PDA

View Full Version : Speeding during the SC period for future races



ferrari4life
1st July 2010, 20:05
I just thought about something that I would like to be clarified.
The matter of speeding during the SC period. Since the FIA have now set a precedence about how speeding during the SC period should only be a 5 second penalty, then it will not be able to give a driver a drive through or a stop and go in any future race for a car that is found guilty of speeding because that will be greater that a 5 second penalty.
To that respect it would be worth it to then speed as much as you could during the SC period and try and finish 5 seconds ahead of your nearest rival at the end of the race.

Is that the case or was something else ratified to prevent this?

Ste
1st July 2010, 20:49
I think the best idea is just to ban pitting under the Safety Car. Or, if they allow it, then they should also allow the field to re-form in the position they were before pitting.

That way, it prevents races being a complete lottery.

ferrari4life
1st July 2010, 21:17
I think the best idea is just to ban pitting under the Safety Car. Or, if they allow it, then they should also allow the field to re-form in the position they were before pitting.

That way, it prevents races being a complete lottery.

Yeah but as of right now they have not changed the rules and if they then do not change the rules before the next race why are we not allowed to exploit this loophole no matter how dangerous it is.

Brakefade
2nd July 2010, 00:52
In the future if a similar situation like this arises, I think Ferrari should pass the SC and they should race as fast as possible to the pit. Let the FIA sort out their dumb ass rules. And if they penalize us with more than 5 secs and a drive through, quit the sport as it will be obvious they're against us. How can you win in an environment where the officials have it against you. Move to Le Mans and lets see if F1 survives without the prancing horse.

NJB13
2nd July 2010, 03:28
....... To that respect it would be worth it to then speed as much as you could during the SC period and try and finish 5 seconds ahead of your nearest rival at the end of the race.

I can understand your logic, but, it would simply be adding to their mistake. The Saftey Car is supposed to be there for "safety" reasons so we need to ensure that is respected above all else. There is no tolerance for pit-lane speeding so there should be less tolerance for Saftey Car infringements.

As far as I'm concerned the SC rule should be no one can pit until the SC has completed one full lap and it should be deployed to pick up the leader and everyone else in sequence at that the time the drivers are notified.

dfunk257
2nd July 2010, 06:58
I think the best idea is just to ban pitting under the Safety Car. Or, if they allow it, then they should also allow the field to re-form in the position they were before pitting.

That way, it prevents races being a complete lottery.

yeah mate exactly, im sick of watching races turn into lotterys just cause of a safety car, this i think is amajor problem in f1 cause its just crap to watch really

mad_ani
2nd July 2010, 07:16
Also we must get rid of the safety car lines.....Keep it simple...no overtaking until the cars cross teh start finish line...

Nick Singer
2nd July 2010, 08:55
??: The minute the decision is taken to deploy the SC and before it has even left the pits, all teams get notification. Immediate yellow flag conditions and race order fixed at that point. That way there is no b*ggering about with overtaking/ SC lines etc and Hamiltonesque 'hesitation'.

Pitstops permissible but you stay where you rejoin. Anyone in pits/ pitlane when SC notified can rejoin and remains in the position in which they rejoin. That way, I think, nobody can get an advantage, other than by not pitting when others do..

Simples...I think..

killer
2nd July 2010, 10:08
Yeah the entire course is put on yellow the minute they call the SC out anyway but yeah, bang on, Nick--wasn't that how it's always been until they mucked around with opening and closing the pits anyway?

tifoso SF
2nd July 2010, 10:57
??: The minute the decision is taken to deploy the SC and before it has even left the pits, all teams get notification. Immediate yellow flag conditions and race order fixed at that point. That way there is no b*ggering about with overtaking/ SC lines etc and Hamiltonesque 'hesitation'.

Pitstops permissible but you stay where you rejoin. Anyone in pits/ pitlane when SC notified can rejoin and remains in the position in which they rejoin. That way, I think, nobody can get an advantage, other than by not pitting when others do..

Simples...I think..


i agree with u, seems sensible.. but the rejoin part could be a problem if it was right in the middle of the pack, considering there's no speed limit as in the pit lane for ex, everyone would try to avoid letting someone rejoin in front of them, and it could get messy. am I wrong?

xinebessa
2nd July 2010, 11:28
There are some interesting points made in this thread and I think that there are lots of ways in which the system could be made fairer but not neccessarily safer... If you let people pit and regain their original position then they have to go round the track passing lots of drivers, even though this would be at a slower pace it wouldn't be safe.

Also, if there were a short safety car period then not all cars would manage to have a pitstop, therefore the ones who do and return to their original position get a massive advantage.

Closing the pits would have the desired effect but there should be something sensible in the rules to allow a car to pit if it is unsafe for it not to...


yeah mate exactly, im sick of watching races turn into lotterys just cause of a safety car, this i think is amajor problem in f1 cause its just crap to watch really

I don't agree with this at all... sometimes the best races to watch are the ones where a front runner ends up out of position!

epiclyaddicted
2nd July 2010, 11:41
Just close the pits during a SC period! Simple as that. The only exception could be made if a car has some sort of terminal damage that would make it unsafe for it to continue without pitting.

mm154
2nd July 2010, 11:42
With the common ECU's on the cars, why not limit top speed during SC periods? It would have to be something reasonable to make it possible to catch up to the SC after a pit stop, but low enough to keep a repeat of Ham-logic from happening. Or if we just want to look at from a safety aspect, just limit them through the sector where the accident has occurred, so that no one were to try and push through a sector with marshals and debris on track to reform with the SC.

ferrari4life
2nd July 2010, 13:12
Until the last race I always believed that the SC period was the most strictest in the race. You get black flagged and serious penalties for any violations. But now why should others benefit while we respect what the SC period stands for.

CurdaNeta
2nd July 2010, 13:17
With the common ECU's on the cars, why not limit top speed during SC periods? It would have to be something reasonable to make it possible to catch up to the SC after a pit stop, but low enough to keep a repeat of Ham-logic from happening. Or if we just want to look at from a safety aspect, just limit them through the sector where the accident has occurred, so that no one were to try and push through a sector with marshals and debris on track to reform with the SC.

The problem with a top speed is that the point of the SC is to have all the cars bunched up together so that the marshalls can clear any cars/debris from track while all the cars are together making the lap. It's a lot safer than to have cars spaced in the track.

zakfourie
2nd July 2010, 16:10
I don't want to be negative again.

This is all good, but now, again, they are killing the true spirit of motorsport with yet another rule.

Just because of one incident with McCheat.

redsteph
2nd July 2010, 21:46
it's weird if you think of the number of races in the past where there have been safety cars with no problems and now this season we've had 2 issues (Valencia and Monaco) where the rules are needing to be 'clarified'. Mercedes are also querying as Michael was held under a red light in the pit lane while the cars went past although the cars hadn't yet lined up behind the safety car.

Sounds like the whole set of rules relating to the safety car need to be looked at.

MS7XWDC
3rd July 2010, 00:12
I just thought about something that I would like to be clarified.
The matter of speeding during the SC period. Since the FIA have now set a precedence about how speeding during the SC period should only be a 5 second penalty, then it will not be able to give a driver a drive through or a stop and go in any future race for a car that is found guilty of speeding because that will be greater that a 5 second penalty.
To that respect it would be worth it to then speed as much as you could during the SC period and try and finish 5 seconds ahead of your nearest rival at the end of the race.

Is that the case or was something else ratified to prevent this?
did it ever occur to you that they only got a 5 second penalty because they were alerted about the safety car when the lap was nearly over, and if they are shown the SC alert and then do a complete fast lap that they'll get a bigger penalty, as they intentionally tried to gain advantage??

Tifosi
3rd July 2010, 10:46
did it ever occur to you that they only got a 5 second penalty because they were alerted about the safety car when the lap was nearly over, and if they are shown the SC alert and then do a complete fast lap that they'll get a bigger penalty, as they intentionally tried to gain advantage??

Is this a supposition of your own or is there any evidence in it? Is there a rule that covers this eventuality or did they just wing it with this penalty? Why haven't they explained the reason for the 5 second penalty as such so as to clarify this rather weird reason for it?

I must admit it hadn't occured to me that it is possible to break the rules but have mitigating circumstances that require the "off the cuff" creation of an unprecedented penalty that arbitrarily determines the outcome of the race as a result.

Sounds like the kind of thing the FIA would do though. Indeed, that's what they did really. Trying to justify what they do as reasoned and fair is pretty pointless. All they do is try to save themselves negative publicity and embarassment outside of the F1 domain. Politics determines the rest.

MS7XWDC
3rd July 2010, 11:47
JB said after the race that they were alerted about the safety car when the [fast] lap was nearly over.

Renault: "When the Safety Car came out, it was just before Robert's braking point for the final corner, which is just before the Safety Car line. His reaction time from the Safety Car lights coming on to braking was about 1.2 seconds and he then entered the pit lane. It's difficult to see how he could have avoided this penalty because he couldn't have braked any sooner and he reacted as quickly as he could."

If the FIA can penalise MS for racing under green and re-writing the rule later, I'd think the 5 second penalty can be justified.

I believe that there is no specific penalty that MUST be given for beating the Delta Time & it seems because of that, is at the discretion of the stewards to give a penalty they think is fair.

Greig
3rd July 2010, 11:56
MS at Monaco has nothing to do with it, why do you keep taking about it?

Still waiting for you to show me the rules regarding overtaking the SC, guess I will still wait :-)

MS7XWDC
3rd July 2010, 17:19
MS at Monaco has nothing to do with it
are you having trouble reading?
This thread is about SC penalties. I was asked a question about unprecedented penalties & I stand by my very relevant answer:
If the FIA can penalise MS for racing under green and re-writing the rule later, I'd think the 5 second penalty can be justified.




Still waiting for you to show me the rules regarding overtaking the SC, guess I will still wait

I'm sure you can find the F1 & FIA Sporting code online if you'd like to read the rule book. maybe use Google or something, or write a letter / email to the Valencia Stewards. And seeing the rules doesn't always help: Monaco 2010, they re-wrote the rules weeks later to justify the penalty. :-)

sometimes you just have to accept things [like MGP did] and move on.

Greig
3rd July 2010, 20:04
I have no problems reading (unlike your selective reading powers) Did MS overtake the SC? if all SC penalties are under the same umbrella then why the 5 second penalty? You make no sense as usual :-)

I am sure you can show me the rules, afteral you are the one saying Ferrari are ironic for complaining about the penalty for Lewis, so I assume you must have a good understanding of the rules, I shall wait for you to post it, or you can use google to find a more suitable forum for your ramblings :-)

Same MGP that want the rules changed again with the red light in the pitlane? Moved on did they....maybe you can move on very soon ;-)

coysht
3rd July 2010, 20:14
I just thought about something that I would like to be clarified.
The matter of speeding during the SC period. Since the FIA have now set a precedence about how speeding during the SC period should only be a 5 second penalty, then it will not be able to give a driver a drive through or a stop and go in any future race for a car that is found guilty of speeding because that will be greater that a 5 second penalty.
To that respect it would be worth it to then speed as much as you could during the SC period and try and finish 5 seconds ahead of your nearest rival at the end of the race.

Is that the case or was something else ratified to prevent this?

The cars that set laps below the delta time only did so by a small margin - so only got a small penalty. Had they broken they been significantly under the delta time, then the punishment would have been much harsher.

If, as you suggest, you drove round at full speed you would probably get a drive-thru or stop go for the initial offence of being under the delta time and then could well be disqualified from the race and even the championship for seriously unsafe driving.

MS7XWDC
3rd July 2010, 22:25
if all SC penalties are under the same umbrella then why the 5 second penalty?

if anyone here stated 'all SC penalties are under the same umbrella' you might want to ask them.

you are the one saying Ferrari are ironic for complaining about the penalty for Lewis

I don't see anywhere in this thread that I mentioned Hamilton, or Ferrari's reaction to Hamilton.

MGP did move on from Monaco.

All of F1 want to discuss the SC rules after Valencia: http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/238041/massa-backs-safety-car-talks/
"Felipe Massa has agreed that discussions surrounding the use of the Safety Car are necessary following the controversy of last weekend’s European Grand Prix.
As first revealed by Force India Team Manager Andy Stevenson earlier in the week, teams are now set to confer over the Safety Car subject ahead of the upcoming British Grand Prix.

“We must talk about this together and do something to ensure a situation like this does not happen again."

Greig
3rd July 2010, 22:28
Once again you make no sense at all, seems the more you twist and turn the more you revert back to 01_Ferrari_Fan


ironic how Ferrari said 'the rules are clear' about Monaco [when obviously they were not & needed official re-writing], and now they complain about the absolutely clear rules --- perhaps it is a stupid rule / penalty regarding Hamilton / Alonso, but what comes around, goes around - the rules are totally clear .... I doubt many feel sympathy for them ....

here is a case where the absolutely clear rules bit them.

Show me these clear rules you state.....show me the rules for overtaking the SC, do not tell me to google, you state the rule is clear, show me the rule.

mad_ani
4th July 2010, 08:46
SAFETY CAR RULES:

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8687/fia.html



Safety car


Published with permission from the Federation Internationale de l' Automobile.

40) SAFETY CAR
40.1 The FIA safety car will be driven by an FIA appointed driver and will carry an FIA observer capable of recognising all the competing cars who is in permanent radio contact with race control.
40.2 Thirty minutes before the start of the formation lap the safety car will take up position at the front of the grid and remain there until the five minute signal is given. At this point (except under 40.14 below) it will cover a whole lap of the circuit and take up position.
40.3 The safety car may be brought into operation to neutralise a race upon the order of the clerk of the course.
It will be used only if competitors or officials are in immediate physical danger but the circumstances are not such as to necessitate suspending the race.
40.4 When the order is given to deploy the safety car the message "SAFETY CAR DEPLOYED" will be displayed on the timing monitors and all marshal's posts will display waved yellow flags and "SC" boards for the duration of the intervention.
40.5 From this time, any car being driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or which is deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers at any time whilst the safety car is deployed will be reported to the stewards. This will apply whether any such car is being driven on the track, the pit entry or the pit lane.
40.6 The safety car will join the track with its orange lights illuminated and will do so regardless of where the race leader is.
40.7 All competing cars must then reduce speed and form up in line behind the safety car no more than ten car lengths apart. In order to ensure that drivers reduce speed sufficiently, from the time at which the “SAFETY CAR DEPLOYED” message is shown on the timing monitors until the time that each car crosses the first safety car line for the first time, drivers must stay above the minimum time set by the FIA ECU.
With the following exceptions, no car may overtake until it has passed the first safety car line for the first time when the safety car is returning to the pits. However, if the safety car is still deployed at the beginning of the last lap, or is deployed during the last lap, Article 40.13 will apply.
- if a car is signalled to do so from the safety car ;
- under 40.14 below ;
- any car entering the pits may pass another car or the safety car remaining on the track after it has crossed the first safety car line ;
- any car leaving the pits may be overtaken by another car on the track before it crosses the second safety car line ;
- when the safety car is returning to the pits it may be overtaken by cars on the track once it has crossed the first safety car line ;
- any car stopping in its designated garage area whilst the safety car is using the pit lane (see 40.10 below) may be overtaken ;
- if any car slows with an obvious problem.
40.8 When ordered to do so by the clerk of the course the observer in the car will use a green light to signal to any cars between it and the race leader that they should pass. These cars will continue at reduced speed and without overtaking until they reach the line of cars behind the safety car.
40.9 The safety car shall be used at least until the leader is behind it and all remaining cars are lined up behind him.
Once behind the safety car, the race leader must keep within ten car lengths of it (except under 40.11 below) and all remaining cars must keep the formation as tight as possible.
40.10 Whilst the safety car is in operation, competing cars may enter the pit lane, but may only rejoin the track when the green light at the end of the pit lane is on. It will be on at all times except when the safety car and the line of cars following it are about to pass or are passing the pit exit . A car rejoining the track must proceed at an appropriate speed until it reaches the end of the line of cars behind the safety car.
Under certain circumstances the clerk of the course may ask the safety car to use the pit lane. In these cases, and provided it's orange lights remain illuminated, all cars must follow it into the pit lane without overtaking. Any car entering the pit lane under these circumstances may stop at its designated garage area.
40.11 When the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car the message "SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP" will be displayed on the timing monitors and the car's orange lights will be extinguished This will be the signal to the teams and drivers that it will be entering the pit lane at the end of that lap.
At this point the first car in line behind the safety car may dictate the pace and, if necessary, fall more than ten car lengths behind it.
In order to avoid the likelihood of accidents before the safety car returns to the pits, from the point at which the lights on the car are turned out drivers must proceed at a pace which involves no erratic acceleration or braking nor any other manoeuvre which is likely to endanger other drivers or impede the restart.
As the safety car is approaching the pit entry the yellow flags and SC boards will be withdrawn and, other than on the last lap of the race, replaced by waved green flags with green lights at the Line. These will be displayed until the last car crosses the Line.
40.12 Each lap completed while the safety car is deployed will be counted as a race lap.
40.13 If the safety car is still deployed at the beginning of the last lap, or is deployed during the last lap, it will enter the pit lane at the end of the lap and the cars will take the chequered flag as normal without
overtaking.
40.14 Under certain circumstances the race may be started behind the safety car or resumed in accordance with Article 42.5(a). In either case, at the ten minute signal its orange lights will be illuminated, this being the signal to the drivers that the race will be started (or resumed) behind the safety car. At the same time a message confirming this will be displayed on the timing monitors.
When the green lights are illuminated the safety car will leave the grid with all cars following in grid order no more than ten car lengths apart. During a race start there will be no formation lap and race will start when the green lights are illuminated.
Overtaking, during the first lap only, is permitted if a car is delayed when leaving its grid position and cars behind cannot avoid passing it without unduly delaying the remainder of the field. In this case, drivers may only overtake to re-establish the original starting order.
Any driver who is delayed leaving the grid may not overtake another moving car if he was stationary after the remainder of the cars had crossed the Line, and must form up at the back of the line of cars behind the safety car. If more than one driver is affected, they must form up at the back of the field in the order they left the grid.
Either of the penalties under Articles 16.3a) or b) will be imposed on any driver who, in the opinion of the Stewards, unnecessarily overtook another car during the first lap.

ferrari4life
4th July 2010, 13:39
The cars that set laps below the delta time only did so by a small margin - so only got a small penalty. Had they broken they been significantly under the delta time, then the punishment would have been much harsher.

If, as you suggest, you drove round at full speed you would probably get a drive-thru or stop go for the initial offence of being under the delta time and then could well be disqualified from the race and even the championship for seriously unsafe driving.

the whole point of the SC period is safety first..I would think any violation should be met with an iron fist to prevent it happening again.
Also if you want different levels of severity of the rules violation then I would think that passing the SC would be fairly severe and met with the same level or punishment.

epiclyaddicted
4th July 2010, 14:18
the whole point of the SC period is safety first..I would think any violation should be met with an iron fist to prevent it happening again.
Also if you want different levels of severity of the rules violation then I would think that passing the SC would be fairly severe and met with the same level or punishment.

Absolutely! :thumb

NJB13
5th July 2010, 01:18
The cars that set laps below the delta time only did so by a small margin - so only got a small penalty. Had they broken they been significantly under the delta time, then the punishment would have been much harsher.

If, as you suggest, you drove round at full speed you would probably get a drive-thru or stop go for the initial offence of being under the delta time and then could well be disqualified from the race and even the championship for seriously unsafe driving.

This would be a ridiculous reason.
If you speed in the pit-lane its a drive through immediately, irrespective of whether you break the limit by 1 or 10 KPH.

killer
5th July 2010, 01:39
If you speed in the pit-lane its a drive through immediately, irrespective of whether you break the limit by 1 or 10 KPH.

Precisely. This is why I'm critical of the arbitrary nature of the penalties handed out to the Fast 9--more so when the rules merely provide definitions for violations and not sanctions. This should seriously be looked at.

MS7XWDC
5th July 2010, 01:53
Precisely. This is why I'm critical of the arbitrary nature of the penalties handed out to the Fast 9--more so when the rules merely provide definitions for violations and not sanctions. This should seriously be looked at.

i think the fact that 9 drivers 'broke the rule' raised a red flag that something was unusual .... as it turned out F1 had not anticipated a scenario where many drivers have nearly completed a fast lap, and get the SC alert at the very end of the [fast] lap .... and all break the rule for 'speeding', when in actuality, they could not be reasonably expected to stop on the track to meet the allocated time .... it seems they took that into consideration and obviously they were permitted to give out the 5 second penalty by the FIA.

NJB13
5th July 2010, 02:09
i think the fact that 9 drivers 'broke the rule' raised a red flag that something was unusual .... as it turned out F1 had not anticipated a scenario where many drivers have nearly completed a fast lap, and get the SC alert at the very end of the [fast] lap .... and all break the rule for 'speeding', when in actuality, they could not be reasonably expected to stop on the track to meet the allocated time .... it seems they took that into consideration and obviously they were permitted to give out the 5 second penalty by the FIA.

So all 9 cars where at the same point of finishing a fast lap - rofl! Were they stacked 9 high? This is totally ludicrous.
And, following your logic, pit-lane speeding, as long as it's only a the very end of the pit lane will now be OK?

MS7XWDC
5th July 2010, 16:56
So all 9 cars where at the same point of finishing a fast lap - rofl! Were they stacked 9 high? This is totally ludicrous.

why are you quoting me, then refuting something I never said? don't twist "many drivers have nearly completed a fast lap, and get the SC alert at the very end of the [fast] lap" into "all 9 cars where at the same point of finishing a fast lap - stacked 9 high".

you have a very wild imagination.



And, following your logic, pit-lane speeding, as long as it's only a the very end of the pit lane will now be OK?

I don't see where anyone has said that, let alone me.

Greig
5th July 2010, 17:30
I don't see where anyone has said that, let alone me.

You deem it okay to speed under SC conditions as it was near the end of the lap, so why not speed near the end of the pitlane, or how about speed at the start of it then the drivers say its unreasonable to slow in time?

You also say 9 drivers could not slow down in time, which would mean they were all nose to tail, it's easy to see why people rip your posts apart :-)

justjesper
6th July 2010, 00:32
Think the FIA just have to bring out the safety car at the right place and time. There could be a few safety cars placed around the circuit.
This way they could pick up the leader right away and car that needed to pit could do so without being able to go faster then the safety car.

killer
6th July 2010, 02:32
i think the fact that 9 drivers 'broke the rule' raised a red flag that something was unusual .... as it turned out F1 had not anticipated a scenario where many drivers have nearly completed a fast lap, and get the SC alert at the very end of the [fast] lap .... and all break the rule for 'speeding', when in actuality, they could not be reasonably expected to stop on the track to meet the allocated time .... it seems they took that into consideration and obviously they were permitted to give out the 5 second penalty by the FIA.

It's been said in a few posts above this but, yes--I don't think it's valid for any driver to say he couldn't slow down because he was near the end of a flyer; there's simply no reason for him not to be able to. Also, I believe the prescribed "SC lap time" is not a precise time but a range. I'd think most of us on here could drive within a lap time range so it would be correct to assume that all the drivers on the grid would have no difficulty doing so. Points are 1) they (Lewis included) committed fouls and, 2) the correct penalties, IMO, were not given (Lewis included).

I don't think the circumstance you offer for point number 2 is mitigating in any way; it doesn't make sense and it isn't in the rule book. Now, as our discussion on this point is merely conjecture, a third point has to be raised: what the heck were the officials thinking? I ask you to reconsider your stand regarding the stewards' actions in Valencia... no organization can survive, let alone flourish, under that kind of governance.

MS7XWDC
6th July 2010, 03:40
You deem it okay to speed under SC conditions as it was near the end of the lap, so why not speed near the end of the pitlane, or how about speed at the start of it then the drivers say its unreasonable to slow in time?

You also say 9 drivers could not slow down in time, which would mean they were all nose to tail, it's easy to see why people rip your posts apart

I did not 'deem' anything besides the fact that it appears that the FIA / F1 took the unique circumstances where many drivers had nearly completed a fast lap, and got the SC alert at the very end of the [fast] lap into consideration when giving out the penalties.

I also said [it appears that the FIA felt that] they could not be reasonably expected to stop on the track to meet the allocated time.

nothing about nose to tail, nothing about 'slowing'.

stop twisting my words into something else :-)

MS7XWDC
6th July 2010, 03:45
It's been said in a few posts above this but, yes--I don't think it's valid for any driver to say he couldn't slow down because he was near the end of a flyer; there's simply no reason for him not to be able to. Also, I believe the prescribed "SC lap time" is not a precise time but a range. I'd think most of us on here could drive within a lap time range so it would be correct to assume that all the drivers on the grid would have no difficulty doing so. Points are 1) they (Lewis included) committed fouls and, 2) the correct penalties, IMO, were not given (Lewis included).

of course every driver could simply brake the car to a complete stop and wait, so they meet the allocated time. I don't believe the FIA felt that stopping on the track would be very safe, and penalised accordingly. Obviously they feel the correct penalties were given.


I don't think the circumstance you offer for point number 2 is mitigating in any way; it doesn't make sense and it isn't in the rule book. Now, as our discussion on this point is merely conjecture, a third point has to be raised: what the heck were the officials thinking? I ask you to reconsider your stand regarding the stewards' actions in Valencia... no organization can survive, let alone flourish, under that kind of governance.

after Monaco, and seeing how the FIA actually re-wrote a rule to suit a penalty that they gave out, I realised that they can do pretty much what they wanted. In comparison, what happened in Valencia was pretty minor. [meaning Ferrari is not claiming that rules are not clear].

Greig
6th July 2010, 07:03
I did not 'deem' anything besides the fact that it appears that the FIA / F1 took the unique circumstances where many drivers had nearly completed a fast lap, and got the SC alert at the very end of the [fast] lap into consideration when giving out the penalties.

I also said [it appears that the FIA felt that] they could not be reasonably expected to stop on the track to meet the allocated time.

nothing about nose to tail, nothing about 'slowing'.

stop twisting my words into something else :-)

You are claiming 9 cars were close to completing a fast lap when the SC was deployed, you are saying they had no time to slow down, so therefore they must have been nose to tail on the track, otherwise they would have plenty of time to slow down, but keep talking in riddles while making no sense to anyone :-)

Monaco and your crusade for MS has nothing at all to do with this, not a single thing.

NJB13
6th July 2010, 09:55
So MS7XWDC, let me see if I've got it right now.
9 cars nearly completed a fast lap - this is just unheard of in F1 parlance, I'm guessing these are the "unusual" and "unanticipated" events you were referring to. It's all clear to me now, how could the FIA possibly even dream that F1 drivers might be doing fast laps.
Many of them near the end of the lap - therefore many of them in the same place, but not on top of each other or nose to tail - Is Houdini involved in this one?
Given the unimaginable "fast laps" and the "magical ability for many to be in the same place without being anywhere near each other, I can now understand why these cars that were, or possibly were not there, could not slow down - clear as mud in a green bottle.
I guess I'm wondering why they imposed any penalty at all.

I just can't wait for the next installment :-D

epiclyaddicted
6th July 2010, 10:41
So MS7XWDC, let me see if I've got it right now.
9 cars nearly completed a fast lap - this is just unheard of in F1 parlance, I'm guessing these are the "unusual" and "unanticipated" events you were referring to. It's all clear to me now, how could the FIA possibly even dream that F1 drivers might be doing fast laps.
Many of them near the end of the lap - therefore many of them in the same place, but not on top of each other or nose to tail - Is Houdini involved in this one?
Given the unimaginable "fast laps" and the "magical ability for many to be in the same place without being anywhere near each other, I can now understand why these cars that were, or possibly were not there, could not slow down - clear as mud in a green bottle.
I guess I'm wondering why they imposed any penalty at all.

I just can't wait for the next installment :-D

:rotfl

xinebessa
6th July 2010, 11:19
Many of them near the end of the lap - therefore many of them in the same place, but not on top of each other or nose to tail - Is Houdini involved in this one?


Perhaps the track is wider than it looks...! :-D

MS7XWDC
6th July 2010, 15:57
You are claiming 9 cars were close to completing a fast lap when the SC was deployed, you are saying they had no time to slow down, so therefore they must have been nose to tail on the track, otherwise they would have plenty of time to slow down, but keep talking in riddles while making no sense to anyone.

No, I'm saying the FIA deemed there were unexpected circumstances, and penalised accordingly. Sorry that your driver was not helped by this, but the FIA did what they thought was fair.

MS7XWDC
6th July 2010, 15:59
So MS7XWDC, let me see if I've got it right now.
9 cars nearly completed a fast lap - this is just unheard of in F1 parlance, I'm guessing these are the "unusual" and "unanticipated" events you were referring to. It's all clear to me now, how could the FIA possibly even dream that F1 drivers might be doing fast laps.
Many of them near the end of the lap - therefore many of them in the same place, but not on top of each other or nose to tail - Is Houdini involved in this one?
Given the unimaginable "fast laps" and the "magical ability for many to be in the same place without being anywhere near each other, I can now understand why these cars that were, or possibly were not there, could not slow down - clear as mud in a green bottle.
I guess I'm wondering why they imposed any penalty at all.



I'm saying the FIA deemed there were unexpected circumstances, and penalised accordingly. Sorry that your driver was not helped by this, but the FIA did what they thought was fair.

Greig
6th July 2010, 16:03
Your troll needle is stuck, you said 9 drivers could not slow down enough as they were at the end of a fast lap, explain to us how that is possible without them being nose to tail on track, or will you just avoid the question again....

Hermann
6th July 2010, 16:04
No the stewards did what Whiting has been writing up for them before the race. Like 'watch out for the Ferraris and if you find a way to screw their race just go ahead.'

And if you think i'm joking, you are wrong. Such things do happen. Just read this:

"When I was in the league, the memos — hot off the desks of the likes of Stu Jackson, Ed T. Rush, or Ronnie Nunn — would usually detail what kinds of fouls needed to be better addressed. The message would be something like, Team X is getting away with an enormous amount of handchecking, or Shawn Bradley is hanging out under the basket, not really defending anybody. He's committing a defensive three-second violation. The goal was to set the tone for that night's game and, even more broadly, for the series. An extreme example: the 2005 Dallas-Houston matchup. I was the alternate for Game 3 and sat in on the meeting with the group supervisor. We were told explicitly to start calling moving screens and traveling violations on Yao Ming. (Jeff Van Gundy would later complain publicly that referees were targeting Yao; he got fined for it.)"

http://deadspin.com/5567321/tim-donaghy-on-game-7-how-the-nba-influences-a-series

Somehow this reminds me of Fernando saying the race was 'manipulated' and then had to apologize to avoid some kind of penalty...

REDARMYSOJA
6th July 2010, 18:13
Precisely. This is why I'm critical of the arbitrary nature of the penalties handed out to the Fast 9--more so when the rules merely provide definitions for violations and not sanctions. This should seriously be looked at.

Agreed. If there is going to be a sliding scale of penalties, then all should be treated that way. Alonso just barely jumped the start at China, actually he just slightly rolled before the start. So by the FIA's reasoning of applying a penalty based on the degree of the offense, Alonso should have been given a "fly through" instead of a drive through, or in other words, allowed to go through the pits at full speed.

killer
7th July 2010, 02:32
of course every driver could simply brake the car to a complete stop and wait, so they meet the allocated time. I don't believe the FIA felt that stopping on the track would be very safe, and penalised accordingly. Obviously they feel the correct penalties were given.

That's the thing: the correct penalties. Some things just can't be graduated--what the stewards did was establish a precedent where drivers can be deemed anywhere from "fairly naughty" to "psychopathic", depending on "how much" they broke a rule.

mad_ani
7th July 2010, 04:23
Agreed. If there is going to be a sliding scale of penalties, then all should be treated that way. Alonso just barely jumped the start at China, actually he just slightly rolled before the start. So by the FIA's reasoning of applying a penalty based on the degree of the offense, Alonso should have been given a "fly through" instead of a drive through, or in other words, allowed to go through the pits at full speed.

Lol, Alonso did admit to jumping the start....looks like your timing is faster than Alonso and the FIA sensors...
the rest 23 drivers were stationary....its a driver mistake under pressure....

You seem to suggest a drive thru the pits at full speed....isnt it what the drivers do on race tracks???:roll

XXX132
7th July 2010, 04:56
He's just making a point mate.

From the punishments awarded at recent races it would suggest that jumping the start is more serious than speeding during a SC period.

mad_ani
7th July 2010, 05:24
He's just making a point mate.

From the punishments awarded at recent races it would suggest that jumping the start is more serious than speeding during a SC period.

Yes, but since they are all measured by a delta time, (which is pre set or advised by the FIA), either drivers could have slowed down more or braked.....which again is dangerous esp in a SC period...

NJB13
7th July 2010, 05:29
The biggest problem I see is that the stewards are so inconsistent in the penalties that are applied to different drivers for different events.
If you compare 4 recent events to the prevailing course condition and the penalties applied you will see these inconsistencies.
1) Alonso's drive-through penalty for jumping the start - Ostensibly a "green flag" situation - in essence the cars are in full racing mode and there are no know problems or safety issues.
2) Glock 20 second penalty - for ignoring a "blue flag" - again a full racing condition with no safety issues
3) "9 drivers" - all had been notified of the Safety Car, a "yellow flag" situation which means there is definitely a known safety issue/risk/hazard - 5 second penalty
4) McLiar - passes the actual Safety Car, it is the 2nd time he has done this and he has at least 3 current warnings against his name - a drive through penalty is given when it is known that he can serve this and come out without loosing a place on the track.

Comparing these recent events, the stewards' precedents are that, the more safety becomes an issue, the lesser is the penalty - this is at a time when the FIA is promoting road safety as the main theme on their web-site (pretty laughable when you see the penalties handed out for SC infringements in Valencia). The other conclusion is that subsequent offenses will be given lesser penalties.

Greig
7th July 2010, 06:17
Lol, Alonso did admit to jumping the start....looks like your timing is faster than Alonso and the FIA sensors...
the rest 23 drivers were stationary....its a driver mistake under pressure....

You seem to suggest a drive thru the pits at full speed....isnt it what the drivers do on race tracks???:roll

Did you even read what you were replying too?

killer
7th July 2010, 07:34
Yes, but since they are all measured by a delta time, (which is pre set or advised by the FIA), either drivers could have slowed down more or braked.....which again is dangerous esp in a SC period...

You're saying a jump start is more dangerous than speeding when the SC is deployed?

killer
7th July 2010, 07:36
Lol, Alonso did admit to jumping the start....looks like your timing is faster than Alonso and the FIA sensors...
the rest 23 drivers were stationary....its a driver mistake under pressure....

You seem to suggest a drive thru the pits at full speed....isnt it what the drivers do on race tracks???:roll

Oh dear me. :-??

Fiondella
7th July 2010, 12:28
The whole problem is that SC intervention seemed complicit in grossely distorting an F1 race and in good old Ron Dennis parlance, 'the punishment didn't fit the crime' for all the drivers that did abuse the situation. Hamilton should have been black flagged. simples
The solution would be to get rid of the SC and make all the drivers lap at exatly the same time as required by the race marshalls, the technology for this idea is already in place, therefore no one race driver benefits from an incident like this. The pits couold be left open and but when the car emerges form the pits it would be required to lap at designated incident time restriction (no more no less within a tolerence or else risk disqualification)

REDARMYSOJA
7th July 2010, 18:54
Lol, Alonso did admit to jumping the start....looks like your timing is faster than Alonso and the FIA sensors...
the rest 23 drivers were stationary....its a driver mistake under pressure....

You seem to suggest a drive thru the pits at full speed....isnt it what the drivers do on race tracks???:roll

Failure to detect sarcasm is a sign of low intelligence. ;-)