Australian GP 2009 - Race 1/17 (NOT in HD BTW)

Skeeter · 2 Apr 2009 at 10:54

Woooo!

F1 ia back baby! Dodgy Stewards decisions overuled by equally strange FIA rulings and all!

They say things like this come in 3's... The stewards decision on Lewis/Trulli changed, the Stewards decision on Vettel/Kubica in question, the Stewards decision on Diffusers? Doest look promising does it.

Be nice for the FIA to explain how cost cutting fits with forcing 3 teams to redesign the rear of their cars even when the stewards deem them legal...

Whts the point in these Stewards anyway if the FIA are just going to question and change their decisions?

JUMPURS · 2 Apr 2009 at 10:54

Wicksta said:
Which rule is this? I'm not saying you're lying but I'd like to actually read the actual rule rather than see it paraphrased. If this rule is true then I'm surprised I've never seen anyone take advantage of it before, after all Glock went off the track enough as well and could easily have been passed by two people.

EDIT: I've asked a few knowledgeable fans I know from Autosport just now and they haven't heard of the rule either, so it can't be that well known.

I am looking but i may have misread an article regarding the vettel incident lol if i can't find it then i will admit i am wrong.

But an 'Obvious problem' from 40.15 should include a car going off track no?

Wicksta · 2 Apr 2009 at 10:55

JUMPURS said:
I am looking but i may have misread an article regarding the vettel incident lol if i can't find it then i will admit i am wrong.

But an 'Obvious problem' from 40.15 should include a car going off track no?

No it shouldn't necessarily include a car going off track. Like I said to you earlier, the rules are very vague and Mclaren were understandably cautious.

JUMPURS · 2 Apr 2009 at 10:55

gord said:
Oh I'm so confused and outraged its not even funny. Did we deserve third? Could we have had it? They are 'if's really. And to be honest, I think if we did take third and stood on the podium then Toyota would have got the FIA involved and we would still.. somewhere along the lines of the grey rulebook.. been in trouble.

It just happens every time they have to make a decision. Although we arnt near Spa levels of frustration yet.

I think that McLaren would have been ok, since the footage on the web shows trulli going off track, so they should have not let Toyota repass.

Flibster · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:00

I was contemplating finding a large dog poo to send to the FIA as a indication of my opinion of them

I then realised that they already have a useless piece of excrement at the FIA, and unfortunately, it's in charge.

machinauk · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:00

FrankJH said:
complete BS is if you ask me

at the end of the day McLaren / Hamilton deserved fourth, by all means re-instate Trulli to a deserved 3rd, but excluding McLaren is ridiculous

yes, Mclaren/hamilton deserved 4th, possibly even 3rd (as trulli did fall off the track) - but at the end of the day, mclaren have lied to the stewards over the circumstances of trulli taking 3rd place under the safety car, resulting in trulli being penalised for not following the rules. If mclaren hadnt lied to the stewards they wouldnt have been DQ'd.

Its all their own fault, for once i do have some sympathy for Hamilton (who really went up in my opinions after his race), but if you lie/cheat your going to get caught.

Masterdog · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:07

machinauk said:
yes, Mclaren/hamilton deserved 4th, possibly even 3rd (as trulli did fall off the track) - but at the end of the day, mclaren have lied to the stewards over the circumstances of trulli taking 3rd place under the safety car, resulting in trulli being penalised for not following the rules. If mclaren hadnt lied to the stewards they wouldnt have been DQ'd.

Despite being a huge McLaren fan, I've got to agree with this - I think they've got it right. If Hamilton/McLaren did lie to the stewards (which it appears they did) then I don't think just putting things back the way they were (i.e., awarding 3rd place to Trulli and fourth to Hamilton) is enough - there's no punishment for the lie.

IPBA · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:08

Awaits all the people who come out of the cupboard screaming Ferrari Internantional Assistance

But as said if Mclaren had indeed lied then the punishment is fair

GravyMonster · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:13

T'is a shame, but a fair judgement if McLaren have tried to bend the truth.

However, I think questions should be asked of the stewards as to why they weren't aware of this new information in the first place. Their knowledge of the race should be godlike. They should have access to telemetry/radios/whatever at all times to be able to make a judgement based on all availablel facts.

Xon · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:17

gord said:
That stinks, stinks of the FIA and their meddling. We didn't ask for third, we were plenty happy with fourth.. we didnt want all of this **** involving the FIA.. we raced.. raced well and deserve some ******* points. So there was some confusion at the end but jesus, a man stood on the podium and picked up a trophy.

I am glad Trulli was up there and that he now has his third place. But to strip Hamilton of his rightful fourth is a slap in the face for something that should never of come about.

If they were summoned they shouldn't have lied. That's all there is to it.

Also, IIRC, didn't McLaren initiate the complaint?

pastymuncher · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:17

This is getting ridiculous now. Hamilton get's disqualified yet Barrichello get's away with taking out cars in the first corner? Something Hamilton got penalised for doing last year. More dodgy FIA decisions. So this years title will be decided buy a bunch of hippocrites behind the scenes.

mk17 · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:19

I reckon this is just to dramatise the championship - gain headlines, blah, blah, blah. Hammy deserved 4th for his drive from the back, at least. Bloody FIA, big-brother writ large.

mjt · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:21

well this is all a bit silly. surely trulli should be reinstated and hamilton back to fourth?

clearly this is down to steward incompetence

machinauk · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:22

pastymuncher said:
This is getting ridiculous now. Hamilton get's disqualified yet Barrichello get's away with taking out cars in the first corner? Something Hamilton got penalised for doing last year. More dodgy FIA decisions. So this years title will be decided buy a bunch of hippocrites behind the scenes.

How many times does it have to be pointed out????. Barrichello was shunted by Kovi at turn one - thats what punted Barrichello into Webber in the first place.

Sumanji · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:23

Advance apologies, but I just HAVE to do this...

gord said:
We always get stung when the FIA get involved. I was Trulli amazed when they thought about giving us third, but we didnt even want it. We slowed down.. we wanted fourth! Everything was fine! We deserve fourth!

Type_R · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:25

As I stated before on this thread, LH should and would have kept 3rd if:

a) Mclaren had even the slightest idea about rules
b) Both LH and Mclaren for once decided to tell the truth

FIA have finally made a good call. Trulli up to 3rd, like he deserved!

EDIT: Whilst I am on my high horse, I would like to say I told you so (my post a few pages back)...straight from the horses mouth so to speak:

Nick Fry at Brawn GP
Q. Are you keeping your powder dry, in terms of showing the full potential of this car, until after the FIA Court hearing into the diffusers?

NF: I think that others did a remarkable job in Autralia. It wasn't easy. We may not have helped ourselves, but Robert [Kubica] at the end could easily have caught Jenson [Button] as he was on the better of the two tyres. The Red Bull is clearly very fast so we are going to have to work for this.

JRS · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:29

Type_R said:
FIA have finally made a good call.

I'm not sure. I'm really not sure it was the right call.

Actually, having a proper set of stewards who travel to each race and who can make calls on matters like this BEFORE THE ******* PODIUM CEREMONY might be a bloody good start....fancy working on that one, Max?

EddScott · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:29

Nope sorry, I'm still lost.

So Trulli went off under the SC, Hamilton went past. Hamilton then allows Trulli back through.

After the race, Trulli is put back to 4th and Hamilton to 3rd because Trulli was off the track when Hamilton passes.

Now, we are being told that someone told Hamilton to let Trulli through under some "sneaky toadiness" to get Trulli penalised and have Hamilton secure 3rd?

But they got caught?

Have I got the wrong end of the stick or what?

Duke · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:30

EddScott said:
Nope sorry, I'm still lost.

So Trulli went off under the SC, Hamilton went past. Hamilton then allows Trulli back through.

After the race, Trulli is put back to 4th and Hamilton to 3rd because Trulli was off the track when Hamilton passes.

Now, we are being told that someone told Hamilton to let Trulli through under some "sneaky toadiness" to get Trulli penalised and have Hamilton secure 3rd?

But they got caught?

Have I got the wrong end of the stick or what?

Trulli was given 25 second penalty, so he finished much lower - 12th. They should have just let them finish 3rd & 4th (either way round).

vcl_X1 · 2 Apr 2009 at 11:31

Wicksta said:
Which rule is this? I'm not saying you're lying but I'd like to actually read the actual rule rather than see it paraphrased.

I can't see this explicity worded in the rules.

source http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-publi...ULATIONS (Showing Alterations) 24-03-2009.pdf