Should Alonso have been excluded from Bahrain result?

[John S]

Sure he suffered loss of positions, but didn't his DRS contravene regs?     

Yes I know there was no real drama or any other driver put in danger, however the default for a failing DRS is supposed to be the closed position. The Ferrari clearly did not display this characteristic - for whatever reason.

Part of the FIA technical regs for 2013 reads like this in section 3.18.1 (driver adjustable bodywork):- 
 
- The design is such that failure of the system will result in the uppermost closed section returning to the normal high incidence position.

Many cars have been disqualified for less than what took place with his rear wing. Rules is rules surely?????

[Ian]

Don't forget we're talking Ferrari here John.

[Jericoke]

I'm sure the loophole is simple:  at the point of the race that the DRS was broken, it was no longer 'driver adjustable'.   

I would believe that the spirt of the rule is to ensure that no extra downforce is generated, so they're not really guilty of breaking that either.

I'd have to come down with Ferrari on the issue.  But it is a good question!

[cosworth151]

Also, no advantage was gained. He didn't overtake another car. In fact, having it open for the entire lap would reduce downforce in the corners, slowing the car. It caused him to go without the use of DRS for the rest of the race. Add to that the fact that it required extra pit stops to force the flap closed.

And I'm not a big Ferrari fan, either. 

It looked like the flap opened too far. That might have been what wedged it open.

[F1fanaticBD]

I had the same sort of notion that Alonso may be disqualified, but they should have at least investigated. Although the team and the driver lost out many accolades, still I think stewards should have issued a clarification about it. And another thing that struck me as none of the opponent team even disputed why Ferrari was not investigated?

[lkjohnson1950]

If Alonso had zipped through the field to a win or even podium, I'm sure other teams would have asked for at least a clarification, but the DRS jamming open is an obvious reduction in performance so I doubt anyone got their panties in a bunch. Ferrari maybe should get a fine, but Alonso did a fine job and deserves his spot.

[Alianora La Canta]

Ferrari fixed the wing as best they could as soon as they could, and when they found that wasn't enough, they called Fernando in to fix it properly. You can't wave the black-and-orange flag (the usual action for ignoring a mechanical issue that must be fixed) if the car you're trying to flag keeps going through the pit lane in attempts to get a repair instead of the start-finish straight (you can only get a black-and-orange flag at the start-finish straight because it's a race control call rather than an individual marshall call).

There is no sensible reason why anyone would make a DRS default with the flap sticking up in the clean airflow like that. It meant the downforce was low and the drag was very high - slowest possible combination. The spirit of the DRS-defaulting-closed rule is safety; no driver wants to go into a hard-braking corner with a nearby wall and suddenly discover they don't have enough downforce to make it round. A deliberate attempt to subvert the closure rule would have the DRS be stuck in the standard "open" position rather than the "more open than open" one - it would feature low downforce but at least the drag would also be low.

Had Ferrari ignored a black-and-orange flag, then there'd be cause to call for a disqualification. It does not apply here because Ferrari didn't give Race Control time to get the flag out in the first place.

[John S]

Ferrari fixed the wing as best they could as soon as they could, and when they found that wasn't enough, they called Fernando in to fix it properly. You can't wave the black-and-orange flag (the usual action for ignoring a mechanical issue that must be fixed) if the car you're trying to flag keeps going through the pit lane in attempts to get a repair instead of the start-finish straight (you can only get a black-and-orange flag at the start-finish straight because it's a race control call rather than an individual marshall call).

There is no sensible reason why anyone would make a DRS default with the flap sticking up in the clean airflow like that. It meant the downforce was low and the drag was very high - slowest possible combination. The spirit of the DRS-defaulting-closed rule is safety; no driver wants to go into a hard-braking corner with a nearby wall and suddenly discover they don't have enough downforce to make it round. A deliberate attempt to subvert the closure rule would have the DRS be stuck in the standard "open" position rather than the "more open than open" one - it would feature low downforce but at least the drag would also be low.

Had Ferrari ignored a black-and-orange flag, then there'd be cause to call for a disqualification. It does not apply here because Ferrari didn't give Race Control time to get the flag out in the first place.

In your sensible and practical answer you seem to have glossed over the wording of the reg which pertains purely to design.  Surely if the DRS is able to default to the open position, without accidental intervention - such as colliding with another car, the design is called into question don't you think?

In other areas of the regs the FIA takes great pains to separate the actual rules from what most regard the spirit of the rules to be. Just because it makes no sense to make a DRS with an open default this can surely not be a defence. The regs state closed as default, yet clearly Alonso's wing did not do this.   

[vintly]

As others have already said, Ferrari acted quickly to rectify the situation. Alonso didn't benefit from it - quite the opposite. Therefore no further penalty. Simples.

[Jericoke]

As others have already said, Ferrari acted quickly to rectify the situation. Alonso didn't benefit from it - quite the opposite. Therefore no further penalty. Simples.

And the FIA is well known for their simple and reasonable approach to formula one rule creation and enforcement 

[Irisado]

There was some kind of technical failure with the system.  That's not contravening the regulations, that's a mechanical failure.  If teams are going to be disqualified for mechanical failures, then the sport may as well pack up, and go home.

The solution, for me, is to get rid of DRS entirely, then they wouldn't even need such a regulation in the first place.

[John S]

There was some kind of technical failure with the system.  That's not contravening the regulations, that's a mechanical failure.  If teams are going to be disqualified for mechanical failures, then the sport may as well pack up, and go home.

The solution, for me, is to get rid of DRS entirely, then they wouldn't even need such a regulation in the first place.

I'm not disputing the technical failure, however default means if something goes wrong - and clearly it did - then the design must ensure it goes to the closed position. 

There must be some inherent fault in the design if a technical failure of a part allows the wing to remain open. I know it's hard to achieve but that is what the regs say must happen. Alonso's points from that race could cost Ŗmillions to the Willams team later in the year. 



 

[Scott]

I get what you are saying John, and you are right, technically their DRS does not function as the rule stipulates.  Whatever goes wrong, it should return to the closed position.  Even if they tried to fix it (and then it happened a second time - further proving it does not function the way it is supposed to in the rules), I would say they did break the rules. 

However I'm glad they didn't DQ him, as he has had enough bad luck this year and last.  I guess if one of the other teams raised a stink, then the FIA would have to either DQ him for the race or clarify the rule itself.

[Irisado]

I'm not disputing the technical failure, however default means if something goes wrong - and clearly it did - then the design must ensure it goes to the closed position. 

There must be some inherent fault in the design if a technical failure of a part allows the wing to remain open. I know it's hard to achieve but that is what the regs say must happen. Alonso's points from that race could cost Ŗmillions to the Willams team later in the year. 

I see what you're getting at in terms of the wording of the regulation, so I think that they just need to tidy it up.

The ruling really should just read 'in the event of a DRS failure, the car must pit that lap, and if the fault cannot be repaired, the car must be retired on the grounds of safety'.  That seems like a more sensible rule to me.

[John S]

Since when have FIA regs ever made sense Irisado?