Ferrari / Japan / Intermediates
Discussion
So Ferrari start the race on intermediates despite Charlie Whiting giving explicit instructions to all teams to start on extreme wets?
Ferrari said 'they were never told' and used intermediates. Raikkonen quoted as saying "The FIA forgot to tell us, It cost us a lot,"
Does that sound remotely believable? Not to mention the copious amount of wet stuff that was falling at the time!
Perhaps the FIA have got so sick of Ferrari bellyaching recently, that they just ignored them?
Ferrari said 'they were never told' and used intermediates. Raikkonen quoted as saying "The FIA forgot to tell us, It cost us a lot,"
Does that sound remotely believable? Not to mention the copious amount of wet stuff that was falling at the time!
Perhaps the FIA have got so sick of Ferrari bellyaching recently, that they just ignored them?
It was a fairly unnecessary call from the FIA once you have considered Ferrari's logic in the decision to start on inters:
If the race is going to start under the pace car and lap until the standing water is cleared, then intermediates will be the appropriate tyre for the racing condition.
So why are the FIA insisting they start on full wets? It counters their procedure.
Ferrari definitely lost out more by having to pit for the wet tyres. No need for further punishment.
If the race is going to start under the pace car and lap until the standing water is cleared, then intermediates will be the appropriate tyre for the racing condition.
So why are the FIA insisting they start on full wets? It counters their procedure.
Ferrari definitely lost out more by having to pit for the wet tyres. No need for further punishment.
I don't believe Ferrari were not aware of the rule for a second. They blatantly tried to bend the rules to their advantage and got caught out.
Apparently (think this was mentioned in the ITV coverage) Ferrari gambled on the SC being out long enough for the track to be OK for inters in a past race (before this rule came in). They were the only team to do this and it paid off. Obviously they thought they would try the same trick again.
Apparently (think this was mentioned in the ITV coverage) Ferrari gambled on the SC being out long enough for the track to be OK for inters in a past race (before this rule came in). They were the only team to do this and it paid off. Obviously they thought they would try the same trick again.
zac510 said:
It was a fairly unnecessary call from the FIA once you have considered Ferrari's logic in the decision to start on inters:
If the race is going to start under the pace car and lap until the standing water is cleared, then intermediates will be the appropriate tyre for the racing condition.
So why are the FIA insisting they start on full wets? It counters their procedure.
Ferrari definitely lost out more by having to pit for the wet tyres. No need for further punishment.
I imagine that full west through up more spray and clear the track quicker. If every team ignored the race director and opted for intermediates then the number of laps behind the safety car would have been greatly increased.If the race is going to start under the pace car and lap until the standing water is cleared, then intermediates will be the appropriate tyre for the racing condition.
So why are the FIA insisting they start on full wets? It counters their procedure.
Ferrari definitely lost out more by having to pit for the wet tyres. No need for further punishment.
Of course as it was the prancing donkey and I am surpirsed the FIA didn't give all the other teams a 20 minute stop go penalty...
zac510 said:
Stig said:
Indeed, but I felt it worthy of mention as it reflects the view that there's one rule for F1 teams and another for Ferrari.
I don't see any evidence of that at all? They were punished and told to pit.It reflects the view that perhaps Ferrari believe that there's one rule for the F1 teams and another for them.
Stig said:
zac510 said:
Stig said:
Indeed, but I felt it worthy of mention as it reflects the view that there's one rule for F1 teams and another for Ferrari.
I don't see any evidence of that at all? They were punished and told to pit.It reflects the view that perhaps Ferrari believe that there's one rule for the F1 teams and another for them.
zac510 said:
It was a fairly unnecessary call from the FIA once you have considered Ferrari's logic in the decision to start on inters:
If the race is going to start under the pace car and lap until the standing water is cleared, then intermediates will be the appropriate tyre for the racing condition.
So why are the FIA insisting they start on full wets? It counters their procedure.
Ferrari definitely lost out more by having to pit for the wet tyres. No need for further punishment.
Er, they "had to" pit for wet tyres not only because the FIA rules required it.If the race is going to start under the pace car and lap until the standing water is cleared, then intermediates will be the appropriate tyre for the racing condition.
So why are the FIA insisting they start on full wets? It counters their procedure.
Ferrari definitely lost out more by having to pit for the wet tyres. No need for further punishment.
There was also the small matter that they proved to be the right choice.
They would have had to pit anyhow, to get on tyres that would function better, and thus their tactical choice in its own right should have cost them their running positions. That is the way it works.
Quite apart from that, they should have been penalised for defying the stewards' orders, unless they could prove that the e-mail had never arrived at any of their computers in time.
flemke said:
Er, they "had to" pit for wet tyres not only because the FIA rules required it.
There was also the small matter that they proved to be the right choice.
They would have had to pit anyhow, to get on tyres that would function better, and thus their tactical choice in its own right should have cost them their running positions. That is the way it works.
Quite apart from that, they should have been penalised for defying the stewards' orders, unless they could prove that the e-mail had never arrived at any of their computers in time.
I know where you're coming from on the basis of wets being the right tyre but for a while there it looked like they weren't going to start because it simply wasn't drying out. There was also the small matter that they proved to be the right choice.
They would have had to pit anyhow, to get on tyres that would function better, and thus their tactical choice in its own right should have cost them their running positions. That is the way it works.
Quite apart from that, they should have been penalised for defying the stewards' orders, unless they could prove that the e-mail had never arrived at any of their computers in time.
My point is that if the safety car is there to drive around until the track dries then it doesn't matter what tyres you're on (within reason) while behind the safety car because race control are going to control the track conditions.
I'm not arguing Ferrari were on the wrong tyre for racing and I'm not arguing that Ferrari broke the regulation in some way.
Fortunately sense prevailed and contrary to the driver's desires, they raced in very wet conditions and we had a race with remarkably low carnage.
Maybe my posts sound odd because I am not slandering Ferrari or the FIA
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff