FIA Stewards at Spa - possible spoiler
Discussion
Prior to Spa last year, I would have regarded Kimi’s 1st lap heroics yesterday as a “bit of a ballsy drive”.
When LH was demoted from the win at Spa last year, the Steward's ruling identified that the race track was just the bit between the two white lines and that safety runoffs should not allow an unfair advantage to be gained, and that had there been Armco etc., instead of the white lines, LH would have backed out of the situation, much like JB did at Valencia.
Kimi entered La Source at about joint fifth, ran very wide, but being able to keep a higher overall speed through an effective large radius corner, rather than hairpin, managed to rejoin in 3rd before Eau Rouge; he then hit KERS; passed NH and then out-braked himself, left the track for a second time and damaged NH’s front wing when he rejoined the circuit.
Was the rule changed after last year’s uproar; does the rule only apply after the first corner on tracks with runoffs; or, was it another instance of Ferrari International Assistance?
When LH was demoted from the win at Spa last year, the Steward's ruling identified that the race track was just the bit between the two white lines and that safety runoffs should not allow an unfair advantage to be gained, and that had there been Armco etc., instead of the white lines, LH would have backed out of the situation, much like JB did at Valencia.
Kimi entered La Source at about joint fifth, ran very wide, but being able to keep a higher overall speed through an effective large radius corner, rather than hairpin, managed to rejoin in 3rd before Eau Rouge; he then hit KERS; passed NH and then out-braked himself, left the track for a second time and damaged NH’s front wing when he rejoined the circuit.
Was the rule changed after last year’s uproar; does the rule only apply after the first corner on tracks with runoffs; or, was it another instance of Ferrari International Assistance?
Wanta996Gotta said:
I remember Lewis getting penalised at another track in 2008? I cant remember which one but very similar incident at the start of a race, it involved Trulli i think??? Turkey maybe?
France 07 wasnt it?Back to topic.....i think the reasonging is that going round the outside isn't shortening the circuit.....but i agree that it should be same, in fact they should devise a strip of grass or something else slippy prior to the tarmac run off so if you go off in any form then it costs time.
acf8181 said:
Wanta996Gotta said:
I remember Lewis getting penalised at another track in 2008? I cant remember which one but very similar incident at the start of a race, it involved Trulli i think??? Turkey maybe?
France 07 wasnt it?Back to topic.....i think the reasonging is that going round the outside isn't shortening the circuit.....but i agree that it should be same, in fact they should devise a strip of grass or something else slippy prior to the tarmac run off so if you go off in any form then it costs time.
Penalty - drive through!.
I'm just watching the coverage and to me it looks like Kimi always intended to use the run off, watch it again and watch his line into the corner. It was a move that gave him a good chance of avoiding any first corner carnage and gave him a good run down the old pit straight.
That piece of track won't be very s
tty and it saved him having to back off to avoid the cars in front of him.
It didn't look like evasive action to me. I imagine rule B1N applies, that is of course the red car exemption!
That piece of track won't be very s
tty and it saved him having to back off to avoid the cars in front of him. It didn't look like evasive action to me. I imagine rule B1N applies, that is of course the red car exemption!
sperminator said:
The extra distance Raikkonen had to travel and the fact he would have got st all over his tyres would've been seen as enough of a disadvantage, especialy considering the alternative would've been a pile up and a nightmare for the stewards.
Well considering he went from 5th to 3rd that would suggest nowhere near disadvantageous enough, wouldn't it? t all over his tyres would've been seen as enough of a disadvantage, especialy considering the alternative would've been a pile up and a nightmare for the stewards.Even when the track used to cover the whole area at the exit of La Source it was not clear whether it was quicker to use Kimi's line or the tighter line that is now the line the track follows. Some drivers have always gone wide, some always stay tight. Don't forget Kimi has KERS and would have therefore in all likelyhood passed those in front of him anyway.
Piglet said:
I'm just watching the coverage and to me it looks like Kimi always intended to use the run off, watch it again and watch his line into the corner. It was a move that gave him a good chance of avoiding any first corner carnage and gave him a good run down the old pit straight.
That piece of track won't be very stty and it saved him having to back off to avoid the cars in front of him.
It didn't look like evasive action to me. I imagine rule B1N applies, that is of course the red car exemption!
Now there's someone who can read race form. More spot on than a spot on thing.That piece of track won't be very s
tty and it saved him having to back off to avoid the cars in front of him. It didn't look like evasive action to me. I imagine rule B1N applies, that is of course the red car exemption!
...
I have no problem with him doing what he did. Intelligent thinking and as said it's an unused piece of Tarmac and a further distance, so not a huge advantage. I say all that as a confirmed Kimi fan (regardless of who he drives for)
ref : Hamilton last year. He went a shorter distance and DID NOT LIFT sufficiently. Theres YouTube vids of the onboard and Lewis accelerates 100% from when he rejoins the track. It's simply because Kimi was faster out of the corner that he passes him. Not Lewis letting him by. All he had to do was take Kimi slightly later in the lap and he would have been fine. On the drag out of Eau rouge for example.
Ultimately it made no difference as Kimi was eventually caught out Lewis would have been fine to be the winner in my eyes.
ref : Hamilton last year. He went a shorter distance and DID NOT LIFT sufficiently. Theres YouTube vids of the onboard and Lewis accelerates 100% from when he rejoins the track. It's simply because Kimi was faster out of the corner that he passes him. Not Lewis letting him by. All he had to do was take Kimi slightly later in the lap and he would have been fine. On the drag out of Eau rouge for example.
Ultimately it made no difference as Kimi was eventually caught out Lewis would have been fine to be the winner in my eyes.
sperminator said:
6655321 said:
Well considering he went from 5th to 3rd that would suggest nowhere near disadvantageous enough, wouldn't it?
The fact that Kimi made an advantage out of running wide just shows that none of the following drivers had enough skill or balls to do the job.The important bit of the ruling last year was the need to stay within the (white lined) circuit. I do think that Kimi had planned what he needed to do to bail out when KERS put him alongside 2 other cars, but that should have been a drive through. Perhaps a second when he went off on the grass a Le Combe and definately cut a corner.
I would prefer to see racing like this as it is supposed to be competetive; it just makes last year's penalty look even more stupid 12 months later.
By the way LH was also penalised with a drive through at Suzuka for failing to take the first corner within the circuit!!
I would prefer to see racing like this as it is supposed to be competetive; it just makes last year's penalty look even more stupid 12 months later.
By the way LH was also penalised with a drive through at Suzuka for failing to take the first corner within the circuit!!
Piglet said:
I'm just watching the coverage and to me it looks like Kimi always intended to use the run off, watch it again and watch his line into the corner. It was a move that gave him a good chance of avoiding any first corner carnage and gave him a good run down the old pit straight.
That piece of track won't be very stty and it saved him having to back off to avoid the cars in front of him.
It didn't look like evasive action to me. I imagine rule B1N applies, that is of course the red car exemption!
I think it was always in his mind to use the outside of the track if things got tight, he has 'form' on such a strategy...Silverstone 2009 for a start! (I just found it on youtube to validate my flaky memory!)That piece of track won't be very s
tty and it saved him having to back off to avoid the cars in front of him. It didn't look like evasive action to me. I imagine rule B1N applies, that is of course the red car exemption!
At the end of the day, he didn't get done for it; but that in many respects is down to the rules being (deliberately?) vague...
I whole-heartedly agree on the requirement for consistent and balanced stewards - for instance despite being serial offenders in pit lane near misses - this is the first race Red Bull have got more than a $ penalty...hardly something that is going to stop them as long as they keep getting away with it - and then Horner had the cheek to call it 'marginal'! Hopefully a habit they will now break....
Mr_Thyroid said:
How to undermine you own argument. Example no. 1:
Sorry chap, I wasn't stating any argument in my first post. I simply stated what I think Kimi did, I didn't give any opinion about whether I though it was right or wrong just that the red car exemption can be traditionally seen in these cases. Piglet said:
.....I imagine rule B1N applies, that is of course the red car exemption!
FWIW he should have been given a penalty, IMO it was a deliberate act and he clearly gained an advantage by using the area that is not the track. Would he have done that in the old days when there was a barrier there? Errm no presumably not.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff