Sergio Perez, Sauber, Melbourne, 2011

Kobayashi and Perez disqualified from results

2011 Australian Grand PrixPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Sergio Perez, Sauber, Melbourne, 2011
Sergio Perez, Sauber, Melbourne, 2011

Both Saubers have been disqualified from the Australian Grand Prix due to a technical infringement.

Sergio Perez and Kamui Kobayashi therefore lose their seventh and eighth place finished in the race.

Their upper rear wing element was found not to conform to the regulations.

The change promotes Felipe Massa to seventh and Sebastien Buemi to eighth.

It also means both Force India drivers have moved up into the points, with Adrian Sutil taking nine and Paul di Resta scoring the final point on his debut.

See the revised results in full:

Update: Sauber have announced they will appeal the decision.

James Key said: “This is a very surprising and disappointing result.

“It appears that there is a question over the top surface of the uppermost rear wing element, this area is not the working surface of the component and therefore relatively unimportant to its function.

“Certainly this has not lead to any performance advantage. We are checking the design of the parts now to better understand the situation and we intend to appeal the decision made by the stewards.”

The FIA found them in breach of articles 3.10.1 and 3.10.2 of the technical regulations.

2011 Australian Grand Prix

Browse all 2011 Australian Grand Prix articles

Image ?? Sauber F1 Team

202 comments on “Kobayashi and Perez disqualified from results”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4
  1. And this kind of technical things must be checked BEFORE the race.

    1. Sauber should have checked this yes.

      1. No the FIA should not have tested the cars to see if they are legal. The FIA do a number of random tests in scrutineering (appart from the obvious ones like weighing the cars). the reason this wasn’t picked up on before was it wasn’t tested for before.
        It’s Saubers responsibility to race a car that’s legal.

        1. But surely just as it is the responsibility of Sauber to race a car that is legal, it is also up to the FIA to enforce the very rules they set, and make sure they are legal.
          You cant tell me they just take it for granted that each car is within the set parameters each season. Otherwise you would as somebody else stated, have teams constantly flouting the rules on the off chance their vehicle would slip through…it’s not happening is it!!!

          Hopefully all this will be sorted over next week or so with the appeal. And the exact problem and how it came about will come out.

  2. Any advantage will be in the area of downforce which should hurt straight line speed. The dont say if the concave part or exceeding the reference plane is what got them in trouble. Becauce if its just a question of the reference place,, its obvious that the flap can be shifted forward by a few millimeters and thus past the regulations. Which makes me wonder if it is caused by wear along the axis in which the flap pivots. On another note, how anyone can decode this reference plane stuff just beats me.

  3. Not every aspect of the restrictions placed in the regulations are there to hinder performance. Some are just there to ensure certain sections of the car fall within a certain dimension. For example the regulations call for a very wide front wing, but the teams hardly need all that downforce hence they only use part of the allowable arear to generat downforceand then use the rest as air channels to condition the airflow.

  4. It this was Ferrari’s rear wing the FIA would introcude a 100mm tolerance :P

    Shame, but I have to say I’m not too surprised. The rules are so complex it’s very easy to either misinterpret or just ignore something by accident.

  5. ARGH! Terrible news, this has put a downer on the race. I was so happy for both drivers, especially Perez. I hope their appeal is successful.

  6. That said…rules are rules. As long as no actual advantage was gained at least we have an indication of where Sauber are.

    1. I have to agree. We’ll see if the change will affect their performance. Especially that they were presumably fastest at speed trap.

      Of the drivers are unhappy (as most of us are too), but everybody’ll get over it soon. **** happens.

      Remember Kubica was disqualified in his first F1 race for the car being underweight of about 200g. Two races later he scored a podium.

      1. And he was disqualified from 7th. Its an omen ;)

  7. Well, regardless of this, Perez did show a great race, and did really well to keep his tyres alive so long. Kobayashi also had a good race, and it looks like the Sauber is quick.

    This is a bummer especially as it seems a pre-race check would have allowed Sauber to amend it, but still, Sauber is probably a lot happier with the weekend than Williams, with a good speed in the race that again didn’t amount to results due to mistakes and unreliability. In contrast to that, it probably will be a small tweak for Sauber and looking at a good next race.

    1. What gets me is, that quite a lot of the teams have tried racing “on edge” parts (or way over it in some cases) before.

      But when its the big teams mostly the FIA just agreed to them not using it for the next time. A bit of a shame for the first race.

  8. I now see it was the radius part they failed. So the ball of a certain radius must at least make uniform contact with that flap or contact at only one point. I dont know what the regulation says about the size of the flap.

  9. The rules are the rules, but i don’t get why they didn’t test these things before the weekend?
    Anyway, i am gutted by this. It was a great result for Sauber today and especially on Perez’ debut.

  10. remember the toyota’s in 2009 having their rear wings checked aftewr quali and then getting penalties, shame the fia couldnt of done this check before the race, poor perez

    1. its the teams responsibility to ensure their cars are legal, they are checked by the FIA on the thursday, then the teams obviously change bits, try new parts etc: so those which are classified as race finishers are checked again after the race as is the case here, obviously something the team put onto the car during the weekend was not within the rules.

      Shame but it was good to see Sauber up there and hopefully they will be next time out.

      1. Shame that Sauber didn’t take the wing to the FIA before the race and ask; is this legal? Can they do that? I presume they can, it’s not like the race scrutinisers have anything else to do before the race.

  11. Sauber broke the rule, so the punishment was fair. Technical infringements, however small, almost always carry the penalty of exclusion from the race.

    However, this is a perfect illustration of what I’ve been saying in recent weeks about the technical regulations being too tightly defined. If the FIA want all the wing elements to conform to specification, why not issue spec ones? The situation we have now is just a very expensive way of achieving the same thing.

  12. I don’t see any comments from Keith or other fellow F1 pundits like Macademia nut etc. What do you guys think?
    Also I felt uneasy about the Stewards having more power from this year(more sanctions like exclusions from the results like this and banning from one race etc), should they really have this or should a central community from FIA(that don’t change between races) have this responsibility??

  13. Rules are rules and they should apply to everybody.
    This situation is similar to one when Kubica finished on a podium as a rookie. He got disqualified because his car was too light but hardly anybody remembers that nowdays. What is remembered is his great drive.

  14. Damn, I was so happy for the pair of them.

  15. Drama. Rules are rules, but I hate it when the results are altered. Nothing you can do when teams cheat, with bad intentions or not, I know. But I don’t like it.

    The only alternative would be to check everything pre race.

  16. This has almost completely RUINED the race in my opinion.

  17. The system of punishment is flawed and must go. Punishment should be proportionate to the advantage gained by the infringement. If nothing was gained, then no punishment. The current system is too heavy-handed.

    1. I’m sure if you design a system and send in the idea, they will consider it.

      I warn you though… It’s not that easy.

  18. If there was an speed advantage, this should cause more wear on brakes and tires at braking time, right? So how could “Checo” make his tires last so much, both compounds, its just testament of a talent that sponsor money can’t buy. Great start for him anyway.

  19. Couldn’t this technical miscue be discovered with pre-race car inspections bu officials of all cars?

    1. But then teams could put something illegal on the car at the very last minute after the checks, and get away with it.

    2. This is what I thought, seems strange, and potentially dangerous, that they can drive illegal cars.

  20. Even if Sauber did get an advantage by breaking the rules (I don’t think it was significant)rookie Perez showed what he can get a decent result given good car, unlike Massa…

    1. I’m betting Massa won’t have a seat at Ferrari next year.

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.