Sauber EXCLUDED from Australian GP results

[Formula None]

FIA should have just issued a fine. Its a team error, not the drivers' faults. Ferrari lost no points for team orders last year, but were issued a ~$100k fine, for example.

I'd like to hear what the last disqualified car component was in F1, if anyone knows.

[BreezyRacer]

Stuff like this should be checked in Parc Ferme, not after the race and then penalizing them by exclusion for a non performance misinterpretation is just stupid. The dirt will get played out and we'll find out what was behind such an obscure rule being used to the maximum possible detriment. There are so many ways to penalize without rewriting the race results. That's just bad for F1.

[Caito]

I read in f1fanatic that the rule was made to preent f-duct and related stuff.

Though I really like Kobayashi and both drivers had a really good performance, they are well penalized.

A rule is a rule, and (unlike ferrari's team order, which I really hate) it can be easily proved. It doesn't matter if it gives performace or not.


On purpose or not, it's illegal. It's jurisprudence, if you let them by, then another team will come crying and.. etc etc etc..

[timbo]

FIA should have just issued a fine. Its a team error, not the drivers' faults. Ferrari lost no points for team orders last year, but were issued a ~$100k fine, for example.

That was for sporting regulation breach, which are harder to police and check.
Besides you'd be playing with fire.

I'd like to hear what the last disqualified car component was in F1, if anyone knows.

Both Toyota were moved to the back of the grid in Australian GP 2009, because it was found that their wing had too much flexibility.
In 2004 Canadian GP Williams and Toyota were disqualified after GP for illegal brake ducts. And in 2006 San-Marino GP Honda was disqualified and banned for two GPs because of having fuel system arrangement that possibly allowed them to run underweight during the GP.
That's from top of my head.

[timbo]

Stuff like this should be checked in Parc Ferme, not after the race and then penalizing them by exclusion for a non performance misinterpretation is just stupid.

How you can prove it is a non performance misinterpretation? Do you have a CFD station or windtunnel?
And ideally yes, it should be checked in Parc Ferme and all cars should be checked. But good luck doing that in reality.

The dirt will get played out and we'll find out what was behind such an obscure rule being used to the maximum possible detriment. There are so many ways to penalize without rewriting the race results. That's just bad for F1.

It was always DQ for technical infringement.
E.g. Kubica was stripped from his points in his first GP because the car was underweight. Which was because being a rookie he forgot to try and get enough marble on his tyres after race ended.

[Formula None]

Thanks for the recent history timbo. I recall the Toyota wing flex issue now that you mention it. I wonder how many of those were checked at the request of another team, or caught by the standard battery of inspections.

[timbo]

Thanks for the recent history timbo. I recall the Toyota wing flex issue now that you mention it. I wonder how many of those were checked at the request of another team, or caught by the standard battery of inspections.

Well, AFAIK if team is seeking for clarification whether a part is legal or not, it does it before the race. So Charlie specifically looks for something in the pre-race scrutiny.
Sometimes team has to change something before the race because of that.
From my memory the only time when it was clearly a team blowing a whistle after the race was Brazilian GP 2007 when McLaren appealed against race results because of abnormal fuel temperatures recorded in Williams and BMW-Sauber pits during the race.
It was that stewards found that temperature was outside allowed limits but decided not to DQ (there were different readings for different weather data providers and the margin is calculated based on amb.temp.) but McLaren tried to appeal to that decision.

[kris]

From what has been heard and said they did break a regulation. The rule was there for all to see, they just decided to ignore it or work around it. (We would have to wait for their appeal to see their version of the story.)

As per the rules, jumping a red light even though there is no traffic in sight would still entitle you to a ticket.

[nipo]

Ain't wrong to stick to the rules to hand out penalties.
Ain't as well wrong to question the penalties being handed out in this fashion, and possibly more heavily to midfield teams (somewhat unproven?).

Anyway F-None and timbo both of you got a point. Now shake hands and smile.

I'm emotionally more inclined to Sauber appealing successfully - I like Kob in particular and Sauber as a whole has been too sad a team the past few seasons... Then again I perfectly understand that if the interpretation of the rule turns out to be unambiguous then it's just a mistake on their side and they need to pay for it.

[-o< [-o< [-o<

[BreezyRacer]

From what has been heard and said they did break a regulation. The rule was there for all to see, they just decided to ignore it or work around it. (We would have to wait for their appeal to see their version of the story.)

As per the rules, jumping a red light even though there is no traffic in sight would still entitle you to a ticket.

The thing I disagree with is when the rule was enforced/the check was made. These kinds of things should be checked prior to the race, not after wards. weight? Fuel? Those are issues that can be manipulated in the race and therefore need to be checked. This was nothing like either of those things. The potentially disturbing part of it is how they came to make the check, who's cars they checked, and whether any other team had "suggested" they check it.

With all this compliance checking was Hamilton's tea tray looked at? If so did it magically not wear the regulation plank those few millimeters it takes to disqualify him? NOTE: As far as I remember the regulation plank rule was only enforced once, shortly after it's passing and on Michael Schumacher after he spun backwards over high curbing in the race.

I believe we're looking at a case of selective enforcement here but hopefully the light of day will show us how this event unfolded.

Then there is the issue of the penalty .. that of instant disqualification rather than some other penalty like a 10 spot grid penalty or something else. Changing the results after the race was run is not good for the fans or the sanctioning body and should be avoided if at all possible IMO.

[myurr]

Hamilton's bib was not checked because it was damaged during the race. It was not illegal by design as Saubers wing was.

Heidfelds bodywork was also not checked for minimum radius conformity, for example, due to the damage it sustained.

In Schumachers case they considered his spin as being the reason for the wear and discounted it due to the nature of the wear patterns on the plank. I.e. they considered race damage as a reason but felt that this was not the cause of the excessive wear.

Edit: In this instance I do agree that the punishment was far too steep. Sauber should have been fined and given a warning that their car must comply at the next race.

[FW17]

Edit: In this instance I do agree that the punishment was far too steep. Sauber should have been fined and given a warning that their car must comply at the next race.

If a car is not to the technical requirements how can a warning be given, the car raced cannot be counted.

FIA does random checks on cars during the course of the weekend, they do not perform selected tests on the cars. It is responsibility of team to ensure technical compliance and not FIA's role to advice them.

Toyota cars were inspected after qualifying and since they failed on the rear wing deflection test their results from qualifying were discounted. They were allowed to start the race (as cars did not have to qualify to start the race as per regulations of the season) after modifications to the wing at the end of the grid.

[myurr]

It depends if it was a disagreement about the interpretation of the rules or a pure breach. The rules aren't exactly opaque.

In this instance it appears that they were caught out on a technicality rather than deliberately cheating so I would be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if it was felt that there was no performance to be gained.

[timbo]

In this instance it appears that they were caught out on a technicality rather than deliberately cheating so I would be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if it was felt that there was no performance to be gained.

And that's why there is a right to appeal technical DQ.
If they prove that this was not intentional and didn't give them benefit, they'd be fine.

[Richard]

I'm surprised that some people expect the FIA to babysit the teams. It is Sauber's responsibility to stay within the rules.

However, I do agree that the penalty seems harsh, but lets find precedents.

I recall Virgin were demoted last year due to late paperwork on their gear ratios. However the ratios themselves were within the rules.

Sauber infringed the ballast rules in quali in Singapore 09 and Heidfeld started from the pit lane. That precedent shows the quali time was disqualified because the car was illegal. So that shows a car that infringe the tech rules is disqualified from the session, be that race or quali.