Sauber EXCLUDED from Australian GP results

[Pandamasque]

After such things I have the nasty feeling that someone is manipulating the results for some secret reasons or interests.
Also I think that the fact that the wing element does not comply has been known before the race but the action postponed.
And I am not on drugs

I hope it's not like that, but for someone who has been following Formula1 for at lest few years this would actually seem like a believable conspiracy theory
As I said I don't recall a car passing scrutineering and then being declared illegal and getting excluded. Usually the post-race controversy is to do with other teams notifying FIA of some things that successfully passed tech but shouldn't be legal from their point of view. Then it usually goes to court and maybe teams get a clarification for the future without any changes to previous race results.

[i70q7m7ghw]

It's those bloody regulations again- far too complicated and obfuscated.

Why on earth is it necessary to have a rule limiting the shape of a rear wing element? Sure, limit the size, but going on about curvature radius? Just stupid.

If the FIA are going to so tightly mandate what the rear wing can look like, then why not just make it one design....

And I'm with Richied on the scrutineering- dead easy to sort it out on thursday, or even do it at the pre season tests.

It's basically to control how much downforce you can shed using DRS, in combination with the maximum movement of 50mm it's one of the rules that makes sure DRS is safe.

Contrary to popular belief the FIA don't write all the rules, alot of the rules regarding DRS were put together by FOTA.

[Formula None]

FIA. Can't figure out how to do a static load test, but boy are they good with putting a template on a wing. Brilliant minds, theirs. They'd go far in NASCAR. Oh, wait, NASCAR doesn't have buttons, there wouldn't be enough gimmicks for their tastes.

The RW flap's inside radius is under 100mm? Hmmm... Can't have that massive performance advantage go unpunished... Let's go ahead and take it out on the rookie and mourning countryman. Good on you, FIA. No tolerance for the midfield.

What dour lot they must be...

Anyway, some reference for THE WING. The wing so amazing it was deemed TOO QUICK TO RACE. The wing that got Sauber pole position and a 1-2 finish in Melbourne. The wing to end all wings. The ULTRA wing. The UBER wing. The META WING. Behold, in all its glory:











I can't even look at these pictures anymore, the downforce is squashing my eyeballs.

[Ciro Pabón]

I can't even look at these pictures anymore, the downforce is squashing my eyeballs.

Yeah, I heard that's what happened to the guys that designed the wing at Sauber: their balls... erm, I mean, their eyeballs are being squashed right now.

[multisync]

And so Force India snatches up 3 undeserved points. =D>

Undeserved in what way?

[timbo]

FIA. Can't figure out how to do a static load test, but boy are they good with putting a template on a wing. Brilliant minds, theirs. They'd go far in NASCAR. Oh, wait, NASCAR doesn't have buttons, there wouldn't be enough gimmicks for their tastes.

The RW flap's inside radius is under 100mm? Hmmm... Can't have that massive performance advantage go unpunished... Let's go ahead and take it out on the rookie and mourning countryman. Good on you, FIA. No tolerance for the midfield.

What dour lot they must be...

What a load of bullsh*t. Sorry.

[Formula None]

You don't think the FIA lacks consistency in their rulings?

[timbo]

You don't think the FIA lacks consistency in their rulings?

Not on technical matters.
It was a clear breach of the technical regulations.
Sauber has right to appeal.
What do you suppose? Leave them without notice? Be prepared to have all cars having slightly smaller radii than allowed everywhere. Or do a back-to-backs with their race-spec wings and correct one to prove it didn't gave them the advantage?

[Formula None]

I agree, a breach of regulations. But so are many other things. Flexing wings are a technical matter, would you agree? Too technical for the bureaucrats to understand, apparently.

Do you really think the flap gave them as big of an advantage a flexing wing does? Enough for this harsh of a ruling? Would a warning from the FIA on Thursday or Friday have been out of the question?

Another, more boring example would be floor flip ups and radii. Every team has them at the edges of the floor, yet the regs declare:

3.12.1 With the skid block referred to in Article 3.13 removed all sprung parts of the car situated from 330mm
behind the front wheel centre line to the rear wheel centre line, and which are visible from underneath,
must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes, the reference plane or the step plane. This
does not apply to any parts of rear view mirrors which are visible, provided each of these areas does not
exceed 12000mm² when projected to a horizontal plane above the car, or to any parts of the panels
referred to in Article 15.4.7.

[timbo]

I agree, a breach of regulations. But so are many other things. Flexing wings are a technical matter, would you agree? Too technical for the bureaucrats to understand, apparently.

Really it's a beaten to death subject here. You can only enforce something you can test.

Do you really think the flap gave them as big of an advantage a flexing wing does? Enough for this harsh of a ruling?

Irrelevant.
Besides, a team can appeal to ban on technical matters.

Would a warning from the FIA on Thursday or Friday have been out of the question?

Well, in ideal world stewards should make throughout scrutiny of ALL cars BEFORE and after the race. But I really doubt it's possible and teams would welcome it.
In reality there are selective checks before the race and only after the race both stewards and teams have time to check everything.

Another, more boring example would be floor flip ups and radii. Every team has them at the edges of the floor, yet the regs declare:

3.12.1 With the skid block referred to in Article 3.13 removed all sprung parts of the car situated from 330mm
behind the front wheel centre line to the rear wheel centre line, and which are visible from underneath,
must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes, the reference plane or the step plane. This
does not apply to any parts of rear view mirrors which are visible, provided each of these areas does not
exceed 12000mm² when projected to a horizontal plane above the car, or to any parts of the panels
referred to in Article 15.4.7.

3.12.4 allows to have radii.

[Formula None]

OK, I read 3.12.4 as spec'ing the radii between the step and the reference plane only. Sounds like you're comfortable with FIA's limitations on carrying out inspections, I have to remain in disagreement. If this is the case regarding their resources, and keeping in mind their selectivity they should at least revise how harsh their punishments are.

[timbo]

OK, I read 3.12.4 as spec'ing the radii between the step and the reference plane only. Sounds like you're comfortable with FIA's limitations on carrying out inspections, I have to remain in disagreement.

Well, it is what it is. It's teams' duty to comply to regulations, and I don't see it changing any time soon.

I do wish Sauber can prove they were not intentionally braking the rules and it didn't give them performance benefit.

If this is the case regarding their resources, and keeping in mind their selectivity they should at least revise how harsh their punishments are.

There's little selectivity on technical regulation breach. I don't see how it is possible to revise how harsh are punishments for technical regulation breach.
It is simply not possible to calculate how much advantage a certain infringement did or did not give.

Of course there should be (and there is) a constant work on making regulations more clear cut.
And actually all minimum radii rules are IMO a good example of how regulations should be — simple and easy to check.

[kalinka]

Regarding FIA resources, they should check every car before the first race of the season at least. If you try to look it like an outsider ( which is hard I know ), it's one thing that sticks out IMO : It looks like the teams and FIA had no normal human communication at all, which is strikingly stupid way to organise any championship. They not just had to talk to each other, but they have to have some obligatory talking/advice sessions between teams/FIA, which they apparently don't. It's another DDD allowed/not allowed situation. I remember back then it was unbelievable for me...it was like FIA didn't even bother to hire someone to attend the winter testing where they could ban DDD months before first race..stupidity. Like the whole internet doesn't exists at all.
It's like FIA is sitting in an office, and suddenly they become very surprised when they see the cars appearing on track at first race :
"Ohhh...look at McLaren...those sidepods I never seen...Ohh..what a beatiful livery..I heard that someone even saw it on internet before...unbelievable"

[Formula None]

So I was just reminded that inspections like this are sometimes requested by other teams. Makes sense considering this was checked only after the race. Hopefully not the case, that's a pretty cold move. Thanks for crushing a very happy Perez and Kobayashi, FIA. No one fills out forms as adeptly as you brave men do. Keep up the good work.

[n_anirudh]

Image of the Sauber being wheeled in..two min before post race scruteneerings