178 replies to this topic

[Schumikonen]

Kopite Girl, on 13 June 2010 - 02:59 AM, said:

Nuh-uh. *shakes head*

Down boy?

[Schumikonen]

Quiet One, on 13 June 2010 - 02:11 AM, said:

But of course he will. After 3 (or 4?) "reprimands" even blind Alonso and Schumi fanboys got the message.

It would be and yet it is still stupid to penalized Hamilton for this incedent for several reasons being the main one that he was following orders from his team, in that case the team should be penalized not LH, the other next main reason is that LH was the last driver on a flying lap and teh session was over, he didn't blocked any one and noone was behind him, teh rule ablu the in lap was created to avoid driver from blocking driver "who are on a flying lap" and there was none, yes, I know you can say, but the rule say...also teh rules on the street say and police can give warning instead of a ticket because they are not robot following a programmation, they have a brain to use it and make some discernment on some situations and FIA stewards are suppose to do the same, that's my opinion anyway, I know it doesn't count much but it helps me to be bussy until the race start

Edited by Schumikonen, 13 June 2010 - 01:35 PM.

[Rainmaster]

Yep in this case the reprimand was the correct decision. It seems fairly clear that it was a mistake by the team, they weren't trying anything on, so to speak. The problem is the precedent it sets, teams might think $10,000 is a small price to pay for carrying less fuel, as pointed out in James Allen's blog:

"Rather than delete his fastest time, which would have dropped him to fourth place, he was fined $10,000 by the stewards, one of whom is Emerson Fittipaldi. This sets an unfortunate precedent, which some teams might seek to exploit in Spa and even Suzuka later this year. There a lap of fuel is worth a tenth and a half; some teams might well feel is worth spending ten grand to avoid carrying that." Source

I think what would perhaps be better is if the FIA clarified that if any team makes a similar mistake, the driver will incur a penalty to nip such fuel saving tactics in the bud.

[Quiet One]

The Professor, on 13 June 2010 - 01:20 PM, said:

Yep in this case the reprimand was the correct decision. It seems fairly clear that it was a mistake by the team, they weren't trying anything on, so to speak. The problem is the precedent it sets, teams might think $10,000 is a small price to pay for carrying less fuel, as pointed out in James Allen's blog:

"Rather than delete his fastest time, which would have dropped him to fourth place, he was fined $10,000 by the stewards, one of whom is Emerson Fittipaldi. This sets an unfortunate precedent, which some teams might seek to exploit in Spa and even Suzuka later this year. There a lap of fuel is worth a tenth and a half; some teams might well feel is worth spending ten grand to avoid carrying that." Source

I think what would perhaps be better is if the FIA clarified that if any team makes a similar mistake, the driver will incur a penalty to nip such fuel saving tactics in the bud.

I agree it was a "mistake" from the team, not from LH (at least, not mainly his). I say "mistake" because the "miscommunication" excuse is getting really old and I find it hard to excuse McLaren in this time. Even more so when there was no possibility of playing the "unclear rule" card here. The rule was reminded to all the teams less than 24hs ago and it wasn't just a FIA memo as MW says. The FIA stated that the incident was a breach of rule 15.1 which includes all "FIA memos" like this as valid rules. So, they blatantly breached a rule. A U$S 10,000 is a joke. The precedent is a joke and saying that any other team can't get an advantage because it would make an isolate incident as a systematic one is rather rich, coming from the team that is leading the reprimands leaderboard.
My take: penalty shouldn't have been dealt to LH (but it was), reprimands should someday become an actual penalty or plainly avoided, and a harsher punishment should have been delivered to McLaren for making a calculated breach of the rules. Unlike MGP/Schumi move at Monaco which might have been a lack of judgement or confusion about an unclear rule but it was clearly something that happened in fractions of seconds, this time they had an entire lap to calculate the fuel remaining, notice that he would not make it and calmly instruct Hamilton to turn off the engine after crossing the line to have 1 litre left for inspection. This was anything but innocent.

[Schumikonen]

Quiet One, on 13 June 2010 - 01:57 PM, said:

I agree it was a "mistake" from the team, not from LH (at least, not mainly his). I say "mistake" because the "miscommunication" excuse is getting really old and I find it hard to excuse McLaren in this time. Even more so when there was no possibility of playing the "unclear rule" card here. The rule was reminded to all the teams less than 24hs ago and it wasn't just a FIA memo as MW says. The FIA stated that the incident was a breach of rule 15.1 which includes all "FIA memos" like this as valid rules. So, they blatantly breached a rule. A U$S 10,000 is a joke. The precedent is a joke and saying that any other team can't get an advantage because it would make an isolate incident as a systematic one is rather rich, coming from the team that is leading the reprimands leaderboard.
My take: penalty shouldn't have been dealt to LH (but it was), reprimands should someday become an actual penalty or plainly avoided, and a harsher punishment should have been delivered to McLaren for making a calculated breach of the rules. Unlike MGP/Schumi move at Monaco which might have been a lack of judgement or confusion about an unclear rule but it was clearly something that happened in fractions of seconds, this time they had an entire lap to calculate the fuel remaining, notice that he would not make it and calmly instruct Hamilton to turn off the engine after crossing the line to have 1 litre left for inspection. This was anything but innocent.

You are absolutely right but this has nothing to do with Hamilton, Mclaren should have been penalized for this like you said not Hamilton, what I really think it happened here is that Hamilton went for an extra lap, he crossed the finish line with just a couple of seconds left and he went for the pole as he crossed the line just in time for another lap and his previous lap was not a good one, don't know if he did it on his own (in which case he is guilty of the situation) or if he was instructed by the team to go for it and this is what it seems to be the case to me.

[Rainmaster]

Quiet One, on 13 June 2010 - 01:57 PM, said:

I agree it was a "mistake" from the team, not from LH (at least, not mainly his). I say "mistake" because the "miscommunication" excuse is getting really old and I find it hard to excuse McLaren in this time. Even more so when there was no possibility of playing the "unclear rule" card here. The rule was reminded to all the teams less than 24hs ago and it wasn't just a FIA memo as MW says. The FIA stated that the incident was a breach of rule 15.1 which includes all "FIA memos" like this as valid rules. So, they blatantly breached a rule. A U$S 10,000 is a joke. The precedent is a joke and saying that any other team can't get an advantage because it would make an isolate incident as a systematic one is rather rich, coming from the team that is leading the reprimands leaderboard.
My take: penalty shouldn't have been dealt to LH (but it was), reprimands should someday become an actual penalty or plainly avoided, and a harsher punishment should have been delivered to McLaren for making a calculated breach of the rules. Unlike MGP/Schumi move at Monaco which might have been a lack of judgement or confusion about an unclear rule but it was clearly something that happened in fractions of seconds, this time they had an entire lap to calculate the fuel remaining, notice that he would not make it and calmly instruct Hamilton to turn off the engine after crossing the line to have 1 litre left for inspection. This was anything but innocent.

I am not so sure of that QO. I think mistakes can happen and if Mclaren had been trying this on, then why now? Did they only just realise this possible advantage? There is nothing special about a pole in Canada and Mclaren don't need this pole position desperately (like how Renault needed a win in 2008), so it would seem pointless to do it and risk a penalty of some sort (unless you believe Mclaren were so confident of the FIA's reaction).

I think it's entirely possible Mclaren simply realised too late that Lewis wouldn't have enough fuel. It's also possible that they did realise, and thought "forget it, we want pole, and we'll take the consequences" - and if that was the case, then I can't blame them for not denying me a brilliant qualifying lap from Lewis; I can blame the FIA for an overly lenient response of course.

Either way I look it, I can't see some terrible, calculated conspiracy here. It was either a mistake where they didn't realise until too late, or it was a mistake which they then decided to create an advantage from by saying "forget it we want pole", which is at worst showing a racing spirit and (at the FIA's discretion) "getting away with it", if you like.

[Rainmaster]

Bad news for Webber.

Quote

Webber gets gearbox change penalty By Jonathan Noble Sunday, June 13th 2010, 14:40 GMT Mark Webber has been given a five-place grid penalty at the Canadian Grand Prix after Red Bull Racing changed the gearbox on his car ahead of the race.

The Australian had qualified on the front row for the Montreal event, but his team discovered a problem with his gearbox in the build-up to the race.

The team elected to change it on Sunday morning, which means he will be moved back five places on the grid.

Webber will therefore now start seventh for the race - with team-mate Sebastian Vettel moving up to the front row alongside pole position man Lewis Hamilton.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/84450

[Quiet One]

The Professor, on 13 June 2010 - 02:51 PM, said:

I am not so sure of that QO. I think mistakes can happen and if Mclaren had been trying this on, then why now? Did they only just realise this possible advantage? There is nothing special about a pole in Canada and Mclaren don't need this pole position desperately (like how Renault needed a win in 2008), so it would seem pointless to do it and risk a penalty of some sort (unless you believe Mclaren were so confident of the FIA's reaction).

I think it's entirely possible Mclaren simply realised too late that Lewis wouldn't have enough fuel. It's also possible that they did realise, and thought "forget it, we want pole, and we'll take the consequences" - and if that was the case, then I can't blame them for not denying me a brilliant qualifying lap from Lewis; I can blame the FIA for an overly lenient response of course.

Either way I look it, I can't see some terrible, calculated conspiracy here. It was either a mistake where they didn't realise until too late, or it was a mistake which they then decided to create an advantage from by saying "forget it we want pole", which is at worst showing a racing spirit and (at the FIA's discretion) "getting away with it", if you like.

Yes I see your point. Ok, maybe I got carried away in my way of expressing that I do not think that this wasn't just an infortunate coincidence. I don't think this was a full blown conspiracy, but it was certainly a much clearer breach of the rules than what happened at Monaco. I still think there whould be a better way between penalizing every little thing and "some guys have all the luck" approach. They should at least have placed a harsher economical penalty on McLaren. That way they would accomplished the double objective of not ruining Lewis superb lap and at the same time telling McLaren that rules are not just friendly advises.

[Quiet One]

The Professor, on 13 June 2010 - 02:56 PM, said:

Bad news for Webber.

Ah, I was wondering when will Webber's karma catch up with him again.

[Schumikonen]

The Professor, on 13 June 2010 - 02:56 PM, said:

Bad news for Webber.

This means he will start from 7th between Massa and Kubica, definitelly not a good news for Webeer and the problems for RB continues race by race, those guys should be leading the WDC for a big margin but are going from problem to problem and that's not the way to do it.

[Kopite Girl]

Too many penalties. Too many rules. Too much politics.

Not moaning about the racing as we've seen some quality stuff lately. Just the stuff I said above

[Kopite Girl]

Schumikonen, on 13 June 2010 - 12:39 PM, said:

Down boy?

Brilliant! Love it! Well done!

[Rainmaster]

Quiet One, on 13 June 2010 - 03:12 PM, said:

Yes I see your point. Ok, maybe I got carried away in my way of expressing that I do not think that this wasn't just an infortunate coincidence. I don't think this was a full blown conspiracy, but it was certainly a much clearer breach of the rules than what happened at Monaco. I still think there whould be a better way between penalizing every little thing and "some guys have all the luck" approach. They should at least have placed a harsher economical penalty on McLaren. That way they would accomplished the double objective of not ruining Lewis superb lap and at the same time telling McLaren that rules are not just friendly advises.

Yes I thought it might just be that (getting carried away in your description etc) but I wasn't sure!

Yep, I agree on everything. They need to have some kind of concurrent reprimand system, where reprimands actually accumulate, and you get a more serious penalty if you reach a set limit.

Quiet One, on 13 June 2010 - 03:13 PM, said:

Ah, I was wondering when will Webber's karma catch up with him again.

Indeed, or Red Bull are helping Vettel out a little

Schumikonen, on 13 June 2010 - 03:15 PM, said:

This means he will start from 7th between Massa and Kubica, definitelly not a good news for Webeer and the problems for RB continues race by race, those guys should be leading the WDC for a big margin but are going from problem to problem and that's not the way to do it.

Yup. They're still a relatively young team though so what they've achieved and are achieving is still impressive.

[Schumikonen]

Quiet One, on 13 June 2010 - 03:12 PM, said:

Yes I see your point. Ok, maybe I got carried away in my way of expressing that I do not think that this wasn't just an infortunate coincidence. I don't think this was a full blown conspiracy, but it was certainly a much clearer breach of the rules than what happened at Monaco. I still think there whould be a better way between penalizing every little thing and "some guys have all the luck" approach. They should at least have placed a harsher economical penalty on McLaren. That way they would accomplished the double objective of not ruining Lewis superb lap and at the same time telling McLaren that rules are not just friendly advises.

The way you put here is jsut fine with me, now that we agree, let's hope together for another win for LH

[Schumikonen]

The Professor, on 13 June 2010 - 03:24 PM, said:

Yup. They're still a relatively young team though so what they've achieved and are achieving is still impressive. [/size][/font]

I agree and would say more than impressive they are team to be and a couple of year before noone would thought they would be where they are now.

[Schumikonen]

Man when is this race going to start? I can't stand the waiting I already have palpitations thinking about this race adn there is still 12 more minutes to go.

[Persevere]

Schumikonen, on 13 June 2010 - 03:49 PM, said:

Man when is this race going to start? I can't stand the waiting I already have palpitations thinking about this race adn there is still 12 more minutes to go.

Stay calm, friend. Think how the drivers feel...

[Persevere]

Fast and frenetic start. Soft tires - not surprisingly - going off quickly. Button, Hamilton & Alonso in to change to prime.

[Imatool]

Interesting start, some strange driving going on.

[Quiet One]

Who asked for some racing? This race is just showing what an unforgivable sin was to remove this venue from the calendar. UNFORGIVABLE!!!

[Schumikonen]

Hamilton is showing that he is the best driver out there.

[Schumikonen]

Quiet One, on 13 June 2010 - 04:25 PM, said:

Who asked for some racing? This race is just showing what an unforgivable sin was to remove this venue from the calendar. UNFORGIVABLE!!!

Agree 100% and Bernie admited.

[Schumikonen]

Button is closing in on Alonso.

[Persevere]

Tire wear is going to be critical for the entire race; brakes, in the latter stages, could also be an issue.

[Persevere]

ERROR

Edited by Persevere, 13 June 2010 - 04:43 PM.

[Persevere]

ERROR

Edited by Persevere, 13 June 2010 - 04:44 PM.

[Schumikonen]

Who was asking for rain? who needs rain to have a good race?

[Persevere]

True! So far it's all you can do to keep pace with what's happening lap by lap.

[Schumikonen]

Persevere, on 13 June 2010 - 04:45 PM, said:

True! So far it's all you can do to keep pace with what's happening lap by lap.

You will have planty for your report.

[Persevere]

As of lap 35 it appears that Webber is the only driver of the front runners who has only pitted once.