Mohammed ben Sulayem
Discussion
TypeRTim said:
PhilAsia said:
PhilAsia said:
TypeRTim said:
PhilAsia said:
And what about adhering to Highway Code rule 129?
Rule 129
"...Where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it..."
As safety is #1, I wonder why "straddle" is linked to MUST NOT? Maybe coming into conflict with another vehicle?
Think you quoted the wrong post there bud!Rule 129
"...Where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it..."
As safety is #1, I wonder why "straddle" is linked to MUST NOT? Maybe coming into conflict with another vehicle?
You bring in weddings and why wearing rings is correct and to hell with safety.
I bring in the Highway Code and why no contact with the lines is safer.
I thought you misquoted me as you were
I was saying that wedding rings are a common exception to jewellery mandates across industries due to their common cultural and symbolic significance, so it would make sense if the FIA also had followed this. Many places with no jewellery policies for safety reasons (such as machine operation etc.) have exceptions for wedding rings due to their importance across many different cultures.
AFAIK, there is no equivalent necklace, bangle, piercing, broach or bracelet etc. with the same significance across cultures and traditions. The wearing of rings is founded on very shaky ground. I do not know of any religion where the wearing of one is enforced, nor any societal requirement. It is purely "feelings". If that is the case then ALL jewelry should be removed as per the rules. However, if jewelry is allowed then MRI is not an issue and neither is heat, as your flesh burns at lower temps than metals. Which brings us back to my point: the more important safety issue/argument regarding the pit lane markings ruling... and a potential collision safety issue that is far a more important issue to resolve.
It's just enforcing a rule. A rule that existed when the decision to get the piercings was made. The fact that the other cheek was turned under previous management doesn't make it right, arguably the rule should have been re-written or scrapped when it was deemed that Hamilton's piercings were 'ok'. But here we are. People have been clamouring for the FIA to get their house in order and enforce the rules as they are written, with clarity and no ambiguity. But now, people are complaining about them being 'petty' about trying to enforce the rules. It seems to be a distraction to me. There are far more pressing issues, like collisions when leaving the pit lane that require clarifying re safety
I'll agree, it's a strange hill to die on (for both sides) - But this has now become a power play between one of the most recognisable personalities in the sport and the new chief of the governing body. I can't see the FIA climbing down on it as it is a direct threat to their authority and their ownership of the sporting rules. A compromise will probably have to be struck where plain ear studs of a small size will be allowed, but that's the limit.
PhilAsia said:
TypeRTim said:
PhilAsia said:
PhilAsia said:
TypeRTim said:
PhilAsia said:
And what about adhering to Highway Code rule 129?
Rule 129
"...Where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it..."
As safety is #1, I wonder why "straddle" is linked to MUST NOT? Maybe coming into conflict with another vehicle?
Think you quoted the wrong post there bud!Rule 129
"...Where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it..."
As safety is #1, I wonder why "straddle" is linked to MUST NOT? Maybe coming into conflict with another vehicle?
You bring in weddings and why wearing rings is correct and to hell with safety.
I bring in the Highway Code and why no contact with the lines is safer.
I thought you misquoted me as you were
I was saying that wedding rings are a common exception to jewellery mandates across industries due to their common cultural and symbolic significance, so it would make sense if the FIA also had followed this. Many places with no jewellery policies for safety reasons (such as machine operation etc.) have exceptions for wedding rings due to their importance across many different cultures.
AFAIK, there is no equivalent necklace, bangle, piercing, broach or bracelet etc. with the same significance across cultures and traditions. The wearing of rings is founded on very shaky ground. I do not know of any religion where the wearing of one is enforced, nor any societal requirement. It is purely "feelings". If that is the case then ALL jewelry should be removed as per the rules. However, if jewelry is allowed then MRI is not an issue and neither is heat, as your flesh burns at lower temps than metals. Which brings us back to my point: the more important safety issue/argument regarding the pit lane markings ruling... and a potential collision safety issue that is far a more important issue to resolve.
It's just enforcing a rule. A rule that existed when the decision to get the piercings was made. The fact that the other cheek was turned under previous management doesn't make it right, arguably the rule should have been re-written or scrapped when it was deemed that Hamilton's piercings were 'ok'. But here we are. People have been clamouring for the FIA to get their house in order and enforce the rules as they are written, with clarity and no ambiguity. But now, people are complaining about them being 'petty' about trying to enforce the rules. It seems to be a distraction to me. There are far more pressing issues, like collisions when leaving the pit lane that require clarifying re safety
I'll agree, it's a strange hill to die on (for both sides) - But this has now become a power play between one of the most recognisable personalities in the sport and the new chief of the governing body. I can't see the FIA climbing down on it as it is a direct threat to their authority and their ownership of the sporting rules. A compromise will probably have to be struck where plain ear studs of a small size will be allowed, but that's the limit.
The pit entry/exit line debacle is similar to track limits for me. I thought the Bulls should have been penalised for it in Monaco as my interpretation of the rule was that no part of the tyre could go over the line (and I'm sure penalties have been given for just that reason in the past, no definite examples are in my head right now though). Enforce it, or don't. Don't make it track specific and confusing.
A lot of what i post, i try to play devil's advocate and see where the FIA are coming from with their rulings/interpretations.
This situation is very unfortunate as it was caused by previous leniency without rewriting the rule to accept and define such leniency. But if there is anything the FIA and F1 are good at, it's posthumously rewriting and redefining rules that should have been crystal clear and enforced from the get go!
TypeRTim said:
Definitely agree there are more important issues re: Safety that need tackling
The pit entry/exit line debacle is similar to track limits for me. I thought the Bulls should have been penalised for it in Monaco as my interpretation of the rule was that no part of the tyre could go over the line (and I'm sure penalties have been given for just that reason in the past, no definite examples are in my head right now though). Enforce it, or don't. Don't make it track specific and confusing. I believe it has always been the case in lower formulae that to touch the line incurs a penalty - same as the carefully written Highway Code. Anything other is inviting contact between two vehicles.
A lot of what i post, i try to play devil's advocate and see where the FIA are coming from with their rulings/interpretations.
This situation is very unfortunate as it was caused by previous leniency without rewriting the rule to accept and define such leniency. But if there is anything the FIA and F1 are good at, it's posthumously rewriting and redefining rules that should have been crystal clear and enforced from the get go!There we disagree. The FIA/F1 are notoriously bad at writing rulings that are clear, concise and easy to understand/apply. The pit lane debacle clearly indicates that and the safety concern remains because of the any/all (lapped driver/tyre) that should have been fixed post 2021 Abu Dhabi IMHO
The pit entry/exit line debacle is similar to track limits for me. I thought the Bulls should have been penalised for it in Monaco as my interpretation of the rule was that no part of the tyre could go over the line (and I'm sure penalties have been given for just that reason in the past, no definite examples are in my head right now though). Enforce it, or don't. Don't make it track specific and confusing. I believe it has always been the case in lower formulae that to touch the line incurs a penalty - same as the carefully written Highway Code. Anything other is inviting contact between two vehicles.
A lot of what i post, i try to play devil's advocate and see where the FIA are coming from with their rulings/interpretations.
This situation is very unfortunate as it was caused by previous leniency without rewriting the rule to accept and define such leniency. But if there is anything the FIA and F1 are good at, it's posthumously rewriting and redefining rules that should have been crystal clear and enforced from the get go!There we disagree. The FIA/F1 are notoriously bad at writing rulings that are clear, concise and easy to understand/apply. The pit lane debacle clearly indicates that and the safety concern remains because of the any/all (lapped driver/tyre) that should have been fixed post 2021 Abu Dhabi IMHO
PhilAsia said:
There we disagree. The FIA/F1 are notoriously bad at writing rulings that are clear, concise and easy to understand/apply. The pit lane debacle clearly indicates that and the safety concern remains because of the any/all (lapped driver/tyre) that should have been fixed post 2021 Abu Dhabi IMHO
I think you mis-understood my statement.I was agreeing to exactly that! That they write s
t, unclear and ambiguous rules and are then champions at hurredly redrafting them when exploited even though they shouldn't be able to be exploited in the first place!The 'clarification' of Any/All in the safety car procedure is a prime example.
TypeRTim said:
PhilAsia said:
There we disagree. The FIA/F1 are notoriously bad at writing rulings that are clear, concise and easy to understand/apply. The pit lane debacle clearly indicates that and the safety concern remains because of the any/all (lapped driver/tyre) that should have been fixed post 2021 Abu Dhabi IMHO
I think you mis-understood my statement.I was agreeing to exactly that! That they write s
t, unclear and ambiguous rules and are then champions at hurredly redrafting them when exploited even though they shouldn't be able to be exploited in the first place!The 'clarification' of Any/All in the safety car procedure is a prime example.
The race director at this year's Monaco GP had a different interpretation of exiting the pits to the FIA rules; Massi and Charlie weren't too bothered with jewellery; Massi tried to apply track limits as if they were racing incidents e.g. "lasting advantage" at Turn 4 Bahrain.
TypeRTim said:
PhilAsia said:
There we disagree. The FIA/F1 are notoriously bad at writing rulings that are clear, concise and easy to understand/apply. The pit lane debacle clearly indicates that and the safety concern remains because of the any/all (lapped driver/tyre) that should have been fixed post 2021 Abu Dhabi IMHO
I think you mis-understood my statement.I was agreeing to exactly that! That they write s
t, unclear and ambiguous rules and are then champions at hurredly redrafting them when exploited even though they shouldn't be able to be exploited in the first place!The 'clarification' of Any/All in the safety car procedure is a prime example.
paulguitar said:
sparta6 said:
If you wish to ask me a direct question, do it. Don't insinuate 
Here's the question:paulguitar said:
I'd be interested to know what Hamilton did to Sparta to cause the pathological obsession. It can't be at all healthy.
That's not a direct question. That's your delusional musings.
angrymoby said:
vaud said:
If it's about fire risk then I can only see a full ban.
If it's about the risk of metal in an MRI then I can only see a full ban, or "jewellery that can be removed in 5 seconds" - a la the extraction test to eliminate more permanent piercings.
as previously posted certain metals are both fire/heat transfer safe & MRI safe & jewellery of a certain size are snag safe ...& as safe as wedding bandsIf it's about the risk of metal in an MRI then I can only see a full ban, or "jewellery that can be removed in 5 seconds" - a la the extraction test to eliminate more permanent piercings.
so ban everything or have a sensible pragmatic approach & allow small items of personal significance (which seemed to be CW's approach)
either solutions are fine by me
Phil, why are you still banging on about pit exit lines stopping contact between cars? you have been told numerous times they don't, there is (as far as I know) no rule keeping cars on track from crossing the line, Hamilton was fully in the exit lane while trying to overtake Ocon, who was over the line himself as opposed to Max who just touched the bloody thing. The line does not separate traffic like you keep saying.
It has been weeks, just leave it.
It has been weeks, just leave it.
RB Will said:
Phil, why are you still banging on about pit exit lines stopping contact between cars? you have been told numerous times they don't, there is (as far as I know) no rule keeping cars on track from crossing the line, Hamilton was fully in the exit lane while trying to overtake Ocon, who was over the line himself as opposed to Max who just touched the bloody thing. The line does not separate traffic like you keep saying.
It has been weeks, just leave it.
The rules are there as Phil describes. That part of the circuit is part of the live circuit, drivers on circuit may use that part of the track. It is there to prevent slower vehicles exiting the pits straying into the main part of the track whilst travelling much slower than the other vehicles on circuit. It is not difficult to understand, nor to appreciate that the rule should be the rule and no interpretation allowed.It has been weeks, just leave it.
The jewellery thing is unlikely to cause danger to anybody else, unlike pulling out in front of a car going much faster.
sparta6 said:
angrymoby said:
vaud said:
If it's about fire risk then I can only see a full ban.
If it's about the risk of metal in an MRI then I can only see a full ban, or "jewellery that can be removed in 5 seconds" - a la the extraction test to eliminate more permanent piercings.
as previously posted certain metals are both fire/heat transfer safe & MRI safe & jewellery of a certain size are snag safe ...& as safe as wedding bandsIf it's about the risk of metal in an MRI then I can only see a full ban, or "jewellery that can be removed in 5 seconds" - a la the extraction test to eliminate more permanent piercings.
so ban everything or have a sensible pragmatic approach & allow small items of personal significance (which seemed to be CW's approach)
either solutions are fine by me
RB Will said:
Phil, why are you still banging on about pit exit lines stopping contact between cars? you have been told numerous times they don't, there is (as far as I know) no rule keeping cars on track from crossing the line, Hamilton was fully in the exit lane while trying to overtake Ocon, who was over the line himself as opposed to Max who just touched the bloody thing. The line does not separate traffic like you keep saying.
It has been weeks, just leave it.
it separates pitted cars crossing/ joining straight into a live track ...the rule has nothing to do with cars already on the track - & it should be bloody obvious as to why the rule is written that way, with the onus on the cars joining rather than racingIt has been weeks, just leave it.
so yes, it is there to deter/stop contact
RB Will said:
Yes I understand the rule and reason for the line, as you describe, but since there are no restrictions on cars already on track crossing the line it does not prevent car to car contact, just reduces the risk and saves the slow car exiting the pits doing silly blocking moves
Thank you for falling into line and agreeing with me 
RB Will said:
Phil, why are you still banging on about pit exit lines stopping contact between cars? you have been told numerous times they don't, there is (as far as I know) no rule keeping cars on track from crossing the line, Hamilton was fully in the exit lane while trying to overtake Ocon, who was over the line himself as opposed to Max who just touched the bloody thing. The line does not separate traffic like you keep saying.
It has been weeks, just leave it.
It has been weeks. So has jewelry. When can I next post Herr Gobstoppenfuhrer?It has been weeks, just leave it.
PhilAsia said:
RB Will said:
Yes I understand the rule and reason for the line, as you describe, but since there are no restrictions on cars already on track crossing the line it does not prevent car to car contact, just reduces the risk and saves the slow car exiting the pits doing silly blocking moves
Thank you for falling into line and agreeing with me 
PhilAsia said:
RB Will said:
Yes I understand the rule and reason for the line, as you describe, but since there are no restrictions on cars already on track crossing the line it does not prevent car to car contact, just reduces the risk and saves the slow car exiting the pits doing silly blocking moves
Thank you for falling into line and agreeing with me angrymoby said:
you clearly dont understand the rule & reason
Didn't really want to derail the thread with more line chat but do go on...Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff