Formel 1 2021 - Rennen 19: Brasilien - Sao Paulo

[Ornox]

Hamiltons DSQ ist da, auf 3 Seiten wurde das Urteil begründet. Hat wohl deswegen so lange gedauert

Fact Could not fulfil the requirement of a maximum 85mm measurement (adjustable
positions of uppermost rear wing element).

Offence Breach of Article 3.6.3 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations.

Decision Car 44 is disqualified from the results of qualifying (Art. 12.4.1 m of the FIA
International Sporting Code)

Reason Reason The Technical Delegate reported that Car 44 failed the test designed to
check the requirements of the last paragraph of Art. 3.6.3 of the 2021 FIA Formula 1
Technical Regulations. The check is described in Technical Directive 011-19.
In lay terms, there is a gap between the upper and lower parts of the rear wing. When
the DRS is not activated this gap must be between 10mm and 15mm. The car passed
this part of the test.
When DRS is activated, which raises the upper element of the wing to a flatter
position, the gap must be between 10mm and 85mm. The maximum gap is measured,
in accordance with TD/011-19, by pushing an 85mm gauge against the gap with a
maximum load of 10N (ten newtons.) If the gauge goes through then the car has
failed the test. In this case, the gauge would not pass through at the inner section of
the wing, but did at the outer section of the wing. This test was repeated four times
with two different gauges, once being done in the presence of the Stewards and
representatives of the Competitor.
The Stewards held a hearing on Friday following qualifying with Ron Meadows, the
Competitor representative, and Simon Cole, the Chief Engineer, Trackside and from
the FIA Jo Bauer, Technical Delegate and Nicholas Tombazis, Single Seater
Technical Director. The Stewards then adjourned the hearing to gather more
evidence and at 10:30am on Saturday morning held a further hearing that also
included John Owen, Chief Designer for the Competitor, who testified by video
conference, but did not include Joe Bauer.
The Competitor asserted that the design is intended to meet the regulations. It was
clear to the Stewards that the additional deflection was due to additional play either in
the DRS actuator or the pivots at the end, or some combination or other fault with the
mechanism, or incorrect assembly of the parts. The Stewards heard, from both the
team and the FIA that the same design has been tested many times during the
season and uniformly passed. Further, the FIA has examined the design of the area
of the car in question and are satisfied that the design meets the intent of the
regulation. There is therefore no question in the minds of the Stewards that the test
failure indicates any intent to exceed the maximum dimension either by action or
design.
The Competitor also noted, that Art 3.6.3 of the regulation states a maximum
dimension, which is possible to measure without applying a force or load. It is not until
a force is applied, that the gauge is able to go through. There was no disagreement
that the test itself was undertaken as described in TD/011-19. The gauges were
measured and the Stewards were satisfied that they were the correct dimension. The
Competitor therefore argues that their car complied with the regulation in the static
position and thus meets the regulation. The FIA argues that while not regulatory, the
TD, like many others, describes the procedure for the test so that competitors may
design cars to meet the regulations. Further, the TD states that the test is designed
“to make sure that the rear wing element does not deflect to a larger opening than the
permitted value…”. The Stewards take the position that while a TD is not in itself a
regulation, TDs are accepted as the method upon which the teams may rely and in
this case, the test that was carried out was in conformity with the TD and its legitimate
aims.
The Competitor alleged that the fact that the car passed the test in the center section
of the wing is both a mitigating factor and shows that there was no intent to breach the
regulation. While the Stewards accept that the latter point may be true, the Stewards
believe that which sections failed is not relevant to the fact that the wing did fail the
test.
The Competitor noted that this is not a systemic breach, and is indeed unique. It was,
rather, something gone wrong. The Competitor further noted that they would have
liked to have had the opportunity to inspect the parts with a view to having some
explanation for the Stewards as to how the problem arose. However, the Stewards
fundamentally accept the Competitor’s explanation that the cause of the failed test
was something “gone wrong” rather than a deliberate action. The Stewards therefore
chose to keep the assembly under seal and preserve the evidence of the failure,
rather than altering the parts in an inspection which would have involved some
handling of the parts and thus some alteration of the evidence.
The final point of the Competitor regarding the assembly itself is that it is regular
practice for the FIA Technical Department to allow teams to fix minor problems that
they find with their cars, even during the Parc Fermé conditions of qualifying. Had the
Competitor recognized this problem during qualifying they surely would have sought,
and the FIA Technical Department confirmed, they would have received permission to
fix the parts or tighten bolts if needed.
The Stewards were sympathetic to this argument and analyzed whether they felt this
was a mitigating circumstance. It is often a mitigating circumstance to make
allowances for crash damage. However, the Stewards could not extend this argument
to cover parts that were found out of conformity in post session checks with no
obvious reason in evidence other than considering normal running at this Event. In the
end, the regulations are clear and at the moment of the conformity check, the car did
not comply.
At the end of the first hearing on Friday, amateur video emerged of driver Max
Verstappen touching car 44 in Parc Fermé. The Stewards took the time to gather all
the available video footage of this incident and finally reviewed in car footage from
car 14, car 77, car 33 and car 44 as well as CCTV footage from the FIA’s pit lane
cameras, in addition to the amateur footage. The Stewards held a separate hearing in
relation to this incident and incorporate the text of that decision herein.
However, in summary the Competitor of car 44 also agreed that it was unlikely that
Verstappen’s actions caused the fault, however they felt that it was an open question.
The Stewards, however, were fully satisfied, having extensively reviewed the totality
of the evidence regarding that incident, that it has no bearing on this case.
Finally, therefore, the Stewards decide that car 44 failed the test indicated in TD/011-
19 and is therefore in breach of Art 3.6.3 of the FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations.
The Stewards agree with the Competitor that this is something gone wrong, rather
than an intentional act or design but did not find there to be mitigating circumstances.
Further, Art 1.3.3 of the International Sporting Code states that “it shall be no defence
to claim that no performance advantage was obtained”. Therefore, the Stewards
order the usual penalty for technical non-compliance of Disqualification from the
qualifying session.
Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the
Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and
Chapter 4 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...%20-%20DRS.pdf

[reddevil]

und dafür haben die jetzt so lange gebraucht, bei zb haas wärs in 30 Min. durch gewesen

[titan]

Tja das wars dann jetzt wohl wirklich mit der WM. Mercedes hat es tatsächlich geschafft ihren Nr. 1 Fahrer diem WM zu verbasseln. Das musste erst mal schaffen.

[reddevil]

na noch ist der sonntag nicht rum in nem chaos rennen könnte lewis natürlich noch nach vorne kommen

[Liba]

Die 5 Strafplätze bleiben dabei aber unberührt oder? Punkte beim Sprintrennen heute kann er dann vergessen, im Rennen wird er sich aber auf jeden Fall vorarbeiten können.

[reddevil]

Die 5 Strafplätze bleiben dabei aber unberührt oder? Punkte beim Sprintrennen heute kann er dann vergessen, im Rennen wird er sich aber auf jeden Fall vorarbeiten können.

jau, wird er im sprint zb noch zehnter heisst das startplatz 15
ausser natürlich merc macht jetzt einspruch,
der würde dann wohl erst hinterher verhandelt
bei ablehnung wäre das sonntag dann also wirklich letzter startplatz

[1Live]

Endlich wieder Sprint Action.

[BVG-Man]

Ich sage, unter der Bottas-Maske steckt Martina Hill.

[reddevil]

Ich sage, unter der Bottas-Maske steckt Martina Hill.

Häh, das ist natürlich Bernhard Langer

[Ornox]

Ham sollten bestraft werden

[reddevil]

oargh Max

[Ornox]

oargh Max

Hat halt keine roten genommen wie die anderen

[BVG-Man]

Häh, das ist natürlich Bernhard Langer

Oder Joko.

[Ornox]

Fahren die gelben eigentlich durch, oder wechseln die einmal?

Oder fahren alle auch die roten durch? Das würde ich schon sehr riskant sehen bei Rot
Die dürfen ja alles machen wie die wollen

[1Live]

Fahren die gelben eigentlich durch, oder wechseln die einmal?

Alles andere als durchfahren macht keinen Sinn.