2021 São Paulo Grand Prix - Interlagos, Nov 12-14

[f1jcw]

So you can race with an illegal car, but if someone violates parc ferme rules i.e. touches your car, then it nullifies everything? I don't think so.

How can the test be declared fair and accurate if it has being touched by a direct competitor, it throws it into doubt.

[f1jcw]

Car 44 has quite clearly failed the 85mm test on the rear wing, so regardless of the outcome of the other investigation, it's highly likely Hamilton will start from the pit lane for sprint qualifying.

In terms of the investigation in to Verstappen, by the letter of the rules, he did break them. There's no modern precedent for this, I think the punishment is likely to be a reprimand with additional clarification on what drivers are allowed to do in parc ferme.

and if he tampered with a part then failed testing? His direct competitior for the WDC?

That is pretty serious.

[Tizz]

what is interesting is that after climbing out of the bull, max took off his gloves and looked at his own rear wing. then he walked over to the merc and "touched" the wing of that, in the same positions. so, how did max know to compare the two wings? did he observe it during quali? or was he told from the pits that there was something possibly wrong?

According to some websites, RB informed Merc before qualy to give a chance to change it.

[Dee]

So you can race with an illegal car, but if someone violates parc ferme rules i.e. touches your car, then it nullifies everything? I don't think so.

How can the test be declared fair and accurate if it has being touched by a direct competitor, it throws it into doubt.

Because the F1 world (engineers) knows that what Max did had no affect on the DRS.

If a man pushed against a house and the house susequently fell down an hour later, is that man going to be blamed?

No, because anyone in their right mind knows that he wasn't the cause.

[JesperA]

I’m afraid law does not work like this.

All that’s needed is an element of doubt.

If Max touched the exact part that failed the test (and before the test) then it’s thrown out on a technicality.

However, Max breaking the rules is night and day so a penalty.

I believe in a court of law an expert would be called to determine the failure mode and if such an incidental brush could cause said failure. As an expert I'm going to say it cannot/would not. It's for the court to decide whether how to weight my testimony

Wrong. We are not calling a expert if a certain thing can do something.

We are looking at evidence tampering. Evidence that has being tampered with is thrown out of the court case.

Your comment makes no sense, how do you think a court comes to the conclusion that something has been tampered with? By having an expert examining & testing the item that is suspected having been tampered with to come to a !t! that it has or has not been tampered with. Or who else in a court do you think make the judgement that an item have been tampered with? The janitor? Or is there a hologram above every item in the world that says "Tempered with / Not tampered with"

Same thing would apply in this case

[Dee]

Car 44 has quite clearly failed the 85mm test on the rear wing, so regardless of the outcome of the other investigation, it's highly likely Hamilton will start from the pit lane for sprint qualifying.

In terms of the investigation in to Verstappen, by the letter of the rules, he did break them. There's no modern precedent for this, I think the punishment is likely to be a reprimand with additional clarification on what drivers are allowed to do in parc ferme.

and if he tampered with a part then failed testing? His direct competitior for the WDC?

That is pretty serious.

You would have to believe that Max intentionally damaged Hamilton's car to get him DSQ and anyone that believes that need to be committed.

[DChemTech]

Car 44 has quite clearly failed the 85mm test on the rear wing, so regardless of the outcome of the other investigation, it's highly likely Hamilton will start from the pit lane for sprint qualifying.

In terms of the investigation in to Verstappen, by the letter of the rules, he did break them. There's no modern precedent for this, I think the punishment is likely to be a reprimand with additional clarification on what drivers are allowed to do in parc ferme.

and if he tampered with a part then failed testing? His direct competitior for the WDC?

That is pretty serious.

If that kind of touching (if he even touched it at all, which is not even clear from the movies) would change the configuration of the wing in any way, the whole damn thing should fall apart the first time that car hits a curb.
Yes, the FIA should investigate whether he tampered with it - but I find it a rather wild accusation.

[Dee]

I believe in a court of law an expert would be called to determine the failure mode and if such an incidental brush could cause said failure. As an expert I'm going to say it cannot/would not. It's for the court to decide whether how to weight my testimony

Wrong. We are not calling a expert if a certain thing can do something.

We are looking at evidence tampering. Evidence that has being tampered with is thrown out of the court case.

Your comment makes no sense, how do you think a court comes to the conclusion that something has been tampered with? By having an expert examining & testing the item that is suspected having been tampered with to come to a !t! that it has or has not been tampered with. Or who else in a court do you think make the judgement that an item have been tampered with? The janitor? Or is there a hologram above every item in the world that says "Tempered with / Not tampered with"

Same thing would apply in this case

Exactly

[Mezger]

If he's pushing his fingers between the slot gap to check the profile, it's more than concievable to flex the flap by a few millimeters, easily.
And it would put the DRS mechanism in compression rather than tension that it normally operates in, it's therefore more than possible that doing that takes up any clearances or slop that's in the mechanism to prevent binding, the difference between a pass and a fail will be taken to the last mm by every team, after all.
I would imagine Merc can definately argue it on that point if they can show the FIA enough tolerance in the mechanism.

Any slop, tolerance, back lash would have to take into account the gap required. We can't just say oh it's 85mm when in position x and 86mm in position y. But it never goes to position y.

Hope you follow me. Any slop would have to stop at the required FIA dimension.

I suspect that system to have a hard stop at 85mm. Even with maximum loading it can not exceed the required dimensions.

Logic should proceed here but it is the FIA eh.

[west52keep64]

Car 44 has quite clearly failed the 85mm test on the rear wing, so regardless of the outcome of the other investigation, it's highly likely Hamilton will start from the pit lane for sprint qualifying.

In terms of the investigation in to Verstappen, by the letter of the rules, he did break them. There's no modern precedent for this, I think the punishment is likely to be a reprimand with additional clarification on what drivers are allowed to do in parc ferme.

and if he tampered with a part then failed testing? His direct competitior for the WDC?

That is pretty serious.

Very difficult to prove, and not something that will be decided at this GP weekend. That kind of accusation goes beyond the stewards of the Sao Paulo GP, it would probably go to the FIA International Tribunal

[214270]

If he's pushing his fingers between the slot gap to check the profile, it's more than concievable to flex the flap by a few millimeters, easily.
And it would put the DRS mechanism in compression rather than tension that it normally operates in, it's therefore more than possible that doing that takes up any clearances or slop that's in the mechanism to prevent binding, the difference between a pass and a fail will be taken to the last mm by every team, after all.
I would imagine Merc can definately argue it on that point if they can show the FIA enough tolerance in the mechanism.

Any slop, tolerance, back lash would have to take into account the gap required. We can't just say oh it's 85mm when in position x and 86mm in position y. But it never goes to position y.

Hope you follow me. Any slop would have to stop at the required FIA dimension.

I suspect that system to have a hard stop at 85mm. Even with maximum loading it can not exceed the required dimensions.

Logic should proceed here but it is the FIA eh.

DRS is closed. Whatever he’s checking has nothing to do with what people keep writing on here because it has already deemed to be in spec.

[falonso81]

If he's pushing his fingers between the slot gap to check the profile, it's more than concievable to flex the flap by a few millimeters, easily.
And it would put the DRS mechanism in compression rather than tension that it normally operates in, it's therefore more than possible that doing that takes up any clearances or slop that's in the mechanism to prevent binding, the difference between a pass and a fail will be taken to the last mm by every team, after all.
I would imagine Merc can definately argue it on that point if they can show the FIA enough tolerance in the mechanism.

Dude, he has a closed fist and he only touches the rear flap for a split second then walks away. If anything, you can not even prove his hand touched the flap at all. Knowing FIA though. they will send Max to the back and let Hamilton walk away. If this breach happened to anyone else than Merc, it would have been an instant DSQ.

[f1jcw]

I believe in a court of law an expert would be called to determine the failure mode and if such an incidental brush could cause said failure. As an expert I'm going to say it cannot/would not. It's for the court to decide whether how to weight my testimony

Wrong. We are not calling a expert if a certain thing can do something.

We are looking at evidence tampering. Evidence that has being tampered with is thrown out of the court case.

Your comment makes no sense, how do you think a court comes to the conclusion that something has been tampered with? By having an expert examining & testing the item that is suspected having been tampered with to come to a !t! that it has or has not been tampered with. Or who else in a court do you think make the judgement that an item have been tampered with? The janitor? Or is there a hologram above every item in the world that says "Tempered with / Not tampered with"

Same thing would apply in this case

It is not hard to understand.


If there is a court case and it is found that the weapon of a murder suspect was tampered by agents of the prosecution or police, then the murder weapon would not be able to be added as evidence in the court.

I should not have to explain something so simple

[NathanOlder]

Car 44 has quite clearly failed the 85mm test on the rear wing, so regardless of the outcome of the other investigation, it's highly likely Hamilton will start from the pit lane for sprint qualifying.

In terms of the investigation in to Verstappen, by the letter of the rules, he did break them. There's no modern precedent for this, I think the punishment is likely to be a reprimand with additional clarification on what drivers are allowed to do in parc ferme.

and if he tampered with a part then failed testing? His direct competitior for the WDC?

That is pretty serious.

If that kind of touching (if he even touched it at all, which is not even clear from the movies) would change the configuration of the wing in any way, the whole damn thing should fall apart the first time that car hits a curb.
Yes, the FIA should investigate whether he tampered with it - but I find it a rather wild accusation.

I dont think people are saying he tampered with it. Its just a simple fact that it appears he touched it, at a time when no one is allowed to touch it. It's the breech of a very clear rule.

What it also does, is potentially gives Mercedes a get out clause as that part has been 'interfered' with by a competitor at a time even the team can't touch it.

In the video of the test being failed, is it just the corner of the gap that fails? or the whole length? again this looks like the exact spot Max touched it, which throws a lot more fuel on the fire.

[Dee]

Wrong. We are not calling a expert if a certain thing can do something.

We are looking at evidence tampering. Evidence that has being tampered with is thrown out of the court case.

Your comment makes no sense, how do you think a court comes to the conclusion that something has been tampered with? By having an expert examining & testing the item that is suspected having been tampered with to come to a !t! that it has or has not been tampered with. Or who else in a court do you think make the judgement that an item have been tampered with? The janitor? Or is there a hologram above every item in the world that says "Tempered with / Not tampered with"

Same thing would apply in this case

It is not hard to understand.


If there is a court case and it is found that the weapon of a murder suspect was tampered by agents of the prosecution or police, then the murder weapon would not be able to be added as evidence in the court.

I should not have to explain something so simple

You are being intentionally obtuse.

How do you find that something was tampered with?

You have an expert come in and give testimony, in your case, an expert on guns