That's another can of worms ! What's puzzling to me was to learn that post-race checks are done not "at random' like the FIA announced. In fact, they are done at the sole discretion of the Technical Delegate, Jo Bauer. He is the one who decides if checks need to be made, and which cars he wants to be inspected. Sometimes no verifications are made for several GPs ! So much for transparency and impartiality !! So, like in the case of Michael Masi, we find another FIA official using his power without control.
Whatever happened to the narrative that MB had the FIA in its back pocket . So much for all those conspiracy theories we have been listing to for the past 8 years .
Ah yes, one anecdote three years after they stopped winning completely overshadows a well-documented pattern of favoritism throughout the entire Mercedes Dynasty.
They still kiss the mb ass with two tds all ready. Academy award to sir Lu with the back pains. Didn’t bother him this weekend. Cheetah.
Do you see how these 2 sentences contradict each other. The plank is a consumable, and it is there to prevent running the cars too low. it wears a little each time the bottom (well) bottoms. This time 2 of the cars were found out-of-regulation.
you did get what I was saying though... I didn't word it right with the very first bit but we're saying the same thing. What I should've said was that William implies that the plank should be reinforced with a more durable material so it doesn't wear as much, which defeats the whole point of having the plank in the first place.
Durable material or done away completely. A car set too low without the protection of the plank will be bottoming out, certainly damaging the floor, possibly the chassis. The team itself would take preventive measure in future by raising the ride height to a sensible level to avoid damage. Budgetwise, the cost of changing/repairing the floor at each GP would be prohibitive.
The 10mm (start of race) plank is the majority of the material preventing the drivers butt from being ground away........
The cost of a replacement floor certainly isn't prohibitive if a win can be had. The floor itself isn't all that expensive once they have the mould. It's developing a new type of floor that's expensive. Again, the plank is there to ensure cars aren't run too low. That's why they check the plank.... The plank measurement has worked fine for give or take 500 races. That's roughly 10000 cars having passed the post race check. Dreaming up new rules because maybe 5 cars all in have been caught in all that time is a slight overreaction.
I wonder how the cars cope with some of the kerbs, or the "sausages" on some circuits. Surely the plank (and the floor) must ground in these cases.
So, it must be Red Bull's turn...for the second time. Or does this conspiracy theory (sorry, "well documented" ) that you guys have dreamed up only apply to M-B?
I am not sorry for Mercedes or Ferrari for being caught, whatever the reason. But following this incident, several things came to light. For example checks are not done as a matter of course. after every GP. Several races can happen without any check ! Cars are supposed to be chosen at random, but this doesn't happend. Once more, it's a FIA official who alone decides if checks are needed, which cars are to be examined, and what to look for ! Technical Delegate Jo Bauer decides everything, without referring to anyone. That doesn't bode well for impartiality in my book. It looks like too much power if given to one individual who cannot be questioned in the execution of his role (same as Masi). If as a matter of course, more checks had been done over the years, probably more cars would have been disqualified. If the chances of being caught are 5/10000, it must be worth not observing the rules and take a chance. I wonder how many cars broke the rules, undetected !!!
I hope you found you weren't lobotomized when you rolled your eyes back: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/new-f1-rule-changes-might-backfire-on-mercedes-and-ruin-hamilton-s-chances-at-his-8th-wdc-196475.html
I don't see how a new technical rule that applies to all the teams could favour or penalise one in particular. It's the impartial enforcement of that rule that should be watched.
I don't see how you cannot see that Mercedes lobbied for a new technical rule that only they wanted, and it was granted to them.
Perhaps, but that technical rule was for everybody, not just for Mercedes !!! What is the difference if a technical rule is proposed by a team, or the FIA ? What stops other teams to do the same ? Lobbying is not illegal, is it ? I think you are just splitting hair ...
Considering Mercedes spear headed the fight to have the rules changed. There is that hilarious fight between Horner and Wolf ("Change your F-ing car!") since no team was onboard with the change except Mercedes. The FIA not only implemented a minimum ride height monitoring system in the temporary, they also introduced TD39 mid season. That's pretty favorable to Mercedes. Ferrari was particularly good with the car as low as possible, so the new rules really hurt their performance. Red Bull didn't need any modifications so the new rules didn't affect their performance. But since it did to pretty much everyone else, it helped them by widening the gap they had.
The point is that the technical rule proposed by Mercedes was meant to benefit Mercedes, at the expense of other teams, and it was granted by what is supposed to be an unbiased governing body. You can call it splitting hairs. I call it unethical. As for what's stopping other teams, what's the point when nine out of ten of them already can't get their way as a collective???
We've been down this road before ... Let's say one team has spent the last ten years, behind the scenes, developing a gangbuster turbo 4-cylinder hybrid drivetrain. This team lobbies for the FIA to adopt this tested, proven engine of theirs as the new engine rule. The FIA agrees, and with little warning (compared to a 10-year development cycle) they spring the new "turbo-4 hybrid" rule on the world of F1. This (hypothetical) new engine rule applies to ALL teams!! So, this new rule can't possibly favor any ONE team ... right? (and NO, before you respond, this hypothetical doesn't ONLY pertain to 4-cylinder engines. It's intended as an example, to illustrate a concept. So it's not a valid response to say: nobody's lobbying for 4 cylinder motors, so the argument is irrelevant)
^^ it works the other way too, of course. No matter how hard they try, one team just can't get their cars to go faster than 200mph (let's say). So, the FIA adopts a new rule: F1 speed limit is now 200mph! The rule applies to ALL teams, so it can't possibly help or hurt any ONE team more so than others ... right? Once again ... just trying to illustrate a concept. As far as I know, nobody is lobbying for a 200mph speed limit in F1.
They choose any ''random'' car in the top 10 for a more thorough check. The FIA has the option to select more cars when suspicions arise, such as the triggering of sensors or strong smell of titanium indicating the car has bottomed more than others. Why would others need to be checked if the sensors aren't triggered or the titanium smell isn't nearly as apparent? Replace ''where theres smoke there's fire'' with ''where sensors are triggered and a smell of titanium is apparent, investigate further because likelyhood of rules having been broken is higher". It just doesn't roll of the tongue as nicely.
Jeez…you guys and your slavish trust of F1 “reporting”. You present your link as fact, but I’ve never read a piece with so many “ifs”, “might be”, “could be”, “it’s possible” in my life. The writer must be a lawyer. Try harder.
