2023 United States Grand Prix - COTA, Oct 20 - 22

[TFSA]

Or have a document disappear.

It's literally a shooting gallery. Shoot in a certain direction enough times, you hit.
Jo Bauer saying he chooses randomly....the FIA is in a total mess.

You look only for a mess, you will see a mess

Or one could just stick their head in the sand and be blissfully unaware.

You keeping insisting on taking the word "random" at face value doesn't make the rest of us blissfully unaware.

I hate repeating myself, but I'll repeat again: The fact that they selected the entire podium + polesitter specifically for this inspection wasn't random.

This is the crux of the matter that seems to be lost among some.

It's critical you have a scrutineering system that is fairly apportioned and equally executed. There's can't be gaping holes where some competitors haven't even had their plank checked this entire season.

Doesn't work that way. "Cheating" checks, even if they're completely random, can't have an openly documented process, because it opens the system up to be gamed. The airport doesn't have any open documented processes for how they screen passengers either, or by which criteria you are selected for a "random" test there.

The 9/11 hi-jackers took multiple airplane trips before the actual attacks, for the exact purpose of figuring out how to best smuggle knives unto the airplanes (this was even before the massive security we see today). If you know how a system works, you can game it.

Even if the system was completely random, knowing that a system is completely random can open it up to attacks, because teams can then calculate the chance of them getting caught based on how often a scrutineering check is done. If you know that they check ~50 planks on average per season, and that the checks are completely random, then you know what your chance of getting caught each race are.

[dans79]

Even if the system was completely random, knowing that a system is completely random can open it up to attacks, because teams can then calculate the chance of them getting caught based on how often a scrutineering check is done. If you know that they check ~50 planks on average per season, and that the checks are completely random, then you know what your chance of getting caught each race is.

You cold easily have something like the following for all checks that aren't mandatory for all cars.

• For each race a number N will be randomly chosen using a random number generator. N will be between 0 and some statistically relevant ratio of the cars that finished the race.
• N cars will be selected at random to be checked for compliance with regulations X,Y, Z etc.

Then just like the sporting regulations already have you add the caveat.

14.3

The Technical Delegate nominated by the FIA is responsible for scrutineering. In this respect he
may carry out, or have carried out by scrutineers, at his discretion, any checks to verify the
compliance of the cars entered in the Competition, at any time until the end of the Competition,
without prior request from the stewards or clerk of the course. The Technical Delegate has full
authority over the national scrutineers.

[ValeVida46]

You keeping insisting on taking the word "random" at face value doesn't make the rest of us blissfully unaware.

I hate repeating myself, but I'll repeat again: The fact that they selected the entire podium + polesitter specifically for this inspection wasn't random.

Based on your sample size of....1.

Doesn't work that way. "Cheating" checks, even if they're completely random, can't have an openly documented process, because it opens the system up to be gamed.

That's patently false I'm afraid. There's literally a public document the teams need to abide by.

The airport doesn't have any open documented processes for how they screen passengers either, or by which criteria you are selected for a "random" test there.

The 9/11 hi-jackers took multiple airplane trips before the actual attacks, for the exact purpose of figuring out how to best smuggle knives unto the airplanes (this was even before the massive security we see today). If you know how a system works, you can game it.

You make my point for me.

You cannot pass through onto a plane without being checked. That's physically and through identification.
Marry that up with 2 teams who have had no checks on their planks the entire season so far, and you have your potential "terrorist". You can extend that to 6 more teams who have only been checked 10% of the time and then 2 who have had their cars checked 30%.
Today, a terrorist cannot game the system precisely because there is ID and physical checks etc.
So your comparison inadvertently proves the point that all people should be checked. Not simply those you have suspicions over.

[TFSA]

Even if the system was completely random, knowing that a system is completely random can open it up to attacks, because teams can then calculate the chance of them getting caught based on how often a scrutineering check is done. If you know that they check ~50 planks on average per season, and that the checks are completely random, then you know what your chance of getting caught each race is.

You cold easily have something like the following for all checks that aren't mandatory for all cars.

• For each race a number N will be randomly chosen using a random number generator. N will be between 0 and some statistically relevant ratio of the cars that finished the race.
• N cars will be selected at random to be checked for compliance with regulations X,Y, Z etc.

Then just like the sporting regulations already have you add the caveat.

...so in other words, more or less the system we (most likely) already have, where technical delegate can scrutineer specific cars he suspects, but otherwise just picks randomly?

Seems the only difference to me is that you're introducing a computer based randomizer system. But if the technical delegate can override it, so i don't see the practical difference.

[TFSA]

Based on your sample size of....1.

The chance of exactly those 4 "more important" cars getting selected randomly is like winning the lottery. Maybe i should play this week?

It seems to me you don't grasp the probability at play here.

That's patently false I'm afraid. There's literally a public document the teams need to abide by.

This is not about what the teams have to abide by, but in regards to how scruteneering is carried out.

That the teams can play around within the technical regulations is by design. That has always been the core of the competition - finding loopholes in the technical regulations in regards to car design and gaining an advantage. It's an arms race between the teams and the regulatory body.

You make my point for me.

You cannot pass through onto a plane without being checked. That's physically and through identification.

You cannot compete in F1 without getting checked either.

It's just that not all checks are mandatory - like plank inspection isn't carried out on everyone or every week.

Which is no different than the airport - everyone has to go through the metal detector and have their baggage scanned, but not everyone has to submit to a body scan, or an explosives residue scan.

The point is that not all checks are carried out at the airport either, and the process upon which the airport selects which passengers gets to go through the "extra" tests aren't known to us, because if people knew, they could try to game the system.

So how exactly am I making a point for you again?

Your argument that all people should be checked isn't gonna happen, because there's simply not enough time for it. The FIA just said that in their press release this very day: They cannot do all checks on all cars. Some checks will have to be carried out on a reduced set of cars, or sometimes not at all.

(also a sidenote, but I'm a frequent business flyer within Europe, and i rarely has to show ID, so that's also false. Depends on the airline and the destination. Some airlines require you to show your passport before you board the plane. I've frequently flown around in Europe without having to show my passport once, or show my ID in regards to booking my ticket.)

[AR3-GP]

Even if the system was completely random, knowing that a system is completely random can open it up to attacks, because teams can then calculate the chance of them getting caught based on how often a scrutineering check is done. If you know that they check ~50 planks on average per season, and that the checks are completely random, then you know what your chance of getting caught each race is.

You cold easily have something like the following for all checks that aren't mandatory for all cars.

• For each race a number N will be randomly chosen using a random number generator. N will be between 0 and some statistically relevant ratio of the cars that finished the race.
• N cars will be selected at random to be checked for compliance with regulations X,Y, Z etc.

Then just like the sporting regulations already have you add the caveat.

...so in other words, more or less the system we (most likely) already have, where technical delegate can scrutineer specific cars he suspects, but otherwise just picks randomly?

Seems the only difference to me is that you're introducing a computer based randomizer system. But if the technical delegate can override it, so i don't see the practical difference.

Exactly. So long as every car will not be inspected, both systems work by the fear of being selected. If you did use a random number generator, you would actually have a more contentious draw because a lot of people here don't know the true meaning of a random distribution, they just know that RB should be inspected more, and others less...With a random number generator, you could go an entire season without any RB ever being checked and it gets worse. You might have Mercedes pulled for several rounds. We can't have that!

It's takes years of selection results to actually show a random distribution. The ability for the FIA to bypass random numbers and pull suspicious cars for further investigation is vital to retain.

[Edax]

I think it is clear that the process is not random, but if it went down as I think it went , the FiA made the best of an unfortunate situation.

For me the significant sign is that leclerc was checked and not the lead ferrari. I’d say that is a strong indication that the FIA had a suspicion that he was running the plank too hard. If that was the case then it is a short leap to claiming that they suspected Hamilton as well.

If the FIA has a suspicion that someone is not in compliance then they can, and even have the obligation, to follow up. You don’t want to wait until their number is drawn from a hat. Imagine the outcry if we learn that the FIA knew a team was breaking the rules but didn’t check because it did not fit their “procedures”

But it is also not hard to imagine the type of discussion we would be having if only Leclerc and Hamilton were checked. By checking Verstappen and Norris they secured the legitimacy of their podium positions. Without that this tread would undoubtedly be filled with pictures of sparking undersides of red bulls and Mclarens, similar to the flexi wing discussions.

I don’t see what the FIA could have done better.

And of course I mention the drivers out of laziness, but in the end this is a team mistake and not the driver.

[dans79]

Seems the only difference to me is that you're introducing a computer based randomizer system. But if the technical delegate can override it, so i don't see the practical difference.

He could only include additional cars, not exclude.

Thus, the algorithm ensures a minimum level of randomness (no bias) in the procedure. For example Joe for sure has a bias when it comes to who's planks get checked. Of the 19 checks that we know of this year 14 have been for cars that finished in the points (none point finishes still play a part in the rankings).

The human covers the scenarios the algorithm can't, Like car X sparking like an angle grinder in every corner.

[Cs98]

Strange time to criticise the FIA for ineptitude when they just used their post-race inspection process to bust two illegal cars at the same race. The time to criticise them for "bias" would've been before, when they had checked certain cars more than others but never found anything.

Yet they didn't check at almost half the races, nor did they check at tracks where bottoming is verry common.....

The FIA has access to all the data on the car. They are in a much better position to decide when a car is bottoming out than us, and thus when an inspection is required. It's incredible how this becomes an issue after two teams are caught. It's almost like this whole discussion is a spin narrative to take attention away from the fact Merc and Ferrari are responsible for this mess, not the FIA.

[dans79]

The FIA has access to all the data on the car. They are in a much better position to decide when a car is bottoming out than us, and thus when an inspection is required. It's incredible how this becomes an issue after two teams are caught. It's almost like this whole discussion is a spin narrative to take attention away from the fact Merc and Ferrari are responsible for this mess, not the FIA.

Then why didn't they immediately check George, and Carlos car? If their teammates fall foul of the rule, chances are very high they would as well. And to be clear It is 100% in Joe's purview to do what I just suggested.

[Cs98]

The FIA has access to all the data on the car. They are in a much better position to decide when a car is bottoming out than us, and thus when an inspection is required. It's incredible how this becomes an issue after two teams are caught. It's almost like this whole discussion is a spin narrative to take attention away from the fact Merc and Ferrari are responsible for this mess, not the FIA.

Then why didn't they immediately check George, and Carlos car? If their teammates fall foul of the rule, chances are very high they would as well. And to be clear It is 100% in Joe's purview to do what I just suggested.

It's not an inherent car problem, it's an individual set-up issue, and it's perfectly possible that the FIA flagged specific drivers in a team but not the teammate if they were running a slightly different set-up. AMuS reported as much in the case of George.

Joe can check what he likes, that's the origin of the term "random" in this context. Good thing is he seemed to know exactly what he was looking for in Austin, and removed the rot. I've known they did spot checks for a long time, this has increased my confidence they have metrics to help them know what to look for. All in all positive.

[TFSA]

The FIA has access to all the data on the car. They are in a much better position to decide when a car is bottoming out than us, and thus when an inspection is required. It's incredible how this becomes an issue after two teams are caught. It's almost like this whole discussion is a spin narrative to take attention away from the fact Merc and Ferrari are responsible for this mess, not the FIA.

Then why didn't they immediately check George, and Carlos car? If their teammates fall foul of the rule, chances are very high they would as well. And to be clear It is 100% in Joe's purview to do what I just suggested.

Because their data might have indicated otherwise....

[Edax]

Seems the only difference to me is that you're introducing a computer based randomizer system. But if the technical delegate can override it, so i don't see the practical difference.

He could only include additional cars, not exclude.

Thus, the algorithm ensures a minimum level of randomness (no bias) in the procedure. For example Joe for sure has a bias when it comes to who's planks get checked. Of the 19 checks that we know of this year 14 have been for cars that finished in the points (none point finishes still play a part in the rankings).

The human covers the scenarios the algorithm can't, Like car X sparking like an angle grinder in every corner.

Apart from the visuals plank wear has a very distinctive smell. It would not surprise me if you could smell the difference with the cars passing by.

[ValeVida46]

The chance of exactly those 4 "more important" cars getting selected randomly is like winning the lottery. Maybe i should play this week?

It seems to me you don't grasp the probability at play here.

You can roll the dice once and be unlucky. Or 18 times and get lucky with no checks.

This is not about what the teams have to abide by, but in regards to how scruteneering is carried out.

That the teams can play around within the technical regulations is by design. That has always been the core of the competition - finding loopholes in the technical regulations in regards to car design and gaining an advantage. It's an arms race between the teams and the regulatory body.

I wouldn't conflate what F1 has been about and how scrutineering is being carried out.
There is no discrepancy in HOW things are being checked. Just WHO is being checked.

Which is no different than the airport - everyone has to go through the metal detector and have their baggage scanned, but not everyone has to submit to a body scan, or an explosives residue scan.

The point is that not all checks are carried out at the airport either, and the process upon which the airport selects which passengers gets to go through the "extra" tests aren't known to us, because if people knew, they could try to game the system.

So how exactly am I making a point for you again?

Your argument that all people should be checked isn't gonna happen, because there's simply not enough time for it. The FIA just said that in their press release this very day: They cannot do all checks on all cars. Some checks will have to be carried out on a reduced set of cars, or sometimes not at all.

(also a sidenote, but I'm a frequent business flyer within Europe, and i rarely has to show ID, so that's also false. Depends on the airline and the destination. Some airlines require you to show your passport before you board the plane. I've frequently flown around in Europe without having to show my passport once, or show my ID in regards to booking my ticket.)

You rarely show ID?
I can say I've been checked everytime. Everytime.
That's around 5 international destinations in the last 18 months. I'll pocket my ID and try my luck next time, see how that goes, might pull off a Williams and get lucky.

The FIA can check every plank if there was a desire for consistency. They are willing to pay the winners of a Sprint race 1 million dollars, but can't check the legality of each cars plank after every race.
Step back...think about that for just a second I implore you.

[chrisc90]

A lot of travel inside the EU you dont need to show any documents for.

When I did my trip to Vienna, starting in Birmingham via dusseldorf. We were checked at Birmingham, passport stamped at Dusseldorf, then when we landed in vienna we just walked straight through and out the airport. No security/passport checks at all.