[NeilP]

This kind of stuff really bugs me big time. There is supposedly a rule/regulation in place already but it seems to me the FIA are not even capable of checking and enforcing it so as I have stated before why bother with it at all? Conversely where did they get the idea and the data from to make up it up in the first place?

I am not a fan of changing mid season. I agree with the teams that ask the question why should we be punished for others mistakes or lack of engineering ability. Hard to put up an argument against that especially as the porpoising does seem to be under control now, it may not be perfect but we are not seeing the performance we saw out of Mercedes at the start of the year. At this stage I think it it is highly questionable to call it a legitimate safety issue.

I cannot see the FIA or Liberty doing this to just benefit Mercedes. Lets be honest with ourselves here pretty much the whole of F1 is happy to see the Mercedes dominance has come to an end. Could it be yet again they are trying to level the playing field? I remember Ross Brawn making these comments pre-season:

Brawn has reminded all the teams that a tweak of the rules means if someone finds a “silver bullet”, the rules can be changed in “short notice” to ban that innovation.

“There’s no guarantee something will occur we haven’t anticipated. I think if it is going to occur, someone will likely spring it on Formula 1.

“I don’t think that will be the case. The regulations are pretty robust but you can never say never.

“That’s part of the reason why the governance has changed, and it has not changed in order to be able to change the rules at short notice.

“It [governance] has changed because the teams know you can change the rules at short notice so they’re far more likely to want to be comfortable with their ideas before they release them.

I am drawn to the phrase "Man talk with forked tongue" If this proposed rule change is not short notice I do not know what is. Plus he contradicts himself. First he says: the rules can be changed in “short notice” then he follows up with "it has not changed in order to be able to change the rules at short notice" Then why did it change Ross? He then says "The regulations are pretty robust" well if they need changing mid season Ross then they are not very robust are they!!!! I guess his defense would be there is no Silver Bullet here more like a Faux Pas but the fact remains he is contrary.

I am aware of the mans history and achievements but I dont like him and never have. He has in my eyes become a mouth piece for those who control the sport. I know you cannot please all of the people all of the time I totally get that but as many of us have alluded to many times before the sport is changing vastly and not for the better certainly not in my eyes but I guess that could be old age creeping up on me.

[forzaferrari]

This kind of stuff really bugs me big time. There is supposedly a rule/regulation in place already but it seems to me the FIA are not even capable of checking and enforcing it so as I have stated before why bother with it at all?  Conversely where did they get the idea and the data from to make up it up in the first place?

From what little I have gathered on the flexing floor issue.......the rules state the floor must not flex beyond 2mm........however this measurement is taken at determined points, and the measurement taken when the floor is lifted at said points........rumour has it the cars suspected of flexing their floors are doing so at a different point and not within the specified area......interpretation of the rules and all that sh*t.

As for changing the rules.......again, from what I understand.......Ross & co have shot themselves in the foot by pushing the safety aspect to tighten up this rule.....if teams can prove the flexing is NOT a "safety issue" how can they be made to change the floor under this guise? 

Just my two penneth.

[PapaofGags]

The plank checks seem fair  

[forzaferrari]

Seen this one also

   

[NeilP]

On the surface of this you would have to say the FIA are targeting Ferrari and Mercedes. Is that the case? Who knows. I am sure the FIA are aware of the numbers. You have to think Russell and Sainz cars would have failed the test too. Hamilton thinks a lot more may have failed if they had been tested.

I think too much heat is being thrown at Ferrari and Mercedes, yes in public they accept its their fault but is it really? If you are not on the edge you have no shot at winning. Allison hinted, no, said that the lack of practice running on Sprint weekends was a major factor as so much of the car set up had to be guessed at rather than arrived at due to more practice.

RBR just 2 tests despite winning every race but one seems a little unfair to me.

[forzaferrari]

You know how we all hate watching a F1 race only to hear the next day who the real winner is following an after race penalty?........well spare a thought for Road Racings Richard Cooper

"Richard Cooper reinstated as winner of both Supertwin races at 2022 North West 200"

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/sport/motor...00-4396061

[PapaofGags]

So Fred & Toto got a bit hot under the collar  

[forzaferrari]

So Fred & Toto got a bit hot under the collar   

Please tell me Fred called Toto a Lanky German C*nt? 

[Westie]

Sorry Forza not the case. Essentially Fred was smarting from a huge bill foisted on him for the total destruction of Sainz's car in FP1 and was understandably not too happy to answer silly questions from the Press.

Similarly the Press asked Toto if the the incident in FP1 was a black eye on F1 and if it had overshadowed the event. To which Toto attempted to say that it wasn't as it was just FP1 and they could recover but was interrupted by another of the Press questioning his answer before he'd finished..... and so he got a little upset and used a few choice words.

The Press did seem like they wanted to roast the whole event before we'd even seen it. Frankly I'm surprised they don't lay into the press a little more often considering the way they regularly try to drag anyone they question into the muck at the earliest opportunity.

[PapaofGags]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plZRe1kPWZw (10 s)

Vasseur was let off with a warning by the FIA due to "mitigating circumstances" (the incident from FP1 in Las Vegas) which caused the Frenchman to be "extremely upset and frustrated" and use language which was not "usual" for the Ferrari boss.

Mercedes chief Wolff was also given a warning in relation to a strong rebuttal at a journalist, with the FIA noting that "the use of the language concerned was in this case unusual and was provoked by an abrupt interjection during the Press Conference and therefore cannot be regarded as typical from this Team Principal."

Other likely potential penalties, if a breach was established, could have ranged from a warning, reprimand or a fine or an obligation to accomplish some work of public interest.