Raikkonen's car fails post-Qualifying scrutineering

Didnt your post indicate that? I mean, you were blaming the team for the ****in damage from the KERB. It is like blaming Alan Permane for going bald.

You should have had some sense before accusing artista the first time. Now you are continuing to do it even after artista explained her post. Some of your posts have becomes delusional given the recent events.

The point here being that the cases WERE indentical. But once it can be accident, second time it's negligence, they probably needed to show what action was taken after GRO-case, and none could be presented. Especially as they moved to LWB so it was most likely deemed to be unnecessary.

Damn.

Exactly.  People think one time excuse makes it a rule.  Bolded it just so that people understand instead of seeing it just from the team or driver's perspective.

But if he's anyway allowed to race.. According to the FIA, he's going to race with an illegal floor.

Or.. Are they going to switch for a new one tomorrow before the race?
And if they change it with an equal type, who can guarantee that the new floor will be ok according to the FIA guys at the end of the race?

 

Excuse me for the question that maybe looks pretty stupid, but I'm missing the point.

 Very good point.

Edited by SpaMaster, 03 November 2013 - 04:31.

If Kimi is disqualified from Quali, then does parc ferme rule apply to him. Can't he change the setup of the car AND start from behind the grid?

except that just your assumption. The rules say the only get out of jail card you have is "accident" damage. In Hungary they wrote a whole diatribe on why they accepted the tea-tray damage as an accident, today they just say they don't. There is nothing like what you describe anywhere, no instruction to fix anything, they just said the support broke due an accident, go race. This time around they don't accept hitting a kerb is an accident. It's plain inconsistent

Why should hitting the kerb be an accident? Don't they all ride on it and then some willingly?

What´s going on with Lotus? They are talking nonesense to the press, not paying for the drivers, cheating with the car...   Are they really up tp the standards of a F1 team???

Those things alone make them an F1 team. Go ask McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, Williams, etc. - all masters of whining, blabbering, cheating, you name it..

Edited by SpaMaster, 03 November 2013 - 05:39.

 

According to FIA Lotus should have made the part stronger, but shouldn't they have insisted on it after Hungary not at Abu Dhabi. If they consider it was an accident shouldn't everything be okay with the part, because it failing was caused by an accident.

 

Since when have broken parts had to pass the tests? 

 

This just does not make any sense. In Hungary Lotus provided details that the part has lasted over 600km and only failed, because of accident damage. 

 

It's not like high kerbs have not broken cars down before. Massa's car in India last year and maybe Lewis's car today. Is Lewis being forced to the back of the grid?

It was an unfair decision by FIA...

Are they going to send every car that has a failure at the back of the grid? Did FIA ask Lotus to make the part stronger back in Hungary? I doubt it because back then they considered it an accident which was the logical thing to do! 

If Kimi is disqualified from Quali, then does parc ferme rule apply to him. Can't he change the setup of the car AND start from behind the grid?

Last year Vettel had to start from the pit lane to do this.

Can someone clarify this for me..

Does the FIA randomly picks two cars post qualifying for scrutinizing or do they do this to every car?

The initial report mentioned that Gutierrez and Kimi's car were tested after the race to check for irregularities..

If this is the case, and they had not been checked before in a while, it could be possible they were running an illegal floor for quite sometime.

Yes, it is well-worth the risk taken. By the time you are caught/clarified, the damage has already been done and you have more than made up for it. The classic philosophy that have been adopted by the likes of Brawn, Ferrari, Newey, McLaren and Renault since time began.

It was an unfair decision by FIA...

Are they going to send every car that has a failure at the back of the grid? Did FIA ask Lotus to make the part stronger back in Hungary? I doubt it because back then they considered it an accident which was the logical thing to do! 

They will send every car that fails an inspection to the back of the grid. It's not FIA's fault if Lotus couldn't realize that their design is flawed. 

Why should hitting the kerb be an accident? Don't they all ride on it and then some willingly?

 

Those things alone make them an F1 team. Go ask McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, Williams, etc. - all masters of whining, blabbering, cheating, you name it..

With 2nd I agree completely.

With 1st well, to be honest, the floor passed the test, and the element also passed the test with 25g or so. So actually they punished the team for something that is legal, but due to some circumstances it went s*it.

Edited by Shiroo, 03 November 2013 - 07:22.

With 2nd I agree completely.

With 1st well, to be honest, the floor passed the test, and the element also passed the test with 25g or so. So actually they punished the team for something that is legal, but due to some circumstances it went s*it.

It may have passed a lot of test, but it was still not good enough to pass some other tests, was it? I don't think you can say the earlier tests overrule everything else. Once it happened to Grosjean, Lotus should have taken enough precautionary measures that it does not happen again. I don't like parts failing in the car easily that put the car in a position seen to be advantageous. No governing body would take it lightly. I know what you are going to say about the governing body next. But that's besides the point. The onus is on Lotus that such things don't get repeated. That is precisely the reason they have been punished. I am not going criticize the team for it. Sometimes things happen and some things get overlooked once in a while. But that does not mean it is others' mistake.

It may have passed a lot of test, but it was still not good enough to pass some other tests, was it? I don't think you can say the earlier tests overrule everything else. Once it happened to Grosjean, Lotus should have taken enough precautionary measures that it does not happen again. I don't like parts failing in the car easily that put the car in a position seen to be advantageous. No governing body would take it lightly. I know what you are going to say about the governing body next. But that's besides the point. The onus is on Lotus that such things don't get repeated. That is precisely the reason they have been punished. I am not going criticize the team for it. Sometimes things happen and some things get overlooked once in a while. But that does not mean it is others' mistake.

But that misses the point completely cause the governing body didn't ask them after last incident about the same part to do something with it, so there was not need for changing in that. Ofcourse you can build a car that will definetly pass everything cause will have additional 20-30g that it will withstand, but then you won't have the best car. They all put everything on edge to make it lighter, so if that passed the test => it made the part and car legal.

If you want to pass everything no matter for incidents then we will get:

Edited by Shiroo, 03 November 2013 - 07:43.

I believe I was commenting on Räikkönen's car failing scrutineering. I have no idea what happened to Lewis and, frankly, I don't see how or why he's relevant here unless he, too, got disqualified while I wasn't paying attention.

 

To elaborate on my first post, my main point was supposed to be that I'd expect F1 cars to be structurally strong enough to withstand occasional light(ish) contact with curbs. It's such a common occurrence that I'm uncomfortable with teams using it - and the stewards accepting it - as an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card. It's obviously subjective but there's accident damage and then there's accident damage. An out-of-control car hits a curb and bunny-hops across a gravel trap leaving debris in its wake? Fine, fix it and don't worry about a DQ. Someone qualifies third without obvious incident but the car fails post-qualifying scrutineering? Must've grazed a curb somewhere along the way so it's all good? Not so fast, mister. That kind of thing.

Lewis damaged his wishbone when he hit a kerb.

Kimi's car hit a kerb at 25G. I believe it was a harder hit that Grosjean had in Hungary. So not a lightish contact. 

But that misses the point completely cause the governing body didn't ask them after last incident about the same part to do something with it, so there was not need for changing in that. Ofcourse you can build a car that will definetly pass everything cause will have additional 20-30g that it will withstand, but then you won't have the best car. They all put everything on edge to make it lighter, so if that passed the test => it made the part and car legal.

If you want to pass everything no matter for incidents then we will get:

 

 

Why is it the governing body's responsibility to ask a team to change its parts? The onus is on the team to make the parts legal. As far as I can see, the Lotus car failed one of those tests. You can't expect FIA to brief on the status of all parts, how they are faring, their reliability and performance consistency and their hit rates.

What? There is no such thing.

Sorry that was a typo, It was supposed to say car set up for S3 and not S2. What I'm basically saying it they will need to remove down force to give Kimi better chances to overtake.

Why is it the governing body's responsibility to ask a team to change its parts? 

Well it is kind of inconsistent to first say that it is OK if the part does not pass the test after it has been damaged in an accident. Next time is happens they say that the part must withstand that accident.  

If they think the part is not up to the job then they must make the team change it. It is as simple as that and it has happened many times before. A team has a part that FIA isn't too happy about and they ask the team to change it for the next race. It happens all the time.

And then every designer would make parts breakable.

Ok... And where's the advantage?

And then every designer would make parts breakable.

This situation is very simple, there is a test, lotus failed it. They got a free out of jail card once, why should they keep getting that?

Since when have damaged parts had to pass tests meant to intact parts? Until now it has been teams have gotten away with it if they have been able to prove that it was damaged in an accident. This is what happened in Hungary. 

Ok... And where's the advantage?

According to the FIA, hitting a kerb is not an accident (they refused the explanation given by Lotus to justify the results of the deflection test).

In Abu Dhabi.

Not in Hungary, so we have a double standard situation. Who's right?

Was Lotus recommended (warned) to improve the shock-resistance of that part of the floor after the Hungarian GP?

Very simple....They design a flexi-floor that gives a down-force advantage when flexed, then have the attachment deliberately fragile and tell the driver to go out and hit a kerb first lap to break the attachment.....

Very simple....They design a flexi-floor that gives a down-force advantage when flexed, then have the attachment deliberately fragile and tell the driver to go out and hit a kerb first lap to break the attachment.....

I dunno who would be more brilliant then. The engineer that made it, or the driver that know how exactly need to hit the kerb to make it work.

Theorycraft.

Exactly...and then people would come up with breaking exhaust panels, rearwings, diffusors,...imho they were right in handing out a penalty there.

Edited by Jovanotti, 03 November 2013 - 09:03.

Exactly...and then people would come up with breaking exhaust panels, rearwings, diffusors,...imho they were right in handing out a penalty there.

Nope. They should have given the penalty in Hungary or insisted that the part should be made stronger.

Talking to Auto Motor und Sport, Lotus engineer Alan Permane accused the FIA of a double standard.

"This was absolutely comparable to Hungary," he said, referring to the situation involving Romain Grosjean earlier this season, which was not similarly punished.

"Kimi had no advantage for the rest of the lap, and in fact in the slow corners he was slightly disadvantaged," Permane insisted.

http://www.motorspor...-strike-threat/

Edited by kimister, 03 November 2013 - 09:32.

 

Talking to Auto Motor und Sport, Lotus engineer Alan Permane accused the FIA of a double standard.

 

"This was absolutely comparable to Hungary," he said, referring to the situation involving Romain Grosjean earlier this season, which was not similarly punished.

 

"Kimi had no advantage for the rest of the lap, and in fact in the slow corners he was slightly disadvantaged," Permane insisted.

 

http://www.motorspor...-strike-threat/

 

Permane always accuses other for doing wrong! 

Permane always accuses other for doing wrong! 

you can dislike Permane.
But you need to agree with him. This is a double standard. Same thing, FIA didn't ask for fix of the part etc. etc. but nope. Let's **** them up hard now, especially when 2nd WCC is on the cards. BEcause, **** YOU that's why.

Very simple....They design a flexi-floor that gives a down-force advantage when flexed, then have the attachment deliberately fragile and tell the driver to go out and hit a kerb first lap to break the attachment.....

How does that work? Wouldn't such a part fail pre-season tests (if there is such a test)?. If a team races a part which is not exactly the same as that was tested by FIA, wouldn't that be blatant cheating, one that cannot be justified with the "impact damage" explanation.

How does that work? Wouldn't such a part fail pre-season tests (if there is such a test)?. If a team races a part which is not exactly the same as that was tested by FIA, wouldn't that be blatant cheating, one that cannot be justified with the "impact damage" explanation.

There isn't, until scrutineering at the first race. And (at least for non-spec parts) it's not illegal to run a part that was not tested by FIA.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 03 November 2013 - 12:19.