Lewis Hamilton in Parc Ferme
2015 Italian Grand Prix
c/o James Moy Photography
The fallout from the Italian Grand Prix will likely continue to make headlines until we next convene for racing in Singapore. The focus will, quite naturally, be on the procedural grey areas around the taking of tyre pressures, the definition of what constitutes the “race start” and the manner in which the increasingly convoluted set of technical and sporting regulations are written.
Of course, this all stems back to Spa a fortnight ago and the tyre failures which befell Nico Rosberg and Sebastian Vettel. Pirelli blamed debris on track and called for a universal method of track cleaning. Positive meetings were conducted in Monza between the drivers, teams and Pirelli in which a greater understanding was reached between all parties on expectations and solutions for the future. The most likely thing we will see is the return of tyre testing in 2016, to be conducted by today’s actual race drivers and today’s actual cars.
With Pirelli still experiencing a mysterious increase in the level of cuts and debris on their tyres in Monza, and with tyre safety in sharp focus throughout the weekend, the moveable feast that was the company’s recommended parameters of camber and pressure was a talking point throughout the Italian Grand Prix. These guidelines are and were enforceable by the FIA on the grounds of safety.
Some have said that rules are rules and as such Mercedes should have been thrown out of the Italian Grand Prix. Others, that the timing of the checks and the circumstances surrounding those checks were inconsistent with procedural regulation and open to question. This, as stated, will likely be the focus of changes going forward and, one hopes, the start of a clearer routine for these type of examinations.
Pirelli was again under the spotlight
2015 Italian Grand Prix
c/o James Moy Photography
On Sunday afternoon there were debates over the differences between regulations and directives, suggestions and recommendations, the enforceable and the unenforceable. For example, the regulations themselves have upwards of eight different Articles and Appendices referencing race starts and each has a distinctive definition and purpose. But it must be noted that in Monza the Stewards sided with Mercedes in the debate over the FIA’s own procedural inconsistencies and regulatory vagaries.
The Stewards come in for a lot of stick, but there is a deep-seated frustration within their ranks over the wording of the regulations they are tasked with enforcing (both technical and sporting) and the wide array of interpretations possible within their application. Not only that, but it is impossible for them to act without first being called to action by a referral either from the Race Director or Technical Delegate.
Whether Mercedes was guilty of a breach of regulation or whether the FIA’s procedures were incorrect and need amending, however, misses what to me is a far greater issue.
The tyre pressure parameters were put in place for the Italian Grand Prix by Pirelli in the interests of safety following the fallout from the Belgian Grand Prix and two catastrophic tyre failures.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the manner and the timing of the checks made to the tyres, the FIA found both Mercedes cars to have tyres which were, according to Pirelli’s enforceable guidelines, outside an operating window mandated on the grounds of safety. And yet the FIA’s Technical Delegate Jo Bauer failed to notify Mercedes that their cars were running tyres which were, according to his examination, unsafe.
FIA F1 Technical Delegate – Jo Bauer
c/o James Moy Photography
We’re not talking about finding a wing is a centimetre too wide. We’re not talking about potentially increased performance. We are talking about the only part of the racing car which is in contact with the racing surface, and a mandated minimum tyre pressure required on the grounds of safety.
Whether the reading was erroneous or taken at such a time as to be unrepresentative, why was the team not informed immediately that their tyres had, in the FIA’s view, fallen below the minimum safe pressure? If the FIA believed these tyres to be unsafe, as is evidenced by the subsequent reporting of the team to the stewards on the grounds of being outside the mandated limits, why did it take over an hour for this report to reach the stewards?
The reality is startling clear. The FIA allowed the Italian Grand Prix to start with two cars on the grid which it (rightly or wrongly) believed, due to information it had gathered and held privately in its possession, were running tyres that fell below the minimum safety requirements.
What if the FIA had been correct? What if those tyres had fallen below the minimum safe pressure and Mercedes had been unaware of this? Imagine, for a moment, that one of the Mercedes rear left tyres had suddenly lost pressure and let go in the opening laps of the race, resulting in an accident.
The parameters were put in place on the grounds of safety, not performance. As such, the FIA’s failure to inform the team of their discovery on the grid could arguably be seen as a breach of the duty of care that it holds towards not only Mercedes, but every team and driver on the grid, the circuit workers trackside and the paying public in the grandstands.
Lewis Hamilton
2015 Italian Grand Prix
c/o James Moy Photography
All it would have taken was for an FIA representative to have spoken with Paddy Lowe, Toto Wolff, Niki Lauda or any team member for that matter on the grid and informed them that their cars’ rear lefts were under the limit and could they please just ensure all was OK. The tests were done over five minutes before the start of the formation lap, leaving ample time to make any amendments if deemed necessary. But instead the information was withheld, taken away and then slowly and slovenly written into an accusation of wrong doing. Over an issue, I repeat, not of performance but of safety.
It’s akin to seeing someone walking down the street with their shoe laces undone only to pull out your phone and start filming them in expectation of the inevitable moment when they fall over, rather than tapping them on the shoulder and letting them know they might be about to hurt themselves.
It smacks of irresponsibility.
Spa and Monza have shown the world that the FIA faces an urgent need to get its house in order as regards its governance of Formula 1. Its own Stewards have been forced to side against it due to an inability to uphold and enforce poorly written regulations. Its own procedures have been proven to be confused and inconsistent. Priorities have become misplaced.
Because in Monza, it appears that an attempt to punish was placed before the thought to protect.
Your shoe-lace analogy sums up not only this act, but today’s culture! It is therefore no wonder the FIA acted as it did. F1 is slowly sinking in it’s own pond of scum. Sad to watch – even without my cellphone recording it!
It seems to me like Whiting needs to go. He has had several issues the last few years, and we shouldn’t be having issues like this in F1. Rules on safety need to be written clearly, enforced properly, and enforced quickly. How many times does it take them half the race to figure out an issue, or do they wait until after the race to figure out a penalty that is obvious?
Will, this was the first thing that came to mind when I heard about it. The FIA is a toothless, bloated, inbred beaucracy intended only to perpetuate its existence and paychecks. Your shoelace analogy is perfect. The whole thing smacks of Ferrari/Italian GP skullduggery if you ask me. Oh, how convenient that after the race the winner was found to be in contravention of the FIA rules by .03 PSI. My god, the horror. F-1 and its FIA affiliated minions has become a sewer of little minds. Oh, how they take themselves so seriously.
Really though? If it was Ferrari skullduggery, then perhaps the FIA would have actually followed through in penalizing Mercedes? The fact that they did not suggests your conspiracy is invalid.
Are you suggesting that Ferrari deflated the tires? How would Ferrari know that the tires were under the mandated pressure? They would need to know somehow otherwise how would they know to complain? And since the tires were under pressure, if Ferrari were in fact aware, then Ferrari would have had every right to complain.
F1 is not dying because of a thousand cuts. It is dying by a thousand rules. The best example of the FIA’s bloated rule making is the rewarding McLaren a 100+ grid spot penalities. No common sense. But when it comes to common sense the last thing one thinks of is the FIA. F1 seems to be run by lawyers rather by the engineers.
Great comments, as usual, Will. However, your comment “It smacks of irresponsibility” should be distributed more so in favor of Team Mercedes (90%) and FIA (10%). Hamiltons flippant response in a post-race interview “a third of a psi is nothing, really”, is simply pathetic and is tells me he believes the racing public and fans are stupid and gullible. The fact is 1/4 a psi is measurable and does matter.
What is stupid is the fact that Mercedes put their fate in the hands of the enforcers by setting the tires (to spell it tyres seems so wrong) so close to the limit as to “try and get away with it”. The fact is F1 is about precision. Why did Mercedes NOT set it at exactly the lower limit? Or leave themselves margin? No true race fan wants the race winner to be determined by a debate, committee, or interpretation of rules. The racing contest must be decided on the track, start line to finish line, fair and square.
Imagine the risk Mercedes put Lewis (and others) in by demanding he “push-push-push to the end, no questions asked”?
I will say it – Mercedes should be required to sit the next race out, both cars, for cheating. Perhaps they will not put the outcome of a race result in the hands of the committee again and obey the rules. In my never to be humbled opinion.
All of the teams play to within millimeters, milliliters and milligrams of the rules and specifications. Pirelli approved the tire pressures when mounted.
Will’s point of the FIA not understanding or even following it’s own safety protocol is the issue. The cars should have been flagged and the issues addressed before the lights went out.
Agreed. I give Will that point. The team engineers know with a small margin what the pressure differential will be after being unwrapped, measured, and released from the garage, then again measured on the grid. They know the tire temperature in the garage, and can certainly measure on the grid. Remember PV=nRT?
If the teams are bitching about measuring at different times, goodness knows there are plenty of people on hand to measure ALL tires very nearly simultaneously (by measuring the sensors via whatever wireless technology is used). They could implement FIA issued sensors …. whatever! Thats not the point.
My point is “don’t leave your fate in the hands of the judges”.
When the Mercs. tire pressures measured outside the spec., boot both cars to the pits, fix the offending tire, and start from the pitlane.
What is Mercedes going to argue next? Pirelli used air as the inflation gas instead of Nitrogen (better temperature stability)?? Wait for it …. I am sure that arguement is coming.
that is beyond asinine. For one they werent excluded because the FiA waited too long to check the tyres, and pressure and temperature are linear related. ie, the tyre pressure went down because the temperature did, because the fia waited too long to check the tyres. Try reading comprehension. And lewis said .3 doesnt matter AS RELATED TO PERFORMANCE. If you actually watched the interview that was clear. Third, how is telling a race car driver to drive faster putting anyone at anymore risk than they were already in. Fourth, you say “true race fans” want the winner to be determined on track, yet you want the guy who won by 25 seconds to be excluded for a fault of procedure by the FIA for a measurement that universally had no impact on the outcome of the race.
Congratulations at making no sense and failing at logic.
sk – I actually did watch the interview and did NOT hear Hamilton say “AS RELATED TO PERFORMANCE” ….. try listening more and talking less. WRT when the FIA measured the tyre temps., as you say “waited too long”, the fact is pressure and temps. are linear (PV=nRT) and therefore can be extrapolated. And the FIA demonstrated the pressure is “out of bounds”. Crystal clear, black and white, in spec. / out of spec.. Is it really that hard to play by the rules? Could Mercedes not have lleft themselves margin? I am really fed up with people blaming others for their f-ups. Take ownership and play by the rules. The risk of telling Hamilton to haul ass to the end is that his tyres were out of spec. and potentially unsafe …. there apparently was the chance they would have grenaded, too. Just sayin’. I would rather see Nico Hülkenberg in Hamiltons ride.
sk – to finish my points….the pressure IS linear with temperature of the gas, ‘n’ in the universal equation PV=nRT, within the volume ‘V’, and NOT the temperature of the tyre as you imply. The second point is simply the FACT that 0.3 of a psi makes difference – can you say “who is on the pole in Singapore?” ….. Mercedes is running within regs on the pressure, at least in quali, and sliding around more. So, yes, 0.3 does make a difference.
Just to clarify that Mercedes ran within regs in quali in Monza too. And during the race. Indeed race running pressures were highest of all but one team in Italy.
Evidently they (Merc) were no in regs when it mattered – to the FIA ….
CONGRATS TO FERRARI !!!!!!!! Great run in Singapore! My take is that Hamilton did not want to stick it out to the end and decided to retire ….. Japan will be interesting for sure…. Go Seb !!!
Well said Will. I wonder if this point was also questioned by the stewards during their long review of the issue. If they had punished Mercedes after the race, they would have appeared complicit in the incompetence. Personally I think they did the right thing at that stage.
I got into my car after the race yesterday and the tire pressure sensor showed 37psi on the left two tires but 35psi on the right. Why? Because the left of the car was in direct sunlight. Now it’s not often I’d refer to something on my three ton SUV to make a point about Formula 1. But the obvious point is that tire pressure and temperature and directly correlated and the FIA’s test of one without calibrating for the other is amateurish in the extreme.
“Because in Monza, it appears that an attempt to punish was placed before the thought to protect.”
A conspiracy theorist might suggest it had something to do with the circuit we were at, and the cars in P2 and P3 on the grid…
Brundle to Todt on the grid:
MB: “Do certain races/venues have protection in the rules?”
JT: “It is not clear”
Summed up the sport, for me. Secret rules and an opaque governance.
Well done, Will.
Excellent shoelace analogy that even non racing fans can understand.
Exactly Will.
Well done Will. I am glad someone in the F1 paddock is FINALLY calling out Charlie Whiting. He has put drivers, team members, fans and marshals in danger multiple times over the last several years due to his complete lack of consistency in interpreting the rules he is ultimately responsible for having written.
His head should have been put on the block in Suzuka last year.
I am just a bit disappointed you didn’t take the opportunity to question him when you had the interview with him that was posted on MSNBC. That was your opportunity, and you seemed to have let it pass you by.
The last several articles have been stellar however, keep ’em coming.
Go back to Spa, a Williams goes out with a wrong tyre fitted ( Against regulation) unsafe release ? Illegal ? NONE he is allowed to race, Penalty, A drive through, & carry on with a WRONG tyre fitted,
Was that not a SAFETY issue also ? Bottas says he didn’t notice ant abnormality , FIA The I = incompetent , F&A I’ll leave that to you
That’s incorrect. The car immediately came in and the team changed the tire, the car went back out, and the team were subsequently returned to the pits for a drive-through.
Contrast this to the Australian MotoGP race a few years ago. It was found that the tyres would destroy themselves on the on the long last corner onto the straight.
The governing body ruled that at after 10 laps of the 19 lap race all the riders would have to come in and change onto bikes with new tyres on the grounds of safety.
All the riders did except two who came in a lap too late and were disqualified one of whom was the main title contender Marc Marcquez.
My point being it was a safety based rule which was fully understood by all concerned (teams and spectators alike), and was rigidly enforced during the race itself,not afterwards.
F1 could learn from this.
Great info.
I look forward to your weekly update with the inside information on the events of the race.
Also enjoyed this week “Off The Grid” !!
One just wonders how well-run are the lives of all the complainers on this forum. Complain.Complain. Point out all that’s wrong. Then complain some more. Gosh! Watch the races, enjoy them, appreciative of the physical risks taken by drivers and the financial risks taken by owners. Don’t like the F1 spectacle, turn it off, create a spectacle of your own, or just settle back into wonderful satisfaction of your video games. Enough with the whining and lodging complaints about people who DO something.
This whole problem stems from the Pirelli tyres been as fragile as they are (Due to the high degredatio mandate rather than Pirelli been incapable of making better tyres IMO) & therefore needing to have things like pressures & cambers regulated.
Teams have been running tyres outside of the suppliers recommendations for decades & the tyre suppliers always ensured there tyres could cope with teams pushing the boundaries. It’s the same with the tyre swapping that was partly blamed for the Silverstone 2013 failures. Teams had been doing that for years on various suppliers & it didn’t cause any issues. I even recall GoodYear recommending teams swap its tyres in 1997 because Jordan tried it & found it helped with the blistering problems Goodyear suffered on a few of the more abrasive circuits.
Its the same with arguments about drivers using kurbs & running a bit wide, Drivers have been doing it since kurbs were lowered following Barrichello’s crash at Imola 1994 & the tyres were always designed taking this in mind & ensuring they could cope with that abuse (Especially on circuits like Monza, Imola, Spa & Montreal where drivers would throw cars over fairly aggressive kurbs at chicanes) & if problems ever arose the tyres were beefed up to prevent it happening again.
It seems the past few years its been the opposite, F1 has been forced to make rules to suit the tyres rather than the tyres been designed to suit F1 as was the case throughout F1’s history (And is still the case in other categories).
Will, I accept your points. However, I suggest it was not as much a true safety concern as you imply.
For safety purposes, Pirelli determines a minimum tire pressure **when the car is on track at speed**. In this case, Mercedes set the tire pressures accurately such that as the car is at speed the tires would be at or above that minimum pressure. However, as I understand it, the FIA measured the tire pressures some time after the tires were removed from the warming blankets; as such, the tires cooled somewhat and the pressures dropped.
I suggest that the time to measure that pressure should have been IMMEDIATELY upon removing them from the warmers, and not a moment later. The air in the tires when they are within the warmers are kept at temps – and thus, pressures – much closer to that attained when on track; everyone can understand that once removed from the warmers the temps – and thus, the pressures – immediately begin to decline.
I have little doubt that the tires were at or above the required level **while at speed**, especially given they were only fractions of a psi below that required level some time after the blankets were removed. Too bad we do not have access to team data acq…
I further suggest that the sole reason for Mercedes directing Hamilton to pick up the pace was not about getting the tires up to temperature – they already were – but to accommodate the possibility of a post-race time-related penalty.
Absent access to team data acq, there is no way for anyone to enforce a regulation that states pressures have to be at or above a level “as raced”. If the FIA wants to enforce such a rule, at a minimum it needs to direct that the pressures must be at or below X value “while in the tire blankets”, and be prepared to measure them at that moment. Alternatively, Pirelli could determine the minimum tire pressure during the period of time between when the tires are removed from the blankets and the cars roll off the grid (which will be significantly lower).
In this case, I fault the FIA for a poorly-worded regulation, coupled to poor implementation; I support them for recognizing those shortcomings post-race. I do hope they will clarify this for the near future.
Absolutely agree. But whether it was 0.3psi or 3psi, it was outside the parameters which were established on the grounds of safety. While I don’t believe for a moment they were unsafe, if the FIA considered the reading to be worthy of a report to the stewards it follows that it was outside the safety parameters. Black and White.
In my opinion, your alternative of notifying Mercedes prior to the start would be the sensible decision that would cross everybody’s mind. The only reasonable assumption I could make about the decision to withhold the information is that FOM was attempting to shake up the results by penalizing Mercedes, which shows a blatant disregard for what is truly important. I find it a bit perplexing that the FIA and F1 are struggling to keep fans interested and choose not to take feedback – feedback which is readily available thanks to the GPDA survey – and use it to shape the sport in the direction the fans want. If Formula E has shown us anything is that when the CEO of a category works with the FIA to create a product that is appealing to the fans they are very capable of doing that. However, there seems to be an inability to accomplish that same goal in F1. Whether the fault for that disconnect lies in the FIA’s court or FOM’s I don’t know but it is clear something needs to be done.