Official 2020 Hungarian Grand Prix Thread ** SPOILERS**
Discussion
TheDeuce said:
I don't really, assuming that the tape really doesn't matter in the eyes of the FIA.
But JSF seems so adamant it is technically an infringement that I was curious to know if that could be true. But the more I think about it... I'm pretty sure if I gave a scrutineer two identical components, one with a ring of tape wrapped around the centre, one with tape 10mm off centre, the scrutineer would simply remove the tape and then check they're otherwise identical.
How many F1 cars have you put through FIA scrutineering?But JSF seems so adamant it is technically an infringement that I was curious to know if that could be true. But the more I think about it... I'm pretty sure if I gave a scrutineer two identical components, one with a ring of tape wrapped around the centre, one with tape 10mm off centre, the scrutineer would simply remove the tape and then check they're otherwise identical.
JSF is right; to the letter of the rules the parts should be an absolute perfect match. There is no grey area.
The FIA and Stewards can choose to enforce and/or penalise as a result, but it does not change the rule or the fact.
I lost count once of how many times I had to remake a part because a radius was fractionally out compared to the first 3 that were shipped, (for the race cars and the T car) turned out to be a tooling issue - but the team in question was not willing to take the risk, and that was in the '90s.
The FIA and Stewards can choose to enforce and/or penalise as a result, but it does not change the rule or the fact.
I lost count once of how many times I had to remake a part because a radius was fractionally out compared to the first 3 that were shipped, (for the race cars and the T car) turned out to be a tooling issue - but the team in question was not willing to take the risk, and that was in the '90s.
jsf said:
TheDeuce said:
I don't really, assuming that the tape really doesn't matter in the eyes of the FIA.
But JSF seems so adamant it is technically an infringement that I was curious to know if that could be true. But the more I think about it... I'm pretty sure if I gave a scrutineer two identical components, one with a ring of tape wrapped around the centre, one with tape 10mm off centre, the scrutineer would simply remove the tape and then check they're otherwise identical.
How many F1 cars have you put through FIA scrutineering?But JSF seems so adamant it is technically an infringement that I was curious to know if that could be true. But the more I think about it... I'm pretty sure if I gave a scrutineer two identical components, one with a ring of tape wrapped around the centre, one with tape 10mm off centre, the scrutineer would simply remove the tape and then check they're otherwise identical.
I just want to know why a slightly different amount of/position of tape is sufficient to qualify a component as different to the original? Logically, unless the tape alters the behavior/performance of the component, then it's superfluous surely? No two components are ever going to be totally identical to a forensic level in any case, and it seems reasonable to me that tape applied slightly differently is marginal enough to be beyond the reasonable definition of 'identical'.
BrettMRC said:
JSF is right; to the letter of the rules the parts should be an absolute perfect match. There is no grey area.
The FIA and Stewards can choose to enforce and/or penalise as a result, but it does not change the rule or the fact.
I lost count once of how many times I had to remake a part because a radius was fractionally out compared to the first 3 that were shipped, (for the race cars and the T car) turned out to be a tooling issue - but the team in question was not willing to take the risk, and that was in the '90s.
Are you saying that if one part was painted grey & the other black but they were identical in every other respect then they would not be considered to be the same part?The FIA and Stewards can choose to enforce and/or penalise as a result, but it does not change the rule or the fact.
I lost count once of how many times I had to remake a part because a radius was fractionally out compared to the first 3 that were shipped, (for the race cars and the T car) turned out to be a tooling issue - but the team in question was not willing to take the risk, and that was in the '90s.
BrettMRC said:
JSF is right; to the letter of the rules the parts should be an absolute perfect match. There is no grey area.
The FIA and Stewards can choose to enforce and/or penalise as a result, but it does not change the rule or the fact.
I lost count once of how many times I had to remake a part because a radius was fractionally out compared to the first 3 that were shipped, (for the race cars and the T car) turned out to be a tooling issue - but the team in question was not willing to take the risk, and that was in the '90s.
Indeed. The FIA and Stewards can choose to enforce and/or penalise as a result, but it does not change the rule or the fact.
I lost count once of how many times I had to remake a part because a radius was fractionally out compared to the first 3 that were shipped, (for the race cars and the T car) turned out to be a tooling issue - but the team in question was not willing to take the risk, and that was in the '90s.
I'd love Deuce to spend a day with French FIA scrutineers, his head would explode.
Usual forum stuff, doesn't matter what forum or where.
TL;DR version:
Poster A: technically that part is non-compliant because it is not identical to the one it replaced.
Poster B: Yeah but, no one did anything, there was no action, so it must be OK?
Poster A: Yes, but the part was still non-compliant and could be deemed illeagal and grounds for exclusion/penalty.
Poster B: Yeah but...
Ad infinitum.
The part was non-compliant, on this occasion NFA was warranted - but it will not always be thus.
I don't get why it needs several pages.
TL;DR version:
Poster A: technically that part is non-compliant because it is not identical to the one it replaced.
Poster B: Yeah but, no one did anything, there was no action, so it must be OK?
Poster A: Yes, but the part was still non-compliant and could be deemed illeagal and grounds for exclusion/penalty.
Poster B: Yeah but...
Ad infinitum.
The part was non-compliant, on this occasion NFA was warranted - but it will not always be thus.
I don't get why it needs several pages.
BrettMRC said:
Usual forum stuff, doesn't matter what forum or where.
TL;DR version:
Poster A: technically that part is non-compliant because it is not identical to the one it replaced.
Poster B: Yeah but, no one did anything, there was no action, so it must be OK?
Poster A: Yes, but the part was still non-compliant and could be deemed illeagal and grounds for exclusion/penalty.
Poster B: Yeah but...
Ad infinitum.
The part was non-compliant, on this occasion NFA was warranted - but it will not always be thus.
I don't get why it needs several pages.
I said i had nothing to add because it was clear cut.TL;DR version:
Poster A: technically that part is non-compliant because it is not identical to the one it replaced.
Poster B: Yeah but, no one did anything, there was no action, so it must be OK?
Poster A: Yes, but the part was still non-compliant and could be deemed illeagal and grounds for exclusion/penalty.
Poster B: Yeah but...
Ad infinitum.
The part was non-compliant, on this occasion NFA was warranted - but it will not always be thus.
I don't get why it needs several pages.
Got slagged off for that.
Expanded further on it.
Still not happy.
jsf said:
I said i had nothing to add because it was clear cut.
Got slagged off for that.
Expanded further on it.
Still not happy.
On the otherhand, it's good to have enthusiasts debating on here rather than just panning the sport etc.Got slagged off for that.
Expanded further on it.
Still not happy.
People get too easily offended too often when reading forums, this has been a refreshing change as it was only a moderate slagging
I can understand a physically different part not being considered the same. I can understand them applying, when they choose to, a very limited tolerance of any fractional differences between two supposedly 'identical' parts.
But I still don't understand why the addition of tape, to a part that was identical to the part it replaced, would be a technical breaking of park ferme.
If a drop of oil lands on a part would that make count as a 'change', if the original part didn't have the drop of oil. What's the difference between that and putting a bit tape on something? Or
But I still don't understand why the addition of tape, to a part that was identical to the part it replaced, would be a technical breaking of park ferme.
If a drop of oil lands on a part would that make count as a 'change', if the original part didn't have the drop of oil. What's the difference between that and putting a bit tape on something? Or
TheDeuce said:
I can understand a physically different part not being considered the same. I can understand them applying, when they choose to, a very limited tolerance of any fractional differences between two supposedly 'identical' parts.
But I still don't understand why the addition of tape, to a part that was identical to the part it replaced, would be a technical breaking of park ferme.
If a drop of oil lands on a part would that make count as a 'change', if the original part didn't have the drop of oil. What's the difference between that and putting a bit tape on something? Or
Its pretty much as black and white as that. If it is not exactly the same then it's different and non-compliant.But I still don't understand why the addition of tape, to a part that was identical to the part it replaced, would be a technical breaking of park ferme.
If a drop of oil lands on a part would that make count as a 'change', if the original part didn't have the drop of oil. What's the difference between that and putting a bit tape on something? Or
F1 is very pedantic, in the right circumstances that would have been grounds for protest.
jsf said:
Its specifically mentioned in the sporting regulations that tape can be applied to the bodywork.
So they'd be allowed to use tape to close slot-gaps etc.? That sounds like an enormously exploitable loophole. You could completely change the aerodynamic performance of the car. ash73 said:
Parc ferme 34
34.2 (o): Cosmetic changes may be made to the bodywork and tape may be added.
Honestly, F1 already got lost up its own arse giving HAAS a penalty for a brilliant strategy call, aren't there more interesting things to talk about than a piece of duct tape?
It only seems "brilliant" because nobody else did it.34.2 (o): Cosmetic changes may be made to the bodywork and tape may be added.
Honestly, F1 already got lost up its own arse giving HAAS a penalty for a brilliant strategy call, aren't there more interesting things to talk about than a piece of duct tape?
Nobody else did it because it is not permitted by the rules, as silly as they sometimes seem.
ash73 said:
BrettMRC said:
F1 is very pedantic, in the right circumstances that would have been grounds for protest.
Parc ferme 3434.2 (o): Cosmetic changes may be made to the bodywork and tape may be added.
Honestly, F1 already got lost up its own arse giving HAAS a penalty for a brilliant strategy call, aren't there more interesting things to talk about than a piece of duct tape?
DanielSan said:
ash73 said:
Are people seriously complaining about a missing bit of tape? What a load of b
ks, get a life.
It says a lot about how good the race was for the most part.... ks, get a life.The race was a good one in the sense that there was a lot of racing going on, with some fun bits. The Leclerk/Norris lap was, to say the least, lively. There were battles going on almost all the time. Follow it on live timing and you can get some way to watching it from the stands.
Hamilton shot off into the distance and ran in cruise mode. That was great for us because it meant that the director concentrated the feed at other parts of the field.
I thoroughly enjoyed it. We've had three races which have been interesting and, at times, exciting.
That people are arguing over a bit of tape probably says a lot about the posters. Whether an action, or inaction, is within the regulations or not is entirely within the remit of the sport itself. If the regulators say it is OK, it's OK. The points raised are interesting and worth reading, but they don't change the regulators' decision. These discussion are something to fill the gap between races and should not have winners or losers. They are a way of maintaining interest in the sport.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff