Gran Premio d'Italia !

[Kylehnat]

It's not like he wasted everyone's time. I wanted to hear all of that from him, and since races at Monza are about 15 minutes shorter than everywhere else, there was plenty of airtime for him to make his speech.

(although I was sad as a BMW fan to see our driver not getting the attention as I think he was the driver of the day)

Well, to be fair, Kubica is not the most colorful orator in the paddock--very Kimi-esque indeed. I agree with you that he was the driver of the race, and indeed the whole weekend. It looks as though BMW has something, even if it only shows up on high-speed tracks. It's encouraging.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Best quote of the weekend:
"I won't miss him at all." - Flavio Briatore

That gave me a nice laugh.


Otherwise, there's not much to say.

Fisi... Huh? Did he race today? Well, at least he scored some points.

You couldn't see him, because the Italian TV director was interested in those fast red cars.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I wonder if they turned up the revs a bit towards the end? Another 200 rpm would have been enough to jeapordize the engine's reliability. Who knows...

How about Renault's F1 engine boss?

In an interview with Speed TV's Peter Windsor, Denis Chevrier made it perfectly clear that Alonso made no adjustments to the engine at any time during the race, and suggested that the engine failure was unexpected and unavoidable.

It wouldn't have mattered if he started in P1, and certainly would not have mattered if he had started in P5. The result would have been the same.

As far as the regulation of Alonso, Daan already posted a legitimate reason for why it happened:

According to Max Moseley, as he was being interviewed by Martin Brundle on the grid, they got telemetry data that showed Massa's car was destableised (or however you spell it) at the parabolica by the disturbed air from the back of Alonso's car. It's written in the rules that someone on an outlap must let a guy on his fastlap past or be penalised.

Granted, none of this matters due to his DNF, but for those crying foul, it seems Alonso was obligated to slow down and let Masa pass.

 

[Kylehnat]

As far as the regulation of Alonso, Daan already posted a legitimate reason for why it happened. Granted, none of this matters due to his DNF, but for those crying foul, it seems Alonso was obligated to slow down and let Masa pass.

Then, throughout the course of qualifying, many, many, MANY people should be penalized for this very reason.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Then, throughout the course of qualifying, many, many, MANY people should be penalized for this very reason.

Really? Can you please list the many, many, MANY drivers that while on their outlap were in front of another driver on a fastlap as close as Alonso was to Masa?

I still have the qualifying coverage from Speed Channel on my DVR, and I've scanned through the broadcast and still haven't seen one similar situation, let alone the many, many, MANY you claim.

 

[Kylehnat]

With 22 cars on track, then 16, then 10, there is going to be a car following, or at least in the wake of, a car on its outlap at some point during each session. I'm not talking about Monza in particular; I'm talking about qualifying in general. WHEN OTHER CARS ARE ON TRACK, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPECT "CLEAN" AIR. Hell, if a gust of wind whips up and ruins Massa's lap, is he going to complain to the FIA and demand a do-over?

This is another mystery rule drafted by the FIA which is ambiguously worded and arbitrarily enforced. Like I said before, the rule seems to be in place to prevent a car warming up from getting in the way (i.e. blocking) of a car on a hot lap. Only Massa and Ferrari were arguing that Alonso was in the way, and that certainly wasn't a biased argument. For all intents and purposes, Alonso himself was on a hot lap. The fact that it wasn't timed shouldn't automatically make him a "blocker". If the FIA would tell Ferrari to shove it JUST ONCE, many people would drop these stupid conspiracies. As it stands, it usually appears that any mysterious ruling benefits Ferrari. Of course, correlation does not imply causation...

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

With 22 cars on track, then 16, then 10, there is going to be a car following, or at least in the wake of, a car on its outlap at some point during each session. I'm not talking about Monza in particular; I'm talking about qualifying in general. WHEN OTHER CARS ARE ON TRACK, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPECT "CLEAN" AIR. Hell, if a gust of wind whips up and ruins Massa's lap, is he going to complain to the FIA and demand a do-over?

This is another mystery rule drafted by the FIA which is ambiguously worded and arbitrarily enforced. Like I said before, the rule seems to be in place to prevent a car warming up from getting in the way (i.e. blocking) of a car on a hot lap. Only Massa and Ferrari were arguing that Alonso was in the way, and that certainly wasn't a biased argument. For all intents and purposes, Alonso himself was on a hot lap. The fact that it wasn't timed shouldn't automatically make him a "blocker". If the FIA would tell Ferrari to shove it JUST ONCE, many people would drop these stupid conspiracies. As it stands, it usually appears that any mysterious ruling benefits Ferrari. Of course, correlation does not imply causation...

Judging by your assessments, and lack of any actual evidence, I don't see much point in continuing this discussion, but just so you know, Alonso was definitely on a cold outlap having just pulled out of the pits with new tires in front of Masa.

I wonder what kind of comments the anti-Ferrari fanatics/conspiracy theorists might be making if the tables were turned and it was Masa who pulled out of the pits in front of Alonso on his fastlap.

 

[Kylehnat]

Look, you must see this: if there is going to be group qualifying sessions, there is always the risk of somebody's lap being mucked up by someone else. There is no way around that. However, if that "mucking" is intentional, then yes it deserves penalty. Otherwise, there is no grounds for complaint. You want the track to yourself? Go drag racing. I take issue to the FIA actually listening to complaints that amount to nothing more than "I'm mad that someone else was on track". The stewards tend to exercise judgement when they shouldn't, and turn a blind eye when they should. There have been penalties this year for blocking in qualifying...delibrate blocking. Blocking, as in moving around so as to make it impossible for another car to pass. This is the first instance where "blocking" has been redefined to include "being 100 meters in front". Where does it go from there? Can a driver complain of "blocking" simply because he can see a car ahead on the track? It's a visual distraction, you know.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

This is the first instance where "blocking" has been redefined to include "being 100 meters in front". Where does it go from there? Can a driver complain of "blocking" simply because he can see a car ahead on the track? It's a visual distraction, you know.

So are your drastic exaggerations of the facts. I taped the qualifying coverage, and during the lap in question the footage showed that at least at one point Alonso was within four car lengths of Masa. Now I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Formula 1 cars are not 25 meters long.

At least you proved that I was correct, and there is no point in discussing this with you as you clearly have already made up your mind, despite expressing a great deal on inaccuracies in support of your argument.

 

[Kylehnat]

So are your drastic exaggerations of the facts. I taped the qualifying coverage, and during the lap in question the footage showed that at least at one point Alonso was within four car lengths of Masa. Now I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Formula 1 cars are not 25 meters long.

Fine, then read what Pat Symonds had to say. Not an unbiased observer, but certainly more trustworthy than me.

 

[the Interceptor]

I wonder what kind of comments the anti-Ferrari fanatics/conspiracy theorists might be making if the tables were turned and it was Masa who pulled out of the pits in front of Alonso on his fastlap.

We wouldn't comment, because Alonso wouldn't have been complaining about it.

So are your drastic exaggerations of the facts. I taped the qualifying coverage, and during the lap in question the footage showed that at least at one point Alonso was within four car lengths of Masa. Now I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Formula 1 cars are not 25 meters long.

No, but at the time they were as close (the low speed sections), you don't need clean air, because you're going way too slow for it to matter.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Fine, then read what Pat Symonds had to say.Not an unbiased observer, but certainly more trustworthy than me.

Most certainly not unbiased, and his clearly biased "observations" are far from reality. I bet Massa was never as far back as 100 meters from Alonso. BTW: That's just over 20 car lengths.

The footage is quite telling, and even Symonds admits Massa lost time... but for obvious reasons be blames that on Massa and not his position behind Alonso.

Symonds goes on to try and suggest that Alonso's poor qualifying that would have put him in P5 without the penalty "was a race winning strategy without a doubt. And I’m not bull****ting."

Maybe Symonds forgot that Alonso was posting slower laps than several drivers throughout the race, even when he had several opportunities to post maximum lap times.

If Symonds is your source for information on Forumla 1, that may explain quite a bit.

 

[Kylehnat]

Most certainly not unbiased, and his clearly biased "observations" are far from reality. I bet Massa was never as far back as 100 meters from Alonso. BTW: That's just over 20 car lengths.

He's using telemetry/data. What are you using?

If Symonds is your source for information on Forumla 1, that may explain quite a bit.

You've found me out.

This was posted earlier in the thread:


Okay, Alonso is clearly well up the track for the entire lap, but that's not really the main issue. Massa complained that Alonso's car messed him up in the Parabolica. Watch as Massa goes through the corner. Any "disturbance" from Alonso's car should cause the front end to wash, and cause Massa to make a correction. His hands are dead-steady throughout the entire corner, suggesting that he was not caught by surprise by a "disturbance" at any point. Also noteworthy is the engine hiccup midway through the corner. Whether it's a lift by Massa or the car's electronics (sounds like he hit the rev-limiter), there is a definite blip.

 

[mipuumal]

I wonder if you can tell me of, outside of lap 1, five passes for position on the track.

I can go down the local garage and watch mechanics work (okay then, have a cup of coffee). It's far more interesting too.

Personally I don't watch F1 just because of the racing aspect, I love watching the cars go around the track on the limit. Examining the lines they take around corners and comparing the drivers sector times through live timing (I watch the races with my brand new capturecard and have live timing right next to the race).

If you are expecting to see Suzuka 2005 every time you turn on the TV on sundays, you will be disapointed... unless you have that on tape.

Watch as Massa goes through the corner. Any "disturbance" from Alonso's car should cause the front end to wash, and cause Massa to make a correction. His hands are dead-steady throughout the entire corner, suggesting that he was not caught by surprise by a "disturbance" at any point. Also noteworthy is the engine hiccup midway through the corner. Whether it's a lift by Massa or the car's electronics (sounds like he hit the rev-limiter), there is a definite blip.

He is making a correction, he is blipping the throttle to stop the understeer.

I don't think Fernando should've been punished, but I'm not bent out of shape over it after hearing Fernando's comment on it. MS was pushed to the back of the grid in Monaco (a track where it is basicly impossible to pass) and you didn't hear him crying. I would call the situation even.

Renault just don't have the speed to win the championship, they didn't have it last year either but McLaren gave it to them because of their mistakes. This year they can't wait for Ferrari to do the same.

 

[daan]

The bottom line is Ferrari protested, they had evidence to support that claim, and the stewards looked at it, and the data, and upheld the protest.

If the team behind doesn't protest, then the stewards wouldn't have done anything. It looks like Ferrari are quicker to protest than other teams, (or is that just a big conspiracy theory?)

I wouldn't trust Pat Symonds on this situation as he's obviously going to come down on the side of his driver and his team, just as Ross Brawn would come down on the side of his driver/team.

 

[Blake]

If the FIA would tell Ferrari to shove it JUST ONCE, many people would drop these stupid conspiracies.

Two words: Flexible wings.

 

[mipuumal]

Two words: Flexible wings.

The funny thing is that Ferrari have only gotten faster after those were banned.

Unlike Renault who have spent most of their time complaining after their Mass Dampers were banned instead of doing R&D.

 

[TMM]

The funny thing is that Ferrari have only gotten faster after those were banned.

Yes strange that isn't it. I wonder why?

Unlike Renault who have spent most of their time complaining after their Mass Dampers were banned instead of doing R&D.

Wow didn't realise you worked for the Renault F1 team. So they aren't doing any R&D anymore, that doesn't sound like a good way to beat the Ferrari's on the race track!

 

[Famine]

Personally I don't watch F1 just because of the racing aspect, I love watching the cars go around the track on the limit.

Watch qualifying then. They aren't going around the track "on the limit" in the race, as they're too busy nursing fuel, tyres and engines, with only as much power given to them as the race engineers think the telemetry says they should be allowed to have at any given time.

Everybody down to Ralf (13th) in Q2 beat Kimi's fastest race lap time...

If you are expecting to see Suzuka 2005 every time you turn on the TV on sundays, you will be disapointed...

Yes, frequently. We can only hope though, right?

 

[Danoff]

Two words: Flexible wings.

This is a pet peeve of mine. "Flexible" refers to just about everything on a formula 1 car and every non-brittle material known to man.

When you apply a force to a material (like, say, downforce applied to a wing) that material will bend. No question. Every single airfoil on every single formula 1 car is deflected to different degrees based on speed during a race. It is 100% guaranteed by basic materials and physics.

The term "moveable aerodynamic device" taken in the strictest sense, refers to every aerodynamic device known to man.

 

[mipuumal]

Watch qualifying then.

I'm not the one who has a problem watching races.

They aren't going around the track "on the limit" in the race, as they're too busy nursing fuel, tyres and engines, with only as much power given to them as the race engineers think the telemetry says they should be allowed to have at any given time.

Everybody down to Ralf (13th) in Q2 beat Kimi's fastest race lap time...

That's because the fastest laps in qualifying are done with minimal fuel and perfect tyres, but in the race they are done with worn tyres. It doesn't mean that they aren't going flat out.

 

[Famine]

I'm not the one who has a problem watching races.

Who is "the one" that does?

That's because the fastest laps in qualifying are done with minimal fuel and perfect tyres, but in the race they are done with worn tyres. It doesn't mean that they aren't going flat out.

I didn't say they weren't going flat out - though with the race engineer limiting the power, they aren't - but that they aren't "on the limit" in the race, precisely because of these factors.

If you like to watch cars going round the track "on the limit" then qualifying is better than the race.

 

[Flerbizky]

Not completely OT, but almost :

Take away the drivers' hilarious paycheck, pay them for a "regular" living, then give them a million each time they overtake outside the pits !...

(Yes - I stole it from Clarkson)

 

[amp88]

This is a pet peeve of mine. "Flexible" refers to just about everything on a formula 1 car and every non-brittle material known to man.

When you apply a force to a material (like, say, downforce applied to a wing) that material will bend. No question. Every single airfoil on every single formula 1 car is deflected to different degrees based on speed during a race. It is 100% guaranteed by basic materials and physics.

The term "moveable aerodynamic device" taken in the strictest sense, refers to every aerodynamic device known to man.

There are limits to the deflection set out in the rules. The aero pieces on the cars are allowed to bend to a certain degree, but it was argued that Ferrari's wings were moving more than was allowed.

edit: It's difficult to apply the several thousand kilo loads on the cars (which are achieved at speeds of 180+mph) in the scrutineering bay where the cars are checked for legality though.

edit2:

3.17 Bodywork flexibility :
3.17.1 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 700mm
forward of the front wheel centre line and 625mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a
downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter 300mm long and 150mm wide. Teams
must supply the latter when such a test is deemed necessary.
3.17.2 Bodywork may deflect no more than 10mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it 450mm
forward of the rear wheel centre line and 650mm from the car centre line. The load will be applied in a
downward direction using a 50mm diameter ram and an adapter of the same size, Teams must supply the
latter when such a test is deemed necessary.
3.17.3 Bodywork may deflect by no more than one degree horizontally when a load of 1000N is applied
simultaneously to its extremities in a rearward direction 780mm above the reference plane and 20mm
forward of the rear wheel centre line.
3.17.4 Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 500N load is applied vertically to it at a point
which lies on the car centre line and 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line. The load will be
applied in an upward direction using a 50mm diameter ram, teams will be required to supply a suitable
adapter when such a test is deemed necessary.
3.17.5 The uppermost aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line may deflect no more than 5mm
horizontally when a 500N load is applied horizontally. The load will be applied 800mm above the reference
plane at three separate points which lie on the car centre line and 250mm either side of it. The loads will be
applied in an rearward direction using a suitable 25mm wide adapter which must be supplied by the
relevant team.
3.17.6 The forward-most aerofoil element lying behind the rear wheel centre line and which lies more than 600mm
above the reference plane may deflect no more than 2mm vertically when a 200N load is applied vertically.
The load will be applied in line with the trailing edge of the element at any point across its width. The loads
will be applied using a suitable adapter, supplied by the relevant team, which :
- may be no more than 50mm wide ;
- which extends no more than 10mm forward of the trailing edge ;
- incorporates an 8mm female thread in the underside.
3.17.7 In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to
introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of),
moving whilst the car is in motion.

 

[Danoff]

There are limits to the deflection set out in the rules. The aero pieces on the cars are allowed to bend to a certain degree, but it was argued that Ferrari's wings were moving more than was allowed.

...and what was the outcome of that argument?

 

[amp88]

...and what was the outcome of that argument?

The final outcome was that all teams had to add a piece on their rear wings to keep the planes from bending and separating at high speed.

The only reason I brought up the technical regs was because you appeared to me to think that no deflection was allowed at all.

 

[Danoff]

The final outcome was that all teams had to add a piece on their rear wings to keep the planes from bending and separating at high speed.

The only reason I brought up the technical regs was because you appeared to me to think that no deflection was allowed at all.

I think it's a stupid rule, to not allow aerodynamic parts to flex (much). I think it's stupid to draw the line at a certain degree of flexing arbitrarily - beyond which apparently some sort of line has been crossed.

All-in-all, I hate the rule and think that it should have no part in formula 1.

 

[amp88]

I think it's a stupid rule, to not allow aerodynamic parts to flex (much). I think it's stupid to draw the line at a certain degree of flexing arbitrarily - beyond which apparently some sort of line has been crossed.

All-in-all, I hate the rule and think that it should have no part in formula 1.

Why exactly do you "hate" this rule? Why should the wings have no limits on their flexibility? The restrictions are there in part for safety, if something is designed to flex a large amount under load it is, by definition, weaker than something which is designed to hold its shape to a greater extent.

 

[Kylehnat]

if something is designed to flex a large amount under load it is, by definition, weaker than something which is designed to hold its shape to a greater extent.

Not necessarily. There are a bevy of new materials out there that have a high degree of strength AND flexibility. Polymer science is quite fascinating.

 

[Flerbizky]

I'm sorry to be the one to say this - But shouldn't this be in some specific "Rule Bending" thread in the F1 forum ?...

This was supposed to be the GP d'I thread, and now were talking polymers ?...