Sauber DQ'd from Australian GP

[Tumbo]

So Sauber have been DQ'd for a technical infringement related to their rear wing

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90294

Such a shame given Perez's strong debut in F1

[AndyL]

Desperately disappointing for Perez, he didn't deserve that.

[jens]

Reminds me that Kubica got DQ'd from P7 on his Grand Prix debut as well...

But feel really sorry for the drivers. :( They deserved those points!

[Garry Walker]

Shame, but rules are rules

[CNR]

Shame, but rules are rules

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8688/fia.html

24) SCRUTINEERING
24.1 Between 10.00 and 16.00 three days before the race (four days in Monaco) initial scrutineering of all cars will take place in the garage assigned to each competitor.
24.2 Unless a waiver is granted by the stewards, competitors who do not keep to these time limits will not be allowed to take part in the Event.
24.3 No car may take part in the Event until it has been passed by the scrutineers.
24.4 The scrutineers may :
a) check the eligibility of a car or of a competitor at any time during an Event ;
b) require a car to be dismantled by the competitor to make sure that the conditions of eligibility or conformity are fully satisfied ;
c) require a competitor to pay the reasonable expenses which exercise of the powers mentioned in this Article may entail ;
d) require a competitor to supply them with such parts or samples as they may deem necessary.
24.5 Any car which, after being passed by the scrutineers, is dismantled or modified in a way which might affect its safety or call into question its eligibility, or which is involved in an accident with similar consequences, must be re-presented for scrutineering approval.
Any such re-scrutineering may only take place with the consent of the stewards (following a written request from a competitor) and will be carried out the next morning.
24.6 The race director or the clerk of the course may require that any car involved in an accident be stopped and checked.
24.7 Checks and scrutineering shall be carried out by duly appointed officials who shall also be responsible for the operation of the parc fermé and who alone are authorised to give instructions to the competitors.
24.8 The stewards will publish the findings of the scrutineers each time cars are checked during the Event. These results will not include any specific figure except when a car is found to be in breach of the Technical Regulations.



Q: did newey dob ?

[N4D13]

The last driver to be disqualified in his first GP was Robert Kubica. This might be a good omen - this kid's got a future!

[UltimateDanGTR]

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8688/fia.html


Q: did newey dob ?

Why would Newey dob?

More likely Ferrari, STR or Force India one would assume. Whichever way, really dissapointing and annoying, I'm gutted for Sauber, Kamui and especially Sergio. But, rules are there to be stuck to and enforced so really, It's someone within Sauber's own fault.

[truefan72]

ridiculous

once again the FIA has found a way to ruin everyone's weekend with some pathetic supposed rule infringement

Now haven;t these cars been inspected and did they not pass all the requirements before being on the track Friday?

What is this nonsense?

Once again Massa taking advantage of others being DQ'd for a completely undeserved additional points

one can only hope that Sauber win their appeal

[steveaki13]

Its a real shame for Kamui and Sergio as they both drove well and deserved there points, but as Sauber broke the rules there appears no choice.

[ioan]

Interesting, especially after Sauber's rear wing was scrutinized after Qualy:

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Documents/aus-document-40.pdf



After the qualifying practice session:
Car numbers 01, 02, 03,04, 05, 06, 08, 10, 16 and 18 were weighed.
Car numbers 01, 02, 03,04, 05, 06, 08, 10, 16 and 18 were checked for the following:
1) Bodywork around the front wheels
2) Front wing height and overhang
3) Rear wing height and overhang
4) Front and rear wing width
5) Rear wing configuration
6) Rear bodywork area
7) Rear winglet height
8) Stepped bottom
9) Diffuser height
10) Diffuser width
11) Overall height
12) Overall width

[Sonic]

Interesting, especially after Sauber's rear wing was scrutinized after Qualy:

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Documents/aus-document-40.pdf

This was exactly my thoughts. very odd

[christophulus]

They're going to appeal the decision http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90300

Not sure how they'll get away with it, even if there was no advantage gained they broke the rules. The other 20 cars had legal wings.

[Bruce D]

Interesting, especially after Sauber's rear wing was scrutinized after Qualy:

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Documents/aus-document-40.pdf

Thanks for posting this ioan, I was beginning to think the FIA's pre-race scrutineering consisted of "does it have wheels? Yes. Ok, pass."

;)

[SGWilko]

Thanks for posting this ioan, I was beginning to think the FIA's pre-race scrutineering consisted of "does it have wheels? Yes. Ok, pass."

;)

Next time Sauber hook their car up to the 'net, a yellow shield will pop up in the task bar to indicate a firmware update is available. On the basis the SW was developed in conjuntion with MS, no doubt the reboot will occur mid-race in Sepang, upon reboot and seven subsequent BSOD's, the message 'an unspecified error has occured 0x000008f' will show on the steering wheel screen!!!!!! ;)

[F1boat]

ridiculous

once again the FIA has found a way to ruin everyone's weekend with some pathetic supposed rule infringement

That's FIA for you.

[CNR]

Why would Newey dob?

More likely Ferrari, STR or Force India one would assume. Whichever way, really dissapointing and annoying, I'm gutted for Sauber, Kamui and especially Sergio. But, rules are there to be stuck to and enforced so really, It's someone within Sauber's own fault.

http://i54.tinypic.com/98y4pv.jpg

they use voice recognition software agreed should be grid

[ioan]

Thanks for posting this ioan, I was beginning to think the FIA's pre-race scrutineering consisted of "does it have wheels? Yes. Ok, pass."

;)

In all honesty it doesn't seem to be any bit more serious than that anyway.
Both Saubers passed the scrutinizing on Saturday after qualy, than the same tests yielded another result on Sunday even though the wings were not changed due to parc ferme rules. :confused:
Go figure!

Given this situation I believe that Sauber have a slim chance to get back their results.

[airshifter]

This is what confuses me about the FIA. Either the cars were legal or they were not. With the parc freme rules it's obvious that Sauber didn't change the wing that had already been deemed legal. After the race the wing is deemed not legal.

Shame for both the team and the drivers, but to me more shame on the FIA for not citing the problem during the first inspection.

[gloomyDAY]

Boo! :mad:

[Koz]

What kind of a time frame we looking at to know the results of the appeal, have they filed it yet?

[Storm]

Seems unfair to the driver but then those are the rules (atleast rules made up by FIA!)

[Bagwan]

This disqualification brings to mind a few questions .

If the car was deemed ok to race , and seemingly nothing changed between the quals and race , is it not the fault of the stewards and tech team failing to catch it beforehand ?
Was this team of tech guys the same team of tech guys who failed to find the issue beforehand ?

The Sauber team has come out saying that the wing , as it was run , was not something that improved the car and it's speed at all .
If this is true , we must assume that , had the scrutineers caught the issue before the race , they would have used the other wing they had brought with them , as they had two versions , the other apparently , which was within the given radius .

This puts the tech guys at the front of this issue .
Although it was the Sauber guys who manufactured an illegal wing , it was the FIA tech guys who allowed it's use , and until the final scrutineering , Sauber thought they were OK .
If they had had any inkling that it was not going to pass the final , they surely would not have completely wasted everyone's time racing , only to be burned afterwards .
Even if using the other wing had them go to the back of the pack after quals , I'm quite sure they would have chosen , if allowed , to replace the wing with a legal one .

[edv]

In response to ioan's post, I suppose it depends on the definition of 'Rear Wing Configuration' among the list of scrutineering tests, since it was neither the height nor width (nor overhang) of the rear wing that caused the disqualification...it was the concave-ness of the upper wing element.

[truefan72]

This disqualification brings to mind a few questions .

If the car was deemed ok to race , and seemingly nothing changed between the quals and race , is it not the fault of the stewards and tech team failing to catch it beforehand ?
Was this team of tech guys the same team of tech guys who failed to find the issue beforehand ?

The Sauber team has come out saying that the wing , as it was run , was not something that improved the car and it's speed at all .
If this is true , we must assume that , had the scrutineers caught the issue before the race , they would have used the other wing they had brought with them , as they had two versions , the other apparently , which was within the given radius .

This puts the tech guys at the front of this issue .
Although it was the Sauber guys who manufactured an illegal wing , it was the FIA tech guys who allowed it's use , and until the final scrutineering , Sauber thought they were OK .
If they had had any inkling that it was not going to pass the final , they surely would not have completely wasted everyone's time racing , only to be burned afterwards .
Even if using the other wing had them go to the back of the pack after quals , I'm quite sure they would have chosen , if allowed , to replace the wing with a legal one .

well said

[Bagwan]

well said

Thanks .

I guess they got a test session out of the weekend , at least .
It seems like pretty $hitty pool to me , though .

I hope they appeal , and I hope they win .

Bad mistake by Sauber , but far worse mistake , in my opinion , by the stewards .

[ioan]

In response to ioan's post, I suppose it depends on the definition of 'Rear Wing Configuration' among the list of scrutineering tests, since it was neither the height nor width (nor overhang) of the rear wing that caused the disqualification...it was the concave-ness of the upper wing element.

Here's what they tested after the race:



Car numbers 01, 02, 04, 05, 06, 10, 16, 17 and 18 were checked for the following:
1) Bodywork around the front wheels
2) Front wing height and overhang
3) Rear wing height and overhang
4) Front and rear wing width
5) Rear wing configuration
6) Rear bodywork area
7) Rear winglet height
8) Skidblock thickness
9) Stepped bottom
10) Diffuser height
11) Diffuser area
12) Overall height
13) Overall width

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Documents/aus-race-report.pdf

Exactly the same tests + skidblock thickness (and this one has certainly nothing to do with Saubers' rear wing).

The same tests on same car have different outcomes even though the car didn't change due to FIA restrictions?!
How can these clowns keep a straight face and call themselves a regulatory body?

[truefan72]

Here's what they tested after the race:



http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Documents/aus-race-report.pdf

Exactly the same tests + skidblock thickness (and this one has certainly nothing to do with Saubers' rear wing).

The same tests on same car have different outcomes even though the car didn't change due to FIA restrictions?!
How can these clowns keep a straight face and call themselves a regulatory body?

this penalty is look more and more dubious with every passing hour. Seems to me like the marshals couldn't get their act straight.
I bet you there is a problem with their measuring equipment and not the car.

I wonder if teams are allowed to view the inspection. Because I would not trust these group of folks to do a proper and accurate test

[Hawkmoon]

Before damning the scrutineers I'd like to know what the "rear wing configuration" test involved. It doesn't look good that the same test yielded different results but is it in fact an identical test? If they check some, but not all, aspects of the rear wing configuration then it is conceivable that the Saubers could have passed the post-qualy test and failed the post-race test. If the tests are indeed identical then Sauber would have a pretty good case to appeal.

It's interesting that Sauber's protestations of innocence seem to centre around a "no harm, no foul" argument in that they derived no benefit from the illegal wing. If the tests were suspect wouldn't they be pointing that out instead?

[TMorel]

This would all be cleared up if the FIA was more open and transparent and gave proper explanations. It could we be that they have a pool of tests all within the "rear wing height/width and configuration" section and due to time constraints they pick random tests each time they scrutineer, in which case it's not surprising that something passed first time and failed a subsequent test.
There again, it could be the FIA employs incompetent monkeys to be stewards, in which case it's not surprising that something passed first time and failed a subsequent test.

I'm surprised the teams aren't more forthcoming with what actually goes on - maybe a tweet to Jake on the next F1 Forum is called for to get us some details of the exact procedures.

[AndyL]

This would all be cleared up if the FIA was more open and transparent and gave proper explanations. It could we be that they have a pool of tests all within the "rear wing height/width and configuration" section and due to time constraints they pick random tests each time they scrutineer, in which case it's not surprising that something passed first time and failed a subsequent test.
There again, it could be the FIA employs incompetent monkeys to be stewards, in which case it's not surprising that something passed first time and failed a subsequent test.

Whatever we may think of the FIA, the latter seems unlikely. Scrutineers work at all levels of motorsport and it's hard to imagine that it's the worst ones that end up in F1. Your first possibility is pretty likely I think. We know that not every car is fully scrutineered at every opportunity so there is clearly a limit on what they can do in the time available.

[wedge]

Ah, nice see armchair critics pointing fingers again and jumping to conclusions again.


http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/sauber-explanation-of-the-rear-wing-infringement/

It seems a manufacturing error lead to Saubers disqualification from the Australian GP. New rules this year set a minimum radius for the rear wing elements, these were introduced to prevent slots being added to the wings to allow blown slots and F-duct stalling slots. However in post race scrutineering the Sauber fell foul of the new test, which is to uphold the revised rules; 3.10.1 and 3.10.2. The rear wing flap on both races cars was tested and its upper surface (with the logo “Sauber F1 Team&#8221 ;) was found to be made with too tight a radius.

The new test involves checking a minimum 100mm radius is applied to all areas of the wing on contact with the external airstream. As exclusively revealed by Gocar.Gr, it appears the upper face of the rear wing flap was too curved by some 5mm. Sauber have three versions of the flap available and two were brought to Melbourne. It seems the version raced was not fully checked at the factory and therefore the error was not picked up, whereas the other (un-raced) specification flap was checked and deemed legal. Not every car and every component gets fully checked by the FIA scrutineers. The cars will go through different tests at different points in the weekend. It seems the Sauber flap in question was not tested until after the race.

[Don Capps]

Shame, but rules are rules

The vast majority of which have reduced this form of racing to utter nonsense for years upon years.

[markabilly]

WOW

5 millimeters!!!!

meanwhile things are dangling off the hamilton mac that might hurt somebody......

[SGWilko]

WOW

5 millimeters!!!!

meanwhile things are dangling off the hamilton mac that might hurt somebody......

It was no exhaust pipe flapping held on only by a sensor cable scenario - save the dramatics for Shakespeare......

[CNR]

F1 team Sauber accepts drivers' DQs in Australia
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/motor/2011-03-29-1381128770_x.htm

Formula One team Sauber won't appeal the disqualification

[Ari]

This disqualification brings to mind a few questions .

If the car was deemed ok to race , and seemingly nothing changed between the quals and race , is it not the fault of the stewards and tech team failing to catch it beforehand ?
Was this team of tech guys the same team of tech guys who failed to find the issue beforehand ?


Would be my first thoughts.

YES it's ultimately up to the team, but the stewards have a responsibility to let teams know if they are in an illegal position. Otherwise, we would not have scrutineering before/after quali rade etc. It would just be in parc ferme.

Definitely the blame should be shared.

[Mark]

If the car was deemed ok to race , and seemingly nothing changed between the quals and race , is it not the fault of the stewards and tech team failing to catch it beforehand ?

No. It's the teams responsibility to make sure their car complies with the regulations. Not the FIA or the stewards or anyone else. If you don't comply with the regs, "It wasn't noticed before" is no excuse.

[AndyL]

Would be my first thoughts.

YES it's ultimately up to the team, but the stewards have a responsibility to let teams know if they are in an illegal position. Otherwise, we would not have scrutineering before/after quali rade etc. It would just be in parc ferme.

Definitely the blame should be shared.

If the stewards had measured that aspect of the car before the race, then obviously they would have let the team know they were in an illegal position. But as we have previously heard (and common sense predicts) the stewards cannot scrutineer every detail of every car at every point. There simply isn't the time. They perform only a subset of the available tests.
It's not the job of the stewards to validate the design of each car. It's their job to catch people who are breaking the rules. Sauber were unlucky to have been caught at the worst possible time, but I can't see how the stewards can take any part of the blame for a situation caused by Sauber's mistake.

[ioan]

If the stewards had measured that aspect of the car before the race, then obviously they would have let the team know they were in an illegal position. But as we have previously heard (and common sense predicts) the stewards cannot scrutineer every detail of every car at every point. There simply isn't the time. They perform only a subset of the available tests.

Not every aspect, however the Rear Wing has been checked both before and after the race, and once it was OK and 2nd time not, even though no changes have been done.


It's not the job of the stewards to validate the design of each car.

That is not entirely true. The teams might interpret the rules in another way as it happened in the past already, that wouldn't mean they are cheating just that they see it otherwise and in this case the design of the cars is validated by passing FIA scrutineering.