Results 11 to 20 of 28
-
28th March 2011, 17:38 #11
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- everywhere. always.
- Posts
- 1,892
- Like
- 0
- Liked 9 Times in 9 Posts
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.Congratulations Sebastian Vettel. Champion of the season of seasons.
-
28th March 2011, 17:43 #12
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- 'Murica!
- Posts
- 3,755
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by markabilly
This is just a part of racing, so buck up and keep rollin'!Marco Simoncelli 1987-2011
-
28th March 2011, 18:29 #13
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Posts
- 6,084
- Like
- 0
- Liked 15 Times in 15 Posts
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 throughOnly the dead know the end of war. Plato:beer:
-
28th March 2011, 19:58 #14
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Location
- Philadelphia
- Posts
- 5,943
- Like
- 1,228
- Liked 373 Times in 289 Posts
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 goyou can't argue with results.
-
28th March 2011, 20:23 #15
- Join Date
- Feb 2001
- Posts
- 8,410
- Like
- 483
- Liked 787 Times in 584 Posts
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 ?
-
28th March 2011, 20:51 #16
- Join Date
- Feb 2001
- Posts
- 8,410
- Like
- 483
- Liked 787 Times in 584 Posts
Originally Posted by henners88
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 .
-
29th March 2011, 00:15 #17
- Join Date
- Feb 2001
- Posts
- 8,410
- Like
- 483
- Liked 787 Times in 584 Posts
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 .
-
29th March 2011, 00:55 #18
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Posts
- 2,607
- Like
- 28
- Liked 186 Times in 146 Posts
Originally Posted by Bagwan
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
-
29th March 2011, 02:10 #19
- Join Date
- Feb 2001
- Posts
- 8,410
- Like
- 483
- Liked 787 Times in 584 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyL
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 .
-
29th March 2011, 02:57 #20
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Location
- Blue Ridge Mountains
- Posts
- 773
- Like
- 0
- Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Bagwan
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.Formula Platypus 2012
formula e foruns talking more and more about a hyundai rumor. wec hyperclass also being talked around. could we lose factory team in wrc? they have this new costumer program so i think we could still...
WRC main class in 2025