Fia and plank tests in 2023

[Henri]

are the plank tests random for you ?

[jjn9128]

Jo Bauer's nose and the smell of burning titanium decides which cars get tested.

[organic]

They don't claim it to be random.

Read

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-insights-h ... ormula-1-0

The FIA’s F1 technical team has a wealth of experience, as well as data from a plethora of sources and sensors that help inform decisions on what aspects of compliance might be checked.

That twitter account should not be used as a source for anything

[ValeVida46]

Jo Bauer's nose and the smell of burning titanium decides which cars get tested.

Don't forget the bobbling heads.

[ValeVida46]

They don't claim it to be random.

Read

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-insights-h ... ormula-1-0

The FIA’s F1 technical team has a wealth of experience, as well as data from a plethora of sources and sensors that help inform decisions on what aspects of compliance might be checked.

That twitter account should not be used as a source for anything

This does not mean WHO they check. It just says WHAT they'll check based on data. Read it again


From the FIA themselves.

So how does the FIA go about checking for compliance, and is it the same at every event? The answer is that a series of random checks are carried out every weekend on different areas of the cars. This process has been in place for many decades, and exists to ensure compliance with the regulations by virtue of the fact that the teams do not know before the race which specific areas of which cars might be examined beyond the standard checks carried out on every car each weekend. This is why the process of randomly selecting a number of cars for post-race scrutineering across various aspects of the regulations is so valuable

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-insights-h ... ormula-1-0

[ValeVida46]

Useful chart here.
No race scrutineering documents for Austria...

[Zynerji]

This should be an ez check on all finishers, like weight.

[AR3-GP]

are the plank tests random for you ?

[Farnborough]

They don't claim it to be random.

Read

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-insights-h ... ormula-1-0

The FIA’s F1 technical team has a wealth of experience, as well as data from a plethora of sources and sensors that help inform decisions on what aspects of compliance might be checked.

That twitter account should not be used as a source for anything

A reasonably gentle "shot across the bows" in my view, that's by the regulators.

After the championship is over now, there's little in the way of controversy to absorb by the listed no negotiated penalty of exclusion. Get it out in the open now and let the issue level out, after all that complaining by TW about driver health concerns, the teams are running perilously close to that obvious concern. They can't really object to monitoring can they.

I thought it notable in Monza (and mentioned on here before this topic arose) that GR car spent greater proportion of a whole lap thumping the floor in "bouncing" cadence, or sounding as if it was "tobogganing" on its plank at full load maximum velocity.

Given the original reason for this method of protecting minimal height is from the Senna accident, then it can only be taken seriously by all concerned.

[organic]

They don't claim it to be random.

Read

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-insights-h ... ormula-1-0

The FIA’s F1 technical team has a wealth of experience, as well as data from a plethora of sources and sensors that help inform decisions on what aspects of compliance might be checked.

That twitter account should not be used as a source for anything

This does not mean WHO they check. It just says WHAT they'll check based on data. Read it again

This is just an FIA statment not from the regulations

[ValeVida46]

They don't claim it to be random.

Read

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-insights-h ... ormula-1-0



That twitter account should not be used as a source for anything

This does not mean WHO they check. It just says WHAT they'll check based on data. Read it again

This is just an FIA statment not from the regulations

And the FIA is officially telling you they interpret those checks as random.

And you have the FIA's head technical delegate responsible for checking the cars telling you this too:

We consider every car presented for initial scrutineering to be legal, to be in conformity with the technical regulations. But to guarantee this, we will then during the weekend do random checks for legality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/spor ... rules.html


And the late Charlie Whiting:

But Whiting insisted that the teams should know the regulations and include the possibility of random checks in their strategic planning.
"There will always be a risk you're going to be stopped," he said.
"They [Ferrari] know that and should factor that in, which is what I'm always telling the teams.
"It would be something that they say: 'If we do this, this is how long it will take, we might get stopped and have to add a minute there'.
"It's completely random. Jo [Bauer, technical delegate] seldom tries to stop the first car coming in

[organic]

I'm not interested in continuing into a battle of semantics where the facts have already been established multiple times across two threads

[ValeVida46]

I'm not interested in continuing into a battle of semantics where the facts have already been established multiple times across two threads

No problem Organic. I just wanted to outline how the FIA's chief technical delegate interprets the rules.
And the one before him.
Of course we are all free to interpret the rules how we see fit.

But we aren't the Chief FIA technical delegate.

[organic]

I'm not interested in continuing into a battle of semantics where the facts have already been established multiple times across two threads

No problem Organic. I just wanted to outline how the FIA's chief technical delegate interprets the rules.
And the one before him.
Of course we are all free to interpret the rules how we see fit.

But we aren't the Chief FIA technical delegate.

What they do is definitely different to what they've publicly said they do. But I think part of that is to improve communication to the masses, not to us geeks

[ValeVida46]

What they do is definitely different to what they've publicly said they do.

This is a leap of faith. I mean is the insinuation that Jo Bauer is being dishonest?