2024 Mclaren Formula 1 Team

[organic]

F@ckinnng FIA, joke decision against PIA...... this is ridiculous.

Would help if the team could succeed with the basics to start with.

I think it was not a serious protest, but one made on principle to get their foot in the door to at least discuss it with the stewards.

Why do I think this? Because the document says that you cannot even protest track limit violations, so the protest was inadmissible from the beginning even if they correctly addressed it and cited regulations etc.

That they didn't bother to follow proper procedure only makes sense if you consider that the appeal was not designed to succeed

[Darth-Piekus]

Was it though a wrong procedure or did the FIA used a cheap excuse to say Cant hear you la la la?

Nothing surprises me. Seems like someone from the Mosley antiMclaren era still exist in there.

[AR3-GP]

The decision they should have protested was last weekend.

[LionsHeart]

Lap time comparison

[trinidefender]

Wow, just wow.
Humiliating for Mclaren to balls that up so badly.
Basically due to an administration error the FIA have pied it off.

Humiliating for the FIA too, especially after last week when they confirmed it was ok to use your 200mph+ vehicle as a weapon of intent to damage or injure another.

Bravo FIA, Bravo.

This time they (FIA) didn't do anything wrong. McLaren wanted to file a protest basically shooting into the dark and hoping to catch something to demand more proof from the FIA.

It was a desperate attempt anyway, they have sensors for these types of things and it gets flagged automatically. Can't remember the last time there was a false flag for track limits in modern era.

It does look bad on McLaren though for trying to get something out of nothing and not even following the procedure right.

Saying "they have sensors for these things" doesn't actually mean anything. These systems are not infallible and if there is any doubt that the systems used (whether human eyes or electronic) are accurate then it should be addressed by the accused team/driver and the decision reviewed.

The FIA having the stance that stewards decisions cannot be appealed is nonsense. That just opens up a can of worms for future scenarios where the stewards might make a clearly wrong call and then nothing can be done about it.

All that does is make the FIA look even more amateurish than they already do (which at present they are racing against FIFA and the IOC to see who can look more incompetent).

Yes McLaren filed it using the wrong person's name. So what? The person receiving the protest could have pointed that out and the name/position corrected and the protest could have moved forward.

About the "not protesting a regulation. What regulation are they supposed to be protesting? They aren't protesting a regulation breach. They are protesting a stewards decision under the argument that the stewards made a decision without being 100% sure that the decision is correct, hence Stella's comments about "beyond reasonable doubt."

Was he over the line? I'm not sure. Should the protest have gone ahead to try to gain more evidence? Yes it should

[djos]

What got his lap time deleted

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GRQHIUEWAAE ... me=900x900

Ouch! That’s brutal, but the gap is 1.8 meters and the cars are 2 meters wide.

[enkidu1978]

He definitely went over track limits. Can we close that now? Be great seeing him get back to 3rd!!

Let's talk about Lando instead, how comes the Red Bull suddenly so quick compared to the sprint? Did they set it up for qualifying but maybe not the race? Will the tyres last?

[mwillems]

F@ckinnng FIA, joke decision against PIA...... this is ridiculous.

Would help if the team could succeed with the basics to start with.

I think it was not a serious protest, but one made on principle to get their foot in the door to at least discuss it with the stewards.

Why do I think this? Because the document says that you cannot even protest track limit violations, so the protest was inadmissible from the beginning even if they correctly addressed it and cited regulations etc.

That they didn't bother to follow proper procedure only makes sense if you consider that the appeal was not designed to succeed

There was already a long interview from Stella saying they were trying to have an open dialogue and to understand the process when they approached the FIA, I posted it yesterday. I think he said they were actually seeking clarification.

This is what they meant and i suppose the protest documentation reflected that and you'd imagine the reply was part of the formal process.

Whether any discussions were started as a result are another matter, but this seems to have been their intention, just to try and promote a common sense dialogue.

[venkyhere]

I read fully. I think it isn't clear from those images and since I don't think that you start making remarks about my sub 100 IQ.

Here's why it is not clear. This is the same ball and point in time from different angles.


This is clearly out.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... o&usqp=CAU

Except it was just on the line.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... 0&usqp=CAU

Nothing inadequate about either images. It only depends on what the definition of 'some portion of the ball on the line' means :
(i) the contact patch of the ball on the grass has to be touching the white line
OR
(ii) the plan-view projection 'image' (rather than actual ball) of the ball on the ground has to have some portion touching the white line.

If it's (i), the ball is not touching ; if it's (ii) the ball is touching.

And that's why I think it is a joke that this sport can't get it's act together. It may be out, but I doubt they can tell fully from those angles. If they are going to have zones to check for infractions, they should put suitable camera into position like they do in some football matches.

Since all 4 wheels have to be out, I'm also yet to see an image of the rear left. Those are the rules. All four tyres out. I'm more frustrated at the p*ss poor way they are making the decisions if this is all the imagery there is.

This I agree with. Should have had more infrastructure in place, if they were going to monitor track limits here. They were not expecting a track limit breach here, so didn't pay attention to the camera location. Nevertheless, from geometry measurements (white line to gravel distance v/s width of car) even this image is conclusive, in my opinion.

I didn't even want to mention that the white line they drew to illustrate the alignment was against the outer edge of the track and not the outer edge of the painted white line

I think Oscar was out of track limits tbh, but do you realize your white line is wrong on this mspaint masterpiece?
The wheel has to be on the blue line, hence the border of track limits is on the other side of the white line than what you have 'created'.

Even then, in my pathetic MS paint image, it will show that the track limit is breached, clearly. The size of the left rear tyre cannot be smaller than the size of the right rear tyre. There doesn't need to be a 'depth correction' in the image either, as the right rear tyre parallel on the road to the left rear tyre, offers very good reference of size of the hidden left rear tyre. This is not a confusing case of a sphere's 'projection' on the road, this is a case of the relative position of a cylinder standing on it's rolling side as it appears in the vertical projection. A pathetic MS paint job will suffice.

I will say this about it: Oscar should have driven Turn 6 cleaner, that's all. Let him do his job better. Some drivers have already had their time reset for going outside the white line at Turn 6.

No let's never say this. Let's blame the stewards, just because they make 99 dumb decisions, let's add 1 to it, even if we know in the back of our minds that they are correct this time. Let's overload on the 99.


I don't know how many of you realize that rather than hoping to get the breach reversed, McLaren's protest was more purposed towards gaining clarity on what is the basis for the stewards to decide on track limits - clinching evidence of an actual image showing the crossing by the tyres or an 'implied evidence' from an image that isn't actually showing the wheel-crossing directly, but making it clear indirectly. If you still think FIA/Stewards screwed Piastri when he didn't deserve to, and want to play the victim game in your heads, please continue. Let me not be the irritating thorn amongst roses. #copium.

[LionsHeart]

I read fully. I think it isn't clear from those images and since I don't think that you start making remarks about my sub 100 IQ.

Here's why it is not clear. This is the same ball and point in time from different angles.


This is clearly out.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... o&usqp=CAU

Except it was just on the line.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... 0&usqp=CAU

Nothing inadequate about either images. It only depends on what the definition of 'some portion of the ball on the line' means :
(i) the contact patch of the ball on the grass has to be touching the white line
OR
(ii) the plan-view projection 'image' (rather than actual ball) of the ball on the ground has to have some portion touching the white line.

If it's (i), the ball is not touching ; if it's (ii) the ball is touching.

And that's why I think it is a joke that this sport can't get it's act together. It may be out, but I doubt they can tell fully from those angles. If they are going to have zones to check for infractions, they should put suitable camera into position like they do in some football matches.

Since all 4 wheels have to be out, I'm also yet to see an image of the rear left. Those are the rules. All four tyres out. I'm more frustrated at the p*ss poor way they are making the decisions if this is all the imagery there is.

This I agree with. Should have had more infrastructure in place, if they were going to monitor track limits here. They were not expecting a track limit breach here, so didn't pay attention to the camera location. Nevertheless, from geometry measurements (white line to gravel distance v/s width of car) even this image is conclusive, in my opinion.

I didn't even want to mention that the white line they drew to illustrate the alignment was against the outer edge of the track and not the outer edge of the painted white line

I think Oscar was out of track limits tbh, but do you realize your white line is wrong on this mspaint masterpiece?
The wheel has to be on the blue line, hence the border of track limits is on the other side of the white line than what you have 'created'.

Even then, in my pathetic MS paint image, it will show that the track limit is breached, clearly. The size of the left rear tyre cannot be smaller than the size of the right rear tyre. There doesn't need to be a 'depth correction' in the image either, as the right rear tyre parallel on the road to the left rear tyre, offers very good reference of size of the hidden left rear tyre. This is not a confusing case of a sphere's 'projection' on the road, this is a case of the relative position of a cylinder standing on it's rolling side as it appears in the vertical projection. A pathetic MS paint job will suffice.

I will say this about it: Oscar should have driven Turn 6 cleaner, that's all. Let him do his job better. Some drivers have already had their time reset for going outside the white line at Turn 6.

No let's never say this. Let's blame the stewards, just because they make 99 dumb decisions, let's add 1 to it, even if we know in the back of our minds that they are correct this time. Let's overload on the 99.


I don't know how many of you realize that rather than hoping to get the breach reversed, McLaren's protest was more purposed towards gaining clarity on what is the basis for the stewards to decide on track limits - clinching evidence of an actual image showing the crossing by the tyres or an 'implied evidence' from an image that isn't actually showing the wheel-crossing directly, but making it clear indirectly. If you still think FIA/Stewards screwed Piastri when he didn't deserve to, and want to play the victim game in your heads, please continue. Let me not be the irritating thorn amongst roses. #copium.

I only saw what was on the broadcast, and for me personally it is clear that Oscar drove all four wheels outside the white line. One person has already scolded me for geometry a little over a month ago. But I knew geometry well at school. I have no evidence that Oscar really drove with his rear left tire. The team did the right thing by protesting to clarify the details of how exactly the stewards make their decisions. Overall, like yesterday, I stand by my opinion, Oscar drove outside the limits and was penalized correctly. You have to drive within the track. Lando did not violate the rules on his fast lap, like many others.

I do not understand why people are discussing this petty news so willingly, as if Oscar is not at fault. He is a driver, a racing driver. It is his job to drive a racing car and he gets paid for it.

Am I happy with the stewards' decision? Definitely not, because it doesn't clarify what they are making their decisions on. And that's critically important! And it's not Oscar's driving that's to blame, but the stewards and the FIA ​​are willing to take responsibility.

For the future, we just need to make the curbs even narrower. I wrote a post about the track changes, my post was deleted, as far as I know and a moderator comrade notified me about it. That's right, the message was not on the McLaren topic. But now this concerns McLaren personally, given the precedent. And as I wrote before the weekend, this will concern all the drivers and McLaren too.

Oscar is right in his own way when he said that they invested money and everything is great in turns 9-10, but why did the track organizers miss the exit from turn 6? There are changes there too, but as we can see, they are not enough. If I remember correctly, the width there is 1.8 meters.

I double-checked the data. At turns 9 and 10, the width from the white line to the gravel strip is 1.5 meters. At the exit of turn 6, it is 1.8 meters. I think the length is measured from the beginning of the edge of the white line, and what is the width of the white line? 10 cm? And in the photo, you can see that Oscar drives onto the gravel with his right wheels, and the front left wheel completely leaves the white line. Considering that at this point the chassis is moving parallel, we can assume that the rear left wheel also left the white line. This is my opinion and this is how it seems to me.

I've been fed up with this whole track limits thing for a long time. Last year was a nonsense when spectators had to wait for hours to find out the final results of the race. It was not for nothing that they said that Formula 1 was turning into a clown show.

What worries me is the speed of Red Bull compared to the rest. That's what I see as the problem for McLaren, not whether Oscar has broken the track limits or not.

[djos]

The decision sucks, but blind Freddy can see both right side tires are over the edge of the bitumen and above the gravel.

[mwillems]

Even though there are no shots of the rear left and the line. Or that you can't distinguish shadow from tyre, or the low resolution, or the angle, or the distance... and the total lack of any professional attempt to service track limits decisions with adequate tools.

It's clear enough how difficult VAR has it in football with all their technology, so it isn't hard to understand why this backwater and wild west process is broken and has been highlighted now for nearly 2 years by many teams.

I don't mind the grid drop. It's the FIA and stewarding consistency that makes me angry. Just do a better job.

[CjC]

EEEEEEE why can’t we have it like back in my day??

This video is how I remember the racing at the A1 ring.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... bme%2Ctrie

I was going to post it as a joke because of the racing line they take at the exit of turn 1 but if you look at the rest of the circuit kerbs, especially Oscar’s kerb it’s a miles better solution, which makes me think that the circuit is the main problem

[Darth-Piekus]

Personally my problem stands with the FIA and their antiMclaren standards when it comes to penalties. Last week both Stroll and Leclerc used their cars as weapons to do deliberate damage and the stewards deemed that a simple reprimand despite all this was done on live camera. In Monaco Sainz was gifted 3rd place on the restart despite driving into Piastri and despite him stopping. At Canada if I remember correct Sainz never got a penalty for a worst impeding situation than Piastri in Imola. Sainz also escaped lightly after destroying the race of Piastri in Miami. And let me not open pandora's box of Max sending others to the parking lot, sending others off the track in dive bombs, passing dangerously inside the pits, driving unnecessarily slow, trying to punch Ocon in Brazil etc etc. Or Red Bull breaching the budget gaining an unfair advantage that holds till today when Mclaren was screwed royally from their spy scandal. I want fairness which I dont see.

[organic]

Personally my problem stands with the FIA and their antiMclaren standards when it comes to penalties. Last week both Stroll and Leclerc used their cars as weapons to do deliberate damage and the stewards deemed that a simple reprimand despite all this was done on live camera. In Monaco Sainz was gifted 3rd place on the restart despite driving into Piastri and despite him stopping. At Canada if I remember correct Sainz never got a penalty for a worst impeding situation than Piastri in Imola. Sainz also escaped lightly after destroying the race of Piastri in Miami. And let me not open pandora's box of Max sending others to the parking lot, sending others off the track in dive bombs, passing dangerously inside the pits, driving unnecessarily slow, trying to punch Ocon in Brazil etc etc. I want fairness which I dont see.

There are different stewards involved in each case . It's easy to point finger vaguely at FIA but in this case that makes no sense; you think there's a grand conspiracy involving multiple circuits' stewards to hold McLaren back? Why would there be?