planetf1.com

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... pen-clutch

I don't know where to begin with this, tbh. What on earth is to be gained by forcing a team to field a car they know has a problem? Just when I thought my opinion of the FIA couldn't get any lower, they do something to lower the bar even further.

Question: how is F1 improved by forcing a team to field a dud?

I'm split on the issue. What caused the issue? Was it something Max did as a driver? Did RBR screw up making the clutch design? Does a car being slow at the start constitute an unreasonable safety issue? I really don't know enough to have an established opinion on the matter.

You would imagine that safety suggests you want cars in prime condition for the start. A dodgy clutch means the car is compromised.
It seems stupid to me that the FIA would not let them fix the issue.

Surely there's the safety aspect to think about. With a faulty clutch the chance of Max getting rear-ended increased significantly. In fact, that issue led to Hulkenberg ending up in the wall, which led to the dangerous marshall incident

Any chance the FIA said he could change it but would have to start from the pitlane and Horner hasn't mentioned that part?

mac_d wrote:I'm split on the issue. What caused the issue? Was it something Max did as a driver? Did RBR screw up making the clutch design? Does a car being slow at the start constitute an unreasonable safety issue? I really don't know enough to have an established opinion on the matter.

Verstappen being slow directly contributed to Hülkenberg ending up in the wall.

Red Bull could have changed the clutch. But the FIA would not grant exemption from any grid penalty. So any safety concerns are on Red Bull. The problem was identified while the car was under Parc fermé restrictions, and only certain actions are permitted. The clutch could have been changed without penalty if the FIA was convinced that there was physical damage. But obviously there were not, and Red Bull had to decide to either change the clutch and take a penalty grid drop, or risk a bad get-away.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:Red Bull could have changed the clutch. But the FIA would not grant exemption from any grid penalty. So any safety concerns are on Red Bull. The problem was identified while the car was under Parc fermé restrictions, and only certain actions are permitted. The clutch could have been changed without penalty if the FIA was convinced that there was physical damage. But obviously there were not, and Red Bull had to decide to either change the clutch and take a penalty grid drop, or risk a bad get-away.

I could be wrong here but I think it's more than a mere drop. I believe if they work on the car in Parc Fermé they have to start from the pit lane. It's a big ask after qualifying 4th in a place like Singapore.

The rule was designed to stop teams from working in cars all night after giving them qualifying setups. If a team can demonstrate that a part is not working correctly I find it rather ridiculous that they can't address the issue. It's not like they want to put in a special performance enhancing part.

I think the story red bull are giving is slightly coloured to suit their own agenda. We know teams can change a tyre just having a flat spot, so a clutch that shows actual signs of damage would be allowed(I believe). Surely rbr just found that something wasn't optimal for the Singapore launch and wanted to use it as a free pass. The car was fine for the race and all the pit getaways...

While in Parc fermé conditions, if a team can demonstrate to the FIA that a component was broken or damaged, they can replace it without penalty. Red Bull discovered the clutch wasn't working to their sanctification, they attempted to get it changed without penalty, and as far as the FIA was concerned, it wasn't broken.

simonr23 wrote:I think the story red bull are giving is slightly coloured to suit their own agenda. We know teams can change a tyre just having a flat spot, so a clutch that shows actual signs of damage would be allowed(I believe). Surely rbr just found that something wasn't optimal for the Singapore launch and wanted to use it as a free pass. The car was fine for the race and all the pit getaways...

Yes I'm inclined to agree, I wouldn't trust Horner's word as the absolute truth. The parc ferme rules are quite clear and I don't think anything out of the ordinary happened here.

Covalent wrote:

simonr23 wrote:I think the story red bull are giving is slightly coloured to suit their own agenda. We know teams can change a tyre just having a flat spot, so a clutch that shows actual signs of damage would be allowed(I believe). Surely rbr just found that something wasn't optimal for the Singapore launch and wanted to use it as a free pass. The car was fine for the race and all the pit getaways...

Yes I'm inclined to agree, I wouldn't trust Horner's word as the absolute truth. The parc ferme rules are quite clear and I don't think anything out of the ordinary happened here.

Still, they knew the start was not going to be good. I think it's a bit ridiculous that a driver that flatspots a tyre through his own fault can just replace the tyre ahead of the race out of safety reasons, but a clutch that is not really working as it should can't be worked on.

mds wrote:

Covalent wrote:

simonr23 wrote:I think the story red bull are giving is slightly coloured to suit their own agenda. We know teams can change a tyre just having a flat spot, so a clutch that shows actual signs of damage would be allowed(I believe). Surely rbr just found that something wasn't optimal for the Singapore launch and wanted to use it as a free pass. The car was fine for the race and all the pit getaways...

Yes I'm inclined to agree, I wouldn't trust Horner's word as the absolute truth. The parc ferme rules are quite clear and I don't think anything out of the ordinary happened here.

Still, they knew the start was not going to be good. I think it's a bit ridiculous that a driver that flatspots a tyre through his own fault can just replace the tyre ahead of the race out of safety reasons, but a clutch that is not really working as it should can't be worked on.

Exactly this. From a sporting and spectator viewpoint, we surely want all the competitors to have cars that are functioning as they should?

The tire analogy is not an apples to apples comparison. It's much easier to replace a damaged tire with one having similar wear, gearboxes are far more complex and two gearboxes with similar mileage on them could have different wear depending on when/where they were used.

If Red Bull had the option to change it and take a penalty under the current rules but decided to risk it, I wouldn't blame the FIA entirely for it. Some of the current rules may be absurd, but making random exceptions would be even more so.

I also don't think Max's slow getaway should be necessarily chalked up as a security issue. He could've very well had a fully-functional clutch, botched his start procedure, with the exact same end result. The bad clutch posed no more danger on the grid than a potential manual error, so it's a bit of a non-issue.

chetan_rao wrote: If Red Bull had the option to change it and take a penalty under the current rules but decided to risk it, I wouldn't blame the FIA entirely for it.

Well I would - a bad start is still much better than starting from pit lane. Teams and drivers are always going to choose the lesser of two evils as long as the regulations allow for it.

I also don't think Max's slow getaway should be necessarily chalked up as a security issue. He could've very well had a fully-functional clutch, botched his start procedure, with the exact same end result. The bad clutch posed no more danger on the grid than a potential manual error, so it's a bit of a non-issue.

The bad start was a certainty, a botched start is a possibility. There's a big difference.

And it triggered an incident, indirectly it put a driver out of the race and it wrecked another driver's race (Sainz who I believe had bodywork damage?).

chetan_rao wrote:I also don't think Max's slow getaway should be necessarily chalked up as a security issue. He could've very well had a fully-functional clutch, botched his start procedure, with the exact same end result. The bad clutch posed no more danger on the grid than a potential manual error, so it's a bit of a non-issue.

It significantly increases the risk of it happening. Instead of just "potential manual error" you now have "potential manual error + bad clutch"

Saying that, if the FIA said they could change it and take a penalty/start from the pitlane then so be it. Them's the rules and Red Bull chose which way they wanted to go. Judging Seb's race, Max probably would have finished exactly where he did... or better if it was just a grid penalty

mds wrote:
Well I would - a bad start is still much better than starting from pit lane. Teams and drivers are always going to choose the lesser of two evils as long as the regulations allow for it.

That's RB's choice to make. Unless they were denied a change of gearbox under any circumstances, they took the risk.

Should the FIA have forced RB to change the gearbox? Definitely arguable.
Should RB have got a free pass to make repairs/changes? Nope.

It's not like they didn't know parc ferme rules and if the problem was discovered too late, well that hasn't happened for the first time. RB chose to leave their driver out with a faulty clutch, when they could've taken a grid penalty and changed it.

There must be a limit to what separates a safety issue from a performance issue. Going by the arguments here, another team that finds an issue with an engine component in parc ferme should be given a free pass to make changes as that could also endanger someone if left un-rectified?

Max's clutch didn't fail, it just didn't work optimally, so it's not as clear cut a safety issue as many would like to believe.

The bad start was a certainty, a botched start is a possibility. There's a big difference.

And it triggered an incident, indirectly it put a driver out of the race and it wrecked another driver's race (Sainz who I believe had bodywork damage?).

Again, the only people who were sure of the issue were RB, and they chose to risk an incident rather than give their driver the safer way out. FIA should be able to overrule team decisions when it comes to safety and force a change, but that's no the topic under discussion here.

mcdo wrote: It significantly increases the risk of it happening. Instead of just "potential manual error" you now have "potential manual error + bad clutch"
Saying that, if the FIA said they could change it and take a penalty/start from the pitlane then so be it. Them's the rules and Red Bull chose which way they wanted to go. Judging Seb's race, Max probably would have finished exactly where he did... or better if it was just a grid penalty

Plenty of teams have changed stuff after parc ferme and taken on penalties. I'm not sure why RB expected to be handed a free pass. My only gripe with the FIA would be if they refused ANY changes and forced RB to race with that gearbox. That doesn't seem to be the case.

mcdo wrote:

chetan_rao wrote:I also don't think Max's slow getaway should be necessarily chalked up as a security issue. He could've very well had a fully-functional clutch, botched his start procedure, with the exact same end result. The bad clutch posed no more danger on the grid than a potential manual error, so it's a bit of a non-issue.

It significantly increases the risk of it happening. Instead of just "potential manual error" you now have "potential manual error + bad clutch"

Saying that, if the FIA said they could change it and take a penalty/start from the pitlane then so be it. Them's the rules and Red Bull chose which way they wanted to go. Judging Seb's race, Max probably would have finished exactly where he did... or better if it was just a grid penalty

The point is the rules - and therefore the FIA - are at fault here. Or perhaps it's just the FIA's interpretation of them. As has been stated, Max's start was indirectly responsible for Hulk's accident. At the very least he was a danger to others as they had to swerve around him. It can't be that hard to put two and two together and identify the potential risks of a bad starting car at a Grand Prix. So why they didn't consider it a problem sufficient for a dispensation only the FIA will know. But once again they appear clueless

Zoue wrote:

mcdo wrote:

chetan_rao wrote:I also don't think Max's slow getaway should be necessarily chalked up as a security issue. He could've very well had a fully-functional clutch, botched his start procedure, with the exact same end result. The bad clutch posed no more danger on the grid than a potential manual error, so it's a bit of a non-issue.

It significantly increases the risk of it happening. Instead of just "potential manual error" you now have "potential manual error + bad clutch"

Saying that, if the FIA said they could change it and take a penalty/start from the pitlane then so be it. Them's the rules and Red Bull chose which way they wanted to go. Judging Seb's race, Max probably would have finished exactly where he did... or better if it was just a grid penalty

The point is the rules - and therefore the FIA - are at fault here. Or perhaps it's just the FIA's interpretation of them. As has been stated, Max's start was indirectly responsible for Hulk's accident. At the very least he was a danger to others as they had to swerve around him. It can't be that hard to put two and two together and identify the potential risks of a bad starting car at a Grand Prix. So why they didn't consider it a problem sufficient for a dispensation only the FIA will know. But once again they appear clueless

I wouldn't disagree the FIA could've intervened and forced RB to change the gearbox if it was deemed enough of a safety issue. I just don't think RB should've got a free gearbox fix/change under the pretense of 'safety issues'. Changing performance parts under safety rules is a can of worms best left unopened. The FIA is incompetent enough as it is.

chetan_rao wrote: That's RB's choice to make. Unless they were denied a change of gearbox under any circumstances, they took the risk.

Should the FIA have forced RB to change the gearbox? Definitely arguable.
Should RB have got a free pass to make repairs/changes? Nope.

It's not like they didn't know parc ferme rules and if the problem was discovered too late, well that hasn't happened for the first time. RB chose to leave their driver out with a faulty clutch, when they could've taken a grid penalty and changed it.

No I don't agree with this. The FIA have granted dispensations in the past but chose not to do so this time. I don't agree that they can wash their hands of any responsibility here.

chetan_rao wrote:There must be a limit to what separates a safety issue from a performance issue. Going by the arguments here, another team that finds an issue with an engine component in parc ferme should be given a free pass to make changes as that could also endanger someone if left un-rectified?

That's a stretch. If a clutch is slipping, what exactly is the issue with replacing it? Engine components are limited, whereas clutches aren't, so I don't see the issue. From the regs:

9.5.2 In this context the following parts are not considered part of the gearbox and may be changed
without incurring a penalty under the F1 Sporting Regulations. If changing any of these parts
involves breaking an FIA applied seal this may be done but must be carried out under FIA
supervision :
a) The clutch assembly and the power unit output shaft, provided this is located prior to
any mechanical speed reduction from the engine

http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/Tech ... t-2016.pdf

Given that it's not a restricted part in the first place, what is to be gained by preventing Red Bull from changing it?

chetan_rao wrote:Max's clutch didn't fail, it just didn't work optimally, so it's not as clear cut a safety issue as many would like to believe.

As stated previously and demonstrated over the weekend, a poorly starting car can present a hazard to other drivers, so if there is a known issue I think a fairly strong case could be made that it's a safety issue.

chetan_rao wrote:Again, the only people who were sure of the issue were RB, and they chose to risk an incident rather than give their driver the safer way out. FIA should be able to overrule team decisions when it comes to safety and force a change, but that's no the topic under discussion here.

Well the topic is the rules and rule makers and it could be argued that the FIA were at fault in the application of the rules in this instance. RB did present a case to the FIA, but they rejected it for reasons best known to themselves. Again, I'd ask what the issue is in replacing it?

chetan_rao wrote:Plenty of teams have changed stuff after parc ferme and taken on penalties. I'm not sure why RB expected to be handed a free pass. My only gripe with the FIA would be if they refused ANY changes and forced RB to race with that gearbox. That doesn't seem to be the case.

And teams have been given dispensation before. In 2014 Mercedes were allowed to change not just the brakes on their cars but their brake supplier. If there was really an issue with a particular manufacturer's brakes then surely they should have forced every team to change it, but they didn't.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115087

In fact, the same article states:

The revelation that Mercedes stuck with Brembo shows that the team has no wider safety concerns about the Italian brake company's product, despite the failure on Saturday.

So clearly this demonstrates that changing the brakes for the Mercs was not safety related, yet they were allowed to do so. But Red Bull weren't for a faulty clutch? The word "consistency" isn't even in the FIA's dictionary. They seem to make it up as they go along

.

chetan_rao wrote:RB chose to leave their driver out with a faulty clutch, when they could've taken a grid penalty and changed it.

RB chose to take the option that would have the best consequences for their race result. Any team would.

There must be a limit to what separates a safety issue from a performance issue.
...
Max's clutch didn't fail, it just didn't work optimally, so it's not as clear cut a safety issue as many would like to believe.

Watch the start again, I think it's a pretty clear cut safety issue.

Again, the only people who were sure of the issue were RB, and they chose to risk an incident rather than give their driver the safer way out. FIA should be able to overrule team decisions when it comes to safety and force a change, but that's no the topic under discussion here.

FIA should be consistent in their regulations: if tyres can be changed under the guise of safety, I don't see why a suboptimal clutch that is sure to cause a bad start can't be changed.

chetan_rao wrote:Changing performance parts under safety rules is a can of worms best left unopened.

To be honest, tyres are much more a performance part than a clutch is.

chetan_rao wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mcdo wrote:

chetan_rao wrote:I also don't think Max's slow getaway should be necessarily chalked up as a security issue. He could've very well had a fully-functional clutch, botched his start procedure, with the exact same end result. The bad clutch posed no more danger on the grid than a potential manual error, so it's a bit of a non-issue.

It significantly increases the risk of it happening. Instead of just "potential manual error" you now have "potential manual error + bad clutch"

Saying that, if the FIA said they could change it and take a penalty/start from the pitlane then so be it. Them's the rules and Red Bull chose which way they wanted to go. Judging Seb's race, Max probably would have finished exactly where he did... or better if it was just a grid penalty

The point is the rules - and therefore the FIA - are at fault here. Or perhaps it's just the FIA's interpretation of them. As has been stated, Max's start was indirectly responsible for Hulk's accident. At the very least he was a danger to others as they had to swerve around him. It can't be that hard to put two and two together and identify the potential risks of a bad starting car at a Grand Prix. So why they didn't consider it a problem sufficient for a dispensation only the FIA will know. But once again they appear clueless

I wouldn't disagree the FIA could've intervened and forced RB to change the gearbox if it was deemed enough of a safety issue. I just don't think RB should've got a free gearbox fix/change under the pretense of 'safety issues'. Changing performance parts under safety rules is a can of worms best left unopened. The FIA is incompetent enough as it is.

I think the gearbox might change the parameters a bit, but this was a clutch, which doesn't fall under restricted component rules. I don't see what might be the issue in changing this. What is to be gained?

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote: I wouldn't disagree the FIA could've intervened and forced RB to change the gearbox if it was deemed enough of a safety issue. I just don't think RB should've got a free gearbox fix/change under the pretense of 'safety issues'. Changing performance parts under safety rules is a can of worms best left unopened. The FIA is incompetent enough as it is.

I think the gearbox might change the parameters a bit, but this was a clutch, which doesn't fall under restricted component rules. I don't see what might be the issue in changing this. What is to be gained?

I'm not conversant with the exact wording of the rule applicable here, but if a clutch is not a restricted item like you say, then why does the FIA need to intervene at all?

Surely teams can change unrestricted parts as often as they please, unless unrestricted means something else in FIA parlance (which is entirely possible)?

P.S. I understand they may need to technically 'unseal' a few restricted components to get to the actual item in question (being in Parc Ferme), but isn't that what scrutineers are for? To supervise such changes (among other things)?

The way I see it is that this problem has existed for a while and they didn't do much about it. Horner said it re-appeared, meaning that it existed before, so why didn't they change it before the race? This is F1, problems don't magically go away with some fairy dust in a complicated part like the clutch. Did they have to wait until the hours before the race to try and rectify it? They had it for the last three races, just get it replaced and get done with it.

And no, I don't think the FIA should be allowing the teams to do anything they want just for the sake of the spectators. There are rules that apply to everyone and they have to be followed.

chetan_rao wrote:

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote: I wouldn't disagree the FIA could've intervened and forced RB to change the gearbox if it was deemed enough of a safety issue. I just don't think RB should've got a free gearbox fix/change under the pretense of 'safety issues'. Changing performance parts under safety rules is a can of worms best left unopened. The FIA is incompetent enough as it is.

I think the gearbox might change the parameters a bit, but this was a clutch, which doesn't fall under restricted component rules. I don't see what might be the issue in changing this. What is to be gained?

I'm not conversant with the exact wording of the rule applicable here, but if a clutch is not a restricted item like you say, then why does the FIA need to intervene at all?

Surely teams can change unrestricted parts as often as they please, unless unrestricted means something else in FIA parlance (which is entirely possible)?

Because it's in Parc Fermé. Teams aren't normally allowed to touch the cars in there (originally introduced to prevent teams from running qualifying spec cars and having engineers regularly working all night to put them in race trim). But clearly if a team feels they have an issue then that should be viewed differently IMO.

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote:

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote: I wouldn't disagree the FIA could've intervened and forced RB to change the gearbox if it was deemed enough of a safety issue. I just don't think RB should've got a free gearbox fix/change under the pretense of 'safety issues'. Changing performance parts under safety rules is a can of worms best left unopened. The FIA is incompetent enough as it is.

I think the gearbox might change the parameters a bit, but this was a clutch, which doesn't fall under restricted component rules. I don't see what might be the issue in changing this. What is to be gained?

I'm not conversant with the exact wording of the rule applicable here, but if a clutch is not a restricted item like you say, then why does the FIA need to intervene at all?

Surely teams can change unrestricted parts as often as they please, unless unrestricted means something else in FIA parlance (which is entirely possible)?

Because it's in Parc Fermé. Teams aren't normally allowed to touch the cars in there (originally introduced to prevent teams from running qualifying spec cars and having engineers regularly working all night to put them in race trim). But clearly if a team feels they have an issue then that should be viewed differently IMO.

I edited my previous post to add the following but you may have missed it, so here goes again.

I understand they may need to technically 'unseal' a few restricted components to get to the actual item in question (being in Parc Ferme), but isn't that what scrutineers are for? To supervise such changes (among other things)?

chetan_rao wrote:

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote:

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote: I wouldn't disagree the FIA could've intervened and forced RB to change the gearbox if it was deemed enough of a safety issue. I just don't think RB should've got a free gearbox fix/change under the pretense of 'safety issues'. Changing performance parts under safety rules is a can of worms best left unopened. The FIA is incompetent enough as it is.

I think the gearbox might change the parameters a bit, but this was a clutch, which doesn't fall under restricted component rules. I don't see what might be the issue in changing this. What is to be gained?

I'm not conversant with the exact wording of the rule applicable here, but if a clutch is not a restricted item like you say, then why does the FIA need to intervene at all?

Surely teams can change unrestricted parts as often as they please, unless unrestricted means something else in FIA parlance (which is entirely possible)?

Because it's in Parc Fermé. Teams aren't normally allowed to touch the cars in there (originally introduced to prevent teams from running qualifying spec cars and having engineers regularly working all night to put them in race trim). But clearly if a team feels they have an issue then that should be viewed differently IMO.

I edited my previous post to add the following but you may have missed it, so here goes again.

I understand they may need to 'unseal' a few restricted components to get to the actual item in question, but isn't that what scrutineers are for? To supervise such changes (among other things)?

well I'd agree. Which brings us back to the point why on earth did the FIA reject the request?

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote: I understand they may need to 'unseal' a few restricted components to get to the actual item in question, but isn't that what scrutineers are for? To supervise such changes (among other things)?

well I'd agree. Which brings us back to the point why on earth did the FIA reject the request?

**Speculation alert, I'm not claiming this as fact**

Could it be because RB couldn't suitably demonstrate the problem was noticed first only in Parc Ferme and wasn't known at all before?
If the FIA had cause to believe a team knew something beforehand but didn't address it earlier, they could've used that as a plausible reason to disallow a change now which would mean making an exception which shouldn't have been required in the first place.

chetan_rao wrote:

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote: I understand they may need to 'unseal' a few restricted components to get to the actual item in question, but isn't that what scrutineers are for? To supervise such changes (among other things)?

well I'd agree. Which brings us back to the point why on earth did the FIA reject the request?

**Speculation alert, I'm not claiming this as fact**

Could it be because RB couldn't suitably demonstrate the problem was noticed first only in Parc Ferme and wasn't known at all before?
If the FIA had cause to believe a team knew something beforehand but didn't address it earlier, they could've used that as a plausible reason to disallow a change now which would mean making an exception which shouldn't have been required in the first place.

Maybe, but that still seems like nit-picking to me. I still don't get what's to be gained by rejecting the request. What was the harm in allowing them to replace it if they felt it was faulty?

James14 wrote:You would imagine that safety suggests you want cars in prime condition for the start. A dodgy clutch means the car is compromised.
It seems stupid to me that the FIA would not let them fix the issue.

And I think Hulkenberg would tend to agree with you.

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote:

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote: I understand they may need to 'unseal' a few restricted components to get to the actual item in question, but isn't that what scrutineers are for? To supervise such changes (among other things)?

well I'd agree. Which brings us back to the point why on earth did the FIA reject the request?

**Speculation alert, I'm not claiming this as fact**

Could it be because RB couldn't suitably demonstrate the problem was noticed first only in Parc Ferme and wasn't known at all before?
If the FIA had cause to believe a team knew something beforehand but didn't address it earlier, they could've used that as a plausible reason to disallow a change now which would mean making an exception which shouldn't have been required in the first place.

Maybe, but that still seems like nit-picking to me. I still don't get what's to be gained by rejecting the request. What was the harm in allowing them to replace it if they felt it was faulty?

It seems that they had this problem before though. They didn't fix it and it re-appeared as per Horner's comments. If they had it before and it is such a safety concern, they should have rectified, shouldn't they? Putting the blame square to FIA's lap is a bit of a cheap shot really. The FIA don't gain anything by rejecting the request, but they don't lose by adhering to the rules either.

Just to give some people an idea - this is what they did allow to be altered in Parc Ferme this weekend:

http://www.fia.com/file/47836/download?token=HABpC14p

They produce these documents for every race weekend. I wonder if anybody else has replaced a clutch in Parc Ferme this year - with a quick look the only one I could see what Sainz in Canada, but he'd done a gearbox change (and got a 5 place penalty) that weekend too.

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote:

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote: I understand they may need to 'unseal' a few restricted components to get to the actual item in question, but isn't that what scrutineers are for? To supervise such changes (among other things)?

well I'd agree. Which brings us back to the point why on earth did the FIA reject the request?

**Speculation alert, I'm not claiming this as fact**

Could it be because RB couldn't suitably demonstrate the problem was noticed first only in Parc Ferme and wasn't known at all before?
If the FIA had cause to believe a team knew something beforehand but didn't address it earlier, they could've used that as a plausible reason to disallow a change now which would mean making an exception which shouldn't have been required in the first place.

Maybe, but that still seems like nit-picking to me. I still don't get what's to be gained by rejecting the request. What was the harm in allowing them to replace it if they felt it was faulty?

It seems that they had this problem before though. They didn't fix it and it re-appeared as per Horner's comments. If they had it before and it is such a safety concern, they should have rectified, shouldn't they? Putting the blame square to FIA's lap is a bit of a cheap shot really. The FIA don't gain anything by rejecting the request, but they don't lose by adhering to the rules either.

I would disagree. I think they lose by showing they are more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit or indeed F1 as a whole.

Herb wrote:Just to give some people an idea - this is what they did allow to be altered in Parc Ferme this weekend:

http://www.fia.com/file/47836/download?token=HABpC14p

They produce these documents for every race weekend. I wonder if anybody else has replaced a clutch in Parc Ferme this year - with a quick look the only one I could see what Sainz in Canada, but he'd done a gearbox change (and got a 5 place penalty) that weekend too.

which makes me wonder even more why they didn't allow the clutch change

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote:

Zoue wrote: well I'd agree. Which brings us back to the point why on earth did the FIA reject the request?

**Speculation alert, I'm not claiming this as fact**

Could it be because RB couldn't suitably demonstrate the problem was noticed first only in Parc Ferme and wasn't known at all before?
If the FIA had cause to believe a team knew something beforehand but didn't address it earlier, they could've used that as a plausible reason to disallow a change now which would mean making an exception which shouldn't have been required in the first place.

Maybe, but that still seems like nit-picking to me. I still don't get what's to be gained by rejecting the request. What was the harm in allowing them to replace it if they felt it was faulty?

It seems that they had this problem before though. They didn't fix it and it re-appeared as per Horner's comments. If they had it before and it is such a safety concern, they should have rectified, shouldn't they? Putting the blame square to FIA's lap is a bit of a cheap shot really. The FIA don't gain anything by rejecting the request, but they don't lose by adhering to the rules either.

I would disagree. I think they lose by showing they are more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit or indeed F1 as a whole.

Likewise if they don't show interested in the letter of the law they'd be condemned too. I see what you mean, but I feel that in this instance RB had the chance to rectify it but didn't want the penalty so they put the blame on the FIA... Which sounds unfair

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote:
**Speculation alert, I'm not claiming this as fact**

Could it be because RB couldn't suitably demonstrate the problem was noticed first only in Parc Ferme and wasn't known at all before?
If the FIA had cause to believe a team knew something beforehand but didn't address it earlier, they could've used that as a plausible reason to disallow a change now which would mean making an exception which shouldn't have been required in the first place.

Maybe, but that still seems like nit-picking to me. I still don't get what's to be gained by rejecting the request. What was the harm in allowing them to replace it if they felt it was faulty?

It seems that they had this problem before though. They didn't fix it and it re-appeared as per Horner's comments. If they had it before and it is such a safety concern, they should have rectified, shouldn't they? Putting the blame square to FIA's lap is a bit of a cheap shot really. The FIA don't gain anything by rejecting the request, but they don't lose by adhering to the rules either.

I would disagree. I think they lose by showing they are more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit or indeed F1 as a whole.

Likewise if they don't show interested in the letter of the law they'd be condemned too. I see what you mean, but I feel that in this instance RB had the chance to rectify it but didn't want the penalty so they put the blame on the FIA... Which sounds unfair

But look at the above PDF indicating what has been changed by other teams, and then ask yourself the question why RBR were denied to swap an unrestricted part if the other teams were allowed to do what they did. That is what seems unfair here to me.

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

chetan_rao wrote: **Speculation alert, I'm not claiming this as fact**

Could it be because RB couldn't suitably demonstrate the problem was noticed first only in Parc Ferme and wasn't known at all before?
If the FIA had cause to believe a team knew something beforehand but didn't address it earlier, they could've used that as a plausible reason to disallow a change now which would mean making an exception which shouldn't have been required in the first place.

Maybe, but that still seems like nit-picking to me. I still don't get what's to be gained by rejecting the request. What was the harm in allowing them to replace it if they felt it was faulty?

It seems that they had this problem before though. They didn't fix it and it re-appeared as per Horner's comments. If they had it before and it is such a safety concern, they should have rectified, shouldn't they? Putting the blame square to FIA's lap is a bit of a cheap shot really. The FIA don't gain anything by rejecting the request, but they don't lose by adhering to the rules either.

I would disagree. I think they lose by showing they are more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit or indeed F1 as a whole.

Likewise if they don't show interested in the letter of the law they'd be condemned too. I see what you mean, but I feel that in this instance RB had the chance to rectify it but didn't want the penalty so they put the blame on the FIA... Which sounds unfair

Weighing up their options they clearly felt that starting 4th with a dodgy clutch was preferable to starting last with a perfect one. But for me the point to be made is what is the reasoning behind denying the request? Even if Red Bull made an error in judgement earlier (and I'm not saying that's definitely the case), so what? What harm could there possibly be if they could demonstrate that they felt the clutch was compromised? What condemnation could the FIA expect to receive by allowing it? I couldn't find anything, but were the FIA condemned for allowing Merc to change their brake supplier for the front brakes back in 2014? I think it shows them in a poor light tbh. They had no real grounds to deny the request, especially since the part was not a restricted one.

mds wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote: Maybe, but that still seems like nit-picking to me. I still don't get what's to be gained by rejecting the request. What was the harm in allowing them to replace it if they felt it was faulty?

It seems that they had this problem before though. They didn't fix it and it re-appeared as per Horner's comments. If they had it before and it is such a safety concern, they should have rectified, shouldn't they? Putting the blame square to FIA's lap is a bit of a cheap shot really. The FIA don't gain anything by rejecting the request, but they don't lose by adhering to the rules either.

I would disagree. I think they lose by showing they are more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit or indeed F1 as a whole.

Likewise if they don't show interested in the letter of the law they'd be condemned too. I see what you mean, but I feel that in this instance RB had the chance to rectify it but didn't want the penalty so they put the blame on the FIA... Which sounds unfair

But look at the above PDF indicating what has been changed by other teams, and then ask yourself the question why RBR were denied to swap an unrestricted part if the other teams were allowed to do what they did. That is what seems unfair here to me.

Did the other teams change parts without penalties though? RB had the chance to change it, with the associated penalty with it. It seems that they chose not to.

It is also important to remember that we don't know exactly what happened, the article is not really clear; just that the FIA delegate found no structural problem with the part.

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote: Maybe, but that still seems like nit-picking to me. I still don't get what's to be gained by rejecting the request. What was the harm in allowing them to replace it if they felt it was faulty?

It seems that they had this problem before though. They didn't fix it and it re-appeared as per Horner's comments. If they had it before and it is such a safety concern, they should have rectified, shouldn't they? Putting the blame square to FIA's lap is a bit of a cheap shot really. The FIA don't gain anything by rejecting the request, but they don't lose by adhering to the rules either.

I would disagree. I think they lose by showing they are more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit or indeed F1 as a whole.

Likewise if they don't show interested in the letter of the law they'd be condemned too. I see what you mean, but I feel that in this instance RB had the chance to rectify it but didn't want the penalty so they put the blame on the FIA... Which sounds unfair

Weighing up their options they clearly felt that starting 4th with a dodgy clutch was preferable to starting last with a perfect one. But for me the point to be made is what is the reasoning behind denying the request? Even if Red Bull made an error in judgement earlier (and I'm not saying that's definitely the case), so what? What harm could there possibly be if they could demonstrate that they felt the clutch was compromised? What condemnation could the FIA expect to receive by allowing it? I couldn't find anything, but were the FIA condemned for allowing Merc to change their brake supplier for the front brakes back in 2014? I think it shows them in a poor light tbh. They had no real grounds to deny the request, especially since the part was not a restricted one.

I agree, however what stops every team finding issues and asking for free of penalty change of parts? If you allow one then you'll have to allow them all afterwards. I can't remember the Merc brake issue to be honest Zoue, what happened there? Was it a similar case? Changing it in Parc Ferme overnight?

Siao7 wrote:

mds wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote: It seems that they had this problem before though. They didn't fix it and it re-appeared as per Horner's comments. If they had it before and it is such a safety concern, they should have rectified, shouldn't they? Putting the blame square to FIA's lap is a bit of a cheap shot really. The FIA don't gain anything by rejecting the request, but they don't lose by adhering to the rules either.

I would disagree. I think they lose by showing they are more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit or indeed F1 as a whole.

Likewise if they don't show interested in the letter of the law they'd be condemned too. I see what you mean, but I feel that in this instance RB had the chance to rectify it but didn't want the penalty so they put the blame on the FIA... Which sounds unfair

But look at the above PDF indicating what has been changed by other teams, and then ask yourself the question why RBR were denied to swap an unrestricted part if the other teams were allowed to do what they did. That is what seems unfair here to me.

Did the other teams change parts without penalties though? RB had the chance to change it, with the associated penalty with it. It seems that they chose not to.

It is also important to remember that we don't know exactly what happened, the article is not really clear; just that the FIA delegate found no structural problem with the part.

penalties are applied for changing limited lifetime parts, not for changing any old thing. If you change e.g. a gearbox, then you get a 5 place grid drop. If you change PU components then you get an escalating scale of penalties, depending on how many you change. However, if you work on a car in Parc Fermé without permission then you get hauled off the grid and have to start in the pit lane. In this instance, Red Bull weren't allowed to fix the clutch. Period. Reading into that further it's frankly quite bizarre that the penalty for fixing something which they may normally change quite freely would carry a harsher penalty than changing a limited-lifetime part, but that's the FIA for you

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote: It seems that they had this problem before though. They didn't fix it and it re-appeared as per Horner's comments. If they had it before and it is such a safety concern, they should have rectified, shouldn't they? Putting the blame square to FIA's lap is a bit of a cheap shot really. The FIA don't gain anything by rejecting the request, but they don't lose by adhering to the rules either.

I would disagree. I think they lose by showing they are more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit or indeed F1 as a whole.

Likewise if they don't show interested in the letter of the law they'd be condemned too. I see what you mean, but I feel that in this instance RB had the chance to rectify it but didn't want the penalty so they put the blame on the FIA... Which sounds unfair

Weighing up their options they clearly felt that starting 4th with a dodgy clutch was preferable to starting last with a perfect one. But for me the point to be made is what is the reasoning behind denying the request? Even if Red Bull made an error in judgement earlier (and I'm not saying that's definitely the case), so what? What harm could there possibly be if they could demonstrate that they felt the clutch was compromised? What condemnation could the FIA expect to receive by allowing it? I couldn't find anything, but were the FIA condemned for allowing Merc to change their brake supplier for the front brakes back in 2014? I think it shows them in a poor light tbh. They had no real grounds to deny the request, especially since the part was not a restricted one.

I agree, however what stops every team finding issues and asking for free of penalty change of parts? If you allow one then you'll have to allow them all afterwards. I can't remember the Merc brake issue to be honest Zoue, what happened there? Was it a similar case? Changing it in Parc Ferme overnight?

I posted it earlier:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115087

Essentially, Merc changed the front brakes in Parc Fermé because of a failure in practice. What was unusual about this was that they also changed supplier, which meant putting an entirely different spec unit on. If this was done on safety grounds, then logically one would assume the FIA would force every team using that supplier to change, but they didn't. Merc even kept the same supplier on the rears, which showed it wasn't simply a case of them losing faith in that supplier. To me that seems an inconsistent approach. The brakes weren't even ruled as faulty.