Fia and plank tests in 2023

[ValeVida46]

Leclerc isnt the one betting all his money

Whatever that means.

[CHT]

Is this the first time FIA conducted checks on planks?
If not when was the last time someone was penalized?

[ValeVida46]

Is this the first time FIA conducted checks on planks?
If not when was the last time someone was penalized?

18 races. 20 cars. 360 potential plank checks.

We've had 20 plank checks.

In a ground effect formula

[chrisc90]

Just watch the FIA increase their sample size now.

[FW17]

He should simply come out and say he knows George's car was illegal and he got away with it.

[Farnborough]

Just watch the FIA increase their sample size now.

I do think it was a "sharpen up guys" as there's a lot of speculation about how low the cars are running.

Whistle blower prior to this ? Possible certainly, and IF teams had not taken a friendly word to make sure of compliance without embarrassment, then it steps up into public view.

That's speculative on my part, but often within a environment its valid to first nudge, then squeeze a bit further in getting people to take it seriously. Its not unusual, just so many want to comment on sport and the friction the press reporting likes to generate with personal statement raised out of proportion to wind up tension.

[ValeVida46]

Just watch the FIA increase their sample size now.

They should in all fairness.

Checking planks of all competitors in a ground effect formula is good practice.

[ValeVida46]

I do think it was a "sharpen up guys" as there's a lot of speculation about how low the cars are running.

Whistle blower prior to this ? Possible certainly, and IF teams had not taken a friendly word to make sure of compliance without embarrassment, then it steps up into public view.

That's speculative on my part, but often within a environment its valid to first nudge, then squeeze a bit further in getting people to take it seriously. Its not unusual, just so many want to comment on sport and the friction the press reporting likes to generate with personal statement raised out of proportion to wind up tension.

Maybe it was simply the combination of a 1 practice session, a sprint race, a bumpy track and compromising set up to split between 2 races. 50% of the tests failed after all. But hey, let's ignore the facts for a moment.

Conspiracy is certainly an option. It's not constructive, but it's an option.

[chrisc90]

https://i.postimg.cc/rmQPrC9S/image.png

He should simply come out and say he knows George's car was illegal and he got away with it.

The only facts he can speak of there being ‘more’ is George’s.

The rest is pure trash talk about knowing your competitors plank thickness

[piast9]

More plank tests in the era of the ground effect cars seems a good idea. To make it possible they have to minimize the time it takes to check the plank. What about providing the teams with the material for the plank fabrication, which thickness cannot be altered in any way by the teams, that will consist of coloured layers so when it is worn down beyond the limit coloured layer from underneath becomes visible. Then the quick checks may be done visually for all cars and the ones that are suspected of wearing the plank too much will be scrutinised in more detail.
I think that will also allow to see that way if the plank was damaged due to the single event like going off-track or hitting a kerb or worn down due to the constant rubbing as the patterns will be different.

[Farnborough]

I do think it was a "sharpen up guys" as there's a lot of speculation about how low the cars are running.

Whistle blower prior to this ? Possible certainly, and IF teams had not taken a friendly word to make sure of compliance without embarrassment, then it steps up into public view.

That's speculative on my part, but often within a environment its valid to first nudge, then squeeze a bit further in getting people to take it seriously. Its not unusual, just so many want to comment on sport and the friction the press reporting likes to generate with personal statement raised out of proportion to wind up tension.

Maybe it was simply the combination of a 1 practice session, a sprint race, a bumpy track and compromising set up to split between 2 races. 50% of the tests failed after all. But hey, let's ignore the facts for a moment.

Conspiracy is certainly an option. It's not constructive, but it's an option.

I do feel this event for those that found that they were over the limit was genuinely a classic "balls up" and not much more. But running so close to the limitations is going to carry that risk for anyone really.

Some of the teams did run significantly more conservstive here, which seems wise after the events, or good planning.

Relatively safe for FIA to bring it out now, there should now be less excuses in the future in all reality. Especially if a championship is up for contest.

[CHT]

Just watch the FIA increase their sample size now.

I do think it was a "sharpen up guys" as there's a lot of speculation about how low the cars are running.

Whistle blower prior to this ? Possible certainly, and IF teams had not taken a friendly word to make sure of compliance without embarrassment, then it steps up into public view.

That's speculative on my part, but often within a environment its valid to first nudge, then squeeze a bit further in getting people to take it seriously. Its not unusual, just so many want to comment on sport and the friction the press reporting likes to generate with personal statement raised out of proportion to wind up tension.

All the best motor racing engineers are at the paddock, how is it possible that no one is showing interest in Merc's new floor?

[ValeVida46]

Steiner weighs in.

In fact, only four cars were checked in this area, with two failing the test. Makes a quota of 50 percent. While the FIA ​​itself emphasizes that the current approach is absolutely sufficient , Günther Steiner sees it a little differently.
"The check doesn't take long, you just have to lift the car and go under it. I don't think it takes long to measure it." He therefore cannot fully explain why not all cars had their underbody checked.

Steiner knows: "The regulations don't say that they have to check all cars. You could say that it's a simple check and that they should do it as standard. I don't know why they don't do it. That's a question for the FIA, not for me."
"If you want to make a big science out of measuring a plank, we can do that, but I don't think there's a big science behind it," said the Haas team boss, who believes the FIA ​​only needed "half an hour" would have needed to check all the cars.

He explains: "They kept the cars for a very long time [after the Hamilton and Leclerc irregularities were found] while they discussed what to do. In my opinion they could have checked the other 16 cars in the meantime."

https://www.formel1.de/news/grand-prix- ... en-koennen

[TFSA]

https://twitter.com/dr_obbs/status/1717967614079619268

So much for the "random" checks if what Sky says is true.

In that case, it's what I've always said: The FIA actually knew what they are doing. And there is no need to check other cars, including Russell and Sainz.

I do wish the FIA was more open on this here though. That could have avoided more controversy, if they had just admitted that they might be using data to support their choice of cars to scrutineer.

[Cs98]

So in actuality what we have here is the following: A 100% hit rate on cars flagged by censor data. And a 100% miss rate on cars selected as controls to verify the accuracy of their data. In other words, the system couldn't have worked better in Austin. This entire story has been a lesson in how useless the word "controversy" has become. Totally manufactured by certain fans, enabled by the media.