68 points
*

The disqualification itself is not a problem. Both Ferrari and merc were hitting the floor pretty hard on the back straight and this was always an issue.

The problem is only few cars being checked. All of them should be checked especially if it is found that there are some breaches. Atleast one car from each team should be tested

permalink
report
reply
33 points

Imagine if we had a US GP and only a handful of cars finished the race…

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Imagine if we had a US GP and only a handful of cars finished started the race…

I didn’t watch f1 for years after that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

What are you referencing?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
2 points

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

I like money

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points
*

Its very unusual for any car to fail this kind of random plank wear check…infact I cant remember the last time anyone was DQ’d for such an infringement… With 2 of the 4 cars selected, failing these checks, I wonder how many others would have failed had the whole field been subjected to the same scrutiny… 🤷🏻‍♂️

permalink
report
reply
30 points
*

If only the rules made any sense whatsoever and they were all checked (which they should be). Then we would actually know.

What if Carlos and George would have failed as well? They just get promoted in the points because of “reasons”.

I guess fair application of the rules is too much to ask.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Fair application of the rules has never been the FIA’s MO.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

And what if 2 back markers failed and nobody cared. Random is about as fair as you can get. Just because it doesn’t seem fair doesn’t mean it wasn’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Universally applying a rule by measuring all competitors shouldn’t be contentious.

People baby the FIA too much. I am sure they can find a way to make it work–especially considering 50% of the cars they randomly tested failed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points

What a weird way for Sargent to get his first point.

permalink
report
reply
11 points

There’s still a bald eagle screech audible somewhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Boring fact! The screech is actually a red-tailed hawk. Bald eagles make this annoying whimpy whine like a chick wanting food, but they have a pretty song. If you hear them, you’d understand why Americans dub the hawk over.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That fact was way too interesting to be labeled boring.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

But it’s a point still

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Still counts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

On a sprint weekend, the planks undergo 19 more laps of wear than at a typical event. In this case that’s almost 65 more miles of racing on the same plank. Holding the ”randomly selected cars” to the same floor allowance as if it was a standard race weekend but then NOT checking all the teams when you have a 50% failure rate is just plain wrong. Either have a different allowance on the sprint weekend, check ALL the cars or don’t check at all.

permalink
report
reply
5 points
*

Just a nitpick: it’s not always 19 more laps. It’s the fewest amount of laps that puts the sprint race over 100km (about 62 miles). At COTA, that’s 19 laps. Next time at Interlagos, it’s 24.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Does it really work this way? I saw an engineer on Twitter say that they must’ve been far over the limit for the plank to wear so much.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Maybe I’m not reading that right or didn’t catch it, but it doesn’t sound like all cars’ planks were checked during scrutineering. From the same document:

A physical floor and a plank wear inspection was carried out on car numbers 01, 16, 44 and 04.

So all the cars were subject to various inspections, but not all had the same things inspected. In particular, only cars 01 (VER), 16 (LEC), 44 (HAM), and 04 (NOR) were selected for plank wear inspections. And as such, only cars 16 and 44 were found to be out of compliance.

Am I understanding that correctly?

permalink
report
reply
40 points

This is standard for how they do technical inspections. They can’t check every rule on every car, so they check just a few important ones for every car (fuel, weight, etc) and then do random checks on a handful of cars each for others. The idea is to prevent it from being worthwhile to break the rule, while also requiring substantially fewer resources. That’s probably also why the penalty is so steep: if it was a slap on the wrist that you had a small chance of being caught for, you might as well just always run out-of-spec.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

That’s a good take.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It’s fair, but if they’re finding cars fail the checks, then all cars on the grid should be checked for the same failure.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Formula 1

!formula1@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy’s largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series


Rules


  1. Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
  2. No gambling, crypto or NFTs
  3. Spoilers are allowed
  4. Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
  5. Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
  6. Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
  7. Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but don’t want to become formuladank.

Up next


F1 Calendar

2024 Calendar

Location Date
🇸🇬 Singapore 20-22 Sep
🇺🇸 United States 18-20 Oct
🇲🇽 Mexico 25-27 Oct
🇧🇷 Brazil 01-03 Nov
🇺🇸 United States 21-23 Nov
🇶🇦 Qatar 29 Nov-01 Dec
🇦🇪 Abu Dhabi 06-08 Dec

Community stats

  • 986

    Monthly active users

  • 2.3K

    Posts

  • 16K

    Comments