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

[Shrieker]

I think it's fair to say the rear wing failing inspection, and Max touching it are two independent events. Both should suffer a penalty according to the rules. But I suspect Max's penalty might end up being harsher than what is normally warranted, since there is no precedent.

If Ham's rear wing failed the test with no ifs and buts, he'll be DSQ'ed, and sent to the back of the grid. The FIA / stewards might send Max to accompany him there; after all, the show must go on

[f1jcw]

Problem is too many on here with grievences, its all about getting Lewis excluded, and the jumping up and down in glee.

[Tizz]

If Ham's rear wing failed the test with no ifs and buts, he'll be DSQ'ed, and sent to the back of the grid. The FIA / stewards might send Max to accompany him there; after all, the show must go on

It might very well be like that. Or they will just sweep it under the carpet an no penalties at all because as you said, the show must go on. Way too much money involved to let the rules get in the way.

[DChemTech]

I think it's fair to say the rear wing failing inspection, and Max touching it are two independent events. Both should suffer a penalty according to the rules. But I suspect Max's penalty might end up being harsher than what is normally warranted, since there is no precedent.

If Ham's rear wing failed the test with no ifs and buts, he'll be DSQ'ed, and sent to the back of the grid. The FIA / stewards might send Max to accompany him there; after all, the show must go on

What do you mean no precedent?
I have still not seen any argument on how this is any different from Vettel touching cars many times before (under the assumption that Max did not damage Lewis's car - that would make a difference, naturally). There seems to be plenty of precedent for not penalising mere touching.

[PlatinumZealot]

Let's look at it from this point of view: Haven't RedBull had evidence to prove it even before qualifying? They obviously have, otherwise they would have not warned Mercedes 1 hour prior to qualifying (as per articles). Did Max touch/investigate the rear wing of Hamilton out of nothing or because there was something going on in the background? I'd say it's the latter.

You got me thinking now. How did RedBull notice a 2mm measurement (or whatever) from so far away? Worse when the car is moving at 150 mph? Hmm. Any Ideas?

To sum it up, what Max has done under parc ferme might have mixed things up significantly, but if RedBull can prove that the wing was illegal before Max touched it, Hamilton should be disqualified if the rules say. Penalizing Max for touching the car might be a bit of a headache, as for example Seb touched cars too in the past. Though, it must be said that nobody cared back then as it did not have any consequences. This time Max touched the car in doubt of legality, before it was investigated by the FIA. Not a smart move. Considering he actually touched it of course which we can't see from the poor footage material we have here.

Did Sebastian touch the cars in Parc Ferme though? This could be the difference.

[JesperA]

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

YES, and you said that no expert would be involved...that is what is being disputed here, which you don't seem to get. An item isn't magically put in a "tampered box", first someone has to determine if something has been tampered with before a judge can throw such an item out of the court;

If a murder weapon have fingerprints on it & someone claim claim that the weapon have been tampered with; ie someone else also have touched it, then they will send that item in for an analyze to check the fingerprints, and who do you think will check the fingerprint? An expert on fingerprint testing and analyzes or the court janitor?

If someone falsify an invoice signature; ie write someone elses signature, who do you think will determine if that signature is falsified? An expert on signatures & handwriting that compares the handwriting to the accused? Or will the court janitor determine if that signature is falsified too?

It is absurd that you claim that no EXPERT will be involved in the determination if an item was tampered with or not, it's very easy to understand that someone has to determine that an item has been tampered with BEFORE a court can throw said item out of evidence...


FIA usually apply their preceding in close parity with civil court & there is 2 separate issues here:

1) Max touching someone elses or even his own car can be in violation vid technical and/or sporting regulations so he can be penalized for that

2) Touching something & getting penalized for it DOES NOT equal to evidence tampering or tampering, for evidence tampering to be relevant some things may apply: altering, destroying or conceiling evidence

"Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes or alters physical evidence with the intent to impair its verity or availability in the pending or prospective official proceeding; or

Knowingly makes, presents, or offers any false physical evidence with intent that it be introduced in the pending or prospective official proceeding."
https://jsberrylaw.com/blog/what-qualif ... tampering/

That is obviously not from FIA but as i said, FIA usually have parity with civil or common law so...also, Max would have to knowingly evidence tamper, ie: knowingly touching the rear wing in a way that he knew would break it (and an "expert" would have to determine if it is plausable that Max could have damage it, the experts here would be the teams technical directors or FIA:s own advisors, and personally i think it is extremely unlikely that Max touching had any effect on the wing, so, yeah, touching is not that same as evidence tampering)


So, Max getting a penalty due to sporting/technical regulation of not touching the car; plausable. Getting a penalty for evidence tampering; extreeeeeemly unlikely

[Mogster]

Even when it’s touching an element that may now get a competitors car excluded from qualifying. Other than the FIA Max was probably the last person to touch the DRS mechanism on Hamilton’s car. That’s not right is it?

Imagine if this situation was the other other way round. The internet would be broken…

[west52keep64]

I think it's fair to say the rear wing failing inspection, and Max touching it are two independent events. Both should suffer a penalty according to the rules. But I suspect Max's penalty might end up being harsher than what is normally warranted, since there is no precedent.

If Ham's rear wing failed the test with no ifs and buts, he'll be DSQ'ed, and sent to the back of the grid. The FIA / stewards might send Max to accompany him there; after all, the show must go on

What do you mean no precedent?
I have still not seen any argument on how this is any different from Vettel touching cars many times before (under the assumption that Max did not damage Lewis's car - that would make a difference, naturally). There seems to be plenty of precedent for not penalising mere touching.

Verstappen is not being investigated for "touching" the cars, the rules don't prevent that. Here's the rule in question:

2.5.1 Inside the Parc Fermé, only the officials assigned may
enter. No operation, checking, tuning or repair is allowed
unless authorised by the same officials or by the applicable
regulations.

Verstappen is being investigated for "checking". You could argue Vettel has done this in the past, but it's never been reported to the stewards. The difference here, is somebody has reported Verstappen to the stewards. By the letter of the rules, he does appear to have broken them. There is no precedent for this being reported to, investigated by, and punished by the stewards, so we can only guess what the punishment will be.

[Zynerji]

Wasn't Sauber DQ'd from a race due to an infringed rear wing?

This should be an auto DQ for the Merc car.

[AeroDynamic]

Prediction: Lewis will start form the pit Lane, max will get a 5 place grid penalty or a time penalty.

[PlatinumZealot]

If max touching the wing caused the gap to be bigger, would you still say hamilton should be disqualified? Is it then fair for a driver to do something to an opponents car to get them disqualified? The conundrum that the fia face now is that max was clearly seen touching the part in question, merc said will argue that he is responsible for them failing the test. And will shout it to the roof tops which will look terrible. Max should’ve kept his hands to himself. FIA have little choice but to give merc the benefit of the doubt and a minor reprimand for max resetting things to as they were.

Hmm. You brought my mindset back to the days of hinged tea trays under the cars.

Perhaps Mercedes has a switch to change the mode of the wing, that RedBull knows about. You push the wing forward slightly - this would mimic the braking G-forces into a high speed corner. Now a switch is pressed and the DRS is in cheat mode for the next straight.

If Max has activated this switch, then even if Mercedes is found out, they can argue and demonstrate that Max tampered with and damaged the system. "Well my wing is legal, but this guy switched my hydraulics to maintenance mode," sort of thing.

[Zynerji]

Prediction: Lewis will start form the pit Lane, max will get a 5 place grid penalty or a time penalty.

Only if precedent is ignored.

[holeindalip]

I think it's fair to say the rear wing failing inspection, and Max touching it are two independent events. Both should suffer a penalty according to the rules. But I suspect Max's penalty might end up being harsher than what is normally warranted, since there is no precedent.

If Ham's rear wing failed the test with no ifs and buts, he'll be DSQ'ed, and sent to the back of the grid. The FIA / stewards might send Max to accompany him there; after all, the show must go on

What do you mean no precedent?
I have still not seen any argument on how this is any different from Vettel touching cars many times before (under the assumption that Max did not damage Lewis's car - that would make a difference, naturally). There seems to be plenty of precedent for not penalising mere touching.

Verstappen is not being investigated for "touching" the cars, the rules don't prevent that. Here's the rule in question:

2.5.1 Inside the Parc Fermé, only the officials assigned may
enter. No operation, checking, tuning or repair is allowed
unless authorised by the same officials or by the applicable
regulations.

Verstappen is being investigated for "checking". You could argue Vettel has done this in the past, but it's never been reported to the stewards. The difference here, is somebody has reported Verstappen to the stewards. By the letter of the rules, he does appear to have broken them. There is no precedent for this being reported to, investigated by, and punished by the stewards, so we can only guess what the punishment will be.

Vettels was always after the race, not after qualifying though. Once the cars go to the grid parc ferme is done. That’s how Red Bull were moving gurney flaps on the front wing a few years ago…

[f1jcw]

Prediction: Lewis will start form the pit Lane, max will get a 5 place grid penalty or a time penalty.

Only if precedent is ignored.

[Shrieker]

What do you mean no precedent?
I have still not seen any argument on how this is any different from Vettel touching cars many times before (under the assumption that Max did not damage Lewis's car - that would make a difference, naturally). There seems to be plenty of precedent for not penalising mere touching.

Failure to apply the rules can't be a precedent now, can it ? You would be right if he was summoned and not penalized tho, which to my knowledge didn't happen.