Seems unfair to the driver but then those are the rules (atleast rules made up by FIA!)
Printable View
Seems unfair to the driver but then those are the rules (atleast rules made up by FIA!)
This disqualification brings to mind a few questions .
If the car was deemed ok to race , and seemingly nothing changed between the quals and race , is it not the fault of the stewards and tech team failing to catch it beforehand ?
Was this team of tech guys the same team of tech guys who failed to find the issue beforehand ?
The Sauber team has come out saying that the wing , as it was run , was not something that improved the car and it's speed at all .
If this is true , we must assume that , had the scrutineers caught the issue before the race , they would have used the other wing they had brought with them , as they had two versions , the other apparently , which was within the given radius .
This puts the tech guys at the front of this issue .
Although it was the Sauber guys who manufactured an illegal wing , it was the FIA tech guys who allowed it's use , and until the final scrutineering , Sauber thought they were OK .
If they had had any inkling that it was not going to pass the final , they surely would not have completely wasted everyone's time racing , only to be burned afterwards .
Even if using the other wing had them go to the back of the pack after quals , I'm quite sure they would have chosen , if allowed , to replace the wing with a legal one .
In response to ioan's post, I suppose it depends on the definition of 'Rear Wing Configuration' among the list of scrutineering tests, since it was neither the height nor width (nor overhang) of the rear wing that caused the disqualification...it was the concave-ness of the upper wing element.
well saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Thanks .Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
I guess they got a test session out of the weekend , at least .
It seems like pretty $hitty pool to me , though .
I hope they appeal , and I hope they win .
Bad mistake by Sauber , but far worse mistake , in my opinion , by the stewards .
Here's what they tested after the race:Quote:
Originally Posted by edv
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre...ace-report.pdfQuote:
Car numbers 01, 02, 04, 05, 06, 10, 16, 17 and 18 were checked for the following:
1) Bodywork around the front wheels
2) Front wing height and overhang
3) Rear wing height and overhang
4) Front and rear wing width
5) Rear wing configuration
6) Rear bodywork area
7) Rear winglet height
8) Skidblock thickness
9) Stepped bottom
10) Diffuser height
11) Diffuser area
12) Overall height
13) Overall width
Exactly the same tests + skidblock thickness (and this one has certainly nothing to do with Saubers' rear wing).
The same tests on same car have different outcomes even though the car didn't change due to FIA restrictions?!
How can these clowns keep a straight face and call themselves a regulatory body?
this penalty is look more and more dubious with every passing hour. Seems to me like the marshals couldn't get their act straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I bet you there is a problem with their measuring equipment and not the car.
I wonder if teams are allowed to view the inspection. Because I would not trust these group of folks to do a proper and accurate test
Before damning the scrutineers I'd like to know what the "rear wing configuration" test involved. It doesn't look good that the same test yielded different results but is it in fact an identical test? If they check some, but not all, aspects of the rear wing configuration then it is conceivable that the Saubers could have passed the post-qualy test and failed the post-race test. If the tests are indeed identical then Sauber would have a pretty good case to appeal.
It's interesting that Sauber's protestations of innocence seem to centre around a "no harm, no foul" argument in that they derived no benefit from the illegal wing. If the tests were suspect wouldn't they be pointing that out instead?
This would all be cleared up if the FIA was more open and transparent and gave proper explanations. It could we be that they have a pool of tests all within the "rear wing height/width and configuration" section and due to time constraints they pick random tests each time they scrutineer, in which case it's not surprising that something passed first time and failed a subsequent test.
There again, it could be the FIA employs incompetent monkeys to be stewards, in which case it's not surprising that something passed first time and failed a subsequent test.
I'm surprised the teams aren't more forthcoming with what actually goes on - maybe a tweet to Jake on the next F1 Forum is called for to get us some details of the exact procedures.
Whatever we may think of the FIA, the latter seems unlikely. Scrutineers work at all levels of motorsport and it's hard to imagine that it's the worst ones that end up in F1. Your first possibility is pretty likely I think. We know that not every car is fully scrutineered at every opportunity so there is clearly a limit on what they can do in the time available.Quote:
Originally Posted by TMorel