2023 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[Sidiamal]

Also, the 0.05 mm that was reposted here from a fan Twitter account isn’t a credible source. That figure comes from an interview with Hamilton that was misinterpreted. Most sources are saying the wear of the Mercedes was more than that of the Ferrari.

James Allison spelled it out more succinctly. Allison was moved to the point of embarrassment. You don’t get embarrassed over 0.05mm. That should say enough.

You would absolutely be embarrassed by being disqualified over such a tiny, easily avoidable margin.

[dans79]

Also, the 0.05 mm that was reposted here from a fan Twitter account isn’t a credible source. That figure comes from an interview with Hamilton that was misinterpreted. Most sources are saying the wear of the Mercedes was more than that of the Ferrari.

James Allison spelled it out more succinctly. Allison was moved to the point of embarrassment. You don’t get embarrassed over 0.05mm. That should say enough.

You would absolutely be embarrassed by being disqualified over such a tiny, easily avoidable margin.

O really, what should have changed in the setup to avoid being 0.05 over?

[Venturiation]

That's 500 points of downforce!!!

People keep thinking Hamilton is an idiot and doesnt know what he is talking about.
Same thing last year when he was critical if w13.

Now we sed .05mm and he lost a 2nd place. It's crazy. Similar to the wing gap ruling in Brazil last year.
I said it before.. but these things are damaging to the sport. The FIA created the sprint weekend with its excessive running. The FIA need to sort themselves out. Allow track worn parts to be changed at least if the setup cannot be changed. Things like pads, skid blocks, sensors that dont impact the setup.

These are the rules all team work to, nothing crazy about them. Limits are there throughout design and operation, its not even unusual.

The wing fail in Brazil has nothing in common in the way it was checked. That is a "go-no go" type gauge that doesn't measure how far out the item is, just shows failure to meet the requirements of gap on a structure that's supposed to be rigidly fixed to it's support. The further flex above that (contrary to Toto, I believe, statement) was evident in the witness mark of just how far they had the wing elements flexing. That 0.5mm statement was just a face saving, not the reality of movement achieved through having the wing not fixed securely.

The floor measurement is an absolute, the two being entirely different and cannot be assessed the same. To claim such just demonstrates ignorance of why there are different methods of defining and checking components.

The 9nly thing in common is both are out relative to stated, published and understood rules for the teams to operate within.

This where you are wrong
It's rules for everyone but they only tested 4 and 50% of them were illegal, it is confirmed that there were more illegal cars

So why not test everyone if you care that much about rules?

[chrisc90]

Who else has been confirmed as being illegal? Or is it just rumours and a driver coming out saying they know other teams internal affairs?

[ringo]

0.05mm below 1mm limited means that plank thickness is down by 1.05mm, while I understand MV has 0.00mm wear.
1.05mm may not seem much, but if convert that to downforce, it may be significant over a lap. The only question is if Merc has done the setup for LH intentionally by pushing it too close to the limit, or it was just a simple case of oversight or having no time to check.

For sure the team and LH should know that the bottom is scrapping the floor, which perhaps explains why they didn't appeal the disqualification.

You are over simplifying what you consider the car being lowered by. That wear does not make the car lower. It does not ride on the floor. The car rides on the suspension.

The point being made when i say it's crazy or silly is that you check for these fine margins of. 0.05mm yet... the widest and dumbest slap dash margin is testing only 4 of 20 cars. That's like having a production line of cars and testing paint thickness down to the micrometer then only testing the first car out the production line and not. Other to test any more for the rest of the year. That does not guarantee quality and fairness and if this metric is so important then why is an unrepresentative sample being taken?
The FIA clearly failed miserably here and I will repeat that... it is damaging to the sport

[organic]

Amus said Ferrari were 0.2mm over and Merc more than that.

Also James Allison said in his post-race debrief that they ran the car too low

Italian media reports that McLaren/RB gave up laptime running their car in a more compromised window to avoid plank wear. That Merc and Ferrari didn't compromise as much to ensure legality is obvious

[CHT]

0.05mm below 1mm limited means that plank thickness is down by 1.05mm, while I understand MV has 0.00mm wear.
1.05mm may not seem much, but if convert that to downforce, it may be significant over a lap. The only question is if Merc has done the setup for LH intentionally by pushing it too close to the limit, or it was just a simple case of oversight or having no time to check.

For sure the team and LH should know that the bottom is scrapping the floor, which perhaps explains why they didn't appeal the disqualification.

You are over simplifying what you consider the car being lowered by. That wear does not make the car lower. It does not ride on the floor. The car rides on the suspension.

The point being made when i say it's crazy or silly is that you check for these fine margins of. 0.05mm yet... the widest and dumbest slap dash margin is testing only 4 of 20 cars. That's like having a production line of cars and testing paint thickness down to the micrometer then only testing the first car out the production line and not. Other to test any more for the rest of the year. That does not guarantee quality and fairness and if this metric is so important then why is an unrepresentative sample being taken?
The FIA clearly failed miserably here and I will repeat that... it is damaging to the sport

The track is static, and the only way for the plank to kiss the track is for the car to be lowered.
from what I read Charles was out by 0.2mm and LH was more.

0.05mm and Merc and LH didnt protest? That sound odd to me. Perhaps its 0.5mm

[Farnborough]

That's 500 points of downforce!!!

People keep thinking Hamilton is an idiot and doesnt know what he is talking about.
Same thing last year when he was critical if w13.

Now we sed .05mm and he lost a 2nd place. It's crazy. Similar to the wing gap ruling in Brazil last year.
I said it before.. but these things are damaging to the sport. The FIA created the sprint weekend with its excessive running. The FIA need to sort themselves out. Allow track worn parts to be changed at least if the setup cannot be changed. Things like pads, skid blocks, sensors that dont impact the setup.

These are the rules all team work to, nothing crazy about them. Limits are there throughout design and operation, its not even unusual.

The wing fail in Brazil has nothing in common in the way it was checked. That is a "go-no go" type gauge that doesn't measure how far out the item is, just shows failure to meet the requirements of gap on a structure that's supposed to be rigidly fixed to it's support. The further flex above that (contrary to Toto, I believe, statement) was evident in the witness mark of just how far they had the wing elements flexing. That 0.5mm statement was just a face saving, not the reality of movement achieved through having the wing not fixed securely.

The floor measurement is an absolute, the two being entirely different and cannot be assessed the same. To claim such just demonstrates ignorance of why there are different methods of defining and checking components.

The 9nly thing in common is both are out relative to stated, published and understood rules for the teams to operate within.

This where you are wrong
It's rules for everyone but they only tested 4 and 50% of them were illegal, it is confirmed that there were more illegal cars

So why not test everyone if you care that much about rules?

Nope, this current "system" is what is in operation NOW.....If that's deemed insufficient, then it could be changed.....in the future.

Sampling is a well used method in many sport or other definitions of control. If the teams think they can game it to their advantage, then the people in control would likely think again.

[ValeVida46]

Nope, this current "system" is what is in operation NOW.....If that's deemed insufficient, then it could be changed.....in the future.

Sampling is a well used method in many sport or other definitions of control. If the teams think they can game it to their advantage, then the people in control would likely think again.

No, that only works on the assumption that "they can game it to their advantage".
When viewed only through that assumption of control then yes. But that is a skewed definition.

I don't think either Ferrari or Mercedes intentionally gamed it to their advantage.
This was inadvertent, and inadvertent slip ups happen that also encompass the entire grid rather than a skewed sample.
As Gunther Steiner said, 30 mins and every plank check can be done. There is no excuse to keep it as a skewed sample.

[organic]

100% inadvertent yea

[ValeVida46]

100% inadvertent yea

Glad we agree

[TimW]

This is nothing different than taking a corner on the limit and going off. They search for they limit because there is significant performance to be gained. They went slightly over and they lost. Like a driver who goes over the limit and crashes. Or like a driver who exceeds track limits and gets his time deleted. Nothing intentional, but part of the game.

[cplchanb]

and apparently they were off by 0.5mm... which is ridiculous. there are no performance benefits or additional risk to driver over what essentially is zero.
theres more tolerance on spacecraft this!

remember back in 1976 hunts car was reinstated despite being cms too wide!

[ringo]

0.05mm below 1mm limited means that plank thickness is down by 1.05mm, while I understand MV has 0.00mm wear.
1.05mm may not seem much, but if convert that to downforce, it may be significant over a lap. The only question is if Merc has done the setup for LH intentionally by pushing it too close to the limit, or it was just a simple case of oversight or having no time to check.

For sure the team and LH should know that the bottom is scrapping the floor, which perhaps explains why they didn't appeal the disqualification.

You are over simplifying what you consider the car being lowered by. That wear does not make the car lower. It does not ride on the floor. The car rides on the suspension.

The point being made when i say it's crazy or silly is that you check for these fine margins of. 0.05mm yet... the widest and dumbest slap dash margin is testing only 4 of 20 cars. That's like having a production line of cars and testing paint thickness down to the micrometer then only testing the first car out the production line and not. Other to test any more for the rest of the year. That does not guarantee quality and fairness and if this metric is so important then why is an unrepresentative sample being taken?
The FIA clearly failed miserably here and I will repeat that... it is damaging to the sport

The track is static, and the only way for the plank to kiss the track is for the car to be lowered.
from what I read Charles was out by 0.2mm and LH was more.

0.05mm and Merc and LH didnt protest? That sound odd to me. Perhaps its 0.5mm

Not sure what the track being static has to do with ride height. But you do have a misconception. First thing is how many degrees of freedom the car has.
There are 4 indpendently sprung corners and the car can pitch and roll. There is also yaw in corners and sliding etc. The aero platform can move in at least 6 or more ways...
So as i say before you and many others need to rethink what you are saying. There is a huge misconception. The car does not simply move up and down and it does not stay down 100% of the lap.
In fact a worn plank has less performance in the slower corners as Lewis says. Under the plank itself does create a ground effect. And a worn plank will always have a greater ground clearance. The ceiling of the floor and guide vanes only come closer to ground when the car bottoms out. There is just too much to consider to make the worn plank condition intentional for performance gain. It would have to be designed into the car to cheat from the get go.

[TimW]

and apparently they were off by 0.5mm... which is ridiculous. there are no performance benefits or additional risk to driver over what essentially is zero.
theres more tolerance on spacecraft this!

remember back in 1976 hunts car was reinstated despite being cms too wide!

0.05 that is, 0.5 would have been a lot.
1.05mm of wear compared to 1.00mm of wear may be a small benefit, but compared to a 'safe' setup the performance benefit would have been significant. They search for the limit for a reason.
Red bull apparently had hardly any plank wear. That would translate to a clear difference in ride height. 1mm wear is not due to 1mm too low ride height, it more likely to be 5mm or more. So on equal wear setups, I doubt Mercedes would have been this close.