|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
27 Mar 2011, 11:25 (Ref:2854098) | #1 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,690
|
Sauber Disqualified
Illegal rear wings. How could they tell?
|
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
27 Mar 2011, 11:38 (Ref:2854107) | #2 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,312
|
Wow.
What a shame. So if they passed scrutineering, how can this be? Unless they changed something on the car over the weekend? |
||
|
27 Mar 2011, 11:40 (Ref:2854112) | #3 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 851
|
There's a (very very complicated) explanation on autosport.com, which I totally don't get, but either they're too far forward or too far up or too low or... something. I wonder if that is what gave them that advantage, because I have to admit that I was surprised at the progress they made over the winter.
|
||
|
27 Mar 2011, 11:41 (Ref:2854113) | #4 | ||
The Honourable Mallett
20KPINAL
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 37,690
|
As I understand it the FIA doesn't carry out every test on every car pre race. However they can randomly select cars in PF post race. They did just that and Sauber failed on a dimensional test.
Perez now joins Kubica for being disqualified from 7th on has Sauber and F1 Debut. Spooky. |
||
__________________
I've decided to stop reaching out to people. I'm just going to contact them instead. |
27 Mar 2011, 11:48 (Ref:2854119) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,704
|
Whoops. Based on the rules broken that are quoted in Autosport, sounds like a design issue rather an adjustment issue.
They may have been running from the start of the year with the wing incorrect if that is the case. Amazing that this type of thing can still happen with all the cad systems that the teams use. Shame for the team given today's good result, but rules is rules. |
||
__________________
“We’re far from having too much horsepower…[m]y definition of too much horsepower is when all four wheels are spinning in every gear.” ― Mark Donohue |
27 Mar 2011, 13:27 (Ref:2854179) | #6 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 13,211
|
I wonder, if its a design issue, when corrected, whether the team will lose a lot of its performance in the next races? I hope not, but as Tourer points out, rules are rules.
|
||
__________________
That's so frickin uncool man! |
27 Mar 2011, 14:00 (Ref:2854199) | #7 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,200
|
Quote:
As said above it looks like a design problem. They are going to investigate back at the factory. |
|||
__________________
Brum brum |
27 Mar 2011, 14:15 (Ref:2854209) | #8 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,142
|
||
|
27 Mar 2011, 16:10 (Ref:2854254) | #9 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,551
|
Their initial reaction seems one of not guilty, or at least one they feel comfortable enough to have confirmed they are lodging an appeal against the FIA decision.
|
||
|
27 Mar 2011, 16:34 (Ref:2854276) | #10 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,493
|
||
|
27 Mar 2011, 16:37 (Ref:2854277) | #11 | ||
Forum Host
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,529
|
Shame for Perez.
|
||
__________________
A byte walks into a bar and orders a pint. Bartender asks him "What's wrong?" Byte says "Parity error." Bartender nods and says "Yeah, I thought you looked a bit off." |
27 Mar 2011, 17:07 (Ref:2854298) | #12 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,214
|
Does the FIA have links to be able to read the protest and what the problem actually was? Saw on GPupdate a quote about all the car checking out except the rear upper-most wing element. Did it have to do with the range of a motion on the ARW system or the actual positioning of the rear wing elements? It does seem like they would enter the FIA dimensions in the programming when designing the car, but if their reference plane was off I guess that could throw off the wing position.
|
|
|
27 Mar 2011, 17:09 (Ref:2854301) | #13 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,200
|
|||
__________________
Brum brum |
27 Mar 2011, 17:28 (Ref:2854313) | #14 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,216
|
Still a shame that Perez great drive was for nowt.
|
|
|
27 Mar 2011, 17:33 (Ref:2854322) | #15 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,357
|
In my opinion it takes nothing from his drive, I'm sure the dmensional error Sauber appear to have made had a negligible effect on the cars performance so Perez still drove that car to 7th on the track with a one stopper on his debut, a fine achievement. As you say it's a shame the history books won't reflect that (unless the appeal succeeds) but he still did it!
|
|
|
27 Mar 2011, 17:52 (Ref:2854341) | #16 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
Apparently there is some sort of 100mm ball that fits into the curvature of the wing section. There shouldn't be any sort of visible gap between the ball and the wing section ( or 'a local concave radius of curvature smaller than 100mm.') - but there was.
|
|
|
28 Mar 2011, 15:44 (Ref:2854932) | #17 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,978
|
how long are we going to wait for this hearing to take place about this.
|
|
|
28 Mar 2011, 15:46 (Ref:2854933) | #18 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,493
|
||
|
28 Mar 2011, 17:20 (Ref:2854987) | #19 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,606
|
Uhn... can they fix this issue in time for the next races ?? Oh yeah, we hope so...
|
||
__________________
Show me a man who won't give it to his woman An' I'll show you somebody who will |
28 Mar 2011, 18:57 (Ref:2855035) | #20 | |
Retired
20KPINAL
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 22,897
|
||
|
28 Mar 2011, 20:19 (Ref:2855073) | #21 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 505
|
More than likely the ruling will stand. Rules are rules.
|
||
|
28 Mar 2011, 20:40 (Ref:2855088) | #22 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,142
|
||
|
28 Mar 2011, 21:05 (Ref:2855096) | #23 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,981
|
||
|
28 Mar 2011, 22:44 (Ref:2855130) | #24 | ||
Admin
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,063
|
|||
|
28 Mar 2011, 23:32 (Ref:2855141) | #25 | ||
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,408
|
Here's an explanation that is hopefully written more clearly: http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/0...-infringement/
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hamilton disqualified | Kicking-back | National & International Single Seaters | 20 | 16 May 2005 15:55 |
Sutil NOT disqualified, Hamilton YES | karimbo | National & International Single Seaters | 2 | 15 May 2005 15:21 |
Could Alonso and Webber be disqualified? | av8rirl | Formula One | 49 | 9 Apr 2003 19:50 |
******Schumacher Disqualified*********** | Billy_Hunt | Formula One | 10 | 11 Oct 2000 10:10 |
Tracey Disqualified ? | fatbloke | ChampCar World Series | 8 | 24 Jun 2000 14:21 |