FIA Thread

[izzy]

Anyone else notice Pat Symonds in his pitlane interview with Ted saying FIA did an aero study analysing the infamous Copse collision between Max and Lewis last year? He basically said (not quite directly) that they found the side wake from Max's car was so big it took a lot of downforce away from Lewis' car and that would have caused Lewis' understeer.

It also took away downforce from both cars, that's what he was saying.
And he didn't say that was the reason for Lewis to understeer.. he just mentioned that side by side there was dirty air effecting cars. That's it

How can a car take away its own downforce with its own wake? Lol. So no he wasn't saying that. And obviously loss of downforce on a front wing induces understeer. But yes as I mentioned Pat wasn't totally direct, this is half my point, but he's not giving you this much wiggle room

[InsaneX_Badger]

Anyone else notice Pat Symonds in his pitlane interview with Ted saying FIA did an aero study analysing the infamous Copse collision between Max and Lewis last year? He basically said (not quite directly) that they found the side wake from Max's car was so big it took a lot of downforce away from Lewis' car and that would have caused Lewis' understeer.

It also took away downforce from both cars, that's what he was saying.
And he didn't say that was the reason for Lewis to understeer.. he just mentioned that side by side there was dirty air effecting cars. That's it

How can a car take away its own downforce with its own wake? Lol. So no he wasn't saying that. And obviously loss of downforce on a front wing induces understeer. But yes as I mentioned Pat wasn't totally direct, this is half my point, but he's not giving you this much wiggle room

Sounds silly, but could the air from Max's car that then hits Lewis' could then redirect onto Max's and disrupt the airflow? Sounds wrong but I'm just throwing something in there

[shamyakovic]

Anyone else notice Pat Symonds in his pitlane interview with Ted saying FIA did an aero study analysing the infamous Copse collision between Max and Lewis last year? He basically said (not quite directly) that they found the side wake from Max's car was so big it took a lot of downforce away from Lewis' car and that would have caused Lewis' understeer.

It also took away downforce from both cars, that's what he was saying.
And he didn't say that was the reason for Lewis to understeer.. he just mentioned that side by side there was dirty air effecting cars. That's it

How can a car take away its own downforce with its own wake? Lol. So no he wasn't saying that. And obviously loss of downforce on a front wing induces understeer. But yes as I mentioned Pat wasn't totally direct, this is half my point, but he's not giving you this much wiggle room

When two cars are side by side, they BOTH have dirty air coming out and affects each other. Simple physics really.
So you mean to say the dirty air don't affect Max's car? Even when he was side by side with Lewis ? and you mean to say the dirty air only affected Lewis's car?

[izzy]

It also took away downforce from both cars, that's what he was saying.
And he didn't say that was the reason for Lewis to understeer.. he just mentioned that side by side there was dirty air effecting cars. That's it

How can a car take away its own downforce with its own wake? Lol. So no he wasn't saying that. And obviously loss of downforce on a front wing induces understeer. But yes as I mentioned Pat wasn't totally direct, this is half my point, but he's not giving you this much wiggle room

Sounds silly, but could the air from Max's car that then hits Lewis' could then redirect onto Max's and disrupt the airflow? Sounds wrong but I'm just throwing something in there

I suppose, yes now you say, it's possible isn't it, or at least the side wake from Lewis' front tyres could interfere with the outwashing from Max's. But there's no suggestion Max had any loss of control is there? No oversteer.

[izzy]

When two cars are side by side, they BOTH have dirty air coming out and affects each other. Simple physics really.
So you mean to say the dirty air don't affect Max's car? Even when he was side by side with Lewis ? and you mean to say the dirty air only affected Lewis's car?

Well the point is FIA did this research and it showed a big side wake, and wake reduces downforce on an aero surface, so unless you're saying it magically made Max's car turn in when it did it then it can only mean it explains Lewis' understeer, doesn't it? Max's car did exactly what he meant it to do, whereas we could see and hear Lewis backing off and steering in hard but understeering so that he couldn't follow the line Max was predicting.

But obviously this means their mates the stewards were wrong, so on the one hand FIA, or Pat's department at least, were decent enough to do the study, but on the other hand they couldn't quite bring themselves to tell us. Because their first loyalty is to each other.

[shamyakovic]

When two cars are side by side, they BOTH have dirty air coming out and affects each other. Simple physics really.
So you mean to say the dirty air don't affect Max's car? Even when he was side by side with Lewis ? and you mean to say the dirty air only affected Lewis's car?

Well the point is FIA did this research and it showed a big side wake, and wake reduces downforce on an aero surface, so unless you're saying it magically made Max's car turn in when it did it then it can only mean it explains Lewis' understeer, doesn't it? Max's car did exactly what he meant it to do, whereas we could see and hear Lewis backing off and steering in hard but understeering so that he couldn't follow the line Max was predicting.

But obviously this means their mates the stewards were wrong, so on the one hand FIA, or Pat's department at least, were decent enough to do the study, but on the other hand they couldn't quite bring themselves to tell us. Because their first loyalty is to each other.

How do you know Max's car did exactly what it should need to do? Without the dirty air he could have taken the corner faster and easyily been ahead?

[Stu]

Anyone else notice Pat Symonds in his pitlane interview with Ted saying FIA did an aero study analysing the infamous Copse collision between Max and Lewis last year? He basically said (not quite directly) that they found the side wake from Max's car was so big it took a lot of downforce away from Lewis' car and that would have caused Lewis' understeer.

It also took away downforce from both cars, that's what he was saying.
And he didn't say that was the reason for Lewis to understeer.. he just mentioned that side by side there was dirty air effecting cars. That's it

How can a car take away its own downforce with its own wake? Lol. So no he wasn't saying that. And obviously loss of downforce on a front wing induces understeer. But yes as I mentioned Pat wasn't totally direct, this is half my point, but he's not giving you this much wiggle room

That is exactly what happens, once it gets close enough the following car reduces the efficiency of the leading car. NASCAR draft 101, this is also the reason why they do not ‘run out to the wall’ on the big ovals, drag increases quite dramatically.

[izzy]

How can a car take away its own downforce with its own wake? Lol. So no he wasn't saying that. And obviously loss of downforce on a front wing induces understeer. But yes as I mentioned Pat wasn't totally direct, this is half my point, but he's not giving you this much wiggle room

That is exactly what happens, once it gets close enough the following car reduces the efficiency of the leading car. NASCAR draft 101, this is also the reason why they do not ‘run out to the wall’ on the big ovals, drag increases quite dramatically.

Those can't be the same can they, but alright I can see a wall or car alongside could increase drag by blocking the side wake your car is trying to shed. But nobody has seen or said anything about Max's car being affected. Even Helmut hasn't said anything about how Lewis was unfairly impeding Max's side wake. Max was perfectly on line until they touched. That's just rather desperate deflection when what Pat was obviously investigating was the cause of the contact, which was Lewis understeering. And my point is how he studied this and then FIA kept quiet about it, until today and even today it was all hedged about with vague references, but at the same time it is quite clear.

I mean quite possibly FIA did this study as part of their stewards training, they do that don't they. But I think they should have just published it. But it's part of the same culture that's let the stewards completely off the hook over Abu Dhabi, when their job was to save us from the race director's bad call.

[NathanOlder]

I think the point is once they turn in , only 1 car was going to lose front end grip because of wake, and its not max. The front of his car was in still air. The front axle would have been working exactly how is was meant to.

[diffuser]

Saw this today on autosport https://www.autosport.com/f1/new ... 019/

They're preventing what happened in final race last year to ever happen again.

Article 55.13 now reads: “If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message ‘LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE’ has been sent to all competitors using the official messaging system, all cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car.”

The change appears in Issue 5 of the 2022 FIA F1 Sporting Regulations, which was published today after weeks of tinkering with final details.

[Red Rock Mutley]

Not quite. It closes a minor inconsistency in the rules that Red Bull argued in the Steward's hearing. The thrust of their argument is left intact. However, the Race Director doesn't use that point in his argument. And, the main grounds for the Stewards upholding his decision is based on his general power of “overriding authority" to control the use of the safety car. That remains unchanged.

All the other ambiguities in the rules remain intact. Presumably, a consensus formed around preserving the flexibility as a necessity to deal with the uncertain nature of safety car deployment. I think that's a common-sense approach....provided they tighten up their internal procedures.

[izzy]

Not quite. It closes a minor inconsistency in the rules that Red Bull argued in the Steward's hearing. The thrust of their argument is left intact. However, the Race Director doesn't use that point in his argument. And, the main grounds for the Stewards upholding his decision is based on his general power of “overriding authority" to control the use of the safety car. That remains unchanged.

All the other ambiguities in the rules remain intact. Presumably, a consensus formed around preserving the flexibility as a necessity to deal with the uncertain nature of safety car deployment. I think that's a common-sense approach....provided they tighten up their internal procedures.

Yes, they haven't changed anything really have they. "Any car" means exactly the same as "all cars" in that context. They can't change 15.3 without admitting the stewards totally faked their dodgy interpretation of it and were wrong.

[AeroDynamic]

Not quite. It closes a minor inconsistency in the rules that Red Bull argued in the Steward's hearing. The thrust of their argument is left intact. However, the Race Director doesn't use that point in his argument. And, the main grounds for the Stewards upholding his decision is based on his general power of “overriding authority" to control the use of the safety car. That remains unchanged.

All the other ambiguities in the rules remain intact. Presumably, a consensus formed around preserving the flexibility as a necessity to deal with the uncertain nature of safety car deployment. I think that's a common-sense approach....provided they tighten up their internal procedures.

Yes, they haven't changed anything really have they. "Any car" means exactly the same as "all cars" in that context. They can't change 15.3 without admitting the stewards totally faked their dodgy interpretation of it and were wrong.

And that's the key.

Even if they want to pretend that technically, he was able to do what he did (which is bs, and a cover up attempt) Peter Bayer came out in an interview and conceded that Mercedes could succeeded in voiding the whole result in the courts.

Even so, its clear to me that the FIA don't agree with his decision making to justify the way he used the rules to execute a 1 lap shoot out unfairly. It would've been within the bounds of acceptable if he had brought in the safety car without asking cars to overtake from lap 56 or 57. and allowed the current track scenario to finish under green.

He went too far orchestrating which cars he would apply the regulation to. He didn't need to do that to finish under green. Manufacturing Max vs Lewis for 1 lap was a step too far. It is clear for normal people to see that his judgement became clouded after he succumbed to pressure and lobbying from teams.

Boiling it down to this, the bigger changes they made were to the RD rather than the regulations. One can argue they think the regulations are okay, and that the problem was Masi and the stewards using them inappropriately in AD and that's why he's gone and the regs have stayed the same.. Must be why Peter Bayer is conceding legally in a court, Mercedes had too strong a case and would rip to shreds their arguments those stewards presented to them in their protest dismissal.

[NathanOlder]

Yes, they haven't changed anything really have they. "Any car" means exactly the same as "all cars" in that context. They can't change 15.3 without admitting the stewards totally faked their dodgy interpretation of it and were wrong.

Very much so, as an example, if the mods on this forum decided to ban any user from the UK for some reason, what does than mean ? half of the UK users ? 75% ? no, it means all of them, 100%. "anyone from the UK is no longer allowed to use this site" that means everyone from UK. Another example, "anyone caught doing over 100mph" on the motorway will be in big trouble. Anyone caught, means everyone who is caught. Its a joke that "any" can be seen as not all in this case. If they wanted "any" to actually mean whoever the RD decides at the time, they would have added one extra word, it would have read "any number" then I can see it means 1-19 drivers who could be lapped.

[diffuser]

Not quite. It closes a minor inconsistency in the rules that Red Bull argued in the Steward's hearing. The thrust of their argument is left intact. However, the Race Director doesn't use that point in his argument. And, the main grounds for the Stewards upholding his decision is based on his general power of “overriding authority" to control the use of the safety car. That remains unchanged.

All the other ambiguities in the rules remain intact. Presumably, a consensus formed around preserving the flexibility as a necessity to deal with the uncertain nature of safety car deployment. I think that's a common-sense approach....provided they tighten up their internal procedures.

Yes, they haven't changed anything really have they. "Any car" means exactly the same as "all cars" in that context. They can't change 15.3 without admitting the stewards totally faked their dodgy interpretation of it and were wrong.

They replaced the word any with all.

"all cars that have been lapped" means all cars not some of the cars.