Clicky

Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Sakae said:

OK, but these are (I think) separate issues which FiA is not addressing. Seb's challenges with overtaking are not issues they talking about. They also not concerning themselves with alleged gains in speed due to "lighter on weight" car.

They want - per regulations - after race 1 litre of fuel, and the didn't get it. That's the reason why the car was disqualified. For AM to claim NO, fuel is there is rather strange, especially when FiA already gave the team several chances to recover that fuel for them. AM is not the first car which had trouble with overtaking in dirty air; that happens all the time, yet that 1 liter of fuel must be always available. In any car after race. 

We will see how this ends.

It shows the extent of him pushing and chasing, Seb even admiited he tried..everything, after the race. There's more to the story in my view. AM won't deliberately try to "bend" the rules in my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BradSpeedMan said:

It shows the extent of him pushing and chasing, Seb even admiited he tried..everything, after the race. There's more to the story in my view. AM won't deliberately try to "bend" the rules in my opinion

I am happy for Seb when opportunity knocked on the door, he took it. I've read about his struggle behind the race leader, despite having slightly faster car. Then he did not make it into pits on the last lap.  Pitty.

This is what Seb said:

Quote

“Of course we haven’t achieved good results in the last few races, but I think we feel much more comfortable overall than we did at the beginning.

“So we see that it’s very tight in midfield, and if everything goes normally, we’re at the back of the midfield.

AM has some work to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sakae said:

AM has some work to do

It is NOT just AM who has some work 2 do.
ALL the midfield HAS some work 2 do, if they want 2 make that next step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D/T 2021.08.06 19:57 CEST

Quote

The team have been granted an initial hearing via video conference at 14:00 BST on Monday as they seek to overturn the loss of Vettel’s second-place finish at the Hungaroring.

This is because they have “discovered significant new evidence relevant to the sanction which was unavailable at the time”, which they think could persuade the Hungarian Grand Prix stewards to reverse Vettel’s disqualification.

Motorsport.com report the team were adamant there had been enough fuel in the tank and that the issue had been with the method of extracting it, due to what they suspect was a broken lift pump.

It would be nice if Seb gets his place back, but I have my doubts. My memory is not what it used to be, which is perhaps a reason why I am failing recall a single case when FiA would back off, after they didn't extracted correct amount of fuel as stipulated by the technical directive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D/T 2021.08.07 11:27 CEST

Technical aspects explained.

IMO an article worth reading. 

Quote

One theory is that Aston Martin have the ability to contest the penalty because their fuel pump, which is mounted inside the fuel cell bladder, may have failed, however, this theory is invalid because 6.6.3 is quite explicit in that if that scenario arises, an external pump is to be connected to collect the sample.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't get this 'technical directive' s##t honestly.. if a driver has a podium or a position it if feels unfair that they have to give it up for something like - didn't have enough fuel.. really gutted for Seb on this...

At the same time I also understand the importance of teams keeping within the guidelines given by FIA..

I personally think a 10 second penalty would be fair if a driver has used extra fuel.. and disqualification should only apply to teams using illegal compound of fuel.. and to test that, they don't necessarily need a whole litre of fuel..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D/T 2021.08.07 16:03 CEST

Seb is the victim of this incident, and as it is out of his hands, he cannot fix it. The fallout is between AM and FiA. 

I am just hoping it is not going to get worse than it is, if AM looses the appeal. The car is impounded, and it would be first, if FiA allows AM to take a car apart and mount a new pump. FiA is capable (and known to) stiffen penalty if they feel the appeal is frivolous, like it or not. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, blackpebel said:

I personally think a 10 second penalty would be fair if a driver has used extra fuel.. and disqualification should only apply to teams using illegal compound of fuel.. and to test 

The rules R NOT new.  The rule HAS been in place a LONG time.
A 10 second penalty would be fair - time penalties R 4 in race incidents.
Fuel IS a pre-race issue.  Since the abolishment of refuelling so disqualification IS appropriate.
>That car should NOT have even been IN / started the race.  It did NOT meet the requirements - NOT fuelled appropriately.
In turn, removing the car from the race result IS the right thing 2 do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D/T 2021.08.09 19:46 CEST

Quote

Aston Martin fail in bid to overturn Vettel's Hungarian GP disqualification

That's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sakae said:

That's that.

Obvious conclusion.
Just AM gettin their name IN the paper - WITHOUT doin ANYTHIN
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D/T 2021.08.10 08:15 CEST

Quote

(AM after rejection) ...we will now consider our position in respect of the full appeal process."

Maybe they are planning to drag Supreme Court, Boris Johnson, and Donal J. Trump into this, all for receiving even more publicity (according to someone on this forum). The thing is, sometimes "publicity" cost money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sakae said:

D/T 2021.08.10 08:15 CEST

... sometimes "publicity" cost money.

Indeed a fizzy drink see`s the publicity gained increases brand awareness.
There is no such thing as bad publicity.
We R talkin about AM who have NOT done anythin - so the publicity IS workin

 

Edited by lipstick79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2021 at 8:18 AM, Sakae said:

(AM after rejection) ...we will now consider our position in respect of the full appeal process."

D/T 2021.08.10 08:15 CEST - This was then.

 

This is now:

D/T 2021.08.11 10:06 CEST

Quote

The FIA made the decision to deny Aston Martin's right of review after the team presented new evidence to support Vettel's fight to have his second place reinstated. 

It appears FiA had enough of AM. Taking it a step further, I think AM got out of this wrangling with regulators quite cheaply. In the past some teams were made to pay after challenging divine rulers of this business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sakae said:

D/T 2021.08.10 08:15 CEST - This was then.

 

This is now:

D/T 2021.08.11 10:06 CEST

It appears FiA had enough of AM. Taking it a step further, I think AM got out of this wrangling with regulators quite cheaply. In the past some teams were made to pay after challenging divine rulers of this business.

Hope they take it further, just to p**s them off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2021 at 9:19 AM, BradSpeedMan said:

Hope they take it further, just to p**s them off

U mean, KEEP the AM brand IN the news, creatin awareness.
>Do U REALLY believe that WILL p**s AM off.
Logically that IS exactly what AM want - sell a few more AM brand units from the publicity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2021 at 8:59 AM, lipstick79 said:

U mean, KEEP the AM brand IN the news, creatin awareness.
>Do U REALLY believe that WILL p**s AM off.
Logically that IS exactly what AM want - sell a few more AM brand units from the publicity

p**s FIA off Ms Lipstick, not other way around.

 

I wonder about this "new evidence" they (AM) had. It was really a prompt dismissal.

and how is this going to affect Vettel' next race. How are they going to get to the bottom of the issue, if they of course did not do this delberately, which I don't think they had the gall to actually do... In other words,  "cheat" so blatanly, cause that's what FIA is actually thinking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...