2015 Italian Grand Prix

  • Thread starter NOVOCAINE
  • 395 comments
  • 13,040 views
.03, .3, 3, 30

Line, where do you draw it?

And that's an honest question, strictly speaking, that car didn't comply with the rules for whatever reason. I'm not here to say LH wouldn't have won, he would.

What I'm saying is that rules have to be hard line as once they become blurred they're no longer rules.

For example, if your rear wing sits out in the sun and happens to warp so that it no longer meets the mandated curvature during tech inspection how far out do you allow? Or do you allow it at all? I remember Sauber being disqualified for a rear wing that had a non compliant radius due to a manufacturing error. Likewise, I remember an FR3.5 car being disqualified because there was an extra layer of paint/resin on a wing section.

If the above are violations then so are below regulation tyre pressures.

The FIA has to be careful with this since if it was me I'd now just throw that Pirelli recommendation in the bin and run the tyre pressures where I wanted to as that rule is now unenforceable to me due to this precedent.
 
Christian_C
.03, .3, 3, 30

Line, where do you draw it?

And that's an honest question, strictly speaking, that car didn't comply with the rules for whatever reason. I'm not here to say LH wouldn't have won, he would.

What I'm saying is that rules have to be hard line as once they become blurred they're no longer rules.

For example, if your rear wing sits out in the sun and happens to warp so that it no longer meets the mandated curvature during tech inspection how far out do you allow? Or do you allow it at all? I remember Sauber being disqualified for a rear wing that had a non compliant radius due to a manufacturing error. Likewise, I remember an FR3.5 car being disqualified because there was an extra layer of paint/resin on a wing section.

If the above are violations then so are below regulation tyre pressures.

The FIA has to be careful with this since if it was me I'd now just throw that Pirelli recommendation in the bin and run the tyre pressures where I wanted to as that rule is now unenforceable to me due to this precedent.
Click to expand...

I agree... however, it was found that the tyres were at the correct pressure at the time they were fitted to the car. Mercedes and Pirelli concur on that. The FIA's measurements were taken at T-5 mins on the grid when the tyre warmers were not properly connected (as I posted to @GTPorsche the warmers wouldn't normally be whipped off until T-3min). That meant that the tyres had dropped below their normal operating pressure, that's why there was no further action. The FIA were at fault here, it seems.
 
TenEightyOne
I agree... however, it was found that the tyres were at the correct pressure at the time they were fitted to the car. Mercedes and Pirelli concur on that. The FIA's measurements were taken at T-5 mins on the grid when the tyre warmers were not properly connected (as I posted to @GTPorsche the warmers wouldn't normally be whipped off until T-3min). That meant that the tyres had dropped below their normal operating pressure, that's why there was no further action. The FIA were at fault here, it seems.
Click to expand...

Oh agreed, what I'm getting at is that if they want it to be a rule they need to find a better way of measuring it and ensuring consistency. Otherwise it can't be a rule as if this happens again you know that a team would appeal on precedent.
 
Christian_C
.03, .3, 3, 30

Line, where do you draw it?

And that's an honest question, strictly speaking, that car didn't comply with the rules for whatever reason. I'm not here to say LH wouldn't have won, he would.

What I'm saying is that rules have to be hard line as once they become blurred they're no longer rules.

For example, if your rear wing sits out in the sun and happens to warp so that it no longer meets the mandated curvature during tech inspection how far out do you allow? Or do you allow it at all? I remember Sauber being disqualified for a rear wing that had a non compliant radius due to a manufacturing error. Likewise, I remember an FR3.5 car being disqualified because there was an extra layer of paint/resin on a wing section.

If the above are violations then so are below regulation tyre pressures.

The FIA has to be careful with this since if it was me I'd now just throw that Pirelli recommendation in the bin and run the tyre pressures where I wanted to as that rule is now unenforceable to me due to this precedent.
Click to expand...

The FIA needs to learn how to follow their own procedures properly since Mercedes were in the clear for following it under the FIA/Pirelli supervision and they confirmed it was good to go. If the FIA didn't say no penalty they'd have come under a lot of fire.
Christian_C
Oh agreed, what I'm getting at is that if they want it to be a rule they need to find a better way of measuring it and ensuring consistency. Otherwise it can't be a rule as if this happens again you know that a team would appeal on precedent.
Click to expand...

So this doesn't make much sense to me, because they said they're going to convene on this subject more after screwing up. I mean obviously the line is at 19.5, but if Pirelli or the FIA can't properly measure their own rules...then they don't or shouldn't be penalizing people.
 
Last edited:
Christian_C
^Exactly, which is why the rule currently is unenforceable.
Click to expand...

It is, we've seen the mechanism for enforcement in place. It's been that way for quite a long time... the mistake yesterday was the procedural point at which the FIA took their readings. Mercedes and Pirelli did everything right, just as they did every other weekend. If the onto-the-car readings were low then Mercedes would have been penalised, simple as that.

LMSCorvetteGT2
I don't know why they thought rushing it was a good idea...live and learn.
Click to expand...

I don't know which part you think is rushed? The rule isn't new, the mechanism isn't new, the inquiry followed the normal schedule for that type of report from the Technical Delegate.
 
Does anyone know exactly where Alonso's car expired? He's being given a classified finish as he's completed 90% of the race distance, but 47 laps is only 88% - which suggests he's expired somewhere around Ascari.
 
Famine
Does anyone know exactly where Alonso's car expired? He's being given a classified finish as he's completed 90% of the race distance, but 47 laps is only 88% - which suggests he's expired somewhere around Ascari.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I heard Ted Kravitz say that Alonso "is trundling down the pit lane to retire from the race", or something along those lines.
 
NW48
I'm pretty sure I heard Ted Kravitz say that Alonso "is trundling down the pit lane to retire from the race", or something along those lines.
Click to expand...

mustafur
He made it to the pits.

That is atleast what Crofty said.
Click to expand...
Then that's bizarre - the finish line is under the podium gantry, so he'd have completed a lap when he pitted. So 47 is the number of laps he completed of the 53, which is 88% race distance...
 
Famine
Then that's bizarre - the finish line is under the podium gantry, so he'd have completed a lap when he pitted. So 47 is the number of laps he completed of the 53, which is 88% race distance...
Click to expand...

That could be to do with the fact that you now can't finish the race in the pitlane (since Schumacher's win by pitting for his penalty and completing the race therein). I'm guessing (and only that) that your last-time-across-the-line is the one on track?

mustafur
Looks like rules don't count this weekend then.
Click to expand...

Yes they do, did you read any of the detail? The tyres were legal, the FIA's measurement was taken at the wrong time procedurally.
 
[Nor]MclarenF1
Looks like there's some overdue changes ahead at Honda.

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12479/9981224/mclaren-honda-relationship-now-at-breaking-point

Honda desperately needs to drop their pride and saying everything is OK and going according to plan. Not only can't they deliver the power they claim, but reliability is still a big issue. Something that was apparently under control before the summer break according to Honda.
Click to expand...

Found it funny when Arai said they have more power than Renault...ummmm noooo
 
Famine
Which should, again, preclude him from having a classified finish...
Click to expand...

Ah, I'd thought Alonso pitted on Lap 47, performed another lap and then retired on 48. I'd presumed that he'd lost lap 48 through that step-back rule. 48 laps would give him classification, 47 wouldn't (as you point out).

BBC and Sky results both show Alonso unclassified... but the F1 site (surely the correct one) does indeed show him classified in the last awarded place. Very odd, could the F1 site be wrong?
 

Latest Posts

Back