Brundle: Stewards should tougher

[race_director]

from f1racing.net
http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/formula-1-news/233059/brundle-stewards-should-tougher/

Former McLaren Formula 1 driver Martin Brundle believes the race stewards in Shanghai should have given at least some sort of penalty rather than just a reprimand after the race to Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel.

Speaking about the pitlane incident Martin Brundle said in his BBC column: "Vettel shoved Hamilton towards the wheel guns and mechanics, albeit long after Hamilton should have yielded. They both received a reprimand, but what does that mean? How long does a reprimand last and how many are you allowed to collect before a real penalty?

"They are lucky I wasn't the resident driver steward for the weekend because I would have strongly recommended dropping them both some penalty places on the grid for the next race in Barcelona. The decision taken has set a very dangerous precedent.

"I'm more relaxed about side-by-side action into the pit lane entry, where no person or equipment is in the road. It has been interpreted before that this is against the rules.

"I would also have recommended at least a flaky reprimand if not a drive-through penalty when Button unreasonably slowed the pack for a safety car restart. It was a clear breach of the rules unless he could demonstrate that the safety car had been unreasonably slow entering the pit lane.

"I wouldn't have been a popular steward with my former McLaren team but that job is not a popularity contest. Ask any referee."


-----------------------


I agree with brundle, drivers who show off, think they are doing deep blue hero stuff . should be penalised for dangerous driving

[Azumanga Davo]

I agree, stewards should tougher ;)

[Valve Bounce]

I would have recommended a 10 second drive through. This action was extremely dangerous to pit personnel.

[Robinho]

i'm not convinced, normally i agree with what Brundle says, but in recent years he has been pretty critical of Stewards chucking out penalties like confetti, but now they seem to be having a more balanced view he wants them to be stronger. i think reprimands are a decent way of doing things, as long as they are followed up with action in case of repeat offenders.

that said Lewis now has 2 reprimands, is there any protocol for repeat offences, is it 3 reprimands making a drive through?

[SGWilko]

i'm not convinced, normally i agree with what Brundle says, but in recent years he has been pretty critical of Stewards chucking out penalties like confetti, but now they seem to be having a more balanced view he wants them to be stronger. i think reprimands are a decent way of doing things, as long as they are followed up with action in case of repeat offenders.

that said Lewis now has 2 reprimands, is there any protocol for repeat offences, is it 3 reprimands making a drive through?

There should be a penalty for reoffending on a specific reprimand.

WHat should not happen, is if a driver gets a reprimand for pulling a moonie on the grid for example, because he weaved and got a reprimand in the last race, this is two different offences, and not a repeat....

[F1boat]

I am happy that they got reprimands and not penalties. In my opinion that was racing accident and I am happy that drivers are free to race.

[I am evil Homer]

There should be a penalty for reoffending on a specific reprimand.

WHat should not happen, is if a driver gets a reprimand for pulling a moonie on the grid for example, because he weaved and got a reprimand in the last race, this is two different offences, and not a repeat....

Agreed...repeating the same offence warrants a penalty but not different things. The issue has always been consistency of time penalties/grid drops.

So one year you have Hamilton penalised at Spa for not using the track, the next year Kimi pulls a similar trick a turn further on and it's deemed okay.

[Robinho]

but look at yellow cards in football - you can have one for handball and one for a late tackle, both together equal a sending off.

in theory you could get a reprimand in every race of the season for different minor offences without ever actually taking a penalty. whats the point of reprimanding people if there is nothing to follow it up. the reprimands that have been given are that specific that its unlikely anyone will repeast the offence, let alone the same driver, regardless of the drivers trying to behave.

if you commit a driving "foul" then maybe you should get a yellow card, and a repeat offence (being any driving "foul") results in a drive through or a grid penalty. or do you strike the record clean after every race weekend?

whilst i approve of the approach, being less harsh than in previous years, i think there is too much ambiguity, unless the stewards are being very clear about what happens in the case of a further reprimand, and if they are, can they be a bit more transparent with the process so we all no where everyone stands.

i come back to the football analagy - you get 2 yellows and you get sent off. get sent off, or receive anough yellows, you'll receive a fruther suspension.

a system similar could work - 2 reprimands = 5 place grid drop. Straight red = 10 place grid drop. 5 reprimands or 2 straight reds = race suspension, or something similar. get it all published up front so everyone knows what will happend, rather than a wishy washy system where no-one knows if they are going to get punished or get away with a ticking off.

[Valve Bounce]

Look at it this way - had Lewis run over one of the tyre guns and spun, causing one helluva prang and somebody getting killed - the reaction might be different. There were only inches in it so how can a reprimand be sufficient? We are saying the end result doesn't warrant a penalty rather than the offense.

[AndyL]

I think Brundle's getting conservative in his old age - I predict we'll hear him say "hanging's too good for 'em" before the end of the season ;)

Reprimands were the right thing for all these incidents IMO. But I would expect them to be backed up by clarifications in the drivers' briefing before the next race. Tell the drivers that driving two abreast in the pit lane won't be tolerated. If it happens again having told them that, then it will be time to hand out penalties.
Likewise the status of the lines on the pit entry prior to the speed limit line. If they mean nothing (as it appears), then as long as everyone understands that there's no problem.

[AndyL]

Look at it this way - had Lewis run over one of the tyre guns and spun, causing one helluva prang and somebody getting killed - the reaction might be different. There were only inches in it so how can a reprimand be sufficient? We are saying the end result doesn't warrant a penalty rather than the offense.

I would say we are still talking the offence, not the end result. Compare it to an offence of cutting the white line on the pit lane exit. If you cross the line you get a penalty, because that's considered dangerous. If you get really close to the line but don't cross it, you didn't commit an offence, even though there might only be inches in it. Similarly, you could say that going wheel to wheel in the pit lane and passing inches from pit equipment is one kind of offence, while going wheel to wheel and driving over pit equipment is a different kind of offence.
Drivers pass close to pit equipment and personnel in every race. How close is too close? With no specific rule on the matter, the only interpretation left is that if you didn't hit anything, you weren't too close.

[Sleeper]

i'm not convinced, normally i agree with what Brundle says, but in recent years he has been pretty critical of Stewards chucking out penalties like confetti, but now they seem to be having a more balanced view he wants them to be stronger. i think reprimands are a decent way of doing things, as long as they are followed up with action in case of repeat offenders.

that said Lewis now has 2 reprimands, is there any protocol for repeat offences, is it 3 reprimands making a drive through?
As far as I know the black and white flag only applies to the race it is shown in, a warning for unsportsman like behavier in that race and doesnt get carried over.

Hamilton and Vettel both have only 1 reprimand this year (so far).

[race_director]

Brundle is right . pit lane is a very dangerous place. it was lucky that no other crew in front of lewis was waiting for a pit stop. that would have been very fatal.

i think FIA has f***d the rules so much that drivers think that only place to overtake is pitlane.

Lewis drover dangerously twice 1st during his 1st pit stop when he cut the track suddenly to go into the pits and 2nd the stunt with redbull.

steward's decision always sets a precedent, what happens suppose if 2 other driver's race in the pit lane, they can only be warned, cannot be penalized from now on,

[Valve Bounce]

I would say we are still talking the offence, not the end result. Compare it to an offence of cutting the white line on the pit lane exit. If you cross the line you get a penalty, because that's considered dangerous. If you get really close to the line but don't cross it, you didn't commit an offence, even though there might only be inches in it. Similarly, you could say that going wheel to wheel in the pit lane and passing inches from pit equipment is one kind of offence, while going wheel to wheel and driving over pit equipment is a different kind of offence.
Drivers pass close to pit equipment and personnel in every race. How close is too close? With no specific rule on the matter, the only interpretation left is that if you didn't hit anything, you weren't too close.

So! you consider that going two abreast in the pitlane forcing one driver towards pitstop equipment is not dangerous but crossing the white line when leaving the pitlane is.

I can only say that I do not share your views on the matter at all. But then in this forum we all have different views sometimes.
Having watched the recording again, I think that a ten second drive through would have been lenient and I would consider a black flag followed by a one race ban would have been appropriate. But again, that's me!

[AndyL]

So! you consider that going two abreast in the pitlane forcing one driver towards pitstop equipment is not dangerous but crossing the white line when leaving the pitlane is.

That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that passing near to pit equipment is a different offence to driving over it, not merely a different outcome. I was responding to your statement "We are saying the end result doesn't warrant a penalty rather than the offense."

[Big Ben]

There should be a penalty for reoffending on a specific reprimand.

WHat should not happen, is if a driver gets a reprimand for pulling a moonie on the grid for example, because he weaved and got a reprimand in the last race, this is two different offences, and not a repeat....

That's just silly. In SGWilkoland you would walk around freely if you broke a different law everyday.

[Valve Bounce]

I would say we are still talking the offence, not the end result. Compare it to an offence of cutting the white line on the pit lane exit. If you cross the line you get a penalty, because that's considered dangerous. If you get really close to the line but don't cross it, you didn't commit an offence, even though there might only be inches in it. Similarly, you could say that going wheel to wheel in the pit lane and passing inches from pit equipment is one kind of offence, while going wheel to wheel and driving over pit equipment is a different kind of offence.
Drivers pass close to pit equipment and personnel in every race. How close is too close? With no specific rule on the matter, the only interpretation left is that if you didn't hit anything, you weren't too close.

OK! I admit I am confused by this post. I am saying that driving wheel to wheel down the pitlane is an offence no matter how close any pitlane equipment is or even whether there is any pitlane equipment. I only included the presence of pitlane equipment to show what the outcome may have been had one car run over it. I'll even go further to say beyond any doubt that two cars should never drive side by side down the pitlane and if such a situation arose accidentally, then the car ahead has right of way and the other car should yield immediately.

Perhaps you would like to comment on this interpretation instead as my other post may have resulted from a misinterpretation on my part.

[Valve Bounce]

The fact is, Lewis was outside the markings and Vettel pushed him closer towards the air guns and pit boxes. Lewis should have abandoned his charge beside Vettel and the Red Bull driver should not have made a defensive manoeuvre in the pitlane, simple as that. They are both equally at fault.

This is not necessarily so! one driver's fault must have been more equal than the other's.

[Big Ben]

Lewy boy likes the softer stewards. And from his repeated offenses and his conclusion we can conclude that reprimands taught him the lesson: he was right all the time, the stewards were wrong and now they've seen the light too... now he can do whatever he wants.

[race_director]

Lets not forget Vettel's part in the second incident. Had the two drivers been between the lines and travelled down the pit lane side by side without any contact, I doubt much would have been made of it. This has happened in recent seasons without fuss.

The fact is, Lewis was outside the markings and Vettel pushed him closer towards the air guns and pit boxes. Lewis should have abandoned his charge beside Vettel and the Red Bull driver should not have made a defensive manoeuvre in the pitlane, simple as that. They are both equally at fault.

dude u must b watching a differnt race. the way i see it, vettel was in front at time of release and he was in front . there was no need for lewis for being so dangerous

watch it ur self
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReNA_VaSV50

[SGWilko]

but look at yellow cards in football - you can have one for handball and one for a late tackle, both together equal a sending off.

in theory you could get a reprimand in every race of the season for different minor offences without ever actually taking a penalty. whats the point of reprimanding people if there is nothing to follow it up. the reprimands that have been given are that specific that its unlikely anyone will repeast the offence, let alone the same driver, regardless of the drivers trying to behave.

if you commit a driving "foul" then maybe you should get a yellow card, and a repeat offence (being any driving "foul") results in a drive through or a grid penalty. or do you strike the record clean after every race weekend?

whilst i approve of the approach, being less harsh than in previous years, i think there is too much ambiguity, unless the stewards are being very clear about what happens in the case of a further reprimand, and if they are, can they be a bit more transparent with the process so we all no where everyone stands.

i come back to the football analagy - you get 2 yellows and you get sent off. get sent off, or receive anough yellows, you'll receive a fruther suspension.

a system similar could work - 2 reprimands = 5 place grid drop. Straight red = 10 place grid drop. 5 reprimands or 2 straight reds = race suspension, or something similar. get it all published up front so everyone knows what will happend, rather than a wishy washy system where no-one knows if they are going to get punished or get away with a ticking off.

Fair point, but there is a significant difference to kicking a ball about and driving a car about, adjusting buttons and dials and talking on the radio, and managing tyres, and looking in mirrors...........

It's fine as it is, especially now that someone with applicable knowledge is assisting the stewards......

[SGWilko]

That's just silly. In SGWilkoland you would walk around freely if you broke a different law everyday.

No, in SGWilko land, during an F1 race............around freely if you broke a different law everyday.

See the difference?

[SGWilko]

As far as I know the black and white flag only applies to the race it is shown in, a warning for unsportsman like behavier in that race and doesnt get carried over.

Hamilton and Vettel both have only 1 reprimand this year (so far).

Hamilton has two - one was for knitting - sorry, weaving.

[SGWilko]

Lets not forget Vettel's part in the second incident. Had the two drivers been between the lines and travelled down the pit lane side by side without any contact, I doubt much would have been made of it. This has happened in recent seasons without fuss.

The fact is, Lewis was outside the markings and Vettel pushed him closer towards the air guns and pit boxes. Lewis should have abandoned his charge beside Vettel and the Red Bull driver should not have made a defensive manoeuvre in the pitlane, simple as that. They are both equally at fault.

Lest we forget Kubica seemed to have inadvertantly set the precedent during either a qually or practice session by 'jumping' the queue at the pit exit this year.....

[SGWilko]

vettel was in front at time of release and he was in front .

1:39 on that clip - Vettel was behind as Lewis was released.

[Dave B]

I would say we are still talking the offence, not the end result. Compare it to an offence of cutting the white line on the pit lane exit. If you cross the line you get a penalty, because that's considered dangerous. If you get really close to the line but don't cross it, you didn't commit an offence, even though there might only be inches in it. Similarly, you could say that going wheel to wheel in the pit lane and passing inches from pit equipment is one kind of offence, while going wheel to wheel and driving over pit equipment is a different kind of offence.
Drivers pass close to pit equipment and personnel in every race. How close is too close? With no specific rule on the matter, the only interpretation left is that if you didn't hit anything, you weren't too close.
I agree with this but only because of the part I've bolded. It would be simple to include a rule that states once you've left your box, the entire car must stay on the correct side of the blue walkway. Easy enough to police, same as crossing the white line on the exit, no grey areas.

[AndyL]

OK! I admit I am confused by this post. I am saying that driving wheel to wheel down the pitlane is an offence no matter how close any pitlane equipment is or even whether there is any pitlane equipment. I only included the presence of pitlane equipment to show what the outcome may have been had one car run over it. I'll even go further to say beyond any doubt that two cars should never drive side by side down the pitlane and if such a situation arose accidentally, then the car ahead has right of way and the other car should yield immediately.

Perhaps you would like to comment on this interpretation instead as my other post may have resulted from a misinterpretation on my part.

I'll try to clarify.

If I understand correctly, you were saying that the incident could have been very serious if Lewis had hit something, so heavy penalties were deserved.

Others argued that since there was no collision, light or no penalties were deserved.

Your response indicated that you felt penalties should be awarded for the offence, not the particular outcome (whether or not there was a collision).

In reply to that, I was suggesting that driving side by side in the pit lane is in fact a different offence to colliding with something in the pit lane. So I think it is reasonable to give different penalties. That was all.

My reference to the pit lane exit line was just to illustrate that a difference of a few inches can make the difference between one offence and another (or none at all).

[AndyL]

I agree with this but only because of the part I've bolded. It would be simple to include a rule that states once you've left your box, the entire car must stay on the correct side of the blue walkway. Easy enough to police, same as crossing the white line on the exit, no grey areas.

Yes I quite agree... as I mentioned in my prior post I think they should make the position clear in the drivers' briefing before the next race.

I think we can agree that Vettel and Hamilton were pushing things a bit too far here, but as referred to by SGWilko (and I'm sure there are other examples), they are not the first to have driven side by side in the pit lane. So it would be unfair to heavily penalise them, when the line of what's OK and what's not hasn't been drawn yet. But hopefully it will be the stimulus for that line to be drawn.

[ioan]

in theory you could get a reprimand in every race of the season for different minor offences without ever actually taking a penalty. whats the point of reprimanding people if there is nothing to follow it up.

Reprimands in F1 are the steward's escape when they aren't men enough to take a difficult decision.

We also have the cases when an incident that happens in the first few laps 'will be investigated after the race', this being the second way for stewards to chicken out and wait for instructions from you know who in order to make the championship more interesting.

All in all stewardship in F1 has become a joke. Why don't we get Lauda, Piquet and the likes as stewards? These are the people who won't shy away from hitting them with a penalty if needed.

[ioan]

I agree with this but only because of the part I've bolded. It would be simple to include a rule that states once you've left your box, the entire car must stay on the correct side of the blue walkway. Easy enough to police, same as crossing the white line on the exit, no grey areas.

That would make to much logic, something the FIA doesn't like. Gray rules are the best rules, almost as good as no rules.

[Bagwan]

So , if they decide there should be clarification , what should the rule be ?

Perhaps there should be a second speed limit for being in touch with the blue area , with cars not allowed to come to pit speed limits until inside the pit lane lines ?
In my opinion , this could curb this behavior .

As to rules about swerving in the lane , it might get rather messier .

[Bagwan]

So you think Vettel's action of pushing Lewis closer to the pit crews is also acceptable behaviour do you? What if it was Vettel was in Lewis's position and Lewis did the pushing? That would be dirty tactics, am I right?

Look I'm a Lewis fan but I won't defend his actions in this instance, but I also won't heap the blame entirely on him either. Vettel was released 1/10th after Lewis and due to the poor getaway, Lewis found himself alongside. Yes he should have slotted in behind, as Vettel was marginally ahead, but Seb most certainly shouldn't have tried to squeeze him knowing full well there was equipment and crews a matter of feet away. You might not like Lewis but don't let this influence your opinion on something as obvious as this.

The stewards reprimanded both drivers, so if it was so clear cut, why did they not just speak to Lewis?

It appears to me , from watching the clip , that Vettel is released marginally before Hamilton , not the other way around .

[Bagwan]

You are correct but thats irrelevant really as no lollypop man in the business could react that fast. There was 1/10th in it and Hamilton appears to take evasive action as they nearly collide. Hence his near loss of control on the wet tarmac. The point I'm trying to make is why people see this as purely Hamilton's fault?

It is only relevent in the sense that it , as you painted it , favoured Hamilton in the argument .
If he was released before Seb , it makes it seem more Seb's fault .

Lewis was in the box , right ahead of Seb , with the box ahead of him open , but for hoses hanging .
Lewis left roughly at the same time as his rival , but incurred harsh wheelspin . This may have been the result of not turning out into the pitlane as abruptly as the man behind , thinking that a wider arc might work , when in reality , it kept him on the paint longer .

The result was to have Vettel beside him .

We just recently have had rules imposed that dictate how much space is enough in regards to when a car can be released , relative to others cars in pit lane .
While there was clearly no violation of that rule here , the intent is to not put one car into another in the pits .
Both drivers were fully in control during the entire incident .
I believe there are rules governing how a driver re-entering the racing surface must do so in a way that does not impede or endanger another .

His original entry to the pit lane was very late , and involved all four wheels outside the white defining lines of the pit entry .
He then proceeded to exit his box , and , when another car occupied the space beside , due to his wheelspin , he raced it down the blue strip , knowing full well that he was limitted to the same speed as the car ahead .

He entered a race that was impossible to win , seemingly only because he couldn't accept that he'd lost the place .


From Vettel's point of view , the lane was his .

It might not have been very clever to move in , but asserting his position was obviously going to be necessary , as Lewis showed him he was not afraid to go down the blue strip .
Lewis staying there , all the way down the lane to the very end was illogical , as he could not win .


Perhaps there is room for a reprimand for Vettel , but , if so , I think Hamilton should suffer far greater for his thoughtlessness .

[race_director]

You are correct but thats irrelevant really as no lollypop man in the business could react that fast. There was 1/10th in it and Hamilton appears to take evasive action as they nearly collide. Hence his near loss of control on the wet tarmac. The point I'm trying to make is why people see this as purely Hamilton's fault?


Lewis was the one who was behind and was racing in the pits. Vettel was in front when lewis was released. Have we seen something like this till now, we must have watched more that a 1000 pit stops like that, where driver tucks in behind the front car in the pits, not try to race with it .lucky that the pit was open otherwise would have seen canada once again :)

[Mia 01]

A clarification is indeed needed both of how to enter the pit and the proper relaese of driver in the pit.

And yes, Brundle was right, Lewis indeed deserved a penalty. He was trying to bull off Seb, using the crews area in his attempt.

[ioan]

As far as I remember the FIA already issued a request quite some time ago to the teams not to release the drivers so close in other drivers way.
Whatever happened to that?!

[Mia 01]

I'm not trying to "paint it" in favour of Hamilton as you well know from reading my previous posts on this thread. I make it quite clear I think both drivers were at fault and I maintain the stance that Lewis should have tucked back behind Vettel.

Vettel asserting his position as you put it, seemed to escape his memory when he was interviewed after the race and he infact thought Lewis had made the effort to "touch him". The replay clearly shows Vettel steering a good 3 feet in the direction of Hamilton in order to enforce his dominance and this is what reinforces it for me that both were at fault. Had Vettel not done this, I feel the responsibility would have been firmly at the feet of Lewis. I can't help but think that if Lewis had been in Vettel's position and forced Vettel further across the blue line, people here would not be quite so keen to defend Lewis for asserting his position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVcegv_ds30&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyodQblymf8&NR=1

Anyway its been dealt with and by the next race it'll be forgotten. :)

Seb doing the same as Lewis. Do you belive that.

[Bagwan]

I'm not trying to "paint it" in favour of Hamilton as you well know from reading my previous posts on this thread. I make it quite clear I think both drivers were at fault and I maintain the stance that Lewis should have tucked back behind Vettel.

Vettel asserting his position as you put it, seemed to escape his memory when he was interviewed after the race and he infact thought Lewis had made the effort to "touch him". The replay clearly shows Vettel steering a good 3 feet in the direction of Hamilton in order to enforce his dominance and this is what reinforces it for me that both were at fault. Had Vettel not done this, I feel the responsibility would have been firmly at the feet of Lewis. I can't help but think that if Lewis had been in Vettel's position and forced Vettel further across the blue line, people here would not be quite so keen to defend Lewis for asserting his position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVcegv_ds30&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyodQblymf8&NR=1

Anyway its been dealt with and by the next race it'll be forgotten. :)


You didn't like the word paint , I guess .
I could have said you lied .
It was exactly the opposite of what happened .

You call it what you want , but you used it to bolster your argument , and it was abjectly untrue .
When I called you out , you said it was then irrelevent .



So , in a nutshell , can we say that you're only upset that Lewis is taking more stick than Sebastian ?
If it is a contest as to who was the bigger weiner in the pitlane , I would say it was Lewis .

Both were being fools , but the bigger fool was Lewis .

[BDunnell]

I note the usual 'British journalists are always biased in favour of Hamilton' nonsense is conspicuous by its absence from this thread, thankfully.

[Somebody]

Very simply, there should be a rule stating that cars must never drive along the blue area, may only cross it over the shortest possible distance, and may only cross it when:
a) Entering or leaving their pit box
b) Entering or leaving their garage (whether under their own power or being wheeled in)
c) Required to do so by a duly-appointed FIA official (this to cover being called to the weighbridge, post-race parc ferme at some tracks, etc)

With an automatic 10s Stop/Go penalty for breaking such a rule.

[Saint Devote]

Martin Brundle would have penalized Hamilton, Vettel and Button huh?

I distinctly remember people complaining LOUDLY when the actions of officials have destroyed a race. In addition, that official action needs to be careful otherwise we could also end up in situation that they have in the DTM.

No incident occurred and nobody was hurt. I think the stewards acted correctly.

And what does Martin Brundle know about racing for the lead or leading a grand prix anyway? I'll tell y'all how much: Sweet Fanny Adams!!!

[Valve Bounce]

1:39 on that clip - Vettel was behind as Lewis was released.

That does not mean that Lewis should have been released because the issue here is safety and by the time Lewis had accelerated up to speed he was already behind.


The point I want to make here is the extremely dangerous situation when the cars' wheels are overlapped in such a narrow lane with pit crews likely to e working on one side. When cars are overlapped, the rear of the tyres have a vertically upward velocity whereas the front of the tyres have a vertically downward velocity, and if the one in front slowed for any reason, the other car would be launched into the air. Now if that car then skidded sideways it could kill a number of people working in the pitlane.

As far as the white line at the exit is concerned, this is a regulatory situation and a car is penalised whether any car is coming up the straight or not; whether it is dangerous or otherwise is not a determining factor.

[Valve Bounce]

As far as I remember the FIA already issued a request quite some time ago to the teams not to release the drivers so close in other drivers way.
Whatever happened to that?!

They forgot?? :confused:

[Valve Bounce]

I note the usual 'British journalists are always biased in favour of Hamilton' nonsense is conspicuous by its absence from this thread, thankfully.

Is that because British journalists probably don't bother to post here in this forum?

[Valve Bounce]

Very simply, there should be a rule stating that cars must never drive along the blue area, may only cross it over the shortest possible distance, and may only cross it when:
a) Entering or leaving their pit box
b) Entering or leaving their garage (whether under their own power or being wheeled in)
c) Required to do so by a duly-appointed FIA official (this to cover being called to the weighbridge, post-race parc ferme at some tracks, etc)

With an automatic 10s Stop/Go penalty for breaking such a rule.

Finally, Somebody is making sense. :up:

[F1boat]

Martin Brundle would have penalized Hamilton, Vettel and Button huh?

I distinctly remember people complaining LOUDLY when the actions of officials have destroyed a race. In addition, that official action needs to be careful otherwise we could also end up in situation that they have in the DTM.

No incident occurred and nobody was hurt. I think the stewards acted correctly.

And what does Martin Brundle know about racing for the lead or leading a grand prix anyway? I'll tell y'all how much: Sweet Fanny Adams!!!

Hah, I so agree!

[Retro Formula 1]

I agree with henners that they were both equally at fault but am not sure that Hamilton was more aggressive. Hamilton was determined but made no move to directly impact on Vettel's car but Vettel was aggressive in moving over to the right of the pit lane forcing Hamilton further right.

It's a bit like in football when a foul is committed and the injured player kicks back.

I hope the FIA tighten up what is legal in the pit lane so it's not ambiguous as it currently is.

These two drivers are putting on a heck of a show and I guess the FIA wants them to sort it out on track. They could have quite easily penalised them 10 places with no great drama or reprimanded them like they have done. The reprimand gives them more control because they can hold it over the drivers to manipulate as they want.

[Mia 01]

Lewis is building up his reprimand account.

[SGWilko]

Lewis was the one who was behind and was racing in the pits.

Due to the speed limit, and the limiter, I think it is very hard to race in the pit lane. It is, however, possible to keep your position, but you cannot pass as the speeds are the same.

[555-04Q2]

I am happy that they got reprimands and not penalties. In my opinion that was racing accident and I am happy that drivers are free to race.

100% agree :up:

[Saint Devote]

Although I was annoyed to see two drivers acting iresponsibly in the pitlane, I'm also glad the outcome was not decided hours after the race as we've seen in recent seasons. The drivers have had their knuckles wrapped and we can move on.

Yeah what would he know eh? lol
I'm pretty sure Martin has led a few GP's in his time but winning in F1 is something he is not familiar with. I'm sure you know the history behind his racing career and know he has enough experience of the sport to give his opinion on what he considers dangerous though. Afterall he took Senna down to the wire in F3, and participated in 165 GP's. :)

I remember THAT F3 season in F1 very well :D
My point is just that sometimes drivers like Brundle, when commenting on incidents involving such ace F1 drivers, end up sounding hollow because of their non-success.

It would have been better if Coulthard had commentated. Also, I would be interested to hear what someone like Lauda or Hakkinen [esecially] had to say about it.

I remember the days when someone like Jacques Laffite on the back side of the track would bump wheels deliberately and nobody ran back to the stewards crying about it. They would just get even.

Wonder what would be made of Dijon 1979 by those who really called for penalizing over this!

[Bagwan]

Unlike yourself using the "red mist" scenario to "bolster" your arguement to make it seem Lewis was the more aggressive of the two in this instance? Claiming I'm now a liar and basking in the fact you caught me out is also skipping over the truth is it not? Did I not credit you as being "correct" in my response to you? I think I did, and if my typo leads you you determin my character then good luck with that.

The fact of the matter is I think they were both equally at fault and you are following your usual trend of blaming your least favourite whether the facts suit you or not. They both got punished and one didn't get punished more than the other, so I think we can read into that what we wish. :)

It wasn't a "typo" .
It was a lie .

And then , it was not relevent .


Your "fact of the matter" is your opinion .


Yes , read into it what you wish .

[Valve Bounce]

Wonder what would be made of Dijon 1979 by those who really called for penalizing over this!

I suppose if they raced neck to neck bumping each other like that in the pitlane, somebody might have said something.

[SGWilko]

It wasn't a "typo" .
It was a lie .

And then , it was not relevent .


Your "fact of the matter" is your opinion .


Yes , read into it what you wish .

Oh Baggy, are his pants on fire, too??????

[Bagwan]

Oh Baggy, are his pants on fire, too??????

You tell me , Wilco .
Don't you smell that red mist ?

My point here , as it seems that I need to explain , is that there was a "fact" used to bolster an argument that was abjectly untrue .
Vettel was released before Hamilton .

There are two reasons why this was a corrupt argument .
Firstly , it was untrue .
Secondly , it was irrelevent , as the incident really occurred after both drivers were completely in control .


It's largely irrelevent that henners and I disagree on the severity of each driver's culpability in the issue .
He is free to believe what he wishes . I will defend him to the end on that .

But , he can expect I will chime in with my opinion now and then .


Over the years here , I have defended many , including the king of the "red mist" , Michael , in his most controversial of acts , in that hairpin with JV , my favourite driver .
I defended Ferrari after Austria .
I defended Austin Brammer , santa , Tamburello , Ioan , and a host of others here on the forum .


I don't really have a distinct favourite on the grid right now .


To come back around to the topic at hand , clearly , we need clarification as to what is allowable in pit lane .

There are a couple of ways I can see it work .
They could regulate how fast they can travel on the blue .
Or they could regulate how far one is allowed to travel on the blue .

Perhaps also , they could mandate that drivers in the "slow" lane must move left into the "fast" lane within a certain distance .


If , as in this instance , both drivers had been required to move left in a certain distance , the safety issue disappears .

However , this would also likely encourage drivers to push the issue , and try harder to race down the lane .

If so , then perhaps running side by side in the lane is the real issue , so then , why not just say that , once on the limitter , a car must yield if behind , within a certain distance ?
That might do it .

[Valve Bounce]

Over the years here , I have defended many , including the king of the "red mist" , Michael , in his most controversial of acts , in that hairpin with JV , my favourite driver .
I defended Ferrari after Austria .
I defended Austin Brammer , santa , Tamburello , Ioan , and a host of others here on the forum .



You never defended me :( :bigcry:

[SGWilko]

why not just say that , once on the limitter , a car must yield if behind , within a certain distance ?
That might do it .

One has to assume that, at present, no such rule or clarification exists. Bet it does at Spain though.

Wilco, roger & out, probably due to red mist fever!!! ;)

HAND

[SGWilko]

You never defended me :( :bigcry:

Pull yer socks up man and stop that sniveling.

[Bagwan]

You never defended me :( :bigcry:


Was someone pickin on ya ?
Lemme at em .

[Bagwan]

Pull yer socks up man and stop that sniveling.

Hey !
Leave him alone !
He has every right to leave his socks down and snivel as much as he wants .

[SGWilko]

Hey !
Leave him alone !
He has every right to leave his socks down and snivel as much as he wants .

:bigcry: :bigcry:

[ioan]

They forgot?? :confused:

Rather they never realized what they said. Just look at Charlie.
And the stewards are again changed at every race, so they will never ever know the rule book and/or develop the required experience in handing out penalties.

[ioan]

Wonder what would be made of Dijon 1979 by those who really called for penalizing over this!

Did anyone race in the pitlane in the Dijon (well rather Prennois) 1979 race? Strange, I don't remember any such.



I suppose if they raced neck to neck bumping each other like that in the pitlane, somebody might have said something.

Exactly.

[ioan]

You tell me , Wilco .
Don't you smell that red mist ?

My point here , as it seems that I need to explain , is that there was a "fact" used to bolster an argument that was abjectly untrue .
Vettel was released before Hamilton .

There are two reasons why this was a corrupt argument .
Firstly , it was untrue .
Secondly , it was irrelevent , as the incident really occurred after both drivers were completely in control .


It's largely irrelevent that henners and I disagree on the severity of each driver's culpability in the issue .
He is free to believe what he wishes . I will defend him to the end on that .

But , he can expect I will chime in with my opinion now and then .


Over the years here , I have defended many , including the king of the "red mist" , Michael , in his most controversial of acts , in that hairpin with JV , my favourite driver .
I defended Ferrari after Austria .
I defended Austin Brammer , santa , Tamburello , Ioan , and a host of others here on the forum .


I don't really have a distinct favourite on the grid right now .


To come back around to the topic at hand , clearly , we need clarification as to what is allowable in pit lane .

There are a couple of ways I can see it work .
They could regulate how fast they can travel on the blue .
Or they could regulate how far one is allowed to travel on the blue .

Perhaps also , they could mandate that drivers in the "slow" lane must move left into the "fast" lane within a certain distance .


If , as in this instance , both drivers had been required to move left in a certain distance , the safety issue disappears .

However , this would also likely encourage drivers to push the issue , and try harder to race down the lane .

If so , then perhaps running side by side in the lane is the real issue , so then , why not just say that , once on the limitter , a car must yield if behind , within a certain distance ?
That might do it .

:up: Many of us, most of us, in here should learn, how to behave and have a discussion on the forum, from you Bagwan. :)

[BDunnell]

And what does Martin Brundle know about racing for the lead or leading a grand prix anyway? I'll tell y'all how much: Sweet Fanny Adams!!!

In which case, how come you are able to offer an opinion on the matter?

[BDunnell]

Wonder what would be made of Dijon 1979 by those who really called for penalizing over this!

Now that I do agree with.

[quote="race_director"]from f1racing.net

"I would also have recommended at least a flaky reprimand if not a drive-through penalty when Button unreasonably slowed the pack for a safety car restart. It was a clear breach of the rules unless he could demonstrate that the safety car had been unreasonably slow entering the pit lane.

..........

What is a "flaky reprimand"?.

[Valve Bounce]

from f1racing.net

"I would also have recommended at least a flaky reprimand if not a drive-through penalty when Button unreasonably slowed the pack for a safety car restart. It was a clear breach of the rules unless he could demonstrate that the safety car had been unreasonably slow entering the pit lane.

..........

What is a "flaky reprimand"?.

I think he is supposed to stand on the podium and flap his hands like Eddie the Eagle.

[jens]

Actually I like the fact that stewards have had much more understanding this year than for instance especially in 2008 by handing out useless penalties on a consistent basis. But what is true, is that the stewards can't give out endless amount of reprimands - one day it has to materialize in a realistic penalty.

[Mark in Oshawa]

All I know is I saw two guys racing each other in pit lane, and someone could have been killed. Dispute who is at fault all you like, but whomever was in the rear should have given way. PERIOD. You are up to the pit lane speedlimiter within seconds of leaving the box, so once you hit it, you cannot pass the other guy anyhow. Instead...they went side by side all the way down.

A penalty should have been given. Period. Don't care who it is.

[Ari]

It was a crock. Simple as that. Not much you can say about it.

And to have Bernie come out during the week and defend Lewis and say "he's the only guy who's been entertaining." WTF? So now you can be DANGEROUS as long as you're entertaining?

Not good enough.... not by a long shot.

Shows that it doesn't matter what you do, only matters who you are. Had it been a couple backmarkers instead of Hamilton and Vettel there would have been hell to pay!

Ah wells... the circus goes on!

[Ari]

I am happy that they got reprimands and not penalties. In my opinion that was racing accident and I am happy that drivers are free to race.
A racing incident? Down pitlane? Have I missed something here?

[Ari]

I think Brundle's getting conservative in his old age - I predict we'll hear him say "hanging's too good for 'em" before the end of the season ;)

Reprimands were the right thing for all these incidents IMO. But I would expect them to be backed up by clarifications in the drivers' briefing before the next race. Tell the drivers that driving two abreast in the pit lane won't be tolerated. If it happens again having told them that, then it will be time to hand out penalties.
Likewise the status of the lines on the pit entry prior to the speed limit line. If they mean nothing (as it appears), then as long as everyone understands that there's no problem.

Clarification?


Official: "Drivers.... please don't race through the pit bays.... just wanted to clarify that in case anyone was unsure."

Drivers: "Wtf?"

[Ari]

Reprimands in F1 are the steward's escape when they aren't men enough to take a difficult decision.

Bang on!

[Saint Devote]

A reprimand was fine because nothing happened.

The stewards did not want to disrupt the racing and it cannot be both ways. Either people want "nanny government" or they want a more lenient one that will act according to incident.

They gave the reprimand but have clarified that future such action will result in a stop and go.

Of course it was a racing incident. The two drivers - of ALL drivers - Hamilton and Vettel were well into a racing mentality mid-race. They are also not veterans in the sense of the Button or Barrichello or Schumacher sense.

They are highly skilled young racing drivers who at times will exhibit an extraordinary exuberance.

[F1boat]

A reprimand was fine because nothing happened.

The stewards did not want to disrupt the racing and it cannot be both ways. Either people want "nanny government" or they want a more lenient one that will act according to incident.

They gave the reprimand but have clarified that future such action will result in a stop and go.

Of course it was a racing incident. The two drivers - of ALL drivers - Hamilton and Vettel were well into a racing mentality mid-race. They are also not veterans in the sense of the Button or Barrichello or Schumacher sense.

They are highly skilled young racing drivers who at times will exhibit an extraordinary exuberance.

I agree, especially with the part that we can't have it both ways. I prefer more lenient government. Not TOO lenient, of course, but not the dragons, who served Mosley.

[Ari]

A reprimand was fine because nothing happened.

So should I make my way into a crowded City street and start randomly discharging a firearm I'm all sorted so long as none of the bullets find a target?

Got it.....

[Retro Formula 1]

So should I make my way into a crowded City street and start randomly discharging a firearm I'm all sorted so long as none of the bullets find a target?

Got it.....

No you shouldn't because that is against the Law. If it were not, then you might get a reprimand for antisocial behaviour and the law might get tightened up.

These 2 drivers were behaving like idiots and the FIA rapped their knuckles. Of course, some people would prefer Hamilton were hanged but the FIA didn't agree with the rent-a-mob mentality.

[ArrowsFA1]

Perhaps those calling for a heavier penalty for one or both drivers could point to the rule that was broken.

[SGWilko]

So should I make my way into a crowded City street and start randomly discharging a firearm I'm all sorted so long as none of the bullets find a target?

Got it.....

Wow, that was a bit silly.

Do the drivers carry guns now????

[Retro Formula 1]

Perhaps those calling for a heavier penalty for one or both drivers could point to the rule that was broken.

Never let facts get in the way of an opinion seems to be the rule of law here.

I had a chat with a member that seems to pride himself on backing up his opinion with facts and claimed to hate hypocrisy yet when I asked him to state which rules were broken, he became rude and aggressive to the point where the moderator had to clean up the thread?

You seem to be on the same hiding to nothing.

[Bagwan]

There are new rules , stating the distance allowable for a safe release , if I'm not mistaken .
The distances are changed to suit the distance between pits at different tracks .

This clearly didn't work , as simple wheelspin , a rather predictable occurance , especially when the painters have a strip of blue all the way down the lane that gets really slippery when it rains , caused them to be side by side .


This is what caused the situation .


Can we give them the same distance to lift and step in line , once on the limitter ?

[Valve Bounce]

Is there any rule against driving in a dangerous manner?

[ioan]

A reprimand was fine because nothing happened.

And they should have been sentenced to jail if someone got killed in the pit lane?!

Do we have to tolerate pointless dangerous driving until someone gets killed again?

[ioan]

Theres lots of rules regarding driving in a dangerous manner but theres also a context attached to each one.. :)

You mean a huge gray area, big enough to allow whatever makes the show more interesting?

[ioan]

Bang on!

Well there is only two of us who think like this.
Others are probably visiting sites with F1 accident pictures and finding those interesting.

[slorydn1]

Not the best comparison really is it?.
The rules in F1 state that drivers must not break the speed limit in the pitlane or be released into the path of another car. Both drivers were effectively released at the same time (although some forum members believe they have faster reactions than the lollypop men, below a tenth of a second), so neither team could be reprimanded over the release. Its also not clear in the rules than two cars cannot travel side by side in the pitlane. Had they travelled in a manner where they did not push each other wide, they may have got away with it. As it was Hamilton should have yielded and Vettel should not have pushed Hamilton wide. Both drivers contributed and both got a talking to after the race.

As they did not break any specific rules, they could not have been severely punished. Now this incident has occurred, I fully expect clarification to be outlined at the next driver briefing. They can't change the rules to suit a scenario in hindsight, as that isn't fair. If a similar incident should happen in the future, a harsh punishment can be issued on the basis of this.. :)

Well put, I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[Valve Bounce]

The FIA may well be worried about the damage they have done to their reputation in the past 3 seasons and have been overly cautious in this instance. As I have said repeatedly, I was expecting a drive through penalty for both drivers. What I did take exception to was one being blamed more than the other. :)

Yeah! I agree!

[markabilly]

A reprimand was fine because nothing happened..
I have tried that excuse several times to cops and for some reason, they just would not listen and gave me a ticket.
I had to pay money!!!
What idiots.



of course, what happens if something rather than "nothing happenned"?

I wonder if you wreck out in pitlane, kill off a few crewmen, does that mean you have to do a stop and go for reckless or dangerous driving?

what if the car is so damaged, it will do the stop, but will not do the "go"?

do you have to serve the same penalty at/during the next race?

Or does the wreck count as the same as the stop and go, as long as you are there for at least ten seconds....

what if the driver only kills one other person? Is that just a drive through?

Or of the driver kills himself, does he still have to a drive through or stop and go? In same race or the next?

so many questions, so little answers.... :confused:

[Ari]

Not the best comparison really is it?.
The rules in F1 state that drivers must not break the speed limit in the pitlane or be released into the path of another car. Both drivers were effectively released at the same time (although some forum members believe they have faster reactions than the lollypop men, below a tenth of a second), so neither team could be reprimanded over the release. Its also not clear in the rules than two cars cannot travel side by side in the pitlane. Had they travelled in a manner where they did not push each other wide, they may have got away with it. As it was Hamilton should have yielded and Vettel should not have pushed Hamilton wide. Both drivers contributed and both got a talking to after the race.

As they did not break any specific rules, they could not have been severely punished. Now this incident has occurred, I fully expect clarification to be outlined at the next driver briefing. They can't change the rules to suit a scenario in hindsight, as that isn't fair. If a similar incident should happen in the future, a harsh punishment can be issued on the basis of this.. :)

Yep.... I get what you mean.

The only rule they broke was a logical one.... don't race side by side down pitlane.... but it wasn't actually written down.

[Ari]

Wow, that was a bit silly.

Do the drivers carry guns now????

Not one of my finer moments... ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Everyone keeps saying there is no rule against two guys running side by side. Anyone with half a loaf upstairs knows it is a really dangerous situation. So lets cut the BS here. If there isn't a law stating specifically that this was stupid, I would like to think there is some general rule that covers situations as defined by the Stewards. If Vettel had put Hamilton into some other crew and they were mowed down like bowling pins, it would be the height of stupidity to chirp like children "there is no rule!".

Enough...these two know damn well now what they did was dangerous and stupid, and they had nothing happen luckily. Apparently the FIA figures a talking to is enough, and maybe so, but in my minds, you have rules, you enforce them, and you always have a catchall rule. This is like Porn..no one can define it, but we all know it when we see it. Well in this case, there was no rule stating this was stupid, but everyone with any sense knows it was.....

[Ari]

Everyone keeps saying there is no rule against two guys running side by side. Anyone with half a loaf upstairs knows it is a really dangerous situation. So lets cut the BS here. If there isn't a law stating specifically that this was stupid, I would like to think there is some general rule that covers situations as defined by the Stewards. If Vettel had put Hamilton into some other crew and they were mowed down like bowling pins, it would be the height of stupidity to chirp like children "there is no rule!".

Enough...these two know damn well now what they did was dangerous and stupid, and they had nothing happen luckily. Apparently the FIA figures a talking to is enough, and maybe so, but in my minds, you have rules, you enforce them, and you always have a catchall rule. This is like Porn..no one can define it, but we all know it when we see it. Well in this case, there was no rule stating this was stupid, but everyone with any sense knows it was.....

Let's make it simple.

The Stewards are there because there are rules which require definition on a case by case basis. Rules which follow the 'spirit of the game' and rules which require context to define their severity when broken. This is why the Stewards exist. If rules were black and white they would have no purpose as we'd just read the book and the answer would be in there.

We trust as drivers, crew and spectators that the Stewards will create a safe and enjoyable environment for all.

As Ioan said earlier in this thread.... the fact that these two received a reprimand shows that they did the wrong thing. A reprimand is just a case of the Stewards not having the balls to pull the trigger.

Mark is spot on above that we should not require a rule which says that two drivers should not race side-by-side down pitlane. It's just silliness.

Ultimately Hamilton should have received a penalty for not moving in behind Vettel when he realised that he had no lane and Vettel should receive a penalty for unsafely pushing Hamilton, who should not have been there, into the pit bays of other crews.

Anyone who can argue this is arguing against logic. Now I'm not saying you can't argue against logic, as you can, but it just doesn't make sense. As Henners said above there is no specific rule saying that if you come out side by side you should not race through the pitbays, but geez guys..... shouldn't common sense prevail? Ultimately, it didn't.

[F1boat]

Let's make it simple.

The Stewards are there because there are rules which require definition on a case by case basis. Rules which follow the 'spirit of the game'

Bullcrap. Stewards are there to enforce the "black and white" rules. There is NO such thing as spirits.

[Ari]

Bullcrap. Stewards are there to enforce the "black and white" rules. There is NO such thing as spirits.

If that's the case why do they 'investigate' incidents instead of just reading the penalty.

If that's the case why do commentators discuss on the broadcast "I wonder what the stewards outcome will be on this one".

If that's the case why is there more than Steward required to enforce a black and white rule?

If that's the case why does this thread exist?

Sorry.... not buying it.

Ultimately, it's a forum and we're all deserving of an opinion. ;) Funny that nearly 2 weeks later this is still hot discussion.

[Retro Formula 1]

I have said before that I would have no problem if they had of received a penalty as it was bone-head driving from the pair of them. As it is, the FIA gave them a bollocking and I assume made it clear that if they can't control themselves, they will have a very difficult season.

Can't see a problem with this and some people seem to be getting quite upset because something "might" have happened. Are those same people calling for a penalty for Kubica who drove around some cars in the pit lane because he couldn't be bothered to wait?

[F1boat]

Ultimately, it's a forum and we're all deserving of an opinion. ;) Funny that nearly 2 weeks later this is still hot discussion.

And I am extremely disappointed with this. I hoped that fans will be happy with the new way FIA is operating, allowing the drivers to fight, to race. But alas, it is not so :(
Fans keep bitching about not having hypothetical "exciting" races like in some long forgotten decade, but bash the interesting races we are having now and want to make them dull, banning and banishing everything - likely because then they will bash it even more.

[ShiftingGears]

The stewards decisions this year have been good. And while I would've supported a heavy fine on top of the reprimand to Hamilton and Vettel, they have made the right choice most of the time.

If there's one thing I really dislike it's trigger happy stewards. 2008 was a particularly bad year for it.

[markabilly]

Yep.... I get what you mean.

The only rule they broke was a logical one.... don't race side by side down pitlane.... but it wasn't actually written down.

well i just looked at the rules and it says nothing in black and white, specifically, about running over people in pitlane or on the track or in the parking lot......accidental or otherwise.....so I guess the next time Bernie walks across the pitlane......

or bundle trundles across the parking lot...

Guess I should have said so many possible ways to screw up, and so few specific rules to apply in black and white..

[markabilly]

Wow, that was a bit silly.

Do the drivers carry guns now????

some always did in Nascar and the deep south.


Not one of my finer moments... ;)
I found it inspirational....

and an excellent point about some who want some specific rules...

You know if it were not outside the so called black and white rules, why did they get a reprimand? They violated no rule, so no fussing.

On the other hand, if they had jurisdiction to give a reprimand, then they had jurisdiction to do harsher penalty.

[Big Ben]

And I am extremely disappointed with this. I hoped that fans will be happy with the new way FIA is operating, allowing the drivers to fight, to race. But alas, it is not so :(
Fans keep bitching about not having hypothetical "exciting" races like in some long forgotten decade, but bash the interesting races we are having now and want to make them dull, banning and banishing everything - likely because then they will bash it even more.

Yes, fighting at equal speeds on the the pit lane endangering the lives of others, that's what I've dreamt all my life. What does this have to do with exciting races anyway?

[Big Ben]

and dreadful interference like Spa 2008 for example

That was actually a top class decision. When someone just simulates he's giving back a position he got in an unfair way I will applaud the stewards for interfering.

[Retro Formula 1]

And I am extremely disappointed with this. I hoped that fans will be happy with the new way FIA is operating, allowing the drivers to fight, to race. But alas, it is not so :(
Fans keep bitching about not having hypothetical "exciting" races like in some long forgotten decade, but bash the interesting races we are having now and want to make them dull, banning and banishing everything - likely because then they will bash it even more.

Totally agree.

There's too much negativity on here during what is shaping up to be a great season.

Lets enjoy the racing and let them enjoy the misery :)

[ioan]

Let's make it simple.

The Stewards are there because there are rules which require definition on a case by case basis. Rules which follow the 'spirit of the game' and rules which require context to define their severity when broken. This is why the Stewards exist. If rules were black and white they would have no purpose as we'd just read the book and the answer would be in there.

We trust as drivers, crew and spectators that the Stewards will create a safe and enjoyable environment for all.

As Ioan said earlier in this thread.... the fact that these two received a reprimand shows that they did the wrong thing. A reprimand is just a case of the Stewards not having the balls to pull the trigger.

Mark is spot on above that we should not require a rule which says that two drivers should not race side-by-side down pitlane. It's just silliness.

Ultimately Hamilton should have received a penalty for not moving in behind Vettel when he realised that he had no lane and Vettel should receive a penalty for unsafely pushing Hamilton, who should not have been there, into the pit bays of other crews.

Anyone who can argue this is arguing against logic. Now I'm not saying you can't argue against logic, as you can, but it just doesn't make sense. As Henners said above there is no specific rule saying that if you come out side by side you should not race through the pitbays, but geez guys..... shouldn't common sense prevail? Ultimately, it didn't.

:up:


If that's the case why do they 'investigate' incidents instead of just reading the penalty.

If that's the case why do commentators discuss on the broadcast "I wonder what the stewards outcome will be on this one".

If that's the case why is there more than Steward required to enforce a black and white rule?

If that's the case why does this thread exist?

Sorry.... not buying it.

Ultimately, it's a forum and we're all deserving of an opinion. ;) Funny that nearly 2 weeks later this is still hot discussion. :up: :up:

[ioan]

On the other hand, if they had jurisdiction to give a reprimand, then they had jurisdiction to do harsher penalty.

They had jurisdiction but no balls, you know those things that differentiate between the real ones and the wannabe's.

[ioan]

Yes, fighting at equal speeds on the the pit lane endangering the lives of others, that's what I've dreamt all my life. What does this have to do with exciting races anyway?

Damn right!

[F1boat]

Totally agree.

There's too much negativity on here during what is shaping up to be a great season.

Lets enjoy the racing and let them enjoy the misery :)

well said.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Bullcrap. Stewards are there to enforce the "black and white" rules. There is NO such thing as spirits.

It isn't spirits Boat, it is to interpret the rules. You cannot write a rule for every eventuality. Common sense would dictate though you don't race a guy down pit lane side by side. Since Hamilton and Button didn't seem to grasp that, you suggest we should all just let it happen? I have news for you, if you don't do something to stop it, it will happen again. What if that is the result, and someone ends up getting run over? Then what?

The whole point of rules is to keep the competition fair and to protect everyone involved. Spirit? No...protecting the safety and integrity of the sport. I have taken stewards courses here in Canada. I can tell you, the gray areas of the rule book need to have interpretation. They blew it by not issuing some sort of penalty.

[F1boat]

They blew it by not issuing some sort of penalty.

The penalty was the reprimand and for me it was enough.

[Big Ben]

I was doing 75 km/h last Sunday in a 50 km/h area. I was actually slowing down but not fast enough. I didn't get a reprimand. 60 euros and 3 points.

[Mia 01]

I was doing 75 km/h last Sunday in a 50 km/h area. I was actually slowing down but not fast enough. I didn't get a reprimand. 60 euros and 3 points.

You got out very very cheap, and so did Lewis!

[Big Ben]

You got out very very cheap, and so did Lewis!

that's like 20% of the average income where I live.

[SGWilko]

I was doing 75 km/h last Sunday in a 50 km/h area. I was actually slowing down but not fast enough. I didn't get a reprimand. 60 euros and 3 points.

Speed limits on PUBLIC roads are there for a reason. Joe Public is on the loose - kids who do not think about consequences etc.

It is just an itty bit different on a controlled environment in the pits on a racetrack, wouldn't you say?

[SGWilko]

that's like 20% of the average income where I live.

So, do you get fined for speeding based on average wage of another country, or your own?

What is the fine for speeding in your neck of the woods?

[Big Ben]

So, do you get fined for speeding based on average wage of another country, or your own?

What is the fine for speeding in your neck of the woods?

I don't understand what you mean. I was just pointing out that cheap means something else from place to place and from human to human. A 60 euros fine is more in Afghanistan than in Luxembourg and more to me than to LH. However a reprimand is nothing for everybody.

Speed limits on PUBLIC roads are there for a reason. Joe Public is on the loose - kids who do not think about consequences etc.

It is just an itty bit different on a controlled environment in the pits on a racetrack, wouldn't you say?

So it's ok to recklessly endanger those who work in the pits through your own stupid actions because its a "controlled" environment?

It's a controlled environment because of the risks, hence the need for controls.

[Mia 01]

Are you referring to his fine in Australia?


Ha ha ha. A reprimand cost you nothing, or should I say at the moment.

Perhaps those calling for a heavier penalty for one or both drivers could point to the rule that was broken.

"It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so"

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... 2-2010.pdf (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/65EE8F15945D0941C12576C7005308AE/$FILE/1-2010%20SPORTING%20REGULATIONS%2010-02-2010.pdf)

Hamilton is a "competitor", it was "his car".....and it wasn't safe to release into the nominated fast lane of the pit lane.

He therefore should have got behind Vettel, not run alongside.

It's there in black & white, you just need to look and understand the rule.

[Mia 01]

So it's ok to recklessly endanger those who work in the pits through your own stupid actions because its a "controlled" environment?

It's a controlled environment because of the risks, hence the need for controls.

And rules, lots of rules, thats obvious.

[Retro Formula 1]

You're right he should have tucked in behind Vettel and nobody is really arguing against that. The problem is they were released at the same time, and no human being in the world could react in under 1/10th of a second. The lollypops in the footage both appear to raise at the same time and it was Lewis's wheelspin which cost him time and put him in the position of being side by side with Vettel.

Vettel was slightly ahead and Lewis should have yielded, but a lollypop man is not going to think "well he might lift his lollypop up any second, I'd better wait and see what he does". If Vettel was clearly released, then Mclaren would have waited but as it was they both released at the same time. No one can be blamed for that, and the situation was made worse by how both drivers reacted to each other.

This is my last post on this thread as we are just going round in circles.

Tamburello has kindly posted the rules that he claimed were broken and it is in black and white that they were not broken. Hamilton released safely at almost exactly the same time to within a fraction of a second as Vettel.

The release was fine according to the rules and this oft discussed "spirit" of the rules. Hamilton would have emerged clearly in front of the Red Bull if it wasn't for excessive wheelspin on the damp paint.

What happened next was stupidity from both drivers. Hamilton should have pulled behind Vettel quicker and Vettel in no way should have moved over. If by his actions, the cars would have crashed, we would be looking at a very different situation.

There seems to be a groundswell of dislike for Hamilton but it seems clear that both drivers were stupid and consequently were warned for their actions. People may feel they both needed a tangible penalty but that is for the Stewards to decide and on this occasion, they probably got it right.

It's difficult to penalise Hamilton for not breaking a specific rule and equally problematic to penalise Vettel when his actions did not result in an accident.

[Valve Bounce]

Speed limits on PUBLIC roads are there for a reason. Joe Public is on the loose - kids who do not think about consequences etc.

It is just an itty bit different on a controlled environment in the pits on a racetrack, wouldn't you say?

Yeah! let them race side by side down the pitlane, and if the pit crews get killed, too bad.

Tamburello has kindly posted the rules that he claimed were broken and it is in black and white that they were not broken.

Au contraire.

Hamilton never made it into the designated fast lane, it was his car that did not complete a safe release.

The "release" doesn't just involve leaving your pit box.

[Valve Bounce]

This is my last post on this thread as we are just going round in circles.



Blessed are they who go around in circles, for they shall become Big Wheels.

[Retro Formula 1]

Au contraire.

Hamilton never made it into the designated fast lane, it was his car that did not complete a safe release.

The "release" doesn't just involve leaving your pit box.

I will answer your post as you posed a specific statement.

I think that Pit release involves the instant of release from the Pit box. It would seem illogical for the release to involve anything after the release moment. It was either safe or it was not safe. The Stewards decided there was no case to answer from a safety perspective. If you disagree and think Pit release involves a protracted period of time then that is your choice.

Sometimes we have to accept that the FIA have more info than us armchair experts.

For example, MS set a fastest time during a yellow flag session during the race but received no penalty while Sutil did the same in practice and was reprimanded. On paper, they were very similar but dealt with differently.

http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Documents/chn-document-10.pdf

http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Documents/chn-document-11.pdf

Then we have Sutil and Hamilton who were penalised for driving in a dangerous manner and were reprimanded. There are times when the evidence in front of our eyes has to be taken at face value no matter what our personal views of a driver may be. The staunch Hamilton fans may argue that no specific rules were broken which is technically right but in reality wrong. He did drive in a dangerous manner as did Vettel and got a rap on the knuckles. Hamilton detractors think he should be penalised harsher which again is against the decision of the Stewards who have all the information.

http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Documents/chn-document-39.pdf

http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Documents/chn-document-40.pdf

The Stewards decided there was no case to answer from a safety perspective.

Er. no. They issued a reprimand.

If there was no case to answer, then no action would have been taken.

The stewards, by dent of issuing a reprimand, took action because there was a case to answer.

As the rule explained.

[Retro Formula 1]

Er. no. They issued a reprimand.

If there was no case to answer, then no action would have been taken.

The stewards, by dent of issuing a reprimand, took action because there was a case to answer.

As the rule explained.

You have purposely used a selective part of a sentence relating to unsafe pit release to attempt to justify your post. That is poor and I hope you will correct it. They issued, as I said, a reprimand for driving in a dangerous manner, not unsafe pit release. Unsafe pit release is a specific offence with clear penalty.


The Stewards received a report from the Race Director regarding an incident in the pit lane involving car
2, Lewis Hamilton and car 5, Sebastian Vettel. On hearing the explanation from both driver's and team
manager's and viewing video evidence the Steward's decide that Sebastian Vettel drove in a dangerous
manner and therefore impose a penalty of a reprimand.
The Stewards received a report from the Race Director regarding an incident in the pit lane involving car
2, Lewis Hamilton and car 5, Sebastian Vettel. On hearing the explanation from both driver's and both
team manager's and viewing video evidence the Steward's decide that Lewis Hamilton drove in a
dangerous manner and therefore impose a penalty of a reprimand.As I said, this is going round in circles and I cannot change the facts. If we have a difference regardsing interpretation of the facts then I am sure it's not going to be resolved if it hasn't by now. Lets just agree to differ.

[SGWilko]

So it's ok to recklessly endanger those who work in the pits through your own stupid actions because its a "controlled" environment?

It's a controlled environment because of the risks, hence the need for controls.

You ARE Gordon Brown, aren't you - labelling the public bigots willy nilly etc.

And, now putting words in others' mouths. Quaint.

As I've said before, remember in the 80's - pits chock a block with crews etc, cars running at full tilt.

Now, they are empty unless a car is coming in, and speeds have been massively reduced.....

[SGWilko]

Au contraire.

Hamilton never made it into the designated fast lane, it was his car that did not complete a safe release.

The "release" doesn't just involve leaving your pit box.

If the release was safe at time of release, how can the safe release then not be a safe release????

[SGWilko]

Yeah! let them race side by side down the pitlane, and if the pit crews get killed, too bad.

That's it - F1 is too dangerous, shut the pits completely, in a case a wheel comes off because the pit crews are trying to gain milliseconds, or a car slides to a halt running his lollipop man over.......

[Big Ben]

I think the majority of Hamilton fans on here have been keen to state that Hamilton was in the wrong with his actions and eager to highlight that Vettel was as much in the wrong for his part.


Ok. What did Vettel do wrong?

[Big Ben]

Oh my god.

The 3 foot swerve towards Hamilton perhaps??????????????????????

who wasn't supposed to be there

[Bagwan]

Au contraire.

Hamilton never made it into the designated fast lane, it was his car that did not complete a safe release.

The "release" doesn't just involve leaving your pit box.

I can't agree with this , Tam .

Once the lollipop has gone up , the car is in the control of the the driver .
It was neither the team nor specifically the lollipop guy causing wheelspin .
It was Lewis , or , more specifically Lewis's foot , or , even more specifically , Lewis's brain telling his foot to step on it .

Now , we shouldn't forget that Lewis's brain was under pressure .
He had Vettel in the pits , right behind him , trying desperately with his team to get past .
But , he also had had a rather dodgy pit entrance , wandering fully four wheels off track and then back on in front of Sebastian . He may have been even more worried about possible sanction about that .


The safe release rules governing distance , I believe , apply to the moment the lollipop goes up . Unless he could somehow have created Lewis's wheelspin , how could he have changed anything with the sticks up at roughly the same time ?



Lewis didn't speed in the "school zone" , but he ran down the sidewalk . Luckily the school kids weren't out for recess .
He didn't speed in the school zone , because that would have been illegal , but neither did the guy who was beside him , who prevented him from entering , moving towards the curb .
Mind you , that guy beside was under no obligation to yield , or to create room by moving over , as he was both beside and slightly ahead , and so , moved aggressively within his lane .




Sebastian's move was a reaction , built upon the belief that Lewis was obligated to lift , as he was not in the lane .
Had he merely stayed where he was , he would be taking no stick at all , and Lewis would still have emerged from pit out behind , perhaps with penalty .
Likely aghast at what was happening beside him , he took the aggressive approach that all racers take when they are challenged , and believe they are in the right , that is , ahead .
He moved within his lane . Doesn't it sound less vile without the word "swerve" .


Verdict from Judge bagwan : Sebastian - drive-through .
Lewis - 10 second stop and go .

Judge bagwan would also like to announce the new rules regarding curb hopping in school zones .
Firstly , blue paint in pit lane is banned unless paint guys come up with something that has as much grip as the regular surface .
Secondly , cars on limitters ahead in the lane have precedence , but must move left as soon as is safe to do so . If no obstruction exists , the length of two pitboxes will be this distance .
Cars must lift if obstruction from other cars exists beside when entering the lane within the length of one pitbox .
They must , if another car is ahead , once entered into the lane , also move left in behind the other car , within two pitboxes .

Judge bagwan applies new penalty for the offences as follows :
Sebastian - 20 second stop and go .
Lewis - DQ

[Big Ben]

Hamilton!!! Have you read any of the posts in this thread?
So if Vettel had crashed into the side of Hamilton and someone was killed, would the investigators take action on the guy who "shouldn't have been there", or the guy who decided to change direction and move as close to the other as possible??

BOTH would have been in trouble, which is why they BOTH got a reprimand. Vettel also got a reprimand. I really don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend for some. Even someone like me whose a Hamilton fan can appreciate Lewis was wrong for his part, why can't others drop the bias?

LH was behind, LH was not between the right lines, LH should have slowed down. SB didn't cross the line. It was LH that was offside all the time, so please give me a break with this objectivity of yours. But you are right, for the sake of everybody's safety the wiser one should have kept in mind that the other one is a bit of an idiot.

[markabilly]

Yeah! let them race side by side down the pitlane, and if the pit crews get killed, too bad.

Yeah, all you negative people, let the excitement continue!!! Even add to it by scoring extra points like death race 2000....who needs sprinklers???


Blessed are they who go around in circles, for they shall become Big Wheels.

Or nascar drivers...


This is my last post on this thread as we are just going round in circles.

Tamburello has kindly posted the rules that he claimed were broken and it is in black and white that they were not broken. Hamilton released safely at almost exactly the same time to within a fraction of a second as Vettel.

The release was fine according to the rules and this oft discussed "spirit" of the rules. Hamilton would have emerged clearly in front of the Red Bull if it wasn't for excessive wheelspin on the damp paint.

.
well, let see, not the last post you post, but as you accidentally point out....

"would have emerged clearly in front....excessive wheel spin", but as a result did not emerge clearly in front, and that would be no differrent if he had failed to hit the throttle quick enough, or if the clutch slipped, or if the lollipop man released him a second later, or if the fuel hose were still attached...

The rule:"It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so"

it don't say 'lollipop man", it includes everyone, driver, too...

Given the wheel spin, the obviously wet and damp conditions, it was not a safe release.

The rule does not state: "there is an exception if the lollipop man thought it was safe, and it was not" or "the release must be done intentionally unsafe" or "unlesss he could not react fast enough" or "the driver is not responsible to safely release his car" or "is excused from the responsibility once the lollipop man lifts "

There was no responsibilty on Vettel for unsafe release, because he was behind and then along side, when hamilton made his entry into the lane...as such, Vettel had the right of way.

However both then continued and both were clearly involved in dangerous driving, although Hamilton should have backed off as Vettel was clearly in the fast lane first....

SO as to dangerous driving, penalty on both. Maybe higher on Hamilton for not backing off.

As to unsafe release, additional penalty on Hamilton, without question, even under the black and white of the rule.....

duh... :s nore:










[it is only complicated, if you love Hamilton so much :love: and drink too much of hamilton's new mix of kool-aid...probably the stewards' problems as well... :beer:

well maybe we need more rules...like when is it permitted under the rules to run over stewards...and a specific penalty or reward

but a reprimand??? that should be reserved for not wearing one's socks while racing or the right amount of decals on their helmet....]

[Bagwan]

By the way , can we get the title of this thread changed to add a "be" in between "should" and "tougher" ?

Unless we have all misinterpretted the title , and it meant the stewards should "tough'er out" , meaning that they should stick to thier guns and the repimands were fine , in which case , add the "out" , and let's start over .

[Valve Bounce]

That's it - F1 is too dangerous, shut the pits completely, in a case a wheel comes off because the pit crews are trying to gain milliseconds, or a car slides to a halt running his lollipop man over.......

...................or the drivers decide to race with wheels interlocked down the pitlane, with one driver forcing the other to one side.

[markabilly]

The rule does not state: "there is an exception if the lollipop man thought it was safe, and it was not" or "the release must be done intentionally unsafe" or "unlesss he could not react fast enough" or "the driver is not responsible to safely release his car" or "is excused from the responsibility once the lollipop man lifts "

....]

I guess I need to add the further-not to -be found exceptions of "is excused from responsibility when excessive wheelspin occurs" or "other mechanical problems" or "once the lollipop is raised".....

loved your posting Bagwan..... :D

(I would have said "post" but dunnel or sg would have come along and want to know how long we been dating....)

[Big Ben]

desperate in an attempt to bash Lewis.. :p :

desperate? the guy has been involved in half the incidents or scandals of past few years. There's no reason to be desperate... there is fresh material after almost every race :laugh: .

[SGWilko]

Vettel has done this before - I think - remember Oz 2009 - he moved over on Kubica to cause a proper mess...... and then had the brains to drive back with 2.5 wheels on his wagon.

If you want F1 to be 100% safe, stop F1 races...........

[Bagwan]

But the point being discussed here was the fact that they were released at the same time! What cognitive skills do you have that the F1 mechanics don't?


I might just start going down the line of blaming Vettel for the whole thing and choose to ignore half the facts on offer. Ok lets say the Red Bull lollypop guy should not have released Vettel as Hamilton was in the slot in front. He should have waited for Hamilton to be released before stupidly lifting up his lollypop at the same time as his Mclaren rival. Hamilton should not have moved over and let vettel hit him and hopefully we would have seen some carnage in the pitlane which would have been directly Vettels fault.

The above is about as ridiculous as the majority of posts claiming unsafe release, and is becoming increasingly desperate in an attempt to bash Lewis.. :p :

Not to point any fingers at anyone in specific , but some posters will even go to the extent of stating the extreme opposing view of the situation , seemingly desperate in an attempt to stop people bashing Lewis .
They might even state they wish to see carnage in the pit lane , just to prove thier point .

Some posters , again , not mentioning any names , might want to be calm and remember we're only talking about racing drivers . There's nothing to get so excited about that we should wish carnage in the pit lane .

[SGWilko]

Not to point any fingers at anyone in specific , but some posters will even go to the extent of stating the extreme opposing view of the situation , seemingly desperate in an attempt to stop people bashing Lewis .
They might even state they wish to see carnage in the pit lane , just to prove thier point .

Some posters , again , not mentioning any names , might want to be calm and remember we're only talking about racing drivers . There's nothing to get so excited about that we should wish carnage in the pit lane .

Are we not getting a little blase here? Lets first take stock and ask;

Who wants to see pit lane carnage?

Any takers?

Now, who thinks Lewis was wrong to run alongside Seb?

Who thinks Seb was wrong to force Lewis ever closer to the air gun airlines?

Who thinks they both suffered brainfade?

How many times have drivers driven side by side down the pit lane?

How many pit lane mechanics were killed, maimed or injured as a result?

Who thinks the pit lane speed limit is too fast?

WHo thinks the pit crews being banned from their pit lane area when not servicing a car is a bad idea>?

Who thinks either Seb or Lewis was trying to kill someone?

Now, who thinks this was a racing incident, borne of two competetive drivers, looking to gain whatever advantage possible?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Are we not getting a little blase here? Lets first take stock and ask;

Who wants to see pit lane carnage?

Any takers?

Now, who thinks Lewis was wrong to run alongside Seb?

Who thinks Seb was wrong to force Lewis ever closer to the air gun airlines?

Who thinks they both suffered brainfade?

How many times have drivers driven side by side down the pit lane?

How many pit lane mechanics were killed, maimed or injured as a result?

Who thinks the pit lane speed limit is too fast?

WHo thinks the pit crews being banned from their pit lane area when not servicing a car is a bad idea>?

Who thinks either Seb or Lewis was trying to kill someone?

Now, who thinks this was a racing incident, borne of two competetive drivers, looking to gain whatever advantage possible?

I think I am going to start doing drugs and take what you take. You obviously are in a blissful state of naivety...

Your attitude is "nothing happened, it was boys being boys, we used to do this stuff with the guys going faster and nothing happened". Yes..and we used to use lead in our gas, paint and everywhere else, and put asbestos in our homes. Then we wised UP.

What both these guys did was stupid, both should share some blame and take equal amounts of responsibility but in the end, nothing WAS really done outside of a tongue lashing.

We can argue for days on whether the reprimand was enough or not, that is conjecture but we I think can all agree this was stupid or against the rules. I quite like Lewis Hamilton, but he should have tucked in behind Vettel. Period. He didn't..and Vettel had to compound the stupidity by veering over on Hamilton. THAT was his role in the stupidity.

All in all, two young guys with ego's out of control. It MUST be f1...but I guess this is why they need stewards. To be mature, responsible and punish the stupidity.

[ioan]

The penalty was the reprimand and for me it was enough.

What kind of penalty is a reprimand?! :rolleyes:

[ioan]

Ha ha ha. A reprimand cost you nothing, or should I say at the moment.

Exactly. A reprimand costs nothing, that's why I wonder if some people did check out what a reprimand is before posting in this thread. :)

[ioan]

desperate? the guy has been involved in half the incidents or scandals of past few years. There's no reason to be desperate... there is fresh material after almost every race :laugh: .

That's sad but true.

[ioan]

Vettel has done this before - I think - remember Oz 2009 - he moved over on Kubica to cause a proper mess...... and then had the brains to drive back with 2.5 wheels on his wagon.

If you want F1 to be 100% safe, stop F1 races...........

Where did Vettel do whatever to Kubica in teh pitlane in Oz 2009?! :rolleyes:
Let's stick to factual truth and to the theme of this thread: 'racing in the pitlane' and ball-less stewards.

[Mia 01]

I can't agree with this , Tam .

Once the lollipop has gone up , the car is in the control of the the driver .
It was neither the team nor specifically the lollipop guy causing wheelspin .
It was Lewis , or , more specifically Lewis's foot , or , even more specifically , Lewis's brain telling his foot to step on it .

Now , we shouldn't forget that Lewis's brain was under pressure .
He had Vettel in the pits , right behind him , trying desperately with his team to get past .
But , he also had had a rather dodgy pit entrance , wandering fully four wheels off track and then back on in front of Sebastian . He may have been even more worried about possible sanction about that .


The safe release rules governing distance , I believe , apply to the moment the lollipop goes up . Unless he could somehow have created Lewis's wheelspin , how could he have changed anything with the sticks up at roughly the same time ?



Lewis didn't speed in the "school zone" , but he ran down the sidewalk . Luckily the school kids weren't out for recess .
He didn't speed in the school zone , because that would have been illegal , but neither did the guy who was beside him , who prevented him from entering , moving towards the curb .
Mind you , that guy beside was under no obligation to yield , or to create room by moving over , as he was both beside and slightly ahead , and so , moved aggressively within his lane .




Sebastian's move was a reaction , built upon the belief that Lewis was obligated to lift , as he was not in the lane .
Had he merely stayed where he was , he would be taking no stick at all , and Lewis would still have emerged from pit out behind , perhaps with penalty .
Likely aghast at what was happening beside him , he took the aggressive approach that all racers take when they are challenged , and believe they are in the right , that is , ahead .
He moved within his lane . Doesn't it sound less vile without the word "swerve" .


Verdict from Judge bagwan : Sebastian - drive-through .
Lewis - 10 second stop and go .

Judge bagwan would also like to announce the new rules regarding curb hopping in school zones .
Firstly , blue paint in pit lane is banned unless paint guys come up with something that has as much grip as the regular surface .
Secondly , cars on limitters ahead in the lane have precedence , but must move left as soon as is safe to do so . If no obstruction exists , the length of two pitboxes will be this distance .
Cars must lift if obstruction from other cars exists beside when entering the lane within the length of one pitbox .
They must , if another car is ahead , once entered into the lane , also move left in behind the other car , within two pitboxes .

Judge bagwan applies new penalty for the offences as follows :
Sebastian - 20 second stop and go .
Lewis - DQ

Judge Bagwan is the best!

[Bagwan]

You mean the view that they were both to blame and the view the stewards took when viewing the incident? So I'm wrong, the stewards are wrong but you are right? Is that correct? :eek:


OR maybe some posters have deliberately ignored the obvious sarcasm in ones post and picked out a cynical statement to try and paint anothers forum members view in the extreme, simply to prove their point?

You know as well as I do that nobody here would wish to see "carnage in the pitlane" where it would endanger the lives of the crews and personel working there. I simply slapped a pair of blinkers on like yourself and tried to opportion blame to one driver without considering the actions of the other in a sarcastic POV.. :rolleyes:

My point was and I'm not going to make it again, was that if there had have been a coming together in the pitlane, I very much doubt Vettel would escape blame considering he participated in squeezing Hamilton. Lewis should not have been there but Vettel caused danger by forcing him to run out of space. The blame IMO falls at 50/50 between the two drivers. If Vettel had not moved towards Lewis I would lead the condemnation that Lewis was wholely in the wrong. Vettel would also not have received a reprimand as he would not have been the one also driving dangerously.

END.

I know you agree with the stewards's decision .
That's pretty clear .
Unless you always do , that's a pretty weak leg on which to stand .

Sarcastic or not , I don't like posts inviting "carnage" .

I also don't appreciate being called "blinkered" .


And , I very much doubt it will be the last time you will try to make this point of yours .




What about the move on the way into the pits by your boy ?
Are you OK with him being all four wheels off track , or did Vettel force him into it ?

[Bagwan]

Judge Bagwan is the best!

I understand he's a close associate of Sir Bagly Ecclestone Esq. so I wouldn't trust him if I were you .

[Ari]

Ok. What did Vettel do wrong?

He pushed Hamilton into the pit bays.... no no for mine.

[Ari]

who wasn't supposed to be there

Yes.... Hamilton should not have been there. Vettel did the wrong thing but did so to a guy who should have yielded in the first place.

Vettel gave Hamilton space to get back in then pushed him across when he realised Hamilton was going to do some racing out in the pit bays.

[Ari]

Vettel has done this before - I think - remember Oz 2009 - he moved over on Kubica to cause a proper mess...... and then had the brains to drive back with 2.5 wheels on his wagon.

If you want F1 to be 100% safe, stop F1 races...........

You need to go back over a year to find a Vettel moment of stupidity.... which, as it were, was on track in racing conditions.

And, if I recall, Vettel was penalised grid places for his stupidity.

So, after you brought that up, why is it safer to have a moment of stupidity out on the track in racing conditions than it is to have a moment of stupidity in pit lane under supposed non-racing conditions?

Vettels only saving grace is that the other bloke was Lewis!!!

[Ari]

Are we not getting a little blase here? Lets first take stock and ask;
Lets...


Who wants to see pit lane carnage?

Any takers?

Nope.


Now, who thinks Lewis was wrong to run alongside Seb?
Yes.... definitely. After seeing that Vettel was out first should have slotted in behind him like every other driver has in the past.


Who thinks Seb was wrong to force Lewis ever closer to the air gun airlines?
Absolutely. Should not have done it. Was unsafe, pure and simple.


Who thinks they both suffered brainfade?
Yep!


How many times have drivers driven side by side down the pit lane?
Has happened, but it's that common. Usually the driver coming onto the fast lane last will yield. Or if they see they are half a car behind the other guy they would yield. Lewis didn't.


How many pit lane mechanics were killed, maimed or injured as a result?
Ummm none. Thankfully they were not in their bays.... good thing too as Lewis would have possibly mowed down a couple were they doing a tyre change!


Who thinks the pit lane speed limit is too fast?
Not relevant.


WHo thinks the pit crews being banned from their pit lane area when not servicing a car is a bad idea>?
It's a good idea.... but really not relevant. Unless they looked into the future and saw what Lewis was going to do.... then it's a REALLY good idea and very relevant.


Who thinks either Seb or Lewis was trying to kill someone?
If you weren't being silly before, you are now. Nobody goes out to kill someone but it's a dangerous sport.


Now, who thinks this was a racing incident, borne of two competetive drivers, looking to gain whatever advantage possible?
So because it was racing and exciting we should just let it be? We should not worry about it? I don't remember that being the opinion of Rubens vs Webber last year when he pushed him across moving into the first corner of one of the races.

A racing incident this is not. Nothing like it. This was two kids too stubborn to do what they should have.

[Ari]

What kind of penalty is a reprimand?! :rolleyes:

It isn't.

Didn't Lewis get a similar penalty in the previous race for playing zigzag?

[Ari]

If the release was safe at time of release, how can the safe release then not be a safe release????

Seriously?

The release was fine. No problems at all. And to be honest, this is a stupid post as I really don't see many on here calling it an unsafe release.

The problem is not with the Macca pit crew or lollipop man or anything. The problem is that Lewis did not move in behind a guy who was travelling down pitlane ahead of him.

Lewis wanted to run two wide knowing that he would have the line into the first corner if they ran two wide all the way.

Seb didn't want to run two wide so said "oi mate, you may wanna slip in behind me since I was already here and your front wheels are level with my rear wheels".

At the end of the day, it was dangerous. Lewis IS dangerous and it's a problem which needs to be addressed which wasn't.

[markabilly]

But the point being discussed here was the fact that they were released at the same time! What cognitive skills do you have that the F1 mechanics don't?

:p :


I can read the English language, which appearently presents difficulties for some around here as well as the FIA.

"It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so"

The rule does not say or add "except where the lollipop man raises his stick at the same time as another"

Or "except where the competitor has excessive wheel spin" or "except where the man with the stick could not have anticipated what would happen".


It was not safe for Hamilton to be released at that moment (due to no fault of the lollipop man) to drive into the pit lane from the pitbox due to excessive wheel spin, so if one attributes fault then it is driver or machine, but that changes nothing, as it remains "...the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so"

There is nothing that constitutes a "fault provision" in the rule or says it is permitted, if the team (crew, boss, and driver) think it is safe or know it is safe or have no reason to think it is unsafe to raise the stick----but turn out later to be wrong due to circumstances , even circumstances beyond their control.


One does it at their own risk, and if the result is unsafe, then it was their responsibility, like it or not, and he should have penalized.

such a rule cuts out whining and fudging, "oh, I thought it was safe...."

No different than a mandatory speed limit and other mandatory or strict liability laws, exceed it and penalty....no excuses like "I did not know, i did not think, I acted reasonably....or no harm, no foul."

And hamilton could have stopped. But he did not.

penalty on him.

And vettel should not have raced him, but he did, so penalty on him as well. :vader:

[SGWilko]

it's a dangerous sport.

It most certainly is Stanley.

[SGWilko]

this is a stupid post as I really don't see many on here calling it an unsafe release.

Indeed. Stupid though it may have been, it made the point - albeit laboured - to the 'not many' on here.

[SGWilko]

"It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so"

The rule does not say or add "except where the lollipop man raises his stick at the same time as another"

You're gonna dig a big hole here. If Lotus release their car at the same time as Ferrari, is that unsafe?

The 55 yard, metre, acre, hectare, chain rule, is , as I understand it, applied to vehicles actually travelling down the pit lane and the pitted car in front.

That may not be proper English, but I hope the point is clear.

And of course if what you were saying IS true, two cars together in the pits would never be able to release.....

[ioan]

Lets...



Nope.


Yes.... definitely. After seeing that Vettel was out first should have slotted in behind him like every other driver has in the past.


Absolutely. Should not have done it. Was unsafe, pure and simple.


Yep!


Has happened, but it's that common. Usually the driver coming onto the fast lane last will yield. Or if they see they are half a car behind the other guy they would yield. Lewis didn't.


Ummm none. Thankfully they were not in their bays.... good thing too as Lewis would have possibly mowed down a couple were they doing a tyre change!


Not relevant.


It's a good idea.... but really not relevant. Unless they looked into the future and saw what Lewis was going to do.... then it's a REALLY good idea and very relevant.


If you weren't being silly before, you are now. Nobody goes out to kill someone but it's a dangerous sport.


So because it was racing and exciting we should just let it be? We should not worry about it? I don't remember that being the opinion of Rubens vs Webber last year when he pushed him across moving into the first corner of one of the races.

A racing incident this is not. Nothing like it. This was two kids too stubborn to do what they should have.

Agreed.

I can read the English language, which appearently presents difficulties for some around here as well as the FIA.

"It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so"

The rule does not say or add "except where the lollipop man raises his stick at the same time as another"

Or "except where the competitor has excessive wheel spin" or "except where the man with the stick could not have anticipated what would happen".


It was not safe for Hamilton to be released at that moment (due to no fault of the lollipop man) to drive into the pit lane from the pitbox due to excessive wheel spin, so if one attributes fault then it is driver or machine, but that changes nothing, as it remains "...the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so"

There is nothing that constitutes a "fault provision" in the rule or says it is permitted, if the team (crew, boss, and driver) think it is safe or know it is safe or have no reason to think it is unsafe to raise the stick----but turn out later to be wrong due to circumstances , even circumstances beyond their control.


One does it at their own risk, and if the result is unsafe, then it was their responsibility, like it or not, and he should have penalized.

such a rule cuts out whining and fudging, "oh, I thought it was safe...."

No different than a mandatory speed limit and other mandatory or strict liability laws, exceed it and penalty....no excuses like "I did not know, i did not think, I acted reasonably....or no harm, no foul."

And hamilton could have stopped. But he did not.

penalty on him.

And vettel should not have raced him, but he did, so penalty on him as well. :vader:

Amen, Brother, Amen.

[markabilly]

You're gonna dig a big hole here. If Lotus release their car at the same time as Ferrari, is that unsafe?

The 55 yard, metre, acre, hectare, chain rule, is , as I understand it, applied to vehicles actually travelling down the pit lane and the pitted car in front.

That may not be proper English, but I hope the point is clear.

And of course if what you were saying IS true, two cars together in the pits would never be able to release.....


Must be hard reading English, as I thought for sure the rule say.."It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so"


Releasing means permitting the car to go into the pitlane from the confinement of the pitbox.

If both raise their stick at the same time and both cars go into the pitlane at the same time....that is NOT a problem.
The problem is when one car does not go into the pitlane immediately but waits....

Examples of a release when it is unsafe:

1. Car stalls after moving less than a foot, and car is restarted and zooms into the side of another car...well the stick was raised when it was safe....so who is stupid enough to claim un-safe release??? :rolleyes:

2. Stick is being raised, and a crewman sticks his hand in the wrong place and it gets crushed...

3. Stick is being raised and as car goes forward, the fuel nozzle is attempted to be reinserted for whatever dumb reason, the car goes and does a Massa and fuel goes flying all over pitlane, sparks right up....

4. Crewman can not get airgun to work, pulls back to get another, but the stick goes up, since it seems all wheels are on.....but they are not, and wheel comes off as the car goes crashing in pitlane or somewhere else....

5. Stick goes up, road clear but driver has problems gettting it in right gear, but a couple of seconds later, hits the gas and then the other car in the lane....but when the stick went up, it was safe to go IF THE CAR WENT RIGHT THEN AND THERE.......

6. Driver is too busy looking at a chickie, to immediately notice the stick is up, but realizes it a seconf later and hits the gas and crashes into another car..

7. Stick goes up as pitlane is clear but at that precise moment, the stick goes up for the car right behind who immediately begins to move, but the car in front moves only slightly while spinning its wheels to get free of the box....OPPS :eek: that is what we are talking about already.... :eek:

I can find the rule (thanks to Tamb), that says "It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so" ....


problem is i can not find that clause that adds the exception: "but if it ain't the fault of the stick man, it is not unsafe"

:s mokin:

maybe that part of the rule is in a secret code that can only be read by Hamilton supporters???

[ArrowsFA1]

Is this still going :confused: :eek: :crazy: :p :

[markabilly]

At the point the Mclaren lollpop guy lifted his stick Vettel was not fully out of his box and into the designated pitlane. Are we suggesting the crews are at a level where they can read each others minds?

Can you imagine the confusion if 5 or 6 cars were in at once and teams were delaying their releases just in case another happened to lift at the same time? The more I read this thread the more it makes me chuckle how far people will go to pin the blame more on one particular driver. Did someone also suggest it was Lewis's fault and not the lollypop guy because he didn't judge his own release? Perhaps he should have got out of his car to overcome the limited vision he would have had looking up the pitlane. Afterall what is a pit crew for if they can't decide when to give the driver the thumbs up? Come on..

NO, IT IS ONLY A PROBLEM WHEN AFTER THE STICK GOES UP, THE CAR DON'T GO OUT BUT SITS AND SPINS ITS WHEELS OR OTHER STUFF LIKE WHAT I OUTLINED......

AND YOU STILL DO NOT GET IT.
IT IS NOT A 'FAULT OFFENSE' WHERE THERE ARE MANY MANY MANY EXCUSES FOR THE WHINEY WHINERS.. :arrows:



But if you just gotta talk fault, cause you just gotta, well Hamilton spun his wheels and should have known he was not getting proper grip and he was gonna be slow out into the lane and should have reacted accordingly but DID NOT. :dozey:

Penalty on Hamilton even under that scenario of the make-believe rules.. :rotflmao: ..no mind reading at all is necessary :rotflmao:

[SGWilko]

But if you just gotta talk fault, cause you just gotta, well Hamilton spun his wheels and should have known he was not getting proper grip and he was gonna be slow out into the lane and should have reacted accordingly but DID NOT. :dozey:



WHILE WE ARE IN SHOUTY MODE, SHOULD NOT THE LOLLIPOP MAN BE BURNED AT THE STAKE FOR NOT STOPPING LEWIS THE INSTANT THE WHEELS LOST TRACTION, THEN BRIDGESTONE FOR MAKING DRY TYRES THAT DON'T WORK IN WET CONDITIONS, AND MR McCADDUM FOR MAKING AHPHALT........

Blah blah murder a prostitute blah.......

[SGWilko]

Is this still going :confused: :eek: :crazy: :p :

I'm shocked you are shocked at our ability to talk nonesense for hours on end.

I only come on here to wind folk up in between tissues.

[markabilly]

WHILE WE ARE IN SHOUTY MODE, SHOULD NOT THE LOLLIPOP MAN BE BURNED AT THE STAKE FOR NOT STOPPING LEWIS THE INSTANT THE WHEELS LOST TRACTION, THEN BRIDGESTONE FOR MAKING DRY TYRES THAT DON'T WORK IN WET CONDITIONS, AND MR McCADDUM FOR MAKING AHPHALT........

Blah blah murder a prostitute blah.......

well in YOUR WORLD of MAKE BELIEVE RULES.....i think it a bit harsh to burn him at the stake.

Perhaps a simple head chopping would suffice, since it really was NOT his fault that Hamilton spun his tires, so we will do the stake burning with Lewis--- that show would probably draw a big crowd, esp since it would be a one shot deal, with no repeat performances

bet some would pay some big bucks for front row seats.... but i would not. Gets too hot and smelly when up close like that

As to the prostitute, well, i leave such fun and games to you and MaX :vader:

Anyway, it is always a good tactic when you know you are wrong, and done been whipped, to try a little off topic talk about prostitutes to avoid the humilation of having to confess the errors of your ways, esp with Tamb and Ioan watching, but God forgives you, go and sin no more. :love:

Amen, brother, amen.........

[airshifter]

well in YOUR WORLD of MAKE BELIEVE RULES.....i think it a bit harsh to burn him at the stake.



... and in the word of the actual rule quoted, Lewis did release when it was safe. Only his wheelspin brought the situation to a point of side by side cars. I'm not even a Lewis supporter, but see just as much fault on Vettel for crowding the line.

Is there any rule that says two cars can't travel side by side down the pit lane? And for that matter, what penalty would Vettel have got for forcing someone outside of the racing line if it took place and the track proper?

[Bagwan]

.. what penalty would Vettel have got for forcing someone outside of the racing line if it took place and the track proper?

If it was on the racing surface , Vettel would have had the right to do as he pleased , as he was both fully on the surface , and ahead .
Hamilton had not fully entered and would therefore be obligated to enter only when safe to do so .


The split-seconds , when the pressure is on , are are the moments that are seen as defining for drivers of all eras .

Logically , with the moment of release for both drivers roughly equal , Lewis should have come out ahead . It is likely that he felt some relief , despite having run off track on the way in , to have been ahead in pit lane , perhaps even feeling that he had already won the "pit race " .

Once that wheelspin had occurred , Lewis had that split second decision to make , knowing his rival was ahead , and beside , negating ANY chance of winning a "pit race" , and proceeded to ponder for many split seconds , all the way down the blue lane .

Sebastian , in the lane and ahead , would have been elated to see Lewis fail to get away , and been feeling secure in knowing , at that particular split second , he would be first out .
Seeing his rival beside , having already lost , still stupidly trying to win a lost race , travelling down the blue , when way back when , a few seconds earlier , Sebastian knew he had won the "pit race" , defied logic .

And , foolishly , but motivated by a fellow racer who he , at the moment , likely saw as driving both illegally and dangerously , he decided to move to assert his right to the lane .



The situation makes me wonder if Lewis might have been treated differently , had Sebastian not moved in .

[Malbec]

Seriously?

The release was fine. No problems at all. And to be honest, this is a stupid post as I really don't see many on here calling it an unsafe release.

The problem is not with the Macca pit crew or lollipop man or anything. The problem is that Lewis did not move in behind a guy who was travelling down pitlane ahead of him.

Lewis wanted to run two wide knowing that he would have the line into the first corner if they ran two wide all the way.

I completely agree with this except for the last bit. The release was safe. Lewis was at fault for then running alongside Vettel having had a poor getaway.

The thing is, Lewis would have had to fall back being Vettel anyway before the end of the pitlane because there was a concrete wall preventing him from rejoining the main track alongside Vettel.

As a guy I know in motorsports pointed out drivers learn to stop pulling stupid stunts in the pitlane early on in their careers because if someone gets hurt its usually someone they know, a mechanic. Drivers who carry on quickly get brought back down to earth whether its by their own team or by guys from other ones. Lewis broke that unwritten rule and it really was lucky that there weren't crews from other teams further down the lane that noone got hurt.

But then past experience shows that Lewis often doesn't pay attention to things around him in the pitlane when the redmist is going. Wasn't it Canada a few years back when he failed to spot both the red light at the end of the pitlane and the stationary red car in front of him? I thought Kimi was remarkably charitable after that encounter.

[ioan]

I thought Kimi was remarkably charitable after that encounter.

That was one of those golden Kimi moments, showing Lewis the red light! :laugh:

[henners88]

YAWN... :s nore:

YAWN... :s nore:

You've been proved to be wrong, have been shown to have been deliberately misleading and to have feck all credibility with your arguments so now try to claim you are bored with the topic.

Pathetic. The actions of a deceitful troll.

[SGWilko]

You've been proved to be wrong, have been shown to have been deliberately misleading and to have feck all credibility with your arguments so now try to claim you are bored with the topic.

Pathetic. The actions of a deceitful troll.

Objection - Repetition.

Objection - Repetition.

This isn't a whimsical Radio 4 game show, so I'll only stop when he does something to improve his deliberate misrepresentation and he becomes honest.

[SGWilko]

This isn't a whimsical Radio 4 game show, so I'll only stop when he does something to improve his deliberate misrepresentation and he becomes honest.

Ya da, ya da, ya da........

[BDunnell]

This isn't a whimsical Radio 4 game show, so I'll only stop when he does something to improve his deliberate misrepresentation and he becomes honest.

In what sense is an internet message board focusing on motorsport and the opinions contained within it — even yours — any more serious or important than said whimsical Radio 4 game show? Our discussions on here are hardly of vital significance, after all.

[markabilly]

I don't beleive it was an unsafe release by either team and I don't blame either driver for attempting to join the pitlane after their release was signaled to them.

:)
Because it was as much of an unsafe release as any ever before, made so not by the stick man who I never said failed in his simple duties, but by the spinning of the wheels and lewis continuing to be driving out when it was unsafe, no different than many others so found,have sufferred the indignity of the pain being punished.....

The only thing clearer is the Hamilton faithful, drinking their kool aid, and proclaiming NO WAY for reasons beyond reasonable and objective comprehension...



and speaking of "vital signifigance"


:beer: Fact is I just took a sip myself...you know the special stuff with heavy doses of ketamine and lysergide mixed in just for hamilton to cool out ....humm purple haze....Wow, I just looked at the video...oh my, such colors flashing everywhere....who do I see in the back, it is Tamb with a rope tied to the back of hamilton's car, grinning like a mean sunofa, holding onto it like superman while the tires just spin off more purple haze.......and there is henners and SG, both with their blindfolds on, singing there are none so blind as those who will not see, oh, those who will not see it my way, for we shall never shutup about team machcheat, no matter what those lying freddie emails said............

and then tamb lets go, and out flies the Ham, almost into the Seb

10 second penalty on Tamb for unsafe release :vader:

I am sure every maclover is happy now....

but in the background i hear Ioan, groaning "you missed again....no more Tifosi shall you be....

[airshifter]

If it was on the racing surface , Vettel would have had the right to do as he pleased , as he was both fully on the surface , and ahead .
Hamilton had not fully entered and would therefore be obligated to enter only when safe to do so .


The split-seconds , when the pressure is on , are are the moments that are seen as defining for drivers of all eras .

Logically , with the moment of release for both drivers roughly equal , Lewis should have come out ahead . It is likely that he felt some relief , despite having run off track on the way in , to have been ahead in pit lane , perhaps even feeling that he had already won the "pit race " .

Once that wheelspin had occurred , Lewis had that split second decision to make , knowing his rival was ahead , and beside , negating ANY chance of winning a "pit race" , and proceeded to ponder for many split seconds , all the way down the blue lane .

Sebastian , in the lane and ahead , would have been elated to see Lewis fail to get away , and been feeling secure in knowing , at that particular split second , he would be first out .
Seeing his rival beside , having already lost , still stupidly trying to win a lost race , travelling down the blue , when way back when , a few seconds earlier , Sebastian knew he had won the "pit race" , defied logic .

And , foolishly , but motivated by a fellow racer who he , at the moment , likely saw as driving both illegally and dangerously , he decided to move to assert his right to the lane .



The situation makes me wonder if Lewis might have been treated differently , had Sebastian not moved in .


I personally think Lewis would have gotten a tougher penalty if Vettel didn't move over, at least I would have hoped so.

And though I agree that on the track proper Vettel could have pushed someone aside, I think if done on a straight, not moving for the racing line, and not in danger of losing a position it would have received attention from the stewards. Especially if it was done in a place that would have pushed the car towards track workers, etc.


I still think it was brain fade on both drivers part. Lewis finally moved back into place farther down the pit lane, but had Vettel given him room to run two wide he still would have got the jump at the line and the Lewis move wouldn't have taken place.

[Ari]

I'm shocked you are shocked at our ability to talk nonesense for hours on end.

I only come on here to wind folk up in between tissues.

hehehe well said! :D

[Ari]

That was one of those golden Kimi moments, showing Lewis the red light! :laugh:

yep!! And I love that Lewis kinda nodded and just took it onboard. Was good of both of them! ;)

[Ari]

Because it was as much of an unsafe release as any ever before, made so not by the stick man who I never said failed in his simple duties, but by the spinning of the wheels and lewis continuing to be driving out when it was unsafe, no different than many others so found,have sufferred the indignity of the pain being punished.....

The only thing clearer is the Hamilton faithful, drinking their kool aid, and proclaiming NO WAY for reasons beyond reasonable and objective comprehension...



and speaking of "vital signifigance"


:beer: Fact is I just took a sip myself...you know the special stuff with heavy doses of ketamine and lysergide mixed in just for hamilton to cool out ....humm purple haze....Wow, I just looked at the video...oh my, such colors flashing everywhere....who do I see in the back, it is Tamb with a rope tied to the back of hamilton's car, grinning like a mean sunofa, holding onto it like superman while the tires just spin off more purple haze.......and there is henners and SG, both with their blindfolds on, singing there are none so blind as those who will not see, oh, those who will not see it my way, for we shall never shutup about team machcheat, no matter what those lying freddie emails said............

and then tamb lets go, and out flies the Ham, almost into the Seb

10 second penalty on Tamb for unsafe release :vader:

I am sure every maclover is happy now....

but in the background i hear Ioan, groaning "you missed again....no more Tifosi shall you be....

mmmmmmmmm kool aid!

http://blog.oregonlive.com/news_impact/2009/03/homer.drool.jpg

....now, what were you drinking, I mean saying? :)

[Bagwan]

I personally think Lewis would have gotten a tougher penalty if Vettel didn't move over, at least I would have hoped so.

And though I agree that on the track proper Vettel could have pushed someone aside, I think if done on a straight, not moving for the racing line, and not in danger of losing a position it would have received attention from the stewards. Especially if it was done in a place that would have pushed the car towards track workers, etc.


I still think it was brain fade on both drivers part. Lewis finally moved back into place farther down the pit lane, but had Vettel given him room to run two wide he still would have got the jump at the line and the Lewis move wouldn't have taken place.

Thanks for the response , Shifter .

I , too , think Lewis would have been penalized tougher had Seb not moved in .
On track , the onus to keep it safe is on the driver entering the track .
Those already on the racing surface should not need to react to someone re-entering .

I think we need to see it as action and reaction , and we might see it clearer .
Lewis tried to move into the pit lane with a car there beside .
He ran down the lane until Sebastian made it patently clear by moving to the line but not over , that he had the lane .

Lewis , had Sebastian not moved in , would likely have done even more mileage on the blue paint .
Action and reaction .

In that sense , Sebastian actually mitigated the situation , forcing Lewis to slot in behind .

Let's not forget that before Sebastian moved in , we had only one driver being a dick .

[markabilly]

Let's not forget that before Sebastian moved in , we had only one driver being a dick .

WHAT!!!!! You HERECTIC!!! How dare you!!!



You need MORE, drink some and then tell us:


mmmmmmmmm kool aid!

http://blog.oregonlive.com/news_impact/2009/03/homer.drool.jpg

....now, what were you drinking, I mean saying? :)

[markabilly]

Now I'm confused.

Lewis drove like a fool




I am not.
Looks like you got a clear overdose of kool aid to me, how could you say such things....

[ioan]

...I think if done on a straight, not moving for the racing line, and not in danger of losing a position it would have received attention from the stewards.

But in that case none would anyway do that as it would have no use.

[markabilly]

I hadn't thought of deleting parts of others posts before to get a sentence which interprets comments in a different way. :p

When is kool aid going to be sold in Britain? Americans go on about it all the time, and most of us haven't got a clue what it is. Life just isn't fair. :)
I thought you were the one on the cutting edge on that one....must be SG

News media does it all the time...and until they got burned real bad, 60 minutes used to do this bit where a person apparently sitting off camera would apprently ask a question with the guy sitting there and then the guy would give an answer, condemning his mortal soul to hades in a response to some eviserating question.
Problem was the question actually posed was something like "do you like the nice weather?" "yes but of course.Love it...
BUT the new question for the show was "and you knew you were breaking the law, yet you did it anyway......". "yes, but of course...Love it.


you can get FlaVor-Aid basicially the same thing in UK from here

http://www.koolaiduk.com/category.php?id_category=11
The other stuff is available on many street corners-but the secret is the mixing to get the special brew, but you are just fooling with me...you been drinking the stuff for years. Cant fool me.

So now are you ready to man up and admit you were wrong..... :confused:

[Mia 01]

Thanks for the response , Shifter .

I , too , think Lewis would have been penalized tougher had Seb not moved in .
On track , the onus to keep it safe is on the driver entering the track .
Those already on the racing surface should not need to react to someone re-entering .

I think we need to see it as action and reaction , and we might see it clearer .
Lewis tried to move into the pit lane with a car there beside .
He ran down the lane until Sebastian made it patently clear by moving to the line but not over , that he had the lane .

Lewis , had Sebastian not moved in , would likely have done even more mileage on the blue paint .
Action and reaction .

In that sense , Sebastian actually mitigated the situation , forcing Lewis to slot in behind .

Let's not forget that before Sebastian moved in , we had only one driver being a dick .

Thanks, one moore good post

[Bagwan]

I hadn't thought of deleting parts of others posts before to get a sentence which interprets comments in a different way. :p

OK , let's start with you reading your post #207 .
Now read this quote above .

Then I'd like you to re-read my post in it's entirety , noting the reference to "action and reaction" .

Lewis was being a massively huge idiot , and prompted a foolish reaction from Sebastian .

In my opinion , Lewis was worthy of far more sanction , and should be sanctioned no more or less whether Seb moved in or not .
Had Sebastian not moved in on Lewis , they might have been forced to penalize Hamilton , but , as it was , it was easy to just say it was a racing incident and reprimand both .

He did move in , prompting the reprimand , but it had first prompted Lewis to re-think his foolishness , and slot in line , as he should have done in the first place .
Seb's foolish move stopped the idiot running all the way down the blue lane , in a lane he was not obligated to share with an idiot not yet entered .

[airshifter]

But in that case none would anyway do that as it would have no use.

I agree.

But Vettels move in the pit lane had no use either, as both were already on the limiter and Vettel was ahead. In the worst case they would travel side by side until Vettel hit the pit exit line first and pulled ahead.

[SGWilko]

Seb's foolish move stopped the idiot running all the way down the blue lane , in a lane he was not obligated to share with an idiot not yet entered .

The fool and the idiot - one and the same IYAM.

[Bagwan]

I watched that vid again .

I will concede that Seb's move actually didn't stop the idiot from running all the way down the blue lane .

[ioan]

I agree.

But Vettels move in the pit lane had no use either, as both were already on the limiter and Vettel was ahead. In the worst case they would travel side by side until Vettel hit the pit exit line first and pulled ahead.

It would have been difficult to pull ahead with interlocked wheels without risking to learn how to fly with a F1 car.
IMO he pushed Lewis to his left in order to make place on his right for the move you described.

[airshifter]

It would have been difficult to pull ahead with interlocked wheels without risking to learn how to fly with a F1 car.
IMO he pushed Lewis to his left in order to make place on his right for the move you described.

It would be just as difficult to allow Vettel to pull ahead with wheels interlocked, but that didn't stop Vettel from crowding Lewis.

[ioan]

It would be just as difficult to allow Vettel to pull ahead with wheels interlocked, but that didn't stop Vettel from crowding Lewis.

Sure but if Lewis managed to keep Vettel in that position until they exited the pits he would have had the inner line for the next corner.
I am rather sure they were both planning ahead when they did what they did, which makes the offense even worse.

[wmcot]

Due to the speed limit, and the limiter, I think it is very hard to race in the pit lane. It is, however, possible to keep your position, but you cannot pass as the speeds are the same.

Well...theoretically.

[wmcot]

Simple solution: Should two cars be released at the same time in the pitlane, the car off the pit road must fall in line behind the car occupying the pit road. If not, automatic tire spikes will pop up thereby eliminating any further discussion. :)

[F1boat]

LOL, people are still discussing this.

[SGWilko]

LOL, people are still discussing this.

Yep, cows have not come home yet.....

[markabilly]

Simple solution: Should two cars be released at the same time in the pitlane, the car off the pit road must fall in line behind the car occupying the pit road. If not, automatic tire spikes will pop up thereby eliminating any further discussion. :)
Sure, only if the spikes pop up in the keyboards

[race_director]

Simple solution: Should two cars be released at the same time in the pitlane, the car off the pit road must fall in line behind the car occupying the pit road. If not, automatic tire spikes will pop up thereby eliminating any further discussion. :)

playing need for speed- most wanted laltely??? i would infact suggest , sending 2-3 patrol cars behind the driver if he avoids the spikes.

[Mia 01]

Lewis, could it be a ban this race?

[ioan]

Lewis, could it be a ban this race?

Why, did he do something wrong in this race? Did I miss something?