GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Canada Darrell™ on May 18, 2010, 06:42:45 PM
-
I'm not the most eloquent of writers so bear that in mind. I also like all the drivers..honestly..I don't have a hate on for anyone. :-*
After Monaco, and some of the resulting stewards decisions I'm beginning to see that F1 is either rudderless or in need of much better oversight in the disbursement of punishment or redefining of rules.
To me the non-adherance to rules needs to have resulting dicipline handed down so as to ensure it won't happen again. In other words, "hit 'em where it counts"
Webber speeding in the pit lane, about 10kms over from what I've read.
- I don't care if you do it before, during, or after a race. The whole point to the rule is SAFETY for those in the pitlane. The "fine" handed down is utterly LAUGHABLE. When webber sneezes he loses more money out of his pockets than the fine handed to him! The penalty right then and there when it happened should have been a grid penalty. Would that be an effective message sent to other drivers? I think so....
Rubens throwing his steering wheel into traffic.
- ....and putting his fellows drivers at risk or spectators had the wheel been thrown into the stands by a tyre as it was run over. NO PENALTY????? Oh wait, I just read Rubens' "excuse" and I've watched over and over again and I have this to say to him..."HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" Seriously dude, you expect me to believe that? I wonder how Massa feels about fellow drivers throwing things on the track? This should be either a HUGE fine (something commensurate with his salary) or a grid penalty. Personally, I like grid penalties because it hurts both the driver and the team. Think the team behind closed doors would rip Rubens a new one?
This Schumacher controversy.
- Cleary F1's fault for not radioing every team and explaining EXACTLY what was to happen. GREEN MEANS GO! I don't give a flying rats behind if you don't like your races to end with a SC leading the pack across the line because it looks "bad". It has been handled poorly and F1 should just let MS finsh behind Alonso in the results and move forward with a clearer definition of the rules. And before you might want to jump on me for that last sentence I'll say it again: "GREEN MEANS GO".
Barcelona:
Fining Ferrari only $20k for the release of Alonso into the path of Rosberg.
- see my comments above re: Webber and the size of this fine. $20k to a team like Ferrari? LOL, c'mon..is that supposed to tell me as a fan that you're REALLY trying to enforce a rule with some bite? That's not even a slap on the wrist for an infraction that could have had serious, deadly consequences.
Giving Virgin a 5 place grid penalty for a PAPERWORK problem?
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...yup, that's WAYYYY more serious than Ferrari's infraction (above). I mean, jeez, someone in the F1 trailer could have gotten a serious papercut trying to process this late paperwork. Or maybe the penalty was so serious because this paperwork was something other teams should have had access to? Maybe it had to do with race strategy and Virgin were being really sneaky and wanted to keep it from other teams? Yes, teams would have been severely disadvantaged not having access to that information! LOL! Scott said it best, the penalties to both Ferrari and Virgin should have been the other way around.
Anyways, my fingers hurt so I'm gonna stop now. Please add your own comments on how you feel F1 has been lately with rulings and fines and whatnot.
-
I'm sorry, the rule was on the books, and is quite clear, No Overtaking on the last lap between pit in and the finish. It doesn't matter if it's a stupid rule, it's a rule. MS might not have been aware of it, but Brawn should have been. Otherwise I agree With CD, The penalties are not appropriate, Virgin was screwed and Ferrari and Rubens got off too easy.
Lonny
-
Some other teams weren't aware of the rule either, which was clear by the rate of acceleration of everyone as soon as the SC pulled off.
-
Re Barrichello - Sporting Regs 30.5 states:
A driver who abandons a car must leave it in neutral or with the clutch disengaged, with the KERS shut down and with the steering wheel in place.
And yet he gets off without penalty.
-
I would have to agree with all you gripes CD, even the "Schumacher controversy". A rule it may be, but in my opinion its a bloody stupid one that need to be looked at. Even though it would have cost my team the points, the move pulled by MS on that last lap is what motor racing should be all about. When the green light is on, you take what ever legitimate chance come your way to pass another competitor.
There has to be consistency in rule enforcement and penalties, and looking at the evidence it seems its all over the place.
-
Re Barrichello - Sporting Regs 30.5 states:
A driver who abandons a car must leave it in neutral or with the clutch disengaged, with the KERS shut down and with the steering wheel in place.
And yet he gets off without penalty.
You missed of the bit where they say 'Unless the driver thinks the car is on fire, even though there is little smoke until they've left the car or sign of flames. Then you can use said steering wheel as a hand grenade'.
-
We know the actual rule is 'Rubens has a hissy fit, let him get on with it and ignore what else happens. Ignore all punishment and move along'. Maybe he thought that if he couldn't finish a race, there is no way in hell the HRT would finish!
As for the initial post by CD, I agree with all your points, but sadly it is too sensible for F1 so nothing like that will ever be seen.
-
I agree in principle. The sport needs consistency for sure. Hopefully the punishment should fit the crime. Anything that adversely affects safety or ruins a fellow competitors chances should be punished hard.
Regarding Schumacher... the rule is clear and obvious. Yes it is all about making things look 'nice' for TV but there was no doubt they should have formed a parade finish.
I think several drivers thought it would be good if they could add some tyre smoke and sceaming engines for effect but they knew they had to hold position.
It seems to me that if Martin Brundle & the other TV pundits immediately knew that MS had just broken the rule an overpaid cheat like Schumacher should also be aware of the rule. :fool:
-
Hear, hear. :good:
Lonny
-
I'm confused, why is Michael Schumacher changing his name to Mickey Mouse again?? I may have missed the point somewhere though... :tease:
-
I've a feeling that the stewards are being bias to some driver! If not, such things wouldnt happen. It is almost impossible that more than 20 stewards can't even spot a steering wheel being thrown out of rubens' car! I spotted it immediately from the replay, It was so clear!
For Schumacher's case, THEY DID NOT STATE THE RULES CLEARLY! If the position should remain the same, then, shouldn't the SC complete the whole race? What the hell is wrong with the stewards?
-
The Article on which the stewards got Schumacher, 40.13, assumes that the Safety Car is finishing the race. The FIA doesn't see the point of the Safety Car doing the extra lap and also likes the photos at the end of the race not being festooned with yellow flags and a road car adorned with lights. The protocol according to that article is that the race should end as normal without overtaking. So everything except overtaking is allowed and the risk is that if a driver sticks to the normal Safety Car speed, the driver behind may mistake that car for one in technical difficulties and thus assume that it's OK to overtake under Article 40.7...
The rule is perfectly clear, though it could have been better signposted. I can understand how Ross and Michael made the mistake but a mistake
-
I can see how Michael made the mistake, but Ross should have known, that's part of his job.
Lonny
-
Somehow I think it was MS that took the chance...Ross probably knew the rule, but was just trying to cover his behind post race.
-
If Ross had mentioned the rule (correct or incorrect interpretation) after the race, it would have been easily confirmed using the FIA's radio records. Interestingly, no such radio has been revealed, so either Ross said nothing or what he said tallies with the story that he didn't know.
-
Doesn't sound like Ross!!
Lonny
-
The rule was clear to everyone (except Schumacher / Mercedes).
Yes I am biased against Schumacher but I honestly think this was a misplaced piece of opportunism on his part and then Ross was trying to justify Schumacher's actions after the event.
No radio transmissions have been offered and Mercedes are not going to appeal. If this was a 'team' decision I'm sure they would have lodged an appeal.
-
I am no so biased against MS, but I tend to agree with you Monty. I think it was exactly that. MS may or may not have known about that part of the rule, but he should have been told to hold his place across the line. Even if he did know about the rule, I'd say it is in his nature to do it anyhow and deal with the consequences after the race.
-
So Ross and the Mercedes team claiming that some race officials had agreed that racing was possible because the course goes green after the safety car pulls in is just an invention to cover Michael's bum. I can't see the FIA could let that go uninvestigated.
The change in the rule about overtaking after the safety car line rather than the start finish line, which is new this year, is the complicating factor leaving enough doubt for some drivers, teams, and probably race officials, to misunderstand, or misinterpret, the end of race rule. As CD said originally Green means Go, in all the motor race series I know anyway, so IMO they should have finished with Yellow lights and flags then there would have been no doubt from anyone.
Still good to see Schumi is up for it though by trying it at the end.
I think you're wrong about pit lane speeding though CD, even the best of us get caught out keeping to speed limits. The punishments should be relative to the offence and as I for one think they set the pit lane limits far too low 10kmph over is a very small sin. I realise there are safety issues but I still think you can kill the sport by over doing the health and safety thing.
-
I just watched the official F1 video recap of Monaco and Michael was clearly told to race to the line by his race director/dude/radio guy.
To me, 10km over a pit speed limit is a huge offence, and had it happened during the race he would have been surely penalized...although...given the lack of punishment handed down to Rubens for throwing his wheel out the cockpit who knows? :D
-
Given that the loose manhole cover caused Rubens accident, maybe they thought they "owed" him one. 10 kph over the limit is a big offense, but what do you want, a 10 spot grid penalty? If he had done it in the race, he would have gotten a stop and go.
That's happened before.
Lonny
-
, but what do you want, a 10 spot grid penalty? If he had done it in the race, he would have gotten a stop and go.
That's happened before.
Lonny
No, I think a 10 place penalty would be excessive and yes, I know a drive-thru is the penaly during a race. The whole point of the thread was just me airing my opinion that the fines and punishment are not a deterrent to the offenders. You and I are at least in agreement that 10km is a lot and a serious offence......therefore a $2000 fine is NOT a serious deterrent to not do it again. Maybe they could start scaling the amount of the fine to your salary! ::)
re: Rubens - Wouldn't that cause a considerable flap if we ever heard of F1 not giving a fine or whatnot for a rules infraction because they felt sorry for them!
-
To me, 10km over a pit speed limit is a huge offence, and had it happened during the race he would have been surely penalized...although...given the lack of punishment handed down to Rubens for throwing his wheel out the cockpit who knows? :D
The main reason for the seemingly harsher penalty of a drive thru or stop/go during the race is because the offender will have been deemed to have got an advantage on the other cars, similar to a jump start, not because it is considered a more unacceptably massive safety risk.
The Ruebens incident was a bad mistake both from him and by the stewards for lack of proper action, no matter what caused his crash the rules should be applied consistently, the excuse of running out of time is clearly just that - an excuse and a lame one at that.
-
You and I are at least in agreement that 10km is a lot and a serious offence......therefore a $2000 fine is NOT a serious deterrent to not do it again. Maybe they could start scaling the amount of the fine to your salary! ::)
I got a ticket just this morning on a quiet country road. 6km over and it cost me Sfr 100.- (about the same in CDN or US). It's not going to break me, but I'll probably think twice when going down that same stretch of road. If they had fined me $500.-, there would be no way I'd ever do it again.
Now my salary is a tiny fraction of Mark's...I'd say $20-50k would be more appropriate for him doing 10k over if they want him to be sure to never do it again.
-
I got a ticket just this morning on a quiet country road. 6km over and it cost me Sfr 100.- (about the same in CDN or US). It's not going to break me, but I'll probably think twice when going down that same stretch of road. If they had fined me $500.-, there would be no way I'd ever do it again.
Now my salary is a tiny fraction of Mark's...I'd say $20-50k would be more appropriate for him doing 10k over if they want him to be sure to never do it again.
Sorry to hear about the fine Scott, bet you feel a bit like Ruebens did after his shunt I know I would. Sure massive punishments for small misdemeaners will have a huge detterent effect, if you use a prison stretch for parking in bus lanes no one would do it, - or would some still try it?. :DntKnw:
Only trouble is how you going to deal with the more serious offences, take away and sell their cars, what next their houses or businesses? :confused:
-
No, I don't mean that...what I'm saying is that a $100 fine based on my income (and incidentally for 15kph over or more in Switzerland they fine you in relation to your income) is just barely a deterrent - I'm glad it wasn't more, but had it been $500, you can bet that I wouldn't speed anywhere. For Mark, based on his income, assuming he actually personally has to pay it, his fine is a drop in the bucket and not much of a deterrent at all.
I guess the question I'm getting at is what is a real deterrent to pit lane speeding. I think it is safe to say we all agree that it's dangerous enough on pit lane, the last thing we need is anyone going too fast (which is a different question entirely - some of us think the limit is too low). So do we even know if the driver digs out his own wallet to pay these fines, or does he just hand the paperwork over to the team? If that is the case, then maybe grid drops are more appropriate. If it's not the case, then maybe it should be assessed based on the driver's income, and make it sting.
-
Most driver salaries are carefully guarded secrets, though we can ballpark 'em. Unless it is a massive fine, they will shrug it off. If speeding is truly considered serious, perhaps a grid penalty is appropriate. Even 2 spots would give a driver pause.
Lonny
-
Usually the driver hands the fine over to the team when it comes to fines of any sort. You know the team is about to fire a driver when it hands the fine back (Spyker did this after Christijan Albers got a $10000 fine for doing an aero test with the team's fuel hose, and two races later Markus Winklehock was in the car instead.)