Well.I hope there's no first lap incidents tomorrow and we have a good competitive race
But did it? Mercedes would have likely come out at the back of the grid in any case. (Mercedes being the first garage as you enter the pits) and as we saw an unsafe exit by another team could have ended his race before he got on trackMercedes strategy dept. fails again!
But did it? Mercedes would have likely come out at the back of the grid in any case. (Mercedes being the first garage as you enter the pits) and as we saw an unsafe exit by another team could have ended his race before he got on track
But as I mentioned the Mercedes garage being the first one as you enter the pits. All or most of the other cars would have passed him as they were changing their tyres. He would then had to traverse the rest of the pit lane with cars darting in and out.That was mentioned on the day, but to be fair, he would have been first in, but as soon as one went in, they all went in, by which time Hamilton had passed the pit lane.
Sorry I don't agree, he would a) not have got out easy as the rest of the field came past him b) even if he did get out there was a chance he could have got caught up in someone else's release c) (purely tongue in cheek for this one) he does have history regarding pit lane exits (think Canada several years ago)Russell said on the radio everyone will be in and change tyres thats how dry the track was, if hamilton came in he would be fiirst to change tyres and would have passed most of the field in the pit lane as he came out , just bad strategy by mercedes
I know they've appealed but I can't see how the DQ is going to be overturned. The rule is very clear about what has to happen with a fuel sample, even going down to what can be removed from the car in order to extract it. You have either satisfied the rule or you haven't, it's very black and white.Aston Martin appeals Seb could be re instated yet
I think the basis of the appeal is that the fuel was in the car but the problem was extracting it.I know they've appealed but I can't see how the DQ is going to be overturned. The rule is very clear about what has to happen with a fuel sample, even going down to what can be removed from the car in order to extract it. You have either satisfied the rule or you haven't, it's very black and white.
I know but the rule does cover how the fuel is extracted and what you are and are not allowed to do to get it out. It's quite a comprehensively written rule, I can't see any wiggle room in it that would form the basis of a successful appeal. The relevant rules say:I think the basis of the appeal is that the fuel was in the car but the problem was extracting it.
The car has been put into quarantine pending the appeal, that being said, I'd be very surprised if it was overturned.
I agree, like I said above, I would be very surprised if any appeal was successful.I know but the rule does cover how the fuel is extracted and what you are and are not allowed to do to get it out. It's quite a comprehensively written rule, I can't see any wiggle room in it that would form the basis of a successful appeal. The relevant rules say:
6.5.1 Competitors must provide a means of removing all fuel from the car.
6.5.2 Competitors must ensure that a 1.0 litre sample of fuel may be taken from the car at any time during the Competition.
6.5.4 The sampling procedure must not necessitate starting the engine or the removal of bodywork (other than the nosebox assembly and the cover over any refuelling connector).
Even if the fuel was in the car, you'd have to assume they've fallen foul of rule 6.5.4 and they can't get it out without removing bodywork/engine etc. It's not even the first time Vettel has had this happen to him, he was excluded from qualifying at Abu Dhabi in 2012 for the same reason.
The rule is there to allow the fuel to be tested to ensure that it is with in the parameters set within the fuel regs. Given there is no actual fuel tank size restriction just the rate of use and overall amount used in a race so a team can carry as much as they like. You would think that if there is a rule saying you need to get 1ltr out then they would test that they can get 1 ltr out if there is 1ltr left in the tank, given how everything is measured by fractions I cant believe that this hasnt been done by the team so either they put in less than they thought or used more than they should ofI agree, like I said above, I would be very surprised if any appeal was successful.
However, these rules were put in place before a lot of the monitoring became available that is used now, maybe they should be looking to see what rules are no longer required or need re-writing to bring them up to date with newer technologies.
None of this will help Seb though.
Aston have said that by the numbers given by the sensors on the car on fuel usage and how much they put in, there is 1.4 litres of fuel somewhere in the car. The problem is they can't get it out without contravening the rule about what you're allowed to do to provide the sample.The rule is there to allow the fuel to be tested to ensure that it is with in the parameters set within the fuel regs. Given there is no actual fuel tank size restriction just the rate of use and overall amount used in a race so a team can carry as much as they like. You would think that if there is a rule saying you need to get 1ltr out then they would test that they can get 1 ltr out if there is 1ltr left in the tank, given how everything is measured by fractions I cant believe that this hasnt been done by the team so either they put in less than they thought or used more than they should of
Sounds good to me. Think it's fair to say Russell has done his apprenticeship.So the rumours are:
Kimi retires.
Bottas to Alfa.
Russell to Mercedes.