Ah thanks, well I assume it could be a similar issue as Haas, not having had time to fix the floor or maybe something connected to their rear wing "fix" after the DRS locked open and noone reported it since they weren't competitive at all. Just speculation though.ESPImperium wrote: ↑03 Sep 2018, 13:40Jennie Gow said something on Twitter. But apart from that, nothing. I’m sure there are are Chinese Whispers in the paddock that we don’t know of.
I believe, not completely sure, that Red Bull in 2014 was also punished on the base of a TD. So there is precedence. Infact, during the appeal Red Bull put the legality of the technical directives into question. They got declared legal.bill shoe wrote: ↑03 Sep 2018, 18:21Autosport has a good clear description of the technical issue itself. The front corners of the tea-tray are required to have a 50mm radius when seen from below. Issue in contention is whether this radius can be covered/eliminated by the mounting strut of nearby (and otherwise legal) bodywork such as foot plates, vortex generators, etc.?
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13849 ... ed-illegal
Apparently Haas only went into the gray or illegal area when they introduced a new floor at the Canadian GP, so for Italy they obviously could have reverted to the pre-Canada floor to ensure their legality. I don't really blame Haas for taking a bit of a calculated risk in Italy, but if it didn't work out there's nobody to blame but themselves.
This may have been the first time that a Technical Directive was actually used to support a protest, and it was good to see the TD upheld. Yes the overall rules process and lack of TD transparency still stinks.
I never thought of the DRS on the Sauber. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder if the fix was illegal to the regulations.Sniffit wrote: ↑04 Sep 2018, 13:51Ah thanks, well I assume it could be a similar issue as Haas, not having had time to fix the floor or maybe something connected to their rear wing "fix" after the DRS locked open and noone reported it since they weren't competitive at all. Just speculation though.ESPImperium wrote: ↑03 Sep 2018, 13:40Jennie Gow said something on Twitter. But apart from that, nothing. I’m sure there are are Chinese Whispers in the paddock that we don’t know of.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Have a 50mm radius (+/-2mm) on each front corner when viewed from directly beneath the car, this being applied after the surface has been defined.
Worded this way to stop teams putting a different shaped piece beneath the plane in question just back from the leading edge so it still would count as “the front” - the whole radius must be visible from beneath the car looking up (as though the car is on a crane above your head) with no obstructions.
Why make it personal in this way? If we're all competitors, and 9 of us have to stick to the ruling, but somehow the other guy who's competing for the same prize is able to get away with a cheat (which produces a minor performance gain), we are entitled to say something.
It's not even a cheat, it's just acknowledging that all entrants are spending millions trying to conform to a complex, opaquely written rulebook, and no one should be exempt from that standard. It's less about performance advantage in this case, more about maintaining consistent attention to detail across the grid.gibells wrote: ↑05 Sep 2018, 09:09Why make it personal in this way? If we're all competitors, and 9 of us have to stick to the ruling, but somehow the other guy who's competing for the same prize is able to get away with a cheat (which produces a minor performance gain), we are entitled to say something.
If a boxer is one gram over the stated maximum weight, they do not fight. Its not a gray area, it is a black line.roon wrote: ↑05 Sep 2018, 21:29It's not even a cheat, it's just acknowledging that all entrants are spending millions trying to conform to a complex, opaquely written rulebook, and no one should be exempt from that standard. It's less about performance advantage in this case, more about maintaining consistent attention to detail across the grid.gibells wrote: ↑05 Sep 2018, 09:09Why make it personal in this way? If we're all competitors, and 9 of us have to stick to the ruling, but somehow the other guy who's competing for the same prize is able to get away with a cheat (which produces a minor performance gain), we are entitled to say something.
Exactly right, they were told their tea-tray was illegal and chose to run it anyway - they could have taken an angle grinder to it and been legal with 10 minutes effort (and likely a minimal performance impact), yet they elected to run an illegal car and risk a protest.
