2011 Australian Grand Prix

[F1 fan]

It was the bib at the front of the car that was dragging on the ground.

How do YOU know that the plank has worn too much and they have got away with it? Are YOU there? Did YOU measure it?

It's called common sense. If going over a kerb too roughly can wear down the plank, then it dragging along the ground can not help. No, I wasn't there, nor did I measure it myself. Neither did you. Common sense dictates that the plank was worn to shreds. Try driving your road car with a plank dragging along the ground. Let's see what happens to it.

If you are seriously suggesting the FIA looked over McLaren's cars in scrutineering then there isn't much hope for you.

Again, it boils down to common sense. I'd like a statement from the FIA to clear things up... Bearing in mind that Martin Brundle and David Coulthard believed the plank would be worn too... They know more about this than you or me.

@ FIA being pro-Hamilton. You mean like 2008?

I never said the FIA was pro Hamilton. I think if you go back and read my posts, you will see that. Once again, maybe you should actually read everyone's posts rather than jumping to your own conclusions AGAIN. You have a habit of maybe reading half of someone's post, then jumping down their throat.

If you're going to quote someone, perhaps you should read the whole post.

How were things handed to him in 2007, he worked his way up through the Formulas all of them which he dominated. McLaren tested him out against Alonso and found him to be as fast as the defending double world champion. He earned it all on merit.

Actually Lewis was about half a second slower than Alonso during winter testing. The Mclaren's were still on Michelin tyres at that point. Then when they switched to Bridgestone tyres Lewis found they suited him better and Alonso struggled with them due to them having very different characteristics.

Hamilton pretty much got handed the best car in the field from the start. And he has made his share of mistakes over the years. Watch and see how many mistakes Vettel makes this year when the pressure is off.

Are Red Bull required to engage KERS during race?

No. No one has to use kers. The minimum weight of the cars has increased to encourage people to use kers.

Hamilton may be crash prone just because he has fewer dnf's than others doesnt mean he is any less crash prone. Most of his DNF's may be from crashes while others might have had a lot of mechanical failures.

Hamilton has also been gifted with superior reliability. His first retirement that was forced due to mechanical issues was at abu dhabi in 2009... At the end of his third season. Thank you lmanion for reminding me of that.

 

[Rossticles]

Again, it boils down to common sense. I'd like a statement from the FIA to clear things up... Bearing in mind that Martin Brundle and David Coulthard believed the plank would be worn too... They know more about this than you or me.

They're not going to release a statement every time someone doesn't break the rules.

 

[GTPorsche]

I don't see how the plank on Hamilton's car could have been dragging the ground. They don't bend and by rules aren't allowed to bend. It was fairly obvious whatever was dragging the ground was bent.

The part of Hamilton's car that was dragging the ground is the section that doesn't have the plank on the underside.

 

[F1 fan]

They're not going to release a statement every time someone doesn't break the rules.

Actually, they do. Every time someone is penalized post race, they release a statement. Normally every time someone breaks the rules, they are penalized. In this case, there has been no statement(that I'm aware of) hence why I'd like one. I'm calling for transparency here. The fact that there was a lot of confusion over this issue, but there has been no penalty or even a statement from the fia to say why is annoying. If Hamilton was let off due to the obvious damage, then we should get a statement saying so. It makes things easier for everyone. If at some point someone else is penalized for wear to the plank, people may complain. This is the dangerous precedent I was talking about. Hamilton getting let off without a penalty will mean that anyone who is penalized in the future for anything similar will be able to use this example to try and get the penalty dropped.

If the fia released a statement saying why Hamilton was not penalized it could be referred to at a later date. As there is no statement, someone at a later date may cry foul if they are penalized.

I don't see how the plank on Hamilton's car could have been dragging the ground. They don't bend and by rules aren't allowed to bend. It was fairly obvious whatever was dragging the ground was bent.

The part of Hamilton's car that was dragging the ground is the section that doesn't have the plank on the underside.

Actually, you are wrong. You can clearly see the length of the plank in this photo. All the plank's are cut to regulation size. There is no way that part of the floor could be dragging along the ground without the plank doing so too.

 

[Alex.]

Hamilton admitted personally that the plank was badly damaged.

 

[Famine]

Actually, they do. Every time someone is penalized post race, they release a statement. Normally every time someone breaks the rules, they are penalized.

And what Rossticles said was the they don't release a statement every time someone isn't penalised. Hamilton hasn't been penalised. No statement.

Actually, you are wrong. You can clearly see the length of the plank in this photo. All the plank's are cut to regulation size. There is no way that part of the floor could be dragging along the ground without the plank doing so too.

And yet the broken part of Hamilton's floor didn't cause the plank to wear. How do we know this? Hamilton hasn't been penalised. Logic would surely dictate at this point that the FIA scrutineers, knowing more about the technical regulations that we do, have got it right and that any notion of Hamilton's plank having worn excessively is incorrect.

The corollary to this is that McLaren may have been called in by the stewards (of which we have no evidence) to explain excessive plank wear and their explanation of it being caused by accidental damage to another component has been accepted by the stewards (of which we have no evidence). I don't recall this being successfully used as a defence before - and all instances of teams being called to explain things to stewards are also logged.

It's worth a note that the plank is screwed to the car and the loose item - referred to by Brundle/Coulthard as the undertray, a vital aerodynamic component directing air away from the underside of the car and not a plank of wood - was attached to the car by two titanium spars, one of which had sheered, by the explanation of the pitlane reporter who watched Hamilton's car coming into the following pitstop.


So, on available evidence, a piece of Hamilton's aero package broke and rubbed on the floor, causing sparks. The plank was not damaged and Hamilton hasn't been punished because no rules were broken. Do you have contrary evidence?

Hamilton admitted personally that the plank was badly damaged.

If this is the case, the stewards should have called for McLaren to explain the damage and published their resulting judgement.

Edit: Yep, he said that:

Hamilton struggled with a damaged floor in the second half of the race: “The plank and part of the floor is massively damaged.

“I don’t know when it happened, it might have happened when I went off, but I think it maybe happened before that. I was obviously losing quite a lot of downforce with that so at the end I was just trying to nurse the car home and bring in those points because we need them for the rest of the year.”

So the question becomes, at which point does "damage" become "wear" - I know previous instances of DQ through plank wear have been following damage which caused the plank to wear and not because the plank itself was damaged...

 

[Rossticles]

Thank you. That was the best post post-race.

 

[GTPorsche]

Well then...

I don't think one spot on the plank will cause a penalty. It would have the be the entire length with even wear.

 

[F1 fan]

Hamilton admitted personally that the plank was badly damaged.

Exactly.

If this is the case, the stewards should have called for McLaren to explain the damage and published their resulting judgement.

Edit: Yep, he said that:

This is what I'm getting at. To my knowledge, the FIA hasn't published anything about this. I want to know why.

So the question becomes, at which point does "damage" become "wear" - I know previous instances of DQ through plank wear have been following damage which caused the plank to wear and not because the plank itself was damaged...

If the plank itself was damaged, then that counts as wear. If parts are missing then it would surely count as "wear and tear"...

The FIA has been silent on this matter. I want to know why.

I don't think one spot on the plank will cause a penalty. It would have the be the entire length with even wear.

From the FIA technical regulations.

3.13 Skid block :
3.13.1 Beneath the surface formed by all parts lying on the reference plane, a rectangular skid block, with a
50mm radius (+/-2mm) on each front corner, must be fitted. This skid block may comprise no more than
three pieces, the forward one of which may not be any less than 1000mm in length, but must :
a) extend longitudinally from a point lying 330mm behind the front wheel centre line to the rear wheel
centre line ;
b) be made from an homogeneous material with a specific gravity between 1.3 and 1.45 ;
c) have a width of 300mm with a tolerance of +/- 2mm ;
d) have a thickness of 10mm with a tolerance of +/- 1mm ;
e) have a uniform thickness when new ;
f) have no holes or cut outs other than those necessary to fit the fasteners permitted by 3.13.2 or
those holes specifically mentioned in g) below ;
g) have seven precisely placed holes the positions of which are detailed in Drawing 1. In order to
establish the conformity of the skid block after use, its thickness will only be measured in the four
50mm diameter holes and the two forward 80mm diameter holes ;
Four further 10mm diameter holes are permitted provided their sole purpose is to allow access to
the bolts which secure the Accident Data Recorder to the survival cell ;
h) be fixed symmetrically about the car centre line in such a way that no air may pass between it and
the surface formed by the parts lying on the reference plane.

Linked

At no point does it say it can be worn in certain areas but not others.

 

[j-cart]

The Australian Gran Prix was the first time I have watched a Formula 1 race live. A lot more exciting than just youtube when you know the results.

If someone could help me out here, what's the new rule on the tires? I heard a lot of talk about the Pirellis, what changes did that do?

It was exciting to see Alonso and Webber go at it. Can't wait for Malaysia Grand Prix.

 

[Famine]

This is what I'm getting at. To my knowledge, the FIA hasn't published anything about this. I want to know why.

The why is easy - there's been no breach of rules and so no steward input (even after scrutineering). They don't publicise cases of no action.

If the plank itself was damaged, then that counts as wear.

And if the FIA say the plank hasn't worn excessively then either it's not as damaged as Hamilton thought or damage doesn't count as wear.

Of further note, Ferrari hate Hamilton. If there were anything they could do to get Hamilton docked points, grid places, race starts of just fined, they'd be doing it. They aren't and the FIA have made no mention of any offence. I'd be inclined to believe no offence has occurred, regardless of what we think.

Without being FIA scrutineers and having a hands-on with Hamilton's wood (fnarr!), we can't say anything else.

 

[F1 fan]

Even if Hamilton himself said the plank was worn? I feel we're going around in circles here, but if Hamilton acknowledged that the plank was worn, then I think that deserves some kind of investigation and report.

The rules must be followed 100% of the time to keep the sport fair. That's what I'm getting at.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Ferrari hate Hamilton?

 

[Famine]

It's a McLaren thing. But Hamilton is sort of the embodiment of McLaren.

Even if Hamilton himself said the plank was worn?

He said "damaged". So I revisit what I said before, if the FIA say the plank hasn't worn excessively then either it's not as damaged as Hamilton thought or damage doesn't count as wear.

The rules must be followed 100% of the time to keep the sport fair. That's what I'm getting at.

And without being FIA scrutineers and having a hands-on with the wood, we have no position to assume they haven't been.

 

[Danny]

either it's not as damaged as Hamilton thought or damage doesn't count as wear.

I'm inclined to think this. Although how one can check for wear on a piece of the car that's scattered over the track is a bit of a grey area.

 

[Famine]

the track is a bit of a grey area.

FIA Technical Regulation 1.0.1

 

[Hun200kmh]

....... or damage doesn't count as wear.

I'm too lazy to look for it, but I'm pretty sure this is the very simple answer to all that's been argued about this. Damage can cause someone to be black-flagged from the event if the presence of the damaged car is considered dangerous to the competitor himself or others. If that's not the case, than there's no problem.

I can only guess that Heidfeld's side-pods can't have those openings. In fact, I think there's a rule about all the bodywork being closed. But Heidfeld wasn't disqualified either ... and no FIA statement explained it also

 

[GTPorsche]

If that's the case, I want an FIA statement on Schumacher's car.

 

[Danny]

FIA Technical Regulation 1.0.1

Apologies.

'...is a grey and occasionally slightly beige area.'

 

[Will27]

Even if Hamilton himself said the plank was worn? I feel we're going around in circles here, but if Hamilton acknowledged that the plank was worn, then I think that deserves some kind of investigation and report.

The rules must be followed 100% of the time to keep the sport fair. That's what I'm getting at.

They would have checked it. Hamilton may have said it was damaged, but all the FIA have to be concerned about is the thickness of the plank at the six measurement points. I do agree though that it would be nice to see a report or similar to see just how damaged it was.

 

[Alex p.]

Yes. I was quite surprised at the maneuver he made on Button, but I'll reserve all judgment until we've gone past Shanghai, Spa, and Turkey. He is looking better than last year but things are just getting underway. Honestly, I hope his racecraft has improved because I'd like nothing more to be able to give him more of a compliment than just having outright pace.

*Can-not-resist-anymore...*


Dude, look, Vettel is how old now? 23,24? That's one part.

The other part is pressure. He, more than obviously, was haunted by bad luck, how many DNF's has he had because of technical failures or others taking him out?

Do not underestimate pressure.

He FULLY deserves his title and the crashes were a result of pressure and his young age, it's that simple.

 

[GOTMAXPOWER]

With the Heidfeld damage, having watched the start again, I think it was caused by Adrian Sutil at turn 13 on lap 1...

 

[Ardius]

I never said the FIA was pro Hamilton. I think if you go back and read my posts, you will see that. Once again, maybe you should actually read everyone's posts rather than jumping to your own conclusions AGAIN. You have a habit of maybe reading half of someone's post, then jumping down their throat.

If you're going to quote someone, perhaps you should read the whole post.

I quoted what I was responding to, the rest of your quote wasn't part of my point. Why would you add a line on "Hamilton-mania" then? Its got nothing to do with the rest of your post.
If you believe responding to your comments is "jumping down your throat", you really should take a step back and calm down. This is a discussion, not an argument.

 

[F1 fan]

They would have checked it. Hamilton may have said it was damaged, but all the FIA have to be concerned about is the thickness of the plank at the six measurement points. I do agree though that it would be nice to see a report or similar to see just how damaged it was.

It would be nice if the information was shared with the fans. That way there can be no favouritism. All I was trying to say is that someone could use this information in the future to make sure that they are not penalized for the same thing.

I quoted what I was responding to, the rest of your quote wasn't part of my point. Why would you add a line on "Hamilton-mania" then? Its got nothing to do with the rest of your post.
If you believe responding to your comments is "jumping down your throat", you really should take a step back and calm down. This is a discussion, not an argument.

Actually it was directly aimed at you and not the other people opposing/debating me. You have a bad habit of not reading a full post and coming in all high and mighty. I can think of at least a few occasions over the past year or so when someone has been trying to argue a point, you have quoted them and made the exact same arguement as the op, but worded it as if they were wrong... It seems you are too keen to voice your opinion that you will sometimes not fully read someones post and use opposing tone, even if you were trying to argue the same opinion.

I even remember one point when an old thread was bumped about traction control in the alms. A user posted saying traction control was allowed in f1 (as it was when the op was made) and you quoted him and aggressively stated that traction control had been banned since the start of 2008.

It's just an observation of mine, but your posting style can be quite aggressive sometimes and you do have a habit of misreading (or ignoring) the posts you quote. It happens quite a lot actually. Even in this very thread. It was the point I was trying to make when I mentioned you "not reading posts AGAIN.

If you want I can PM you every time I see you do this? Maybe you are not aware, but trust me you do. It can get frustrating when someone goes to great lengths to make you aware of something you have already posted.

Example

Vettel won the race.

Actually, Vettel won the race.

Not a direct quotation, but you get the point.

 

[niky]

Hamilton may be crash prone just because he has fewer dnf's than others doesnt mean he is any less crash prone. Most of his DNF's may be from crashes while others might have had a lot of mechanical failures.

Not less crash-prone than... who? Seb who's punctured Hamilton's tires on occassion... or Webber, who ran him off track... twice... in 2010.

Hamilton was prone to rookie mistakes in his first year and a half, but he drove a very respectable 2010.

Yes, he's arrogant. Yes, he dives in on people at times. Yes, he can be aggressive, and he tends to bend the rules to their breaking point... on occasion inspiring the FIA to rewrite the rules. But crash-prone? No.

Even if Hamilton himself said the plank was worn? I feel we're going around in circles here, but if Hamilton acknowledged that the plank was worn, then I think that deserves some kind of investigation and report.

The rules must be followed 100% of the time to keep the sport fair. That's what I'm getting at.

Hamilton can see the underside of his car while he's driving it? He may think there was damage, but only the scrutineers and engineers knew for sure.

If the scrutineers found nothing to report, they found nothing.

There is no love lost between the FIA and McLaren/Hamilton... McLaren who they slapped with the biggest fine in motorsports history... McLaren which went on to complain about every single lapse in scrutineering and rules enforcement regarding every other team out of pure spite after that... and Hamilton, who's inspired more rules-changing/amendments in the last three years than any other driver I can remember... and who lost a whole lot of credibility with fans with "Lie-Gate."

You seem to be suggesting that the FIA should issue a statement to erase any suspicions of "favoritism" in the sport... Suggesting that at this point, any follower of the series who's seen the last four seasons would seriously believe that the FIA would favor anything to do with Ron Dennis...

----

On another note... Vettel's Sector 3... deja vu? There seem to be certain track sections where he manages to pull a whole heap more time than anyone else in similar machinery... At this point, despite the fact that the RBR is clearly a very good car, I'm willing to elevate the boy from his three-way co-best with Hamilton and Alonso to head and shoulders above the rest of the field in terms of raw pace... he just seems to get better and better every season...

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Hamilton can see the underside of his car while he's driving it?

He had a peek after parking his car. But he wouldn't have seen much of the plank without getting the car off the ground, so Lewis Hamilton's word still isn't a good enough indication of how much wear there was.

 

[Ardius]

I even remember one point when an old thread was bumped about traction control in the alms. A user posted saying traction control was allowed in f1 (as it was when the op was made) and you quoted him and aggressively stated that traction control had been banned since the start of 2008.

Thats an easy mistake to make, I don't always look at the post dates, I probably should have but so what? We all make mistakes. I've only made that mistake once as far as I remember.
Reading aggression into my posts? This is everything to do with how you read my words, a piece text can be said in many different ways. I apologise if you feel I'm attacking you and other people, but this is rarely how I mean my posts. Perhaps I should use extra smilies but maybe then my posts would look sarcastic or even more condescending.

Let's analyse the post that you feel was so aggressive:

@ FIA being pro-Hamilton. You mean like 2008?

Now, I can see how you could read this with a mocking tone to it, but when I typed it out, I meant it in a friendly way. I don't see this as my fault, if you choose to believe I'm mocking you, fine but I assure you I was not. I am merely asking you why you feel there is a Hamilton-mania around this situation as its funny to think the FIA would overlook this. Its not personal, please don't take it that way.

 

[Anghammarad]

At this point, despite the fact that the RBR is clearly a very good car, I'm willing to elevate the boy from his three-way co-best with Hamilton and Alonso to head and shoulders above the rest of the field in terms of raw pace... he just seems to get better and better every season...

I'm really hoping that we will see a real battle this season. Let's say 10 laps to go at Spa, all pitstops done, Hamilton leading with Alonso in his gearbox and Vettel just behind Alonso.

Mind you, it would probably end in a big crash with Jenson cruising home for victory

 

[Ardius]

As long as Vettel has pole or a front row position and he gets a clean get away, you can rely on him to win the race assuming there are no reliability issues.
I feel he is still a little weaker than the other top drivers when it comes to midfield running and overtaking drivers under pressure. He's made a fair few mistakes in these circumstances. But thats not to say he can't improve or that he hasn't managed to pull good results from lower positions.
I can quite easily see Vettel winning the WDC again this year, and thats all that needs to be said with regards to how good he is and how he compares to Hamilton and Alonso.

 

[Sonzilla]

Actually it was directly aimed at you and not the other people opposing/debating me. You have a bad habit of not reading a full post and coming in all high and mighty. I can think of at least a few occasions over the past year or so when someone has been trying to argue a point, you have quoted them and made the exact same arguement as the op, but worded it as if they were wrong... It seems you are too keen to voice your opinion that you will sometimes not fully read someones post and use opposing tone, even if you were trying to argue the same opinion.



It's just an observation of mine, but your posting style can be quite aggressive sometimes and you do have a habit of misreading (or ignoring) the posts you quote. It happens quite a lot actually. Even in this very thread. It was the point I was trying to make when I mentioned you "not reading posts AGAIN.

If you want I can PM you every time I see you do this? Maybe you are not aware, but trust me you do. It can get frustrating when someone goes to great lengths to make you aware of something you have already posted.

👍

Could not have said it any better.