Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    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.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    'Murica!
    Posts
    3,755
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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'!
    Marco Simoncelli 1987-2011

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    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 through
    Only the dead know the end of war. Plato:beer:

  4. #14
    Senior Member truefan72's Avatar
    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 go
    you can't argue with results.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    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 ?

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    8,410
    Like
    483
    Liked 787 Times in 584 Posts
    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 .

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    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 .

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,607
    Like
    28
    Liked 186 Times in 146 Posts
    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

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    8,410
    Like
    483
    Liked 787 Times in 584 Posts
    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
    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 .

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    773
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    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.
    Formula Platypus 2012

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •