Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Monza, 2015

Hamilton confirmed winner after tyre investigation

2015 F1 Season

Posted on

| Written by

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Monza, 2015Lewis Hamilton’s victory at the Italian Grand Prix has been confirmed after stewards decided not to penalise Mercedes for a tyre pressure infringement.

Mercedes were investigated after FIA Technical Delegate Jo Bauer reported them to the stewards after both Hamilton’s and Nico Rosberg’s left-rear tyre pressures were found to be under the minimum specified PSI as per the regulations.

Despite Hamilton’s seventh win of the season appearing to be under genuine threat of being taken away, the stewards decided against taking any further action against Hamilton for the infringement.

Hamilton’s lead over team mate Nico Rosberg now stands at 53 points following the confirmation of the result.

Full clarification on the stewards’ ruling as posted by the FIA is as follows:

Having heard from the technical delegate, the team representatives and the Pirelli Team Tyre engineer, the stewards have determined that the pressure in the tyres concerned were at the minimum start pressure recommended by Pirelli when they were fitted to the car. In making this determination regarding the pressures, the Stewards noted that the tyre warming blankets had been disconnected from their power source, as is normal procedure, and the tyres were significantly below the maximum permitted tyre blanket temperature at the time of the FIAs measurement on the grid, and at significantly different temperatures from other cars measured on the grid.

Further, the stewards are satisfied that the team followed the currently specified procedure, supervised by the Tyre Manufacturer, for the safe operation of the tyres. Therefore the stewards decide to take no further action.

Nevertheless, the stewards recommend that the tyre Manufacturer and the FIA hold further meetings to provide clear guidance to the teams on measurement protocols.

2015 Italian Grand Prix

Browse all 2015 Italian Grand Prix articles

Author information

Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories 2015 F1 season, 2015 Italian Grand Prix

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 207 comments on “Hamilton confirmed winner after tyre investigation”

    1. Other team team should be appeal that decision.

      1. sure go let red bull cry some more please, he won, what is .3psi going to do. Not lewis’s fault mercedes messed up.

        1. @timmya Only Ferrari could protest without putting themselves in harms way, but Ferrari and F1 are very much aware of the value of the F1 brand ever since SPA.
          I immediately wrote that Merc was going to get away with it since there are so many grey areas in this subject, yet as in Monaco the Merc team almost put a victory in jeopardy because of over managing. Too many directors, executive whatever.

          Honestly, I’m now curious to why did the Mercs disconnect their tyre warmers so much earlier than the Ferrari’s. Smedley said it would take a long time to reduce .3 let alone 1.1

          1. Perhaps the pre race routine was not altered in response to Pirelli introducing the minimum tyre pressures, do they normally remove them early?

          2. I posted some calculations in the earlier tyre thread. The tyre needs to drop 5 degrees C to be 0,3 psi less and 20 degrees C to drop 1,1 psi. Even the latter looks possible if it was one FIA representative doing all 4 cars measurements after each other.

            Unkwown is what Pirelli knows, once again very quite in all this. I would think they would have tire pressure sensors on each wheel fitted in the valve, capable of also measuring temperature….

        2. What does a few millimetres change? Hint: Australia 2011.

      2. Trenthamfolk (@)
        6th September 2015, 17:01

        FIA have given their reasoning – I think it’ll be a no go for an appeal…

        1. Trenthamfolk (@)
          6th September 2015, 17:02

          stewards that should read!

      3. A reminder of Ferrari not being penalized for the unsafe pit release of Raikonnen in Australia this year:

        Raikkonen stopped at Turn 4 on his out-lap after the problem – caused by damage from a cross-threaded nut at an earlier stop – was detected, costing him a likely fifth-place finish. But while unsafe releases usually lead to teams being punished, FIA technical delegate Jo Bauer accepted that the car was not sent out of the pits in an unsafe condition.

        Ditto Williams over there tyre mishap at Spa. Both potentially more dangerous than a 0.3 difference to a tyre pressure limit artificially bumped up anyhow because of Ferrari deciding to do a one-stop with Vettel at Spa.

        1. The reason Ferrari wasn’t penalized was because the tyre wasn’t unsafe at the time of the release (hence it didn’t go off), but it wasn’t secured enough for it to remain a full lap, so technically it wasn’t a unsafe release. Which is exactly what your quote says.

          1. I know. My point was that appealing FIA’s decisions applies both ways. It gets pretty tedious when the teams are appealing and counter-appealing all the time, which is where we’d end up probably if the teams appeal this one.

            1. I know. My point was that appealing FIA’s decisions applies both ways. It gets pretty tedious when the teams are appealing and counter-appealing all the time, which is where we’d end up probably if the teams appeal this one.

              That has nothing to do with your post before, but ok.

            2. Nothing to do, no: I just didn’t make it more explicit.

            3. David BR, it’s easier just to bypass your posts. None of them are steeped in anything but incorrect facts and pure conjecture.

            4. Bypass them all you want. But there are no incorrect facts or conjecture in the above.

      4. Fantastic decision. Fantastic result for Mercedes and Lewis Hamilton. Now Lewis has the legitimate opportunity of matching Senna’s record in Singapore, and has a significant advantage in the world championship, as has been earned on the track all year. Kudos to the stewards for not rendering some ridiculous decision that would have belied what we all saw in Monza.

      5. The thing is, what grounds could the teams appeal on? The issue here is that the tyre pressures were specified in a technical directive, not a technical regulation – the FIA has therefore not established a set procedure to measure the tyre pressures and has no defined mechanism within the regulations to enforce the tyre pressures.

        1. Someone had breached breached the technical regulations. Look what happen to two GP2 in qualifying.
          What good a regulation without consistency?

          1. No one breached regulations. Read the report. Running a deflated tire is not the same as running a cold tire. The minimum pressures are measured against the maximum tire warmer temperature, which the Mercedes cars weren’t using since they weren’t plugged in.

          2. No, there is no breach of the technical regulations here because there is no technical regulation that explicitly governs the tyre pressures.

            The recommendations on the tyre pressures were issued as a technical directive from Charlie Whiting, not as a technical regulation – there is a subtle, but very important, distinction between the two.

            A technical directive officially represents a statement of opinion from Whiting, acting as the FIA’s representative, on how the FIA would be expected to interpret the regulations or to provide clarification on a regulation – however, they are not officially issued by the FIA itself and do not formally form part of the regulations of the sport.

            As such, therefore, there is an unresolved legal question over technical directives. If you breach a technical regulation, there is a clear established procedure through which the FIA and the team must go to establish guilt and to define a punishment.

            However, there is no official mechanism to enforce a directive because it officially represents Whiting’s interpretation of the regulations and has no defined mechanism of enforcement, so the legal status of a directive is currently undefined.

            1. That was a great and logical explanation, anon.

      6. There is nothing to appeal. There. Is. Nothing. To. Appeal.

      7. Why? It s a fair decision. The Mercedes team did not break any of the regulations specified in the actual technical rules of the FIA F1 world championship. Penalizing them would have been absurd, considering the lack of clarity around the firmness of “manufacturer suggestions”.

      8. That’s not normal practice…. what normally follows is that the teams get together with the FIA to define a better definition and procedure.

      9. Why? The tyres were checked by a Pirelli engineer! If Pirelli gave the ok then surely that is what has lead the stewards to accept that everything was ok? It is clear that the fia need to modify the way they check the tyres as it appears to be unreliable. No appeal would go anywhere as the tyres were independently checked.

    2. And that is very likely the end of this championship. Sigh – the WDC seems to be always decided early in the odd numbered years lately (2011, 2013, 2015).

      1. 2009 as well.

        1. Gastonmazzacane
          6th September 2015, 17:09

          But not in 2007, 2005, 2003 :D

          1. Yeah. “Lately.”

          2. 2005 was decided with 2 races to spare.

        2. Button had a weak 2nd half of 2009 and Barichello made a charge towards the end. He only won it in Brazil after an amazing race.

          1. Baricchello finished 3rd in WDC. Vettel was runner-up.

            1. Point still stands, it was a close season. Took until near the end for Button to seal it and until then it was an open contest.

        3. 2009 was only the penultimate race.

      2. There is 200 points on table still, ham is only 53 ahead of Ros, and 74 ahead of seb…

        1. Yes, but Lewis is faster than Rosberg and has a better car than Vettel. Something very strange and bad would have to happen to him to lose now. Rosberg’s tired engine aside, Mercedes reliability has been perfect this year and Lewis is driving brilliantly.

          It would be nice for there to be a battle, but I don’t see it happening, myself.

        2. What @jules-winfield said…

          Not only Lewis is faster than Nico, but he also has better luck so far. Senna was faster than Prost all the time, Prost still managed to win in 1989 due to Senna’s immense bad luck – there’s no such thing this year.

          Despite Lewis being quicker, the championship could still be more exciting if Nico would have better luck. A bit like last year up until Singapore, although Nico did put up a very good fight on his on back then right up until Spa, so it would have been at least part on merit.

          1. Really? So you are saying Prost was just lucky and Senna was plain fast…

            1. Nope. I’m saying Senna was plain faster than Prost, which not makes the latter slow in any shape or form – considering we’re talking about quite possibly the greatest driver in the world as his adversary. Prost was pretty quick himself, he’s proven it countless times.

          2. In which world was Senna “faster than Prost” in 1988 and 1989 ?

            Senna was indeed the better qualifier but his race wins over Prost during that period is marginal (14 vs 11) and Prost scored twice as many in-race fastest laps than Senna (10 vs 5). On “average per race”, Prost finished over a position higher than Senna and scored, on average over those 2 seasons, a point per race more than Senna did. Not only that it shows that on “average per race”, Senna lost a position from his average starting position by the end of the race, whereas Prost gained a position from his average grid position.

            Truth is, Prost outscored Senna in both seasons. Senna only managed to win the ’88 championship due to the unfair “best 11 results” rule (a rule that was phased out in 1991). In points scored and consistency wise, Prost gave Senna a run for his money.

            1. I think the revealing and most relevant statistic in this case is that even putting aside Senna’s one-lap pace advantage, when both of them finished the race, he finished ahead of Prost 14 times with the Frenchman managing to do so only 6 times.

      3. At least the reason is because Hamilton drives exceptionally well, and Mercedes make a very good engine, and the car and the team all work well. As in any other sport, the aim of the “also rans” has to be to try and beat the World Champion.

    3. A bit predictable but somewhat disappointing. There’s going to be a lot of waffle about tyres for days now.

      1. So like every day so far for the last two years

    4. So it’s the measurement protocols which are at fault, what a load of song and dance over nothing.

      Anthony Davidson hit the nail on the head though, it’s running pressure that matters not out of the blanket or when we randomly decide to measure them at some point pressure.

      1. Apparently the Pirelli engineer measured the amount of air in the tyre before it went on the car. If they use that as the reference point then there can be no argument over temperatures being slightly off.

      2. @philipgb

        But Pirelli can’t exactly go and measure pressures during a race. Of course they can rely on the teams sensors but as we saw with Red Bull at AUS ’14 we can’t be sure those readings are correct either.

        1. Well, Red Bull lost that argument in the end, didn’t they Baron?

          1. Trenthamfolk (@)
            6th September 2015, 17:36

            Hadn’t RB tampered with the standard ‘stock’ sensor which was the main reason they lost that one? Happy to be corrected…

            1. Red Bull decided the FIA measurement device wasn’t accurate so went from their own data. I still don’t actually think they did anything wrong to be honest. Yes the FIA device measure higher than governed fuel flow, yes they probably ran a higher fuel flow than other teams, but I think they were likely within the rules as their own data suggested and were victims of poorly governed rules.

            2. @philipgb To briefly drag up old history – they DID do something wrong, as the rules prescribed a required fuel flow AS MEASURED BY THE FIA sensor. It doesn’t actually prescribe a real fuel flow. What the number the rules says is a bit irrelevant (100 is an awfully convenient number…) but what matters is that they all had the same limit measured by the same device.

            3. It turned out that Red Bull’s own “sensors” were merely a guesstimate of the fuel flow and they had forgotten to take several parameters into consideration in their algorithm. So their own numbers were wrong.

              The FIA sensor they claimed was faulty was actually just fine, but they compared it to their own incorrect numbers.

              To make matters worse, even their own guesstimate also indicated a higher fuel flow than was allowed.

              Their whole defense was a huge embarrassment on all counts.

            4. @philipgb it wasn’t just that – following complaints about misreading, an investigation revealed two Renault teams (names were not disclosed) were modifying the sensor housing to allow them to (IIRC) reposition them in the engine bay. The FIA issued a directive that they should not be tampered with and low-and-behold, nobody had a misreading sensor for the rest of the season.

      3. the tyres were significantly below the maximum permitted tyre blanket temperature at the time of the FIAs measurement on the grid, and at significantly different temperatures from other cars measured on the grid

        I can understand that unclear measurement protocol could justified Lewis’s 0.3 below requirement. But what about Rosberg 1.1 psi below?

        1. You understand that tyre pressure is dependant on tyre temperature, and you understand that the teams use tyre warmers to hold the tyres at a specific temperature?

          If you understand those two things, then the only other two pieces of information you are missing is that 1) The mercedes didn’t have their tyre warmers on as long as the other teams and 2) when the Pirelli engineer supervised the pressure at the correct temperature, they were correct.

          So when the reading was taken on the grid, the temperature was different to that which the reccomended pressure applies too. Thus it follows quite naturally that the pressure was also different and because as a tyre cools, the pressure drops, the pressure had dropped below the minimum.

          Basically, the reading on the grid should have been taken with a temperature reading as well and cross referenced with a tyre pressure temperature calibration chart, specific to the gas mixture Mercedes use to see if it had too little a volume of gas inside. Shoving, what has been reported to be a very old fashioned analogue pressure dial on the tyres was a complete failure of the FIA and this whole storm in a teacup was caused by them having a kneejerk reaction to Pirelli’s kneejerk reaction to Kneejerk criticism after the events at Spa.

          1. *a complete failure of the FIA’s understanding of basic scientific best practice
            ** As we don’t know Rosbergs tyre temperature, speculating as to the 1.1 drop is pointless.

            1. yiu can calculate it. It needs about 20C drop from 110C.

              For comparing on the exact same tyre you do not need the full PV/T = n*R. Volume, n and R square away as they remain the same. If you compare to another tyre with slightly different volume and fill it is needed to know them all.
              You can see the FIA will have to have some more fun, tightening this stuff. Maybe they should first go back to school for some high school physics though.:)

              All in all it so easy to calculate and test out that it seems alost stupid not to capitalize on as F1 team with some very bright engineers.
              Why spend so much time engineering on some aero that tajed 0,01 seconds of when few tenths are there ad loe hanging fruit.

            2. so many typos with on screen keyboard

              yiu = you
              tajed= takes
              ad=as
              loe=low

          2. @williamjones Spot on.

            What I’m confused about is how someone who’s job it is to test tyre temperatures and pressures for the FIA didn’t make a link between the significantly lower temperature he measured and the lower pressure he measured.

            From what I’ve heard the measurements were taken by an FIA representative, supervised by a Pirelli representative. Why wasn’t it the other way around?

          3. Shoving, what has been reported to be a very old fashioned analogue pressure dial on the tyres was a complete failure of the FIA and this whole storm in a teacup was caused by them having a kneejerk reaction to Pirelli’s kneejerk reaction to Kneejerk criticism after the events at Spa.

            Exactly. Plus I’d like to throw out another point (just to annoy some people): given this was FIA’s mistake, an apology to Mercedes, Hamilton and Rosberg would be due. Imagine was pushing on the last laps at his team’s instruction, despite tyre degradation, to get 25 seconds. What if that had led to a tyre failure, spinoff etc. and lost him the race? Not so much a case of Mercedes getting an advantage, but of them potentially being compromised by FIA’s error.

        2. Lewis was on pole so probably measured first, Rosberg in fourth so probably measured fourth. The pressure dropped as they cooled and they probably started out about the same temperature.

        3. It’s true that timing for measurement need to be address in clear protocol.
          @williamjones & @philipgb
          But since technical delegate had confirm that car 44, 06, 05 & 07 surface temperature are within specification when they inspected in the grid. There’s no need to mix the issue. It’s was all about tyre pressure from the beginning.

          1. You’ll need a souce for that as it directly contradicts “and the tyres were significantly below the maximum permitted tyre blanket temperature at the time of the FIAs measurement on the grid” from the statement from the stewards ruling above

            1. Thanks, obviously the stewards found Jo Bauer wrong. Although as has been pointed out, within temperature specification only means “not above a set temperature”

          2. @ruliemaulana The specification just defines a maximum – 110 degrees IIR – and all tyres were below this maximum. No further detail about the temperatures was provided in the initial report to the stewards. For all when know it could have been -50 degrees.

      4. Couldn’t they measure the tyre pressures when the tyres are taken OFF the car. Wouldn’t that mean that if teams bent the rules it could only be at their disadvantage so they wouldn’t ?

        1. Tyre pressures also drop according to wear, damaged tyres could invalidate any readings, the teams habit of collecting marbles onto the tyre after a race will add a further unknown into the equation so it would be really complicated to do it this way round.

        2. This is a good idea. To ensure transparency I want to add that they (FIA and Pirelli) first need to baseline data for all types of tires by measuring end of race tire pressure, weight and temp under all conditions – at least for a year. The FIA & Pirelli should then publish the process followed along with Median and Average weight, temp and pressure of end-of-race tires by type (Soft, Med, Hard, Inters, Wets, etc.).

    5. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
      6th September 2015, 17:03

      Pirelli are having an absolute nightmare few weeks.

      1. Pirelli are as daft as Bernie taking this race off the calendar.

      2. A nightmare of their own making !

    6. It seems they were OK when fitted to the car which saved them. Will be an interesting one to police in the future.

      1. That might be a whole another issue though. If they are gaining an advantage with that, if they are doing if it is on purpose….

        1. Don’t think you understood. The pressure was at the minimum when fitted, which all the teams will ensure. It dropped lower on the start line due to being under warmers for less time than other teams. The running pressure of the tires was perfectly safe.

          This has all been a fuss about absolutely nothing, it seems that other teams (Williams) have tried their hardest to create some kind controversy out of it.

          1. And I also found Pat Symonds’ comments comparing it to running larger wings or larger engines to be really stupid and something I wouldn’t expect such an intelligent person to say. Williams have acted with so much desperation.

            1. You’re being waaay oversensitive over Symond’s comment.

            2. Symonds saying this right after the debacle with Bottas’ tyres in Spa is more bizarre than whatever perceived desperation levels. How pathetic of him.

            3. Trenthamfolk (@)
              6th September 2015, 17:42

              Johnny Herbert was saying much the same as Symonds n Sky F1… if teams are allowed to flout regulations, then they’ll all start doing it.

              An extra CC’s here and there… a few mm on a wing.. I think it was a fair comment to make.

          2. The people who created controversy about it were the stewards and the FIA, who identified the issue in the first place.

            What do you expect the other teams to do? “Well, it would be nice to have the extra points, but we don’t mind if there’s a technical infringement by someone else. In fact, I think we’ll give Manor all of our points and our engines too.”

    7. Great news!

      Now time to Lewis fight back and sue FIA for withholding information and putt his safety under jeopardy!!

      :D

      1. I sincerely hope you’re trying to make a joke…

        1. If s/he was, it wasn’t a very good one. A career in comedy does not beckon.

          1. A career in comedy does not Becken.

            Fixed

      2. The tires weren’t under pressure in the race, so there was no safety risk. That was the point.

      3. He will not. He was lucky got away from two infringement. Tyre pressure and hair homologation. :D

        1. @ruliemaulana
          Hey, leave the blond locks out of it. Lewis should die the hair red for Singapore.

          1. @medman @ruliemaulana New rule: driver appearance changes now banned in season, to fit with the helmet change ban and number change ban – how can we recognise the drivers when they are changing their hair colour or even hair cut and beards!!!!

            1. Lewis can appeal that rule as a special exception since his identity can always be recognized due to different skin color from other F1 drivers therefore he should have no problem changing his hair color.

    8. Even if Lewis guilty, how will the penalty be? If 25sec penalty he still Monza winner right? Is his final chequered flag time is 25.042sec ahead Vettel?

      1. I highly doubt that it could have been a 25 second penalty, because the rulebook states that any breach of regulations under safety measures leads to a DSQ. However, yes, Lewis will still be the winner even if he could have received a 25 second penalty.

    9. Vettel never inherits a win. I’m not surprised.

      1. He inherited for instance his 2008 win after Hamilton was unlucky with the weather change. Otherwise Hamilton would have won instead of having to make an extra stop.

        1. That’s not an inherited win.

          1. Yes it is. It’s a race he wouldn’t have won and only for a freak weather change did he inherit the win.

            1. No it’s not. The win was never actually in anyone else’s control than Vettel’s. And there’s nothing “freak” about weather changes in a wet race.

        2. @patrickl
          So Vettel inherited a win from Hamilton because LH closed up briefly, but never actually led a lap?

      2. Even at Ferrari. Must be really unlucky.

        1. He’s definitely an unlucky driver.

          1. Yeah, that red flag in Monaco 2011 just before the end that gave him victory by allowing the team to fit fresh tyres on the grid before the restart, denying Button certain victory in a faster car that had already pitted and sitting behind ready to take the lead was sooooo unlucky. And that’s just one of dozens of times Vettel got a win through good luck on his part or bad luck for the leader in front of him, like those numerous wins in 2012 when Hamilton’s car kept dying when he was dominating in the lead, or the 2010 Brazilian GP, or the… and the…

            1. @selbbin I assume there’s a hint of sarcasm there?

              Monaco 2011 was only in doubt because of a terrible pitstop on Red Bull’s part by the way.

            2. Yeah, that red flag in Monaco 2011 just before the end that gave him victory by allowing the team to fit fresh tyres on the grid before the restart, denying Button certain victory in a faster car that had already pitted and sitting behind ready to take the lead was sooooo unlucky

              Yet YOU conveniently forget about the RED car between Vettel and Button also on Fresher tyres. There was nothing certain about Button’s victory, In fact it was more likely to have been a Alonso/Ferrari victory!

      3. I wouldn’t be happy about it if he did. I’m much happier with his two victories won on track by beating the faster Mercs.

      4. Drivers should never “inherit” wins, in my opinion. Victories should always be earned, and Ferrari got their doors blown off in Monza. I wasn’t pleased when Massa inherited a win a few seasons ago at spa…he didn’t deserve it. The drivers ahead of him were pushing and risking to gain advantage, and Massa played it safe in the rain and was rewarded for his temerity. Ridiculous. If the result for today’s raced had been changed, it would be equally as preposterous because .3 under-inflation (if that reading was even accurate) certainly doesn’t contribute significantly to the kind of spanking that was handed out to the entire field today by Mercedes.

      5. I don’t like Vettel but to his credit he didn’t join in the desperate feeding frenzy to get Hamilton and Mercedes. It seems he prefers to earn his wins rather than inherit them Massa style.

      6. Good, why should he of inherited a win who he himself said he didn’t deserve by stating Hamilton deserved the win today.

      7. Singapore 2012

        1. Is there another one? I think he has only 1 inherited win. And that’s it.

          I remember him inheriting British GP lead in 2013 when Hamilton had problems, then he went and got himself a gearbox failure and DNF’d.

          It’s baffling, considering 1/3 of Alonso’s wins are inherited and it’s the same amount of races Vettel lost the lead due to technical issues.

          1. And Alonso was praised for inheriting positions which kept him in the hunt in 2012.

          2. There is a second potential one with a question mark hanging over it – the 2009 Abu Dhabi GP.

            Hamilton led Vettel from pole, but Vettel jumped ahead at the first pit stop, then two laps later Hamilton retired due to brake issues.

            The issues *may* have been a contributing factor in him losing the lead to Vettel initially. Certainly Hamilton did leave the track a couple of times, fighting the issue, before retiring the car.

            Like I said, this one comes with a question mark.

    10. In my opinion, it was the right decision. Hamilton and Mercedes were not to blame for this but Pirelli, from what I have heard.

      1. Insofar as their measurement protocol wasn’t up to snuff, that does seem to be the case

      2. I’d say FIA was to blame for not implementing their own directive properly.

      3. The way that the stewards response is worded makes it sound as if it is the FIA who cocked up the measurement procedure – Pirelli and Mercedes would have been measuring the tyre pressures in the garage, whilst it seems that it was the stewards who then took the measurements on the grid.

        1. Pirelli and Mercedes would have been measuring the tyre pressures in the garage, whilst it seems that it was the stewards who then took the measurements on the grid

          Yep, strange but true.

    11. What’s good about this is that the best car won. In all honesty I don’t think any other team deserved to win, the gap was 25s, and if Lewis pushed a bit more a bit earlier it would’ve been even more.

      What’s bad about this is that, that’s it for the championship. The constructor championship was long out of the question. But now, Lewis can have a double DNF and still lead the championship, so really no chance for Rosberg to come back now.

      What’s even more worrying is that judging from the performance of Hamilton today, we might see a same, boring 2016. 2015 is better than 2014 because finally a team can win Mercedes cleanly, twice! But if 2016 stays this way, boring as hell.

      1. Well put @ducpham2708, though I do think Ferrari might be improved again next year, and it looks like Red Bull could end up with a better engine in 2016 too, which would bring them back into contention. Or is that ‘I hope’?

      2. Rosberg had a 29 point lead last year and ended up losing by 67. The only reason people are saying it’s over is because no one has any faith in Rosberg to actually out-race Hamilton to overturn the margin, in which case the best man has won.

        1. +1. Well said sir. But with 8 races to go and a 53 point margin, Lewis could afford to finish second to Nico in 7 of the last 8 races and still win the championship.

          1. There’s actually only 7 rounds left so Lewis can follow Nico home in 2nd in every remaining round and still be champion by 4 points.

      3. The gap by which Lewis won is completely irrelevant in that discussion.

      4. The new regulations can’t come quick enough. If they’re being delayed until 2018, then I hereby congratulate Hamilton on his 5th world championship.

        1. That’s assuming that Merc won’t replace Rosberg in that time period, or that Rosberg won’t leave to become the #1 for another team (Mclaren?). I highly doubt the current lineup will remain after 2016.

          1. Or that Mercedes-Benz provide power units to Red Bull.

      5. I do believe that infringements should be punished but there wasn’t one. Really glad that a procedural error on the part of the FIA representative hasn’t taken away a truly dominant performance from Hamilton, and 0.3psi certainly wouldn’t have made a difference to that. He smashed all sessions. Was that a “grand chelum”?

        This was a teething problem encountered by rushing through a new rule. No doubt the procedure will be ironed out and this silliness will be a thing of the past.

    12. Glad that’s settled. Anthony Davidson of SkyF1 made clear sense. His point was that running temps is what matter, not cold temps. Cold temps change quite a bit and there are many variables that will affect those changes from car to car and from driver to driver. To focus on cold temps is a bit unfair. Taking a hot temp is also easily fallible. The FIA has access to real time data(i.e fuel flow rate), they can easily monitor running air pressures. That would be the most accurate measurement.

      1. @sudd Precisely. The only reason start temps are mentioned is because Pirelli calculate an appropriate starting temp to achieve safe running temps, base upon the teams procedures, car characteristics and historical data. It seems the FIA representative didn’t take any of these nuances into account.

        1. Swap temps with pressures throughout that post. Brain fart.

    13. All I’m getting out of the report is that Mercedes got off because they followed correct procedures. That should not take away from the fact the tyres on the cars were underinflated in my books.
      I believe Hamilton won the race with an illegal car and all of the evidence is infront of us to prove it, regardless of whether it’s the first race with the new regulation, or the 100th.
      I thought Paul Hembrey said drivers would be punished to Martin Brundle in the pre-race. I wonder what he’ll thinking about in wake of this decision when a journalist brings it up?

      1. @pezlo2013 Then you are not reading the report objectively.

      2. @pezlo2013

        That should not take away from the fact the tyres on the cars were underinflated in my books.

        It’s an interesting question. As you well said, Hamilton’s car was illegal. On the other side, it wasn’t the team’s nor the driver’s fault, but the incomplete regulations. What do you, who do you punish?

        But being entirely practical, it doesn’t matter. Mercedes’ and Hamilton’s advantage was big enough for him to win anyways, so today it’s better to let it be.

      3. You missed the part of the statement that says the tyre pressures were within the specified limits when they were fitted to the car then? Or you just ignored it because it doesn’t fit your agenda? What that report says to me is that this was all a big fuss over nothing.

        1. Exactly. I can’t tell if these are just disgruntled Ferrari fans or people who don’t understand the findings of the report. There was no infringement.

          1. He also missed the fact that it was Pirelli handling the tires while they were being inflated.

            So unless Mercedes tampered with the tire afterwards, and no one found any evidence of that, it was impossible to dish out a qualification penalty or any penalty at all. Which is what was the final outcome.

          2. It is in the nature of F1 fans to hate whoever and whatever team has manage through hard work to become good. No other sport is like this, most sane fans welcome success but F1 is different. To them it’s boring when somebody wins but it’s always been this way. Put up a post-it and when another team dominates remind yourselves how stupid this hatred is.

            1. “No other sport is like this”

              Strongly disagree with the part of your post I quote above!!!

        2. 2:30am here brother. My brain isn’t functioning as it should. I need to rest haha.

      4. Mercedes didn’t get off. There was nothing wrong with their tyres. Pressure never stays the same when the temperature changes. The FIA goofed. Perhaps too many old people in charge. Mercedes probably don’t over heat their tyres which resulted in the pressure going lower much too quickly

      5. All I’m getting out of the report is that Mercedes got off because they followed correct procedures.

        From the surreal world of Formula 1 squabbles. Imagine not being penalized despite following correct procedures. It’s chaos out there…

    14. This is for the best. Though it’s still somewhat boring.

    15. This would make a nice case study for a school physics class covering the ideal gas law!. Surprising that such an elementary oversight on the variables that affect measured pressure are not accounted for in the testing protocol.

      As the statement said with the pressure of the Merc tyres measured on the grid some after the tyre blankets have been removed and the tyres somewhat colder than other teams, it should not be a surprise that the measured pressure is lower than when tested in the pits….

      The results of the FIA’s testing protocol have to account for and correct the variables that will impact tyre pressure, in seems in this case the testing protocol falls short with regards to temperature correction.

      1. @Ju88sy As an NFL fan too, I’m not sure what good it would do to teach ideal gas law in school. Damn scientists and physicists couldn’t agree on it in that instance too. Load of hot air that topic is.

    16. This kind of post race controversy and doubt over a race result is exactly the kind of event that does no favours to it’s public image.

      Tying to explain it to casual viewers was embarrasing.

      A. So Hamilton won
      B. Yes, but he may be disqualified
      A. Why?
      B. Because there was a 0.3 less psi of air in one of his tyres than there should have been at the start of the race.
      A. Why did they wait till the end of the race to tell everyone?
      B. Because of proceedure?!?!
      A. Why didn’t they just pump it up.
      B. Not allowed at that point.
      A. Didn’t they check it when they first pump it up?
      B. Yes at it was fine at that point, but it can change due to temperature.
      A. So it changes all the time?
      B. Yes.

      and so on………………………..

      1. @mach1 Really? I think it’s amazing.

        1. How is it good for a sport (any sport) to have a result changed after the event. This happens in F1 for more often than it should.
          It completley destroys the enjoyment of the race you have just watched as it renders it all pretty much pointless.

          *if you were being sarchastic…..it is hard to tell in text form!

          1. @mach1 The change of results (or lack of thereof) wasn’t the core point of your post, but the whole explanations and reasons around it. I find the amount of technicality and technicalities in F1 quite interesting.

            1. err yes it was…see the first paragraph.

              The rest of my post was a joke script showing how one may have to explain the whole farce to a casual viewer….

              It was nothing to do with how interesting the technical aspect of the sport is.

            2. @mach1 The first line is about “doubt”, and the reason for the doubt is the amount of technicality and technicalities in F1, which was further empathized by your joke. You seem to be terrible at reading your own posts =O

      2. @mach1 Pretty much the conversation I had with my wife :)

      3. His tire wasn’t lower pressure than it should have been, it was lower temperature than it should have been since the warmers weren’t plugged in on the grid. Pressure is directly related to temperature. Come on now how many times do people have to explain?

        1. That is what I said at the end!!!!

          How far down the script did you get!

        2. Curious – why were the warmers not plugged in on the grid ??? :)

    17. Hmmm so at time fitted is now the same as at the start of the race.
      That opens up possibilities for other parts.

      1. No it does not.

          1. No it doesn’t. The point of the finding is there was no intent by Mercedes to run the tyres outside of the stipulated pressure. If they hadn’t followed procedure and had been found to be taking a risk they would have been penalised.

            1. Yes it does. As team you now only have to claim it was according to spec and do not how it was changed.

            2. @jdd, except we DO know how it changed, it’s plainly obvious to any O level student that the drop in temperature dropped the pressure. As the FIA decided not to bother taking temperature fluctuations into account with their check, it’s no surprise that their findings failed the very basic test of their scientific validity “Have you taken all the possible variables into account”.

              Imagine if you were convicted of speeding based on the pitch of the sound of your engine, and no consideration was taken of the fact that your engine is a high reving engine, that you were in a low gear and that you have some fancy cans on the back.

            3. well now that all depends on the wording of the Technical directive doesn’t it, does it stipulate that the pressure should be above 19.5psi at the maximum tyre blanket temperature or just 19.5psi at the start of the race (or whenever tested) if it is the latter then it is irrelevant what temperature the tyre was when tested and whether Mercedes unplugged the blanket or not should also be irrelevant, the pressure was below the minimum.

              Perhaps someone who can be bothered could find the actual wording of the directive.

          2. Trenthamfolk (@)
            6th September 2015, 18:24

            Boyles law doesn’t apply to carbon fibre… trying to explain away an illegal wing (for example) based on thermal-dynamics and cars sitting in the sun too long wouldn’t cut the mustard.

    18. There’s no appeal really. The tyres were at a legal PSI when the blankets were removed. It’s pretty simple.

    19. I bet Kimi is happy about all this.

      Everyone seem’s to have completely forgotten, he forgot to put it in gear! Doh!

      What was he saying the other day, “Kimi predicts ‘great things’ with new Ferrari F1 deal.”?

      1. I’m sure he’s right. Just not sure how many of those great things are expected on the track.

    20. So basically FIA/Pirelli tried to regulate pressure and temperature independently and somehow blissfully ignorant of Boyle’s law. Brilliant.

      1. Trenthamfolk (@)
        6th September 2015, 17:54

        I thought the same!!! The relationship of a gas with pressure and volume was developed around 1660… it’s hardly a new concept!!! :-)

    21. I expected something like this because everyone knows what happens to a balloon when refrigerated. Secondly, tyre pressure measurements by an external probe further reduces the pressure within the tyres.
      The FIA need a reference table of temperatures and associated pressures.

      1. You can have two tyres at 80°C that differ in pressure by several PSI.

        What you really need is to correct the pressures based on the temperature; since both measurements were being taken anyway, it’s a trivial matter to do so.

    22. I’m glad there was no penalty cuz it sucks when a result is changed after a race.

      But Pirelli…on their own way are stealing the show, aren’t they?

      Bridgestone supplied tyres for F1 for 14 seasons, and they were never as surrounded with controversy as Pirelli is on this still short stint as a supplier.

    23. Sky Sports News showed a shot of the Pirelli technician giving the thumbs up to Hamiltons’ car on the grid. That seals the deal for me, nothing else to see here.

      1. Context is a wonderful thing.

        1. Sorry, it seems a Mercedes engineer and the Pirelli engineer were in conversation about whether everything was ok, and the P guy gave the thumbs up.

          Unless the Merc guy was asking if he’d be joining him down the pub later.

          1. Mercedes engineer and the Pirelli engineer were in conversation about whether everything was ok

            How do you know that?

            1. Body language. Like if there had been a big problem I think there would have been some gesticulation that something was wrong.

    24. In my opinion the ruling is correct since the tyres were right when they left the garage and it seems to be a measurement/timing of testing issue.

      For me, all this going on today is a perfect example of the confusion that comes with knee-jerk rule changes without proper thinking prior to the change. there is often some kind of oversight that leads to confusion. Today we saw that the FIA and Pirelli had failed to develop a proper data collection protocol in their rush to push through their minimum PSI rule.

    25. I think it’s highlighted an overlooked performance aspect, tyre warming strategy. Whether cooking the tyres so that they are more grippy at the start, or warming them less to reduce tyre pressure and thus increase grip differently. In a sport about margins, i wouldn’t be surprised to discover Mercedes doing things differently for that extra tenth of a second.

      1. The tyre blankets are regulated for exactly this reason – and as for after that, out on the track, managing temperatures in your tyres is a huge part of driving at this level, and a fundamental skill. They don’t weave on the warmup lap and behind a safety car for fun.

        1. Alonso was once asked if weaving does anything he said not really.

    26. Trenthamfolk (@)
      6th September 2015, 18:41

      Soooo… the FIA decide to do additional tests on the Merc’s and the Ferrari’s (for parity, of course) without a set procedure… using relatively crude analogue equipment after the Pirelli people have already done it and verified the pressures are OK… the results of which come to light when it is evident that Ferrari would benefit massively, at their and Jean Todt’s home GP, from a Hamilton disqualification!

      They’re not jokingly referred to as the ‘Ferrari Internationale de l’Automobile’ for nothing :-)

      1. Jean Todt is French

        1. Trenthamfolk (@)
          6th September 2015, 18:54

          You’re right… I was referring (not very well) to his Ferrari past… and being Facetious…

      2. Forgot to also say that the whole FIA = Ferrari International Assistance hasn’t been a valid joke for a decade now

    27. I’m no tyre expert, but my reading from the steward’s statement is that Merc got away without a penalty because there is no clearly defined measurement protocol and therefore the rules aren’t enforceable in this case.

      The other which bugs me is: They say pressures dropped because the temps dropped as a result of the tyre blankets being plugged off. In order to drop in pressure that temp needs to be the core temp of the tyre and not the surface temp which I assume is what the FIA actually measured.
      Now generally teams do have (afaik) a power source for their tools (including the blankets) available on the grid. I don’t know exactly when that equipment will be removed from the grid, but I’m guessing at max 2-3min before the formation lap. Blankets come off 15s before the formation lap.
      Now Hamilton’s tyre was 0.3PSI under inflated which is really not much, but Rosberg’s tyre was -1.1PSI down and I find it hard to believe that in that short amount of time the core temp of the tyre dropped that significantly.
      Plus, Rob Smedly said on Sky that the tyre does not drop in pressure that quickly when standing on the grid. He literally said it would take a couple of minutes, because of the heat exchange between the tread and the inside of the tyre (again core temp is what matters!).

      1. No team would want to leave their tyres unwarmed during that time so we can only speculate as to why they have apparently satisfied the stewards that their tyres were without blankets for enough time to affect the readings. Presumably they have shown them faulty power cables/tyre warmers etc. Point really remains that we have two measurements of pressure, one taken under strictly controlled conditions under the supervision of a Pirelli engineer, of a type that they have done every race for a long time. The other was a new protocol taken in far less controlled circumstances with equipment based on way outdated technology and ignoring some very basic principles of proper testing. The first measurement showed that the pressure was fine, the second showed the pressure was not fine. Which one would you honestly trust?

      2. Disqualifying a driver who retired and scored no points is kinda redundant though

      3. The warmers use a power source on the grid. I’m not sure if it’s a mobile generator or what. Mercedes weren’t plugged in for whatever reason. The temp discrepancies are more to do with improper use of the warmers rather than being out too long on the grid.

        What interests me though is what difference to a start it would make to have tires underinflated by 1 psi? I know drag racers use extremely underinflated tires for maximum traction.

    28. There are a lot of people still thinking Mercedes broke the rules here. I believe they did not – and I’ll explain why.

      The rules say that teams must run within the recommendations made by the tyre supplier. The tyre supplier Pirelli, on a team by team basis, gives each team a starting pressure to run at, so that once the car is up to speed, the pressure in the tyre will be at least the minimum they have prescribed.

      This starting pressure takes into account ambient temperature, track properties, the behaviour of the car and the procedures of the team in managing their tyres. Before the race there was a letter from Pirelli stating that if they found that teams had modified their car or procedures to make this calculation invalid, they would raise the starting pressure they gave the team.

      Mercedes have show that they followed their normal procedures, inflated the tyre to the pressure given to them by Pirelli, and gone to race. They have followed the recommendations of the tyre supplier.

      What I don’t understand is why an FIA representative was taking tyre pressures at a totally different time that isn’t under controlled conditions in order to judge a pressure that is prescribed by Pirelli at a totally different point in the afternoon.

      1. As a further point – how aggrieved would Hamilton/Mercedes be if this non-infringement meant that Hamilton broke his engine or crashed during his Hammertime mini-stint. Shouldn’t the team have been informed about a safety issue right away?

      2. If what you say really is the case, why did they bother to measure the tirepressure altogether? That would not nescessary, would it?

        1. @mosquito Exactly. Why did they bother to measure the tyre pressure? A representative from Pirelli has already done so before the car left the pits.

          1. Quite obviously the stewarts do not agree with you. And rightfully so: rules should not be governed by a supplier, but by a representative of the FIA.

            1. @mosquito The rules say to follow the suppliers recommendation, which Mercedes did. As for who should monitor compliance with those recommendations, it should be someone competent. That appears to have not been followed in this instance.

      3. Exactly. Great summary

    29. surely DOTW for Hamilton, amazing weekend for him:
      – 1st in FP1
      – 1st in FP2
      – 1st in FP3
      – 1st in Q1
      – 1st in Q2
      – 1st in Q3 (POLE)
      – 1st in the race lap times (FASTEST LAP)
      – 1st in every single lap of the race (WIN/HAT-TRICK/GRAND CHELEM)

      There is no possible way to do better than that. OK the car and blah blah blah, but you have to admit this is extraordinary. Not sure this ever happen? (maybe Keith can help here)

      1. *happened

      2. He also completed the bonus round set by his team at the end: get 25 seconds ahead of Vettel.

        1. Seems that challenge was set by George Lucas before the race.

    30. I can nit help but wonder what would have happened if it was one of the teams on the back row with this kind of an infringement.
      Obviously it would have been a PR disaster if the stewart took the win from Hamilton. I guess they would have loved to scapegoat one of teams down the grid to “set an example”.

      Anyway, next time they change rules in a hurry at least think of a clear way to measure the rule. Can’t be too difficult.

    31. love the LACK of consistency, I think they made the right call with Lewis but a terrible call with Mitch Evans and Canamasas, no wonder they’re angry

    32. Just give Hamilton the title now.

      And people say there’s a bias against him. What jokers.

    Comments are closed.