The Official 2017 Bahrain Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**

[Vaud]

Quite. The stewards looked at the rule. They looked at the evidence and decided the rule was ambiguous and did not apply a penalty.

[HustleRussell]

Also Charlie Whiting must've been satisfied that all cars were in position before he pushed the 'race start' button. If a car is out of position according to the proximity sensors or Whiting's judgement, he has the option to send them around again.

In any case, after the Bahrain Grand Prix is the wrong time to be discussing the start of the Chinese grand prix, the results of which were formally issued on Sunday 9th.

[jm doc]

Over the years there have been plenty of occasions of a car with a wheel over the front line. There is no ambiguity then, it's a penalty. The rules don't specify any particular line, just that you have to be within the grid box. That means all the lines, you can't pick and choose which one suits you. It's very clear. And it was very blatant. (like Hamilton in Bahrain)

[deadslow]

jm doc said:

.... within the grid box. That means all the lines, you can't pick and choose..... It's very clear.

err... apparently yes you can. That's very clear. Dry your eyes, then you will see things even more clearly

[Gary C]

jm doc said:

Over the years there have been plenty of occasions of a car with a wheel over the front line. There is no ambiguity then, it's a penalty. The rules don't specify any particular line, just that you have to be within the grid box. That means all the lines, you can't pick and choose which one suits you. It's very clear. And it was very blatant. (like Hamilton in Bahrain)

But it doesn't say in the grid box, it says within their respective grid positions and while that seems straightforward to us, it's been judged by those that matter to be insufficiently clear. End of.

Especially as there seems to be no definition of the grid position markings

[jm doc]

Gary C said:

jm doc said:

Over the years there have been plenty of occasions of a car with a wheel over the front line. There is no ambiguity then, it's a penalty. The rules don't specify any particular line, just that you have to be within the grid box. That means all the lines, you can't pick and choose which one suits you. It's very clear. And it was very blatant. (like Hamilton in Bahrain)

But it doesn't say in the grid box, it says within their respective grid positions and while that seems straightforward to us, it's been judged by those that matter to be insufficiently clear. End of.

Especially as there seems to be no definition of the grid position markings

But drivers have always been penalised for being over the grid box white lines. That is the definition. Otherwise all the drivers could line up on the start line so long they weren't in front of another driver with a better qualifying time. And everyone understands that which is why they line up the way they do. Unless you are driving a Ferrari and get special dispensation.

Edited to add: and the regs specify "within", where else would that be on the grid except "within" the boxes provided.

Edited by jm doc on Thursday 20th April 17:38

[Gary C]

jm doc said:

Gary C said:

jm doc said:

Over the years there have been plenty of occasions of a car with a wheel over the front line. There is no ambiguity then, it's a penalty. The rules don't specify any particular line, just that you have to be within the grid box. That means all the lines, you can't pick and choose which one suits you. It's very clear. And it was very blatant. (like Hamilton in Bahrain)

But it doesn't say in the grid box, it says within their respective grid positions and while that seems straightforward to us, it's been judged by those that matter to be insufficiently clear. End of.

Especially as there seems to be no definition of the grid position markings

But drivers have always been penalised for being over the grid box white lines. That is the definition. Otherwise all the drivers could line up on the start line so long they weren't in front of another driver with a better qualifying time. And everyone understands that which is why they line up the way they do. Unless you are driving a Ferrari and get special dispensation.

Edited to add: and the regs specify "within", where else would that be on the grid except "within" the boxes provided.

Edited by jm doc on Thursday 20th April 17:38

Yep, but as there is no actual box marked on the road. You would tend to think it's delimited by extending the corners of the front lines back but unless it's absolutely tied down a team will always bend it.

[jm doc]

Gary C said:

jm doc said:

Gary C said:

jm doc said:

Over the years there have been plenty of occasions of a car with a wheel over the front line. There is no ambiguity then, it's a penalty. The rules don't specify any particular line, just that you have to be within the grid box. That means all the lines, you can't pick and choose which one suits you. It's very clear. And it was very blatant. (like Hamilton in Bahrain)

But it doesn't say in the grid box, it says within their respective grid positions and while that seems straightforward to us, it's been judged by those that matter to be insufficiently clear. End of.

Especially as there seems to be no definition of the grid position markings

But drivers have always been penalised for being over the grid box white lines. That is the definition. Otherwise all the drivers could line up on the start line so long they weren't in front of another driver with a better qualifying time. And everyone understands that which is why they line up the way they do. Unless you are driving a Ferrari and get special dispensation.

Edited to add: and the regs specify "within", where else would that be on the grid except "within" the boxes provided.

Edited by jm doc on Thursday 20th April 17:38

Yep, but as there is no actual box marked on the road. You would tend to think it's delimited by extending the corners of the front lines back but unless it's absolutely tied down a team will always bend it.

Within can only mean within the area delineated by the markings otherwise it would state outwith. The lateral boundary is delineated by a line extending from the front and rear lines. They don't extend the full lateral length as the lines can create less grip and lead to cars losing traction. All the drivers are aware of this as the system has been in place for a long time. Vettel deliberately tried to gain an advantage and was allowed to get away with it.

And what's been completely ignored by those jumping on the Vettel bandwagon is that it's the regulation that Hamilton infringed which is completely ambiguous, merely stating that cars should not be driven "unneccessarily slowly" on entry into the pit lane. So how slow is that, 1mph slower than pit lane speed limit, 5mph, 10mph?? Did they actually check whether it was "unneccessarily slow" by asking Mercedes. Hamilton couldn't get in his garage so is that not "neccessarily slow", no definition of the circumstances which may be classified as "unneccessary" or otherwise. It's just laughable comparing the two.

Really, there are people on here who need to open their eyes and ears to what goes on and why.

[Gary C]

jm doc said:

Gary C said:

jm doc said:

Gary C said:

jm doc said:

Over the years there have been plenty of occasions of a car with a wheel over the front line. There is no ambiguity then, it's a penalty. The rules don't specify any particular line, just that you have to be within the grid box. That means all the lines, you can't pick and choose which one suits you. It's very clear. And it was very blatant. (like Hamilton in Bahrain)

But it doesn't say in the grid box, it says within their respective grid positions and while that seems straightforward to us, it's been judged by those that matter to be insufficiently clear. End of.

Especially as there seems to be no definition of the grid position markings

But drivers have always been penalised for being over the grid box white lines. That is the definition. Otherwise all the drivers could line up on the start line so long they weren't in front of another driver with a better qualifying time. And everyone understands that which is why they line up the way they do. Unless you are driving a Ferrari and get special dispensation.

Edited to add: and the regs specify "within", where else would that be on the grid except "within" the boxes provided.

Edited by jm doc on Thursday 20th April 17:38

Yep, but as there is no actual box marked on the road. You would tend to think it's delimited by extending the corners of the front lines back but unless it's absolutely tied down a team will always bend it.

Within can only mean within the area delineated by the markings otherwise it would state outwith. The lateral boundary is delineated by a line extending from the front and rear lines. They don't extend the full lateral length as the lines can create less grip and lead to cars losing traction. All the drivers are aware of this as the system has been in place for a long time. Vettel deliberately tried to gain an advantage and was allowed to get away with it.

And what's been completely ignored by those jumping on the Vettel bandwagon is that it's the regulation that Hamilton infringed which is completely ambiguous, merely stating that cars should not be driven "unneccessarily slowly" on entry into the pit lane. So how slow is that, 1mph slower than pit lane speed limit, 5mph, 10mph?? Did they actually check whether it was "unneccessarily slow" by asking Mercedes. Hamilton couldn't get in his garage so is that not "neccessarily slow", no definition of the circumstances which may be classified as "unneccessary" or otherwise. It's just laughable comparing the two.

Really, there are people on here who need to open their eyes and ears to what goes on and why.

I agree, he certainly did try to gain an advantage, I agree, you can (easily) interpret the rule as you state it.

Schumacher used to park his car wildly askew too, maybe they should have clarified the rule better then.

I don't see a conspiracy this time though. Just weasly wriggling from Ferrari (still think vettle should not have been so far off the normal position)

As to Hamilton, I though he should have been able to claims he had to slow more than normal to ensure he stopped safely with a car already in his pit box, but looking later he had plenty of room.

Vettels thing V Hamiltons thing ? Think the risk of tacitly allowing drivers to slow in the pit lane would be dangerous and could lead to all sorts of problems so had to be jumped on there and then.

[jm doc]

Gary C said:

jm doc said:

Gary C said:

jm doc said:

Gary C said:

jm doc said:

Over the years there have been plenty of occasions of a car with a wheel over the front line. There is no ambiguity then, it's a penalty. The rules don't specify any particular line, just that you have to be within the grid box. That means all the lines, you can't pick and choose which one suits you. It's very clear. And it was very blatant. (like Hamilton in Bahrain)

But it doesn't say in the grid box, it says within their respective grid positions and while that seems straightforward to us, it's been judged by those that matter to be insufficiently clear. End of.

Especially as there seems to be no definition of the grid position markings

But drivers have always been penalised for being over the grid box white lines. That is the definition. Otherwise all the drivers could line up on the start line so long they weren't in front of another driver with a better qualifying time. And everyone understands that which is why they line up the way they do. Unless you are driving a Ferrari and get special dispensation.

Edited to add: and the regs specify "within", where else would that be on the grid except "within" the boxes provided.

Edited by jm doc on Thursday 20th April 17:38

Yep, but as there is no actual box marked on the road. You would tend to think it's delimited by extending the corners of the front lines back but unless it's absolutely tied down a team will always bend it.

Within can only mean within the area delineated by the markings otherwise it would state outwith. The lateral boundary is delineated by a line extending from the front and rear lines. They don't extend the full lateral length as the lines can create less grip and lead to cars losing traction. All the drivers are aware of this as the system has been in place for a long time. Vettel deliberately tried to gain an advantage and was allowed to get away with it.

And what's been completely ignored by those jumping on the Vettel bandwagon is that it's the regulation that Hamilton infringed which is completely ambiguous, merely stating that cars should not be driven "unneccessarily slowly" on entry into the pit lane. So how slow is that, 1mph slower than pit lane speed limit, 5mph, 10mph?? Did they actually check whether it was "unneccessarily slow" by asking Mercedes. Hamilton couldn't get in his garage so is that not "neccessarily slow", no definition of the circumstances which may be classified as "unneccessary" or otherwise. It's just laughable comparing the two.

Really, there are people on here who need to open their eyes and ears to what goes on and why.

I agree, he certainly did try to gain an advantage, I agree, you can (easily) interpret the rule as you state it.

Schumacher used to park his car wildly askew too, maybe they should have clarified the rule better then.

I don't see a conspiracy this time though. Just weasly wriggling from Ferrari (still think vettle should not have been so far off the normal position)

As to Hamilton, I though he should have been able to claims he had to slow more than normal to ensure he stopped safely with a car already in his pit box, but looking later he had plenty of room.

Vettels thing V Hamiltons thing ? Think the risk of tacitly allowing drivers to slow in the pit lane would be dangerous and could lead to all sorts of problems so had to be jumped on there and then.

I agree with a lot of this, but for me it was just that Ferrari got away with something yet again and another (rival) team didn't and felt that double standards were once again evident (I would have argued the same if it had been Red Bull). And also that there really was no objective analysis at all by any of the media that i saw, because both decisions were full of holes. I had thought that the Ferrari International Assistance (FIA) days had gone after Schumacher retired but maybe not.

I think it's time for me to

[anonymous-user]

jm doc said:

Really, there are people on here who need to open their eyes and ears to what goes on and why.

You're right there. Why don't you?

[S0 What]

The differance between the 2 issues is,, backing up cars on the way into the pit was clarified as worthy of a penalty when others did it prev, the start line issue had not been clarified cos this was the first time somone pushed the rule so far as for it to need clarifying IE sideways in grid slot, that's how it works, the rules are slightly ambiguas UNTIL such time as somone pushes the boundarys to the point they need clarifying, Lewis broke a rule that had been clearly defined in the past Seb didn't, as MB said at the time, ( i am paraphrasing here) you'd have to be stupid to back up another driver on the way into the pits, it's a clearly defined rule and your asking for a penalty, when Seb sat to the side MB didn't know wether it would be an issue, too far forward yes but not to the side, the issue is the FIAs loose rule making which lets be honist loose rule making in the foundation of F1, the FIA make a rule the teams disect it and go off in differant directons based on their understanding of said rule, the recent suspension rule clarification is a point in case, the FIA leave loopholes and people exploit them, that's how F1 works, allways has and probably allways will, so again Lewis broke a clarified rule with a defined penalty, Seb didn't.

Edited by S0 What on Friday 21st April 17:19

[jm doc]

S0 What said:

The differance between the 2 issues is,, backing up cars on the way into the pit was clarified as worthy of a penalty when others did it prev, the start line issue had not been clarified cos this was the first time somone pushed the rule so far as for it to need clarifying IE sideways in grid slot, that's how it works, the rules are slightly ambiguas UNTIL such time as somone pushes the boundarys to the point they need clarifying, Lewis broke a rule that had been clearly defined in the past Seb didn't, as MB said at the time, ( i am paraphrasing here) you'd have to be stupid to back up another driver on the way into the pits, it's a clearly defined rule and your asking for a penalty, when Seb sat to the side MB didn't know wether it would be an issue, too far forward yes but not to the side, the issue is the FIAs loose rule making which lets be honist loose rule making in the foundation of F1, the FIA make a rule the teams disect it and go off in differant directons based on their understanding of said rule, the recent suspension rule clarification is a point in case, the FIA leave loopholes and people exploit them, that's how F1 works, allways has and probably allways will, so again Lewis broke a clarified rule with a defined penalty, Seb didn't.

Edited by S0 What on Friday 21st April 17:19

E minus for writing
Fail for reading

Holidays over and back to school on Monday

[tin duck dave]

jm doc said:

Within can only mean within the area delineated by the markings otherwise it would state outwith. The lateral boundary is delineated by a line extending from the front and rear lines. They don't extend the full lateral length as the lines can create less grip and lead to cars losing traction. All the drivers are aware of this as the system has been in place for a long time. Vettel deliberately tried to gain an advantage and was allowed to get away with it.

And what's been completely ignored by those jumping on the Vettel bandwagon is that it's the regulation that Hamilton infringed which is completely ambiguous, merely stating that cars should not be driven "unneccessarily slowly" on entry into the pit lane. So how slow is that, 1mph slower than pit lane speed limit, 5mph, 10mph?? Did they actually check whether it was "unneccessarily slow" by asking Mercedes. Hamilton couldn't get in his garage so is that not "neccessarily slow", no definition of the circumstances which may be classified as "unneccessary" or otherwise. It's just laughable comparing the two.

Really, there are people on here who need to open their eyes and ears to what goes on and why.

Thanks for reminding us why we are missing tommunster10.

[jm doc]

tin duck dave said:

jm doc said:

Within can only mean within the area delineated by the markings otherwise it would state outwith. The lateral boundary is delineated by a line extending from the front and rear lines. They don't extend the full lateral length as the lines can create less grip and lead to cars losing traction. All the drivers are aware of this as the system has been in place for a long time. Vettel deliberately tried to gain an advantage and was allowed to get away with it.

And what's been completely ignored by those jumping on the Vettel bandwagon is that it's the regulation that Hamilton infringed which is completely ambiguous, merely stating that cars should not be driven "unneccessarily slowly" on entry into the pit lane. So how slow is that, 1mph slower than pit lane speed limit, 5mph, 10mph?? Did they actually check whether it was "unneccessarily slow" by asking Mercedes. Hamilton couldn't get in his garage so is that not "neccessarily slow", no definition of the circumstances which may be classified as "unneccessary" or otherwise. It's just laughable comparing the two.

Really, there are people on here who need to open their eyes and ears to what goes on and why.

Thanks for reminding us why we are missing tommunster10.

Sorry to hear that

It's a fact of life that most people never question what they are told by people in "authority" so you don't need to feel embarrassed.

[AW111]

jm doc said:

I think it's time for me to

Why can't you keep your fking promise!

[ZX10R NIN]

For anyone interested I'm watching a very informative programme called the Flying Lap it's giving an incite into pit decisions aero changes etc.

It's on Motorsport TV

[vonuber]

jm doc said:

E minus for writing
Fail for reading

Holidays over and back to school on Monday

Is this yours?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lewis-Hamilton-Cushion-Pi...

[S0 What]

jm doc said:

S0 What said:

The differance between the 2 issues is,, backing up cars on the way into the pit was clarified as worthy of a penalty when others did it prev, the start line issue had not been clarified cos this was the first time somone pushed the rule so far as for it to need clarifying IE sideways in grid slot, that's how it works, the rules are slightly ambiguas UNTIL such time as somone pushes the boundarys to the point they need clarifying, Lewis broke a rule that had been clearly defined in the past Seb didn't, as MB said at the time, ( i am paraphrasing here) you'd have to be stupid to back up another driver on the way into the pits, it's a clearly defined rule and your asking for a penalty, when Seb sat to the side MB didn't know wether it would be an issue, too far forward yes but not to the side, the issue is the FIAs loose rule making which lets be honist loose rule making in the foundation of F1, the FIA make a rule the teams disect it and go off in differant directons based on their understanding of said rule, the recent suspension rule clarification is a point in case, the FIA leave loopholes and people exploit them, that's how F1 works, allways has and probably allways will, so again Lewis broke a clarified rule with a defined penalty, Seb didn't.

Edited by S0 What on Friday 21st April 17:19

E minus for writing
Fail for reading

Holidays over and back to school on Monday

Thank fook for that, are you dinners or packed lunch ?