2019 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal June 7-9

[roon]

I prefer the term elite connoisseur.

You're right about 2018, though. When Merc won the last half of the season. Real nail-biter.

Regarding the teammate battles, yes, Pirelli and Merc do get along better nowadays. Those squabbles they did use to have though... Proper race track drama.

[falonso81]

Now it doesn't need to be "identical", but rather "similar". To be honest, I wish that is actually the requirement, because "similar" is far too vague and leads to endless discussions to what is similar or not.

This is so wrong. You can change say a front wing with different specs and say: Well, its a front wing, it channels air and produces downforce. Seems all so convenient for Merc, its raising suspicion.

It's not, again, all teams change a bunch of stuff every single race. Changing the aero changes how the car works on a fundamental level. Hulk put on a old spec wing, but it's not about old spec/new spec, the new may have been faster, but the old likely has either more or less downforce.

These rules have been in effect for as long as you can remember. Just because you're unaware of the plenty of changes all teams make before races doesn't mean they don't occur and over reacting and calling bias when the media randomly highlight it happening is about media creating a narrative.

The FIA has always allowed tires that get insanely flat spotted or punctured to be replaced for a race, many times you won't hear about it, but every now and then it happens and the media mention it and everyone jumps into an unroar.

It's not convenient at all. Having a freaking hydraulic leak in the morning of a race and having to rush through replacing the system is not convenient, they have no time to test it's going to work during a race, no team would ever randomly choose to replace it before a race after qualifying without reason.

I was being sarcastic sorry it did not get through. It just strikes me as a surprise that the FIA can not prove that a different spec part does the same job or not. "Similar" is a very vague term. How can the FIA prove anything NOT being similar?

[GPR-A]

This is so wrong. You can change say a front wing with different specs and say: Well, its a front wing, it channels air and produces downforce. Seems all so convenient for Merc, its raising suspicion.

It's not, again, all teams change a bunch of stuff every single race. Changing the aero changes how the car works on a fundamental level. Hulk put on a old spec wing, but it's not about old spec/new spec, the new may have been faster, but the old likely has either more or less downforce.

These rules have been in effect for as long as you can remember. Just because you're unaware of the plenty of changes all teams make before races doesn't mean they don't occur and over reacting and calling bias when the media randomly highlight it happening is about media creating a narrative.

The FIA has always allowed tires that get insanely flat spotted or punctured to be replaced for a race, many times you won't hear about it, but every now and then it happens and the media mention it and everyone jumps into an unroar.

It's not convenient at all. Having a freaking hydraulic leak in the morning of a race and having to rush through replacing the system is not convenient, they have no time to test it's going to work during a race, no team would ever randomly choose to replace it before a race after qualifying without reason.

I was being sarcastic sorry it did not get through. It just strikes me as a surprise that the FIA can not prove that a different spec part does the same job or not. "Similar" is a very vague term. How can the FIA prove anything NOT being similar?

There is no way for FIA to police thousands of components on an F1 car, to verify if the replacement components are going to have performance advantage or not, in every single case. In certain cases like PU, Gear Box and some other stuff, there is a clear guideline that imposes penalty on change to put a check on cost. The technical delegates at FIA are quite qualified technical experts and can distinguish what replacement components are SIMILAR and IF there is any significant performance gain out of it. Prima Facie, components like wings, barge boards and other obviously damages can't replaced under parc ferme due to clear performance reasons. But more intricate mechanical parts are subjected to discussions and depends upon the clarification/explanation provided by team engineers, to then allow the technical delegates to either accept or reject it.

Common sense says, every single part on an F1 car is carefully crafted and it is there for a reason. Generally, teams don't create intricate mechanical parts in two different variants that offer different performance at different times and plan to replace them under parc ferme by seeking exception. In the recent case of Mercedes, a component like throttle actuator isn't a part that a team changes for performance reasons. Any team would be fretting to change such a component in last minute as they don't know the reason for the failure of that component and the driver would have to then blindly trust the new part to work, of which a driver has no experience in a practice.

It's easy to debate the rule that allows SIMILAR or IDENTICAL or whatever word that is used in the regulation, but it's not always desired for teams to get into changing things before a race.

[turbof1]

There is no way for FIA to police thousands of components on an F1 car, to verify if the replacement components are going to have performance advantage or not, in every single case. In certain cases like PU, Gear Box and some other stuff, there is a clear guideline that imposes penalty on change to put a check on cost. The technical delegates at FIA are quite qualified technical experts and can distinguish what replacement components are SIMILAR and IF there is any significant performance gain out of it. Prima Facie, components like wings, barge boards and other obviously damages can't replaced under parc ferme due to clear performance reasons. But more intricate mechanical parts are subjected to discussions and depends upon the clarification/explanation provided by team engineers, to then allow the technical delegates to either accept or reject it.

Common sense says, every single part on an F1 car is carefully crafted and it is there for a reason. Generally, teams don't create intricate mechanical parts in two different variants that offer different performance at different times and plan to replace them under parc ferme by seeking exception. In the recent case of Mercedes, a component like throttle actuator isn't a part that a team changes for performance reasons. Any team would be fretting to change such a component in last minute as they don't know the reason for the failure of that component and the driver would have to then blindly trust the new part to work, of which a driver has no experience in a practice.

It's easy to debate the rule that allows SIMILAR or IDENTICAL or whatever word that is used in the regulation, but it's not always desired for teams to get into changing things before a race.

The issue is not that Mercedes done that, neither is it a capacity problem for the FIA. They check each and every component that gets changed under parc ferme conditions. So there's no argument to be made that the fia can't check all components while they are doing just that in that particular situation.

No, the issue is the vague ruling. When is a part similar and when is it not. Should a driver being forced to take an inferior, but also unsimilar part be punished? That regulation should be changed. Maybe something like "in the case of force majeure, teams are allowed to change any damaged part by a different part.". The force majeure then should be proven by the team in question, and details should be spread to all teams to discourage abuse.

[Just_a_fan]

I'd like a rule that says: don't quote entire nested quotes when replying.

The nested quotes above make using the forum on a small format screen e.g. phone, rather tedious. We end up with several screen scrolls of the same repeated text.

Block nested quoting is lazy. Don't do it!

[falonso81]

Apart from the ruling which I believe needs to change, I also don't understand why Mercedes had a spare hydraulic system with them that was different spec than the one their car was fitted with. Why didn't they have same spec?

[turbof1]

Apart from the ruling which I believe needs to change, I also don't understand why Mercedes had a spare hydraulic system with them that was different spec than the one their car was fitted with. Why didn't they have same spec?

Probably because of the new PUs. Safe to assume they did not get enough spares in time.

[turbof1]

I'd like a rule that says: don't quote entire nested quotes when replying.

The nested quotes above make using the forum on a small format screen e.g. phone, rather tedious. We end up with several screen scrolls of the same repeated text.

Block nested quoting is lazy. Don't do it!

Sorry about that. Editing quotes on a smartphone can be tedious

[Restomaniac]

The issue is not that Mercedes done that, neither is it a capacity problem for the FIA. They check each and every component that gets changed under parc ferme conditions. So there's no argument to be made that the fia can't check all components while they are doing just that in that particular situation.

No, the issue is the vague ruling. When is a part similar and when is it not. Should a driver being forced to take an inferior, but also unsimilar part be punished? That regulation should be changed. Maybe something like "in the case of force majeure, teams are allowed to change any damaged part by a different part.". The force majeure then should be proven by the team in question, and details should be spread to all teams to discourage abuse.

I agree it’s vague.
However I imagine the FIA asked what the part was. As it was the throttle actuator I imagine the FIA thought ‘well that’s not exactly critical or going to create any diffrence so that’s ok’.

[turbof1]

I agree it’s vague.
However I imagine the FIA asked what the part was. As it was the throttle actuator I imagine the FIA thought ‘well that’s not exactly critical or going to create any diffrence so that’s ok’.

And that's fine. It's quite logical that Mercedes were allowed to do that. However, I do imagine eventually you will reach a situation where one team says it is similar and the FIA saying "nah it isn't. Pitlane start for you". I also feel that inferior parts should also be an exception to the rule. Hulkenberg got outright screwed in Monaco. You can feel his pain now that he hears that Mercedes neither had a "identical" part (which again is not what the rules actually demand, just to be clear) and was allowed to use that. Of course, a front wing has a huge impact on performance, the hydraulics of a throttle actuator little to none. But that spare front wing was inferior to the Monaco spec wing; it is safe to say there was no performance gain eyed there by Renault.

[Just_a_fan]

Sorry about that. Editing quotes on a smartphone can be tedious

I was having a "moment" , sorry. It is hard to edit on a phone but people should still make an effort - It helps the flow of the forum after all. Anyway, this OT so moving on...

[GPR-A]

I also feel that inferior parts should also be an exception to the rule.

My point in my earlier post was about this. How does FIA know of something is inferior or superior? For that matter, any of the thousands of parts, whenever a team decides to change due to a reported damage? It is impossible for FIA to measure the inferiority or superiority of a replacement part.

[turbof1]

I also feel that inferior parts should also be an exception to the rule.

My point in my earlier post was about this. How does FIA know of something is inferior or superior? For that matter, any of the thousands of parts, whenever a team decides to change due to a reported damage? It is impossible for FIA to measure the inferiority or superiority of a replacement part.

That should be up to the team to prove. Also, you can add in an extra layer of protection by sharing that information with all the teams. Having 9 competitors just waiting to pounce on you doing something dodgy is a great to discourage abuse.

For the record, I'm not suggesting new concepts. Back in the V8 area, when engine development was frozen but changes to improve reliability were allowed, manufacturers had to share any change in a detailed report with the competitors.

[Restomaniac]

And that's fine. It's quite logical that Mercedes were allowed to do that. However, I do imagine eventually you will reach a situation where one team says it is similar and the FIA saying "nah it isn't. Pitlane start for you". I also feel that inferior parts should also be an exception to the rule. Hulkenberg got outright screwed in Monaco. You can feel his pain now that he hears that Mercedes neither had a "identical" part (which again is not what the rules actually demand, just to be clear) and was allowed to use that. Of course, a front wing has a huge impact on performance, the hydraulics of a throttle actuator little to none. But that spare front wing was inferior to the Monaco spec wing; it is safe to say there was no performance gain eyed there by Renault.

I get that but on a purely performance level (good or bad) a front wing is going to make a lot more difference than a throttle actuator hydraulics. I imagine that was the FIA’s thinking right or wrong but it’s a mess.

I’ll tell you one thing though. It’s gunna get REALLY messy if they actually bring in a new rule that SKY dubbed ‘run what ya brung’ in 2021 because teams are going to HAVE to have loads of identical spares.

[drunkf1fan]

I agree it’s vague.
However I imagine the FIA asked what the part was. As it was the throttle actuator I imagine the FIA thought ‘well that’s not exactly critical or going to create any diffrence so that’s ok’.

And that's fine. It's quite logical that Mercedes were allowed to do that. However, I do imagine eventually you will reach a situation where one team says it is similar and the FIA saying "nah it isn't. Pitlane start for you". I also feel that inferior parts should also be an exception to the rule. Hulkenberg got outright screwed in Monaco. You can feel his pain now that he hears that Mercedes neither had a "identical" part (which again is not what the rules actually demand, just to be clear) and was allowed to use that. Of course, a front wing has a huge impact on performance, the hydraulics of a throttle actuator little to none. But that spare front wing was inferior to the Monaco spec wing; it is safe to say there was no performance gain eyed there by Renault.

I think the problem with aero and deeming it worse is... we don't know it's worse. A new spec wing can seem right but you find out it's slower. Loads of teams revert to an old wing/aero package or part of it after testing because they just can't make the new part work. Likewise many teams drop from a higher downforce qualifying optimised for a laptime with no traffic to a low downforce/drag setup to maximise passing if they end up crashing and having to start from the back.

In other words saying "oh, but this wing is totally worse, it's totally fine we use that right" would be horrendously open to abuse. Do a great laptime, spin, tap a wall, okay I'm putting my lower downforce wing on now.

With aero older spec doesn't necessarily mean worse.