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

[ValeVida46]

That would be actual cheating and if found out you would face grave consequences.

Given the FIA's record on dealing with cheating, I think it's implausible there would be any grave consequences at all.
Probably just a slap on the wrist with no details being made public as is form for the FIA.

[chrisc90]

That would be actual cheating and if found out you would face grave consequences.

Given the FIA's record on dealing with cheating, I think it's implausible there would be any grave consequences at all.
Probably just a slap on the wrist with no details being made public as is form for the FIA.

I think most of them have just been loopholes that have been closed up once they’ve found out.

But I guess this depends on each person’s individual meaning of ‘cheating’

[dans79]

also of note, everything gets a lot more complicated if a team protests another team!

[CHT]

Just watched the race yesterday, I am just curious how Max was able to undercut LH during his first 1st pit stop when he switched from 17 laps of medium tires to a new medium. Period to pitstop MV was a few seconds behind Lewis with almost equal pace. Did MV put on a few blazing laps on the new Medium or did LH slow down? Perhaps a bit of both?

[AR3-GP]

Just watched the race yesterday, I am just curious how Max was able to undercut LH during his first 1st pit stop when he switched from 17 laps of medium tires to a new medium. Period to pitstop MV was a few seconds behind Lewis with almost equal pace. Did MV put on a few blazing laps on the new Medium or did LH slow down? Perhaps a bit of both?

Hamilton went off the track in T11 on lap 19 and then stopped too far forward in his pitbox on the next lap. In addition, Verstappen had fresh tires which meant his lap 18/19 were faster than Hamilton's. A bit of everything.

[organic]

Italian media now concludes that McLaren and RB sacrificed over 1 tenth in terms of performance to ensure plank legality and that "Hamilton's plank was in worse shape than Leclerc"

[organic]

New track limit drama just dropped

AMuS article highlights how Perez ran wide at turn 6 consistently in the race sometimes by up to 30cm but only was pinged for track limits once on Sunday.

[ValeVida46]

New track limit drama just dropped

AMuS article highlights how Perez ran wide at turn 6 consistently in the race sometimes by up to 30cm but only was pinged for track limits once on Sunday.

Surely if the FIA can police planks by way of the eyeball method, as per Jo Bauer, then why can something far more simple and clearcut as this not be?
Andreas Haupt has a bit more on it:

CCTV camera was in the wrong angle. Seen footage of Perez cutting T6 way too often. It is said some drivers are fuming. Will be a topic in MexicanGP

[Wouter]

New track limit drama just dropped

AMuS article highlights how Perez ran wide at turn 6 consistently in the race sometimes by up to 30cm but only was pinged for track limits once on Sunday.

https://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/S ... 047180.jpg

.
For the whole context read the entire article (German)

[ValeVida46]

Some intrepid work here by a (Hamilton fan) twitter user. There is a thread with stills to back his claim Perez was over the line 28 times in all.

[organic]

Ferrari were at limit @ Austria and since then they have been under the microscope

It's possible this happened too with Merc but unseen without reporters with inside scoops

[dans79]

O yea, that's random..............

[organic]

O yea, that's random..............

I don't think FIA claim it is a totally random selection.. I think considering everything they've said below I believe they mean that the selection is arbitrary rather than truly random.

It's random in the sense that:

In a note detailing the scrutineering process, the FIA has explained that this random element is enough of a deterrent to ensure that teams comply with the regulations.

“This means that, from their perspective, any part of the car could be checked at any time, and the consequences for non-compliance with the technical regulations can be severe,” said the FIA.

So it's random in the sense that anyone can be picked and it can happen at any time but FIA reserve right to also choose to more accurately scrutinize using data available

The FIA’s F1 technical team has a wealth of experience, as well as data from a plethora of sources and sensors that help inform decisions on what aspects of compliance might be checked.

I believe it's also written into the legislation that they can check what they want if they feel there's a reason to be suspicious - I guess in this case it could be previous event plank wear marginal and a lot of ground strikes from Merc/Ferrari on Sunday

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-insights-h ... ormula-1-0

[ValeVida46]

I don't think FIA claim it is a totally random selection

They do.

A series of random checks are carried out every weekend on different areas of the cars.
This process has been in place for many decades, and exists to ensure compliance with the regulations by virtue of the fact that the teams do not know before the race which specific areas of which cars might be examined beyond the standard checks carried out on every car each weekend. This means that, from their perspective, any part of the car could be checked at any time, and the consequences for non-compliance with the technical regulations can be severe.
This is why the process of randomly selecting a number of cars for post-race scrutineering across various aspects of the regulations is so valuable. Each team is aware that selection is possible and understand that the chance of any lack of compliance being uncovered is strong.

And that's from today's statement. So you have a situation were the FIA are failing to check 2 teams, and checking 2 others over 60% more than their direct rivals. This does not tally with what the FIA are saying at all.

So it's random in the sense that anyone can be picked and it can happen at any time but FIA reserve right to also choose to more accurately scrutinize using data available

The FIA’s F1 technical team has a wealth of experience, as well as data from a plethora of sources and sensors that help inform decisions on what aspects of compliance might be checked.

How is 2 teams getting 50% of the checks random compared to 8 teams getting the other 50%? That is targeted.
And the data they're using is actually from Jo Bauer's own words..."we check the onboards to see the bobbling of drivers heads".

I mean...

[organic]

I don't think FIA claim it is a totally random selection

They do.

A series of random checks are carried out every weekend on different areas of the cars.
This process has been in place for many decades, and exists to ensure compliance with the regulations by virtue of the fact that the teams do not know before the race which specific areas of which cars might be examined beyond the standard checks carried out on every car each weekend. This means that, from their perspective, any part of the car could be checked at any time, and the consequences for non-compliance with the technical regulations can be severe.
This is why the process of randomly selecting a number of cars for post-race scrutineering across various aspects of the regulations is so valuable. Each team is aware that selection is possible and understand that the chance of any lack of compliance being uncovered is strong.

And that's from today's statement. So you have a situation were the FIA are failing to check 2 teams, and checking 2 others over 60% more than their direct rivals. This does not tally with what the FIA are saying at all.

So it's random in the sense that anyone can be picked and it can happen at any time but FIA reserve right to also choose to more accurately scrutinize using data available

The FIA’s F1 technical team has a wealth of experience, as well as data from a plethora of sources and sensors that help inform decisions on what aspects of compliance might be checked.

How is 2 teams getting 50% of the checks random compared to 8 teams getting the other 50%? That is targeted.
And the data they're using is actually from Jo Bauer's own words..."we check the onboards to see the bobbling of drivers heads".

I mean...

The regulations allow them to check specific cars or specific things when they suspect something is illegal. In this case they clearly did suspect something and were right.. Is that not proof that the system works? You may not like the outcome but the proof is in the result here

Why shouldn't that be how it works? If they have information that a certain car may be more likely to be illegal than another, why shouldn't they use that information? That's just doing their job.

So which is it.. do we want them to be better at their jobs, or pick randomly (and maybe not disqualify your favourite driver) therefore worse? You can't have both at once

Duchessa remarks that Ferrari have been under more scrutiny as a result of the FIA having inspected them previously and found them marginal on the plank wear -> more suspicion going forward. It's not new even though it may be new to you