View Single Post
Old 22 Sep 2019, 00:23 (Ref:3929308)   #19
E.B
Veteran
 
E.B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
United Kingdom
About 7kms East of Albert Park Melbourne
Posts: 6,129
E.B will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameE.B will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameE.B will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameE.B will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameE.B will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameE.B will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameE.B will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameE.B will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillibowl View Post
Does anyone know if this sort of transgression is one that can occur by accident or does it suggest a more sinister attempt to circumvent the regs?
Renault claim the breach was for a spike lasting a microsecond, and was caused by a kerb hit. But they admitted their guilt.

Quote:
The breach had in fact occurred during Q1, in which the Australian was 12th quickest, and indeed not even on his fastest lap during that 18-minute stanza.

The Renault F1 Team also argued that the breach, which was exceeding the MGU-K power flow limit, was so small as to not offer a performance advantage anyway.

However, neither of those factors were considered to have mitigated the offence, consistent with previous practice.

“It was established in the hearing, beyond any doubt in the opinion of the Stewards, that the competitor exceeded the MGU- power flow limit permitted under Appendix 3, per Article 5.2.2 of the 2019 Formula One Technical Regulations,” read the stewards report.

“The method by which this limit is regulated is well known and understood by the teams. Neither the fact that the car had exceeded the limit nor the methodology by which it is policed was disputed by the team.

“The team’s defense rested on two points. First, that the excess was very small and offered no measurable benefit. Second, that the excess occurred during the second fastest lap during Q1.

“The team explained to the Stewards how they believe the excess occurred, however the Stewards consider this information to be confidential to the team, and not relevant to this decision.

“Notwithstanding the team’s arguments, the Stewards take note of the very clear wording of Article 1.2.2 ISC, which states that ‘If an Automobile is found not to comply with the applicable technical regulations, it shall be no defense to claim that no performance advantage was obtained’.

“In coming to this decision the Stewards referred to longstanding precedents regarding technical infringements and the penalty which has been consistently applied is disqualification, and which does not consider when or if an advantage was gained. This principle has been very clearly affirmed by the International Court of Appeal.

“The Stewards therefore order Car 3 disqualified from the results of Qualifying.”

The summons issued to Renault does not reveal the magnitude of the breach, only that the threshold was exceeded.
https://www.speedcafe.com/2019/09/22...gp-qualifying/
E.B is offline  
Quote