F1 Italian Grand Prix: Mitch Evans calls out F1 for double standards

[olegg]

F1 Italian Grand Prix: Mitch Evans calls out F1 for double standards

What do you think about it?

 

[Brogan]

He has a point.

Perhaps his team should have argued their case better?

Mercedes did nothing wrong and fully complied with the rules.
It was the FIA's own testing procedure which was flawed.

 

[-WBF1-]

I'm not 100% sure, but does not GP2 ban tyre warmers. Would this not make it harder to argue the tyre pressures had dropped due to the tyres cooling.

 

[rufus_mcdufus]

Non issue. The mistake was with Pirelli measuring twice. The first and correct measurement showed the tyres were legal.

I don't know how it compares with the Mitch Evans case.

 

[olegg]

I think that these were different situations
in the GP2 post-qualification test + decision and
in Formula 1 pre-race test + post-race decision

 

[Brogan]

Pirelli didn't measure twice.
It was Bauer, the FIA guy who measured the second time when the cars were on the grid.

Here's my post from the GP thread:

A comprehensive write up on the tyre farce: Italian GP: F1's tyre controversy. Know the whole story

In what appears to be a case of miscommunication, the FIA had not been informed that Pirelli usually accepts the earlier measurement – with the tyres fully heated in their still connected blankets – as its definitive official "starting pressure."

When Bauer did his extra checks, it was at a stage when Pirelli had already accepted the Mercedes tyres as "legal", while knowing that, with the blankets disconnected, the temperature and pressure could only drop.
...
The Stewards also accepted that once the cars started moving, the tyres heated up again, and the pressures went up. Indeed, data from the cars showed that throughout the race the Mercedes tyres stayed well above the minimum requirement, and the FIA was satisfied by that.

Good point -WBF1-, in which case the two situations aren't really comparable.

 

[olegg]

There are strange to the changes introduced by Pirelli.
It seems that these are recommendations, not requirements of the regulations.
It is a pity that there is no reference to the detailed rules of GP2
on the basis of which the Evans and Canamasas was punished

 

[Kewee]

The one good thing for Evans from a Kiwi fans viewpoint is his penalty gave him the opportunity to put in two stunning race performances in front of the F1 paddock. Hopefully for his ambitions his drives won't have gone unnoticed.

 

[Incubus]

As someone said earlier it's a complete non-issue. The stewards ' report is self-explanatory and isn't related to the situation that arose in GP2 for the reasons cited in the comments above.

 

[snowy]

The FIA have again proved themselves to be unfit for purpose.
They keep on introducing legislation that is unenforcible, stupid and then send inept people to measure and enforce.

Had there been an actual infringement the only course of action would be to throw Lewis and Mercedes out of the race. Which begs the question: Why the fuck did Mercedes wreck an engine, encourage their driver to endanger himself and cause him needless anxiety? As if a 25 second penalty would ever have been imposed on a car that finished in 1st place with a 25.5 second lead. Fuck Wits!

 

[snowy]

Lousy reporting:

Though it was accepted that Hamilton ran with reduced tyre pressures on his Mercedes, it was deemed the team had followed correct protocol as set out by the regulations and thus had not intended to gain an advantage. As a result, the decision was taken not to punish Hamilton with any form of penalty, with the protocol itself now being reviewed instead.

Every team and car has telemetry monitoring tyre pressures, Mercedes showed that once the car was running and tyres up to temperature their pressures were well above the minimum requirement.

 

[Galahad]

It is a fairly new situation for a supplier to determine when a particular regulation is enforceable and when it isn't. If Ferrari were caught running illegal fuel, would it be ok for Shell to say "well, it was fine when we put it in"?

I jest of course. Perhaps the FIA should ask for expressions of interest for someone else to enforce their rules.

 

[RasputinLives]

When it comes to enforcing rules isn't the FIA's current stock answer make a dramatic sweeping statement that they gradually go back on under pressure from the teams?

 

[Brogan]

If Ferrari were caught running illegal fuel...

I believe one or two teams got away with that in 2007

 

[snowy]

In 2007 Kimi won the Australian GP with an illegal floor. Ferrari were asked not to do that again.

 

[P1]

It is a fairly new situation for a supplier to determine when a particular regulation is enforceable and when it isn't. If Ferrari were caught running illegal fuel, would it be ok for Shell to say "well, it was fine when we put it in"?

I jest of course. Perhaps the FIA should ask for expressions of interest for someone else to enforce their rules.

Your example is completely irrelevant because Pirelli is a supplier to the FIA and supplies all the teams in the context of their FIA contract. Shell is a supplier to Ferrari and quite clearly in the Ferrari camp from a competitive perspective (when Ferrari wins, Shell is beating Petronas, Total and Esso). Pirelli has no incentive to help out Mercedes, but Shell has a clear incentive to help out Ferrari.

 

[RasputinLives]

I would say after all the bad PR its got of late Pirreli very much has a motive not to have a race winner diqualified. Firstly imagine the media storm and bad publicity. Secondly imagine another top team coming out and condeming them publicly.

 

[Galahad]

Your example is completely irrelevant

I know, I was just messing about. Still, manufacturers do form relationships with tyre suppliers for supply to new road vehicles, which are presumably lucrative for the tyre companies involved. And Pirelli might find Lewis Hamilton a more marketable representative for their products than, say, Sebastian Vettel. So while I'm sure you're right, it is a bit of an odd and unwelcome situation.

 

[Titch]

I still feel that Pirreli have way more influence on a race outcome than a tyre manufacturer should have. It's one part of a car, along with numerous other factors that should make a car a winner or not. But these days tyre performance / choice can make or break any car irrespective of how well engineered the car is.
Now they are setting rules for tyre pressures, although some teams might want to use tyre pressure as part of their set up strategy. All teams want is a tyre that is robust enough to work for them, and the car, whatever the circumstances. But apparently tyres are now so sensitive that the team has to agonise over the best tyre strategy, to minimise tyre malfunction, so much so, that racing becomes secondary.
At what point do teams start designing cars around tyres?

 

[rufus_mcdufus]

Mind you at least all the teams have the same choices, unlike the Michelin/Bridgestone years where most of the teams picked the wrong tyre manufacturer and were stuck with it. Thankfully lessons appear to have been learned and it's unlikely well go back to that situation.