The FIA, Formula 1’s governing body, has shared its view on why F1’s current post-race scrutineering methods are both time-tested and “so valuable” following two United States Grand Prix disqualifications that they questioned whether other cars escaped being penalized for the same offence.
Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc were removed from the COTA race classification after it was found that floorboard wear on their respective cars exceeded the permitted level.
But Hamilton’s Mercedes and Leclerc’s Ferrari were two of just four cars inspected for board wear, the others being Max Verstappen’s Red Bull and Lando Norris’ McLaren, both deemed compliant.
With a 50% violation success rate among the sample of cars tested, this understandably raised questions for the other 16 participants, and particularly the teammates of the disqualified drivers, George Russell and Carlos Sainz, whose board wear was not checked.
But the randomness of controls is nothing new to F1 – and one FIA Insights article published by the governing body in the wake of the COTA weekend he said there was no particular rush to somehow overhaul the procedures.
“This procedure has been in place for many decades,” the FIA stressed, adding that the teams are aware that “every part of the car could be checked at any time” and that the appearance of one of these checks could mean something not complies “serious consequences”.
“In conducting these tests, a huge amount of work goes on in the limited time available after the finish of a grand prix and before the cars have to be returned to their teams for dismantling and transport to the next race.
“However, although a wide range of checks are carried out, it is impossible to cover every parameter of every car in the short time available – and this is especially true on back-to-back race weekends [like the US GP was, with the Mexican GP the following weekend]when freight deadlines must also be taken into account.
“This is why the process of randomly selecting a number of cars for post-race scrutineering on various aspects of the regulations is so valuable. Every team knows that selection is possible and understands that the potential for any non-compliance to be exposed is high .”
F1’s technical team relies on “a wealth of experience, as well as data from a multitude of sources and sensors” to determine what is controlled from weekend to weekend.
The post-race technical scrutineering at the US GP, as described by FIA technical representative Jo Bauer (pictured above right of FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem), included in addition to dashboard checks and numerous standard checks on all cars (in parameters that are largely just a matter of extracting the recorded data rather than time-consuming physical measurements) thorough inspections of Norris’ McLaren, Sergio Perez’s Red Bull and Yuki Tsunoda’s AlphaTauri.
These inspections verified the compliance of the cars’ floors, nose structures, frame, mirrors, side legs, engine covers and front and rear fenders.
There were also fuel and oil samples taken from Sainz’s car, which were analyzed by “gas chromatography” in the first case and “FTIR spectroscopy and viscometry” in the second.
“As with everything in Formula 1, the process has evolved and improved over the years to be the most rigorous and thorough method of monitoring the incredibly complex current generation F1 cars, acting as a serious deterrent while being practicable within logistical framework of a Grand Prix weekend,” the FIA concluded.