Stewards were too cautious

[Whyzars]

I think that the stewards were too cautious yesterday in their handling of the wet conditions. In my opinion, the decision they made that was questionable was startng under SC conditions and then not realising that the track, and the Bridgestone tyres, were capable of going fast safely. I know that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't but shouldn't F1 always err on the side of the racing. Watching those first laps it was as if the only thing that mattered was stopping TV stations cutting to other programming.

Probably cost Alonso the Word Championship and denied Kimi Raikonnen an opportunity to set up a challenge to Hamilton.

Great race but...

[leopard]

Too cautious in support the new rising star, that was obviously to let Hamilton have more time to synchronize the 3000 laps simulator on the real wet race.

[Tazio]

Too cautious in support the new rising star, that was obviously to let Hamilton have more time to synchronize the 3000 laps simulator on the real wet race.
Nice conspiracy theory!

[Rollo]

In my opinion, the decision they made that was questionable was startng under SC conditions and then not realising that the track, and the Bridgestone tyres, were capable of going fast safely. I know that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't but shouldn't F1 always err on the side of the racing.

In my opinion anything that causes the death of drivers is obviously brilliant and should be applauded. If drivers couldn't see what's ahead of them then they should be allowed to run at full tilt into whatever is infront of them, not be able to judge breaking distances and have parts of bodywork including tyres spear into both the crowd and the following cars.

Bring on more death and mayhem! :rolleyes:

[ShiftingGears]

In my opinion anything that causes the death of drivers is obviously brilliant and should be applauded. If drivers couldn't see what's ahead of them then they should be allowed to run at full tilt into whatever is infront of them, not be able to judge breaking distances and have parts of bodywork including tyres spear into both the crowd and the following cars.

Bring on more death and mayhem! :rolleyes:

I think thats grossly overexaggerated. During the race that didn't happen, especially when it started raining harder.

[ioan]

In my opinion anything that causes the death of drivers is obviously brilliant and should be applauded. If drivers couldn't see what's ahead of them then they should be allowed to run at full tilt into whatever is infront of them, not be able to judge breaking distances and have parts of bodywork including tyres spear into both the crowd and the following cars.

Bring on more death and mayhem! :rolleyes:

I'm having troubles to remember any dead in the 2003 Brazilian GP or this years Nurburgring whenit was raining harder than yesterday at Fuji.
And FA look quite OK after destroying half of the car yesterday.
Not mentioning Kubica getting away with only a hurt ankle after his canadian very high speed adventure.

They didn't want a normal start, nor a full length wet race for very good reasons.
Remember that book about Lewis that was written a few months back about how he won the F1 WDC in his rookie year?! ;)

[Garry Walker]

They were too cautios. Should have had a normal start.

[ArrowsFA1]

They didn't want a normal start, nor a full length wet race for very good reasons.
Remember that book about Lewis that was written a few months back about how he won the F1 WDC in his rookie year?! ;)
These kind of repeated claims that the WDC is being "fixed" in Lewis Hamilton's favour are not only tiresome, but rubbish. Sadly some seem intent on diminishing his achievements for reasons only they can explain. Those reasons are not hard to guess at though.

[Garry Walker]

These kind of repeated claims that the WDC is being "fixed" in Lewis Hamilton's favour are not only tiresome, but rubbish. Sadly some seem intent on diminishing his achievements for reasons only they can explain. Those reasons are not hard to guess at though.

Well, it seems that racing against The Golden Boy carries an automatic penatly, as happened with Kubica. It is a warming, dare to race against The Golden Boy and you will get punished at once.

[ArrowsFA1]

Well, it seems that racing against The Golden Boy carries an automatic penatly, as happened with Kubica. It is a warming, dare to race against The Golden Boy and you will get punished at once.
A lot of things "seem" to be the case if we look at ourselves in those funny circus mirrors.

[Flat.tyres]

Well, it seems that racing against The Golden Boy carries an automatic penatly, as happened with Kubica. It is a warming, dare to race against The Golden Boy and you will get punished at once.

Come on Garry, stop doing an ioan ;)

They were a bit cautious at the start but I don't think it should have been a standing start anyway. 2 laps rolling to get them tuned in and let them go.

[Garry Walker]

A lot of things "seem" to be the case if we look at ourselves in those funny circus mirrors.

So you are saying the penalty on Kubica was fair and it had nothing to do with him trying to pass The Golden Boy, and a similar penalty would have been applied to him had he tried to pass Barrichello in a similar way, for 10th position for example.

[Garry Walker]

Come on Garry, stop doing an ioan ;)


I am defending and attacking The Golden Boy at the same time in different threads ;) .

[Flat.tyres]

I am defending and attacking The Golden Boy at the same time in different threads ;) .

You don't seriously think that he's favoured by the FIA do you. The amount of disruption that Stepneygate has caused this year and the waiver given to Alonso who is the only realistic challenger are two examples that blow this out of the water.

[Garry Walker]

You don't seriously think that he's favoured by the FIA do you. The amount of disruption that Stepneygate has caused this year and the waiver given to Alonso who is the only realistic challenger are two examples that blow this out of the water.

I do think he is FIAs new favourite boy for sure and will be getting away with things other cant. Kubicas penalty was an example. Waiver was given to all drivers, and I think if a penalty had been applied to Alonso, the same would have happened with LH too.
That doesnt mean I dont respect him as a driver, or dont rate him extremely highly. I do, but he is no angel unlike some try to portray him as.

[ArrowsFA1]

So you are saying the penalty on Kubica was fair and it had nothing to do with him trying to pass The Golden Boy, and a similar penalty would have been applied to him had he tried to pass Barrichello in a similar way, for 10th position for example.
You have the talent to write like Peter Windsor at times :p : and you raise a number of questions:

1) Was the penalty on Kubica fair?
In the judgement of the stewards, who had the opportunity to review the incident, yes it was fair. They judged Kubica guilty of causing an avoidable accident and applied the appropriate penalty.
2) Was the penalty imposed on Kubica for no other reason than Hamilton was affected by the incident?
There is nothing anywhere to support this unsubstantiated theory.
3) Would a similar penalty have been imposed if...?
Ahhhh, the "what if..." argument. Always a good one and often used in these situations simply because a hypothetical question cannot be answered with certainty as the said situation is...well...hypothetical. Obviously if your theory (point 2) were true then the answer to your hypothetical "what if" would be "no", and that (also obviously) is the answer you question would like to lead us to. Then again, the answer might equally be yes because an avoidable accident would have been caused. But as this is all hypothetical...who knows what the outcome would have been.

[ioan]

These kind of repeated claims that the WDC is being "fixed" in Lewis Hamilton's favour are not only tiresome, but rubbish. Sadly some seem intent on diminishing his achievements for reasons only they can explain. Those reasons are not hard to guess at though.

Team thrown out of championship and has to pay a hefty fine for cheating, still the drivers keep their points ad are allowed to race!

LH is never investigated for anything no matter how far he pushes the rules!

There's a real chance for a deserving driver (Kimi) to win the WDC in difficult track conditions but he's sent to the back after a nicely orchestrated move!

You might believe what you want, I made up my mind based on what I saw not on what RD was trying to make us believe.

We have 99,99% chances to get the least deserving F1 champion ever this season! But money will flow and that's the only relevant thing!

[Mixa]

yeah them were too cautious and I simply has started to slip away out of F1,I just dont see it as an intresting motorsport anymore but still have watched an every race. I have been followed it from the early 90´s and it was quite sad to see what happened yesterday. Firstly the SC episode,yeah it was way too long and all for safety? ok the visibility must have been poor but atleast them should have started a bit earlier. Also the SC ruined some races and FIA´s tyre rule(what the hell is that? taken off some changes of Ferrari).

What comes to those collisions,yeah for Kubica was given a penalty. There were a lot of collisions like Vettel vs Alonso,Buttons one at the start to say a few ones aswell but anyone else didnt received a penalty. If them gives penalty for 1 them should give for every hit. I partly agree with Salo(said it in Finnish TV) that at these days of F1 youll get a penalty a bit too easily.

[Mark]

:laugh: . If there is one thing you can be certain of is that if a British driver does well then apparently he doesn't deserve it.

Someone else from another country, they are supremely skilled, but if it's someone from the UK then they are always "The least deserving ever".. It was the same with Damon Hill and Nigel Mansell, and do doubt the same was said of James Hunt et all too.

It's tiresome, and, stupid!

[janneppi]

Team thrown out of championship and has to pay a hefty fine for cheating, still the drivers keep their points ad are allowed to race!

LH is never investigated for anything no matter how far he pushes the rules!

There's a real chance for a deserving driver (Kimi) to win the WDC in difficult track conditions but he's sent to the back after a nicely orchestrated move!

You might believe what you want, I made up my mind based on what I saw not on what RD was trying to make us believe.

We have 99,99% chances to get the least deserving F1 champion ever this season! But money will flow and that's the only relevant thing!
You have found the tinted glasses we spoke of earlier haven't you? ;)

[Flat.tyres]

Team thrown out of championship and has to pay a hefty fine for cheating, still the drivers keep their points ad are allowed to race!

In a similar way, when Schumacher cheated and was excluded, the team wasn't penalised.


LH is never investigated for anything no matter how far he pushes the rules!

Everyone pushes the rules. It's only overstepping them that gets you penalised. Subtle difference.


There's a real chance for a deserving driver (Kimi) to win the WDC in difficult track conditions but he's sent to the back after a nicely orchestrated move!


Kimi is a deserving driver. One of the best out there in fact. I just struggle to know how the hell he could have won the WDC at Fuji. Please, please, please put me right on this one. If you mean that Kimi deserves the WDC, then perhaps he should score more points than anyone else otherwise get someone to email Lewis and Alonso all his Ferrari set up data to get them thrown out as I cant see any other realistic way he's going to win this year. :p :


You might believe what you want, I made up my mind based on what I saw not on what RD was trying to make us believe.

Ahhh, just as I thought. You don't look at the relevant evidence as your mind is already made up and a closed shop. By the way, what exactly has Ron said now that's stuck in your throat?


We have 99,99% chances to get the least deserving F1 champion ever this season! But money will flow and that's the only relevant thing!

I don't even know what 99,99% means. Do you mean 99.99% or possibly missed off a 9 and it was 99,999%. Possibly you mean 0.99% and are talking about Alonso in which case we agree on the sentiment but not the mathamatics.

My guess is your refering to the fact that Lewis is likely to become champion and you don't think he should be even though he beat the driver who beat MS on 2 occassions in and identical car. Why is he undeserving?

Don't worry, I know your mind is made up so mere facts are irrelevant.

[Rollo]

Just for a test, this is behind the safety car:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44147000/jpg/_44147034_pgsafety.jpg

I know that the fifth car in this picture is a BMW, but I can't tell who it is, and this was farting about behind the safety car. If you saw the in-car from Buttons car then you'd have an idea of how bad it was.

Perhaps this is of use:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44147000/jpg/_44147037_pgfog.jpg

Marshalling rules state that you should be able to see the next marshalling post to have a safe view of the track. If the marshalls can't do their job because their vision is impaired then the race IS UNSAFE end of story.

I'm sorry but if there's still people who are unconvinced then they're clearly of unsound mind an certainly not fit to be a racing steward. Quite frankly I'm glad that they're not in charge of a marshalling post.

[BDunnell]

I am pleased that others (specifically Flat.tyres above) have pointed out the absurdity of some of the 'arguments' elsewhere in this thread, so I don't feel the need to. Suffice to say that those 'arguments' are getting rather tired and tiresome now.

To return to the matter in hand, I believe race stewards generally are becoming too cautious in the event of heavy rain. In a British Touring Car race at Donington earlier this year, yellow flags were out along an entire section of track because of the risk of incidents in the conditions. This created a ridiculous situation, in my opinion. However, the point above about the low cloud at Fuji causing poor visibility even without the spray has made me re-think my view of what happened yesterday.

[Mark]

To return to the matter in hand, I believe race stewards generally are becoming too cautious in the event of heavy rain.

Which all the drivers ignored without penalty!

[ShiftingGears]

Just for a test, this is behind the safety car:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44147000/jpg/_44147034_pgsafety.jpg


The helmet is way too grey to be Kubica. It's Heidfeld.

[ioan]

You have found the tinted glasses we spoke of earlier haven't you? ;)

Yeah, some people around here did remind me where to search for them. ;)

[ioan]

In a similar way, when Schumacher cheated and was excluded, the team wasn't penalised.

Mixing apples with oranges, again.

A driver crashes into another driver and is deemed responsible so he gets punished for his actions, why should the team be punished?!
Or you believe that STR should be punished because Vettel run into Webber's car yesterday? :rolleyes:

Having a team punished because of breaking the sporting rules and getting an unfair technical advantage over another team means that their drivers who had an illegally acquired advantage over the rest of the grid should be punished too.

Not that I'm expecting some people to see the difference.



Everyone pushes the rules. It's only overstepping them that gets you penalised. Subtle difference.

I would say that he overstepped it too on a few occasions.



Kimi is a deserving driver. One of the best out there in fact. I just struggle to know how the hell he could have won the WDC at Fuji. Please, please, please put me right on this one.

I can't, because you aren't making sense at all. he had though a chance to further reduce the gap in this race.



If you mean that Kimi deserves the WDC,

That's exactly what I mean.


...then perhaps he should score more points than anyone else otherwise get someone to email Lewis and Alonso all his Ferrari set up data to get them thrown out as I cant see any other realistic way he's going to win this year. :p :

Try to win a 100 m sprint against a dopped athlete! :rolleyes:


My guess is your refering to the fact that Lewis is likely to become champion and you don't think he should be even though he beat the driver who beat MS on 2 occassions in and identical car. Why is he undeserving?

What has the fact that he beat FA to do with him being a deserving champion?
Did he beat Kimi, Felipe, Nick, Robert and all the others in a fair way? No he didn't, he beat them using the unfair technical advantage that McLaren gained over the rest of the grid through cheating!

He will go down the history of F1 as the only driver to win the F1 WDC while the tea was excluded because of breaching the sporting regulations! That's another record for him.

[trumperZ06]

Team thrown out of championship and has to pay a hefty fine for cheating, still the drivers keep their points ad are allowed to race!

LH is never investigated for anything no matter how far he pushes the rules!

There's a real chance for a deserving driver (Kimi) to win the WDC in difficult track conditions but he's sent to the back after a nicely orchestrated move!

You might believe what you want, I made up my mind based on what I saw not on what RD was trying to make us believe.

We have 99,99% chances to get the least deserving F1 champion ever this season! But money will flow and that's the only relevant thing!


:p : Pfffft !!! What absolute nonsense !!!

:dozey: It's all about Entertainment... TV has a schedule...

F-1 must fit into the alloted time slot...

even if the race is run under "caution" !!!

:D Ioan, You must be "off your meds" again !!!

:s mokin:

[nigelred5]

I wouldn't discount the fact that virtually none of the field had driven on thee track in it's current configuration and very few had ever.

Even F1 has to fit into it's 2 hour broadcast window for the contractual live broadcasts. If you noticed for a short while, the realtime data stream went to a timed event rather than the lap countdown. The option is to cancel the race.

Am I correct that all three F1 GP's run at Fuji have been rain races? How many Japanese races have been wet in all. Sure seems like a lot.

[BobbyC]

NASCAR often does the green/yellow start situation but stewards consult drivers on track conditions.

What the FIA could have done is send one driver as a "rabbit," letting him run a lap or two to see the track condition, and also consult with corner workers. After the steward talks with the driver and marshals, a decision could be done then. For the sake of championship concerns, do not use a driver in the points chase, but that permits stewards to check the track.

Drivers could say "that track isn't ready to race even with rain tires".

[Sleeper]

NASCAR often does the green/yellow start situation but stewards consult drivers on track conditions.

What the FIA could have done is send one driver as a "rabbit," letting him run a lap or two to see the track condition, and also consult with corner workers. After the steward talks with the driver and marshals, a decision could be done then. For the sake of championship concerns, do not use a driver in the points chase, but that permits stewards to check the track.

Drivers could say "that track isn't ready to race even with rain tires".

I think Liuzzi ended up doing that anyway when he was allowed pased the saftey car and ran rather quickly to get back to the tail of the field, race controle knew it was safe to go racing.

I think the 18/19 laps behind the saftey car was a bit much but it was a very difficult decision with low cloud making visability even worse than normal wet weather, so they should stay on the side of caution.

[Sleeper]

In a British Touring Car race at Donington earlier this year, yellow flags were out along an entire section of track because of the risk of incidents in the conditions.

I should point out that the permenant yellows were brought out after the drivers seemed incapable of not running into each other down the Cranners.

[Flat.tyres]

Mixing apples with oranges, again.

A driver crashes into another driver and is deemed responsible so he gets punished for his actions, why should the team be punished?!
Or you believe that STR should be punished because Vettel run into Webber's car yesterday? :rolleyes:

Having a team punished because of breaking the sporting rules and getting an unfair technical advantage over another team means that their drivers who had an illegally acquired advantage over the rest of the grid should be punished too.

Not that I'm expecting some people to see the difference.




I would say that he overstepped it too on a few occasions.



I can't, because you aren't making sense at all. he had though a chance to further reduce the gap in this race.




That's exactly what I mean.



Try to win a 100 m sprint against a dopped athlete! :rolleyes:



What has the fact that he beat FA to do with him being a deserving champion?
Did he beat Kimi, Felipe, Nick, Robert and all the others in a fair way? No he didn't, he beat them using the unfair technical advantage that McLaren gained over the rest of the grid through cheating!

He will go down the history of F1 as the only driver to win the F1 WDC while the tea was excluded because of breaching the sporting regulations! That's another record for him.

Just a few comments to that rubbish :rolleyes:

I would point out that I was referring to Schumacher being excluded from the championship for cheating and not just one race but i can understand your confusion trying to figure out just what cheat I ment.

And, finally, what advantage has Lewis gained from MC and FA cheating? Can you BACK THIS UP WITH A LINK FOR THE FIA PLEASE!!!!

Good night :p :

As for Apples and Oranges (which hopefully I have cleared up now), could you explain Doped Athletes in the context of your post.

When has Lewis overstepped the Mark?

YOU claimed that Kimi could win the WDC at Fuji.

[schmenke]

NASCAR often does the green/yellow start situation but stewards consult drivers on track conditions.

What the FIA could have done is send one driver as a "rabbit," letting him run a lap or two to see the track condition, and also consult with corner workers. After the steward talks with the driver and marshals, a decision could be done then. For the sake of championship concerns, do not use a driver in the points chase, but that permits stewards to check the track...

...providing special dispensation to the rabbit to violate parc fermé rules of course ;) , i.e. allowing him to top up with fuel after the recon lap. Also, what would happen if the rabbit had an accident? Would he be permitted to start in his qualy grid position, in the T-car?

[Easy Drifter]

Unless I am totally out of touch (quite possibly) the decisions about tires, the safety car and the start are the FIA Race Director's. Until Charlie Whiting was appointed to such a post it would have been the Clerk of the Course who made those decisions. The appointment of Charlie was to give some consistancy and have someone who dealt with all the Prima Donnas all the time and would not be intimidated.
The Race Stewards decide the penalties, not Charlie. I have no idea wether they consult with him. The Race Stewards, I believe, change from race to race. See my comments in the Kubica penalty thread about Stewards.

[Rollo]

http://www.bridgestone.eu/English/Global/FILES/LEGACY/PR/Corporate/2007/ChallengeFranceUK.pdf

A Formula One car's tyres are capable of displacing 61L of water a second. A Michelin XF-2 Antisplash displaces 11.3L per second. If you wish, a Formula One car displaces 244L in all as opposed to an 18 wheel Semi on the motorway which only throws 203.4L of water aside per second.

Think about this, a lorry on the motoray only does 70mph as opposed to a car at Fuji which did 192mph in the rain. Added to this, you do not have the benefit of a windscreen or a set of wiper blades in an F1 car. Rain strikes one's helmet directly and you're expected to see what's ahead of you all at a height of less than 30 inches above the ground.

And the stewards were too cautious? It's amazing how many experts we have around here who seem to know better than appointed officials.

[Whyzars]

http://www.bridgestone.eu/English/Global/FILES/LEGACY/PR/Corporate/2007/ChallengeFranceUK.pdf
And the stewards were too cautious? It's amazing how many experts we have around here who seem to know better than appointed officials.

Yet you're the one who wasted time comparing an F1 car with an 18 wheeler.

The stewards were too cautious and once they released one of the cars the cat was out of the bag and they had to let them get on with it.

Driving in an F1 race is not compulsory. Any of the teams or drivers can opt out of a race for the sake of life and limb. Wet weather driving is slower which is safer. These cars are thrown around race tracks with absolute abandon and that is the nature of the beast.

There is a saying that you may have heard at some point "Motorsport Is Dangerous".

All the drivers know it. They get very well paid for what they do and are obviously intelligent. Every time a race is overly dangerous the drivers have decided it and they have come in. Its as easy as that. The stewards were too cautious, the cars and drivers were more at risk behind the safety car then they were behind each other under racing conditions.

[ShiftingGears]

http://www.bridgestone.eu/English/Global/FILES/LEGACY/PR/Corporate/2007/ChallengeFranceUK.pdf

A Formula One car's tyres are capable of displacing 61L of water a second. A Michelin XF-2 Antisplash displaces 11.3L per second. If you wish, a Formula One car displaces 244L in all as opposed to an 18 wheel Semi on the motorway which only throws 203.4L of water aside per second.

Think about this, a lorry on the motoray only does 70mph as opposed to a car at Fuji which did 192mph in the rain. Added to this, you do not have the benefit of a windscreen or a set of wiper blades in an F1 car. Rain strikes one's helmet directly and you're expected to see what's ahead of you all at a height of less than 30 inches above the ground.

And the stewards were too cautious? It's amazing how many experts we have around here who seem to know better than appointed officials.


It was still raining hard when it was green flag conditions and the drivers did just fine.

[tinchote]

Just a few comments to that rubbish :rolleyes:

I would point out that I was referring to Schumacher being excluded from the championship for cheating and not just one race but i can understand your confusion trying to figure out just what cheat I ment.

And, finally, what advantage has Lewis gained from MC and FA cheating? Can you BACK THIS UP WITH A LINK FOR THE FIA PLEASE!!!!

Good night :p :

As for Apples and Oranges (which hopefully I have cleared up now), could you explain Doped Athletes in the context of your post.

When has Lewis overstepped the Mark?

YOU claimed that Kimi could win the WDC at Fuji.

A clear example that you don't even try to understand what he says :rolleyes:

[tinchote]

Think about this, a lorry on the motoray only does 70mph as opposed to a car at Fuji which did 192mph in the rain. Added to this, you do not have the benefit of a windscreen or a set of wiper blades in an F1 car. Rain strikes one's helmet directly and you're expected to see what's ahead of you all at a height of less than 30 inches above the ground.


If you try and do 300km/h in the rain, you will notice that the drops don't stay on the windshield anymore, as they are taken away by the wind. If you ever take off in a commercial plane under the rain you'll notice - i've been there - that at a little more than take-off speed (that is, at about 300km/h) all the water is flushed away from the windows.

[Rollo]

The stewards were too cautious and once they released one of the cars the cat was out of the bag and they had to let them get on with it.

No the regulations compelled them not to run under full race conditions.

Article 3.1 of Appendix H to the FIA Sporting Regulations state that:
Each post should be able to communicate by sight with the proceeding or following one, or shall deploy additional staff to establish a supplementary or relay post to fulfil this condition.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... penelement (http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/3FE29BAD64506BA5C1257354003ACF70/$FILE/Annexe%20H%2007-09-12.pdf?Openelement)

Check the evidence for yourself.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44147000/jpg/_44147037_pgfog.jpg

I again make reference to this photograph. I can see a marshalling post in the foreground, but I seriously doubt whether the marshalling posts would have been able to see each other. Clearly if the regulations are followed then full race conditions can not continue. Therefore the staff on the ground were totally justified in deploying the safety car until conditions improved, which they did.

After looking at the regulations and the evidence presented, I stand behind the action which the people on the ground actually took. I think that adequate due duty of care was taken and until someone can show actual evidence to the contrary, then I continue to agree with the decisions taken.

Your assertation that wet weather driving is safer than dry weather driving is total and utter bollocks. Only 11 out of 22 runners finished the GP, which under a full dry race would have been far more.

>>

Mr Tinchote as you're fully aware, sight distances in the rain and the fog close up. I myself having driven Formula Fords can attest that driving in the rain is not a particularly funner experience than in the dry. Visibility is severely limited when you're following someone else; this never happens in a plane.

[wmcot]

Wet races are a part of F1, but there has to be a limit to the amount of water on the track that is permissible. It would have been better to delay the start of the race (possibly until the next day, if determined to be necessary) and then start with a couple of safety car laps. If you need more than 2 or 3 safety car laps to ensure it's safe for a rolling start, then conditions are too bad to race! (And too boring to watch on TV!)

Nobody likes to delay races, but I would rather watch a full race that has been delayed than a 20 - 25% safety car laps just so the race can fit in its allotted TV programming slot!

[Whyzars]

Check the evidence for yourself.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44147000/jpg/_44147037_pgfog.jpg

I again make reference to this photograph. I can see a marshalling post in the foreground, but I seriously doubt whether the marshalling posts would have been able to see each other. Clearly if the regulations are followed then full race conditions can not continue. Therefore the staff on the ground were totally justified in deploying the safety car until conditions improved, which they did.



What I see is an empty grandstand and a whole heap of possible locations for deploying "...additional staff to establish a supplementary or relay post to fulfil this condition." Was this photo taken before,during,after the race?

[Whyzars]

Your assertation that wet weather driving is safer than dry weather driving is total and utter bollocks. Only 11 out of 22 runners finished the GP, which under a full dry race would have been far more.


I missed this comment. I can't let that go through to the keeper. :)

I'll say it again - wet weather driving is safer because its slower. That doesn't mean more cars won't crash out rather it means that the accidents are less serious because they're slower.

Its actually the justification for speed camera's in every part of the world. If you drive slower then your accidents won't hurt as much.

[Flat.tyres]

A clear example that you don't even try to understand what he says :rolleyes:

Sometimes it is difficvult but I do try. Perhaps you can explain where you feel I don't?

[Harm Kuijpers]

Mixing apples with oranges, again.

A driver crashes into another driver and is deemed responsible so he gets punished for his actions, why should the team be punished?!
Or you believe that STR should be punished because Vettel run into Webber's car yesterday? :rolleyes:

Having a team punished because of breaking the sporting rules and getting an unfair technical advantage over another team means that their drivers who had an illegally acquired advantage over the rest of the grid should be punished too.

Not that I'm expecting some people to see the difference.




I would say that he overstepped it too on a few occasions.



I can't, because you aren't making sense at all. he had though a chance to further reduce the gap in this race.




That's exactly what I mean.



Try to win a 100 m sprint against a dopped athlete! :rolleyes:



What has the fact that he beat FA to do with him being a deserving champion?
Did he beat Kimi, Felipe, Nick, Robert and all the others in a fair way? No he didn't, he beat them using the unfair technical advantage that McLaren gained over the rest of the grid through cheating!

He will go down the history of F1 as the only driver to win the F1 WDC while the tea was excluded because of breaching the sporting regulations! That's another record for him.Geee... remember 1994? When Benetton cheated with driver aids (they were on the car, they just couldn't prove they had actually used em) and MS still won the WDC. Talking about disputable WDCs... Also in Brazil 1995 DC and MS had illegal fuel in thier cars, drivers kept thier points, teams lost theirs.

Yes, McLaren have recieved technical data of the Ferrari car, but in no way can it be measured or determined what kind of advantage that gave em, also Ferrari had the overhand in the beginning of the season, and had quite a slump mid-season, especially Kimi. Massa just can't cut it. LH has been the most consitent driver this year. Besides, it would be unfair to punish a driver for a mistake the team made.

[ioan]

Geee... remember 1994? When Benetton cheated with driver aids (they were on the car, they just couldn't prove they had actually used em) and MS still won the WDC. Talking about disputable WDCs... Also in Brazil 1995 DC and MS had illegal fuel in thier cars, drivers kept thier points, teams lost theirs.

Yes, McLaren have recieved technical data of the Ferrari car, but in no way can it be measured or determined what kind of advantage that gave em, also Ferrari had the overhand in the beginning of the season, and had quite a slump mid-season, especially Kimi. Massa just can't cut it. LH has been the most consitent driver this year. Besides, it would be unfair to punish a driver for a mistake the team made.

So we should get tainted champions now and than because the FIA wasn't able to do it clean before?
There shouldn't be a point where they try to make it fair, instead they should go ahead with cheating forever knowing that nothing will happen?

[ioan]

A clear example that you don't even try to understand what he says :rolleyes:

Don't lose your time, it's completely useless to point out the obvious to some people.

Open minded and thinking forumers are getting rarer every day.

[ioan]

Check the evidence for yourself.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44147000/jpg/_44147037_pgfog.jpg


Why not take a picture from the top of Mount Fuji and claim that there was so much fog that you couldn't even see the track.

From the live broadcast it was clear that visibility was good as long as there was no spray from the cars in front.

We had wet races in the past and I don't remember to have the field go around behind the SC for 19 laps and than to be released although the conditions weren't better at all, maybe they were even a bit worse than at the start.

[Harm Kuijpers]

So we should get tainted champions now and than because the FIA wasn't able to do it clean before?
There shouldn't be a point where they try to make it fair, instead they should go ahead with cheating forever knowing that nothing will happen?I meant to say that you were measuring by two standards.

There will always be something disputable about a WDC. When MS was winning WDCs they were saying that his teammate hadn't been given a fair chance to compete against him. Examples are countless. Face it, the only way you would've been happy is wehn Kimi would have won the WDC (which he still can). If Renault had won, you'd be complaining about them. I'm tired of all the nay-sayers.

[janneppi]

I meant to say that you were measuring by two standards.

There will always be something disputable about a WDC. When MS was winning WDCs they were saying that his teammate hadn't been given a fair chance to compete against him. Examples are countless. Face it, the only way you would've been happy is wehn Kimi would have won the WDC (which he still can). If Renault had won, you'd be complaining about them. I'm tired of all the nay-sayers.
Actually, ioan would be happier if Massa would win the WDC. ;)

[trumperZ06]

Actually, ioan would be happier if Massa would win the WDC. ;)

:D ;) :beer:

[ioan]

Actually, ioan would be happier if Massa would win the WDC. ;)

Cheers to that! :beer:
But I will be glad if Kimi did it too! ;)

[nigelred5]

Why not take a picture from the top of Mount Fuji and claim that there was so much fog that you couldn't even see the track.

From the live broadcast it was clear that visibility was good as long as there was no spray from the cars in front.

We had wet races in the past and I don't remember to have the field go around behind the SC for 19 laps and than to be released although the conditions weren't better at all, maybe they were even a bit worse than at the start.

However as soon as the cars were at speed, visibility was virtually non -existant. It's not the falling rain that is the main problem, it is the spray which essentially becomes fog.

Yes of course they have run races in the rain, but several of those races were also red flagged for dangerous conditions and several more certainly should have. Nurburgring this year? It should have een red flagged immediately as hard as the rain fell. Brazil 04(?) good lord what a farce that was continuing the race when car after car crashed leading into the final turn.

If they had started on schedule under green and someone had been killed under stupid conditions?, would that have been OK? One also has to think about the legal systems in the host countries. If they had raced in the rain in say, Italy, and a driver had been killed, the stewards would conceivably been held criminally responsible for forcing the drivers onto the track in unsafe conditions.

The rationalization that driving in the rain than in the dry is safer because it is slower is almost comical. They drive only marginally slower in relative terms. Visibility is at best a tenth that of dry race conditions. Braking distances are far and away longer than in the dry. Lateral traction is significantly less, and while speeds may be somewhat slower, once a car starts to slide or aquaplane, there is no control and little to no reduction in speed before an impact. Add to that the number of accidents under wet conditions is probably at least 4 fold that of a dry track. That just doesn't equate in my mind.

Slower racing is safer under equal conditions, but at the speeds involved in F1, I can't find logical support for that contention under conditons as wet as it was at Fuji.

Looking at local weather patterns, I suppose we had better get used to a rain race when they visit Fuji.

[nigelred5]

If you try and do 300km/h in the rain, you will notice that the drops don't stay on the windshield anymore, as they are taken away by the wind. If you ever take off in a commercial plane under the rain you'll notice - i've been there - that at a little more than take-off speed (that is, at about 300km/h) all the water is flushed away from the windows.

Yes, but you have to admit that road spray at 30" off of the road is more like fog or cloud cover than falling rain, and these guys don't have IFR, radar and GPS navigation and air traffic control to rely on. Flying a plane blind under IFR is a tad bit different than trying to negotiate a twisting F1 course at 300 kph. Basically the only thing you have to worry about crashing into is the ground ;)

[Rollo]

Why not take a picture from the top of Mount Fuji and claim that there was so much fog that you couldn't even see the track.

From the live broadcast it was clear that visibility was good as long as there was no spray from the cars in front.

We had wet races in the past and I don't remember to have the field go around behind the SC for 19 laps and than to be released although the conditions weren't better at all, maybe they were even a bit worse than at the start.

In the past we've had races stopped and or delayed as well. We've even had one GP delayed a week because it was raining inside a tunnel but the rest of the track was dry.

The photograph I supplied came from the BBC and was taken on the day of the race just before the start. If you look in the foreground, you can see the marshalling post.

If a marshalling post can not see the next one, then the ability to assess the safety of the track is diminished. Race Stewards were assessing the conditions on a continual basis and there was talk at one point of cancelling the race entirely. Conditions improved hence the reason we went to race conditions.

What would happen if there was a piece of debris in the middle of the track that couldn't be seen because of the fog?

[Rollo]

I'll say it again - wet weather driving is safer because its slower. That doesn't mean more cars won't crash out rather it means that the accidents are less serious because they're slower.


2007 Turkish GP - Dry Track
http://www.grandprix.com/race/r780raceresults.html
1 retirement, caused by hydraulics. And... ZERO accidents. Any accident is more dangerous than having no accidents in the first place.

The most important safety features on a motor car are the brakes and tyres. Since the tyres are the only point of contact with the road, of course conditions are more dangerous when the integrity of that contact point is compromised.

[ShiftingGears]

Maybe we should just take away all challenging sections of racetrack and not race when its wet so everyones safe and doesn't crash...

[ioan]

The photograph I supplied came from the BBC and was taken on the day of the race just before the start. If you look in the foreground, you can see the marshalling post.

If a marshalling post can not see the next one, then the ability to assess the safety of the track is diminished.

The picture wasn't taken from a marshalling post, so who says that a marshalling post can't see the other?

The visibility on the track was OK as long as there was no car going by, but spray from racing cars it's normal in the wet.

Also from what I could see the conditions weren't better at the moment where they let them race than they were at the start of the race. A standing start would have not been good for the championship because it was a big chance of FA and LH taking each other out and ruin the rookie WDC prospects, but a rolling start after 1 or 2 laps would have been the same as in the 19th lap.