Massa pit stop [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

Daniel

24th August 2008, 14:24

Can anyone tell me why the standard penalty didn't apply?

The president is well known so why wait till after the GP.

Will they give a 25 sec time penalty and why take that step when it was outside the last 5 laps?

OK, Massa would have lost first place but should have retained second.

Surely the FIA stewards cannot fudge this to maintain Massa's win.

Surely not?

:confused:
Because Sutil wasn't chopped. The same thing happened in Montreal when Hamilton chose to do some remodelling on Kimi's car. No one was penalised there....... no one needed to be. Sutil didn't need to move off his line, Sutil didn't lose out and Massa yielded. Story.... end of!!!!

Oh wait OMFG it was a red car! OMFG CHEATS!!!!!!!!! Ferrari are the cheats!

harsha

24th August 2008, 14:26

FIA stewards are notorious for their inconsistency..but they shouldn't punish Massa in this incident...it wasn't as bad as it's being made out to be...

i expect Massa/Team to be just given some monetary fine or something

ioan

24th August 2008, 14:37

pino

24th August 2008, 14:37

F1boat

24th August 2008, 14:38

Maybe a grid penalty will follow. I am glad that didn't make a gift for Lewis.
For now.

PolePosition_1

24th August 2008, 14:38

To be fair, we've seen cars racing eachother out of the pitlane on a number of occassions, and off top of my head, I can't remember an instant when the driver (or team for that matter) was penalised.

Can anyone give us a similar situation when a penalty was issued out?

Mikeall

24th August 2008, 14:39

Normally penalties are given when a driver is released into the path of another. Massa rejoined behind Sutil and didn't impede him. However if the Ferrari pit had been behind another pit box he may not have had that opportunity.

The release was not unsafe but it wasn't far from being so but even if Massa was released slightly earlier he still could have braked enough to allow Sutil past. Despite James Allen's denial, I think that is the argument.

ArrowsFA1

24th August 2008, 14:47

The release was not unsafe but it wasn't far from being so but even if Massa was released slightly earlier he still could have braked enough to allow Sutil past.
If I heard him right that's what Rob Smedley said Massa did. But you do wonder if Ferrari had a lolipop man then he would have held Massa a little longer.

Daniel

24th August 2008, 14:48

If I heard him right that's what Rob Smedley said Massa did. But you do wonder if Ferrari had a lolipop man then he would have held Massa a little longer.
I think we agree on that. After what happened to the mechanic today I think they need to look at the system. If there is a penalty for anything it should be on Kimi for that incident if it's shown to be his fault.

PolePosition_1

24th August 2008, 15:05

I think we agree on that. After what happened to the mechanic today I think they need to look at the system. If there is a penalty for anything it should be on Kimi for that incident if it's shown to be his fault.

Their "automatic" system is 100% run by humans. Its a human man who tells the screen to go green. So that system didn't have any real impact on incidents today, considering Kimi left before it went green, and a mechanic (or whoever does this) told Massa to leave the pits.

Either way, there system didn't cause any of these. All down to good old fashioned human error.

wedge

24th August 2008, 15:05

Sutil said he turned left a bit, Massa said he lifted but Sutil seems quite modest about it all so overall I'd be surprised if a penalty is handed out that affects Massa's race/qualy position.

I don't know the rules regarding penalties well enough but if I were to penalise Ferrari then I'd take off their constructors's points.

Daniel

24th August 2008, 15:06

Their "automatic" system is 100% run by humans. Its a human man who tells the screen to go green. So that system didn't have any real impact on incidents today, considering Kimi left before it went green, and a mechanic (or whoever does this) told Massa to leave the pits.

Either way, there system didn't cause any of these. All down to good old fashioned human error.
You're getting confused here. I'm talking about Kimi. You know the Finnish guy who drives for Ferrari :)

Daniel

24th August 2008, 15:07

Their "automatic" system is 100% run by humans. Its a human man who tells the screen to go green. So that system didn't have any real impact on incidents today, considering Kimi left before it went green, and a mechanic (or whoever does this) told Massa to leave the pits.

Either way, there system didn't cause any of these. All down to good old fashioned human error.
I didn't say the system caused the incident with Kimi. I'm simply saying a more conventional system could have prevented it.

VkmSpouge

24th August 2008, 15:09

First off I think the stewards made a bad choice in delaying their decision, this should have been handled within the race (they had plenty of time) instead of leaving a cloud of uncertainty over the race result.

As for the incident itself both Sutil and Massa did well to avoid race contact. The fact that Massa had to slow down suggests that it was an unsafe release. Though I am not sure about what penalty if any should apply to Massa.

wedge

24th August 2008, 15:17

First off I think the stewards made a bad choice in delaying their decision, this should have been handled within the race (they had plenty of time) instead of leaving a cloud of uncertainty over the race result.

True, but I think the stewards want access to things like telemetry data. Though I would've thought in this day and age they could access this sort of thing from behind the garages mid-race. However I seem to remember Pat Symonds releasing data straight after the Bahrain GP to show Alonso wasn't guilty of lifting early into the path of Hamilton.

PolePosition_1

24th August 2008, 15:19

I didn't say the system caused the incident with Kimi. I'm simply saying a more conventional system could have prevented it.

Why would a conventional system have prevented it? We've seen drivers shooting off before lolly pop stick goes up in the past....

......I don't think the system could have prevented it. I think it was just pure old human error on Kimi's behalf.

Daniel

24th August 2008, 15:19

Daniel

24th August 2008, 15:21

Why would a conventional system have prevented it? We've seen drivers shooting off before lolly pop stick goes up in the past....

......I don't think the system could have prevented it. I think it was just pure old human error on Kimi's behalf.

Well yes. BUT the light is higher up and more difficult to see than a HUUUUUUGE lollipop which is right in front of your face. You can't stop these accidents happening but you can make it more difficult for it to happen.

PolePosition_1

24th August 2008, 15:29

Well yes. BUT the light is higher up and more difficult to see than a HUUUUUUGE lollipop which is right in front of your face. You can't stop these accidents happening but you can make it more difficult for it to happen.

All due respect, but I don't think Kimi wasn't looking at the green light, so just went because it was so small.

I think it was human error Daniel. New system or not, same would have happened.

IF only there was a way we could find out. Have to agree to disagree :)

ArrowsFA1

24th August 2008, 15:33

I agree that delaying the decision was bad...
:up:

From the shot from Massa's car it looked bad I'll admit. But to even the most badly sighted non-biased person watching you would have to say it was borderline dangerous at best/worst.
If it's borderline dangerous then that suggests it may have been unsafe, and a rule is in place to address that.

Daniel

24th August 2008, 15:37

All due respect, but I don't think Kimi wasn't looking at the green light, so just went because it was so small.

I think it was human error Daniel. New system or not, same would have happened.

IF only there was a way we could find out. Have to agree to disagree :)
You don't seem to get it. You can look at the lights or not look at them, but the lollipop is right there in front of you. Yes some drivers have gone regardless but it's a different system.

When each crew member presses a button he is saying

"My job is done, the car can go without injuring me"

Whereas with a lollipop there is a person who has a good view of what is happening at the rear of the car and of traffic coming down the pit lane says "All work is done, you can go without injuring anyone and the pit lane is clear for you" the added bonus is that the driver will ALWAYS be looking at the lollipop whereas the lights are not really as close to the centre of their field of view. Systems like this with lights are used in the DTM and all it causes is problems.

Obviously it was human error.... it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that one out. It's about having a system which makes human error less likely. The light system clearly isn't the best.

Daniel

24th August 2008, 15:40

:up:

If it's borderline dangerous then that suggests it may have been unsafe, and a rule is in place to address that.
Like I said it was borderline dangerous at worst. At best it's a driver getting the most out of his exit out of the pits and not doing anything dangerous at all. You have to admit that Massa got out nice and quickly and didn't seem to really come close to hitting Sutil when you consider how close these guys get at 3x the speed.

I hate to say it but if this gets penalised it's yet another step towards nannying F1 into total crapulence.

ottostreet

24th August 2008, 15:42

no big deal. didnt see much wrong with it, and id say if it had been anyone other than hamilton following, we would have heard very little about it from the ITV crew.

Tazio

24th August 2008, 15:42

A five position grid penalty wouldn't surprise me! Although it is the wrong protocal!

BTW, Tazio's 2008 Shiver :up:

ioan

24th August 2008, 15:45

The system itself is safer than the lollipop system.

That is because the electronics sum up all the good to go signals from all the involved mechanics, while the lollipop man could have missed one of them (as we often saw in the past).

In the same time the system is still dependent on human error.
In Felipe's case the guy watching the traffic in the pitlane made a mistake.
In Kimi's case it was the driver's fault, he didn't wait for the green light. In a way I don't blame him because he was on his way to get ahead of Heikki, but waiting another tenth or two wouldn't have jeopardized his position.

ArrowsFA1

24th August 2008, 15:47

I hate to say it but if this gets penalised it's yet another step towards nannying F1 into total crapulence.
Not so long ago there was no speed limit in the pitlane, and while it may have been exciting watching the cars speeding back out on track, it was undoubtedly dangerous. An Osella mechanic died after being hit by Reutemann's Williams at Zolder in 1981, and others have been injured.

The existing rule is there for a reason.

ioan

24th August 2008, 15:48

A five position grid penalty wouldn't surprise me! Although it is the wrong protocal!

Penalize the driver for the team's fault even though he didn't get any advantage out of it? Well it wouldn't be the first time.

It would however be the first time in recent times that a driver get's a penalty for going side by side with another car in the pit lane, after such things happened several times, and weren't even investigated in the past.

ioan

24th August 2008, 15:49

Not so long ago there was no speed limit in the pitlane, and while it may have been exciting watching the cars speeding back out on track, it was undoubtedly dangerous. An Osella mechanic died after being hit by Reutemann's Williams at Zolder in 1981, and others have been injured.

The existing rule is there for a reason.

Your definition for "not so long ago" is at least interesting. :p :

Daniel

24th August 2008, 15:51

Not so long ago there was no speed limit in the pitlane, and while it may have been exciting watching the cars speeding back out on track, it was undoubtedly dangerous. An Osella mechanic died after being hit by Reutemann's Williams at Zolder in 1981, and others have been injured.

The existing rule is there for a reason.
Of course you're right. There do need to be common sense rules like the pit lane speed limiter for obvious reasons.

ioan

24th August 2008, 15:58

So Felipe has been reprimanded (for what exactly?) and Ferrari fined 10.000 Euro only.
Completely brainless decision IMO.
Nice to see that the FIA decided to use the stronger currency! ;)

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70038

Nikki Katz

24th August 2008, 15:58

ArrowsFA1

24th August 2008, 15:59

Your definition for "not so long ago" is at least interesting. :p :
The 1981 Belgian GP was just used as an example. I'm not sure when the speed limit was introduced - early 90's perhaps - but the point of the rule is to ensure the safety of those in the pitlane.

Daniel

24th August 2008, 15:59

ioan

24th August 2008, 16:01

The 1981 Belgian GP was just used as an example. I'm not sure when the speed limit was introduced - early 90's perhaps - but the point of the rule is to ensure the safety of those in the pitlane.

I completely agree with you about the pitlane speed limit rule. :)
I just questioned the use of the "not so long ago" tag! :p :

ioan

24th August 2008, 16:05

Personally I disagree. I think that people will inherently try to second guess a signal like a green light.

And that's a human error too.
What I learned in so many years working with them is that computers don't make mistakes, they only do what we tell them to do! ;)

how many people here creep forward at traffic lights when they're red?

I never do that. In countries where there is a yellow after the red I engage 1st on yellow and go on green.
In France the system is even better, there is no yellow, so there is no guessing you wait till it's green.

Daniel

24th August 2008, 16:07

I never do that. In countries where there is a yellow after the red I engage 1st on yellow and go on green.
In France the system is even better, there is no yellow, so there is no guessing you wait till it's green.

Well in Australia people always creep forward when it's been red for a while. It's natural because you're thinking that it's going to change aaaaaaaany moment now.

I agree about computers. It's almost always operator error or hardware failure. That or Windows reverting back to a previous state. But that's not a mistake, just unexpected ;)

ioan

24th August 2008, 16:14

Well in Australia people always creep forward when it's been red for a while. It's natural because you're thinking that it's going to change aaaaaaaany moment now.

I forgot to add, during my latest visit to Romania I saw the new light that are showing you how long before the light's color will change. Not a bad thing, you can preserve your clutch for some more time!

That or Windows reverting back to a previous state. But that's not a mistake, just unexpected ;)

:rotflmao:

SGWilko

24th August 2008, 16:25

And that's a human error too.
What I learned in so many years working with them is that computers don't make mistakes, they only do what we tell them to do! ;)

I never do that. In countries where there is a yellow after the red I engage 1st on yellow and go on green.
In France the system is even better, there is no yellow, so there is no guessing you wait till it's green.

Ioan, go buy a book by Bernard Cornwell called Sea Lord. Read it.

You remind me of Ulf. When you've read the book, you will understand. ;)

Incidentally, it is a cracking good read!

truefan72

24th August 2008, 16:37

first off I thought the incident was dicey but not really worthy of a penalty

...that being said, if they did go ahead and penalize him with a monetary fine and a being reprimanded, then it would be only fair that he receive a grid place penalty. The monetary fine is little solice to LH and Rosberg who received grid place penalties, the latter even more egrious since LH had already crashed and therefore Rosber crashing into him was of littel consequence to the race. But Rosberg got a grid place penalty.

If they saw fit to penalize Massa for apparently dangerous driving, then why the monetary fine and not an actual consequence. Amd why did the steward wait so long to make a decision that the basic viewer at home with a dvr can render a verdict in 5-10 minutes.

ioan

24th August 2008, 16:50

...that being said, if they did go ahead and penalize him with a monetary fine and a being reprimanded, then it would be only fair that he receive a grid place penalty.

Massa received a reprimand, the TEAM was fined.

The monetary fine is little solice to LH and Rosberg who received grid place penalties, the latter even more egrious since LH had already crashed and therefore Rosber crashing into him was of littel consequence to the race. But Rosberg got a grid place penalty.

Comparing apples with bananas! :rolleyes:

Lewy and Rosberg ran into the back of a car that was stationary at the red light.
Massa was released alongside Sutil, the cars didn't touch, Massa allowed Sutil through.

Is it me or there isn't any similarities with what happened in Canada?

What about the other recent occasions where drivers went side by side or raced each other in the pit lane and on the pit exit road? How many of them were at least reprimanded?
I'll tell you, none of them! None of the cases were even investigated.

If they saw fit to penalize Massa for apparently dangerous driving, then why the monetary fine and not an actual consequence.

Once again, Massa was not fined, the TEAM was! ;)

Amd why did the steward wait so long to make a decision that the basic viewer at home with a dvr can render a verdict in 5-10 minutes.

Because they didn't want to take the stupid decision that "the basic viewer at home with a dvr can render a verdict in 5-10 minutes." :p :

ioan

24th August 2008, 16:51

Ioan, go buy a book by Bernard Cornwell called Sea Lord. Read it.

You remind me of Ulf. When you've read the book, you will understand. ;)

Incidentally, it is a cracking good read!

Not sure it will fit into my time this year, but I'll try to buy it for when I'll get enough time for it. ;)

Matt888

24th August 2008, 17:07

Massa should not be punished for a pit error in this intance. That race was a pretty good indicator for the rest of the season as far as performance goes. Short stint pace at high temp. The colder rounds will be the season winners. Lets see if spa throws up rain? It's tight at the top still, and Kimi is fading. Go Massa I say ,great drive. A penalty wounld not be befitting. The Championship is being contestsed well this year by 2 lads who want it more than the others, team mate pace relects that.

Hondo

24th August 2008, 17:10

All things considered, I think the fault, if any, lays with the team. There's a lot to be said for having a lollipop man out there with genuine Human Mark I Eyeballs looking at the situation. No harm done and Massa deserves to keep his win.

Firstgear

24th August 2008, 17:36

Massa should get the "Stupid Comment of the Year" award for saying in the post race press conference that the pit incident was Sutil's fault.

truefan72

24th August 2008, 17:39

pretty lame comment by massa

ioan

24th August 2008, 17:42

Massa should get the "Stupid Comment of the Year" award for saying in the post race press conference that the pit incident was Sutil's fault.

Can we have a link to see where Massa said "that the pit incident was Sutil's fault." ?

janneppi

24th August 2008, 17:47

Can we have a link to see where Massa said "that the pit incident was Sutil's fault." ?
http://www.mtv3.fi/urheilu/f1/uutiset.shtml/arkistot/f1/2008/08/691679

- Mielestäni en tehnyt mitään väärin. Heidän olisi pitänyt tutkia Adrianin ajoa, Massa sanoi kisan jälkeen.
"In my opinion I didn't do anything wrong, they should have investigated Adrian", said Massa
Then, apparently went on about Sutil not being smart racing him on the pit lane because he had to move over in any case.

;)

truefan72

24th August 2008, 17:48

Massa received a reprimand, the TEAM was fined.

Because they didn't want to take the stupid decision that "the basic viewer at home with a dvr can render a verdict in 5-10 minutes." :p :

it really isn't brain surgery out there.
As I said. I thought that the incident should have been dismissed.

so either way a decision should have been made fairly quickly.
There is no point in delaying the decision causing confusion.

It is the appearance of impropriety/favortism that causes more consternation than the incident itself. Look at the bloody tape, conclude it is a non issue and that's that.

or conclude it is an infraction and then take the appropriate action of calling him in or issuing in some edict. The only reason they waited so long was to make sure that McLaren and BMW couldn't protest the ruling during the race via some action.

as to the team being fined thing, that's really a mute point, the team/driver for that particular car (#2)) are treated as one entity when it comes to race infractions. their actions caused a real consequence on the race and therefore would necessitate a penalty assessed on the particular car.

ioan

24th August 2008, 18:23

so either way a decision should have been made fairly quickly.
There is no point in delaying the decision causing confusion.

The point about delaying a decision is to be sure that you saw all the evidence and you took the right decision. A good enough reason for sure.

as to the team being fined thing, that's really a mute point, the team/driver for that particular car (#2)) are treated as one entity when it comes to race infractions. their actions caused a real consequence on the race and therefore would necessitate a penalty assessed on the particular car.

That's bullsh!t.
It happened in the past that the team was fined or DQed but the driver didn't, so I really don't know what you are basing your views on.

ioan

24th August 2008, 18:26

http://www.mtv3.fi/urheilu/f1/uutiset.shtml/arkistot/f1/2008/08/691679

"In my opinion I didn't do anything wrong, they should have investigated Adrian", said Massa

Not a fair comment towards Sutil.
It wasn't Massa's fault, but it wasn't certainly Sutil's either. I hope he takes it back.

Jag_Warrior

24th August 2008, 18:46

http://www.mtv3.fi/urheilu/f1/uutiset.shtml/arkistot/f1/2008/08/691679

"In my opinion I didn't do anything wrong, they should have investigated Adrian", said Massa
Then, apparently went on about Sutil not being smart racing him on the pit lane because he had to move over in any case.

;)

It's one thing for him to say that he doesn't believe he did anything wrong (and I don't believe he did). But I wonder what sort of logic he's using to pin the blame on Sutil? In the interview shown on Speed, Massa said that Sutil should have let him by. Let him by how and where?

The Ferrari team released Massa into the path of another car. If there is blame, it's primarily on the Ferrari team. As for the fine, that's an odd one. How could the amount for a two car incident during the race be the same as an even more minor, single car incident during a practice session?

I don't care at all for Massa. But I don't believe the punishment should have been severe enough to spoil his win.

Daniel

24th August 2008, 19:26

harsha

24th August 2008, 19:31

keysersoze

24th August 2008, 19:40

It's one thing for him to say that he doesn't believe he did anything wrong (and I don't believe he did). But I wonder what sort of logic he's using to pin the blame on Sutil? In the interview shown on Speed, Massa said that Sutil should have let him by. Let him by how and where?

The Ferrari team released Massa into the path of another car. If there is blame, it's primarily on the Ferrari team. As for the fine, that's an odd one. How could the amount for a two car incident during the race be the same as an even more minor, single car incident during a practice session?

I don't care at all for Massa. But I don't believe the punishment should have been severe enough to spoil his win.

Massa's "logic" was that Sutil was a lapped car and would have to yield to him once they were on the track. Total BS. Sutil (and Force India) have every right to improve their performance, and part of that is calculating total time spent in pitlane.

Looking at the replay it seemed Adrian was at the pitlane speed limit and only one pit behind Ferrari when the team released Felipe. Point is--no one was in his lane and Sutil did the only logical thing--go as fast as the rules permitted him.

ioan

24th August 2008, 19:43

Massa's "logic" was that Sutil was a lapped car and would have to yield to him once they were on the track. Total BS. Sutil (and Force India) have every right to improve their performance, and part of that is calculating total time spent in pitlane.

Looking at the replay it seemed Adrian was at the pitlane speed limit and only one pit behind Ferrari when the team released Felipe. Point is--no one was in his lane and Sutil did the only logical thing--go as fast as the rules permitted him.

I'm pretty sure Massa got his instructions about the incident from the team before he went to the press conference.

If he would have said it was his or Ferrari's fault, he would have shot himself in the foot, as the stewarts were yet to make their decision.
But it was unfair to pin it on Sutil.

Robinho

24th August 2008, 20:06

great drive from Massa, would be very harsh on him personally if he had it taken away from him behind the scenes. didn't seem too much in the incident for me, but if Ferrari are deemed to have released into the path of Sutil then there is a precedent for a penalty, and the fact that they are looking at it after the race indicates that they weren't happy to just it go straight away.
the only thing that might go against them is that Smedley and Massa have both said they had to back off after the car was released to avoid Sutil.

i think they might get a reprimand and possibly a fine, it would be very harsh on Massa to lose the win - of course now they could impose a 6.5 second penalty and he'd still win, but that would look massively fishy, so i hope the FIA don't do something stupid like that.

as i called it in a previous thread, a reprimand and a fine, and as far as i've read the team have been hit with a 10,000 euro fine and a reprimand, nothing specifically against Massa, unless there was soem info missing in what i read.

the recognition has to be that Ferrari were at fault in releasing the car, however no advantage was gained as Massa had to back off and he avoided the incident, had he not backed off and Sutil had had to slow then it would have been harsher punishment. i say credit to Massa for his quick actions in spotting the potential incident and avoiding it, although him subsequently blaming Sutil was stange, as in the pitlan Sutil had precdence, in the lane at pit lane speed, regardless of race positions, no blue flags in the pitlane

i think common sense prevailed, some recognition of the incident, but also the outcome, and i'm glad that Massa has kept his win, as he certainly deserved it (am i allowed to say that as a Hamilton Fan, or does that break forum stereotyping rules?)

ioan

24th August 2008, 20:45

and i'm glad that Massa has kept his win, as he certainly deserved it (am i allowed to say that as a Hamilton Fan, or does that break forum stereotyping rules?)

Sorry mate, you are disqualified from the Hamilton fan base with immediate effect! ;)

Knock-on

24th August 2008, 21:59

I agree that delaying the decision was bad but methinks someone (McLaren perhaps?) complained when the teams were told there would be no penalty and asked that it be looked at after the race. From the shot from Massa's car it looked bad I'll admit. But to even the most badly sighted non-biased person watching you would have to say it was borderline dangerous at best/worst.

Have you got one shred of evidence or is this 100% fantasy?

As for the incident, I struggle with why Massa has not been punished.

In the GP2 race, I think 2 drivers were penalised for dangerous driving such as this. The punishment was a pit penalty. The precedent was set.

We all saw the results of drivers releasing from the pit side by side in Canada. It is unsafe and in the kimi example, I suggest it contributed to a Pit lane incident.

This sort of thing is dangerous and shouldn't happen. With the Ferrari release process, it is the drivers final decision to go. We are seeing that the Ferrari drivers do not have the responsibility to make that decision.

And then, to blame it on some poor smuck that happened to be minding his business driving down the Pit lane :laugh:

Yet, because it's FIAarri...

Zico

24th August 2008, 22:11

I dont think Massa should have been penalised.. but I have little doubt about what the judgement would have been if the car was silver instead of red.

FIA- decision making consistancy ? Mwahahaha!

Knock-on

24th August 2008, 22:22

I dont think Massa should have been penalised.. but I have little doubt about what the judgement would have been if the car was silver instead of red.

FIA- decision making consistancy ? Mwahahaha!

:laugh: You know it :laugh:

What I don't understand is the inconsistency.

The GP2 drivers get done and Ferrari get let off.

gm99

24th August 2008, 22:28

I think it is a fair solution.

Massa didn't really impede Sutil, rather it was him who had to take evasive action. So it would have been unfair to take a well-deserved victory from the Brazilian.

Yet, Alonso got a similiar penalty for running over a blend line in free practice, and 10.000 $ shouldn't really hurt either either Ferrari or Felipe.

jso1985

24th August 2008, 22:29

c'mon! Massa is my least favourite driver but I don't see much similarities with the incidents that happened in Canada and the GP2 one's.

In the end, I agree with the fine imposed, if someone's to blame, is the team, they saw Sutil coming and they knew they should have waited a bit more

ioan

24th August 2008, 22:54

We all saw the results of drivers releasing from the pit side by side in Canada. It is unsafe and in the kimi example, I suggest it contributed to a Pit lane incident.

Rubbish!

This sort of thing is dangerous and shouldn't happen. With the Ferrari release process, it is the drivers final decision to go. We are seeing that the Ferrari drivers do not have the responsibility to make that decision.

Drivers can't see what is happening on the pitlane because of the mechanics that stand everywhere around the car. Yet you expect them to make the decision?! How irresponsible that is? Or should I call it downright stupid?

And then, to blame it on some poor smuck that happened to be minding his business driving down the Pit lane :laugh:

It was not a fair comment from Felipe. He should apologize to Sutil.

Yet, because it's FIAarri...

Childish!

KR and RK went side by side in the Montreal pitlane!
SV and FA went side by side in the Hockenheim pitlane and pit exit road, they even banged wheels in the process!
Rubens had a similar manoeuver with another car this season!

None of these has ever been investigated let alone someone being punished. What does that have to do with Ferrari (other than some Massa hater's sick judgement) :?:

ioan

24th August 2008, 22:58

:laugh: You know it :laugh:

What I don't understand is the inconsistency.

The GP2 drivers get done and Ferrari get let off.

GP2 =/= F1 , they don't even have the same stewards for the races.

What about this part:

KR and RK - not even investigated.
SV and FA - not even investigated
RB and a driver I'm not sure about so I won't hazard a guess - not even investigated.

Yet Knockie is going mad over the subject. Shall I put it down to a sudden justice crisis, or the perpetual hate for Massa? I'll go for the second choice.

BDunnell

24th August 2008, 23:44

CNR

25th August 2008, 00:11

Valve Bounce

25th August 2008, 01:35

Rubbish!

Drivers can't see what is happening on the pitlane because of the mechanics that stand everywhere around the car. Yet you expect them to make the decision?! How irresponsible that is? Or should I call it downright stupid?

It was not a fair comment from Felipe. He should apologize to Sutil.

Childish!

KR and RK went side by side in the Montreal pitlane!
SV and FA went side by side in the Hockenheim pitlane and pit exit road, they even banged wheels in the process!
Rubens had a similar manoeuver with another car this season!

None of these has ever been investigated let alone someone being punished. What does that have to do with Ferrari (other than some Massa hater's sick judgement) :?:

ioan, I trust your comments are made tongue in cheek and are not serious attacks on other forum members. :rolleyes:

Valve Bounce

25th August 2008, 01:40

From what little I've seen of the 'incident', it was one of those things that can happen in the heat of racing and no big deal. No-one was hurt or hampered — yes, they could have been and this is why there are rules, but there would be no F1 races at all if you wanted the sport to be 100 per cent guaranteed safe. And of course there are inconsistencies between this and other incidents, but there always are in the imposition of rules in sport, as annoying as this may be.

Oh, and one more thing. Can we not get into this being a pro-Ferrari conspiracy on the part of the FIA? I think the accusation is utter rubbish.

This incident was exacerbated by the narrow pit-lane. However, Ferrari really needs to upgrade their pitlane procedures so that the Massa and Kimi incidents are not repeated. Had Massa touched wheels with Sutil, a nasty incident could have resulted; this is the responsibility of the lollipop man to ensure the drivers are released safely. Nothing to do with Massa because his sole focus should be on the lollipop man. Kimi's incident was different - it was driving like shyte all race and his concentration and focus was shyte during that pit stop. (Yeah!! Kimi is my favourite driver right now - but he must get his act together :( )

ozrevhead

25th August 2008, 01:41

It was Ferarris stuffup not Massas - why should he be punnished

Valve Bounce

25th August 2008, 01:43

It was Ferarri's stuffup not Massa's - why should he be punished

Agreed! Oz! and the frightening part is that it could have not only cost Massa the race but an accident there could have caused a very serious accident involving pit crews further down the pitlane.

leopard

25th August 2008, 06:21

Perhaps, Massa was impetuous seeing Sutil drove the car exiting pit lane slower than speed allowed in the pit area. :)

F1boat

25th August 2008, 07:19

I really am afraid to think what will happen if Lewis finally wins the championship. His fans would have to celebrate the result and not to blame the world conspiracy.
I dunno if they can do that...

Valve Bounce

25th August 2008, 07:25

I really am afraid to think what will happen if Lewis finally wins the championship. His fans would have to celebrate the result and not to blame the world conspiracy.
I dunno if they can do that...

No! but I am sure his detractors would. :rolleyes:

ioan

25th August 2008, 07:38

Agreed! Oz! and the frightening part is that it could have not only cost Massa the race but an accident there could have caused a very serious accident involving pit crews further down the pitlane.

There were no pit crews further down the pitlane! :D

ioan

25th August 2008, 07:39

No! but I am sure his detractors would. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :\

Daniel

25th August 2008, 08:15

Have you got one shred of evidence or is this 100% fantasy?

As for the incident, I struggle with why Massa has not been punished.

In the GP2 race, I think 2 drivers were penalised for dangerous driving such as this. The punishment was a pit penalty. The precedent was set.

We all saw the results of drivers releasing from the pit side by side in Canada. It is unsafe and in the kimi example, I suggest it contributed to a Pit lane incident.

This sort of thing is dangerous and shouldn't happen. With the Ferrari release process, it is the drivers final decision to go. We are seeing that the Ferrari drivers do not have the responsibility to make that decision.

And then, to blame it on some poor smuck that happened to be minding his business driving down the Pit lane :laugh:

Yet, because it's FIAarri...

Oh my god it's the imagination Police. I suggested a reason why I thought the stewards took the unusual step of looking at it after the race when it should have been dealt with during the race and you act like I'm stating my thoughts as fact. Get over it Knockie. You and your biased mates Martin and James were wrong.

Methinks it was a nice day yesterday

Have you got one shred of evidence or is this 100% fantasy?

Anyone with a Sky+ box could see there was really nothing to the incident but as normal you feel the need to have a hissy fit because the decision didn't go the way of your boy. Back when Lewis was penalised for the pit lane collision all the Lewis fanboi's who didn't see the rather black and white situation as it was were trying to make excuses as to why he didn't deserve a penalty. Now Massa has a situation which DOESN'T result in a collision and people want him to be penalised as Lewis was when they didn't think Lewis deserved a penalty. What a joke. I don't get this whole lame tribal thing that people have got going here. People make fun of Ioan for being a Ferrari fan but he's a lot less biased than a lot of others out there. If Ferrari have a crap race he's there to criticise them and if McLaren drive a better race he says it. Yet some and I stress some of the McLaren/Lewis people simply want McLaren and Lewis to win regardless of whether Ferrari has the better car or driver on the day.

ioan

25th August 2008, 08:35

Oh my god it's the imagination Police. I suggested a reason why I thought the stewards took the unusual step of looking at it after the race when it should have been dealt with during the race and you act like I'm stating my thoughts as fact. Get over it Knockie. You and your biased mates Martin and James were wrong.

Anyone with a Sky+ box could see there was really nothing to the incident but as normal you feel the need to have a hissy fit because the decision didn't go the way of your boy. Back when Lewis was penalised for the pit lane collision all the Lewis fanboi's who didn't see the rather black and white situation as it was were trying to make excuses as to why he didn't deserve a penalty. Now Massa has a situation which DOESN'T result in a collision and people want him to be penalised as Lewis was when they didn't think Lewis deserved a penalty. What a joke. I don't get this whole lame tribal thing that people have got going here. People make fun of Ioan for being a Ferrari fan but he's a lot less biased than a lot of others out there. If Ferrari have a crap race he's there to criticise them and if McLaren drive a better race he says it. Yet some and I stress some of the McLaren/Lewis people simply want McLaren and Lewis to win regardless of whether Ferrari has the better car or driver on the day.

:up:

Thanks a lot for that part about Ioan! ;)

Daniel

25th August 2008, 08:41

We all saw the results of drivers releasing from the pit side by side in Canada. It is unsafe and in the kimi example, I suggest it contributed to a Pit lane incident.

What stupidity. That's like saying that the wall was a contributory factor to Senna's fatal accident. It didn't cause it, it was just there for him to crash into just as Kimi was there for Lewis to crash into. I've bumped into the back of a couple cars a lot time ago and never was it there fault. It's always the fault of the car behind.

ArrowsFA1

25th August 2008, 09:01

GP2 =/= F1 , they don't even have the same stewards for the races.
Still, the issue of releasing a car into the pitlane is the same in GP2 & F1. Perhaps you're right that the FIA have different stewards for different races, but surely the issue is consistency. If the same rule applies in GP2 and F1 then there has to be a consistent application of the rules.

Daniel

25th August 2008, 09:07

What stupidity. That's like saying that the wall was a contributory factor to Senna's fatal accident. It didn't cause it, it was just there for him to crash into just as Kimi was there for Lewis to crash into. I've bumped into the back of a couple cars a lot time ago and never was it there fault. It's always the fault of the car behind.
I meant to say their fault :)

ioan

25th August 2008, 09:12

Still, the issue of releasing a car into the pitlane is the same in GP2 & F1. Perhaps you're right that the FIA have different stewards for different races, but surely the issue is consistency.

This season we had 3 times this same situation with cars going down the pit lane side by side, even banging wheels in the process.
Not even one of these was investigated my the stewards, and naturally no one was punished.

Yesterday, for whatever reason they decided to investigate it, but the outcome was about the same, no severe punishment, just a fine for the team (who was responsible with the secure release of the car from the pits).
It is pretty consistent if you take into account how inconsistent they used to be a few years ago.

So in comparison to the other 3 times, when this incident occurred this season, I fail to see where the FIA has been in any way biased towards Ferrari.

If the same rule applies in GP2 and F1 then there has to be a consistent application of the rules.

Don't know the GP2 rules, however I know that the 2 incidents were substantially different.
In the GP2 race the offending car was released IN THE WAY of another car and this car had to back off, in order to avoid an accident, and thus losing time in the process.

In the F1 race, the car was released side by side, Massa took evasive action as soon as he realized that this is needed, Sutil wasn't impeded in any way.

I hope I put things as clear as possible, for those who are still mixing the apples and the bananas (that are different not only by taste but also by shape ;) ).

BDunnell

25th August 2008, 09:40

This season we had 3 times this same situation with cars going down the pit lane side by side, even banging wheels in the process.
Not even one of these was investigated my the stewards, and naturally no one was punished.

Yesterday, for whatever reason they decided to investigate it, but the outcome was about the same, no severe punishment, just a fine for the team (who was responsible with the secure release of the car from the pits).

Yes. If there had actually been a collision, then I think some sort of punishment would probably be acceptable. But given that there wasn't, why bother? Why, in effect, punish someone for causing a situation in which something might have happened? That doesn't make any sense.

ArrowsFA1

25th August 2008, 09:52

So in comparison to the other 3 times, when this incident occurred this season, I fail to see where the FIA has been in any way biased towards Ferrari.
The issue of bias towards Ferrari doesn't concern me, and I haven't raised it. My problem, as it has been for a long time, is the consistency of decision making by FIA stewards.

Some time ago the FIA changed things to try and ensure that decisions like this were made quickly so that the result we saw on track was not actually decided hours or days later. The actions of the stewards in Valencia was contrary to this, particularly as it seemed a relatively simple situation to assess, and merely inflamed accusations and speculation.

In March 2006 the FIA appointed (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/49884) a permanent steward (Tony-Scott Andrews) "in a bid to bring more consistency to its decision-making process." Previously there had been a rotation-system of four stewards, with a different chief steward at specific races. However, when Scott-Andrews retired at the end of 2007, rather than appoint a replacement the FIA chose to restructure (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64826) the system yet again. Now we have three nominated stewards (not the same nationality as any of F1's competitors) at each event assisted by FIA president Max Mosley's official representative Alan Donnelly.

Going further back (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/6958/.html), in 2002 Juan Pablo Montoya called for the introduction of permanent F1 race stewards, and that a former driver would be well qualified to judge racing incidents. Makes sense, seeing as existing stewards have little experience of racing, and certainly none of racing in F1.

However the system is to work consistency is key, because without it confidence in the rules and those who enforce them is weakened.

Valve Bounce

25th August 2008, 09:52

People make fun of Ioan for being a Ferrari fan but he's a lot less biased than a lot of others out there. If Ferrari have a crap race he's there to criticise them and if McLaren drive a better race he says it. Yet some and I stress some of the McLaren/Lewis people simply want McLaren and Lewis to win regardless of whether Ferrari has the better car or driver on the day.

I don't believe what I am reading here. But I guess there are ioan fans as well as Kimi fans and Super Aguri fans here.

You can go to the front of the class for now ioan. The headmaster said so!! :up:

Valve Bounce

25th August 2008, 09:55

I hope I put things as clear as possible, for those who are still mixing the apples and the bananas (that are different not only by taste but also by shape ;) ).

Hey!! wait a minute - that's my line!!

ioan

25th August 2008, 10:01

The issue of bias towards Ferrari doesn't concern me, and I haven't raised it. My problem, as it has been for a long time, is the consistency of decision making by FIA stewards.

Some time ago the FIA changed things to try and ensure that decisions like this were made quickly so that the result we saw on track was not actually decided hours or days later. The actions of the stewards in Valencia was contrary to this, particularly as it seemed a relatively simple situation to assess, and merely inflamed accusations and speculation.

In March 2006 the FIA appointed (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/49884) a permanent steward (Tony-Scott Andrews) "in a bid to bring more consistency to its decision-making process." Previously there had been a rotation-system of four stewards, with a different chief steward at specific races. However, when Scott-Andrews retired at the end of 2007, rather than appoint a replacement the FIA chose to restructure (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64826) the system yet again. Now we have three nominated stewards (not the same nationality as any of F1's competitors) at each event assisted by FIA president Max Mosley's official representative Alan Donnelly.

Going further back (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/6958/.html), in 2002 Juan Pablo Montoya called for the introduction of permanent F1 race stewards, and that a former driver would be well qualified to judge racing incidents. Makes sense, seeing as existing stewards have little experience of racing, and certainly none of racing in F1.

However the system is to work consistency is key, because without it confidence in the rules and those who enforce them is weakened.

And since the permanent steward was appointed no driver was penalized for going side by side in the pit lane. It looks consistent to me.

ioan

25th August 2008, 10:03

ioan

25th August 2008, 10:04

Hey!! wait a minute - that's my line!!

Sorry, I'll let you have it back now. ;)

Valve Bounce

25th August 2008, 10:05

...........as I said before, the unusual narrowness of the pit lane here only made things worse. But having said that, I do feel there is room at Ferrari for improvement in pit lane procedures from what occurred at Valencia.

BDunnell

25th August 2008, 10:23

Going further back (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/6958/.html), in 2002 Juan Pablo Montoya called for the introduction of permanent F1 race stewards, and that a former driver would be well qualified to judge racing incidents. Makes sense, seeing as existing stewards have little experience of racing, and certainly none of racing in F1.

I don't actually agree with that, because there would certainly be accusations of bias as soon as that driver made a decision favouring his former team over another (unless the rules stated that the steward must only have driven for now defunct teams — good job for Gabriele Tarquini or Perry McCarthy?!), and there is the risk that an ex-driver would only look at things from a driver's perspective. It's not beyond the wit of man, or F1, to find someone who is fair, balanced and consistent without consideration of their background.

BDunnell

25th August 2008, 10:25

Every pit stop is a situation when something might happen, still they aren't penalized, not even when their cars drive over their mechanics.

The FIA might as well penalise itself for allowing the races to start in the first place.

By the way, is anyone ever penalised or punished for refuelling rig fires? They are far more dangerous than what happened yesterday, or things like the Canadian collision.

markabilly

25th August 2008, 10:48

Now we have three nominated stewards (not the same nationality as any of F1's competitors) at each event assisted by FIA president Max Mosley's official representative Alan Donnelly.

However the system is to work consistency is key, because without it confidence in the rules and those who enforce them is weakened.

And with max as the choser of the official representative, fair role play will be enforced for all, and you can have confidence in that.....

markabilly

25th August 2008, 10:51

It's not beyond the wit of man, or F1, to find someone who is fair, balanced and consistent without consideration of their background.
Yes for example, the FIA has max.......perhaps they need to seek out some S & M folks that party like Max

Valve Bounce

25th August 2008, 12:34

I don't actually agree with that, because there would certainly be accusations of bias as soon as that driver made a decision favouring his former team over another (unless the rules stated that the steward must only have driven for now defunct teams — good job for Gabriele Tarquini or Perry McCarthy?!), and there is the risk that an ex-driver would only look at things from a driver's perspective. It's not beyond the wit of man, or F1, to find someone who is fair, balanced and consistent without consideration of their background.

Can't agree with you there. I think DC would be eminently suitable as a candidate for permanent Steward. I would trust DC to give a totally unbiased judgment on any incident.

ioan

25th August 2008, 13:07

Can't agree with you there. I think DC would be eminently suitable as a candidate for permanent Steward. I would trust DC to give a totally unbiased judgment on any incident.

Good joke! :up:

Dave B

25th August 2008, 13:14

Yes. If there had actually been a collision, then I think some sort of punishment would probably be acceptable. But given that there wasn't, why bother? Why, in effect, punish someone for causing a situation in which something might have happened? That doesn't make any sense.
For once I can't agree with you. Reductio ad absurdum if I shoot at you but miss should I escape punishment for attempted murder?

Now I've watched a few replays I actually agree that the stewards took the correct action; but I also believe that the rules should be clarified so that this sort of situation, which is becoming all to commonplace, should not be allowed to continue.

BDunnell

25th August 2008, 13:30

For once I can't agree with you. Reductio ad absurdum if I shoot at you but miss should I escape punishment for attempted murder?

I see what you're saying, but, as you acknowledge, it's a bit of a leap from one situation to the other. I don't think this is enough of a problem in F1 to get too worked up about.

Now I've watched a few replays I actually agree that the stewards took the correct action; but I also believe that the rules should be clarified so that this sort of situation, which is becoming all to commonplace, should not be allowed to continue.

But what would the consequences be? Pit lane speeds are so low that the likelihood of anything serious happening is quite small, surely? I'm more concerned about another serious fire occurring.

Hazell B

25th August 2008, 15:25

Pit lane speeds are so low that the likelihood of anything serious happening is quite small, surely?

Motorway speeds are slow? I don't think so! It may be safe enough for the two drivers, but what about them coming close together while passing other teams' mechanics? One slip and people die - on live TV. That wouldn't do the sport any favours at all I'm sure everyone agrees.

I'm more concerned about another serious fire occurring.

I'm concerned about being tailgated by lorries on the M1, but as it's got nothing at all to do with this issue from sunday I don't think it's place is on this thread ;) Fires are for another thread, perhaps?

From what I saw, which was just on normal TV coverage, it was a simple cock-up. Nobody was hurt and no cars suffered in this case. A fine and some serious words about the rules to every team seem fair punishment. Next time somebody may be hurt, or a good race ruined.

Daniel

25th August 2008, 15:31

Motorway speeds are slow? I don't think so! It may be safe enough for the two drivers, but what about them coming close together while passing other teams' mechanics? One slip and people die - on live TV. That wouldn't do the sport any favours at all I'm sure everyone agrees.

I'm concerned about being tailgated by lorries on the M1, but as it's got nothing at all to do with this issue from sunday I don't think it's place is on this thread ;) Fires are for another thread, perhaps?

From what I saw, which was just on normal TV coverage, it was a simple cock-up. Nobody was hurt and no cars suffered in this case. A fine and some serious words about the rules to every team seem fair punishment. Next time somebody may be hurt, or a good race ruined.

I'm more concerned with Russia's muscle flexing but just like your post that's got nothing to do with F1.

ioan

25th August 2008, 15:52

I'm more concerned with Russia's muscle flexing but just like your post that's got nothing to do with F1.

:) :up:

Hazell B

25th August 2008, 15:55

If somebody wants to tell me why my post had nothing to do with F1, I'm listening :confused:

Daniel

25th August 2008, 15:56

If somebody wants to tell me why my post had nothing to do with F1, I'm listening :confused:
Tell me what your silly vendetta with Ben has to do with F1, I'm listening :)

Dave B

25th August 2008, 19:42

Motorway speeds are slow? I don't think so! It may be safe enough for the two drivers, but what about them coming close together while passing other teams' mechanics?
I must say I agree on this one. I've stood in a lot of pitlanes, and trust me the cars look bloody scary when they're only a meter away from running over your toes. I've seen a few "slow" crashes, including (as I'm sure Hazell recalls) Phil Bennett's BTCC car being spun round into a flatbed lorry, and I've no wish to see anybody injured.

BDunnell

25th August 2008, 21:32

I must say I agree on this one. I've stood in a lot of pitlanes, and trust me the cars look bloody scary when they're only a meter away from running over your toes. I've seen a few "slow" crashes, including (as I'm sure Hazell recalls) Phil Bennett's BTCC car being spun round into a flatbed lorry, and I've no wish to see anybody injured.

I appreciate that, but I still think this pit lane business is being blown out of all proportion. What sort of new rule would be imposed, in any case? What sort of consistent punishment?

Hawkmoon

25th August 2008, 23:41

I've finally got around to seeing the incident and I have to say, what's the big deal?

Sure Ferrari let Massa go too quickly but Sutil didn't even have to change his line and Massa dropped back behind the Force India. If the stewards hadn't looked at it we wouldn't be having this discussion becuase there is very little to discuss. Of course Messers Allen and Brundle could see a way for the object of their infatuation to get an easy win so they played up penalising Massa for all it was worth which didn't help the situation.

As for safety in the pitlane, can anybody recall an injury to a crew member that didn't result from the actual pitstop itself? What I mean is, has anybody been hurt by any other means than being hit by their own driver? I can't think of any off hand.

As far as I'm concerned, refuelling is the most dangerous thing that occurs in the pitlane and should really be banned if were talking pit crew safety. Aside from the obvious risk of fire the most dangerous incident in a pitstop is the driver pulling away with the hose attached and knocking the refuelers over, as Raikkonen demonstrated in Valencia.

Valve Bounce

26th August 2008, 00:49

This has been blown way out of proportion by Martin and his cohort. Admittedly there was one view which was taken from behind the Ferrari pits which distorted the view and distances, but the Stewards probably viewed other shots as well.

Having said all that, I still maintain that Ferrari should get their pitstops sorted so that they don't lose races. Kimi's incident was just plain nonsense.

Rollo

26th August 2008, 01:47

Article 30.12 states that the speed limit during qualifying and the race will be 80km/h except at Monaco.
http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 5-2008.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/475632E46002BEDAC125744F004312F4/$FILE/F1.SPORTING.REGULATIONS.19-05-2008.pdf)

The pitlane speed limit was first introduced after the 1994 San Marino GP after an incident where a rear wheel detached from Alboreto's Minardi and injured several Ferrari mechanics (and one from Lotus - but they don't count do they?). The speed limit was then modified to the current levels in 2000.
http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1661500937__15_01_2000_WMSC.pdf

But what would the consequences be? Pit lane speeds are so low that the likelihood of anything serious happening is quite small, surely? I'm more concerned about another serious fire occurring.

80km/h is slow?

http://www.irishmotoring.ie/cms/publish/car/rulesoftheroad/9_Speed_Limits.php

Remember a 5km/h difference in your speed could be the difference between life and death for a vulnerable road user like a pedestrian.
* Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
* Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 of pedestrians will be killed.
* Hit by a car at 30km/h, 1 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.

But what would the consequences be?
They could be death, but then again F1 is a nannied sport anyway, so maybe killing a few people is justified.

ArrowsFA1

26th August 2008, 07:29

Sure Ferrari let Massa go too quickly but Sutil didn't even have to change his line and Massa dropped back behind the Force India.
I think the issue was that potentially Ferrari released Massa into the path of Sutil. There was no collision because there was enough space for them to go side by side down the pitlane until Massa had no other option other than to pull in behind the Force India. There was no obligation for Sutil to change his line or brake because the onus is on the driver exiting a pit box to do so safely.

The tv commentators mentioned that the pitlane was comparatively narrow and had Ferrari been at the other end Massa could not have gone side by side with Sutil. Had he done so the consequences could have been more serious, and therefore it is right that he was reprimanded and the team fined.

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 08:41

You don't seem to get it. You can look at the lights or not look at them, but the lollipop is right there in front of you. Yes some drivers have gone regardless but it's a different system.

When each crew member presses a button he is saying

"My job is done, the car can go without injuring me"

Whereas with a lollipop there is a person who has a good view of what is happening at the rear of the car and of traffic coming down the pit lane says "All work is done, you can go without injuring anyone and the pit lane is clear for you" the added bonus is that the driver will ALWAYS be looking at the lollipop whereas the lights are not really as close to the centre of their field of view. Systems like this with lights are used in the DTM and all it causes is problems.

Obviously it was human error.... it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that one out. It's about having a system which makes human error less likely. The light system clearly isn't the best.

Works both ways, with a lollipop man all it takes is a slight twitch and the driver may react. With the light it goes green when its ready.

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 08:45

Penalize the driver for the team's fault even though he didn't get any advantage out of it? Well it wouldn't be the first time.

It would however be the first time in recent times that a driver get's a penalty for going side by side with another car in the pit lane, after such things happened several times, and weren't even investigated in the past.

Exactly what I think!

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 08:51

While this incident was in no way Massa's fault, I'm appalled that they've got away with it. Yes, the incident in no way would have affected the result as Sutil was a lap down, but it sets the precedent that it's fine to release your car into the path of another if you're in the lead of the race.
The punishment of a 10,000 euro fine is comical. That's the same amount they fined Alonso for getting his entry to the pit lane slightly wrong.

Though I am glad Massa escaped punishment. I don't think the stewards should have punished Ferrari end of.

At end of day, there is a rule in place, and Ferrari broke it, but so have all other teams over past seasons. And they haven't been punished.

If the FIA want to clamp down on this, send an email to all the teams, tell them it won't be tolerated and a drive / through will be standard penalty, and then if it happens punish them, but you can't suddenly decide to punish them.

Last time a driver was punished for unsafe release was Ralf Schumacher in Imola 2005. He endured a 25s penalty added to his race, though he did gain a sporting advantage as he had originally finished in 6th ahead of heidfield (the driver he was dangerously released in front of).

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 09:01

Massa should get the "Stupid Comment of the Year" award for saying in the post race press conference that the pit incident was Sutil's fault.

Haha yeh I thought that was silly. Though I can see the point he was making, it was wrong in my view.

That said, his win was under investigation at the time, he was hardly going to take full blame, as he wouldn't have had a defence if he was penalised harshly. That said....driving a Ferrari a harsh penalty was unlikely.

leopard

26th August 2008, 09:03

There isn't any written rules when driving at narrowing road from 2 to 1 lane who should take the lane first. The most important thing is all drivers give respect to others and refrain from being involved in accident or further crowded.
I think in competition like F1 Massa was only limited to perform the task to take every effort to be in front of anybody. Once he felt somebody has taken the lane then he decided to recoil from the battle exiting pitlane.

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 09:07

Have you got one shred of evidence or is this 100% fantasy?

As for the incident, I struggle with why Massa has not been punished.

In the GP2 race, I think 2 drivers were penalised for dangerous driving such as this. The punishment was a pit penalty. The precedent was set.

We all saw the results of drivers releasing from the pit side by side in Canada. It is unsafe and in the kimi example, I suggest it contributed to a Pit lane incident.

This sort of thing is dangerous and shouldn't happen. With the Ferrari release process, it is the drivers final decision to go. We are seeing that the Ferrari drivers do not have the responsibility to make that decision.

And then, to blame it on some poor smuck that happened to be minding his business driving down the Pit lane :laugh:

Yet, because it's FIAarri...

Knock On, the final decision is made by someone on the pitwall. They have sensors on all the parts such as fuel nozzle which says ready when its released, and the tyre guys push a button when ready. Once they're all green, a human decisiion is made as to whether its safe to go or not, and when he pushes a button it goes green.

So its not the drivers final decision (albeit Kimi did yesterday). I suppose you could argue it is, but they'll only go when it goes green, which is a decision made on pit wall.

Also, at end of day, GP2 and F1 are different. Just because something happens in GP2 you can't expect the same in F1. You got to look at it as all other drivers who have raced out of pits in F1 haven't been penalised, even when Alonso and Vettel in Germany - where Vetal forced Alonso over the white line!

If the FIA want to penalise this thing, they must let all the teams know this won't be tolerated any mroe. And then start penalising it.

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 09:20

And since the permanent steward was appointed no driver was penalized for going side by side in the pit lane. It looks consistent to me.

Don't get me wrong Ioan, I'm glad Massa wasn't penalised. But Stewards decisions have been an absolute shambles.

They investigated him for unsafe driving. They decided to not punish him because he gained no sporting advantage!

Erm....they both totally different matters. Its like arresting someone for stealing in a shop, and letting him go because he hasn't murdered anyone!

They unrelated. What happened, did they decide whether it was dangerous or not? Presumably they decided it was hence the 10,000 fine.

But why fine Ferrari when other teams have done exactly the same but no punishment, not even an investigation?

There is absolutely no consistancy, and this isn't a dig at Ferrari, I don't think Ferrari should have been fined at all! Its a dig at the Stewards and FIA.

The worse is Magny Cours this year, when Hamilton was penalised for SAVING a position by cutting a chicane. I think that was correct, he saved a place, he should be penalised. But what I was annoyed at is that Schumacher did exactly the same in Hungary 2006 with Heidfeld, but no penalty. Why? Because they only penalise if you GAIN a place, if you save a place, it doesn't matter.

Its a shambles, F1 is meant to be the top class of motor-racing, and we have a policing system, which can't stick to one rule for all, it varies, and theres a tendency for McLaren to lose out in its varieties.

All I know is that if the UK laws were as inconsistant as the FIA and Stewards decision - the country would be rioting, and thats the UK - who never riot about anything, just tend to take things lying down!

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 09:24

Can't agree with you there. I think DC would be eminently suitable as a candidate for permanent Steward. I would trust DC to give a totally unbiased judgment on any incident.

Nah I can't agree, some of his opinions regarding incidents he has been involved in, have come across pretty biased.

I forgot which one (he's been in so many this year) where he was 100% in the wrong, and declared it racing incident both to blame. Which was clearly not the case!

Knock-on

26th August 2008, 09:28

Knock On, the final decision is made by someone on the pitwall. They have sensors on all the parts such as fuel nozzle which says ready when its released, and the tyre guys push a button when ready. Once they're all green, a human decisiion is made as to whether its safe to go or not, and when he pushes a button it goes green.

OK, I may be wrong on this then.

I know there is a sequence of buttons that have to be pressed for the light to go green but when it first came out, I thought there was a rear facing camera to inform the driver it was clear.

If there isn't a rear facing camera, then I take it back about it being Massa's fault.

However, I maintain that if a GP2 driver gets penalised for an unsafe pit release, then it should be the same for a F1 driver. It's either safe or it isn't.

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 09:41

OK, I may be wrong on this then.

I know there is a sequence of buttons that have to be pressed for the light to go green but when it first came out, I thought there was a rear facing camera to inform the driver it was clear.

If there isn't a rear facing camera, then I take it back about it being Massa's fault.

However, I maintain that if a GP2 driver gets penalised for an unsafe pit release, then it should be the same for a F1 driver. It's either safe or it isn't.

I've seen footage, and it is literally just a traffic light system, no videos or anything. And not sure where you are from, but ITV coverage spoke to Luca (something Italian) from the pitwall, who explained exactly how the system worked, and comfirmed its a human decision from the pitwall who makes final decision of the final green light.

I agree, if its dangerous you should be penalised, but you can't choose when to penalise them. There have been a number of dangerous incidents over the past 3 years, yet no punishment for similar incidents since Imola 2005.

You can't not punish some drivers, and punish others. You either don't tolerate it, or you let it happen. If you do tolerate it, and all of a sudden have a change of heart, you got to give a warning its not accepted, you can't suddenly start punishing them.

And in F1, its never been punished since early 2005.

So I see your point and agree, if dangerous should be punished. But you can't choose when to punish, you apply the same rule to everyone, and punishing Massa yesterday simply wouldn't be fair.

Can you see my point of view?

Knock-on

26th August 2008, 10:44

I've seen footage, and it is literally just a traffic light system, no videos or anything. And not sure where you are from, but ITV coverage spoke to Luca (something Italian) from the pitwall, who explained exactly how the system worked, and comfirmed its a human decision from the pitwall who makes final decision of the final green light.

I agree, if its dangerous you should be penalised, but you can't choose when to penalise them. There have been a number of dangerous incidents over the past 3 years, yet no punishment for similar incidents since Imola 2005.

You can't not punish some drivers, and punish others. You either don't tolerate it, or you let it happen. If you do tolerate it, and all of a sudden have a change of heart, you got to give a warning its not accepted, you can't suddenly start punishing them.

And in F1, its never been punished since early 2005.

So I see your point and agree, if dangerous should be punished. But you can't choose when to punish, you apply the same rule to everyone, and punishing Massa yesterday simply wouldn't be fair.

Can you see my point of view?

I see your point of view perfectly.

I have not changed my view on this over the years to suit my point of view as some others have.

With the Kimi incident in Canada, I was critical that cars are released side by side. However, some here argued that it was safe even though having 2 cars side by side resulted in an accident that would have been avoided has they been in line.

Don't get me wrong, I place the blame squarely at Lewis's door for that one but if they were inline as they should have been, he would have been able to swerve around the stationary cars. OK, he might have crossed the line and been disqualified but at least Kimi would have been able to continue his race.

Then we have Valencia where Massa is released and nearly clouts another car which I believe had to avoid the Ferrari, nearly collecting the wall in the process.

Sorry, but this is not safe practice. Cars coming out side by side has resulted in accidents and sooner or later, someone will be injured.

The only way to stop drivers doing it is for the FIA to do something.

Daniel

26th August 2008, 10:53

Don't get me wrong, I place the blame squarely at Lewis's door for that one but if they were inline as they should have been, he would have been able to swerve around the stationary cars. OK, he might have crossed the line and been disqualified but at least Kimi would have been able to continue his race.

Yeah and I blame the wall for Senna's fatal crash. Whatever.....

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 10:57

I see your point of view perfectly.

I have not changed my view on this over the years to suit my point of view as some others have.

With the Kimi incident in Canada, I was critical that cars are released side by side. However, some here argued that it was safe even though having 2 cars side by side resulted in an accident that would have been avoided has they been in line.

Don't get me wrong, I place the blame squarely at Lewis's door for that one but if they were inline as they should have been, he would have been able to swerve around the stationary cars. OK, he might have crossed the line and been disqualified but at least Kimi would have been able to continue his race.

Then we have Valencia where Massa is released and nearly clouts another car which I believe had to avoid the Ferrari, nearly collecting the wall in the process.

Sorry, but this is not safe practice. Cars coming out side by side has resulted in accidents and sooner or later, someone will be injured.

The only way to stop drivers doing it is for the FIA to do something.

Thats fair enough then. I too blame the stewards and FIA - if they want to clamp down on this, they should tell the teams this will not be tolereated, and then start punishing them.

Do you think it would have been right to penalise Massa when no other drivers have been penalised for exactly the same thing this season, last season, 2006, most of 2005 and beyond>?

Daniel

26th August 2008, 11:09

Knock-on

26th August 2008, 11:34

Thats fair enough then. I too blame the stewards and FIA - if they want to clamp down on this, they should tell the teams this will not be tolereated, and then start punishing them.

Do you think it would have been right to penalise Massa when no other drivers have been penalised for exactly the same thing this season, last season, 2006, most of 2005 and beyond>?

Now, I may well be wrong but I thought pit lane incidents were raised in the Drivers briefing. However, that was just what I heard and have no evidence.

Obviously, if Massa had of collided, this would be a totally different matter but he didn't.

I appreciate what people are saying but this really needs cracking down on and it is the job of the FIA to do this. However, as there was no accident, the FIA will probably let it slide until someone gets hurt :rolleyes:

For example, in 07, Massa had a similar problem with blue lights / flag that Lewis had. However, although he was penalised, the FIA did sod all about it. Then in 08, Lewis crashes.

What's the betting that in 09, the blue lights / flags will be different in Canada?

We have this incident and there is nearly an accident as has happened before but nothing is done as you point out.

IF there had been a warning from the FIA then I dont see why he wasn't punished. A few euro's isn't punishment and wont stop this occurring.

BUT, if there wasn't a warning and drivers in other series haven't been punished by time penalties, then it would seem harsh to single Massa out.

As for this not being Massa's fault, then I have a lot of sympathy with this as it seems there isn't a rear facing camera as I thought. However, it is a team game and the driver is part of this team. He is also the one that determines a teams success therefore it's futile penalising a team and not the driver in my opinion unless the driver is deceived.

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 12:39

When it will give Hamilton an advantage? Yes Knock on does see it as being fair to penalise his rivals even if others have done the same thing before without penalty.

Come on guys, debate the topic but don't throw insults, we've already had one interesting topic closed because you guys couldn't keep it F1 related :)

Thats to both you and Knock On btw :)

PolePosition_1

26th August 2008, 12:46

Now, I may well be wrong but I thought pit lane incidents were raised in the Drivers briefing. However, that was just what I heard and have no evidence.

Obviously, if Massa had of collided, this would be a totally different matter but he didn't.

I appreciate what people are saying but this really needs cracking down on and it is the job of the FIA to do this. However, as there was no accident, the FIA will probably let it slide until someone gets hurt :rolleyes:

For example, in 07, Massa had a similar problem with blue lights / flag that Lewis had. However, although he was penalised, the FIA did sod all about it. Then in 08, Lewis crashes.

What's the betting that in 09, the blue lights / flags will be different in Canada?

We have this incident and there is nearly an accident as has happened before but nothing is done as you point out.

IF there had been a warning from the FIA then I dont see why he wasn't punished. A few euro's isn't punishment and wont stop this occurring.

BUT, if there wasn't a warning and drivers in other series haven't been punished by time penalties, then it would seem harsh to single Massa out.

As for this not being Massa's fault, then I have a lot of sympathy with this as it seems there isn't a rear facing camera as I thought. However, it is a team game and the driver is part of this team. He is also the one that determines a teams success therefore it's futile penalising a team and not the driver in my opinion unless the driver is deceived.

Again, I agree with you.

But its an issue for the FIA to bring up and sort out.

I must be honest, I haven't come across this being discussed already, if that is the case I would agree with your point bit more. But I aint heard this being discussed and teams warned, and without a link to show me its true, I'm going to disregard it as rumours. I try to base my opinions purely on known facts, just so I don't get wrong end of the story.

Thats not a dig, just my explanation :) .

At end of the day, its the FIA's job to control this. They've choosen not to in the past, so unfair to suddenly start punishing it with no warning when they choose.

Massa and Ferrari shouldn't be a victim to the stewards doing a poor job :) .

Knock-on

26th August 2008, 12:57

Again, I agree with you.

But its an issue for the FIA to bring up and sort out.

I must be honest, I haven't come across this being discussed already, if that is the case I would agree with your point bit more. But I aint heard this being discussed and teams warned, and without a link to show me its true, I'm going to disregard it as rumours. I try to base my opinions purely on known facts, just so I don't get wrong end of the story.

Thats not a dig, just my explanation :) .

At end of the day, its the FIA's job to control this. They've chosen not to in the past, so unfair to suddenly start punishing it with no warning when they choose.

Massa and Ferrari shouldn't be a victim to the stewards doing a poor job :) .

I agree that it's the FIA's job to sort this out.

As I said, I cannot substantiate the briefing story so please do treat it as rumour. I wouldn't dream of claiming something I couldn't back up.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must agree that it would be harsh to penalise Massa if the drivers hadn't been warned about doing it.

He was obviously punished but unless and until the FIA sort this out, it would (on reflection) be unfair to penalise him further.

pino

26th August 2008, 13:05

I agree that it's the FIA's job to sort this out.

As I said, I cannot substantiate the briefing story so please do treat it as rumour. I wouldn't dream of claiming something I couldn't back up.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must agree that it would be harsh to penalise Massa if the drivers hadn't been warned about doing it.

He was obviously punished but unless and until the FIA sort this out, it would (on reflection) be unfair to penalise him further.

You can be a great poster when you want to be :up: ;)

Knock-on

26th August 2008, 13:22

You can be a great poster when you want to be :up: ;)

I just get fed up with people that cant be bothered to debate in a rational manner ;)

PoleP does :up:

ioan

26th August 2008, 13:47

I think the issue was that potentially Ferrari released Massa into the path of Sutil.

I think you should check out a dictionary for understanding what "into the path" of someone or something means.
I can tell you off hand that it doesn't mean "along his/her/it's side".

ioan

26th August 2008, 13:50

For example, in 07, Massa had a similar problem with blue lights / flag that Lewis had. However, although he was penalised, the FIA did sod all about it. Then in 08, Lewis crashes.

It was a red light, he was penalized = the FIA did more than sod about it.

Dave B

26th August 2008, 13:56

It was a red light, he was penalized = the FIA did more than sod about it.
I think Knockie means that while it's true that the FIA penalised drivers who jumped the red light, they did sod-all about the underlying cause ie drivers not noticing a bright red LED cluster for whatever reason.

Did the lights need to be brighter? Re-situated? Backed up with an audible system? Something else? As far as I am aware the FIA did not investigate this.

ioan

26th August 2008, 14:08

I think Knockie means that while it's true that the FIA penalised drivers who jumped the red light, they did sod-all about the underlying cause ie drivers not noticing a bright red LED cluster for whatever reason.

Did the lights need to be brighter? Re-situated? Backed up with an audible system? Something else? As far as I am aware the FIA did not investigate this.

Well, plenty of people jump or just go over a red light on the road. Did the police do anything about it?

I think we shouldn't criticize the FIA for drivers that ignored or chose to ignore a red light. The FIA can't get into the driver's head and change his capacity of concentration.

The red light is there and it should be enough.
The only thing the FIA could do is mandate a barrier with red lights all over it and hope that no one will run into, not very safe I would say.

Knock-on

26th August 2008, 14:26

Well, plenty of people jump or just go over a red light on the road. Did the police do anything about it?

I think we shouldn't criticize the FIA for drivers that ignored or chose to ignore a red light. The FIA can't get into the driver's head and change his capacity of concentration.

The red light is there and it should be enough.
The only thing the FIA could do is mandate a barrier with red lights all over it and hope that no one will run into, not very safe I would say.

Dave is quite right as was perfectly apparent by me saying that Massa was penalised but the FIA did nothing about it i.e. the underlying cause.

Canada seems to cause a lot of confusion with drivers at the end of the pit. I can think of 4 issues over the last few years.

Now there has been a crash, we might see some action from them.

With the recent Massa incident, the FIA find him guilty but seem to do nothing to stop it happening apart from a mild slap on the wrist.

Until drivers get properly penalised, the teams wont take it seriously.

Knock-on

26th August 2008, 14:31

Well, plenty of people jump or just go over a red light on the road. Did the police do anything about it?

:rolleyes: Here we go again.

If the police catch you in the UK, you receive points and a fine. 4 minor incidents and you get banned.

So, that 1 for Massa, another 3 incidents and we ban him. Is that what you're saying?

Of course, if it's a serious incident like a crash resulting in injury because of a drivers error, the driver is likely to get a lenghty ban.

How is the ferrari fuel man?

I think we shouldn't criticize the FIA for drivers that ignored or chose to ignore a red light. The FIA can't get into the driver's head and change his capacity of concentration.

The red light is there and it should be enough.
The only thing the FIA could do is mandate a barrier with red lights all over it and hope that no one will run into, not very safe I would say.

That is probably the most interesting post you have ever written. Of course, I don't mean interesting but rather than pick up any more points... well you get the picture ;)

ioan

26th August 2008, 14:35

The Ferrari fuel man has a broken ankle or something like that.

Knock-on

26th August 2008, 14:40

The Ferrari fuel man has a broken ankle or something like that.

Well, I hope he gets better soon and is back in the Pit with his team.

I don't agree with you that drivers on a F1 circuit should be subject to the same rules as a civillian driver on the roads otherwise Kimi would probably be banned.

Good thing some of us are a bit more realistic about these things.

ioan

26th August 2008, 14:51

I don't agree with you that drivers on a F1 circuit should be subject to the same rules as a civillian driver on the roads otherwise Kimi would probably be banned.

Where did I say that?! :mad:

Knock-on

26th August 2008, 15:02

Where did I say that?! :mad:

Well, plenty of people jump or just go over a red light on the road. Did the police do anything about it?

You seem to think that if people jump a red light on the roads, that the Police do nothing about it.

I merely pointed out that if they catch them, they penalise them and if they cause a crash where someone is hurt, the driver would probably lose his licence if he's doing something against the rules (law).

By comparing civil regulations to racing ones, the punishment for Kimi would be a ban whereas I don't think that is justified at all.

ioan

26th August 2008, 15:06

You seem to think that if people jump a red light on the roads, that the Police do nothing about it.

I merely pointed out that if they catch them, they penalise them and if they cause a crash where someone is hurt, the driver would probably lose his licence if he's doing something against the rules (law).

By comparing civil regulations to racing ones, the punishment for Kimi would be a ban whereas I don't think that is justified at all.

I wasn't comparing civil regulations with racing ones.
Why do you put words in others mouth?!

Here's what you said:

I don't agree with you that drivers on a F1 circuit should be subject to the same rules as a civillian driver on the roads otherwise Kimi would probably be banned.

Or I never said that, in any way. So stop talking rubbish.

Knock-on

26th August 2008, 15:16

I wasn't comparing civil regulations with racing ones.
Why do you put words in others mouth?!

Here's what you said:

Or I never said that, in any way. So stop talking rubbish.

You use an example to justify your point of view and then accuse someone of talking rubbish (which is a personal insult) when they use your example in an alternative incident.

I'm sorry, can you please explain what your comment about the Police not prosecuting drivers who jump red lights and how it relates to F1 for me as I'm confused.

ioan

26th August 2008, 16:42

You use an example to justify your point of view and then accuse someone of talking rubbish (which is a personal insult) when they use your example in an alternative incident.

I'm sorry, can you please explain what your comment about the Police not prosecuting drivers who jump red lights and how it relates to F1 for me as I'm confused.

Well excuse me of accusing you of something you are clearly guilty.

Bagwan

26th August 2008, 17:32

Ioan , Knock , put down those handbags right now .

Your argument is rubbish .

Felipe should not have been released at that moment .
But , likewise , Felipe , having been released , should not have tried to force the issue .

There does need to be a standard distance that is designated as the zone around which a driver already released and in the lane gets . Go into that zone and be sanctioned .
Deemed to be dangerous is too nebulous . Deemed to have been released into the safe zone is easily quantifiable .

ioan

26th August 2008, 18:33

There does need to be a standard distance that is designated as the zone around which a driver already released and in the lane gets . Go into that zone and be sanctioned .
Deemed to be dangerous is too nebulous . Deemed to have been released into the safe zone is easily quantifiable .

Agreed. They should paint transverse lines on the pit lane, at a certain distance that is deemed to be safe.
No car should leave the pit box as long as this distance will not be kept, unless it's about cars in consecutive pit boxes.

Hazell B

26th August 2008, 20:13

Tell me what your silly vendetta with Ben has to do with F1, I'm listening :)

Jeez, this thread's gotten long since yesterday!

I'll not tell you anything, you're sticking your nose in once too often there.

Now, again, why wasn't my post F1 related? You might aswell just admit you read it wrongly, or that you're keen to start a row with me. Stop being so childish :mark:

Anyway, back on topic.
I'd wondered about ioan's suggested lines painted on the surface (to show distance) when a car pulled out earlier in the season. Thing is, I'm not so sure their mirrors would allow them to see the lines. Maybe making the mirrors bigger is part of the 09 regulations anyway, I don't know, but as it stands lines probably wouldn't work very well without a man standing with his pitboard looking at them - which is back to an old system of course.

ArrowsFA1

26th August 2008, 20:20

Agreed. They should paint transverse lines on the pit lane, at a certain distance that is deemed to be safe.
No car should leave the pit box as long as this distance will not be kept, unless it's about cars in consecutive pit boxes.
This is a difficult one :dozey: On the one hand the wording of the relevant rule is vague - something that is remarkably familiar when it comes to FIA rules. It allows "interpretation".

Exactly when is it "unsafe" to release a driver back into the pitlane after a pit stop? As it turned out there was nothing unsafe in the Massa/Sutill incident. There was no collision, no-one in the pitlane was hurt and both cars re-joined the race.

However, as I mentioned before, had Ferrari been situated at the other end of the pitlane this kind of situation could either 1) not have happened because surely Ferrari would have realised they could not have released Massa until Sutil had gone by, or 2) the cars could have collided with consequences unknown. There simply was no space for two cars to go side by side the length of the pitlane.

So, the fact that Ferrari were at the end of the pitlane rather than the beginning allowed Massa to exit his pit box. Perhaps, given that the pitlane was narrower than is usual, this was a factor in the team deciding where they wanted to be. Remember, it's Ferrari's choice as WCCs, and perhaps they felt the far end would give their drivers the best opportunity of a quicker exit. This may explain Massa pointing the finger of blame at Sutil, because we all know how crucial pitstops are to the outcome of races!

On the other hand I don't want to see yet more restrictive rules that determine what teams/drivers can or can't do. There are already enough of those! Surely, the relevant rule can be made clear enough for everyone to understand, and consistent penalties applied when the rule is broken.

BDunnell

26th August 2008, 21:56

Jeez, this thread's gotten long since yesterday!

I'll not tell you anything, you're sticking your nose in once too often there.

I think you're making it out to be a bit more than it is, really. Daniel, if you're still wondering, all it is is that I don't like Hazell and she doesn't like me — as far as one can dislike someone you've never met in person. All the 'encounters' we had to form these views of one another can be found on the forums if you can be arsed.

Anyway, back on topic.

ioan

26th August 2008, 22:04

Jeez, this thread's gotten long since yesterday!

I'll not tell you anything, you're sticking your nose in once too often there.

Now, again, why wasn't my post F1 related? You might aswell just admit you read it wrongly, or that you're keen to start a row with me. Stop being so childish :mark:

Anyway, back on topic.
I'd wondered about ioan's suggested lines painted on the surface (to show distance) when a car pulled out earlier in the season. Thing is, I'm not so sure their mirrors would allow them to see the lines. Maybe making the mirrors bigger is part of the 09 regulations anyway, I don't know, but as it stands lines probably wouldn't work very well without a man standing with his pitboard looking at them - which is back to an old system of course.

The mirrors are OK, it's up to the team to release the car when the requirements are met, and the team needs no mirrors for that, just brain.

PSfan

27th August 2008, 01:37

Oh how I miss those fancy lolipops Ferrari had, that was a mirror on the backside so a driver could see what was happening around him during pit stops...

I wonder how big an lcd screen Ferrari could hang off that "pit light" thingy, with a cam on it so a driver could see whats behind him before going... Might be an expensive solution to a problem created by eliminating the lolipop guy, but isn't that the ferrari and formula 1 way?

jens

27th August 2008, 09:02

I don't know, what's the big deal about this "incident" and why do we need so many posts about it in this thread. We have seen several times drivers going side-by-side on the pitlane.

It's hard to blame Massa for that, because for a driver, who is having a pitstop, it's hard to see, where the other car is. He was just following the lights. I may agree that with lollipop this wouldn't have happened, because the lollipop guy would have seen that Force India. However, the mechanics, who are working with the car, don't have time to watch other cars on the pitlane and just press the button, when their own task is fulfilled.

Dave B

27th August 2008, 09:35

Agreed. They should paint transverse lines on the pit lane, at a certain distance that is deemed to be safe.
No car should leave the pit box as long as this distance will not be kept, unless it's about cars in consecutive pit boxes.
We have these on some motorways and major roads in the UK, with the instruction to "keep 2 chevrons apart". (I got flashed doing 135mph trying to catch up with the car a few miles ahead, but that's a different story... :p )

I can't see it working in an F1 pit lane as the drivers can barely see the front of their own cars, let alone any markings on the road. Besides, I'd rather they were concentrating on the myriad other distractions in the pit lane, not on road markings.

Daniel

27th August 2008, 09:37

Dave B

27th August 2008, 09:42

Yes. And the lollipop man should allow a bunch of schoolkids to cross :p

BDunnell

27th August 2008, 10:03

ioan

27th August 2008, 11:05

We have these on some motorways and major roads in the UK, with the instruction to "keep 2 chevrons apart". (I got flashed doing 135mph trying to catch up with the car a few miles ahead, but that's a different story... :p )

I can't see it working in an F1 pit lane as the drivers can barely see the front of their own cars, let alone any markings on the road. Besides, I'd rather they were concentrating on the myriad other distractions in the pit lane, not on road markings.

Now now, we all know (or at least should know) that releasing a car from the pits isn't the driver's decision, and I bet that the lollipop man can see those stripes pretty well!

I name the stripes solution because this would give a measure for handing out penalties. You kept the distance, fine! You didn't? The team get's docked 50% of it's points for the race! They are not in a point winning position? A hefty fine!

What's so complicated? The stripes are there to be seen for everyone, the protest? You show them the video. Case closed.

Dave B

27th August 2008, 11:11

Now now, we all know (or at least should know) that releasing a car from the pits isn't the driver's decision, and I bet that the lollipop man can see those stripes pretty well!

I name the stripes solution because this would give a measure for handing out penalties. You kept the distance, fine! You didn't? The team get's docked 50% of it's points for the race! They are not in a point winning position? A hefty fine!

What's so complicated? The stripes are there to be seen for everyone, the protest? You show them the video. Case closed.

I appreciate what you're suggesting is an absolutely quantifyable system which would remove any subjectivity from the decision - much like the white line which seperates the pit exit from the race track. :up:

ioan

27th August 2008, 11:19

I appreciate what you're suggesting is an absolutely quantifyable system which would remove any subjectivity from the decision - much like the white line which seperates the pit exit from the race track. :up:

Exactly! It would be a black and white system. No place for ambiguity!
I would like however to see their discussions when they have to decide the safety distance! :D

ShiftingGears

27th August 2008, 11:28

PolePosition_1

27th August 2008, 11:33

That pit stop situation has unfolded multiple times in the past, and nothing has come of them. No big deal. The main issue is whether the time advantage of the electronic Ferrari system outweighs the advantages of the lollipop man.

Considering its a human decision whether to let the driver out with the Ferrari system and an old fashioned lollipop system. And the Ferrari system saves 0.3s according to Ferrari, the electronic system is faster, and saves one extra guy in potential danger.

That said, BMW are officially the fastest pitters in the paddock, using a good old fashioned lollipop man.

SGWilko

27th August 2008, 12:06

Well, plenty of people jump or just go over a red light on the road. Did the police do anything about it?

I think we shouldn't criticize the FIA for drivers that ignored or chose to ignore a red light. The FIA can't get into the driver's head and change his capacity of concentration.

The red light is there and it should be enough.
The only thing the FIA could do is mandate a barrier with red lights all over it and hope that no one will run into, not very safe I would say.

To make a point, I will digress from F1 for a moment.

Take ANY railway infrastructure, in any country, and I bet you there are lots of SPADS - signals passed at danger. It is not because the drivers are numpties, it is all to do with signal aspect. SN109 at Paddington is a case in point - how many people died?

So, if the multiple incidents at Canada are due to aspect issues, perhaps they should flipping well change the aspect.

Seems reasonably obvious to me.

Bagwan

27th August 2008, 13:04

Agreed. They should paint transverse lines on the pit lane, at a certain distance that is deemed to be safe.
No car should leave the pit box as long as this distance will not be kept, unless it's about cars in consecutive pit boxes.

Alrighty then , we have a system .

But , just remember , my friend , that this was OUR idea , not just yours .
When Max asks who came up with this , and asks who should be paid for the idea , don't forget who came in with the concept .

I can think of a few things on which I could spend the money . How about you ?

ioan

27th August 2008, 13:40

Alrighty then , we have a system .

But , just remember , my friend , that this was OUR idea , not just yours .
When Max asks who came up with this , and asks who should be paid for the idea , don't forget who came in with the concept .

I can think of a few things on which I could spend the money . How about you ?

:)

28th August 2008, 17:37

28th August 2008, 17:47

It's not beyond the wit of man, or F1, to find someone who is fair, balanced and consistent without consideration of their background.

For someone who usually supplies the wisdom, clarity and objectivity the rest of us so surely lack, I find it surprising that you think a man who "is fair, balanced and consistent without consideration of their background" would ever get a Paddock Pass in the first place.

F1 wouldn't know what somebody like that looked like.

gloomyDAY

28th August 2008, 17:49

For someone who usually supplies the wisdom, clarity and objectivity the rest of us so surely lack, I find it surprising that you think a man who "is fair, balanced and consistent without consideration of their background" would ever get a Paddock Pass in the first place.

F1 wouldn't know what somebody like that looked like. :laugh:

PolePosition_1

30th August 2008, 17:39

Surely the precedent was set by fining Alonso 10,000 Euro's?

GP2 is a seperate category of racing with it's own rule book.

As for FIAarri....don't suppose you have "one shred of evidence" or is this "100% fantasy"?

Typical Mac-Hypocrite!

To my understanding the GP2 series are monitored by the same stewards as the F1 race. And they deemed it appropriate to give drive / throughs in that race for very similar incidents.

Though I disagree that Massa should be punished, I can see why some say he should have been.

Can anyone confirm if GP2 is regulated by FIA regulations in same way as F1 or not?

31st August 2008, 11:11

Can anyone confirm if GP2 is regulated by FIA regulations in same way as F1 or not?

If it was, then it would be called Formula One, the cars would be Formula One cars and every aspect of a GP2 race weekend would be identical to Formula One.

The GP2 regulations are different because it is a different series and different formula.

F1 does not do reverse top-eight sprint races, F1 has fuel-stops, F1 has two types of tyre compounds, F1 has a knock-out qualifying system, F1 is not a single-chassis, single-engine supplier formula, F1 drivers need a super-licence, etc, etc, etc.

Therefore it obviously has different regulations to GP2, where the exact opposite to the examples given above is true.

Now, if you could find an example of a F1 driver being penalised for an "unsafe" pit release with anything other than a fine, then there is reason to have a discussion about the inconsistencies of the race stewards.

But comparing a GP2 race stewards decisions to the F1 race stewards as an example of inconsistency in decisions is like doing the same comparison to the decisions of the referees in Rugby League compared to Rugby Union or Billiards to Pool.

In other words, utterly worthless.

PolePosition_1

31st August 2008, 11:17

Now, if you could find an example of a F1 driver being penalised for an "unsafe" pit release with anything other than a fine, then there is reason to have a discussion about the inconsistencies of the race stewards.

Imola 2005. Ralf Schumacher was added 25 seconds to his final race time for unsafe pit release into Nick Heidfeld.

31st August 2008, 11:26

Imola 2005. Ralf Schumacher was added 25 seconds to his final race time for unsafe pit release into Nick Heidfeld.

Ok, that's more like it.

Now, was it the same stewards as at Valencia, have the sporting regulations remained the same, was Heidfield a lap down and do you have a video link so we can compare the two?

http://www.toyota-f1.com/public/en/gp2005/04_sanmarino/release/4_press3.html

"The team will however work together with the FIA and the other teams to further clarify what constitutes the 'safe release' of the car by the competitor following a pit stop at the subsequent Team Managers meeting"

Dave B

31st August 2008, 15:55

BDunnell

31st August 2008, 16:04

Before you go off on a sarcastic rant you really should re-read the question.

:up:

31st August 2008, 16:55

Before you go off on a sarcastic rant you really should re-read the question. PP asked if they're regulated in the same way and by the same body, not whether the regulations are the same.

The FIA also regulate World Rallying, but you may notice that the rules and cars are somewhat different. ;)

Thank you for confirming that which I was sarcastically ranting about, which was, for those who claim others should re-read things but evidently can't themselves, that no two series are regulated in the same way.

31st August 2008, 17:06

SGWilko

1st September 2008, 09:12

Ok, that's more like it.

Now, was it the same stewards as at Valencia, have the sporting regulations remained the same, was Heidfield a lap down and do you have a video link so we can compare the two?

Now you are thinking like a race steward..... ;) An unsafe release is an unsafe release. It should not matter who was the victim.

Consistency is what is required, and what we fail to get, race in, race out.

Knock-on

1st September 2008, 09:18

Thank you for confirming that which I was sarcastically ranting about, which was, for those who claim others should re-read things but evidently can't themselves, that no two series are regulated in the same way.

One of the key purposes and objectives of the FIA is try and get racing series to use common regulations such as:

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 0clean.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/917D67F70F1C5EE7C12573B7003DCEC5/$FILE/CSI%20modif%20ap%20AGO%20oct%2007%20ANG%20-%20Applic.%2001.01.08%20-%20clean.pdf)

(Remember 151C)

However, because they refuse to follow their own codes, it's not surprising that competitors at FIA sanctiond events are treated differently. :D

It really is a joke. ;)

ioan

1st September 2008, 10:35

ioan

1st September 2008, 10:37

Imola 2005. Ralf Schumacher was added 25 seconds to his final race time for unsafe pit release into Nick Heidfeld.

Previously this season 3 times cars went down the pit lane and once also the pit exit road, side by side. Not once were they penalized.
Still you think a 2005 event is more of a precedent than a few months old ones?!

Knock-on

1st September 2008, 11:26

Some people simply can't give up being bad losers.
It must hurt them Lewy fanboys a lot that their idol didn't win it on a stewards decision, after being nowhere near on the track.
Bugger off you pussies! :D :p :

Unfortunately, the Report Post button doesn't seem to work so I just want to post that this is a personal attack using foul language and I have been asked not to respond to this sort of flagrant forum rule violations.

-End-

PolePosition_1

1st September 2008, 12:37

Ok, that's more like it.

Now, was it the same stewards as at Valencia, have the sporting regulations remained the same, was Heidfield a lap down and do you have a video link so we can compare the two?

http://www.toyota-f1.com/public/en/gp2005/04_sanmarino/release/4_press3.html

"The team will however work together with the FIA and the other teams to further clarify what constitutes the 'safe release' of the car by the competitor following a pit stop at the subsequent Team Managers meeting"

Considering the stewards are never the same at each event. No they not the same stewards.

Heidfeld and Ralf were racing for position.

I cannot find a video link, the words Schumacher (Ralf), Imola 2005 only produce results of the thrilling battle of Alonso vs Schuamcher.

I can only guess they stated no sporting advantage to Massa because with Ralfs case he did gain a sporting advantage.

But to my knowledge they penalised Ralf for the unsafe release, not the sporting advantage gained.

PolePosition_1

1st September 2008, 12:41

Did Sutil have to brake hard? No.

"At the last pit-stop Ralf Schumacher got in front of me by forcing me to brake hard and avoid a crash."

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2005/04/24/disappointment-for-williams-at-imola/

Very different scenarios, so therefore different penalties.

But both were penalised for unsafe release. Same crime, different punishment.

I'm not having a go at Massa, I'm glad he wasn't penalised. But the FIA and Stewards really need some kind of framework to work from to avoid such sitautions.

Flexibility is essential, but at moment its too much, we need to tighten it as the system is open to abuse, and people pecieve it as being abused, and thats bad for F1.

PolePosition_1

1st September 2008, 12:52

Previously this season 3 times cars went down the pit lane and once also the pit exit road, side by side. Not once were they penalized.
Still you think a 2005 event is more of a precedent than a few months old ones?!

I agree. Thats what I'm saying. Not only have the stewards not consistantly punished something, (as you say 3 instances this year), but when they do penalise something - they change their punishment for the same thing each time!

I'm not having a go at Massa, I'm glad they didn't penalise him, as you say its happened 3 times already this year and no punishment!

pino

1st September 2008, 13:33

...and I have been asked not to respond to this sort of flagrant forum rule violations.

-End-

Thank You I appreciate that :)

ArrowsFA1

6th September 2008, 18:41

Yes, yes it's GP2 not F1 but...

GP2 Series title fighter Bruno Senna has spoken out at the level of consistency of stewards' rulings over the release of cars during pitstops.

Speaking after he was given a drive-through penalty that cost him a likely race win at Spa on Saturday, Senna said he was penalised for the same situation that Felipe Massa faced in the recent European Grand Prix at Valencia...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70361

Whether it be GP2 or F1 we want consistency.

ioan

6th September 2008, 18:54

Yes, yes it's GP2 not F1 but...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70361

Whether it be GP2 or F1 we want consistency.

Is GP2 a FIA sanctioned series?

ArrowsFA1

6th September 2008, 20:06

Is GP2 a FIA sanctioned series?
In the light of Bruno Senna's comments the answer to that matters little.

ioan

6th September 2008, 20:26

In the light of Bruno Senna's comments the answer to that matters little.

Really?! :laugh:

You ask for consistency between F1 and GP2 but ignore that while F1 is a FIA championship, the GP2 series aren't.
And than you come with some bigmouth teenager's comments to prove a point that can't be proven, because 2 weeks ago another GP2 driver was penalized for a similar incident.

Take a look here:
http://www.fia.com/EN-GB/SPORT/CHAMPIONSHIPS/Pages/Championships.aspx

GP2 isn't a FIA championship. It's Bernie's own championship. But hey F1 is just behind the corner, and you will have the right to ask for consistency between F1 and F2. But for now, not.

ArrowsFA1

6th September 2008, 20:37

Really?!
Yes really. How many spectators or tv viewers know, or even care, who sanctions a series? What they see are similar incidents being judged differently.

GP2 is the feeder series for F1, and as such there should be consistency. Whether that is the responsibility of the FIA or GP2 organisers that shouldn't be to hard to achieve.

ioan

6th September 2008, 20:53

Yes really. How many spectators or tv viewers know, or even care, who sanctions a series? What they see are similar incidents being judged differently.

GP2 is the feeder series for F1, and as such there should be consistency. Whether that is the responsibility of the FIA or GP2 organisers that shouldn't be to hard to achieve.

Care to tell us how many spectators know that F1 and NASCAR are or aren't sanctioned by the FIA?!
Should the rules and therefor the penalties be the same in F1 and NASCAR?

The link between GP2 and F1 is Bernie Ecclestone, so you better ask him for consistency and not the FIA.

:cool: :s mokin:

ArrowsFA1

6th September 2008, 21:16

Care to tell us how many spectators know that F1 and NASCAR are or aren't sanctioned by the FIA?!
Should the rules and therefor the penalties be the same in F1 and NASCAR?
When NASCAR becomes the feeder series for F1 then perhaps it'll be worth giving those questions more than a split second of thought :laugh:

Here's a simple one. Are the regulations governing a driver exiting his pit the same in F1 as they are in GP2?

ioan

6th September 2008, 21:23

When NASCAR becomes the feeder series for F1 then perhaps it'll be worth giving those questions more than a split second of thought :laugh:

Here's a simple one. Are the regulations governing a driver exiting his pit the same in F1 as they are in GP2?

That's pointless. The two series are not both run under the FIA, and even if the regs would be similar because of Bernie copy pasting the F1 rules, this doesn't mean that they are both regulated by the FIA.

What you are saying is the equivalent of trying to go to the football match with your swimming pool ticket, because they are both sports and the tickets look somewhat alike.

Or telling the Americans to harmonize their legal system with the Russian one. :rolleyes:

I really hope you can realize that you are not making to much sense by asking the FIA to have consistency between a FIA sanctioned championship like F1, and another competition that isn't governed by them.

ArrowsFA1

6th September 2008, 21:38

The two series are not both run under the FIA, and even if the regs would be similar because of Bernie copy pasting the F1 rules, this doesn't mean that they are both regulated by the FIA.
You're right, the answer to my question doesn't mean they are both regulated by the FIA, and I wasn't suggesting it does.

It is a very simple question though, and one that has relevance because GP2 is the feeder series to F1. I just don't know the answer.

ioan

6th September 2008, 21:41

You're right, the answer to my question doesn't mean they are both regulated by the FIA, and I wasn't suggesting it does.

It is a very simple question though, and one that has relevance because GP2 is the feeder series to F1. I just don't know the answer.

The answer is that other than Bernie, there is no high level linkage between the two, and thus the current situation.

I expect this to change as soon as the F2 series the new F1 feeder series, sanctioned by the FIA, will start. Even though Bernie will certainly be unhappy with it.

ArrowsFA1

6th September 2008, 21:47

The answer is that other than Bernie, there is no high level linkage between the two, and thus the current situation.
It is not about linkage, Bernie, or Max. It is a very simple question that has a yes or no answer:

Are the regulations governing a driver exiting his pit the same in F1 as they are in GP2?

Does anyone know?

ioan

6th September 2008, 22:12

wedge

6th September 2008, 23:19

Did anyone watch this?

He ran straight in front of Valerio and almost took out one of the pit guys

At the time I was quite shocked. The British commentators thought the incident was almost funny. Chris Goodwin saw nothing wrong with it but then as a veteran he would say that. They made no mention of Valencia until Senna was handed the penalty.

Going by the book I think Senna deserved the penalty but looking back on it now I don't know what to make of it. Senna definitely had wheelspin as he was released. Racing incident I guess.

There definitely has to be some consistency. It's not right how one incident gets an in-race stewards inquiry, pit penalty; whereas another incident gets a post-race inquiry and fine.

ioan

6th September 2008, 23:21

There definitely has to be some consistency. It's not right how one incident gets an in-race stewards inquiry, pit penalty; whereas another incident gets a post-race inquiry and fine.

And there is consistency. Today there was a penalty in GP2, 2 weeks ago there was a penalty in GP2.

Apples are not bananas and F1 is no GP2. Is it so difficult to get it in?!

elis

7th September 2008, 14:56

And there is consistency. Today there was a penalty in GP2, 2 weeks ago there was a penalty in GP2.

Apples are not bananas and F1 is no GP2. Is it so difficult to get it in?!

And at Silverstone there was not a penalty in GP2... so there is actually an element of inconsistancy in GP2... just sayin ;)

Silverstone; Di Grassi was released into the path of Senna as he made his way in and had to break violently to avoid hitting the back of the Campos car.

Knock-on

7th September 2008, 15:58

It is not about linkage, Bernie, or Max. It is a very simple question that has a yes or no answer:

Are the regulations governing a driver exiting his pit the same in F1 as they are in GP2?

Does anyone know?

GP2 has technical regulations governing the cars.

However, both series have the same FIA sporting regulation that they have to adhere to I think.

Because they are racing at a FIA sanctioned event, they have to comply to the same regulations otherwise there would be pandemonium.

In theory, releasing a driver in a dangerous manner from the pit should carry a identical punishment.

That Bruno Senna and Massa committed the offense isn't the issue here.

What is the issue is that Bruno senna was found guilty and severly penalised y a drive through and Massa was found guilty but was given a token punishment that is pointless.

7th September 2008, 16:36

However, both series have the same FIA sporting regulation that they have to adhere to I think.

Link?

Daniel

7th September 2008, 16:40

GP2 has technical regulations governing the cars.

However, both series have the same FIA sporting regulation that they have to adhere to I think.

Because they are racing at a FIA sanctioned event, they have to comply to the same regulations otherwise there would be pandemonium.

In theory, releasing a driver in a dangerous manner from the pit should carry a identical punishment.

That Bruno Senna and Massa committed the offense isn't the issue here.

What is the issue is that Bruno senna was found guilty and severly penalised y a drive through and Massa was found guilty but was given a token punishment that is pointless.
There is such a thing as various degrees of danger you know. From what Wedge said above the incident with Senna WAS clearly dangerous and involved someone having to take avoiding action. The incident with Massa didn't even get the point where avoidance was required.

Why are we still talking about this anyway?

ioan

7th September 2008, 16:49

However, both series have the same FIA sporting regulation that they have to adhere to I think.

Because they are racing at a FIA sanctioned event, they have to comply to the same regulations otherwise there would be pandemonium.

A link to a certified source that explains this would help a lot.

Knock-on

7th September 2008, 18:40

There is such a thing as various degrees of danger you know. From what Wedge said above the incident with Senna WAS clearly dangerous and involved someone having to take avoiding action. The incident with Massa didn't even get the point where avoidance was required.

Why are we still talking about this anyway?

Well, as someone that watched the GP2 race, I think Senna deserved the penalty. He didn't hit anyone but did pretty much what Massa did.

The mechanic jumped out the way but wasn't going to be hit as he left his Wheel there which BS also missed.

In fact, there were 2 key differences.

1. BS wheelspan on a wet pit which put him in the situation and IMMEDIATLY pulled behind the other driver. He wasn't trying to gain any advantage.

2. The other driver did not have to swerve to avoid the accident as happened in the Massa incident.

With Massa, it wasn't the case.

As Bruno says, they get away with it in F1?

Daniel

7th September 2008, 18:56

Well, as someone that watched the GP2 race, I think Senna deserved the penalty. He didn't hit anyone but did pretty much what Massa did.

The mechanic jumped out the way but wasn't going to be hit as he left his Wheel there which BS also missed.

In fact, there were 2 key differences.

1. BS wheelspan on a wet pit which put him in the situation and IMMEDIATLY pulled behind the other driver. He wasn't trying to gain any advantage.

2. The other driver did not have to swerve to avoid the accident as happened in the Massa incident.

With Massa, it wasn't the case.

As Bruno says, they get away with it in F1?
Sutil didn't have to swerve.

Can we just get a mod to close this thread? It's the same old people making the same old things up as they always do.

Knock-on

7th September 2008, 19:07

A link to a certified source that explains this would help a lot.

Well, I said "I think" so have no evidence.

However, the reason "I think" is for 2 reasons.

1. http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/InternationalSportingCode.aspx

Why would the FIA have GP2 at a F1 meeting if it wasn't controlling it. As you know, FIA gas to sanction all events at a meeting.

2. GP2 already complies with FIA regulations such as the cars having to undergo FIA testing etc.

Perhaps someone else can clear this up by proving who delivered those penalties to the GP2 drivers?

Knock-on

7th September 2008, 19:09

Sutil didn't have to swerve.

Can we just get a mod to close this thread? It's the same old people making the same old things up as they always do.

Making things up. Are you mad?

Show me one example where I have made anything up.

As for AS swerving, I will try and find a link and perhaps if I do, you can admit you are wrong.

Daniel

7th September 2008, 19:17

Making things up. Are you mad?

Show me one example where I have made anything up.

As for AS swerving, I will try and find a link and perhaps if I do, you can admit you are wrong.
If you do find it you'll say that the tiny little twitch Sutil made was a swerve. A REAL swerve (not one of these I'm a McLaren fan so I'll make one up to suit my argument swerves) involves a driver having to take action that if he/she did NOT take would cause an accident. That didn't happen but feel free to argue that Sutil swerved if you like.

Knock-on

7th September 2008, 19:18

Sutil didn't have to swerve.

Can we just get a mod to close this thread? It's the same old people making the same old things up as they always do.

Uhm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16KxVDmOqGo

Don't tell the FIA you we have this. ;)

As you can see, Sutil is coming down the pits close to the Blue section where it changes to yellow and orange.

He sees Massa coming out and moves over to the left to avoid contact.

Where the gap at the end of the pits on the left is, he almost hits the barrier and it on the white line marking the barrier. He must be within a few CM's of crashing into the barrier.

Apology accepted :D

Daniel

7th September 2008, 19:54

Uhm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16KxVDmOqGo

Don't tell the FIA you we have this. ;)

As you can see, Sutil is coming down the pits close to the Blue section where it changes to yellow and orange.

He sees Massa coming out and moves over to the left to avoid contact.

Where the gap at the end of the pits on the left is, he almost hits the barrier and it on the white line marking the barrier. He must be within a few CM's of crashing into the barrier.

Apology accepted :D
It seems you've linked to the wrong video if that's what you've seen.

ioan

7th September 2008, 21:38

Well, I said "I think" so have no evidence.

However, the reason "I think" is for 2 reasons.

1. http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/InternationalSportingCode.aspx

Why would the FIA have GP2 at a F1 meeting if it wasn't controlling it. As you know, FIA gas to sanction all events at a meeting.

2. GP2 already complies with FIA regulations such as the cars having to undergo FIA testing etc.

Perhaps someone else can clear this up by proving who delivered those penalties to the GP2 drivers?

GP2 is not FIA sanctioned, it is run solely by Bernie as a support series to F1.
When you have a link where it states that GP2 is a FIA series than we shall talk, till than it's nothing but your supposition.

elis

7th September 2008, 23:08

Interesting that my solid evidence of GP2 pitlane penalty inconsistancy, has gone unaddressed *whistles* just sayin' ;)

Knock-on

8th September 2008, 11:09

GP2 is not FIA sanctioned, it is run solely by Bernie as a support series to F1.
When you have a link where it states that GP2 is a FIA series than we shall talk, till than it's nothing but your supposition.

53. General application of the Code
All competitions and all attempts at national, international and world records promoted in a country represented on the FIA are governed by the present Code.
Closed competitions and attempts at local records are, however, governed by the national competition rules. In those countries where no national competition rules are published, the present Code shall be enforced.

55. Promotion of competitions
In every country a sporting competition may be organised :
a) by the national automobile club holder of the sporting power (see Articles 3, 4 and 5);
b) by an automobile club, or exceptionally by another qualified sporting group provided this club or association holds the necessary permit (see Article 61).

59. Unauthorised competitions
Any proposed competition not organised in conformity with this Code or with the rules of the appropriate ASN shall be prohibited by that ASN.
If such a competition is included in a meeting for which a permit has been granted, the permit shall be null and void. The provisions of Article 58 are applicable to any licence-holder taking part in such competitions.

61. Necessary organising permit
No competition shall be held in any country affiliated to the FIA without an organising permit (see Article 26) issued by the competent sporting authority, i.e. by the ASN holding the sporting power (see Articles 3, 4 and 5).

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 0clean.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/917D67F70F1C5EE7C12573B7003DCEC5/$FILE/CSI%20modif%20ap%20AGO%20oct%2007%20ANG%20-%20Applic.%2001.01.08%20-%20clean.pdf)

You have to adhere to the FIA sporting regulations. That is what homogonization means.

ioan

8th September 2008, 11:52

And if they don't adhere what happens? Max throws his toys out of the pram?!

Once again GP2 isn't on the list of FIA series!

Knock-on

8th September 2008, 12:01

And if they don't adhere what happens? Max throws his toys out of the pram?!

Once again GP2 isn't on the list of FIA series!

It is not a FIA series you mean. There is a list of FIA series on the FIA website.

However, it is a FIA sanctioned event and as such, bound by FIA regulations.

Or do you want to argue with another set of regulations?

Mind you, the FIA change their regulations to suit their vindictive crusade against McLaren at will so what is written in the regulations can be taken with a pinch of salt.

Daniel

8th September 2008, 12:06

Mind you, the FIA change their regulations to suit their vindictive crusade against McLaren at will so what is written in the regulations can be taken with a pinch of salt.

Boo hoo.

McLaren had Ferrari documents - McLaren penalised
Lewis cuts a chicane - Lewis penalised
Lewis goes into the back of Kimi - Lewis penalised
Lewis gains an advantage at Spa - Lewis penalised

Each time McLaren gets penalised there has been a clear reason for it. Lewis has shown disregard for regulations and has at times driven in an unsafe and unsporting manner so that's why he's not been given much leeway this year. Deal with it or throw your toys out of the pram each time Lewis does something silly and pays for it.

Knock-on

8th September 2008, 12:30

Boo hoo.

McLaren had Ferrari documents - McLaren penalised
Lewis cuts a chicane - Lewis penalised
Lewis goes into the back of Kimi - Lewis penalised
Lewis gains an advantage at Spa - Lewis penalised

Each time McLaren gets penalised there has been a clear reason for it. Lewis has shown disregard for regulations and has at times driven in an unsafe and unsporting manner so that's why he's not been given much leeway this year. Deal with it or throw your toys out of the pram each time Lewis does something silly and pays for it.

Renault use stolen McLaren data - No penalty
Massa found guilty of violating pit regulations - No race penalty, small fine
Kimis dangerous driving injures pit member - No penalty
Kimi forces Hamilton off the track - No penalty
McLaren check with Charlie Whiting that they have complied with FIA regulations after Lewis gives back the advantage he gained while avoiding an accident - McLaren and Lewis penalised.

I'm really fed up with all this now Daniel so if you seriously think Lewis gained an advantage by giving the place back, then so be it. I think if that's the case, you have no ability to be objective and I cannot be bothered to talk any further with you.

- End -

Daniel

8th September 2008, 13:10

Renault use stolen McLaren data - No penalty
Massa found guilty of violating pit regulations - No race penalty, small fine
Kimis dangerous driving injures pit member - No penalty
Kimi forces Hamilton off the track - No penalty
McLaren check with Charlie Whiting that they have complied with FIA regulations after Lewis gives back the advantage he gained while avoiding an accident - McLaren and Lewis penalised.

I'm really fed up with all this now Daniel so if you seriously think Lewis gained an advantage by giving the place back, then so be it. I think if that's the case, you have no ability to be objective and I cannot be bothered to talk any further with you.

- End -
I'm sorry mate but you're as biased as they come.
You fail to realise that there are various penalties which can be levied upon a driver or team depending on the seriousness of the incident, the outcome and the circumstances.

Kimi forces Hamilton off the track - No penalty
What incident are you referring to? Surely not the incident at Spa where Lewis went for a gap that wasn't there and had to cut the chicane?

ioan

8th September 2008, 13:30

Massa found guilty of violating pit regulations - No race penalty, small fine

Massa was found guilty and fined? I guess you need to check your facts before talking rubbish.

Kimis dangerous driving injures pit member - No penalty

Please point out the rule that was infringed and the penalty that should have been attributed.

Kimi forces Hamilton off the track - No penalty

Where did you see that?!

Sorry man, you are clearly pis$ed off and are not thinking straight, get yourself together and let's have a discussion based on something real.

ioan

8th September 2008, 13:31

What incident are you referring to? Surely not the incident at Spa where Lewis went for a gap that wasn't there and had to cut the chicane?

He didn't have to cut the chicane, he chose to do so.

Knock-on

8th September 2008, 13:46

Massa was found guilty and fined? I guess you need to check your facts before talking rubbish.

:confused:

I can only imagine that you haven't read what everyone else has and would like to retract your comment?

http://f1.uk.reuters.com/f1/news/India-351550-5.php

Please point out the rule that was infringed and the penalty that should have been attributed.

I would argue that he committed the same violation Massa was found guilty of. i.e. he left his pit when it was dangerous to do so.

Or do you disagree?

Where did you see that?!

In the incident where Hamilton cut the chicane, he was on the outside of Kimi and then inside him coming into the 2nd corner. Kimi knew he was there but decided to not allow racing room and Lewis was forced to turn left into the chicane. If there had of been an accident, it would have been Kimi's fault for turning in.

Sorry man, you are clearly pis$ed off and are not thinking straight, get yourself together and let's have a discussion based on something real.

I am way beyone pi$$ed.

For example, what should the penalty be for Massa going off track but maintaining his position at the start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Ger6HJnv0

I don't really see much of a problem with it but then again, I see even less of a problem with the Lewis / Kimi incident.

ioan

8th September 2008, 13:53

:confused:

I can only imagine that you haven't read what everyone else has and would like to retract your comment?

http://f1.uk.reuters.com/f1/news/India-351550-5.php

FYI the team was fined 10000€ not Massa. It seems that journos are getting worse by the day.

I would argue that he committed the same violation Massa was found guilty of. i.e. he left his pit when it was dangerous to do so.

Or do you disagree?

You bet I disagree, because he didn't leave the pits. And Massa wasn't found guilty, the team was found guilty and fined.

In the incident where Hamilton cut the chicane, he was on the outside of Kimi and then inside him coming into the 2nd corner. Kimi knew he was there but decided to not allow racing room and Lewis was forced to turn left into the chicane. If there had of been an accident, it would have been Kimi's fault for turning in.

Ever heard about racing? That's what they are supposed to do in F1, hard and fair racing.
Kimi got the line and defended it.
There was no contact, an if it would have been contact, Hamilton would have been the one at fault because he was the one attacking, and not on the racing line.

I am way beyone pi$$ed.

You're taking things way to seriously.

For example, what should the penalty be for Massa going off track but maintaining his position at the start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Ger6HJnv0

I don't really see much of a problem with it but then again, I see even less of a problem with the Lewis / Kimi incident.

Get your facts straight man, it wasn't Massa, it was Raikkonen. :rolleyes:

BDunnell

8th September 2008, 13:55

:yawn:

Knock-on

8th September 2008, 14:20

You know what I mean ioan. It was unsafe and a £7k fine for Ferrari was a whitewash.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/08/24/fine-for-ferrari-massa-gets-off-free-and-the-fia-gets-it-wrong-on-every-count/

Anyway, as I said to Daniel, there is no point going into it any more.

Daniel

8th September 2008, 14:35

You know what I mean ioan. It was unsafe and a £7k fine for Ferrari was a whitewash.

You mean in your eyes it was dangerous.

ioan

8th September 2008, 14:43

You know what I mean ioan. It was unsafe and a £7k fine for Ferrari was a whitewash.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/08/24/fine-for-ferrari-massa-gets-off-free-and-the-fia-gets-it-wrong-on-every-count/

It happened 3 other times in F1 this season, and no one was penalized. Why are you only after Felipe? Because he won in Valencia? Because he is threatening Hamilton's chances?

Knock-on

8th September 2008, 16:53

You mean in your eyes it was dangerous.

Well, the FIA did penalise them (if you can call it that).

Knock-on

8th September 2008, 16:56

It happened 3 other times in F1 this season, and no one was penalized. Why are you only after Felipe? Because he won in Valencia? Because he is threatening Hamilton's chances?

You will find that I have not changed my mind no matter who was involved.

If you remember correctly the last incident it happened, it resulted in a collision which 2 drivers WERE penalised for.

However, the Ferrari driver that caused that collission was not penalised of course.

Daniel

8th September 2008, 17:04

Well, the FIA did penalise them (if you can call it that).

They didn't penalise Massa......

Knock-on

8th September 2008, 17:13

They didn't penalise Massa......

Yes, thanks for pointing that out.

As GP2 is governed by FIA regulations and their drivers get punished for the same incidents by drive through penalites, the FIA punish the team with a credit crunch breaking £7k

:laugh:

It's just getting funnier and funnier. I just feel like laughing.

Fecking joke, the lot of it and more stupid us fans for putting up with this farce.

ioan

8th September 2008, 17:32

You will find that I have not changed my mind no matter who was involved.

If you remember correctly the last incident it happened, it resulted in a collision which 2 drivers WERE penalised for.

However, the Ferrari driver that caused that collission was not penalised of course.

You're out of your mind of course. How can you imply that it was Kimi's fault that Lewy ran into him in Canada?!

Oh and FYI the last time it happened before Valencia it was between FA and SV in Germany or Hungary I think, just to refresh your memory! :D

ioan

8th September 2008, 17:34

Y
As GP2 is governed by FIA regulations and their drivers get punished for the same incidents by drive through penalites, the FIA punish the team with a credit crunch breaking £7k

GP2 isn't governed by the FIA and it's not the FIA punishing them either. So stop making erroneous affirmations.

Knock-on

8th September 2008, 17:43

You're out of your mind of course. How can you imply that it was Kimi's fault that Lewy ran into him in Canada?!

Oh and FYI the last time it happened before Valencia it was between FA and SV in Germany or Hungary I think, just to refresh your memory! :D

Sorry ioan but you're reading things I haven't written.

I never said it was Kimi's fault and blamed it on Lewis at the time. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

I did say that there was obviously a problem in Canada as Massa had missed the pit lane exit red light the year before.

I also said that if Kimi hadn't have been side by side but was lined up as he should of been, then he wouldn't have been hit but you can disagree if you wish.

My opinion is that if they were inline, Lewis would have missed them, overshot the pit lane and been penalised. Kimi would have won and that would have been that.

Knock-on

8th September 2008, 17:46

GP2 isn't governed by the FIA and it's not the FIA punishing them either. So stop making erroneous affirmations.

How many times do I have to write the same things before you read them.

Well, I said "I think" so have no evidence.

However, the reason "I think" is for 2 reasons.

1. http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/InternationalSportingCode.aspx

Why would the FIA have GP2 at a F1 meeting if it wasn't controlling it. As you know, FIA gas to sanction all events at a meeting.

2. GP2 already complies with FIA regulations such as the cars having to undergo FIA testing etc.

Perhaps someone else can clear this up by proving who delivered those penalties to the GP2 drivers?

So, I went out and found the evidence.

I think is now fact.

53. General application of the Code
All competitions and all attempts at national, international and world records promoted in a country represented on the FIA are governed by the present Code.
Closed competitions and attempts at local records are, however, governed by the national competition rules. In those countries where no national competition rules are published, the present Code shall be enforced.

55. Promotion of competitions
In every country a sporting competition may be organised :
a) by the national automobile club holder of the sporting power (see Articles 3, 4 and 5);
b) by an automobile club, or exceptionally by another qualified sporting group provided this club or association holds the necessary permit (see Article 61).

59. Unauthorised competitions
Any proposed competition not organised in conformity with this Code or with the rules of the appropriate ASN shall be prohibited by that ASN.
If such a competition is included in a meeting for which a permit has been granted, the permit shall be null and void. The provisions of Article 58 are applicable to any licence-holder taking part in such competitions.

61. Necessary organising permit
No competition shall be held in any country affiliated to the FIA without an organising permit (see Article 26) issued by the competent sporting authority, i.e. by the ASN holding the sporting power (see Articles 3, 4 and 5).

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 0clean.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/917D67F70F1C5EE7C12573B7003DCEC5/$FILE/CSI%20modif%20ap%20AGO%20oct%2007%20ANG%20-%20Applic.%2001.01.08%20-%20clean.pdf)

You have to adhere to the FIA sporting regulations. That is what homogonization means.

Argue with the sodding FIA, not me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------