137 replies to this topic

[New Britain]

As the professionals, it would appear as though the mechanics DID know how to do their job, and chose an appropriate repair given that the repair lasted the rest of the race. Not sure why there's so much discussion when nothing happened. Probably overlap with the kind of people who take their car to the auto shop, watch the mechanic work and tell them how they should be doing the repair.

Okay, but was there certainty before the fact that the tape fix would be safe, or are you employing survivor bias: 'well, it didn't fail, so it was always going to be good enough'?

There is a reason why the FIA have many codified and tested safety standards that the engineers and mechanics are required to meet. It's not just a matter of presuming that the engineers and mechanics know what they're doing, so the FIA can trust them to do whatever they think is right.

[CoolBreeze]

It was a partial failure, not a complete total failure. 

[ExFlagMan]

It was a partial failure, not a complete total failure. 

I guess you could say the same if a wheel falls off - after all they still have 3 left...

[BRG]

There was never a real danger to anyone involved.  There is far too much rhetoric being applied here to what was a very minor issue.  Bits of cars are often knocked off in impacts or fall off of their own accord and it is rarely deemed to be worthy of a meatball flag.  Even if the broken flap had detached from the car, it would not have been much of a problem.  Early posts here comparing that to Schumacher losing the entire rear wing are symptomatic of the over-reaction to this.

 

If the FIA hadn't intervened, I am sure that AT would have raced on perfectly safely.  I am sure Tsunoda didn't want to pit for a bit s speed tape either.

[bargeboard]

Okay, but was there certainty before the fact that the tape fix would be safe, or are you employing survivor bias: 'well, it didn't fail, so it was always going to be good enough'?

There is a reason why the FIA have many codified and tested safety standards that the engineers and mechanics are required to meet. It's not just a matter of presuming that the engineers and mechanics know what they're doing, so the FIA can trust them to do whatever they think is right.

 

I guess you can either look at it from either side. I'd say that looking at it from the "Yeah, but did they REALLY know what they were doing?!" is symptomatic of the constant second guessing of every decision in our current world. 

 

I'd say they assessed it, knew the strength of the tape, and were certain enough that it would hold up that they went with it.

[PayasYouRace]

There was never a real danger to anyone involved. There is far too much rhetoric being applied here to what was a very minor issue. Bits of cars are often knocked off in impacts or fall off of their own accord and it is rarely deemed to be worthy of a meatball flag. Even if the broken flap had detached from the car, it would not have been much of a problem. Early posts here comparing that to Schumacher losing the entire rear wing are symptomatic of the over-reaction to this.

If the FIA hadn't intervened, I am sure that AT would have raced on perfectly safely. I am sure Tsunoda didn't want to pit for a bit s speed tape either.

Wrong. The flap is the main reason the wing produces the downforce it has. Had it failed, the car would suddenly be unstable, oversteery. This is the reason DRS is only allowed on straights. A failure at speed would have been broadly comparable to the Schumacher case.

That’s aside from the debris which could have posed a danger to a following car.

[Wuzak]

There was never a real danger to anyone involved.  There is far too much rhetoric being applied here to what was a very minor issue.  Bits of cars are often knocked off in impacts or fall off of their own accord and it is rarely deemed to be worthy of a meatball flag.  Even if the broken flap had detached from the car, it would not have been much of a problem.  Early posts here comparing that to Schumacher losing the entire rear wing are symptomatic of the over-reaction to this.
 
If the FIA hadn't intervened, I am sure that AT would have raced on perfectly safely.  I am sure Tsunoda didn't want to pit for a bit s speed tape either.

I think it was more akin to the Raikkonen one in the OP.
 

Raikkonen '04:
 

 
 

Or the situation with Renault a couple of years ago when the DRS failed past its up position.

 

Race control was right to call Tsunoda in for repairs. 

 

Whether or not the repair was sufficient is a different question. It survived the race, so it would seem to have been fine. Still, I think Bauer would have liked to have supervised the repair.

[Heyli]

I think it was more akin to the Raikkonen one in the OP.
 

Or the situation with Renault a couple of years ago when the DRS failed past its up position.

 

Race control was right to call Tsunoda in for repairs. 

 

Whether or not the repair was sufficient is a different question. It survived the race, so it would seem to have been fine. Still, I think Bauer would have liked to have supervised the repair.

Ericsson in Monza ( I dont remember what year, 2019 perhaps?)

 

*edit: 2018 apparently. 

 

Edited by Heyli, 14 June 2022 - 13:56.

[AncientLurker]

Whether or not the repair was sufficient is a different question. It survived the race, so it would seem to have been fine. Still, I think Bauer would have liked to have supervised the repair.

I understand the FIA wanting to have a look, but I don't think that would have solved much; the mechanics know better than Bauer what will hold, but are biased to get the car back out fast, while Bauer/FIA are less knowledgeable on the repair, but more likely to be overly cautious. Both just trying to do their jobs, neither one knows for certain if it was the 'right' call.

 

 

I believe threads like this show why we don't see proper rain races anymore.

[ExFlagMan]

If it was only happening when the DRS was activated, it would be virtually impossible to ascertain what the problem was, and hence any potential for it to disintegrate, given the very short periods it would have been visible on a car going flat-chat down either of the two DRS straights.

 

The only choice was thus to call the car in for a check.

 

Imagine the outcry if the flap had broken free whilst HAM was close behind him and resulted in a Massa type incident

[New Britain]

I guess you can either look at it from either side. I'd say that looking at it from the "Yeah, but did they REALLY know what they were doing?!" is symptomatic of the constant second guessing of every decision in our current world. 

 

I'd say they assessed it, knew the strength of the tape, and were certain enough that it would hold up that they went with it.

I wholeheartedly agree that the pervasive second-guessing (not least on this forum and from other sports-related commentary) is often silly.

 

Part of what we're talking about in this case, however, is not how good F1 mechanics and engineers are relative to all us Joe Bloggses, but rather where the responsibility and accountability should lie and what are the proper procedures. F1 mechanics are among the best in the world, but they are fallible, as we see every season with improperly tightened wheelnuts, stripped wheelnut threads, unsafe releases, insufficiently tightened clamps, et al. Under the intense competitive and financial pressures of F1, it is unsurprising, indeed inevitable, that there will be both oversights and errors of judgment.

In Baku we had a car that the FIA judged to be unsafe, then the mechanics did something to it and sent it back out, but because of the speed of the pit-stop the FIA was not able to confirm that the car had been made safe. Whose responsibility should it be to judge whether a damaged car is safe enough to run?

[BRG]

Wrong. The flap is the main reason the wing produces the downforce it has. Had it failed, the car would suddenly be unstable, oversteery. This is the reason DRS is only allowed on straights. A failure at speed would have been broadly comparable to the Schumacher case.

That’s aside from the debris which could have posed a danger to a following car.

One small bit of a rear wing coming away is nothing like a complete rear wing assembly flying off.  That is massive exaggeration. At worst it would have given Tsunoda a bit of a moment.  Then he would have had to come in as he would effectively be breaking the DRS rules. 

 

And bits come off all the time when there is a little bit of contact and it never seems to present a danger.

[Clatter]

One small bit of a rear wing coming away is nothing like a complete rear wing assembly flying off.  That is massive exaggeration. At worst it would have given Tsunoda a bit of a moment.  Then he would have had to come in as he would effectively be breaking the DRS rules. 

 

And bits come off all the time when there is a little bit of contact and it never seems to present a danger.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the same people complaining about this, are the same ones who complain when RC don't start a race when the track is underwater.

[PayasYouRace]

One small bit of a rear wing coming away is nothing like a complete rear wing assembly flying off. That is massive exaggeration. At worst it would have given Tsunoda a bit of a moment. Then he would have had to come in as he would effectively be breaking the DRS rules.

And bits come off all the time when there is a little bit of contact and it never seems to present a danger.

No. The flap is the main downforce producing element of the wing. Had he lost it, he’d have suffered a major loss of downforce at the rear. It’s why DRS isn’t allowed in corners. The Schumacher comparison is, at worst, a slight exaggeration. A bit of a moment would be the best Yuki could hope for.

[BRG]

No. The flap is the main downforce producing element of the wing. Had he lost it, he’d have suffered a major loss of downforce at the rear. It’s why DRS isn’t allowed in corners. The Schumacher comparison is, at worst, a slight exaggeration. A bit of a moment would be the best Yuki could hope for.

Wrong (see, I can do that too).  The fact is that due to breakage only half of the DRS flap was opening.  Outside the DRS areas, the wing was completely intact and giving normal downforce.  So at worst, it was a handicap for Tsunoda because DRS was 50% reduced. 

 

Scare stories like 'what if the wing failed' are just speculation.  It hadn't failed and there was no real reason to believe it was going to fail.  WIth a bit of speed tape, he was able to finish the race without suffering a catastrophic accident.  All in all, a huge storm in a Japanese tea ceremony cup that spoiled another good showing by Tsunoda.

[ExFlagMan]

I wholeheartedly agree that the pervasive second-guessing (not least on this forum and from other sports-related commentary) is often silly.

 

Part of what we're talking about in this case, however, is not how good F1 mechanics and engineers are relative to all us Joe Bloggses, but rather where the responsibility and accountability should lie and what are the proper procedures. F1 mechanics are among the best in the world, but they are fallible, as we see every season with improperly tightened wheelnuts, stripped wheelnut threads, unsafe releases, insufficiently tightened clamps, et al. Under the intense competitive and financial pressures of F1, it is unsurprising, indeed inevitable, that there will be both oversights and errors of judgment.

In Baku we had a car that the FIA judged to be unsafe, then the mechanics did something to it and sent it back out, but because of the speed of the pit-stop the FIA was not able to confirm that the car had been made safe. Whose responsibility should it be to judge whether a damaged car is safe enough to run?

 

In UK club racing I thnk the car would not be let out until a scrutineer had checked it and was satisfied it was safe.

 

Who knows what F1 does as they seem to run to their own set of rules.

[Wuzak]

One small bit of a rear wing coming away is nothing like a complete rear wing assembly flying off.  That is massive exaggeration. At worst it would have given Tsunoda a bit of a moment.  

 

And if that "bit of a moment" pitches him into the wall at 200mph?

[ExFlagMan]

One small bit of a rear wing coming away is nothing like a complete rear wing assembly flying off.  That is massive exaggeration. At worst it would have given Tsunoda a bit of a moment.  Then he would have had to come in as he would effectively be breaking the DRS rules. 

 

And bits come off all the time when there is a little bit of contact and it never seems to present a danger.

 

True, but if RC can see a potential problem then I would suggest it should be checked rather than leave it to fate.

 

And there has to a first time for anything. 

Edited by ExFlagMan, 14 June 2022 - 16:46.

[PayasYouRace]

Wrong (see, I can do that too).  The fact is that due to breakage only half of the DRS flap was opening.  Outside the DRS areas, the wing was completely intact and giving normal downforce.  So at worst, it was a handicap for Tsunoda because DRS was 50% reduced. 

 

Scare stories like 'what if the wing failed' are just speculation.  It hadn't failed and there was no real reason to believe it was going to fail.  WIth a bit of speed tape, he was able to finish the race without suffering a catastrophic accident.  All in all, a huge storm in a Japanese tea ceremony cup that spoiled another good showing by Tsunoda.

 

Except I've actually explained why you're wrong, and why it was enough of a danger to call him in with the meatball flag.

 

The wing had failed. It was hanging on by a sliver of material and one hinge. It was already broken.

[HeadFirst]

In UK club racing I thnk the car would not be let out until a scrutineer had checked it and was satisfied it was safe.

 

Who knows what F1 does as they seem to run to their own set of rules.

 

I believe in IndyCar repairs such as these are supervised by an official, and  a go ahead is given when completed. Or not, if the repairs are deemed insufficient.

[New Britain]

In UK club racing I thnk the car would not be let out until a scrutineer had checked it and was satisfied it was safe.

 

Who knows what F1 does as they seem to run to their own set of rules.

Their own set of rules - which they make up as they go along.

 

If during a race a car suffers such damage that, if the car had been in that condition before the race began it would not have been allowed to start, it seems logical that the FIA would need to inspect and approve the in-race repair before the car was allowed to return to the race.

 

Another potential issue which we have not discussed in this thread is whether the officials should treat a mechanical such as Tsunoda's differently if it was caused not by crash damage but rather by the team's failure to design and manufacture the part correctly. We have now seen numerous instances of RBR/AT flap failures. It cannot be because they are incapable of designing a flap that will stay in one piece and not fly all over the place like a flag in a hurricane.

 

It is patent that the team are going too far in minimising the weight, and thus the strength, of their flap systems. They may further be intentionally increasing the flexibility of the flaps in order to gain an aero advantage. Should the FIA allow this?

[BRG]

Except I've actually explained why you're wrong, and why it was enough of a danger to call him in with the meatball flag.

 

The wing had failed. It was hanging on by a sliver of material and one hinge. It was already broken.

And I have explained to you why you are wrong.

 

There is really no point in debating with you when you are in this sort of mindset.

 

And if that "bit of a moment" pitches him into the wall at 200mph?

Then he wouldn't finish the race.

 

Fortunately there was barely 1% of a chance that might have happened.

[sketchy2001]

Wrong (see, I can do that too).  The fact is that due to breakage only half of the DRS flap was opening.  Outside the DRS areas, the wing was completely intact and giving normal downforce.  So at worst, it was a handicap for Tsunoda because DRS was 50% reduced. 

 

Scare stories like 'what if the wing failed' are just speculation.  It hadn't failed and there was no real reason to believe it was going to fail.  WIth a bit of speed tape, he was able to finish the race without suffering a catastrophic accident.  All in all, a huge storm in a Japanese tea ceremony cup that spoiled another good showing by Tsunoda.

You seem overly sure that your assertion is correct. The fact is that a wing element, that is produced as and is expected to operate as a single piece, was able to be in two places at the same time.  This could not happen if the wing was "completely intact".

 

Of interest is the way the entire wing element crazily deformed when the DRS closed and when one of the mechanics leans on it while applying the tape... made me wonder how much downforce that wing element was actually creating as it didn't seem to be able to withstand any real force in a vertical direction.  While I do not know definitively, I would guess that the wing element was not able to give "normal downforce".

 

I would also like to add my voice to those saying that the fix was a bit rough and ready with no oversight.  While, with hindsight, it appears the repair was "effective enough", should this become an accepted practice?  It feels that this is just another example of "normalization of deviance" - nothing catastrophic happened so it is fine.  Even though there are examples of what can happen when the top wing element fails in isolation.

 

Racing is inherently dangerous and the will to win/constantly improve is addictive but the inherent weakness of humans to ignore warning signs because "nothing bad happened on this occasion" is (possibly) the greatest risk to safety.

Edited by sketchy2001, 15 June 2022 - 14:23.

[ARTGP]

And I have explained to you why you are wrong.

 

There is really no point in debating with you when you are in this sort of mindset.

 

This is what happens with the loss of the DRS flap:

 

 

 

 

Now go on and make your point again about how PayAs is wrong and flaps are a nothingburger for a manly man!  There's a problematic mindset here but that's for another thread...on a different forum...

Edited by ARTGP, 15 June 2022 - 14:43.

[BRG]

Once again, I must repeat that the wing did not fail.  So all your arguments about all the disaster and tragedies that might have happened if it had failed are just speculation.  

[PayasYouRace]

Once again, I must repeat that the wing did not fail. So all your arguments about all the disaster and tragedies that might have happened if it had failed are just speculation.

The main downforce element of the wing did fail. It was almost entirely split from top to bottom.

Do you think the flap is there just for show? It’s there to increase the downforce of the wing. ARTGP has literally just shown you evidence of what happens should the car lose that element of the wing.

[Clatter]

The main downforce element of the wing did fail. It was almost entirely split from top to bottom.

Do you think the flap is there just for show? It’s there to increase the downforce of the wing.

It failed in its DRS function, but didn't fail as a wing.

[PayasYouRace]

It failed in its DRS function, but didn't fail as a wing.

It failed structurally! We don’t know why, but it was literally broken.

[Myrvold]

Looks like it's a discussion of semantics here. However, if I were to do a flight, I know who I would want to check my plane...

[Clatter]

It failed structurally! We don’t know why, but it was literally broken.

I don't disagree it was broken, but the 2 parts were still attached to the car. It was only the DRS function that was affected and I reckon it would have lasted to the end of the race without the tape, if the team had instructed him to not use the DRS (They may well have already done that). I've seen cars with worse damage after been hit in the side, and no one bat's an eyelid.

[Clatter]

Looks like it's a discussion of semantics here. However, if I were to do a flight, I know who I would want to check my plane...

Comparing to a plane is a complete waste of thinking.

[ARTGP]

I don't disagree it was broken, but the 2 parts were still attached to the car. 

 

This is a fairly limited way of thinking about engineering failure.

 

As an example. An airplane will only experience a mild and manageable level of discomfort should a window blow out of an otherwise largely intact air craft. Cabin depressurizes and assuming the decompression doesn't rip the fuselage, the plane will be able to land. It will be an entirely different ordeal if the vertical stabilizer or its actuators were to give away even if some part is "still attached". Different parts of the vehicle have different consequences to stability and safety when they are damaged. 

 

 Max Verstappen lost an entire bargeboard last year at the Hungarian GP....Finished the race P8 or something like that.   He wouldn't have finished the race without a rear flap.  So the fact that "you have seen" cars take damage to their bodywork and "survive" is of quite limited value.   It's a bit like the difference between a damaged call button for an elevator system, and a cut in the wire suspending the elevator. They may be of similar size and they may furthermore still be "largely intact" but I'll take the inoperative call button any day of the week over a cut in the suspension wire.  

Edited by ARTGP, 15 June 2022 - 17:37.

[Clatter]

This is a fairly limited way of thinking about engineering failure.

 

As an example. An airplane will only experience a mild and manageable level of discomfort should a window blow out of an otherwise largely intact air craft. Cabin depressurizes and assuming the decompression doesn't rip the fuselage, the plane will be able to land. It will be an entirely different ordeal if the vertical stabilizer or its actuators were to give away even if some part is "still attached". Different parts of the vehicle have different consequences to stability and safety when they are damaged. 

 

 Max Verstappen lost an entire bargeboard last year at the Hungarian GP....Finished the race P8 or something like that.   He wouldn't have finished the race without a rear flap.  So the fact that "you have seen" cars take damage to their bodywork and "survive" is of quite limited value.   It's a bit like the difference between a damaged call button for an elevator system, and a cut in the wire suspending the elevator. They may be of similar size and they may furthermore still be "largely intact" but I'll take the inoperative call button any day of the week over a cut in the suspension wire.  

 

We are not discussing aeroplanes. This was a small aerofoil on a racing car. They can fail at any time, and have done in the past. Even when split and half DRS open, both parts still looked strongly attached. The team made a temporary repair to get the car to the end of the race, and they succeeded. So much angst, but to me this is perfectly in keeping with the way F1 works. I hope the people that are so concerned over this are not the same ones complaining when the drivers don't come out on a waterlogged track.

[Myrvold]

Comparing to a plane is a complete waste of thinking.

 

Either is fine to continue with, or it's not, no?

[Clatter]

Either is fine to continue with, or it's not, no?

 

It's a pointless comparison. Temporary repairs that might be made in one environment, might have no place in another.

[Wuzak]

Even when split and half DRS open, both parts still looked strongly attached. The team made a temporary repair to get the car to the end of the race, and they succeeded. 

 

There are three points of contact for the flap - at each end where it attaches to the main wing, and the DRS actuator.

 

One half of the wing remained connected to the main rear wing and the DRS actuator. The other part had its pivot and a small section of material connecting it the other half. Normally the wing flap is continuous along its length, in this case it wasn't.

[Wuzak]

I don't disagree it was broken, but the 2 parts were still attached to the car. It was only the DRS function that was affected and I reckon it would have lasted to the end of the race without the tape, if the team had instructed him to not use the DRS

 

You can't know that.

 

The team could not have confidence that it would last. They may, however, risk it for the chance to score points.

 

Most importantly, the FIA could not be confident that the wing would last.

[Clatter]

You can't know that.

 

The team could not have confidence that it would last. They may, however, risk it for the chance to score points.

 

Most importantly, the FIA could not be confident that the wing would last.

 

And you don't know it wouldn't. The team know their cars, and with that knowledge can make decisions with a higher level confidence. They did a running repair, and the car finished the race with no furthur incidents. Good job done.