This would be sad...
Edit: NO penalty because flexing issue was due to bottoming at a corner. Fuss over
Edit2: This thread is now also about Grosjean's incidents during the race
Edited by SamH123, 28 July 2013 - 20:16.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:12
Edited by SamH123, 28 July 2013 - 20:16.
Advertisement
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:18
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:20
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:21
There is already an article on the issue here in AutosportAny other sources? Would be a pity, as RoGro's been dynamite all weekend.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:22
All the reputable journalists on Twitter have confirmed it some way or other.
New tweet though:
Ian Parkes ā@ianparkesf1 6m
Argument from Lotus re Grosjean floor is he hit a kerb so resulting in greater degree of reflection. Over to the stewards.
Seems an interesting one
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:23
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:26
Any other sources? Would be a pity, as RoGro's been dynamite all weekend.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:28
Thanks. I don't visit anything on Autosport other than the forums.There is already an article on the issue here in Autosport
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/109036
I think you're remembering the 2007 race, in which many of the cars running just outside the podium had discrepancies regarding fuel temperature, but the result was apparently left alone because it would alter the outcome of the championship.Wasn't there this one Brazilian GP in past where 5 out of 6 top cars had illegal floor after the race, but none of them were excluded, because they determined that it was caused by track?
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:30
2000 wasn't it? DC was the only one DQ'd.Wasn't there this one Brazilian GP in past where 5 out of 6 top cars had illegal floor after the race, but none of them were excluded, because they determined that it was caused by track?
Edited by Brawn BGP 001, 27 July 2013 - 17:30.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:30
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:33
Its the only feasible argument they have... it's up to the stewards now. If they don't see obvious damage he might be DQ'd. That would be a shame after such a great effort!
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:33
Happened before this. Issue was that they had floorboard that was showing too much wear.I think you're remembering the 2007 race, in which many of the cars running just outside the podium had discrepancies regarding fuel temperature, but the result was apparently left alone because it would alter the outcome of the championship.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:35
And he was DQ'd because of illegal front wing.2000 wasn't it? DC was the only one DQ'd.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:38
Edited by Massa, 27 July 2013 - 17:39.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:39
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:39
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:39
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:39
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:40
Thanks for the picture.Official FIA Report
That's right. Feels like so long ago already.Happened before this. Issue was that they had floorboard that was showing too much wear.
Ps. They weren't excluded in 2007 because those measurements were too inaccurate and potential benefit would have been tiny; even in complete race distance.
Advertisement
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:40
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:40
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:40
Tobias GrĆ¼ner F1 ā@tgruener 10s
#F1 Support-pillar of front splitter got damaged when he drove over kerbs. So probably no penalty for @RGrosjean.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:41
And he was DQ'd because of illegal front wing.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:43
It would be sad if he got excluded. Lotus does everything to destroy Gro's confidence, and again giving a position (for the fourth f**** straight time!!!) to their overrated golden child.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:43
#No penalty as confrimed of bbc. Goodnews for romain and lotus.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:44
How is this, did they put a gun on Grosjean's head to force him to drive over the kerbs and damage his very own floor?It would be sad if he got excluded. Lotus does everything to destroy Gro's confidence, and again giving a position (for the fourth f**** straight time!!!) to their overrated golden child.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:45
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:46
Edited by GiancarloF1, 27 July 2013 - 17:47.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:46
How about reading the statement?I would be happy if no penalty is given for him. Interesting stuff though, Vettel and Hamilton also had problems with the floor test, did any other drivers other have been investigated?
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:47
How is this, did they put a gun on Grosjean's head to force him to drive over the kerbs and damage his very own floor?
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:47
I would be happy if no penalty is given for him. Interesting stuff though, Vettel and Hamilton also had problems with the floor test, did any other drivers other have been investigated?
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:48
It would be sad if he got excluded. Lotus does everything to destroy Gro's confidence, and again giving a position (for the fourth f**** straight time!!!) to their overrated golden child.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:49
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:49
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:50
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:51
It would be sad if he got excluded. Lotus does everything to destroy Gro's confidence, and again giving a position (for the fourth f**** straight time!!!) to their overrated golden child.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:52
they didn't
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:55
Bad decision imo. Just because the car gained an advantage due to damage does not mean it did not gain an unfair advantage. Grosjean caused the damage.
An advantage is an advantage whether caused by accidental or intentional breaking of the rules. Having varying stewards deciding which rule violation is ok is a recipe for a farce.
And what happens now if a team designs a floor stay that breaks easily under compression to intentionally cause this "problem" and gain an advantage?
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:58
How do you know it was an advantage?
Advertisement
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:58
How do you know it was an advantage?
Posted 27 July 2013 - 17:58
You really don't have a clue, don't you?Bad decision imo. Just because the car gained an advantage due to damage does not mean it did not gain an unfair advantage. Grosjean caused the damage.
An advantage is an advantage whether caused by accidental or intentional breaking of the rules. Having varying stewards deciding which rule violation is ok is a recipe for a farce.
And what happens now if a team designs a floor stay that breaks easily under compression to intentionally cause this "problem" and gain an advantage?
Posted 27 July 2013 - 18:01
Posted 27 July 2013 - 18:02
If i remember well, Schumacher at Spa 94 was DQ because his floor was not conform with the rules, because of a spin during the race no ? Why now there is a change ? I don't think Grosjean merit a penalty, but if the floor was not conform with the rules, he has to be DQ, no matter the cause, right ?
Edited by KnucklesAgain, 27 July 2013 - 18:02.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 18:04
Not right. There have always been a lot of cases of cars that are damaged during Q resulting in non-conformity with the rules. They are always allowed to be repaired, and the only penalties in those cases are for a gearbox changes etc.If i remember well, Schumacher at Spa 94 was DQ because his floor was not conform with the rules, because of a spin during the race no ? Why now there is a change ? I don't think Grosjean merit a penalty, but if the floor was not conform with the rules, he has to be DQ, no matter the cause, right ?
Posted 27 July 2013 - 18:04
Yeah, they just do the floor deflection test for giggles as having a floor flexing down under load has no advantage at all.You really don't have a clue, don't you?
How about not gaining an advantage at all from a broken floor?
Posted 27 July 2013 - 18:05
how do you know it is a advantage.?..he could well lose 2 tenth from it...Bad decision imo. Just because the car gained an advantage due to damage does not mean it did not gain an unfair advantage. Grosjean caused the damage.
An advantage is an advantage whether caused by accidental or intentional breaking of the rules. Having varying stewards deciding which rule violation is ok is a recipe for a farce.
And what happens now if a team designs a floor stay that breaks easily under compression to intentionally cause this "problem" and gain an advantage?
Posted 27 July 2013 - 18:07
In case of any kind of Q damage, repair in parc ferme is allowed under FIA supervision after consulting the stewards.After 70 laps tomorrow, what's to say it won't happen again? Will he be let off again? Surely the only way for Lotus to prevent it is to break parc-ferme, and they don't seem to be doing that, so I'm confused as to where they can go from here.
Edited by scheivlak, 27 July 2013 - 18:09.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 18:08
After 70 laps tomorrow, what's to say it won't happen again? Will he be let off again? Surely the only way for Lotus to prevent it is to break parc-ferme, and they don't seem to be doing that, so I'm confused as to where they can go from here.
Posted 27 July 2013 - 18:10
Posted 27 July 2013 - 18:13
Indeed, whether he gained and advantage or not is irrelevant.And ultimately whether he gained and advantage or not is irrelevant.