Sauber EXCLUDED from Australian GP results

[Pandamasque]

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

Doing a proper job in scrutineering is not babysitting. If they kept missing that irregularity up until Sunday afternoon, they could miss something else. Who knows maybe both Red Bulls are illegal?

[Caito]

That's a risk one can take panda. It's impossible to measure every change done on a car.
It's like putting a cop in every light.

They could be missing something else, that's why they constantly and radomly check for differet stuff.

Here's the report:
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1 ... report.pdf

[RacingManiac]

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

IMO stuff like that should be checked at every pre-race tech for every car. Its a fairly simple check. They have gages made for it. I'd bet they check min-radii for end plates on the front wing at every tech since it can cut tire...Its not as if they are checking tub section thickness or load requirement of certain parts or specific gravity of an engine component. This is just taking a template and butt-up against a regulated surface. Heck, they ultrasound the roll-hoop tubing in Formula Student Germany....for a student competition....

I remember watching ALMS scruitneering at any ALMS race and tech every car for stuff like floor flatness and rear wing height and width and whatnot. They just have to do it before the first time the cars were on the track. Which in F1's case, they have a whole Thursday to tech 24 cars. Thats not exactly short on time....

If Formula SAE can get a bunch of volunteer engineers to tech 100+ student build cars that can have much more variance in parts tolerance and quality, FIA can tech 24 F1 cars build by people who got paid to build these things....Besides FSAE tech were ran by the same people that used to tech F1 cars...the Royces....

[timbo]

Which in F1's case, they have a whole Thursday to tech 24 cars. Thats not exactly short on time....

No they don't.
Haven't you seen any pics from GP on Thursday?
What do teams do?
Assemble.
And they well could have like 5 different wings etc. So what you'd do?

[FW17]

IMO stuff like that should be checked at every pre-race tech for every car. Its a fairly simple check. They have gages made for it. I'd bet they check min-radii for end plates on the front wing at every tech since it can cut tire...Its not as if they are checking tub section thickness or load requirement of certain parts or specific gravity of an engine component. This is just taking a template and butt-up against a regulated surface. Heck, they ultrasound the roll-hoop tubing in Formula Student Germany....for a student competition....

The teams can do that before the start designing components for the car

I remember watching ALMS scruitneering at any ALMS race and tech every car for stuff like floor flatness and rear wing height and width and whatnot. They just have to do it before the first time the cars were on the track. Which in F1's case, they have a whole Thursday to tech 24 cars. Thats not exactly short on time....

Will not work as team constantly change the car through the weekend, end of session checking is the best way. Responsibly of technical infringements intensional or unintesional should be the teams

EG: 2005 a double fuel tank was found in a Honda racing car in post race scruitneering, had this been done pre-race what should have been the punishment?

[RacingManiac]

For flyaway races like US/Canada/Asia, they sometimes got to the track by Tuesday. I was at Indy on a Wednesday back in 2004 and they were already unpacked and garages were set and teams were doing setup on cars. Most photog run around drivers and team principles. The mechanics and engineers are doing the work. If FIA only opens a small tech window for them to do the tech, then its really FIA's fault for not making use of the time more effectively. Traveling to races from week to week is not something only F1 does. Like I said you can see them tech every car at ALMS races on a race weekend Thursday, they can't do it for F1?

Will be interesting to hear the NASCAR experienced engineers chime in...they have a lot of templates for those cars, they race pretty much every week, and they have 40+ cars to do tech for....

[RacingManiac]

The teams can do that before the start designing components for the car

Will not work as team constantly change the car through the weekend, end of session checking is the best way. Responsibly of technical infringements intensional or unintesional should be the teams

There are errors that can happen, and you can bet Sauber has that exact gage made in their factory to check for that. But at the end of the day the FIA's check is absolute. And since they do actually do pre-race scruitneering, you'd think they can check that.

This is not the case of they don't do anything before the weekend starts, they have pre-race tech, a parc ferme, and a post-race tech. If you are only catching infringement in the last tech, why bother with the other?

[Richard]

The scrutineers can only check a sample of the cars for a sample of the rules. Read the report linked earlier for an illustration of this.

We do hear of pre-event scrutineering but I believe it is only advisory in response to a team asking "is this legal?". Adam Cooper reported that McLaren offered their diffuser for a check on Friday. We also saw the DDD teams offer their diffusers for a pre event checks on the Friday before Melbourne in 2009.

[Formula None]

Can the FIA retroactively strip away points if a part is found illegal after a few races of using said part? Or can they only DQ within a certain amount of time from an inspection?

For example, 1+ years of flexing wings. FIA finally gets around to proper test, realize RB broke the de facto "bodywork shouldn't bend" rules. What happens? Just curious, would not wish this on RB.

[timbo]

Can the FIA retroactively strip away points if a part is found illegal after a few races of using said part? Or can they only DQ within a certain amount of time from an inspection?

For example, 1+ years of flexing wings. FIA finally gets around to proper test, realize RB broke the de facto "bodywork shouldn't bend" rules. What happens? Just curious, would not wish this on RB.

In RB case, no. A test is a test and the wing passed — there's no breach of existing regulations.
But if they found something like Tyrrell's lead shot or Honda's extra fuel tank or Toyota's engine mods in WRC, there can be exclusion from the championship with all points stripped. I.e. something hidden that purposefully breaches the existing regulations.

[Formula None]

Gotcha, so basically, whatever points were associated with a car running said illegal parts. Regardless of the time frame.

A test is a test and the wing passed — there's no breach of existing regulations.

Yes they passed that one test but what I'm saying is what if they devised a test that could allow them to inspect the following (what bot6 pointed out in the wing flex thread):

3.15
Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork ;
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom) ;
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.


3.17.8
In order to ensure that the requirements of Article 3.15 are respected, the FIA reserves the right to introduce further load/deflection tests on any part of the bodywork which appears to be (or is suspected of), moving whilst the car is in motion.

So they come up with a test rig, do the test, see the flex, then can they prove the same wing was used prior to that inspection? (might be a moot point, those rules are kind of vague really and everything flexes a little, even the more rigid wings on the rest of the cars).

Anyway, for example what if they FIA didn't have their test ball with them at Australia to inspect Sauber's flap radius, but instead checked it one or two races later. Would they DQ just that race result or all races prior where they were using the flap in question?

[timbo]

So they come up with a test rig, do the test, see the flex, then can they prove the same wing was used prior to that inspection? (might be a moot point, those rules are kind of vague really and everything flexes a little, even the more rigid wings on the rest of the cars).

The highlighted part is the crux of the matter. The test that is currently implemented is based on that — you put the weight and see whether the wing flex is within the boundaries allowed.
New test rig would be like a new rule paragraph that teams must stick too.
So no, even if old wing won't pass a test on the new rig nobody would take any points.
It would be like banning turbo cars from 1988 because turbo was ruled out in 1989.

Anyway, for example what if they FIA didn't have their test ball with them at Australia to inspect Sauber's flap radius, but instead checked it one or two races later. Would they DQ just that race result or all races prior where they were using the flap in question?

I doubt it is possible.
As much as it's teams' responsibility to comply to the rules, it's FIA's job to ensure that the rules are enforced.
Sometimes there are delays though if something is hidden, like with BAR Honda 2006.

[Onch]

3.15
Aerodynamic influence :
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.

Lol.
Taking this sentence literally, any aerodynamic and suspension device is prohibited, since the first pushes the car down and the second allows and controls this movement... =D> (not having a go at you Formula None btw)

As for the Sauber case, if the team cannot stick to a simple min radius rule they only have themselves to blame really. Whether the FIA could or should have found this before is another matter imho...

[horse]

3.15
Aerodynamic influence :
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.

Lol.
Taking this sentence literally, any aerodynamic and suspension device is prohibited

This rule is designed to prevent the use of skirts.

In most cases, a bridge or total contact with the ground is undesirable as the aerodynamic surfaces will stall (consider the Senna accident, for instance).

[Onch]

Makes sense.
As FN was talking about flexi wings, I was reading the term 'bridge the gap' as 'bring closer to'... My mistake.