Speeding during the SC period for future races

[killer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[epiclyaddicted]

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

[xinebessa]

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...!

[MS7XWDC]

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]

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]

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]

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-dona...ences-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]

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]

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]

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???

[XXX132]

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]

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]

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]

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???

Did you even read what you were replying too?

[killer]

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]

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???

Oh dear me.

[Fiondella]

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]

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???

Failure to detect sarcasm is a sign of low intelligence.