GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Williamsfan on March 27, 2011, 02:14:57 PM
-
They've lodged an appeal against it, but it seems Sauber have been in breach of the technical regulations which is a shame given both driver's great performances today. From autosport.com:
Sauber duo disqualified from Australia
By Pablo Elizalde Sunday, March 27th 2011, 10:54 GMT
Sauber drivers Sergio Perez and Kamui Kobayashi have been disqualified from the Australian Grand Prix over a technical infringement.
Perez, making his grand prix debut, had finished in a strong seventh position, one place ahead of his Japanese team-mate Kobayashi.
After the race, however, the race stewards excluded both cars over the infringement of technical rules 3.10.1 and 3.10.2.
The infringement occurred in the uppermost rear wing element.
Article 3.10.1 reads: "Any bodywork more than 150mm behind the rear wheel centre line which is between 150mm and 730mm above the reference plane, and between 75mm and 355mm from the car centre line, must lie in an area when viewed from the side of the car that is situated between 150mm and 350mm behind the rear wheel centre line and between 300mm and 400mm above the reference plane. When viewed from the side of the car no longitudinal cross section may have more than one section in this area.
"Furthermore, no part of this section in contact with the external air stream may have a local concave radius of curvature smaller than 100mm.
"Once this section is defined, 'gurney' type trim tabs may be fitted to the trailing edge. When measured in any longitudinal cross section no dimension of any such trim tab may exceed 20mm."
3.10.2 states: "Other than the bodywork defined in Article 3.10.9, any bodywork behind a point lying 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line which is more than 730mm above the reference plane, and less than 355mm from the car centre line, must lie in an area when viewed from the side of the car that is situated between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm behind it."
The exclusion of the Sauber drivers means Ferrari's Felipe Massa is elevated to seventh, ahead of Toro Rosso's Sebastien Buemi, and Force India duo Adrian Sutil and Paul di Resta.
-
:o O'er, ouch for Sauber. :(
-
wish I'd have seen this 15 minutes ago.Now I have to redo the GG
-
Revised results
1. Sebastian Vettel Red Bull
2. Lewis Hamilton McLaren
3. Vitaly Petrov Renault
4. Fernando Alonso Ferrari
5. Mark Webber Red Bull
6. Jenson Button McLaren
7. Felipe Massa Ferrari
8. Sebastien Buemi Toro Rosso
9. Adrian Sutil Force India
10. Paul di Resta Force India
11. Jaime Alguersuari Toro Rosso
12. Nick Heidfeld Renault
13. Jarno Trulli Lotus
14. Jerome D'Ambrosio Virgin
Not classified/retirements/disqualified:
Sergio Perez Sauber 58
Kamui Kobayashi 58
Timo Glock Virgin 50
Rubens Barrichello Williams 49
Nico Rosberg Mercedes 22
Heikki Kovalainen Lotus 19
Michael Schumacher Mercedes 19
Pastor Maldonado Williams 10
.
-
Brutal, absolutely brutal, after such a great finish by both drivers. I have to go read more about this. >:( >:(
-
Very brutal indeed Scott, hardly seems fair as I wonder how much difference any infringement made to the pace of the car. I was very impressed with Perez today so it is a shame his performance will go down as a DQ.
-
I was a little concerned Hamilton might be dq'ed,the
Sauber dq shocked me aswell,Sauber said they will appeal
-
Yeah, I wouldn't have been too surprised to see him DQ'd from the race results given the state of the underside of his car. I spent some of the morning checking to see if anything was being done against him.
-
I'm totally gutted to read this. :(
I would say given their talent I would say Perez and Kobi will get another chance to shine. I look forward to watch these guys for the rest of the season.
-
I wonder if the reaction to the DQ would have been the same had it been Michael Schumacher. :tease:
-
Nope, it would be hailed as a fair and just decision :tease:
Only joking. I think the sympathy at least from my on opinion is due to the fact Sauber are a smaller team and did a brilliant job today but seem to have fallen foul of something that is not really very clear.
-
WF, I'm gutted for the pair of them as well, they both done a sterling job, especially Perez in his 1st GP, and on just one tyre change too.
-
I wonder if the reaction to the DQ would have been the same had it been Michael Schumacher. :tease:
or if MS pulled the bonehead maneuver that Ruben's made
today!They'd have cried bloody murder
-
According to Autosport the Sauber top wing failed the 100mm ball test. :swoon: Yeah I know what the hell is that :DntKnw: well read the explanation below.
Apparently the prescribed curvature limit is an anti F-duct measure. I guess it depends on what Sauber find in their own investigation whether they continue with an appeal.
The rear wings did not comply with Articles 3.10.1 and 3.10.2 of the F1 Technical Regulations that demands wing parts do not have 'a local concave radius of curvature smaller than 100mm.'
This addition to the F1 regulations was introduced this year to prevent teams from running F-duct type systems. Its compliance is tested by the FIA using a 100mm ball template - which must remain in contact with the wing at all points.
Should the wing be too curved, as the Sauber design used in the race appeared to be, then the ball will have a gap between it and the wing.
Sauber technical director James Key said that he was seeking answers from the team's Hinwil factory as to why the design used in Melbourne had not passed the test.
Autosport.com, Today.
-
Peter Sauber should get the one thing that would assure that his cars would fly right through scrutineering - a bucket of Rosso Corsa paint.
-
Peter Sauber should get the one thing that would assure that his cars would fly right through scrutineering - a bucket of Rosso Corsa paint.
:o
-
:DntKnw: :DntKnw:
I dont see what wing section radius of curvature has got to do with F-duct systems?
-
:DntKnw: :DntKnw:
I dont see what wing section radius of curvature has got to do with F-duct systems?
I think because it's hard to stop designers routing air over the top, or even through the cars, this minimum curvature is trying to ensure that little or no advantage can be gained from directed airflows; a defacto always open F-duct type arrangment. I admit this a guess, does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
-
You're probably right John.
What confuses me is that the ball is effectively limiting the camber or curvature of the aerofoil section of the wing elements. Its like instead of saying, "no f-duct" they are saying, " you cant have an wing section that might be able to take advantage of an f-duct".
Just seems to be a very convoluted way of saying "no f-duct"
-
I'm not quite clear on whether they're using the template on the width of the wing, or on the chord of the wing. The FIA always seems to over regulate. Why not just say No F-Duct?
Lonny
-
I'm not quite clear on whether they're using the template on the width of the wing, or on the chord of the wing. The FIA always seems to over regulate. Why not just say No F-Duct?
Lonny
Because it's F1! If you say 'no F-Duct', then Newey installs a G-Duct and says it's totally different.
The main problem with defining the rules is that there's no effective way to measure the cars except with templates, rulers and scales. They'd much rather say that the car can only have 700 lbs of down force, but how can you check that trackside?
-
If NASCAR thinks a team is too fast or is skirting the rules, they just confiscate the car and gp over it slowly and carefully including sticking it in a wind tunnel if they think they need to. I imagine the prospect of losing a car for a couple of races would keep most teams pretty honest. ;)
Lonny
-
If NASCAR thinks a team is too fast or is skirting the rules, they just confiscate the car and gp over it slowly and carefully including sticking it in a wind tunnel if they think they need to. I imagine the prospect of losing a car for a couple of races would keep most teams pretty honest. ;)
Lonny
That isn't such a bad idea. The biggest hold up would be logistics of moving cars back and forth to wind tunnels during fly away season.
Making the accusor pay for the shipping if the charged car is deemed 'legal', and a fine on top of that, should be enough to stop false accusations from flying.
-
If NASCAR thinks a team is too fast or is skirting the rules, they just confiscate the car and gp over it slowly and carefully including sticking it in a wind tunnel if they think they need to. I imagine the prospect of losing a car for a couple of races would keep most teams pretty honest. ;)
Lonny
That isn't such a bad idea. The biggest hold up would be logistics of moving cars back and forth to wind tunnels during fly away season.
Making the accusor pay for the shipping if the charged car is deemed 'legal', and a fine on top of that, should be enough to stop false accusations from flying.
Now where's that darned 'like' button...too much time on Facebook obviously...oh wait, there it is :good: :good: