THE OFFICIAL JAPANESE GP THREAD WITH SPOILERS UNDER CONTRACT
Discussion
I think the red team chose to have a go and see if they got away with it...it was worth a punt to see how things worked out. If they genuinely hadn't been sent the email and had their race compromised in that way their reaction now would (IMO) be very different.
As an aside, don't forget it's Charlie Whiting who is responsible to things on track, not the FIA per se so it was always likely to be a different scenario.
As an aside, don't forget it's Charlie Whiting who is responsible to things on track, not the FIA per se so it was always likely to be a different scenario.
Piglet said:
I think the red team chose to have a go and see if they got away with it...it was worth a punt to see how things worked out. If they genuinely hadn't been sent the email and had their race compromised in that way their reaction now would (IMO) be very different.
As an aside, don't forget it's Charlie Whiting who is responsible to things on track, not the FIA per se so it was always likely to be a different scenario.
This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one:As an aside, don't forget it's Charlie Whiting who is responsible to things on track, not the FIA per se so it was always likely to be a different scenario.
If the weather had improved and Ferrari had got an advantage because it had started on inters, the other ten teams would not have let it go. If in that scenario Ferrari had won, the other teams would have protested.
Do you think that the stewards and the ICA would have supported Ferrari, notwithstanding the fact that their result had been achieved through the advantage of an indisputably illegal device?
I can't see it. Yes, it's conceivable, but don't you think that the odds are too heavily against it, especially considering that it would only have been even imaginable as an advantage if the weather improved?
Cheers.
Scuffers said:
ewenm said:
stephen300o said:
Why change the rules one minuit before the race?
One minute? flemke said:
Piglet said:
I think the red team chose to have a go and see if they got away with it...it was worth a punt to see how things worked out. If they genuinely hadn't been sent the email and had their race compromised in that way their reaction now would (IMO) be very different.
As an aside, don't forget it's Charlie Whiting who is responsible to things on track, not the FIA per se so it was always likely to be a different scenario.
This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one:As an aside, don't forget it's Charlie Whiting who is responsible to things on track, not the FIA per se so it was always likely to be a different scenario.
If the weather had improved and Ferrari had got an advantage because it had started on inters, the other ten teams would not have let it go. If in that scenario Ferrari had won, the other teams would have protested.
Do you think that the stewards and the ICA would have supported Ferrari, notwithstanding the fact that their result had been achieved through the advantage of an indisputably illegal device?
I can't see it. Yes, it's conceivable, but don't you think that the odds are too heavily against it, especially considering that it would only have been even imaginable as an advantage if the weather improved?
Cheers.
Flemke
Yes I agree, I think (and hope) that the Stewards would have found against Ferrari, unless there really is something odd about the email scenario. Perhaps there was something about the way the email was sent that made them think the odds were OK.
Knowing how pitlanes work I just find it inconceivable that Ferrari didn't know about the instruction either through talking and observing other teams or through Bridgestone.
My other thought, is that I'm not sure whether CW has the power to order that the teams start on a particular tyre. Most regulations specifically avoid the organisers making decisions like that(so that if it goes wrong they don't get sued!), these are tactical decisions that should be made by individual teams.
I haven't got the F1 regs to hand or time to look at them but I *think* F1 races have to be declared wet and then if they are declared wet the competitors can use wet tyres if they wish but they are not obliged to.
I imagine that there is a "catch all" for F1 that allows the Race Director to make any decision he wishes on the grounds of safety - I do wonder if Ferrari had a theory that the instruction was invalid?
I dunno really, it's all a bit odd! A bit like Massa needing three fuel stops
Yes I agree, I think (and hope) that the Stewards would have found against Ferrari, unless there really is something odd about the email scenario. Perhaps there was something about the way the email was sent that made them think the odds were OK.
Knowing how pitlanes work I just find it inconceivable that Ferrari didn't know about the instruction either through talking and observing other teams or through Bridgestone.
My other thought, is that I'm not sure whether CW has the power to order that the teams start on a particular tyre. Most regulations specifically avoid the organisers making decisions like that(so that if it goes wrong they don't get sued!), these are tactical decisions that should be made by individual teams.
I haven't got the F1 regs to hand or time to look at them but I *think* F1 races have to be declared wet and then if they are declared wet the competitors can use wet tyres if they wish but they are not obliged to.
I imagine that there is a "catch all" for F1 that allows the Race Director to make any decision he wishes on the grounds of safety - I do wonder if Ferrari had a theory that the instruction was invalid?
I dunno really, it's all a bit odd! A bit like Massa needing three fuel stops
coetzeeh said:
Ferrari would have been stripped of the days constructors points, and the drivers would have kept their points - just like the FIA ruling in the spy scandal case.
No I doubt it, the usually scenario is that the drivers would lose their points as well if the car was deemed to be illegal. (that's why the FIA's ruling in McL is odd unless you take immunity into account). JonRB said:
Given the money involved in F1 don't see why each team couldn't be issued with a secure terminal that receives bulletins with guaranteed delivery and read receipt.
Or even extend the information that is piped to the pitwall to include important information like this.
I don't doubt this stuff does go to the pitwall. As I said, email is a very normal form of communication in F1 over GP weekends. Or even extend the information that is piped to the pitwall to include important information like this.
Just my thoughts, but when the email was sent from the FIA/CW, don't the teams have to confirm receipt. Now all the teams, bar Ferrari must have replied, so surely CW was missing the reply from Ferrari, and should therefore have chased them up.
I mean why ask for a receipt if it's not checked that you have received it back.
I mean why ask for a receipt if it's not checked that you have received it back.
I was listening to the race on 5 Live. Now, I could be wrong and i don't have a recording that i can check, but i'm sure the commentary team said that if the race is started by the pace car then all cars have to be on full wets (the commentary team weren't sure about this rule though.)
I'm also sure that I heard them say that Charlie Whiting went down the grid and insisted he saw all tyres under their warmers to check, and found that Fezza were'nt on full wets. That was when he told them they will have to change them as soon as the race started.
Seems odd though to allow cars to run on inters(or whatever their non-full wets were) behind the safety car if this was not thought to be safe.
I'm also sure that I heard them say that Charlie Whiting went down the grid and insisted he saw all tyres under their warmers to check, and found that Fezza were'nt on full wets. That was when he told them they will have to change them as soon as the race started.
Seems odd though to allow cars to run on inters(or whatever their non-full wets were) behind the safety car if this was not thought to be safe.
jamieboy said:
Scuffers said:
ewenm said:
stephen300o said:
Why change the rules one minuit before the race?
One minute? Ted then confirms that Charlie issues the insrution that said if they start behind the SC they HAVE to run full wets, (he said 20 mins ago - from the start of the race??)
Massa then pits on lap 2 and takes full wets (+6 sec's of fuel)
Kimi pits on lap 3 and takes on full wets (+ more fuel)
shoestring7 said:
BTW, one thing that's been bugging me: why did Button's laps times* without a wing appear to be so close to those of the (intact) cars he was running with?
SS7
Because they were running so slowly there was no downforce from the front wing?SS7
- I base this question on comments made during the ITV commentary which may be complete b*llocks
Why did Kubica get a penaly during the race? I thought that after the debacle where Montoya was wrongly punished in '03 and had his championship chance wrecked, the stewards would look at all racing incidents after the race.
I know it looked quite bad from the footage but Hamilton's comments made it sound like more of a 50-50 racing incident.
I put it to you that there would have been no penalty if the crash had not involved a championship contender.
I know it looked quite bad from the footage but Hamilton's comments made it sound like more of a 50-50 racing incident.
I put it to you that there would have been no penalty if the crash had not involved a championship contender.
Edited by Mr_Thyroid on Monday 1st October 18:29
Mr_Thyroid said:
Why did Kubica get a penaly during the race? I thought that after the debacle where Montoya was wrongly punished in '03 and had his championship chance wrecked, the stewards would look at all racing incidents after the race.
I know it looked quite bad from the footage but Hamilton's comments made it sound like more of a 50-50 racing incident.
I put it to you that there would have been no penalty if the crash had not involved a championship contender.
I quite agree that the penalty seems nonsensical.I know it looked quite bad from the footage but Hamilton's comments made it sound like more of a 50-50 racing incident.
I put it to you that there would have been no penalty if the crash had not involved a championship contender.
Was the reasoning behind it that Kubica had gained a place from having caused the collision?
flemke said:
Mr_Thyroid said:
Why did Kubica get a penaly during the race? I thought that after the debacle where Montoya was wrongly punished in '03 and had his championship chance wrecked, the stewards would look at all racing incidents after the race.
I know it looked quite bad from the footage but Hamilton's comments made it sound like more of a 50-50 racing incident.
I put it to you that there would have been no penalty if the crash had not involved a championship contender.
I quite agree that the penalty seems nonsensical.I know it looked quite bad from the footage but Hamilton's comments made it sound like more of a 50-50 racing incident.
I put it to you that there would have been no penalty if the crash had not involved a championship contender.
Was the reasoning behind it that Kubica had gained a place from having caused the collision?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff