November 13, 2021, 22:0014, November 2021, 16:53 | Works written by Keith Corantin
Advertising | Become a supporter without advertising
Advertising | Becoming a supporter without advertising Wolfe stated that the team believes that the wing was damaged during qualifying, causing its drag reduction system to fail the test. The team representatives met with the butler at Interlagos on Friday night and met their decision again the next morning, and then announced their decision after the last practice game on Saturday.
Advertising | Become a supporter without advertising
Wolfe said: "Until later this afternoon, we thought there was no problem because the wing was damaged." "One side is okay, the middle is okay, and the right is not.
"This means that we are actually at a disadvantage in terms of performance. We believe that considering all these aspects, the FIA would say there was damage, so we did not violate the regulations. They also said that nothing happened on our side deliberately. "
Wolfe added that a member of the Mercedes team who observed that the Hamilton car failed the test "come back and said'something broke' because the tail was behaving strangely". Therefore, when he later relayed the news that Hamilton had lost pole position in the sprint qualifying, he initially did not believe in Ron Meadows, the team's sports director.
"We are reading'disqualification' and honestly I can't believe it," he said. "When I saw WhatsApp, I thought Ron Meadows was joking. So something strange happened, but you have to put it on your chin."
After the news came out, Hamilton started from behind the grid to finish fifth in the sprint race, and Valtteri Bottas won in another Mercedes team. Wolfe said: "The last 60 minutes of Valtteri and Lewis brought all the fun back to all the setbacks that happened before."
When Hamilton arrived in Brazil, he was 19 points behind Verstappen in the championship game with four games left. Wolfe stated that the team’s “unbelievable progress” is mixed with “a certain respect for the butler’s difficulties in this situation, because a ruling on such a [controversial] topic is definitely not. Easy, because this is a topic about world championships, they need to look at the specific situation, not the overall situation."
Advertising | Become a RaceFans supporter without ads
Nevertheless, he was dissatisfied that the team had no chance to correct its mistakes without being punished.
"I think how this process went from telling us and discovering that we slightly failed in the test-we are talking about 0.2 mm-to not allowing the problem to be fixed like the normal agreement, but reporting it to the housekeeper, and the bullets are removed from the gun. Come out, I think this puts the housekeeper into a situation where it is difficult to make a correct judgment."
Wolf pointed out that in past races, other teams have been allowed to repair their car parts under suspension. He believes that Mercedes is unfortunate because the damage was only discovered after the meeting.
"In the past, there were sometimes common sense buffers that did not exist yesterday or today," he said. "But it's all within the limits, so you need to respect this.
"You need to admit that this is a fierce struggle involving multiple entities or stakeholders and put it on your chin."
Mercedes can choose to appeal this decision, which will allow Hamilton to resume pole position in the sprint qualifying. However, if they do and the appeal fails, Hamilton will leave the weekend meaningless.
"We wanted to show the weakness of the argument or the system," Wolff said. "We didn't do this because we didn't want to lose all of today's and tomorrow's scores if the appeal failed, which would delay the entire decision for several weeks.
"We need to play on the track. If we lose, then we lose. If we win, then we win."
Advertising | Become a RaceFans supporter without ads
Wolf said that due to today's decision, Mercedes will be more likely to question the legality of other teams' parts.
"Some things in the past 24 hours have violated the modus operandi. It was either pressured by other stakeholders or just different. If the modus operandi is different now, you may need to look at other people more strictly and harshly. I can tell. You, in the next few races, we will look at every video of the race that will fall from the car and ask questions.
"If there is something like a gentleman agreement in a Formula One car-because there is no gentleman-then it doesn't exist anymore. Therefore, you have no tolerance for fixing things in the car. If it breaks, it breaks. Now. You can’t touch it. That’s the situation this year."
He cited Red Bull's repairs to the rear wing during qualifying for the Mexico City Grand Prix as an example of the team being able to perform repairs under Parc ferme conditions.
"We encountered the Parc ferme situation in Mexico. I believe this is the case. During qualifying, it is allowed to work on the rear wing. I think there is no difference in the parc ferme situation with the presence of the administrator.
"This time it was judged. This is in the administrator's [statement]. If it happens during the meeting, we will be allowed to fix it. But not at the end of the meeting, when both are parc ferme situations.
"So you can ask why during the meeting instead of at the end of the meeting. But anyway, that's the way it is, and I think we might be able to choose either way."
For the second consecutive year, the Australian Grand Prix cancels driver's reminder to Yas Marina. Changes to stop "boring races". MXGP 2020-Official Motocross Review Track Change Plan Improves November Races Australia GPF1 Announces the start of the revised 22nd round of the 2021 season Time to browse all 2021 Sao Paul Grand Prix articles
Are there any potential stories, tips or queries? Learn more about RaceFans and contact us here.
Promotional content from the web | Become a RaceFans supporter to hide this and other ads
If you fail the test required by the FIA, you are driving an illegal car.
Illegal cars were disqualified from participating in any meetings they attended.
It doesn't sound like you've seen the interview
w0o0dy (@w0o0dy) November 13, 2021, 22:15
No, but he is 100% correct. Although the fleet can prove (after the fact) that there is indeed enough fuel in the car, one of our cars on the FIA dsq cannot extract the required amount of fuel from the car for FIA testing. Illegal is absolutely not allowed
Robert (@rob8k) November 13, 2021, 23:07
After the Hungarian race, there was never enough fuel in AM's car, and they never proved it. In addition, after a race like qualifying, you cannot completely repair the car through damage.
So why did Red Bull allow their wings to be repaired during qualifying in Mexico?
According to the referee's ruling in Brazil, Max should have been disqualified from the game in Mexico. Red Bull made structural changes to the car, they did not replace similar products. This clearly violates Parc Ferme. If I were Mercedes, I would strongly consider asking WMC to disqualify Verstappen from participating in the Mexican Grand Prix on the grounds that it violated the parc ferme.
This also means that any time a car is damaged in a race (or qualifying) component that does not meet the car inspection standards, Mercedes can naturally challenge the legality of the car. Wolfe said that from now on, he hopes that Red Bull cars can pass the car inspection after qualifying and races.
So why did Red Bull allow their wings to be repaired during qualifying in Mexico?
You are asking and answering yourself.
Why did Mercedes allow Mercedes to repair their cars under red flag conditions at Silverstone?
Because you can. Same as qualifying. It's ridiculous to grab the straw here.
So why did Red Bull allow their wings to be repaired during qualifying in Mexico?
Because Red Bull is aware of this, it is not illegal to perform repairs or adjustments in the garage under Parc Ferme. Article 34.2 of the Sports Rules concerning Parc Ferme states:
However, if a participant wants to replace parts during qualifying practice, between the grid and the scout lap before the start of the sprint, and/or on the grid before the start of the race, there is no need to seek permission from a technical representative first. It is the relevant participants who have reason to believe that if there is time to make a request, and the broken or damaged parts are always within the sight of the inspector assigned to the car, they will be permitted
If the rear wing is cracked or structurally damaged, Parc Ferme has previously repaired or replaced it, so RB believes that they have reasonable grounds to repair it themselves.
If Mercedes finds a malfunction in the garage itself, the same situation applies to Mercedes. The administrator said yesterday:
If the contestants become aware of this problem during qualifying, they will definitely seek a solution, and the FIA Technical Department has also confirmed that they will obtain permission to repair parts or tighten bolts when needed.
However, by getting the checkered flag in qualifying, Merc had to send the car directly to Parc Ferme after the race, when it was no longer during the race, and the car met the specifications that must be checked.
That's right, or he read it but didn't understand it because he lacked common sense.
Fans are not boys. (@peartree) November 14, 2021, 3:40
Probably not, but he is not wrong. I don't know how many times I have written about parc ferme, and the FIA must have forgotten its meaning and significance. Even if Merc has zero grounds for complaining or questioning what is the right decision, it makes sense. I have campaigned for parc fermé just because it is not enforced, and merc pointed out that maintenance is not the best example. The main point of parc ferme is to ensure that the team will not tamper with the car between Q and the race, because there is no ability to keep up. Review.
Ivan Vinitskyy (@ivan-vinitskyy) November 13, 2021, 22:11
But what are the rules? Of course, if a part looks broken, then you can't expect it to comply with regulations. So, how do cars in collision maintain their grid positions?
w0o0dy (@w0o0dy) November 13, 2021, 22:21
The problem is that there is nothing broken or similar to the car. It was not hit by anything. So, if it fails the test, how did that happen? Did it break under load, or did Mercedes deliberately loosely install some screws to make the wing behave like it, and did they get from a wing that runs less than any other DRS open wing? profit? If you let go, the team will build/design parts to fail in a beneficial way to gain an advantage
The problem is that they don't have any tapes...? *!
There are many ways to break the wing. They are under incredible loads, so minor defects on the parts may cause some kind of failure. We have already seen the Red Bulls malfunction in qualifying in the past 2 games, so much so that they need to add tape to strengthen them. In addition, vibration may loosen nuts and bolts, or may shake the adjuster into place. The team has put in a lot of effort to ensure that these things do not happen, but nothing is 100% complete evidence.
When I have even 1-digit lights (regardless of whether the scale of the active use display is pounds, kilograms or a small part of it), I will get DQ. Common sense says that 1 pound of weight will not make a difference of 10 seconds (or whatever, for the next person behind me), but I got DQ anyway. This happens quite often (because I have a real problem in estimating the water loss during long matches).
This is the correct policy.
I agree with one point. This point is that the implementation of the rules should be consistent. However, Ferrari's fuel system is illegal and has not been disqualified! In addition, if a car loses its front wing, it will definitely violate the rules when driving on the track, so should it be disqualified? How often do we see the rear wing collapse? They violated the rules and should be disqualified again. A lot of things can happen to a car in qualifying or competition, which means it violated the rules in a short time. If any of these situations occur, they should be disqualified according to this rule. Another problem is that if Mercedes seemed to have noticed this problem during qualifying (considering the small gap, it is unlikely), then they could have solved the problem without being penalized...it seems very crazy.
The other problem here is that Mercedes could have appealed the penalty, but doing so could lead to worse results. That shouldn't happen. The team should be given the ability to appeal in a fair manner without affecting their results.
So although I agree that Mercedes has violated the rules and therefore the penalty may be correct, I am not sure that the process and the rules themselves are 100% correct.
You don't really understand the rules or procedures.
The first is Ferrari. This is an extremely complicated case. In the final analysis, the FIA cannot prove that Ferrari violated the rules during the race. The sensor used to regulate the fuel flow did not detect any abnormalities. The FIA may have enough evidence to satisfy their own suspicions, but it is another matter in court.
About the broken wings walking around on the track. If a team’s wing is damaged and it is not repaired, and the car fails the test after the race, it will apply for DSQ. The FIA allows repairs, but if you do not perform repairs before getting the checkered flag and entering the vehicle inspection, you will become a DSQ.
Vehicle inspections and sensors are the FIA's way of determining whether a car's technology is illegal. You said that "driving a broken illegal wing" did not actually meet the actual legal or illegal requirements. Unless you can provide evidence, you cannot say that broken wings on cars in circulation are "illegal." What I mean by evidence is that it can be filed in the FIA court. This is done through tests conducted by the FIA.
If you read technical regulations, sports regulations and technical directives... All this is black and white.
The point is that Hamilton's wing may be broken one lap after Q3. So what we want to say is that if you notice a problem in qualifying or during the race, then even if they gain the advantage, the team can solve the problem without being punished, but if the problem is so small that it is not selected It happens through telemetry or when the car enters the pit at the end of the race or qualifying, so is it an instant DQ?
If this is the case, then these rules are not worth writing on paper!
Oh, I like the fact that you said that Raleigh’s fuel problem is so complicated that the FIA cannot rule on it, but we don’t know that this is indeed the case because the FIA refuses to publish any information about the problems found. information!
@keithcollantine You will want to correct this sentence:
Hamilton was 19 points ahead of Verstappen when he arrived in Brazil, with four games left.
Regardless of whether Merc agrees or not, so far, it has led to some enjoyable matches.
w0o0dy (@w0o0dy) November 13, 2021, 22:15
Just wishful thinking.
There are more typos in the blog posts on this site than any other post I have seen. This has been the case for many years.
Yes, in fact I think there were more typos in the past than now.
Typos are common on this website. Just one example-"bInterlagos"
As for "why Mercedes thinks the decision to disqualify Hamilton lacks "common sense". Use that famous misquote... "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? "
Someone somewhere, November 14, 2021, 8:00
You should see some F1 articles about Jalopnik. Sometimes you have to wonder if the author has even watched the game!
By the way, except for the moderator/site operator-I accidentally reported that this was a reply to the comment. It's not the first time, nor based on other reviews, and I'm not the only one doing this in the reviews on this site. Maybe the "Report Comment" button can be separated from the "Reply" button (perhaps right-aligned?) or there is a "Are you sure? Yes/No" confirmation dialog.
If Red Bull is disqualified because of illegal wing-no matter how "marginal" the call is, Mercedes will sit here and say "the rules are clear".
John H (@john-h) November 14, 2021, 0:25
Yes, I agree with @rocketpanda. In the final analysis, they should have manufactured the part so that it will not be damaged and fail the test. I got some arguments that Toto is making, but I disagree with the premise that as long as something goes wrong, it will automatically be excluded from review, especially when it comes to issues like DRS gaps. They should accept the punishment and move on, but at least I guess they did not appeal.
This is really suspicious for Red Bull and Mercedes. This year we have too many tails broken and need to be repaired. I think we haven't had a rear wing that needs repair for a long time. But it shows one thing, the rear of the car is the most important area for a good car.
Ivan Vinitskyy (@ivan-vinitskyy) November 13, 2021, 22:12
I think this is just the end of the evolution of current regulations, so loads have reached the highest level ever, and they were not originally designed for such loads.
In F1, if an "area" is not on the critical path, then it has not been optimized enough. IOW, all areas are the most important areas for good cars. :)
An extension of Colin Chapman: "Any car that can support the entire race is too heavy."
Another sentence of Chapman is very to the point, to set the real situation of the top car...
"The rules are for the obedience of fools and the explanation of smart people."
IOW, this is part of the game. When these things happen in engineering competitions (F1 is the most important), I am thinking of /coooool/. :)
Chapman’s mantra was brought to its utmost in the American Grand Prix at Watkins Glen in 1967
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/21/2b/98/212b989620745ea691a94206176cd7d6.jpg
"The right side is abnormal" but the video clearly shows that the left side failed the test. If the left is the right, it is not the side Max touches...so full...
w0o0dy (@w0o0dy) November 13, 2021, 22:17
In fact, Toto was lying because both external tests showed too much space near the middle of the car, but the wing actually passed the test.
In the video, you can clearly see a lot of space. Not millimeters, but more centimeters.
John H (@john-h) November 14, 2021, 0:26
Are you measuring with your YouTube ruler?
You will notice that the tool moves up and down. Even a baboon understands that this is not 0.2m and the tool should be used with a force of at least 10NM. It is used without any power!
The preliminary report stated that both ends are illegal.
Ironically, Mercedes complained to the FIA about the Red Bull team’s rear wing arrangement, which caused the FIA to change the technical rules in the middle of the season and saw that the RBR had to run a different wing, but Mercedes eventually An illegal tail was disqualified. The only "modus operandi" that has changed is that Mercedes did not benefit from the FIA ruling. I don’t remember an example where illegal cars were not disqualified from the race. What is Wolfe talking about?
agree. This year Mercedes found himself in an uncomfortable position, and a rival team, especially a driver, was challenging them. Their reaction was to complain about anything from where Ferrari stopped in the 1990s/2000s. Any decision/result/event that goes against them is always the fault of others. This is no exception-the DSQ from the illegal tail is to some extent the FIA "lack of common sense" rather than their own engineering problem.
Interestingly, Wolf is very supportive of the FIA ruling that disqualified Ricardo seven years ago.
I fully understand his disappointment with the ruling, and I am sorry for any tables within reach of his fist, but don't be so two-faced with the FIA ruling.
We ran into a parc ferme situation in Mexico, which I believe is the case. During qualifying, work on the rear wing is allowed.
The car was parked from the moment it crossed the pit lane exit line for the first time in the first quarter. Before Verstappen was eliminated in the first game of the first quarter, the RBR mechanic worked for his wing in the game in Mexico.
Dan G (@dang) November 14, 2021, 8:32
Not in Austin, doesn't RBR work on the tail between quality meetings? Sticky reinforcement? But I think this kind of work—for safety reasons, no one wants to see high-speed wing failure—is allowed.
@dang I believe this was during the red flag period of the first quarter, indeed after RB left the pit. They are allowed because in the qualifiers (and on the grid), if you have reason to believe that they will grant a license, you can make changes without the permission of a technical representative. Tail repairs like this have been allowed many times before, so why RB has reason to believe that it will be allowed in Mexico. And as the administrator ruled yesterday, if Mercedes notices a malfunction in the garage, they will be allowed to perform related repairs during Quali:
If the contestants become aware of this problem during qualifying, they will definitely seek a solution, and the FIA Technical Department has also confirmed that they will obtain permission to repair parts or tighten bolts when needed.
(Sorry for formatting, copying and pasting the FIA butler report will cause very bad formatting problems)
@dang Actually, for security purposes, they must obtain permission from the FIA to do so, which is not uncommon in F1. We have seen that when a driver damages their car in a qualified (such as Leclerc in Monaco), the team will obtain permission from the FIA to repair the car in accordance with the Parc fermé rules. If they think the technical representative will grant permission, they can even change the part on the fly without asking for permission.
Any work not listed above can only be carried out after the relevant team participant makes a written request and obtains the approval of the FIA technical representative. It must be clear that any replacement parts that the team participants wish to install are identical in design and similar in quality, inertia and function to the original parts. Any removed parts will be retained by the FIA.
However, if a team participant wants to replace parts on the grid during qualifying practice, between scout laps and/or before the start of the race, they can do so without first obtaining permission from a technical representative, provided that: the relevant team Participants of can reasonably believe that if they have time to make a request, and the broken or damaged parts are always within the sight of the inspector assigned to the car, they will be permitted.
If RBR technicians add tape to Verstappen's flank between games in Austin, it may not violate the rules. The problem is that the RBR mechanics are so blatant about Verstappen's car and know that the FIA will eventually trigger an investigation if they have the slightest suspicion of violations, and I know they are within the rules.
Wolfe is just Wolfe trying to create a false narrative that his team is disadvantaged by the management and supports RBR, and we already know the pressure he puts on the FIA and the stewards inside and outside the track. He openly stated that because of this ruling, he will make their work harder and exhaust their resources.
At least your own part is broken (so it is your fault, although of course it will happen). When the standard Pirelli tire exploded, Verstappen lost a victory and 25 points, which he or his team could not influence. It's not fair, but he lost 25 points. With these points, he can almost become a champion now. These things happened, although no one (at least as neutral as me) wanted them to be the decisive factor. On the other hand, when driving such a fast car, the starting position is really not that important. In any case, the podium is the least worth looking forward to.
I don't know, they could have pitted when the tires needed. They did push it.
@homerlovesbeer I seem to remember that the official route of Aston Martin and Stroll and Red Bull and Verstappen is that they don't have any warnings about punctures. It is still performing well without a significant drop, and there are no obvious signs in the data that the tires will fail. And they are all below Pirelli's estimate of the number of laps that the tires can run.
Usually, when something is damaged, it causes disadvantages. This "accidental" situation is beneficial. It takes place in a race, and everyone sees the new engine as an explanation for gaining speed. In my opinion, they think they can get away by chance. By the way, Toto said "Go fuck" to Lewis, which is another shame of the sport. Disrespect all people who do nothing but work.
Euro Brun (@eurobrun) November 13, 2021, 23:34
If he wants to argue that it is not illegal because it is broken, then I will argue that if it is worn out, it is not illegal. We will wear excessively on the board and say that this is unexpected, so it is not. Illegal. Just when you think Horner is the worst person in the paddock, Toto reminds you that he is fighting hard for the championship!
John H (@john-h) November 14, 2021, 0:28
Totally agree with @eurobrun, the plank comparison is a good comparison.
I never doubted that Horner is a good person and Wolfe is not (I am not being ironic).
Mike Davies (@nanotech) November 14, 2021, 4:22
Ha ha. They are both kings of drama. Watching Toto and Horner BS is almost as fun as watching a game.
They all definitely showed what leadership shouldn't be. It is a miracle that they can keep their jobs.
Vettel would say "Haha...what's so delicious about my fuel pump in Hungary?"
Does anyone remember that Daniel Ricciardo was disqualified from participating in the 2019 Singapore Grand Prix as a violation? The instantaneous power peak was 0.0001 kW, which exceeded the allowable 120kW. Renault gave a reasonable explanation to Stewards. In this case, there is no room for maneuver. You give in to the team once and they will always abuse the rules.
Vettel was also disqualified in Hungary!
Yes, but he said that Ricardo's case (I forgot) is more marginal than the case of Vettel and Hamilton.
Red Bull especially Horner made the game dirty. In the absence of a championship in 7 to 8 years, perhaps under the pressure of the Red Bull boss, he is very eager to win. Looking at his behavior after the Silverstone incident, pushing the game ban is as if the crash at the end of the game will not happen in other games. I guess now both teams are trying to put each other at a disadvantage or disqualify each other, and they will make technical protests every other game.
You need to give up your anti-Red Bull prejudice. What we see now is the true face of Wolfe, which has always been under the surface, except for hidden, because although Mercedes has been dominant since 2014, no one is at risk of defeating them.
"I guess there will be technical protests every other game now, because both teams are trying to put each other at a disadvantage or disqualify the game."
This is almost the "sport" of F1. This is how to extract the most from technology and sports rules. That's it from day one. Thar literally means motorsport.
Interestingly, merc is trapped in a cookie jar, this is your reaction
Red Bull especially Horner makes the game dirty
Hmm...well, Toto and Mercedes complained about flexible rear wear at the start of the season and strengthened FIA testing. Now, the FIA has done an enhanced test, and Mercedes has been arrested. Is Totot angry because his own complaints are counterproductive to him and Hamilton? Sometimes, it's nice to be a responsible person...
When you point out the responsibilities of others rather than yourself too much, you will eventually become hypocritical and no longer credible.
TW is already rehearsing all the excuses he will find in case the MV wins the championship. These include RBR's "illegal" tail, Bottas "does not block MV" in Mexico, and now "lack of common sense". Wing is illegal. It did not pass the FIA-approved test. It is cutting and drying. The correct punishment was given. What is he expecting? I want to know how RBR will react if he enters the next race with wings 0.2 mm larger than the allowed clearance? I'm pretty sure he would not promote his "common sense" version in that situation.
I implied that it might have been damaged or damaged...what a strange punishment...
0.2 mm on the right side:-)
This is where Max pushed it...
@freelittlebirds If the wing breaks or breaks on the track, Mercedes has failed to design a wing that can withstand the forces generated by its car. I can't think of any other reason why it was damaged on the track (ie he didn't hit a wall or another car). Therefore, this situation will be the responsibility of Mercedes for failing the test. Regardless of the margin, the only possible penalty for technical violations is disqualification. Ricardo was excluded from the Singapore qualifying in 2019 when his MGU-K provided very, very little extra power in a short period of time.
I agree that Max’s interference may cause the wing to move slightly. However, I think this is a very, very small possibility for several reasons. First of all, carbon fiber is an elastic material with a fairly high elastic limit. You can understand this by looking at the degree to which the different bodies of many cars swing or bend under air resistance. As the steward pointed out, they believed that Verstappen exerted a negligible force on the rear wing to have any effect on it, and they pointed out that “absolutely no wing elements moved”, and took into account the possible force Verstappen may exert and the speed of 200 miles per hour. The force exerted by the speed on the wing, I think it is extremely unlikely. Second, Verstappen has a very concentrated touch of the wings, with a few centimeters on each side of the DRS mechanism. Although the FIA report did not clearly state it, I believe that the area that Verstappen touched was the "inside" of the wing, and the area where the wing failed the test was the "outside". The possibility of Max damaging the rear wing is non-zero, but I personally (and I do admit that I have some prejudices) think it is extremely unlikely.
Finally, I have no doubt that Mercedes is not planning to break the rules. They did not "plan to cheat" or anything else, but I think if a part fails the test, it may have to be investigated and may be deemed illegal. I don't think they are stupid enough to take the risk of something that can be tested so easily for such a small (if any) performance increase. I have also found that Mercedes’ approach to this situation is very admirable and wise. Unfortunately, I doubt that Red Bull will be equally wise in this situation.
@randommallard assumes that Toto's claim that it is 0.2 mm is correct and it applies to one side of the wing. Just like the FIA, we are actually splitting hair, and we are very one-sided when splitting them.
I don’t know about the test, but it just smells like a foul. A piece of hair on one side of the part failed. The FIA knew where to test. Max was sure he made sure to touch the part before the measurement, and by sending Lewis to the sender. The back of the parking space does not actually guarantee WCC and WDC, which will add interest to the Sprint qualifying.
There are too many variables at work here. If all the wings fail and no one is involved and it happens on the entire wing, I would be more inclined to believe them.
There seems to be a witch hunt, they just want to prove that they are right.
@freelittlebirds If Max can deform that wing, but the force acting on it at a speed of 200 mph cannot, I want to know what performance-enhancing drugs Max is using.
The FIA knows where to test
Testing this gap seems to be a very standard procedure. In the same vehicle inspection, the DRS gaps of the other 13 vehicles (including Bottas and Verstappen) were checked. Aston Martin hinted in their video about the rear wing that they used a ball on the entire wing to test it because they knew the FIA had been checking it (and the video at the time showing them testing it on the entire wing) ). Even Mercedes himself admits that they think Verstappen is unlikely to break the wing:
However, all in all, the participants of the No. 44 car also agreed that Verstappen’s actions are unlikely to lead to fault.
(The formatting is terrible, because copying and pasting from FIA files is a formatting nightmare)
However, they did say that this is still an open issue. I agree with Mercedes' view on this issue. We may never finally know whether Max’s touch broke the wing, but the probability of this situation seems to be low enough that any other type of malfunction on the car cannot be finally ruled out. However, the technical report does specify the (quite vague) "outer" of the wing. Although this is vague, I really would not classify the area about 10-15 cm on either side of the center of the wing as "outer". It also doesn’t mention which side it failed (left and right are not the best placement, because it actually depends on how you look at it) or how much, although 0.2mm does sound like the right butler said it It did not pass without applying force, but it passed with less than 10N (the maximum force tested).
Besides, I don't see too many fouls here. If RB fouls, then I would expect them to protest after the main game or at least Sprint qualifying to get the most out of DSQ. RB is just that cunning. I know that Newey did visit the FIA shortly before the tail qualifying, but it is reported that this is a bent tail and not a DRS failure (I would be surprised if RB could see the 0.2mm difference from the onboard camera). Although I I’m not 100% convinced that this is the sole purpose of the visit (especially because RB can hardly promote flexible wings), but it’s hard for me to see how RB knows about DRS, unless it’s very unlikely that they will get inside information about Mercedes. In this case, in my opinion, Merc has as many problems as RB.
(This is my whole point of view, from people who support Max and RB in the context of championships (although RB makes it difficult for me to support them at certain times this season). You have the right to believe or agree or as much as you want Less. I don’t want to start arguing, I have started too much this season.)
@randommallard This is good information. Where can I see the video and how do they test it? I am curious how they detected such small deviations. Obviously, they must use micro-millimeter ultra-sensitive equipment.
However, all in all, the participants of the No. 44 car also agreed that Verstappen’s actions are unlikely to lead to fault.
It is unlikely that this possibility is not ruled out, you are riding in a car and pushing from the front to the back. Max is obviously not the kind of person who does this deliberately.
I totally agree that if Max hasn't touched a car, but encountering it changes everything, the penalty should be established.
I would also like to know how they can detect such a minor violation of the rules, again assuming Toto's statement is legal.
I am surprised that the FIA has not announced the details of the violation, or they may have announced it, I have not seen it yet, but if they find a 0.2 mm break, it may actually be the result of the test or a false alarm.
Mercedes can't even challenge this claim, because they may lose the championship.
@freelittlebirds You greatly overestimated the complexity of the test! When I say it is a ball on a stick, I literally mean that the ball (or disc) on the stick is exactly 85 mm. If it passes under a force of 10N or lower, it is illegal. If it fails, it is legal. The Aston Martin video I quoted is here https://youtu.be/7cT9ExNcKYw (starting at 6 minutes and 30 seconds). The car inspector completed 4 tests, including two different measurements, including one in the presence of the butler and Mercedes. When no force is applied, the device will not pass through the wing, but will pass through the wing when a force of less than 10N is applied (hence why the FIA cannot accurately determine the margin of error, but 0.2 mm does not sound correct).
It doesn’t matter anyway, because Lewis’ driving yesterday and today was amazing (yes, I think Max deserves a penalty kick, but in the end I’m very happy to see Lewis overtaking on the track to win the race instead of just sitting 1 second later, and Max was fined 5 seconds).
This is not a strange punishment. If you fail the basic test in the post-race car inspection, it is generally dry. In addition, it is not clear whether the test failed on both outer edges of the wing, not just one. So you can't really accept Toto's words.
We all know that max is a better driver. But you seem to think that it is because he is Superman. I see, it may make your narrative more suitable for you :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ger6gU_9v9A
The American joke is the fickle public. "They" are laughing at us because we can only accept this farce... But what kind of entertainment is it?
0.2 mm is within the margin of error, especially because it is a damaged wing, and it is very demanding to disqualify Lewis from qualifying. Ferrari and RB have never been disqualified due to illegal engines and flexible wings, but Lewis was disqualified because of illegal engines and flexible wings. 0.2 Qualifiers cancelled due to additional DRS gap? ?
None of these events have any practical significance!
How did Max foresee that the wing was a little weird, so he tested it after the qualifying game because it was impossible for him to see a deviation of 0.2 mm. The valid argument is that RB was notified in advance of the damaged "illegal" wing. Does anyone inside the mercenaries provide them with information? Why doesn't RB protest after the game to get the most damage? It does not add up. The main spy gate and the atmosphere of Singapore 2008 are staged here.
Hey, at least be polite, wipe the frantic saliva I saw at the corner of your mouth.
@ccpbioweapon Ferrari engine (from available information) and Red Bull tail have never failed FIA tests. Once the FIA adds additional sensors and the RB tail has passed all the tests conducted by the FIA, Ferrari may change their engine mapping. I will not deny that they may be illegal, but so far, the easiest way to prove that a part is illegal is to fail the FIA test. You can assume that someone drunk driving or used illegal drugs at will, but it is difficult to prove/convict them unless they fail an alcohol test or a drug test.
"Within the margin of error." Whose standard are you referring to? The Technical Directive has a test, which literally means "According to TD/011-19, the maximum gap is measured by pushing an 85mm gauge to the gap with a maximum load of 10N (ten Newtons). If the gauge passes, then the car does not Pass the test." 10N is the "margin of error". The car failed.
Secondly, if the team issues a warning to the FIA and asks for permission during qualifying, the FIA will allow the damage to be “repaired”. Merc never warned the FIA of "corruption", so it failed when it was tested, and that's it. DSQ. This is how the post-race car inspection works.
The reason RedBull has never been punished is because if you look at the rules, they did not violate any rules. The wings are "allowed" to bend. They only defined limits for actual test procedures, and they passed all the tests. However, the FIA has a rule that states that they reserve the right to introduce new tests (actually to enforce the "spirit" of the rule), and this is what they do.
People jump to "conspiracy theories"... but when you really read the regulations and understand the procedures, nothing unpleasant happens.
The Ferrari case is more complicated and I need to study more. Due to the nature of the current F1 development, it is difficult for the FIA to prove cheating when the car is driving. This is why they reserve the right to introduce new testing procedures in the event of any suspicious circumstances.
@ccpbioweapon Yes, 0.2 mm is actually a piece of hair. I was watching Red Bull's wings next to Mercedes (Perez and Hamilton). It is impossible to say that Lewis's open DRS is bigger than Perez's open DRS.
Tommy C (@tommy-c) November 14, 2021, 4:33
Don't worry about Toto, if there is anything to go for the sprint, Lewis will win the race in jogging (unless there is any first corner prank)...
Technical rules are technical rules.
Really @jerejj. Although as a fan of Lewis/Mercedes, it hurts me to see him starting on P11, I am very happy that the rules are enforced because they exist for a reason, no matter how small the violation is.
The impressive smoke screen MB is pulling up to cover up their foul behavior. No, Toto, not only was it too wide on one side, but it was not broken during qualifying. The butler thoroughly investigated the components and came to the conclusion that there was no damage or damage, but that it did not meet specifications... The butler reported that they expected this to be unintentional, well, it was just a political issue.
Toto is a fringe delusion. This season everything is going its own way. everything. From flexiwings to stopping RB's pit stop advantage, to making the tires more suitable for the season of your car. He was punished for knocking down his opponent but still winning. This team is not worth playing. Painful loser. Bad team
Mercedes certainly feels pointless. They are the people affected. However, this is their attitude throughout the year. They felt that everything was fine in the war, and even made their opponents off track. This is the ethical choice/direction taken by their management.
I think how this process went from telling us that we slightly failed in the test-we are talking about 0.2 mm-to not allowing the problem to be fixed like the normal protocol, but reporting it to the housekeeper
This is one point I don't understand. I am pretty sure that if you fail the FIA test, the "normal procedure" is not that you can fix it, but that you will be reported to the administrator like Friday. The difference between this and Mexico’s RV is that RB found the problem by itself and was able to fix it (this is allowed under Parc Ferme rules without the need for written permission from a technical representative, if they have reason to believe that they will be allowed to change it, The cracks in the rear wing are almost always allowed to be changed). Mercedes itself did not discover this error, and it was not until Parc Ferme's inspection that the problem became apparent. This (possibly) means:
1. Someone did not test the wing properly in the garage.
2. The wings explode on the track.
3. Verstappen broke the wing at Parc Ferme, but according to the administrator’s instructions, this is unlikely because he only touched the lower part of the wing and was deemed insufficient to cause any damage (carbon fiber does have relative Higher elastic limit).
This means we actually have a performance disadvantage
Again, this comment is confusing because the regulations make it very clear that claiming that there is no performance advantage is not sufficient as a justification for violating technical regulations.
However, I do think that Mercedes has performed well in this situation, and even if I support them in the championship, I have a hunch that Red Bull will not react so politely. Hamilton's driving yesterday was very simple and unbelievable.
Here, from the admin report, I confirmed my first point, which is what happens if Merc finds an error during qualifying instead of afterwards:
If the contestants become aware of this problem during qualifying, they will definitely seek a solution, and the FIA Technical Department has also confirmed that they will obtain permission to repair parts or tighten bolts when needed.
Wow, copying and pasting FIA reports really doesn't work very well. Sorry for the incorrect format
This is a matter of common sense.
Especially when not in use.
Mercedes complained about the flexibility of the rear wing. Everyone now designs the wing to be flexible to the point of failure. His wing passed the test earlier and then failed the test after an obvious structural failure.
The test failed DNF, but there is a bigger problem behind all this, that is, the component fails due to poor design.
If the Red Bull tail fins fall off in Mexico, will they pass the inspection?
Will the team build a partially failed wing to gain air advantage? Endless questions.
So they decided to use DNF, which is another in a series of strange decisions this year.
The FIA and the butler should clean up their behavior.
Wolfe is losing it, first of all "F*all of them", professional foul comments, accusations of Bottas and unclear rules.
Why is Red Bull not being punished for running lower tire pressures in Baku? This violates the rules and does provide an advantage.
Because they didn't break any rules
Because no one can prove it. Pirelli said this may be a reason, but provided very little data. You can say that someone crashed their car because they were drunk, but if you don’t take a breath alcohol test, it’s hard to convict them
There are some inconsistencies here. The first is all the comments about "deceiving Mercedes", because these comments forgot that the tail wing passed the test before the qualifying round.
Next, RB could "stick" their wing because they claimed it was damaged and it had broken. This indicates that RB has built a paper car or that the damage is continuing on the track. Therefore, will the vibration caused during operation lead to "wear or deformation" of the fixing mechanism, which may allow an additional gap of 0.2 mm when tested after passing it?
Next, the tendency of RB drivers to observe and deal with the opponent's rear wing indicates that either RB wants to know why their own wing is cracked and the Merc's wing does not... or why the way Merc keeps the wing does not result in the damage RB is suffering. Maybe the RB wings are "too flexible" under the pressure of the car and will crack, but this flexibility allows most wings to be larger than 85mm during the race. RB wants to see how Mercedes handles this problem. I believe Max is honest enough not to try to cause damage, but considering RB's rear wing problems in the United States and Mexico, I still find this behavior strange.
Therefore, will the vibration caused during operation lead to "wear or deformation" of the fixing mechanism, which may allow an additional gap of 0.2 mm when tested after passing it?
This is entirely possible, the difference is that RB is vigilant enough to notice the destruction in Mexico. If Mercedes had noticed the damage during Quali, the butler said they could have repaired it:
If the contestants become aware of this problem during qualifying, they will definitely seek a solution, and the FIA Technical Department has also confirmed that they will obtain permission to repair parts or tighten bolts when needed.
(Sorry, the FIA format is terrible).
However, once the car has been inspected, there is no way to know if it is just damaged or set up like that.
In addition, I completely agree with you and the administrator that Merc is not trying to cheat or gain an unfair advantage. Those who claim to be, just need to calm down.
Next, the tendency of RB drivers to observe and handle the opponent’s rear wing indicated that either RB wanted to know why their own wing cracked and the Merc’s wing did not...or why the way Merc’s retention of the wings did not result in the damage RB was suffering.
In addition, there are many reasons why Max may have been checking the rear wing. First of all, there is one you mentioned, but there is also the fact that Newey went to the FIA earlier that day about something completely different from DRS, or it was just that Max’s rear wing had some visible small spots when he entered the first turn. The problem, he may feel it, just want to see if there are any obvious reasons. I think the most unlikely thing is that he knows that their DRS gap is too big, because assuming it is about 0.2 mm (and I very much believe that Toto is based on the administrator's decision) it is impossible to notice with the human eye.
But it is very likely that both teams have built their wings to a tipping point (there are several other teams, see Daniel Ricciardo. In the second day of testing in 2019, his Renault upper tail flew at full speed. Leave). As quoted above, Colin Chapman once said "If your car does not fall apart at the end of the race, then it is too heavy." This design concept may not change.
© 2021 Collantine Media Ltd | About RaceFans