Should Hamilton have been blackflagged or DQ'd?

Given the fuss with Sauber, should Hamilton have been blackflagged?

The barge board and other parts appeared to be clearly dragging on the ground, and ole David Hobbs and crew were making all sorts of comments that this would happen.

While clearly the damage was probably "unintentional", nevertheless appeared to present a safety hazard and may have contributed to better aerodynamics

So?

So far the FIA knocked out 4 cars, two before the race and two after the race, yet none appeared to present a safety hazard of having a major component come off

it would do some damage it it broke off and got shot out by the rear tyre

not sure if it would be big enough but if it dug in it could catapulted the car

meatball

No, that's stupid. I find it amusing, Mark, how you manipulate any on-track action as a negative towards McLaren.

The other 4 cars breached the rules.

I don't think the damage was intentional, but since there weren't indications of other parts falling off the car, the meatball flag was not warranted.

if he didnt break any rules i dont see why he should be d'qd

So what, now whenever a car gets damaged during a GP it should be disqualified on grounds of safety? Give me a break...

If a car breaks in such a way that it's performance is improved, then quite possibly, however I don't think I've ever seen such a situation, including this race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RJL25

So what, now whenever a car gets damaged during a GP it should be disqualified on grounds of safety? Give me a break...

---

If that tray had broken then there is a risk that it could have hit someone or that the car would have skidded on it, I think that's why people are querying whether there should at least having been direction to pit and remove it.

In regard to disqualifiction I think that this is more linked to the 'plank' which needs to be a certain thickness (I believe it's a rule that's linked in with ride height so that he chances of a Senna type accident are negated). Certainly Martin Brundle was questioning whether the dropping of the apron (for want of a better word) would mean that the plank would be getting damaged, something which Hamilton actually confirmed post-race. Evidentally the scrutes were happy enough with it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

No, that's stupid. I find it amusing, Mark, how you manipulate any on-track action as a negative towards McLaren.

The other 4 cars breached the rules.

---

No that was the opinion of the Speed channel talking heads,who were adament that Mr. Hamilton would be either black flagged or a DQ at the end of the day.

I thought they had a point as to the black flag. In addition, if no flag, there should have at least been an inspection by the FIA during a pit stop to ensure there was not any danger. If it were the carbon fiber "apron" then it was probably leaving carbon shards on track that could slice tires...as one could clearly see sparks from something beneath the car

Then it could have come even further lose, and really caused a big shunt.

^The sparks were coming from the plank as it was dragging on the ground. Watch the Singapor GP and you see these sparks all the time as its a very bumpy track. As for removing it, lol no! The front "tea tray" is part of the floor, you cant just tear off the whole floor because the front of it has come loose. The risk of it breaking off was negligable as long as Hamilton didnt go ridding over any big kerbs, which are few and far between at Albert Park.

As far as I'm aware LH didn't break any rules, thus shouldn't be DSQ'd.

MB and DC asked the question when commentating that if the plank was worn away beyond legality by damage, would this result in a penalty? I'm not sure of the rule here so I'd be interested to know whether this an 'accident damage' clause or not. If there isn't, then luckily Lewis' car couldn't have been worn beyond legality otherwise he would have been DSQ'd.

As for the safety hazard thing, If parts had started flying off then he should have been told to stop, but this didn't seem to be the case and performance was clearly not enhanced, so it seems the stewards got it right here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

No that was the opinion of the Speed channel talking heads,who were adament that Mr. Hamilton would be either black flagged or a DQ at the end of the day.

I thought they had a point as to the black flag. In addition, if no flag, there should have at least been an inspection by the FIA during a pit stop to ensure there was not any danger. If it were the carbon fiber "apron" then it was probably leaving carbon shards on track that could slice tires...as one could clearly see sparks from something beneath the car

Then it could have come even further lose, and really caused a big shunt.

---

If a car got black flagged for every minute incident, then half the cars on the grid would retire.

This is just a part of racing, so buck up and keep rollin'!

speaking of incidents, your photo shows you got something dangling in your neck besides your tongue.
trying to gain an advantage over the rest of us?



Running around a race track with something hanging loose is not an unusual occurrence, but not being blackflagged or at least inspected, would seem to be okay with you

Me, I am just wondering that since the FIA was in such a disqualifying/penalizing mood, why they let Hamilton slip through

a pointless exercise which only serves your purpose of venting out your frustration about a good mclaren performance.

given that the scrutineers DQ'd a car for a few millimeters of arching on the top of a rear wing, FIA's proclivity for punishing Mclaren and established precedent for disqualifying cars that don't meet the minimum floor standards, the fact that Hamilton's car was cleared, should be enough info for anyone to close the subject on that matter.
But some folks just can't let it go :|

Was the plank on Hamilton's car worn too much , or are we just assuming that as fact ?

We were shown the rear end of Lewis' car , with sparks spraying from underneath , but were any of the others also producing such sparking through that corner ?

If the front of the tray was able to be lower , and clearly it was , would this not increase the downforce under the car ? After all , the purpose of the stay is more about keeping it from flexing down than up .
We have seen more stringent testing on the tea tray lately , with added weight , but does this not still apply after the race ?

And , if it's not a requirement to have the tray front weighted after the race , would it not be an advantage to have a stay that would withstand the test , but designed to fail during the race , preferably during the first stint , or maybe the first few corners , running over a curb or two ?

I am not saying this was by design , but would it not be rather clever if it was thus ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

It would have been clever if the team could guarantee Hamilton would not catch the underneath of his car whilst it was down and catapult himself into an enormous accident. I can't imagine for a second it would be deliberate tbh. :)

---

He wasn't catapulted , and he did get second .

Button's car wasn't broken . How did the times compare ?
Did having a broken car help ?

It is possible to engineer this .
Whether they did or not , we'll never know .

I'm really of the same opinion , Henners .

But , it's easily questionable , that the car did have a bit of advantage , as , even though it may have dragged some , creating some friction , it is quite possible it did gain a little .
Theoretically , a lower front on the tray creates more downforce , as the air travels through a tighter space , enabling the rake of the bottom to create more downforce as it expands towards the diffuser .
That's why they regulate the amount the tray can flex , applying weight in scrutineering .
The tray stay keeps the tray from dropping .

If it's missing or broken , then the tray will flex down , as we saw .

If a part is broken or worn on a number of cars , it can be seen as permissable , due to perhaps the state of the track .
If a car is in an incident with another car , it can be seen as permissable , due to damage .

This was neither , and , potentially improved performance .

I guess they accepted the car as legal in the end , but , doesn't this kind of open the door to this type of gambit ?
At present , a tea tray doesn't need a stay , except in the scrutineering bay before the start .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Was the plank on Hamilton's car worn too much , or are we just assuming that as fact ?

---

According to the post-race technical report, they didn't check the plank thickness on Lewis's car (they did on all the other top 10 finishers). I guess they'd decided that he would be given the benefit of the doubt over any excess plank wear due to the damage, so there was no point measuring it.

That the damage itself might have been performance-enhancing seems doubtful to me. The "flexi floors" of the past have been designed to flex upwards, not downwards - to lower the front wing and increase the rake of the whole floor. Granted Hamilton's damaged floor could have flexed in either direction, but the suspension would have been set assuming a rigid floor.

Or, should I say, assuming a floor as rigid as originally designed. It does seem an odd part to fail, doesn't it? Unless it was deliberately designed to be less rigid than it could be. That sort of failure risk is exactly why technical regulation 3.15 was put in the rule book, and exactly why the FIA should have enforced it last year :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

According to the post-race technical report, they didn't check the plank thickness on Lewis's car (they did on all the other top 10 finishers). I guess they'd decided that he would be given the benefit of the doubt over any excess plank wear due to the damage, so there was no point measuring it.

That the damage itself might have been performance-enhancing seems doubtful to me. The "flexi floors" of the past have been designed to flex upwards, not downwards - to lower the front wing and increase the rake of the whole floor. Granted Hamilton's damaged floor could have flexed in either direction, but the suspension would have been set assuming a rigid floor.

Or, should I say, assuming a floor as rigid as originally designed. It does seem an odd part to fail, doesn't it? Unless it was deliberately designed to be less rigid than it could be. That sort of failure risk is exactly why technical regulation 3.15 was put in the rule book, and exactly why the FIA should have enforced it last year :mad:

---

Andy , are you sure about the flexing up and not down ?

Why would putting weights on the tray give you any idea of how much the tray flexed upwards ?
It is the downward deflection they are trying to regulate .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Andy , are you sure about the flexing up and not down ?

Why would putting weights on the tray give you any idea of how much the tray flexed upwards ?
It is the downward deflection they are trying to regulate .

---

I don't recall the flexi-floors controversy with great detail, but I could see how, if the leading edge flexed upward it would create more clearance, thus the front suspension could be set softer...with speed and aero load, floor flexes up, aero load increases and presses down on the whole front of the car, lowering CG and giving the front wing more ground-level air.

As an aside...I had to make a call to leave a club racer out on track racing after his exhaust collapsed and the leading edge of the collapsed part was scraping the ground...all I could think was, 'man I hope he doesn't run off through the dirt and shoot the pipe out the back'. But it was late in the race and I knew the driver doesn't normally go off track, and indeed he finished safely. Old BMW 2002 IIRC.

Is there not a rule which stipulates that if a car has pieces which have become loose or dislodged (and could potentially become projectiles) should come to the pits for repairs?

I know Rubens' Brawn lost a spring rather suddenly, but Felipe Massa paid the price for the part that came off of RB's car at speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Is there not a rule which stipulates that if a car has pieces which have become loose or dislodged (and could potentially become projectiles) should come to the pits for repairs?

I know Rubens' Brawn lost a spring rather suddenly, but Felipe Massa paid the price for the part that came off of RB's car at speed.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...de/default.stm

Black flag with an orange centre is usually used if drivers have something hanging off. Not so common in F1 (if a driver has a wing hanging around then it's generally in their interest to get rid of it anyway) but you sometimes see them thrown in touring car races and other national motorsports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shifter

I don't recall the flexi-floors controversy with great detail, but I could see how, if the leading edge flexed upward it would create more clearance, thus the front suspension could be set softer...with speed and aero load, floor flexes up, aero load increases and presses down on the whole front of the car, lowering CG and giving the front wing more ground-level air.

---

Yes that's how I understand it too. Effectively lowering the front ride height below the minimum that's supposed to be enforced by the combination of the plank and a flat floor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Is there not a rule which stipulates that if a car has pieces which have become loose or dislodged (and could potentially become projectiles) should come to the pits for repairs?

I know Rubens' Brawn lost a spring rather suddenly, but Felipe Massa paid the price for the part that came off of RB's car at speed.

---

good point.

ignored by many here and at fia as they are too busy trying to dq sauber over millimeters and keep out those slow hispainas to be worrying over things coming off and hurting somebody,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

good point.

ignored by many here and at fia as they are too busy trying to dq sauber over millimeters and keep out those slow hispainas to be worrying over things coming off and hurting somebody,

---

Perhaps, and I'm going out on a limb here, the stewards saw the problem and decided (because they're experts and all) that it didn't actually pose a risk. You know, they used their knowledge of the sport and how the cars are built to assess the situation.

Actually now I mention it that just seems stupid, it's far more likely that some bloke who watches it on the telly would make a far more informed decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barryfullalove

Perhaps, and I'm going out on a limb here, the stewards saw the problem and decided (because they're experts and all) that it didn't actually pose a risk. You know, they used their knowledge of the sport and how the cars are built to assess the situation.

Actually now I mention it that just seems stupid, it's far more likely that some bloke who watches it on the telly would make a far more informed decision.

---

What!!! How dare you imply that David Hobbes and crew are not experts!!!

Heck, as whitemarish said, he was not watching the race on telly and had no idea about Button, and no doubt even less about Hamilton

Defend and excuse it all you wish, but it remains clear that the priorities of the FIA are anal millimeters as in 5 on the radius, but none over stauff that might actually hurt someone, such that they did not even give it a looksee during the race....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Heck, as whitemarish said, he was not watching the race on telly and had no idea about Button, and no doubt even less about Hamilton.

---

I'm sure that McLaren were monitoring all aspects of the car that their data allows them to from the pitwall, garage and back in Woking.

He is well monitored nowdays.