2023 United States Grand Prix - COTA, Oct 20 - 22

[ringo]

All cars should be checked with a 50% confirmed from the sample. 50% is abnormal. if it were 25% that would not be bad. But also 4 cars alone is too little.
Any how zero points for Charles and Lewis. Sainz is running away in the head to head!

[TFSA]

The online betting sites must be pulling their hair. This will change a lot of betting results

I'm not the betting type, but I'm sure those are only paid out once the actual (and not provisional) race classification is published?

[chrisc90]

The online betting sites must be pulling their hair. This will change a lot of betting results

I'm not the betting type, but I'm sure those are only paid out once the actual (and not provisional) race classification is published?

My bet365 paid out as soon as the driver crossed the line

[ringo]

So Logan gets a point then?

[Sofa King]

DraftKings pays out once the provisional results are out usually no later than an hour after the race is over

The online betting sites must be pulling their hair. This will change a lot of betting results

I'm not the betting type, but I'm sure those are only paid out once the actual (and not provisional) race classification is published?

My bet365 paid out as soon as the driver crossed the line

[AR3-GP]

AMUS:

Russell and Sainz with different set-up Verstappen's Red Bull and Norris' McLaren passed the test. Hamilton's Mercedes and Leclerc's Ferrari failed. At the two rear mounting holes, the thickness of the board was less than nine millimeters. Being a black-and-white decision, the teams accepted the verdict. George Russell and Carlos Sainz got off with a black eye. Possibly only because they were not checked. It may also have been the luck of other drivers from other teams. However, Russell and Sainz also drove with a slightly different set-up than their stable rivals. They had slightly more ground clearance on the rear axle. The choice was made based on personal preference and not out of fear of breaking the rules. Mercedes and Ferrari each took a little more risk with one of their cars. When a lot of unfortunate circumstances come together, you can fall flat on your face.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... nterboden/

[Stu]

Remember this?

https://i.postimg.cc/CKWVsbCw/image.png

The secret sauce for this regulation set is shown here….

[bluechris]

To me the decision is simply bad. How FIA knows that the cars that gained points and moved up in places are within the limits uf they didn't checked them?? I understand that they checked 1 car off each team but how Leclerc car is wrong for example and Sainz with the same car who gains more points now and benefits from this is fine and we dont check it? The same principal exist for Russell etc.

A total wrong decision imo. Dear FIA, if you see that something is wrong in some cars, you need to check ALL the cars for this.

Imagine Wanda in a 100m race to check the 3 first athletes for substance's, to find them offenders, penalize then and with that the 4th 5th and 6th go to 1st 2nd and 3nd and that's it, we don't check the new guys because????
Utterly FIA blander.

[organic]

I agree that this should be changed. Especially in the case of plank scrutineering.

With the venturi effect cars there are huge laptime gains from running the car closer to the ground. The plank and floor needs to be properly scrutineered on every car each race imo

[AR3-GP]

Unfortunately we have uncovered a rather disturbing oversight in the regulation of the sport...

I'm not sure there is enough man power or time to meticulously scrutineer every car after a GP. That is the real reason that the selections are "random" and not inclusive of all cars.


Even the weight bridge procedure is random.

[Oleo]

They "randomly" selected nr 1, 2, 3 and the polesitter.
Possible, unlikely, but possible.

[DChemTech]

Unfortunately we have uncovered a rather disturbing oversight in the regulation of the sport...

I'm not sure there is enough man power or time to meticulously scrutineer every car after a GP. That is the real reason that the selections are "random" and not inclusive of all cars.


Even the weight bridge procedure is random.

Scrutinising all aspects for all cars, impossible, agree. But if there is one specific issue that stands out in the random check, it would be logical to check at least that aspect for all (especially if it is something that doesn't require the car to be fully assembled).
Risk is that really half the cars are DSQd which would be another 2006-like situation, again happening in the US...

[Stu]

Do we want the FIA to be thorough or selective?
Selectively thorough & thoroughly selective are two entirely different things.

[InsaneX_Badger]

Think the way to go about it is do the random checks, possibly to 5 now and if over half of those checked failed the same technical regulation, you then open it up to the whole field.

[search]

The online betting sites must be pulling their hair. This will change a lot of betting results

I'm not the betting type, but I'm sure those are only paid out once the actual (and not provisional) race classification is published?

they have rules about this, yeah. So it can be a bit different from book to book, but usually bets are settled based on the result at the time of the podium presentation, disregarding any later changes to the result.