Belgian Grand Prix 2012, Spa-Francorchamps - Race 12/20

Skeeter said:
I best update Urban Dictionary.

Troll: anyone who disagrees with arknor.
Click to expand...

as much as it pains me to say this, i agree with arknor. under the current rules if there was a repeat of the 2011 jenson/lewis incident at canada then, because hamilton had part of his car ahead of the front wheels of jenson's car then jenson would be considered to have pushed hamilton off the track because he didnt leave one car's width.

because of the conditions i expect that the stewards would give the minimum punishment that was available to them to jenson because i imagine that it's sodding hard to see exactly where an F1 car is with masses of spray between the tiny mirror and the overtaking car
 
Reaper 392 said:
as much as it pains me to say this, i agree with arknor. under the current rules if there was a repeat of the 2011 jenson/lewis incident at canada then, because hamilton had part of his car ahead of the front wheels of jenson's car then jenson would be considered to have pushed hamilton off the track because he didnt leave one car's width.

because of the conditions i expect that the stewards would give the minimum punishment that was available to them to jenson because i imagine that it's sodding hard to see exactly where an F1 car is with masses of spray between the tiny mirror and the overtaking car
Click to expand...

What makes you think JB (or LH for that matter) would have driven the same with a different set of rules affecting the race

Its completely impossible to know one way or the other
 
Reaper 392 said:
as much as it pains me to say this, i agree with arknor. under the current rules if there was a repeat of the 2011 jenson/lewis incident at canada then, because hamilton had part of his car ahead of the front wheels of jenson's car then jenson would be considered to have pushed hamilton off the track because he didnt leave one car's width.

because of the conditions i expect that the stewards would give the minimum punishment that was available to them to jenson because i imagine that it's sodding hard to see exactly where an F1 car is with masses of spray between the tiny mirror and the overtaking car
Click to expand...

did he i dont reamember him being ahead of jenson at the time of the crash
i thought he was only half way along side
 
Last edited:
"Any driver defending his position on a straight and before any braking area may use the full width of the track during his first move provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his,"
Click to expand...

The rule is entirely around making moves off the racing line to defend a position. It doesn't apply to a driver just taking the racing line and not seeing someone. If it happened now it would* be a racing incident, like it was before. The fact the racing line moves diagonal across the track doesn't change anything.

*should. Who knows with the way the stewards are.
 
Last edited:
There is no rule about racing line, the racing line is not defined. Off course the rule applies if you are on the racing line or not, why on earth would you think it doesn't?
 
It's a clarification to article 20.3 of the Sporting Regulations.

20.3 More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off‐line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.
Click to expand...

When making your one move off the racing line to defend a position you cannot run a driver off the track if they are alongside (clarification made before Silverstone), and then when moving back online you need to leave a cars width (original rule above).

The rules do not apply to the JB LH incident, as no off line defensive move was made.
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
It's a clarification to article 20.3 of the Sporting Regulations.



When making your one move off the racing line to defend a position you cannot run a driver off the track if they are alongside (clarification made before Silverstone), and then when moving back online you need to leave a cars width (original rule above).

The rules do not apply to the JB LH incident, as no off line defensive move was made.
Click to expand...

the rule is nothing to do with defensive moves......

its to do with not running people out of road and if someones front wheels are alonside your rear wheels they are considered to be ahead.

charlie whiting said as much but i cant be bothered to go find the qoute, if the rule was applied retrospective JB would be in trouble for canada.

massa would be a wdc :D
 
arknor said:
the rule is nothing to do with defensive moves......
Click to expand...

"Any driver defending his position on a straight and before any braking area may use the full width of the track during his first move provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his,"
Click to expand...

20.3 More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off‐line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.
Click to expand...

:confused:

The first one is the quote from Charlie from the technical directive issued before Silverstone, by the way. Saves you going to find it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom