You are definitely correct, grasping the rules is impossible for even deities, it seems, when they don't yet exist.
2008 Belgian GP - Race 13/18
- Thread starter rpstewart
- Start date
- Status
You are definitely correct, grasping the rules is impossible for even deities, it seems, when they don't yet exist.
Soldato
Again, 19 other drivers know about them, but 1 driver didn't.
Oh really, and where have you got this information from? 19 other drivers magically know not to only give the position back but not overtake on the next corner? I think 1 might know about that unclear rule and that is Alonso, who fell foul of it in 2005.. I highly doubt everyone else would have been able to tell you. The fact they have had to clarify the rule is total evidence of this. As said earlier, clarification only strengthens McLarens case.
Soldato
The rule is, don't cut a corner and they know that.
http://www.autosport.com/news/grapevine.php/id/70482
They other 19 think it is correct.
Couple of quotes from that article.
So the other 19 drivers knew it was an offense, why didn't Hamilton?
I cant believe that this thread has gone on for so long.
Normally, a day after the GP, there are only a few of us bickering over drivers of yesteryear and how good they are in comparison to the current crop of drivers.
It has now become clear to me that Max Mosley is reading and posting on this forum, using the nickname of JRS.
Budgets
Toyota, do indeed have the biggest budget in F1. This is what makes their team such a farce. They have the biggest budget in F1 history (Ferrari used to, a decade or so ago) and yet they seem quite happy to plod along in the middle of the pack.
Personally, if I were Toyota, I would steal top personnel from top F1 teams (get Adrian Newey to design a car for them), get Alonso on an uber long contract that makes him the highest paid F1 driver, ever (to prevent him from wanting to leave). Essentially, copying what Ferrari did, when they raided Bennetton in 1996 - taking Michael Schumacher, Rory Byrne and Ross Brawn. It worked for Ferrari (who were the richest F1 team at the time) and there is no reason why it couldnt work again.
Plodding on the way Toyota are right now, I honestly cant see them becomming a front running team for at least a decade. They dont seem to have any sense of direction; just a heck of a lot of money.
Normally, a day after the GP, there are only a few of us bickering over drivers of yesteryear and how good they are in comparison to the current crop of drivers.
It has now become clear to me that Max Mosley is reading and posting on this forum, using the nickname of JRS.
Budgets
Toyota, do indeed have the biggest budget in F1. This is what makes their team such a farce. They have the biggest budget in F1 history (Ferrari used to, a decade or so ago) and yet they seem quite happy to plod along in the middle of the pack.
Personally, if I were Toyota, I would steal top personnel from top F1 teams (get Adrian Newey to design a car for them), get Alonso on an uber long contract that makes him the highest paid F1 driver, ever (to prevent him from wanting to leave). Essentially, copying what Ferrari did, when they raided Bennetton in 1996 - taking Michael Schumacher, Rory Byrne and Ross Brawn. It worked for Ferrari (who were the richest F1 team at the time) and there is no reason why it couldnt work again.
Plodding on the way Toyota are right now, I honestly cant see them becomming a front running team for at least a decade. They dont seem to have any sense of direction; just a heck of a lot of money.
Soldato
The FIA needed to clarify the rule so it wasn't clear before so how can they issue a penalty, I can see them winning the appeal now
Associate
Funnily enough the quotes you have chosen and the part you highlighted in bold only serve to undermine your interpretation of them. If it is all so clear for everyone then we wouldn't be having this conversation and the FIA wouldnt need to clarify anything.
Associate
I know, i hate the inconsistent rulings. I mean why are McLaren not down the bottom of the pit line in the half garages and not enough parking for their multi million pound media centre?
Shocking, send them back is what i say!!!
But then again, the FIA don't give McLaren any benefit do they
Where is the rule saying they have to be at the end of the pit lane ?
Also as far as I know since Max Mosley moaned to Bernie Eccleston about it they have been at the end of the pit lane.
There is no rule stating the order of the pit garages, its always been down to Bernie Eccleston to sort out the order and traditionally he has done it in the order of the previous years championship standings but due to the size of the Mclaren team he decided to move it around a bit, the decision was nothing to do with the FIA.
pit garages are normally decided by your standings the previous year
mclaren should have had the last pit garage which comes with less paddock space
but bernie done them a deal to move them up
if it was nothing to do with the fia then how come the fia moved them back down to the last garage this season?
dont know if this shows the fia decide who is where
mclaren should have had the last pit garage which comes with less paddock space
but bernie done them a deal to move them up
if it was nothing to do with the fia then how come the fia moved them back down to the last garage this season?
dont know if this shows the fia decide who is where
Last edited:
Soldato
If that is the way it is written, that sounds to me that the cars at the end of the pit lane could use the "fast lane" to do work on the car.
Associate
Yes its always been that they are in the order of last years standings but that was down to Bernie deciding thats how he was going to do things (remember Bernie isnt the FIA) when he didnt put them at the end of the pit the FIA (Max Mosley) moaned to Bernie and Bernie put them back to the end of the grid, there is nothing in the rules stating the order of the pit lane its always been down to Berni Ecleston to sort out.
And Berni Ecleston didnt do a deal with Mclaren,he decided it was easier for the paddock to give them more room, no teams objected as far as i can remember just Max Mosley.
Soldato
You may be right, it seems it is FOM that decides where in the pit lane they go.
But it is not like FOM don't have any influence over the FIA
A hell of a lot more than someone who used to do some contract PR work for a Ferrari road division. lolAnyway, i think i am going to stop coming into this thread, it is kind of pointless now. Nobody is going to change their opinion.
Soldato
and your evidence of this inconstancy is where?
you cant take a shot at frank for not backing his opinion when you are not doing anything to back yours other than shouting a bit louder than he is
Alright, take the Massa-Sutil pitlane moment. How many times in F1 have we seen that happen, with not a single mention of "incident being investigated" from the stewards? And then, lo and behold, this time around they get very interested....and then come out with a pointless 'penalty' fine??? What the hell was going on there?
Take the chicane-hopping at Spa. Every single time previously, if the guy who overtook off-track gave back the place then no further action was taken. No mention at all having to give back certain amounts. But of course, there's actually bog-all in the rulebook about giving back the place - it's simply a blanket "you go off-track, you get penalty". Why on Earth is there a rule that vague on the books?
Take the outside assistance rule. Now, I'm pretty sure no-one ever got winched back onto the track before Hamilton managed it last season. And I'm pretty sure they'd have been disqualified in the past as well. Had that rule honestly changed before then? Every time I've seen someone pushed out a gravel trap/dead end/neighbouring field before (very dangerous positions excepted), they've had to pit and retire lest they be DQ'd. But Hamilton wasn't.
But hey, if you want a real rules confusion, go back to '93. This was the height of the "high technology" era (and yet still one of the best years in semi-recent memory for competitive racing, go figure....). Cars had active ride, ABS, trqaction control, semi and fully auto gearboxes. Williams were even experimenting with a CVT setup. Mid season, the FIA announced that having thought it through, most of the current cars were illegal under the rulebook because of these fancy toys.
Cue one massive ruck. The FIA choose that moment to say "hey guys, you're going to have to completely redesign all your cars for the next race". Not having bothered all season about it simply for the hell of it, presumably. Bernie had to get everyone calmed back down, as it threatened to get a bit too silly and blow right up. In the end, a rule change was properly cemented at the end of the year for the '94 season.
That's all we need. The rulebook looking at, and improvements made in time for next year. It doesn't need to chop and change from one race to the next.
will give you the pitlane thing although Ferrari were fined in brazil when michael collided with webber in the pitlane during practice so its not out of the blue and they had been warned about it so maybe thats a follow up
chicane cutting see suzuka 05 and the alonso incident again shows some consistency
schumacher was pushed out of the gravel one year and was allowed to finish
rule changes are common on f1 so again quite consistent
i think it would be very hard to have rules that cover every situation obviously you cant say leave the track at all and you get a stop/go there has to be some common sense to the way the rules are applied and as the teams are so clever then the fia are often left to close loopholes in the rules and regulations
chicane cutting see suzuka 05 and the alonso incident again shows some consistency
schumacher was pushed out of the gravel one year and was allowed to finish
rule changes are common on f1 so again quite consistent
i think it would be very hard to have rules that cover every situation obviously you cant say leave the track at all and you get a stop/go there has to be some common sense to the way the rules are applied and as the teams are so clever then the fia are often left to close loopholes in the rules and regulations
Last edited:
Soldato
Alright....so why did Sutil get away with skipping over the curbs and run-off at the top of Eau Rouge on lap 1 last time out, passing DC and not giving the spot back? DC told Charlie Whiting about it, was told it was being looked into.....and nothing happens.
On account of being in a dangerous position. Hamilton wasn't in a dangerous position when he was winched out of that gravel trap, since the safety car was out.
Yes, rule changes are common at the end of seasons to come into effect for the start of the next one. Major mid-season rule changes, thankfully, are quite rare.
I'm not saying that they should take a literal interpretation of their current ruleset and penalise anyone who steps even slightly outside of it. What I am saying is that there needs to be a clarification of the chicane-hopping rule, that defines what a driver needs to do to hand back any advantage gained.
And the rules need to be sorted over the pitlane.
And they need to ban refuelling.
right so your complaining that they dont change the rules mid season now? not sure about your point on that bit
i would not say schumacher was in a dangerous position every place on the race track is quite dangerous by that definition
dont recall the sutil/dc incident any video of that for comparison
they have now clarified the chicane cutting rules so thats good news?
i would not say schumacher was in a dangerous position every place on the race track is quite dangerous by that definition
dont recall the sutil/dc incident any video of that for comparison
they have now clarified the chicane cutting rules so thats good news?
Sorry Max. I mean, JRS. I have to disagree with you on that point.
1993 did indeed see the most technologically advanced cars ever, however, the racing was no close. Williams were so far ahead of the rest, it was untrue.
You had Prost with his No.1 status, able to control the race at the front, while D. Hill followed him dutifully. The fight, on a dry track, was generally for 3rd place, unless the Willams cars ahead, messed up somehow.
The only race of note that year was probably at Donnington, where Senna showed just how good he was in a torrential downpour and was taking great chunks of time out of everybody (similar to what we see Hamilton do, when the heavens open).
The FIA absolutely had to act to prevent the Williams team from turning F1 into a procession (as was the case in 1992 and 1993).
For people too young to know about the Williams domination - imagine the pole position man, qualifying about 2.5s ahead of the next non-Williams car, on a dry track - thats what Mansell did at Silverstone, 1992. That sort of thing just wouldnt happen in 2008.
My own personal view is that they should allow F1 cars to be the most advanced cars in the World and periodically (say every 5yrs), do a complete reboot, effectively making everybody start from scratch.
Soldato
My point appears to be just a tiny bit beyond you. Never mind, it's worth **** all anyway.
I should punch you out for comparing me to Max. As soon as they invent a device for hitting people over the internet, I'm coming for you
Woah there, slick. Remind me again where I said "close". I said competitive. And it was - 22 drivers for 11 teams got points, only Tyrrell and Lola failed to score. And that was under the old points system with only six drivers scoring per race - under the current setup, it would be very interesting. Going to have to look at that, actually*.
And for a team who were "so far ahead of the rest, it was untrue" it didn't exactly get won all that quickly - Prost didn't secure the title until Round 14. And how many times did he get pole and then get beaten? Seven? Never did learn that lesson Niki Lauda taught him in '84, did he?
***edit***
Can tell you one thing right now - Andretti more than doubles his score on the current points system
Last edited:
- Status