this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
194 points (97.1% liked)
Formula 1
9080 readers
84 users here now
Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series
Rules
- Be respectful to everyone; drivers, lemmings, redditors etc
- No gambling, crypto or NFTs
- Spoilers are allowed
- Non English articles should include a translation in the comments by deepl.com or similar
- Paywalled articles should include at least a brief summary in the comments, the wording of the article should not be altered
- Social media posts should be posted as screenshots with a link for those who want to view it
- Memes are allowed on Monday only as we all do like a laugh or 2, but don’t want to become formuladank.
Up next
2024 Calendar
| Location | Date |
|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 United States | 21-23 Nov |
| 🇶🇦 Qatar | 29 Nov-01 Dec |
| 🇦🇪 Abu Dhabi | 06-08 Dec |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't like stuff like this. Rules are rules, but to disqualify 2 of the top cars just like this after the race kinda undoes the whole story of the race. Additionally, if 2 out of 4 cars fail the test, maybe it's good to test all of them.
But those cars would have been where they are because they might have had an unfair advantage. It seems right to me.
I agree. If the sample has a 50%+ failure rate then maybe it should trigger a wider inspection.
I read that the FIA keeps an eye on porpoising and that is the reason HAM and LEC got selected for a test. Because a high degree of porpoising might result in high wear on the skid plates. So there is some kind of logic that makes sense there. I guess they had to check at least VER and NOR to make sure their logic held up.
Found the source (in Dutch): https://nl.motorsport.com/f1/news/diskwalificatie-lewis-hamilton-charles-leclerc-gp-amerika-fia-controle-auto-max-verstappen/10536672/
Google translate of relevant section:
For example, the FIA informed this website a little later in the evening that it is making a reasoned decision. "Of course we are not blind to what is happening around us." It means that the FIA looks, among other things, at the so-called porpoising matrix when selecting the cars. This porpoising overview shows the bouncing of the cars, which logically has an effect on the wear of the floorboards. Cars that stand out have a greater chance of being examined more closely than others. For example, the FIA has the impression that Sainz and George Russell drove with a higher ride height than their teammates, which would mean they would be in a good position.
The plank has nothing to do with porpoising. It's been in place since the mid 90's and was instituted to enforce minimum ride height rules after Ayrton Senna's death. The ground effect cars that suffer from porpoising have only been legal for a couple of years.
They can't check for plank wear before the race 😅
It's a random spot check. Not something that would be done to the entire grid. It's literally practically impossible to check for every rule on every car after or during every race, which is why random spot checks exist.
You do a spot check to see if you have a problem. A 50% fail rate is one hell of a problem that warrants triggering a deeper look. God forbid they do a spot check first before doing any other checks on other cars so they know if they need to do further checks.
It is a random spot check but when you have a 50% failrate shouldn't it be investigated further? Imagine going skydiving. There's a parachute spot check that shows 50% of the parachutes don't work and everyone else is given the green light. Would you jump? Somehow I doubt it. The plank check is a similar safety check, except it's done after the race because you can't beforehand verify if the car isn't too low. It's a dangerous sport and safety should be taken seriously.
Also the current approach punishes the driver. It's not the driver's (at least I don't think it is) responsibility to make sure their team gives them a regulation-compliant car. It's the constructors responsibility and the punishment should focus on the constructor, which means at the very least both cars should be checked if one of them fails.