FIA and race destroying rules.

[yodasarmpit]

Both Rosberg and Kubica awarded 10 second penalties for entering the pit lane under safety car conditions.
I just ask what were they supposed to do other than run out of fuel on the track. This rule is a joke, just let the drivers use the pit lane when they need to, no one can anticipate when a safety car will be deployed and fuel accordingly.

Also did they really need to penalise Massa who had already dropped to the end of the field.

[Daniel]

Also did they really need to penalise Massa who had already dropped to the end of the field.

Yes. It was an unsafe release. An unsafe release is an unsafe release and should be penalised no matter what.

[yodasarmpit]

Yes. It was an unsafe release. An unsafe release is an unsafe release and should be penalised no matter what.
That's true, if they didn't there would calls of FIA McLaren bias :)

Though I do stand by my comments on the pit lane/safety car rules.

[Daniel]

That's true, if they didn't there would calls of FIA McLaren bias :)

Though I do stand by my comments on the pit lane/safety car rules.
I agree with that for sure.

[wedge]

What an effing joke.

:down:

Massa gets a drive-thru for being unsafe and yet Kubica and Rosberg have a 10s penalty for entering the pits when closed.

[ShiftingGears]

The rules regarding this are stupid.

[Bobby_Hamlin]

Why was this one (releasing into the path of another car) a drive-through penalty and the one at Valencia a fine?

And it takes 10 laps for the stewards to levy a clear cut (whether you agree with the rule or not) closed pits fuel infringement?

[Dave B]

What an effing joke.

:down:

Massa gets a drive-thru for being unsafe and yet Kubica and Rosberg have a 10s penalty for entering the pits when closed.

It should have been the other way round. Massa's move was dangerous - although I accept he was innocent in it, he simply went when Ferrari told him to.

Kubica and Nico broke the rules, and while you might argue that they're stupid rules nothing they did put anybody in harm's way.

[ArrowsFA1]

Why was this one (releasing into the path of another car) a drive-through penalty and the one at Valencia a fine?
Good question.

[Mickey T]

Why was this one (releasing into the path of another car) a drive-through penalty and the one at Valencia a fine?



well, he wasn't trailing a fuel rig in valencia!

[Garry Walker]

Good question.

Because the people making the decisions are all morons.

[Tonieke]

Good question.

different stewards....which shows again how much they can influence a championship !

[Somebody]

I think that it should be a drive-through rather than stop/go, but IMO having a penalty for pitting at the start of the SC is valid. Run with two laps margin of error on the fuel if you need to. (Yes, you can run close to the wire - but would you tape up the brake ducts on a hot day to save yourself a tenth or two a lap when it would leave you 50/50 as to whether the car would end up in a wall?)

[Jag_Warrior]

well, he wasn't trailing a fuel rig in valencia!

What penalty did Kimi receive for leaving his pit early, running over a crewman and pulling the fuel rig loose in Valencia?

Since FIA rules and decisions are often about as clear as mud, I don't understand why one incident gets a drive-thru, another gets a nominal fine and yet another gets no penalty whatsoever.

In NASCAR and even the lowly IRL, if you run over an airhose, you'll be called back in. In Formula One, you can run over a human being and receive NO penalty? :confused: Man, maybe this is the series for Danica. She'll thrive here. :D

[LiamM]

It should have been the other way round. Massa's move was dangerous - although I accept he was innocent in it, he simply went when Ferrari told him to.

Did anyone else notice Ferrari were using a Lollipop in the later stops instead of the lights system

[DavErb]

How hard could it be to have each team hand Charlie a piece of paper saying we intend to stop on lap X for fuel? Do it just after the start and if theres a SC on lap X you're still allowed to come in for fuel without penalty. Do it again for the next fuel window right after every pit stop for fuel and you're covered for the race. Its not like the teams know when there will be a SC so they can't game it to gain an advantage

[aryan]

different stewards....which shows again how much they can influence a championship !

The stewards are the same all races. Exactly in order to try to minimise these discrepancies in rulings.

But I'm really struggling with two things:

1) why did they give a drive through for this one and financial penalty for exactly the same incident in another race, exactly involving the same two drivers. I mean, the two incidents were copy-cats of each other.

2) why did they take so much to hand down the penalty to Rosberg and Kubica? Like others, I hate the regulation as it stands, but nevertheless, it is the rule as it stands and I can't understand why it took them 10 laps to figure out that the two of them entered the pit when it was closed.

[ioan]

Why was this one (releasing into the path of another car) a drive-through penalty and the one at Valencia a fine?

Because he left with the fuel hose?!


And it takes 10 laps for the stewards to levy a clear cut (whether you agree with the rule or not) closed pits fuel infringement?

They have 20 or 25 minutes at their disposal to give a penalty, it's in the books.

[ioan]

The stewards are the same all races. Exactly in order to try to minimise these discrepancies in rulings.

Not anymore, they changed that at the end of last season.

[gravity]

What was the official reason for penalising Massa? I recall "unsafe release". Now, unless its in the rules that the unsafe release only pertains to the driver being released in front of oncoming traffic, then I can't see the difference to the previous incident where he received no more than a financial penalty.
If "unsafe release" includes the fuel rig being attached to the car when released, then I understand the drive through penalty in this case, but it raises the issue as to why Kimi didn't get a penalty when he did the same thing.
Either way, it looks like Ferrari got away with a previous incident by the stewards penalising them here. If they stewards were consistent, Massa wouldn't have received more than his previous financial penalty.

[Mark]

I think the difference is that the Valencia incident was not considered to be quite as 'unsafe' as the Singapore one.

As for the safety car rule, the teams knew fine well the likelyhood of a safety car here was high, and they still chose to run very marginal on fuel.

[aryan]

Not anymore, they changed that at the end of last season.

Thanks for correcting me. I was not aware of this.

[ArrowsFA1]

Why was this one (releasing into the path of another car) a drive-through penalty and the one at Valencia a fine?
According to Stefano Domenicali they were "completely different":


Q. Do you think the penalty was a fair one, bearing in mind there was a similar situation in Valencia?
SD: Yeah, the penalty was given to Felipe because it was an unsafe release because there was another car in the pitlane so that was the judgement of the steward. As we always said, we don't comment on the stewards' decision.
Q. People will say it's very similar to Valencia with a different penalty?
SD: I don't think so. It's completely different. In the way that you have to consider the manner of the car, the release, the movement of the car, the control of it, so I think it's a different story. I respect it, we respect the decision of the stewards.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/71006

[ioan]

Don't listen to him Arrows, this guy is done, he should pack his things and leave Italy.

[SGWilko]

1) why did they give a drive through for this one and financial penalty for exactly the same incident in another race, exactly involving the same two drivers. I mean, the two incidents were copy-cats of each other.

I think this was because, in Valencia, Massa went while the light was red (I may well be wrong), and in SIngapore, he went legitimately.

I still think this shows up the stewards for the bunch of c**** that they are. 'Scuse my French. ;)

[Mark]

I think this was because, in Valencia, Massa went while the light was red (I may well be wrong), and in SIngapore, he went legitimately.

I still think this shows up the stewards for the bunch of c**** that they are. 'Scuse my French. ;)

No, it doesn't matter if the driver went on his own accord or if they released them themselves, all the stewards care about is what the car did, not why it did it.

[V12]

Wouldn't things be so much simpler if they didn't close the pits when the pace car comes out?

[Mark]

Wouldn't things be so much simpler if they didn't close the pits when the pace car comes out?

It would, yes. But the reason they do that is to stop 'racing back to the pits', where drivers continue at racing speeds to get back to the pit lane, possibly through the scene of an accident. Closing the pits makes sure everyone slows down and only once they are in a line behind the safety car, can they pit. It's never more than 2 laps.

[PolePosition_1]

Yes. It was an unsafe release. An unsafe release is an unsafe release and should be penalised no matter what.

According to the Stewards in Valencia, if he didn't gain a sporting advantage its ok to have an unsafe release.

[PolePosition_1]

The stewards are the same all races. Exactly in order to try to minimise these discrepancies in rulings.

But I'm really struggling with two things:

1) why did they give a drive through for this one and financial penalty for exactly the same incident in another race, exactly involving the same two drivers. I mean, the two incidents were copy-cats of each other.

2) why did they take so much to hand down the penalty to Rosberg and Kubica? Like others, I hate the regulation as it stands, but nevertheless, it is the rule as it stands and I can't understand why it took them 10 laps to figure out that the two of them entered the pit when it was closed.

I think you'll find we have different Stewards at each race.

The same person norminates them though, Alan Donnallly, a former close Ferrari client...

[PolePosition_1]

I think the difference is that the Valencia incident was not considered to be quite as 'unsafe' as the Singapore one.



Thats all nice and well saying that. But surely the Stewards should have to justify their reason for this. So that the teams can know what is and is not within the rules.

[Dave B]

Closing the pits makes sure everyone slows down and only once they are in a line behind the safety car, can they pit. It's never more than 2 laps.
Which begs the question why, at a circuit where there was always a high likelyhood of a Safety Car, teams didn't leave themselves a 2-lap reserve of fuel before each of their stops.

It's easy to say with hindsight but Ferrari could have had a 1-2 if they'd forseen a relatively predictable event.

[PolePosition_1]

I think this was because, in Valencia, Massa went while the light was red (I may well be wrong), and in SIngapore, he went legitimately.

I still think this shows up the stewards for the bunch of c**** that they are. 'Scuse my French. ;)

Nah, Massa went when it was green in Valencia as well, it was Kimi who went before it was green in Valencia.

[wedge]

Which begs the question why, at a circuit where there was always a high likelyhood of a Safety Car, teams didn't leave themselves a 2-lap reserve of fuel before each of their stops.

It's easy to say with hindsight but Ferrari could have had a 1-2 if they'd forseen a relatively predictable event.

You run to the limit including fuel strategy.

You can never predict when a SC period will occur eg. Valencia turned out not to have a SC period.

[ArrowsFA1]

I think this was because, in Valencia, Massa went while the light was red (I may well be wrong), and in SIngapore, he went legitimately.
Or was the different penalty because in Valencia he was in a winning position, and in Singapore he wasn't? Perish the thought :p :

Or was the different penalty because in Valencia he was in a winning position, and in Singapore he wasn't? Perish the thought :p :

No, it was because they were different.

Sometimes, its best to take off the Jackie Stewart (TM) spectacles.

[Knock-on]

Or was the different penalty because in Valencia he was in a winning position, and in Singapore he wasn't? Perish the thought :p :

You have to admit that it sounds funny.

Same driver is released from the pit in an unsafe manner into the side of the same driver as before.

No accident was caused in either example and on video, they look identical apart from a fuel hose sticking out.

In one incident, the team is fined a few euros and the driver let off scott free to win the race.

In the second, when he hasn't a chance of scoring a point and it's immaterial, the driver is penalised with a drive through.

Nope, looks OK, fair and consistent to me ;)

Nope, looks OK, fair and consistent to me ;)

But then you thought Mclaren were hard-done to after Spygate, whereas BAR-Honda were kicked out of two GP's for something far more mundane.

If you are going to have a rant about inconsistency, start there.

[ioan]

I think this was because, in Valencia, Massa went while the light was red (I may well be wrong), and in SIngapore, he went legitimately.

I still think this shows up the stewards for the bunch of c**** that they are. 'Scuse my French. ;)

You're wrong! :p :
Massa went both times when the lights were green.
Kimi is th eone that went when the light was still yellow in Valencia! ;)

In Valencia Massa went side by side with Sutil and then let him go first into the exit road.
In Singapour Massa was released into Sutil's path and probably made him take evasive action i.e. brake to avoid a coming together.

The difference is there, and enough to warrant a penalty.

[nigelred5]

What an effing joke.

:down:

Massa gets a drive-thru for being unsafe and yet Kubica and Rosberg have a 10s penalty for entering the pits when closed.

Well, in reality, Massa had already had a 45 second penalty sitting there waiting for the crew to remove the hose. His race was done anyway. Kibica and Rosberg violated a clear rule, the pits are closed and no re-fuelling is allowed. black and white. the penalty is 10 sec. What was gray is how long they are allowed to wait to serve. They both knew they were taking fuel and would incur a penalty. Easiest solution is they must drop to the back end of the order if taking fuel under SC.

What part of the pit release was deemed unsafe? Leaving in front of the car, or leaving with the fuel rig trailing down the pit lane? IMHO, big difference. Had the rig cleared the car, it would have been a non issue. Pit lane was crowded. Unless they are going to freeze the field under the SC, the pits will always be crowded and hectic under yellow. Even with out closing the pits, everyone is still going to dive for the pits at the same time.

[Robinho]

there is an obvious difference between Valencia and Singapore, that Ioan mentions,

Valencia, it was an unsafe release, but deemed no advantage gained as Massa was able to spot the danger, allowed Sutil past without inpeding him. whilst that was still deemed unsafe release, and for me that should be enough fdor a penalty as it either unsafe or its not, sod "sporting advantgae"

Singapore, it was unsafe as he was released into the path of another car (sutil again) who IIRC locked up in the pitlane to avoid a collision, therefore was held up and also was on the lead laop, so was effectively racing Massa for position.

i believe they both should have had the same penalties IF deemed an unsafe release, however i can see the distinct difference between Singapore and Valencia, and therefore why there was no grey area in this case and a deadcertain penalty, and thats beofre you include the issue of trailing the fuel hose down the crowded pitlane, which can hardly be considered a safe act either!

[Knock-on]

But then you thought Mclaren were hard-done to after Spygate, whereas BAR-Honda were kicked out of two GP's for something far more mundane.

If you are going to have a rant about inconsistency, start there.



I accepted the punishment handed out to McLaren. I thought the fine was excessive as there was no evidence that they had used any of the Ferrari data on the car but that was all I questioned.

I did not think they were hard done by though and think their punishment was harsh but fair.

Where I struggle is that you have a similar situation at Renault where there is considerable evidence to suggest they made use of the McLaren data but were let off scott free even after calling for McLaren to be thrown out of the championship for the same infraction.

Lastly, I think that Honda were persecuted by the FIA who tried to strong arm them for political reasons.

That scavenger tank principal was being used by most teams and was passed by the Stewards as legal before Max interjected and had it overturned.

So basically, I accept the McLaren penalty and think that Honda were wrongly dealt with and would like you to find one word I have ever written to the contrary. Isn't that the opposite of what you claim?

[ArrowsFA1]

No, it was because they were different.
How?

The offence Ferrari were found guilty of in both cases was "an unsafe release". There's nothing conditional in that. As someone else said an unsafe release is an unsafe release. There are no degrees of unsafe laid out in the rules and yet the penalties were entirely different.

[Rusty Spanner]

Re: Rosberg and friends penalty for pitting whilst the pitlane was closed.

Two things.

1. I think a 10 second stop go penalty is too harsh for the crime committed.

2. Why did it take the stewards so long to enforce the penalty anyway. Surely this is an easy one judge. Just set a camera up on that can clearly the lights indicating pit lane is close and any cars entering. Then its an easy no brainer 30 seconds to review the footage and hand out the penalty. I'm pretty sure there is even a timing line recording exactly when a car enters pit lane.

The combination of Rosberg driving the wheels off his car and the stewards taking so long meant he almost managed to negate the effects of any penalty, which whilst too harsh (see point 1.) isn't really how its supposed to work.

How?

The offence Ferrari were found guilty of in both cases was "an unsafe release". There's nothing conditional in that. As someone else said an unsafe release is an unsafe release. There are no degrees of unsafe laid out in the rules and yet the penalties were entirely different.

And where is it laid out in the rules that penalties have to be the same?

Answer - Nowhere.

So that's your argument shot to pieces.

So basically, I accept the McLaren penalty and think that Honda were wrongly dealt with and would like you to find one word I have ever written to the contrary. Isn't that the opposite of what you claim?

No, because that wasn't my point.

My point was that you didn't demand Mclaren be dealt with in the same way & that shows that you are happy for inconsistencies when they suit your point of view.

That's not a great place to base an argument for consistency.

For the record, I'm happy that there are "inconsistencies" as no two cases are ever the same.

I find it a shame that some people don't recognise that but demand a consistency that would, by the very nature of different evidence in seperate cases, be in itself inconsistent.

As was perfectly clear on the TV, Massa was released into the path of Sutil in Singapore, causing Sutil to take evasive action. In Valencia, this was not the case, as Sutil did not have to take evasive action.

The inconsistencies in those two scenarios is the reason for inconsistency in the penalties handed down.

It's fairly obvious when you don't have an axe to grind.

[Knock-on]

No, because that wasn't my point.

My point was that you didn't demand Mclaren be dealt with in the same way & that shows that you are happy for inconsistencies when they suit your point of view.

Again, you are wrong. I said at the beginning of Spygate that if they were guilty of anything other than superficial ownership of the dossier, then they deserved to be punished.

It is obvious that there was wider knowledge of the dossier than Ron said (although I agree with Max that Ron was acting in good faith) and I, along with most other McLaren fans, accepted the punishment although as I said, the fine was extraordinary for any sport. Not just F1.

So, I thought McLaren deserved to be penalised although believe the fine to be excessive. However, at no point did I say they had been hard done by. That is just your opinion based on nothing factual apart from your own views.

I do think Honda were hard done by and didn't deserve a penalty as it was a FIA fit up.

So, why would I ask that to completely disparate events be dealt with in a consistent manner.

Lets just remind ourselves of what you wrote shall we.


But then you thought Mclaren were hard-done to after Spygate, whereas BAR-Honda were kicked out of two GP's for something far more mundane.

If you are going to have a rant about inconsistency, start there.

Sorry Tamburello but as I have pointed out, this is completely wrong.



That's not a great place to base an argument for consistency.

For the record, I'm happy that there are "inconsistencies" as no two cases are ever the same.

No two are identical obviously but some are similar such as Massas two unsafe pit releases which both caused Sutil to take avoiding action but were penalised differently. When Massa was leading, the team were penalised with a small fine that didn't affect the outcome of the race and when he didn't have a chance of points, the driver was penalised which didn't affect the outcome of the race..... Oh, I see what you mean. There is consistency. Neither penalty detrimentally affected Ferrari's title ambitions.

Then we take another 2 similar incidents; the theft of intellectual property. McLaren were guilty of having Ferrari's and get $100,000,000 fine and Renault are guilty of having McLarens and get $0 fine.

Now, this is again consistent as both instances penalise McLaren.


I find it a shame that some people don't recognise that but demand a consistency that would, by the very nature of different evidence in separate cases, be in itself inconsistent.

As was perfectly clear on the TV, Massa was released into the path of Sutil in Singapore, causing Sutil to take evasive action. In Valencia, this was not the case, as Sutil did not have to take evasive action.

Sutil took avoiding action in both cases and nearly clipped the pit exit in Valencia. he was over the edge white line as we all saw.


The inconsistencies in those two scenarios is the reason for inconsistency in the penalties handed down.

It's fairly obvious when you don't have an axe to grind.

You have the axe to grind my friend. You are argueing on assumptions that cannot be proved.

You claim that I have said things I haven't (please feel free to prove me wrong. The posts are on here unless you want to take the "I can't be bothered to search" approach) and you are wrong about Sutil not taking avoiding action.

Stop flogging a dead horse ;)

[Garry Walker]

You're wrong! :p :
Massa went both times when the lights were green.
Kimi is th eone that went when the light was still yellow in Valencia! ;)

In Valencia Massa went side by side with Sutil and then let him go first into the exit road.
In Singapour Massa was released into Sutil's path and probably made him take evasive action i.e. brake to avoid a coming together.

The difference is there, and enough to warrant a penalty.

In anycase, it is stupid to penalize for something like that. The tea drinking and "after you, sir" attitudes have no place in F1.

[ArrowsFA1]

Massa was released into the path of Sutil in Singapore, causing Sutil to take evasive action. In Valencia, this was not the case, as Sutil did not have to take evasive action.
Thank you for answering my question with your view of the incidents.

So, for the purpose of clarity, in your view the release in Valencia was not unsafe, but it was in Singapore?

Now, this is again consistent as both instances penalise McLaren.

Were Mclaren not also not fined following the first hearing, a la Renault?

The answer, as you well know, is 'Yes', which makes your argument inconsistent but the FIA consistent.

You really need to lay off the FIA and start campaigning against yourself.

Thank you for answering my question with your view of the incidents.

So, for the purpose of clarity, in your view the release in Valencia was not unsafe, but it was in Singapore?

No, that isn't my view.

My view is that, as there are noticeable differences in the scenarios, it was wholly correct for the penalties to be different.

Nowhere in the FIA rule-book does it say this should not be the case.

[Knock-on]

Were Mclaren not also not fined following the first hearing, a la Renault?

The answer, as you well know, is 'Yes', which makes your argument inconsistent but the FIA consistent.

You really need to lay off the FIA and start campaigning against yourself.

I'm afraid I can't understand what point you are trying to make?

Please, stop argueing with me for the sake of it. I have pointed out with facts that you are wrong in your claims and will continue to do so when you persist in making things up.

Can we not drop this silliness?

No two are identical obviously but some are similar such as Massas two unsafe pit releases

Similar is not the same.

You demand consistency then introduce immediate inconsistency into your logic.

Please, stop argueing with me for the sake of it. I have pointed out with facts that you are wrong in your claims and will continue to do so when you persist in making things up.

Can we not drop this silliness?

So it isn't a fact that Mclaren were not fined first time they were in Paris for Spygate?

That is a fact.

That fact makes it a fact that Renault & Mclaren were dealt with in exactly the same way by the FIA, fulfilling your demand for consistency.

[Knock-on]

Similar is not the same.

You demand consistency then introduce immediate inconsistency into your logic.

Like a dog with a bone :laugh:

What is the point of having the stewards if not to make the sport fair?

Similar misdemeanours should be dealt with in a similar way shouldn't they?

Surely, the reason for stewards is to give consistency to the sport?

No 2 incidents are completely identical but the Massa pit stop one is pretty close and for an unsafe release, it is normally a drive through.

The Stewards failed in their responsibility to keep the sport fair.

If you disagree with their role, please tell us what they should be there for?

[Knock-on]

So it isn't a fact that Mclaren were not fined first time they were in Paris for Spygate?

That is a fact.

That fact makes it a fact that Renault & Mclaren were dealt with in exactly the same way by the FIA, fulfilling your demand for consistency.

FACTS

At the hearing on 26 July 2007, FIA found that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes was in possession of confidential Ferrari information and is therefore in breach of the Code, but with no evidence that they had used the information no punishment was levied. However, the FIA reserved the right to reconvene on the matter if any such evidence subsequently came to light

With the Renault case, they sent Charlie Whiting to Renault to have a bit of a chat with the boys. Charlie accepted that they hadn't used the data even although the evidence train went right to the head of design of who had access to the data. They admitted as much yet were not penalised.

This is exactly what McLaren were found guilty of.

The amount of hearings they have is irrelevant. What matters is the offence itself.

Like a dog with a bone :laugh:

What is the point of having the stewards if not to make the sport fair?

Similar misdemeanours should be dealt with in a similar way shouldn't they?

Surely, the reason for stewards is to give consistency to the sport?

No 2 incidents are completely identical but the Massa pit stop one is pretty close and for an unsafe release, it is normally a drive through.

The Stewards failed in their responsibility to keep the sport fair.

If you disagree with their role, please tell us what they should be there for?

I disagree that the stewards failed in their responsibility.

I agree that similar misdemeanours should be dealt with in a similar way, but not that the penalty should always be the same.

That is fair, which makes the stewards fair.

FACTSHowever, the FIA reserved the right to reconvene on the matter if any such evidence subsequently came to light

With the Renault case, they sent Charlie Whiting to Renault to have a bit of a chat with the boys. Charlie accepted that they hadn't used the data even although the evidence train went right to the head of design of who had access to the data. They admitted as much yet were not penalised.

This is exactly what McLaren were found guilty of.

The amount of hearings they have is irrelevant. What matters is the offence itself.


The FIA statement on the Renault case includes these lines -

8.14. It should be noted that in the event of new information coming to light which calls into question the WMSC’s conclusions in this decision, this matter may be re-opened by the FIA.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19919.html

That is the as was the case with Mclaren.

Claiming otherwise would be wholly misleading.

[Knock-on]

I disagree that the stewards failed in their responsibility.

I agree that similar misdemeanours should be dealt with in a similar way, but not that the penalty should always be the same.

That is fair, which makes the stewards fair.

:rolleyes:

Well, I'm going to duck out of this conversation as I don't understand how logic works on your Planet.

The amount of hearings they have is irrelevant. What matters is the offence itself.

Not in a legal sense. Not by a long way.

The actions and attitude of the accused goes a long way to determining the sentence.

Any first year law undergraduate would tell you that. But if in doubt, ask a graduate lawyer. They'll be in a room several floors up from yours.

[Knock-on]

The FIA statement on the Renault case includes these lines -

8.14. It should be noted that in the event of new information coming to light which calls into question the WMSC’s conclusions in this decision, this matter may be re-opened by the FIA.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19919.html

That is the as was the case with Mclaren.

Claiming otherwise would be wholly misleading.

That was not part of the ruling but just an observation during the proceedings.

The Findings were.


11.1.1. finds Renault in breach of Article 151(c) of the International Sporting Code,

11.1.2. imposes no penalty due to the lack of evidence that the Championship has been affected.

Note: Not the evidence being used on the car or next years but that the WMSC did not have evidence that the Championship had been affected.

If you really want to get into this case, I am more than happy to do so on anther thread but my first point would be to ask you what Philip M's job was at McLaren and why he was immediately put to work on a completely different discipline which he just happened to have stolen technical McLaren documentation on :D

Shall we dance ;)

Shall we dance ;)

Certainly.

You mis-lead and I'll follow.

[Hawkmoon]

The rules regarding the closed pitlane are stupid and need to be changed. The only potentially hazardous part of the circuit is the scene of the accident so slowing the field down over the entire circuit is pointless. Slow them down at the scene of the accident. Surely it's not that hard for a bunch of clever engineers.

The penalties handed out to Massa and Rosberg/Kubica were arse-about-face. Massa did something unsafe yet got a lighter penalty than the other two who did nothing unsafe except to get screwed by circumstance. A simple ban on refuelling will fix this absurd situation.

I think the differing penalties for Massa's pit releases in Singapore and Valencia are reasonable. The Valencia incident was potentially dangerous but the danger was largely negated by the position of the Ferrari pit at the end of the pitlane. Massa had room to go side-by-side with Sutil and then drop back behind him to exit the pitlane. No harm, no foul and Ferrari were warned.

In Singapore the position of the Ferrari pit didn't leave room and Sutil had to take avoiding action that could have resulted in an accident and potential injury. Ferrari were properly penalised for it.

[Mickey T]

In Valencia Massa went side by side with Sutil and then let him go first into the exit road.
In Singapour Massa was released into Sutil's path and probably made him take evasive action i.e. brake to avoid a coming together.



don't worry, ioan.

i have every confidence that ferrari and massa will nail sutil properly at their next attempt.

third time's a charm!

[truefan72]

How hard could it be to have each team hand Charlie a piece of paper saying we intend to stop on lap X for fuel? Do it just after the start and if theres a SC on lap X you're still allowed to come in for fuel without penalty. Do it again for the next fuel window right after every pit stop for fuel and you're covered for the race. Its not like the teams know when there will be a SC so they can't game it to gain an advantage


I have called for this approach several times already. It is the most logical and least complicated system to enact. If a driver has to change his pit window, he must simply declare after said pit stop when the next stop will be withing the outlap.

Alas, this idea makes too much sense for the FIA. They would rather operate in a confused subjective world.

[jso1985]

don't worry, ioan.

i have every confidence that ferrari and massa will nail sutil properly at their next attempt.

third time's a charm!

nah, Raikkonen did the work in advance back at Monaco ;)

[schmenke]

...Sutil took avoiding action in both cases and nearly clipped the pit exit in Valencia. he was over the edge white line as we all saw...

I'm glad I'm not the only one who spotted that :mark:

[aryan]

nah, Raikkonen did the work in advance back at Monaco ;)

Yepp. I'm not sure if Sutil is the most ardent fan of Ferrari these days :p

[Mickey T]

he seems like a nice enough young fella, even if he runs like a girl (canada...).

i dunno why ferrari has it in for him.

if we want conspiracy theories, stop talking about FIA/Ferrari/McLaren, because the real conspiracy is Ferrari against Sutil!

[Knock-on]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who spotted that :mark:

It's easy enough to spot if you want to see it ;)