78 replies to this topic

[bonjon1979a]

So lotus were found to be running a completely illegal suspension and no one cares?

http://grandprix247....ont-suspension/

This has nothing to do with interpretation that I can see and is all about them breaking the rules, yet there is no punishment for this. In the light of recent events where a team has been punished for doing something that the FIA gave bona fide approval for seems a little strange. Have I missed something here, is this really not a big deal?

[Deluxx]

As long as it's not redbull

[Sakae]

It must be some mistake; they have merely correctly designed car for the tire, didn't we were told..?

[Goron3]

So lotus were found to be running a completely illegal suspension and no one cares?

http://grandprix247....ont-suspension/

This has nothing to do with interpretation that I can see and is all about them breaking the rules, yet there is no punishment for this. In the light of recent events where a team has been punished for doing something that the FIA gave bona fide approval for seems a little strange. Have I missed something here, is this really not a big deal?

Lotus aren't arguing against it; they over the Silverstone weekend that they will change it for Germany..

[Beamer]

So lotus were found to be running a completely illegal suspension and no one cares?

http://grandprix247....ont-suspension/

This has nothing to do with interpretation that I can see and is all about them breaking the rules, yet there is no punishment for this. In the light of recent events where a team has been punished for doing something that the FIA gave bona fide approval for seems a little strange. Have I missed something here, is this really not a big deal?

Not a big deal. They aren't allowed to mount more than 3 elements on 1 joint, and apparently they had more. Allthough I can't see it in that image. You've got the 2 parts of the lower wishbone, 2 of the upper, the steering rod and the suspension rod to connect. Steering rod can't be combined with any (at least if you want to actually steer the car) so that leaves you with only 2 wishbone halfs and the suspension rod....

[OO7]

I wonder how this all works, because if a team is found to be running a 3.0 litre V8, they can't simply say 'we'll change it for the next race'. The suspension component in question may open to interpretation.

[bonjon1979a]

Lotus aren't arguing against it; they over the Silverstone weekend that they will change it for Germany..

So what if they're not arguing against it, they know the rules. They deliberately broke them and nothing happens. I don't understand the logic here. Also, what the hell are scrutineering doing if they're missing something like this?

[redreni]

This has to stop. If Charlie tells a team after scrutineering that it's car doesn't comply with the regulations, then unless the car can be made compliant to the satisfaction of the stewards before the timed and scored sessions, the car should not be allowed to qualify or race unless under protest. There's no point having scrutineering at all if all the cars are waved through whether they comply or not. Every time this happens it encourages the teams to cheat. I don't care who is involved, it's not good enough. It is a big deal.

It is also surprising that, now the unofficial no-protest pact has broken down with the testgate affair, the other teams don't lodge their own protests about this sort of thing.

[redreni]

So what if they're not arguing against it, they know the rules. They deliberately broke them and nothing happens. I don't understand the logic here. Also, what the hell are scrutineering doing if they're missing something like this?

According to the article they didn't miss it, they spotted it and still allowed the car to race, which is far worse.

[bonjon1979a]

This has to stop. If Charlie tells a team after scrutineering that it's car doesn't comply with the regulations, then unless the car can be made compliant to the satisfaction of the stewards before the timed and scored sessions, the car should not be allowed to qualify or race unless under protest. There's no point having scrutineering at all if all the cars are waved through whether they comply or not. Every time this happens it encourages the teams to cheat. I don't care who is involved, it's not good enough. It is a big deal.

It is also surprising that, now the unofficial no-protest pact has broken down with the testgate affair, the other teams don't lodge their own protests about this sort of thing.

I agree. All the teams are doing things that are illegal in the hope they'll get away with it. Fair enough, they should be taking those gambles but if they're unlucky enough to be caught by one of the other teams (FIA seem clueless) then they should be DQ'd like sauber were in Oz a few years ago.

[Wander]

Nobody cares, cause they are still doing ****.

[Shiroo]

Well they had that type of suspension last year as well. I would say that the only reason they didnt get dnq is because these car inspected by someone and yet they didnt find that thing.

ANd I do agree that it should be DSQ. Well they will simply change it and done, cause it isnt that major thing. Yet if they wouldjt do that on Time, theyshould be out of the race in Germany

[Oldie]

So what if they're not arguing against it, they know the rules. They deliberately broke them and nothing happens. I don't understand the logic here. Also, what the hell are scrutineering doing if they're missing something like this?

Thing is that there was no problem with it until McLaren(?) asked for clarification.
So yeah, after the clarification it is deemed as illegal, before it wasn't.
2006 Mass Damper was judged to be illegal after it was first given green light. Renault didn't get any penalty from the races it had used it.
Surely this suspension attachment babble isn't even as close advantage as MD was.
I cant't see that big of a deal. These happen every season.

[bonjon1979a]

Thing is that there was no problem with it until McLaren(?) asked for clarification.
So yeah, after the clarification it is deemed as illegal, before it wasn't.
2006 Mass Damper was judged to be illegal after it was first given green light. Renault didn't get any penalty from the races it had used it.
Surely this suspension attachment babble isn't even as close advantage as MD was.
I cant't see that big of a deal. These happen every season.

I thought FIA knew about it before the race, if not then fair enough. However, if the stewards picked it up before the race or post race scrutineering it would be diabolical that they weren't disqualified. What about the next person who's found to have cheated, do they get let off too? Could be that it was post event that they discovered this so let's not jump to conclusions but still there must be some advantage to doing what they are otherwise why would they be doing it?

[ZooL]

Ye it's not right, it does seem to be a clear breach of the rules yet they get to keep the points. Being told to change it for the next race isn't a satisfactory form of punishment.

[Markn93]

Ted, during qualy, said a number of teams including Mclaren, RB brought it up and the FIA checked it and it was against the regulations. Whether or not it proves advantageous in anyway should surely be irrelevant. They broke the rules and should therefore be punished.

[Bloggsworth]

I wonder how this all works, because if a team is found to be running a 3.0 litre V8, they can't simply say 'we'll change it for the next race'. The suspension component in question may open to interpretation.

In the 50s/60s/70s we would attach the front of the top wishbone, the top of the damper and a roll-bar bracket to the one bolt, had the FIA decreed that only two components could be so attached we would have moved the roll-bar bracket to the chassis - It's not a big deal unless they gained a performance advantage. We did it to save weight as I suppose Lotus did - As all F1 cars are built underweight they may have to raise another 2gm to top wishbone level and shave it off the depleted uranium brick* hung from the bottom of the car...









*Or whatever exotic & expensive metal they currently use.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Well, if the car was really illegal wouldnt it have failed tech inspection? So it seems like the FIA looked at the car normally, it passed, the teams pointed out a technicality(whatever it is), the FIA agreed and told them not to bring it next time.

[beefree88]

So lotus were found to be running a completely illegal suspension and no one cares?

http://grandprix247....ont-suspension/

This has nothing to do with interpretation that I can see and is all about them breaking the rules, yet there is no punishment for this. In the light of recent events where a team has been punished for doing something that the FIA gave bona fide approval for seems a little strange. Have I missed something here, is this really not a big deal?

Punishments are for gaining advantage. This particular rule is about safety. Since in the past two years no scrutineer noticed, probably not even a particularly important one.

[Wander]

Ted, during qualy, said a number of teams including Mclaren, RB brought it up and the FIA checked it and it was against the regulations. Whether or not it proves advantageous in anyway should surely be irrelevant. They broke the rules and should therefore be punished.

It's been a long, long time since there last was a serious punishment for a similar thing.

[Markn93]

Punishments are for gaining advantage. This particular rule is about safety. Since in the past two years no scrutineer noticed, probably not even a particularly important one.

Really? I thought they were for doing something wrong (ie against the regulations).

[sosidge]

Surely we realise by now that F1 decisions are based on the show not the sport?

[Szoelloe]

As long as it's not redbull

That's just mean.

I don't think it is a big deal, though I have no clue if its a performance feature or not. They have not made a fuss about it, just said 'ok, we'll change it' and moved on.

[Seanspeed]

Well, if the car was really illegal wouldnt it have failed tech inspection? So it seems like the FIA looked at the car normally, it passed, the teams pointed out a technicality(whatever it is), the FIA agreed and told them not to bring it next time.

Sure, but remember Sauber in Australia 2010? They were DQ'd after the race because they fell foul of some rear wing discrepancy by mere millimeters. Nobody ever accused them of doing it intentionally or to gain an advantage, yet it was illegal all the same and their points were taken away.

The ONLY way I can see how it would be ok for Lotus not to be DQ'd is if the rule broken was a grey area, which it doesn't sound like it was. It seems to be something clearly illegal.

I have no idea how this has gone allowed.

Same goes for Red Bull's mechanically adjustable suspension last year in Canada. This stuff is blatant rule breaking, not just exploiting grey areas and they're getting away with it.

[Youichi]

Well, if the car was really illegal wouldnt it have failed tech inspection? So it seems like the FIA looked at the car normally, it passed, the teams pointed out a technicality(whatever it is), the FIA agreed and told them not to bring it next time.

Exactly, that design had been run for the last 18 months, then the FIA issued a rule clarification and asked them not to bring it again. it happens all the time.

[EthanM]

Sure, but remember Sauber in Australia 2010? They were DQ'd after the race because they fell foul of some rear wing discrepancy by mere millimeters. Nobody ever accused them of doing it intentionally or to gain an advantage, yet it was illegal all the same and their points were taken away.

The ONLY way I can see how it would be ok for Lotus not to be DQ'd is if the rule broken was a grey area, which it doesn't sound like it was. It seems to be something clearly illegal.

I have no idea how this has gone allowed.

Same goes for Red Bull's mechanically adjustable suspension last year in Canada. This stuff is blatant rule breaking, not just exploiting grey areas and they're getting away with it.

It's not as simple as you think. Red Bull's "mechanically adjustable suspension" was actually a nut that the regulations say should only be adjustable with a tool, Red Bull's was judged to be big enough that a mechanic could hold it with his finger if he slid his hand in there and adjust it. McLaren had that gaping wing in Valencia, they had that weird diffuser hole in Monaco a couple of seasons ago, all were judged illegal, all were told to change them, none suffered sanctions.

[SpaMaster]

So lotus were found to be running a completely illegal suspension and no one cares?

http://grandprix247....ont-suspension/

This has nothing to do with interpretation that I can see and is all about them breaking the rules, yet there is no punishment for this. In the light of recent events where a team has been punished for doing something that the FIA gave bona fide approval for seems a little strange. Have I missed something here, is this really not a big deal?

What was this bona fide approval?

Anyway, I can't remember a recent instance where a team has been punished for things like this. All I hear is 'change the part from the next race'.

Given that how lightly Mercedes has gotten away recently, I think anything goes. Teams would want to push any grey area to downright ridiculous levels.

First of all, if it is a clear and deliberate breaking of rules, any car should be disqualified. So, is it clearly illegal or one of those grey areas as Brawn would say? Why can't other teams protest the past results if they are so sure? Have other teams also been let go like this in the past?

Edited by SpaMaster, 03 July 2013 - 16:11.

[SpaMaster]

Ted, during qualy, said a number of teams including Mclaren, RB brought it up and the FIA checked it and it was against the regulations. Whether or not it proves advantageous in anyway should surely be irrelevant. They broke the rules and should therefore be punished.

McLaren and Red Bull should protest it then? Unless they are afraid of skeletons in their own closet of course.

[Seanspeed]

It's not as simple as you think. Red Bull's "mechanically adjustable suspension" was actually a nut that the regulations say should only be adjustable with a tool, Red Bull's was judged to be big enough that a mechanic could hold it with his finger if he slid his hand in there and adjust it. McLaren had that gaping wing in Valencia, they had that weird diffuser hole in Monaco a couple of seasons ago, all were judged illegal, all were told to change them, none suffered sanctions.

McLaren's situation was different. When something is in a grey area, something can be declared illegal afterwards and no sanction, that's fair in many cases. After all, its the team's job to find and exploit potential loopholes.

Red Bull and Lotus' situations are not in any grey area, though. Not that I know of, at least. These aren't just breaking the 'spirit' of the regulations, but the regulations themselves. Both should have been DQ'd when discovered.

I don't hate either of these teams. It has nothing to do with wishing for competitors to be punished when they don't deserve it. But there HAS to be some policing of the technical regulations and it shouldn't be based on whether or not a team is gaining an advantage or whether it was intentional or whatever.

Like I said, Sauber were stripped of their points in Australia 2010 for an infraction very similar.

[SpaMaster]

McLaren's situation was different. When something is in a grey area, something can be declared illegal afterwards and no sanction, that's fair in many cases. After all, its the team's job to find and exploit potential loopholes.

Red Bull and Lotus' situations are not in any grey area, though. Not that I know of, at least. These aren't just breaking the 'spirit' of the regulations, but the regulations themselves. Both should have been DQ'd when discovered.

I don't hate either of these teams. It has nothing to do with wishing for competitors to be punished when they don't deserve it. But there HAS to be some policing of the technical regulations and it shouldn't be based on whether or not a team is gaining an advantage or whether it was intentional or whatever.

Like I said, Sauber were stripped of their points in Australia 2010 for an infraction very similar.

Do you have any solid proof that Red Bull and Lotus parts were clearly illegal? Or, is it just your opinion? Because if there are solid proofs, other teams should have just protested the results?

Edited by SpaMaster, 03 July 2013 - 16:22.

[DrProzac]

Not a big deal. They aren't allowed to mount more than 3 elements on 1 joint

What a stupid rule

[e34]

Do you have any solid proof that Red Bull and Lotus parts were clearly illegal? Or, is it just your opinion? Because if there are solid proofs, other teams should have just protested the results?

Red Bull suspension thingy could be operated by hand, and regulations said that it should not be possible to operate it by hand.

Lotus suspension thing should have two pieces attached somewhere, and it has three pieces.

Of course, if we mico-analyse anything, and begin discussing what's a hand, we may end up agreeing that RBR did not infinge the rule, because they have a six-fingered mechanic, and that is not a normal human hand. But reasonable people know what's a hand operated device, a two-piece thingy (and a F1 test, come to think of it).

But for common sense to prevail, somebody should be willing to enforce regulations in a reasonable way.

[Seanspeed]

Do you have any solid proof that Red Bull and Lotus parts were clearly illegal? Or, is it just your opinion? Because if there are solid proofs, other teams should have just protested the results?

If somebody can point out that these infringements were in some 'grey area', open to interpretation, then I will retract my statement.

Until then, according to my understanding, they are just blatant rule violations.

[redreni]

Do you have any solid proof that Red Bull and Lotus parts were clearly illegal? Or, is it just your opinion? Because if there are solid proofs, other teams should have just protested the results?

Yes. In the Red Bull case we have public statements from the team principal that they had been running with a suspension that was hand-adjustable, which is illegal. In the Lotus case the report is very clear that the FIA told Lotus on Saturday that their suspension was illegal. The race was on Sunday, so if it was illegal on Saturday it won‘t have become legal again by Sunday.

So in my opinion the other teams ought to have protested. Since they didn‘t they‘ve no right to complain, but as fans we‘re still entitled to express the view that illegal cars should not be allowed to race and score points.

[fabr68]

So lotus were found to be running a completely illegal suspension and no one cares?

http://grandprix247....ont-suspension/

This has nothing to do with interpretation that I can see and is all about them breaking the rules, yet there is no punishment for this. In the light of recent events where a team has been punished for doing something that the FIA gave bona fide approval for seems a little strange. Have I missed something here, is this really not a big deal?

If you look over the last four years, no team has been penalized for using illegal devices. The FIA just tells them not to do it again.

This is the new Formula 1

[Dunder]

If this has been spotted in scrutineering and passed to race without being referred to the race stewards then something is badly wrong.
The Tech Regulation in question is in no way open to interpretation.

If this has been missed in scrutineering then a mistake has been made but it is much less of an issue.

McLaren could have protested the result, they chose not to (Force India would have been a benefiiary)

Edited by Dunder, 03 July 2013 - 16:57.

[Clatter]

If you look over the last four years, no team has been penalized for using illegal devices. The FIA just tells them not to do it again.

This is the new Formula 1

What about Sauber then?

[midgrid]

The Sauber example (which is actually from 2011) is different because the infringement was identified easily in post-race scrutineering without another team getting involved.

[SpaMaster]

If somebody can point out that these infringements were in some 'grey area', open to interpretation, then I will retract my statement.

Until then, according to my understanding, they are just blatant rule violations.

Your understanding. Your opinions. The burden of proof is on you to establish they were illegal. The next question becomes, why don't other teams protest the results? Is it because they all also do the same thing and don't want to suffer similar disqualifications? Is it just a game of hide-and-seek? I found you, you are out, it's my turn next. May be that's how the whole F1 works?

[artista]

Yes. In the Red Bull case we have public statements from the team principal that they had been running with a suspension that was hand-adjustable, which is illegal. In the Lotus case the report is very clear that the FIA told Lotus on Saturday that their suspension was illegal. The race was on Sunday, so if it was illegal on Saturday it won‘t have become legal again by Sunday.

So in my opinion the other teams ought to have protested. Since they didn‘t they‘ve no right to complain, but as fans we‘re still entitled to express the view that illegal cars should not be allowed to race and score points.

That's wrong. The FIA didn't tell Lotus on Saturday. Saturday is when Auto, Motor und Sport (Michael Schmidt to be precise) gets the news. This is not the case of a failed scrutineering.

If you go to the original article, you will find that the 'story' goes down to a McLaren photograph taking a picture, somebody in the team thinking they better ask FIA, FIA (somewhen between Canada and GB) deciding Lotus better changes it and giving them till Germany to do it. Nothing else. FIA never said the car was not legal to race in GB.

[bonjon1979a]

What was this bona fide approval?

Anyway, I can't remember a recent instance where a team has been punished for things like this. All I hear is 'change the part from the next race'.

Given that how lightly Mercedes has gotten away recently, I think anything goes. Teams would want to push any grey area to downright ridiculous levels.

First of all, if it is a clear and deliberate breaking of rules, any car should be disqualified. So, is it clearly illegal or one of those grey areas as Brawn would say? Why can't other teams protest the past results if they are so sure? Have other teams also been let go like this in the past?

Read the IT judgement and you'll see that phrase used to describe the permission given to merc. I agree with Sean, it's very strange that this was allowed. Not a good thing, fia needs to get a grip as at the moment it's a mess.

Stewards have to make a judgement at the race, I'm sure if teams officially protested the result then something might happen. Rules need to be enforced but consistently so. What happens now? Bring illegal devices, mountings etc hope you don't get caught but know that if you do you'll just have to change it next race? Nonsense.

[SpaMaster]

Yes. In the Red Bull case we have public statements from the team principal that they had been running with a suspension that was hand-adjustable, which is illegal. In the Lotus case the report is very clear that the FIA told Lotus on Saturday that their suspension was illegal. The race was on Sunday, so if it was illegal on Saturday it won‘t have become legal again by Sunday.

So in my opinion the other teams ought to have protested. Since they didn‘t they‘ve no right to complain, but as fans we‘re still entitled to express the view that illegal cars should not be allowed to race and score points.

That's the crux of the matter. That shows to me they all play the game and they are all in this together. If so, how much fairness and regulation can we expect from this sport? Even if some team was originally not doing it, what does it teach them and aren't they likely to change also?

[Clatter]

The Sauber example (which is actually from 2011) is different because the infringement was identified easily in post-race scrutineering without another team getting involved.

What has that got to do with the post I was replying to?

[Szoelloe]

The Sauber example (which is actually from 2011) is different because the infringement was identified easily in post-race scrutineering without another team getting involved.

I am getting stuck on this Sauber example because I can't find a flaw in the reasoning. How does that make it any different? Mind you, I am not saying Lotus should be penalized, but why was Sauber then? It is an arch example of the incosistency in rule enforcing. Sauber was in the hands of the respective race stewards, while Lotus's case is policed by Whiting/FIA directly, without involving anyone else.

[midgrid]

What has that got to do with the post I was replying to?

Sorry, I wasn't replying to your post (I didn't even see it as you must have posted it as I was typing), but another one that referenced the Sauber example.

[Clatter]

Sorry, I wasn't replying to your post (I didn't even see it as you must have posted it as I was typing), but another one that referenced the Sauber example.

OK.

[midgrid]

I am getting stuck on this Sauber example because I can't find a flaw in the reasoning. How does that make it any different? Mind you, I am not saying Lotus should be penalized, but why was Sauber then? It is an arch example of the incosistency in rule enforcing. Sauber was in the hands of the respective race stewards, while Lotus's case is policed by Whiting/FIA directly, without involving anyone else.

The Sauber infringement was picked up by the scrutineers during a routine inspection without another team becoming involved.

The Lotus infringement has been picked up as the result of another team bringing it to the attention of Charlie Whiting, who has then issued an (informal?) clarification. This infringement was not detected in the routine scrutineering process.

[Clatter]

If this has been spotted in scrutineering and passed to race without being referred to the race stewards then something is badly wrong.
The Tech Regulation in question is in no way open to interpretation.

If this has been missed in scrutineering then a mistake has been made but it is much less of an issue.

McLaren could have protested the result, they chose not to (Force India would have been a benefiiary)

Any of the other teams could, but in Mac's case what would they have gained? They would still have been outside the points.

[Baddoer]

I suppose this is a part of their fancy ride height adjustment system.

[Dunder]

Any of the other teams could, but in Mac's case what would they have gained? They would still have been outside the points.

Exactly but McLaren were the only ones we know of who had evidence and were aware of the infringement.