I don’t think it matters if it was on purpose or not. Ricciardo was disqualified in 2018 because of a power spike in his MGU-K due to a kerb hit which gave him an advantage of a microsecond.NathanOlder wrote: ↑13 Nov 2021, 18:52Yeah thats what I thought. surely this is easily proven to be damaged rather than an advantage gained on purpose?TimW wrote: ↑13 Nov 2021, 18:50Seemed to be just one end at the very edgeNathanOlder wrote: ↑13 Nov 2021, 18:47Out of interest, did the whole DRS slot fail the gap test, or was it just one end?
Nonepantherxxx wrote: ↑13 Nov 2021, 19:01Part of they stewards’ reasoning is “Considering the fact that no direct harm was caused in this case”
So what is Merc's excuse now? Why was the wing illegal, if it wasn't because of Max?
Nonepantherxxx wrote: ↑13 Nov 2021, 19:01Part of they stewards’ reasoning is “Considering the fact that no direct harm was caused in this case”
So what is Merc's excuse now? Why was the wing illegal, if it wasn't because of Max?
pantherxxx wrote: ↑13 Nov 2021, 19:01Part of they stewards’ reasoning is “Considering the fact that no direct harm was caused in this case”
So what is Merc's excuse now? Why was the wing illegal, if it wasn't because of Max?
Luckily, the FIA had a different opinion.Manoah2u wrote: ↑13 Nov 2021, 17:03you can't, AND Mercedes does not NEED to because after all, the part in question has come under scrutiny AFTER getting a rule infringement made by another driver.AeroDynamic wrote: ↑13 Nov 2021, 16:51What this might come down to: Can The FIA prove when the wing stopped passing the regulation? did begin to break the regulation during qualifying or after max touched it? How can you know for a fact? how do you prove it?
there is no legal base for anything in regards to mercedes.
quite frankly, Max is in hotter water because Max made a rule infringement that is slam dunk evident.
again, i can NOT imagine ANY penalty.