to 80mm all year, and now they went for 85.

 

Quote

No attempts were made by Mercedes to  circumvent the rules. It has been accepted that the failure to adhere to the rules was inadvertent and out of Mercedes control. 

The wing seems to have been damaged during the session. Most of the wing complied but due to the damage the right hand side of the wing was too large. 

Its a zero sum game, for whatever reason if the car does not comply to the standards during a session you are disqualified. 

 

This is almost correct.  It's not certain if the play in the wing that made it fail was down to damage, or simply wear.  It was agreed by the stewards that Merc didn't intend to break the rules.

The reason, as others have said is that if you give F1 teams an inch, they'll take a mile (or 0.2mm perhaps?) 

 

Quote

I think the above is true and I get all of that but it leaves a few questions. 

 

Firstly, if a bird, for example, had flown into the wing during qualifying, can they repair or replace the wing mid session or are they automatically disqualified? After all, inadvertently they were running a car during part of the session which did not conform to the regulations. 

If they do not repair the damage during the session can they do it afterwards or is it again, instant disqualification? 

Now, in a race situation, can a car suffer damage but manage to lump to the end of the race but then be disqualified because it fails a technical check because of the damage sustained. Think of someone losing a wheel or front wing on the final lap and then limping over the line, are they disqualified because, well, the car was missing a wing when it finished? 

 

I'm a bit confused because we see bits falling off cars all the time, is it simply luck that the bits that fly off in a collision are not linked to the regulations? Can you run a few laps of a race, spot the damage, pit for repairs and then not be disqualified even if you were not technically compliant during those laps you completed before pitting? See Russell running Bottas tyres for a few laps last year. We had a spring fly off Barrichello's car which nearly killed Massa yet that car must have then passed the regulations checks, even though ten minutes earlier bits of it were falling off the car onto the track. 

 

 

Under parc ferme, they are allowed to replace broken parts, with an FIA steward / representative watching to ensure that they replace with like for like parts only.

This is normal, and happens fairly regularly.  In this case however, they didn't notice, nor request the repair.  The car went into post qualifying scrutineering, which exists solely to ensure that the cars are legal, and it was found that it wasn't legal.  Of course being qualifying and the rear wing, a part that takes a while to change, even if Merc did know, they would still want to get a lap in during Q3.  Think back to Mexico when Red Bull were still ferociously trying to repair wings on both cars at the start of qualifying.

 

The Russell / Bottas tyres thing is a nice example of the stewards taking a pragmatic view, something we should see more of in F1 (why have human stewards if they are just going to apply strict rules with no movement).  Of course it was clear and obvious that Russell did not gain an advantage - in fact he had to take another pitstop, so was in effect already penalised 25-30 seconds for the mistake, and Merc obviously corrected it as soon as they realised.

 

Of course, had Hamilton had a broken rear wing, and Merc replaced it mid-race, he'd have lost minutes in the pits and scored no points, so the argument doesn't really work.

 

Not all of the rules are 0 limit / instant fail, some are, generally those that would lead to a clear performance advantage. Others have spoken about Vettel's <1 litre of fuel for example.  

Teams generally accommodate for this, for example, cars have a minimum weight, if the car drops below that weight, they'd be disqualified so to get around this, the teams make the cars a sensible amount heavier, to account for lost parts prior to the end, and "collect rubber" on the cool down lap (also for height) just to be sure.  They will most probably know the capacity of the fuel lines, have asked drivers to shut it down on cool down laps to preserve etc.

Merc could easily have set the wing to be 84.8mm when open for example, then they'd have 0.2mm of safety, so whilst Toto is waxing lyrical about it being only 0.2mm they could have decided to make it 0.2mm in the other direction and there would have been no disqualification.

 

 

Quote

It just seems weird that damage to a car, once it has started the session can result in a instant disqualification. I mean, that doesn't seem weird but if it is the rule that any part of the car which has to comply with the regulations cannot suffer damage during a session without the car being disqualified you would have through we'd have seen a few more examples of it over the years. I mean, Hamilton in Silverstone 2020 finished the race with only three wheels on the car. You'd have thought there is a rule somewhere that states that the car has to have 4 tyres and they all need to have a pressure of X (indeed, I am sure that is a rule). Yet, in the Silverstone race Hamilton finished the race with clearly a tyre that did not conform to the regulations but nothing happened. 

 

What am I missing? It just seems this is a new area of the rules - if you suffer damage during a race or qualifying session and that damage means you cannot comply with the technical regulations you get disqualified - well that has pretty big implications really. 

 

We don't know if it was damage.  The official FIA letter doesn't mention damage...

image.png.e19d51c34553d56311b40c08eb758484.png

 

Actually, the Silverstone example is a good one.  I firmly believe he should have been penalised for driving with a puncture at that pace for such a distance, the car wasn't just illegal, it was dangerous, and it set a precedence for finishing the lap on 3 wheels.  The tyre was clearly under the required pressure and the car below the legal right height.  Actually it's also surprising the skid block would have passed too due to scraping around for so long.  I guess this could be another example of the Bottas/Russell tyres thing, Hamilton's lap with a puncture was a significant penalty.

But hey, that's the FIA, sometimes they bend the rules, sometimes not.

 

Full FIA letter in spoiler due to size:

 

Spoiler

image.thumb.png.ae10d5674f039980e76fde9becc7f725.pngimage.thumb.png.6697cdd773959d99a721dd520bf7dbac.png

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mexos said:

 

I think it would be pretty damning and I don't think we will ever see it.

 

Of course we will and of course it will show Max deliberately running Lewis wide. Lewis has never and would never do such a thing. :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Blue said:

Lewis has never and would never do such a thing. :facepalm:

 

Sure I've seen him usher the other car to the outside through the radius of a corner plenty of times. But now you mention it no, I've not seen him clean drive anyone off the road into the next postcode like that. 

 

I knew the incident reminded me of something and I've just remembered what it was:

 

 

The onboard was telling in that incident, and yes I do think it would be in Max's case too. Rosberg knew exactly what he was doing that day. He didn't lose control of the car and neither did Max on Sunday. He just ran him clean off the road in a calculated, cynical manoeuvre.

 

Rosberg got a 10 second penalty that day. There was contact which made it worse sure and probably upgraded it from a 5 second penalty - which is what Max should have got on Sunday imo.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mexos said:

 

Sure I've seen him usher the other car to the outside through the radius of a corner plenty of times. But now you mention it no, I've not seen him clean drive anyone off the road into the next postcode like that. 

 

My point was more that in recent times we've seen driving like this penalised. I knew it reminded me of something and I've just remembered what it was:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixmGVL4dedI&ab_channel=FORMULA1

 

The onboard was telling in that incident, and yes I do think Max's would be too.

 

 

 

 

It's interesting. The incident itself looks more dramatic than it was because Lewis decided, quite rightly, to drive himself into the next postcode. We have indeed seen this manoeuvre penalised (inconsistently) the past couple of seasons, but should we? Peter Windsor did an interesting video piece about how such situations have been policed historically and how it should be policed.

Nico's move was indeed ridiculous, but primarily because it was at a much slower corner. It's quite telling to have a look at Lewis' take on the matter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RFT said:

Someone (here, maybe, or on twitter) pondered if, given the speed given by a new ICE, it might be worth merc just throwing a new V6 in the back every weekend for the rest of the year and just making the places back.

 

The BBC commentary team were openly talking about exactly that during the race. (I tend to watch every race live with Sky pictures and BBC audio). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mexos said:

The onboard was telling in that incident, and yes I do think it would be in Max's case too. Rosberg knew exactly what he was doing that day. He didn't lose control of the car and neither did Max on Sunday. He just ran him clean off the road in a calculated, cynical manoeuvre.

 

I can't understand why you keep stating the obvious. Nobody needs the onboard to confirm that. Doesn't necessarily mean it should be a penalty (see above) but who cares? A penalty wouldn't have changed the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, McCoy said:

A wing that was fine at the start and then not fine at the end does imply something unintended happened in the middle.

 

How do you know it was fine at the start? 

 

4 hours ago, McCoy said:

 

Basically, and actually I'd apply this to Vettel as well, there should (to be determined by the Stewards) be some leeway between 'fine' and 'disqualified'. 

 

Then the leeway becomes the limit. Any F1 team will design to where they get penalised, not to where the rules say.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blue said:

 

I can't understand why you keep stating the obvious. Nobody needs the onboard to confirm that. Doesn't necessarily mean it should be a penalty (see above) but who cares? A penalty wouldn't have changed the outcome.


Yeah who cares. 
 

A 5 second penalty might have brought Bottas right into play, after all he did finish 3 seconds behind Max. Anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, GwiDan said:

That’s a great video. How do they do that?


Using some tracking software like Mocha you point it to a part of the frame you want to track and it analyses the footage to find where that object is in every frame.


Then you can stabilise the footage - essentially move each frame of footage so that point you selected is pretty much always in the centre of the screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, MrPogo said:

Could have even actually been fine throughout qualifying and the test itself was the straw that broke the camels back and caused it to open too wide for the first time.

 

Theoretically possible but you'd think it'd happen a lot more if so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mexos said:


Using some tracking software like Mocha you point it to a part of the frame you want to track and it analyses the footage to find where that object is in every frame.


Then you can stabilise the footage - essentially move each frame of footage so that point you selected is pretty much always in the centre of the screen.


Much obliged. Sounds pretty point and click. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.