1144 replies to this topic

[Gareth]

Another fact is that the minimum was stipulated as 19.5

At the point they were measured?  No.  It was stipulated by the stewards (who decide the rules) that the minimum was not 19.5 at that point.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it ardberg.

 

Either you accept that the rules can't be a fact, and you're left with a statement that "the tyre was PSI X" or you decide that the rules can be a fact, and you have a statement that "the tyre was PSI X and this was not in breach of the rules".

 

Going for only part of the rules ("they specify minimum X") and not the rest ("at point Y") is just cherry picking.

[Jordan44]

They were, and you agreed they were

 

Oh damn. I meant to put "under-inflated", not "under-pressure.". Thanks for picking up on it.

Edited by J0rd4n, 24 September 2015 - 15:55.

[ardbeg]

At the point they were measured?  No.  It was stipulated by the stewards (who decide the rules) that the minimum was not 19.5 at that point.

 

There you go again, confusing the analysis with the facts. Confusing the reaction with the action. The cause with the consequence.

[Jordan44]

There you go again, confusing the analysis with the facts. Confusing the reaction with the action. The cause with the consequence.

 

Not once have you tried to clearly explain why you feel the tyres were under-inflated, that would be a starting point. I'm struggling to see your viewpoint completely.

Edited by J0rd4n, 24 September 2015 - 16:00.

[Marklar]

Question to Ardberg: what do you want to prove here?

[smitten]

There you go again, confusing the analysis with the facts. Confusing the reaction with the action. The cause with the consequence.

 

Maybe you could help by pointing to where the regulations in force at Monza stated the required pressure at the time the measurements were taken?

[ardbeg]

I'm struggling to see your viewpoint completely.

I know you do. I do not feel the tires were under-inflated, I know they were. Jo Bauer measured them and shared the result. I also know that the stewards decided that it did not matter, in the grand scheme of things, that the tires was under-inflated at that point.

[Jordan44]

I know you do. I do not feel the tires were under-inflated, I know they were. Jo Bauer measured them and shared the result. I also know that the stewards decided that it did not matter, in the grand scheme of things, that the tires was under-inflated at that point.

 

So, the problem lies in the fact you can't seem to grasp that inflation and pressure are two different terms. If pressure was a constant, then yes, fine. But it isn't. Temperature may alter the pressure Jo Bauer measured, but it doesn't alter the base pressure Mercedes used, otherwise known as the level of inflation.

 

Your car tyres deflate if air escapes, they don't constantly inflate and deflate mid-drive due to temperature changes!

 

The measurement Jo Bauer took was not at a representative temperature in comparison to the rest of the grid, so it doesn't mean they were under-inflated relative to the other teams/what Pirelli wanted.

Edited by J0rd4n, 24 September 2015 - 16:10.

[ardbeg]

Question to Ardberg: what do you want to prove here?

Well, it started with someone saying something in the lines of: "Their tires was always above the stipulated limit".
Of course, as I have proved, that was not the case.

[robefc]

I could be wrong but it seems to me that this whole debate boils down to a difference in definition of 'under inflated'.

Adberg seems to be equating it to whatever the pressure is at a given point and the rest seem to be equating it to what pressure the tyres were inflated to originally (I.e so they weren't under inflated in that case).

[Lone]

Question to Ardberg: what do you want to prove here?

That he's right of course, what else?

[robefc]

Hmmmm, seems J0rd4n agrees but has explained it better than me!

[Jordan44]

I could be wrong but it seems to me that this whole debate boils down to a difference in definition of 'under inflated'.

Adberg seems to be equating it to whatever the pressure is at a given point and the rest seem to be equating it to what pressure the tyres were inflated to originally (I.e so they weren't under inflated in that case).

 

inflate - fill (a balloon, tyre, or other expandable structure) with air or gas so that it becomes distended.

 

Inflation is the process of adding the gas. Unless he's suggesting Mercedes removed air on their voyage to the grid, he's using the wrong term. The number of air particles inside isn't gonna increase or decrease despite pressure changes.

 

Edited by J0rd4n, 24 September 2015 - 16:16.

[ardbeg]

I could be wrong but it seems to me that this whole debate boils down to a difference in definition of 'under inflated'.

Adberg seems to be equating it to whatever the pressure is at a given point and the rest seem to be equating it to what pressure the tyres were inflated to originally (I.e so they weren't under inflated in that case).

Well, first of all, the rule does not mention inflation, only  pressure. That means that if the measured pressure is too low, the tire is under-inflated. That is also what the clarification and the new procedure states.

 

I say that there is a difference between "Mercedes was legal at Monza" and "They had the correct tire pressure during the race". The latter can not be proven, the first is a judgement call and none of the statements are facts. If anyone can prove that Rosberg increased the pressure of his left rear by a minimum of 1.1 psi (minimum because they are likely to have dropped even further before he got rolling) during the warmup lap, then I can consider folding. 

[robefc]

Are you saying that if Merc's tyres were under pressure when measured by Bauer then they were under inflated because Merc didn't inflate them sufficiently to ensure they would still be above the min pressure when the temps had dropped after the blankets were removed?

Edited by robefc, 24 September 2015 - 16:31.

[Jordan44]

Well, first of all, the rule does not mention inflation, only  pressure. That means that if the measured pressure is too low, the tire is under-inflated. That is also what the clarification and the new procedure states.

 

I say that there is a difference between "Mercedes was legal at Monza" and "They had the correct tire pressure during the race". The latter can not be proven, the first is a judgement call and none of the statements are facts. If anyone can prove that Rosberg increased the pressure of his left rear by a minimum of 1.1 psi (minimum because they are likely to have dropped even further before he got rolling) during the warmup lap, then I can consider folding. 

 

https://en.wikipedia...lation_pressure

 

Cold inflation pressure is the inflation pressure of tires before the car is driven and the tires warmed up.

 

Inflation only happens when the air leaves or is added to the tyre. Therefore you cannot prove or disprove Mercedes didn't put in the right amount of air from the get go using only Bauer's measurement. His measurement was NOT the cold inflation pressure.

Edited by J0rd4n, 24 September 2015 - 16:35.

[ardbeg]

Are you saying that if Merc's tyres were under pressure when measured by Bauer then they were under inflated because Merc didn't inflate them sufficiently to ensure they would still be above the min pressure when the temps had dropped after the blankets were removed?

The reasons are irrelevant. Reasons are always irrelevant when it comes to facts.

[robefc]

It's relevant because it's the only interpretation I can think of which would back up your use of the term under inflated.

Otherwise I agree with the others, the tyres were not under inflated because when they were inflated it was to the correct pressure with the tyres being within the permitted temperature.

They were clearly under the prescribed pressure when measured on the grid but the Stewards seemed to realise that pressures are a little more complex than that unlike the FIA and Pirelli.

[Tulerian]

There are too many unknowns, as the FIA have not released all the information. Though I agree with Ardberg, and others such as GA and Scarbs, in that I believe that the Mercedes tyre probably were below the required pressure, and they got off on a technicality.

 

If the rules state that there are two measurements which contribute to satisfying the rules:

 

1. Minimum tyre pressure must be x
2. Maximum temperature in the tyre blanket must be y

Then I don't believe the tyre pressure is meant to measured at temperature y, and it should be a minimum at any time a sample is taken. Point 2 is an unrelated rule to ensure maximum tyre temperature is consistent across teams, not pressure. 

 

Although I stand to be corrected, as I have not seen the relevant rules as they stood during the Monza GP.

 

I have a feeling Mercedes either set the pressures while the tyres were at their highest allowed temperature, or alternatively the FIA suspect the measuring devices Mercedes used were not giving the correct measurement. If so the Pirelli engineer overseeing Mercedes pit work would have no idea the pressures were wrong. Who inspects and certifies the devices?

Edited by Tulerian, 24 September 2015 - 17:07.

[ardbeg]

It's relevant because it's the only interpretation I can think of which would back up your use of the term under inflated.
 

I am not the one using that term, apart from when I respond to those who does.

Edited by ardbeg, 24 September 2015 - 16:59.

[robefc]

@ Tulerian

I thought everyone was agreed that Merc's pressures were lower because they disconnected the blankets earlier than Ferrari?

Agree with the rest of your post, Rob Smedley certainly indicated they had a procedure to ensure they were always above min pressure (not sure if that included on the grid mind).

Edited by robefc, 24 September 2015 - 16:55.

[Jordan44]

I am not the one using that term, apart from when I respond to those who does.

 

And you responded by saying it's a FACT the tyres were under-inflated, but it isn't.

 

 

There are too many unknowns, as the FIA have not released all the information. Though I agree with Ardberg, and others such as GA and Scarbs, in that I believe that the Mercedes tyre probably were below the required pressure, and they got off on a technicality.

 

If the rules state that there are two measurements which contribute to satisfying the rules:

 

1. Minimum tyre pressure must be x
2. Maximum temperature in the tyre blanket must be y

Then I don't believe the tyre pressure is meant to measured at temperature y, and it should be a minimum at any time a sample is taken. Point 2 is an unrelated rule to ensure maximum tyre temperature is consistent across teams, not pressure. 

 

Although I stand to be corrected, as I have not seen the relevant rules as they stood during the Monza GP.

 

I have a feeling Mercedes either set the pressures while the tyres were at their highest, or alternatively the FIA suspect the measuring devices Mercedes used were not giving the correct measurement. If so the Pirelli engineer overseeing Mercedes pit work would have no idea the pressures were wrong. Who inspects and certifies the devices?

 

Exactly, this is all just feeling. We don't have the information to show that Mercedes were below the minimum pressure at all times including their inflation pressure. Him saying it's a fact they were under-inflated is nonsense.

[ardbeg]

Him saying it's a fact they were under-inflated is nonsense.

Might be nonsense, but it is a fact. There is a lot of facts that are complete nonsense.

[Jvr]

Not taking a position should Merc have been punished in Monza or not, rather than thinking why they did it like they did i.e. removing blankets early, Rosberg not seemingly making much effort during a warm up lap, been found at the pressures they were on the starting grid etc.

Could this be related trying to improve on the relatively weak starts Merc had in some of the races prior to Monza rather than what would be the impact on the race pace?

[Jordan44]

Might be nonsense, but it is a fact. There is a lot of facts that are complete nonsense.

 

You'll never realise it isn't a fact until you learn the difference between under inflation and under pressure.

Edited by J0rd4n, 24 September 2015 - 17:57.

[JavierDeVivre]

Might be nonsense, but it is a fact. There is a lot of facts that are complete nonsense.

It isn't a fact at all. You are confusing inflation with pressure, and trying to claim that the tyres were not inflated correctly when even the FIA's Stewards acknowledged that they were.

The very fact that the FIA acknowledged that the tyres were at the correct pressure when fitted to the car means that they accept that Mercedes complied to the rules as are written.

The rules did not state that the tyres had to be maintained at that pressure regardless of the temperature.

 

You are the only one making this claim, but yet your right and everyone else is wrong including the stewards themselves...

You can go on and on making claims but they are not going to be correct since the official findings so not agree with what you are saying!

 

If the tyres had been under-inflated, then Mercedes would have fallen foul of the rule, even in its poorly written form as it was in Monza (not that it is much better now...), and would have been found to have been outside of it and would have likely been excluded from the race.

 

If the tyres were found to be under-pressure, but crucially not at significantly different temperatures to the other tyres tested you may have a point, but they weren't. The stewards were perfectly happy to accept that this was the cause of the pressure drop.

 

I think you need to accept this too and stop making things up to justify your belief that Mercedes did something wrong.

Edited by JavierDeVivre, 24 September 2015 - 18:32.

[Gareth]

There you go again, confusing the analysis with the facts.

If you want to claim that a statement as to what the rules said = analysis, rather than fact, then you are equally guilty.

 

When you say they were under the FIA stipulated minimum you are bringing in an analysis of the rules.

[ardbeg]

 

 

When you say they were under the FIA stipulated minimum you are bringing in an analysis of the rules.

If you call (18.4 < 19.5) "an analysis", than I agree. I prefer to call it "a comparison".

[sabjit]

I've read to often the word "fact" in the wrong context here...

 

Do you not know the rules of the internet?

 

If someone writes "FACT" in capital letters after their post, everything they have said must be true.

[Gareth]

If you call (18.4 < 19.5) "an analysis", than I agree. I prefer to call it "a comparison".

I agree that 18.4 < 19.5

 

The question is: when 18.4 was measured, did 19.5 apply?  Is your comparison valid?

 

60 > 30.  If you are driving at 60 on a motorway, are you driving faster than the speed limit?

[ardbeg]

Obviously this is too complicated for most of you, so let's try something different.

Steve, a biker from West Bowland kills Andy, another biker. Andy is beardless and have a grand piano in hos home. His mother works part time at the casino down the road. Steve and Andy is at a place called "The Med" at the time of the incident. Andy had bought a gun the day before and shows it to Steve with a patronizing grin. "Ha! You are too much of a sissy to own a gun," he says to Steve. Steve grabs the gun and shoot him in the head. He throws then gun to the floor and seconds after people rush in. Steve screams "he played with the gun and it just went off," then he bends down and picks up the gun. 

In court, Steve's layer proves that the gun was bought by Andy and a witness had seen Andy play with the gun just a ten minutes before he was killed. The jury find Steve not guilty and he is free to go.

Marklar, Jordan, Gareth and the gang now says, "Steve did not kill Andy, the jury said he didn't".
I say, "Andy is still dead, that is a fact".

Now, in another town not far from there another guy who by a strange coincidence also happens to be a biker, walks across the parking lot in front of IKEA. His name is Baltazar, named after a famous Czech scientist. Just as he passes a blue van, a Toyota, Brandon is shot by a man in a hood. The shooter sees Baltazar and throws the gun straight towards Baltazars head. Baltazar catches it instinctively and as the shooter runs away Baltazar screams for help. An old couple had just parked their 1979 Plymoth Valiant when they hear Baltazars call for help. They find him gasping, leaning over the corpse of Brandon. Gun still in his hand.

The judge sentence him to death.
Marklar, Jordan, Gareth and the gang now says, "Baltazar killed Brandon, the jury said he did".
I say, "Brandon is  dead, that is a fact".

 

[Crafty]

What the hell ardbeg's last post is about I honestly have no idea... anyway...

 

There is a direct relationship between temperature and pressure. Its simple physics.

 

For that reason Pirelli do not specify a minimum pressure for the tyre, they specify a pressure at a certain temperature.

 

We know and the FIA acknowledged that when they checked the pressures the temperature of the tyres was lower than the prescribed temperature.

 

So, the pressure readings they got cannot be compared to the specifications from the FIA. They are irrelevant with regards to enforcement of the minimum pressure/temperature specs that Pirelli issued.

 

We also know that Pirelli verified that the tyres fitted to both Mercs were set to a pressure above the specified minimum when at the correct temperature prior to being fitted to the cars.

[Marklar]

Obviously this is too complicated for most of you, so let's try something different.

Steve, a biker from West Bowland kills Andy, another biker. Andy is beardless and have a grand piano in hos home. His mother works part time at the casino down the road. Steve and Andy is at a place called "The Med" at the time of the incident. Andy had bought a gun the day before and shows it to Steve with a patronizing grin. "Ha! You are too much of a sissy to own a gun," he says to Steve. Steve grabs the gun and shoot him in the head. He throws then gun to the floor and seconds after people rush in. Steve screams "he played with the gun and it just went off," then he bends down and picks up the gun. 
In court, Steve's layer proves that the gun was bought by Andy and a witness had seen Andy play with the gun just a ten minutes before he was killed. The jury find Steve not guilty and he is free to go.
Marklar, Jordan, Gareth and the gang now says, "Steve did not kill Andy, the jury said he didn't".
I say, "Andy is still dead, that is a fact".
Now, in another town not far from there another guy who by a strange coincidence also happens to be a biker, walks across the parking lot in front of IKEA. His name is Baltazar, named after a famous Czech scientist. Just as he passes a blue van, a Toyota, Brandon is shot by a man in a hood. The shooter sees Baltazar and throws the gun straight towards Baltazars head. Baltazar catches it instinctively and as the shooter runs away Baltazar screams for help. An old couple had just parked their 1979 Plymoth Valiant when they hear Baltazars call for help. They find him gasping, leaning over the corpse of Brandon. Gun still in his hand.
The judge sentence him to death.
Marklar, Jordan, Gareth and the gang now says, "Baltazar killed Brandon, the jury said he did".
I say, "Brandon is  dead, that is a fact".

Nomination for the quote of the year submitted

[ardbeg]

What the hell ardbeg's last post is about I honestly have no idea... anyway...

 

There is a direct relationship between temperature and pressure. Its simple physics.

 

For that reason Pirelli do not specify a minimum pressure for the tyre, they specify a pressure at a certain temperature.

 

We know and the FIA acknowledged that when they checked the pressures the temperature of the tyres was lower than the prescribed temperature.

 

So, the pressure readings they got cannot be compared to the specifications from the FIA. They are irrelevant with regards to enforcement of the minimum pressure/temperature specs that Pirelli issued.

 

We also know that Pirelli verified that the tyres fitted to both Mercs were set to a pressure above the specified minimum when at the correct temperature prior to being fitted to the cars.

 

Is the above, in fact, facts?

[smitten]

Obviously this is too complicated for most of you, so let's try something different.

 

....
 

 

tbh, I'm not sure that make anything simpler.

[SCHUEYFAN]

Nomination for the quote of the year submitted

  

 

I second that quote, quite riveting and poignant.  

[Gareth]

Obviously this is too complicated for most of you

Arrogance and ignorance, a fetching combination. 

 

It's a heart rending story, but it doesn't change the fact that the F1 rules at Monza did not require the pressure in rear tyres to be at 19.5PSI at the point in time that Jo Bauer measured the PSI in the Mercedes team's tyres.

 

Your tragic story involves someone failing to understand what occurred.  Whereas this discussion is about your failure to understand the rules.

 

The truth of a PSI isn't affected by an FIA decision, nor is the truth of who pulled the trigger affected by a jury's decision.  The truth of F1's rules is determined by an FIA decision, just as the truth of the laws regarding murder are determined by a judicial and governmental decision.  See the distinction?  Might be tough, it is complicated after all ...

[ardbeg]

Arrogance and ignorance, a fetching combination. 

 

It's a heart rending story, but it doesn't change the fact that the F1 rules at Monza did not require the pressure in rear tyres to be at 19.5PSI at the point in time that Jo Bauer measured the PSI in the Mercedes team's tyres.

 

But, Gareth, that is exactly what they did. That is the only thing they did. 19.5 psi at the start of the race. Problem is that the start of the race is not specified  so the procedure was later clarified  to specifically include the point in time when the tires were tested at Monza. 

The rules were not changed for Shanghai, they were only clarified. 

[Gareth]

that is exactly what they did. [...] Problem is that the start of the race is not specified 

It's "exactly" despite the lack of a specification?

 

All of a sudden, facts-boy is content to play fast and loose ...

[ardbeg]

It's "exactly" despite the lack of a specification?

 

All of a sudden, facts-boy is content to play fast and loose ...

No "exactly" is the specification. They made exactly that specification. The specification was not very exact though.  You will never work in science.

[baddog]

They changed the measurement system to ensure it sufficiently enforced the intent of the rules, as the issue with Mercedes in Monza revealed that the measurement regime was inadequate to do so.

 

Is THAT clear enough for everyone?

[Gareth]

You will never work in science.

[ardbeg]

They changed the measurement system to ensure it sufficiently enforced the intent of the rules, as the issue with Mercedes in Monza revealed that the measurement regime was inadequate to do so.

 

Is THAT clear enough for everyone?

I'm good with that.

[Marklar]

You will never work in science.

Hopefully it was not also applied to me...

I'm good with that.

Edited by Marklar, 25 September 2015 - 06:00.

[Rinehart]

At last - been following this thread. Was concerned that ardbeg was going to be shown the black and orange flag...!