Pitpass article of renault exclusion
Discussion
Interesting point of view here:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_ite...
I like subtle. I enjoy reading articles where you have to work out what they mean. I think i like subtle because I don't do it all that well. However, on reading the last para of the article i felt I could have been considerably more subtle.
Although the main thrust of the article is to show the author's concerns with how just - or otherwise - the punishment was, it is the suggestion implicit in the penultimate sentence that is the real point. The rest of the article just supports it.
Pitpass has changed over recent months in its attitude to the machinations of Mosley. In the past I've struggled to find any logic in some of their articles supporting him. i suppose it must be politics. Everything else is.
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_ite...
I like subtle. I enjoy reading articles where you have to work out what they mean. I think i like subtle because I don't do it all that well. However, on reading the last para of the article i felt I could have been considerably more subtle.
Although the main thrust of the article is to show the author's concerns with how just - or otherwise - the punishment was, it is the suggestion implicit in the penultimate sentence that is the real point. The rest of the article just supports it.
Pitpass has changed over recent months in its attitude to the machinations of Mosley. In the past I've struggled to find any logic in some of their articles supporting him. i suppose it must be politics. Everything else is.
As you say, not very subtle. Perhaps the fact the Mosley looks to be on his way out has made pitpass feel a little braver?
I agree with everything he says except for one area - I'm not sure that the fact that a race suspension has never been imposed before for a wheel falling off means that it shouldn't be handed out now. I'm not saying that the penalty was the correct one, or that Renault should receive one at all, but the fact is that it all areas of life punishments are handed out now for things that would not have attracted a punishment in the past.
I'm sure that you saw many such changes in your time in the police force, for example the tolerance of drink driving, or the fact that until 1991 is was perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife. Perhaps the Surtees incident changed the FIA's and the stewards' perception of acceptable risk.
Of course the test of all this will be to see how they act if and when this happens again. I suppose it will depend on which team's car loses a wheel...
I agree with everything he says except for one area - I'm not sure that the fact that a race suspension has never been imposed before for a wheel falling off means that it shouldn't be handed out now. I'm not saying that the penalty was the correct one, or that Renault should receive one at all, but the fact is that it all areas of life punishments are handed out now for things that would not have attracted a punishment in the past.
I'm sure that you saw many such changes in your time in the police force, for example the tolerance of drink driving, or the fact that until 1991 is was perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife. Perhaps the Surtees incident changed the FIA's and the stewards' perception of acceptable risk.
Of course the test of all this will be to see how they act if and when this happens again. I suppose it will depend on which team's car loses a wheel...
Great article - very well written.
Personally, I think the penalty is over the top, unjustifiable, and was applied as some sort of "we must be seen to be doing something" knee-jerk reaction after the Surtees tragedy, and the Massa incident.
I can't even begin to imagine the backlash had something like this happened last year to McLaren...!
Can you even think of the reaction if the FIA had said:
"Due to the incompetence of the McLaren team, allowing Lewis Hamilton to remain out on track in China with his tyres wearing down to the canvas, thereby potentially allowing the driver to lose control and have a crash, we are excluding the McLaren team from the Brazilian Grand Prix"
!!!!
Agreed, it's not the same scenario, but my point is that there seems to be remarkably little outcry against the FIA for this, compared to the McLaren "witch hunt" last year.
Personally, I think the penalty is over the top, unjustifiable, and was applied as some sort of "we must be seen to be doing something" knee-jerk reaction after the Surtees tragedy, and the Massa incident.
I can't even begin to imagine the backlash had something like this happened last year to McLaren...!
Can you even think of the reaction if the FIA had said:
"Due to the incompetence of the McLaren team, allowing Lewis Hamilton to remain out on track in China with his tyres wearing down to the canvas, thereby potentially allowing the driver to lose control and have a crash, we are excluding the McLaren team from the Brazilian Grand Prix"
!!!!
Agreed, it's not the same scenario, but my point is that there seems to be remarkably little outcry against the FIA for this, compared to the McLaren "witch hunt" last year.
The article of course raises the complex general issue of punishments fitting crimes. We have problems in modern society of differentiating between punishing the actual deed versus punishing the outcome. The wheel fell off Alonsos car - a genuine human error, I think we'd all agree with no foul intent. Should the punishment depend on whether it actually hits someone or not?
Analogies include dropping a banana skin on the pavement - if someone slips, breaks a hip and dies as a consequence was the original crime dropping litter or was it manslaughter? A motorist is driving at 31 mph and is unable to avoid a child running out between parked cars, is the crime speeding or manslaughter?
Punishing on outcomes has serious and dangerous consequences for all of us, especially those of us in occupations with inherently high risks.
Analogies include dropping a banana skin on the pavement - if someone slips, breaks a hip and dies as a consequence was the original crime dropping litter or was it manslaughter? A motorist is driving at 31 mph and is unable to avoid a child running out between parked cars, is the crime speeding or manslaughter?
Punishing on outcomes has serious and dangerous consequences for all of us, especially those of us in occupations with inherently high risks.
Right, I'm the last person to defend the FIA's wild, inconsistent and often uncomprehendable brand of Kangaroo Kourt Katastrophy "Justice", but I thought this one wasn't that mad in the scheme of things. Yes it's knee-jerk, reactionary and farcifally discordant, but what really sealed it for renault was the millions watching them fluff up the pit stop, releasing a car that appeared to have an obvious issue, with a wheel, in the shadow of recent events. Not to say I condone the judgement, just that it doesn't really surprise me that while we all accept the danger of motorsport, the FIA wants to be seen to remind the teams of their duty to minimise said dangers where possible, and sometimes a few heads must roll to make a point.
The makings of the Brawn car incident, while possibly equally or perhaps more negligent, weren't captured and relayed to the world.
The makings of the Brawn car incident, while possibly equally or perhaps more negligent, weren't captured and relayed to the world.
It's a harsh punishment, no doubt. But I think the reason for this is to send a message to all the teams - don't try and risk dragging your damaged/un track worthy cars back to the pits.
Renault knew the wheel nut was loose, and saw the wheel disc rotating in such a way as it would undo the nut - even Brundle pointed it out in the commentary. They had two options and these were to1) tell Alonso to pull over and retire or 2) let him carry on and risk losing a wheel. There a racing team, so its no surprise they wanted Alonso to get back round to the pits and carry on. However, with the recent events you would perhaps hope someone higher up in the team may have pointed out that the whole the car was driving with a loose wheel it was a known danger to the rest of the cars. I think the decision of the stewards came from Renault allowing their driver to carry on when they knew the problem on his car could cause a potentially serious injury to someone (as was sadly demonstrated the previous weekend).
With the article comparing the Renault situation to Brawn, I think a significant difference is that Renault were fully aware of the potential of failure before it happened I would suspect Brawn were not aware of their failure until it was too late..
It seems that the FIA feel no need to show any consistency in there punishment, and as such this one does seem incredibly harsh - but I can see the reason for the punishment.
Renault knew the wheel nut was loose, and saw the wheel disc rotating in such a way as it would undo the nut - even Brundle pointed it out in the commentary. They had two options and these were to1) tell Alonso to pull over and retire or 2) let him carry on and risk losing a wheel. There a racing team, so its no surprise they wanted Alonso to get back round to the pits and carry on. However, with the recent events you would perhaps hope someone higher up in the team may have pointed out that the whole the car was driving with a loose wheel it was a known danger to the rest of the cars. I think the decision of the stewards came from Renault allowing their driver to carry on when they knew the problem on his car could cause a potentially serious injury to someone (as was sadly demonstrated the previous weekend).
With the article comparing the Renault situation to Brawn, I think a significant difference is that Renault were fully aware of the potential of failure before it happened I would suspect Brawn were not aware of their failure until it was too late..
It seems that the FIA feel no need to show any consistency in there punishment, and as such this one does seem incredibly harsh - but I can see the reason for the punishment.
Derek Smith said:
Interesting point of view here:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_ite...
I like subtle. I enjoy reading articles where you have to work out what they mean. I think i like subtle because I don't do it all that well. However, on reading the last para of the article i felt I could have been considerably more subtle.
Although the main thrust of the article is to show the author's concerns with how just - or otherwise - the punishment was, it is the suggestion implicit in the penultimate sentence that is the real point. The rest of the article just supports it.
Pitpass has changed over recent months in its attitude to the machinations of Mosley. In the past I've struggled to find any logic in some of their articles supporting him. i suppose it must be politics. Everything else is.
I got as far as the author stating there had to be two points of failure for the spring to detach from the Brawn, which is not true at all. Had the damper shaft broken or the shaft retainer inside the damper body failed or the damper body failed or the top cap to the damper body undone or had the nut holding the shaft to the top mount come loose and the shaft unwound itself as a result, all single points of failure, the spring is free to come away from the damper.http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_ite...
I like subtle. I enjoy reading articles where you have to work out what they mean. I think i like subtle because I don't do it all that well. However, on reading the last para of the article i felt I could have been considerably more subtle.
Although the main thrust of the article is to show the author's concerns with how just - or otherwise - the punishment was, it is the suggestion implicit in the penultimate sentence that is the real point. The rest of the article just supports it.
Pitpass has changed over recent months in its attitude to the machinations of Mosley. In the past I've struggled to find any logic in some of their articles supporting him. i suppose it must be politics. Everything else is.
NightDriver said:
It's a harsh punishment, no doubt. But I think the reason for this is to send a message to all the teams - don't try and risk dragging your damaged/un track worthy cars back to the pits.
Renault knew the wheel nut was loose, and saw the wheel disc rotating in such a way as it would undo the nut - even Brundle pointed it out in the commentary. They had two options and these were to1) tell Alonso to pull over and retire or 2) let him carry on and risk losing a wheel. There a racing team, so its no surprise they wanted Alonso to get back round to the pits and carry on. However, with the recent events you would perhaps hope someone higher up in the team may have pointed out that the whole the car was driving with a loose wheel it was a known danger to the rest of the cars. I think the decision of the stewards came from Renault allowing their driver to carry on when they knew the problem on his car could cause a potentially serious injury to someone (as was sadly demonstrated the previous weekend).
With the article comparing the Renault situation to Brawn, I think a significant difference is that Renault were fully aware of the potential of failure before it happened I would suspect Brawn were not aware of their failure until it was too late..
It seems that the FIA feel no need to show any consistency in there punishment, and as such this one does seem incredibly harsh - but I can see the reason for the punishment.
I remember saying to the wife at the time how i couldnt belive he carried on untill the wheel fell off, Ok they wanted to get round to the pits but its not like they`re contenders in the championship so was it worth risking it ?Renault knew the wheel nut was loose, and saw the wheel disc rotating in such a way as it would undo the nut - even Brundle pointed it out in the commentary. They had two options and these were to1) tell Alonso to pull over and retire or 2) let him carry on and risk losing a wheel. There a racing team, so its no surprise they wanted Alonso to get back round to the pits and carry on. However, with the recent events you would perhaps hope someone higher up in the team may have pointed out that the whole the car was driving with a loose wheel it was a known danger to the rest of the cars. I think the decision of the stewards came from Renault allowing their driver to carry on when they knew the problem on his car could cause a potentially serious injury to someone (as was sadly demonstrated the previous weekend).
With the article comparing the Renault situation to Brawn, I think a significant difference is that Renault were fully aware of the potential of failure before it happened I would suspect Brawn were not aware of their failure until it was too late..
It seems that the FIA feel no need to show any consistency in there punishment, and as such this one does seem incredibly harsh - but I can see the reason for the punishment.
They should have parked it up job done and so should anyone else with similar problems.
All the below is for this country and most others in the EU.
After 30 years in the police I can say one thing for certain: the punishment never fits the crime. Whether this is good or bad is a moot point, but it is not the purpose of any real court to make the punishment fit the crime.
Punishments have various functions. They are a deterrant, they are there to serve society, and they are there to punish.
One thing that is over-riding is that they should be just. Or, to put it another way, the offender must be taken into account. This would include his (her) mental state at the time of the incident (guilty knowledge) and how much the punishment affects them. Given Mosley's £millions for a punishment to deter it would have to be considerably greater than a punishment meted out to, for instance, an 18-year-old just starting university.
Beyond deterrance, message sending is not a function of a punishment. You have the Post Office for that, emails, sms and even Stick-It notes.
But let's assume for the moment that it was perfectly acceptable to use a punishment to send a message. What message would the FiA be sending by being draconian? The death of Surtees and the at one time critical injury to Massa have been used, or abused one might feel, to justify this punishment. So who is to blame for Surtees death? Certainly not Renault. Nor, come to that, any other team.
The FiA has responsibility for safety so, one would assume, must take somne of the blame for wheels coming off F2 cars. But take a guess at how the FiA will punish itself in such circumstances.
It is an unfortunate, at least for managers, fact of life that the ultimate responsbility for an error which is repeated falls to those in charge. Given the reports that have surfaced since Surtees death it would appear that a wheel coming off has not been an isolated incident in this new F2.
And the blame for these wheels flying about all over the place does not rest with Renault.
After 30 years in the police I can say one thing for certain: the punishment never fits the crime. Whether this is good or bad is a moot point, but it is not the purpose of any real court to make the punishment fit the crime.
Punishments have various functions. They are a deterrant, they are there to serve society, and they are there to punish.
One thing that is over-riding is that they should be just. Or, to put it another way, the offender must be taken into account. This would include his (her) mental state at the time of the incident (guilty knowledge) and how much the punishment affects them. Given Mosley's £millions for a punishment to deter it would have to be considerably greater than a punishment meted out to, for instance, an 18-year-old just starting university.
Beyond deterrance, message sending is not a function of a punishment. You have the Post Office for that, emails, sms and even Stick-It notes.
But let's assume for the moment that it was perfectly acceptable to use a punishment to send a message. What message would the FiA be sending by being draconian? The death of Surtees and the at one time critical injury to Massa have been used, or abused one might feel, to justify this punishment. So who is to blame for Surtees death? Certainly not Renault. Nor, come to that, any other team.
The FiA has responsibility for safety so, one would assume, must take somne of the blame for wheels coming off F2 cars. But take a guess at how the FiA will punish itself in such circumstances.
It is an unfortunate, at least for managers, fact of life that the ultimate responsbility for an error which is repeated falls to those in charge. Given the reports that have surfaced since Surtees death it would appear that a wheel coming off has not been an isolated incident in this new F2.
And the blame for these wheels flying about all over the place does not rest with Renault.
I can't believe he spends most of the 1st 2 pages talking about them being punished for a lose wheel nut. When the FIA couldn't give a toss if the wheel nut was lose, but rather that the car was released in an unsafe condition while a team member was still working on the car to make it safe.
They care less about the effect (the lose wheel nut), but rather the cause (unsafe working practice).
While the punishment does seem a tad OTT I would have hoped he could have seen what it was for.
They care less about the effect (the lose wheel nut), but rather the cause (unsafe working practice).
While the punishment does seem a tad OTT I would have hoped he could have seen what it was for.
Munter said:
I can't believe he spends most of the 1st 2 pages talking about them being punished for a lose wheel nut. When the FIA couldn't give a toss if the wheel nut was lose, but rather that the car was released in an unsafe condition while a team member was still working on the car to make it safe.
They care less about the effect (the lose wheel nut), but rather the cause (unsafe working practice).
While the punishment does seem a tad OTT I would have hoped he could have seen what it was for.
F1 cars are released with fuel hoses still attached, air guns, flames burning, exhausts loose, bodywork loose etc. Once the lollypop man drops it, the car is gone, end of. There is no time for observations or discussions, all of the above are unsafe and undesirable to a team and would certainly make a health and safety officer's hair stand on end. In the past the punishment was usually the natural loss off positions. It's part of teams and drivers culture and instinct to continue to the pits. They care less about the effect (the lose wheel nut), but rather the cause (unsafe working practice).
While the punishment does seem a tad OTT I would have hoped he could have seen what it was for.
This was a knee jerk reaction or just a nasty and vindicitve attack on Renault over something we don't know about.
When it comes to real safety, I would still like to know why old rubber tyres are used around circuits when they are often useless at absorbing and containing cars and flying components.
oilspill said:
burnunit said:
They should have parked it up job done and so should anyone else with similar problems.
But they never have, so why would Renault change the culture deap rooted into them, in less than one second?oilspill said:
This was a knee jerk reaction or just a nasty and vindicitve attack on Renault over something we don't know about.
That is absolute nonsense. It's a dreadful slur. You are sugggesting a man who has no stain on his character - apart from dabbling in ultra right wing politics, taking offensive weapons to an anti apartheid demonstration and who, by his own admission, regularly bought prostitutes to abuse - would stoop to such depths. I feel certain anyone who knows him or has worked closely with him would refute it. After all, he's a great man and such people are not vindictative. You only have to ask Ron Dennis.By the way, I wonder if anyone could let me know who was the leader in FOTA's destruction of Mosley. All I can remember is that Mosley called him loopy or some such name.
I think a much more simplified approach can be made, ignoring any potential FIA unfairness/scandal.
One weekends a young guy is tragically killed by a stray wheel from another car - the blame for the wheel becoming loose is debatable.
The next weekend a stray broken component from a vehicle escapes onto the race track and causes a very serious injury to a fellow competitor - the blame for the component failure is ultimately Brawn, but the failure was not expected or known.
That evening all teams are reminded that safety is the no. 1 priority of the sport and that, as had been proven over the last 7 days, motor sport is still dangerous and so we should be minimising risks in all areas.
The next day one of the biggest teams in the sport sends out, and knowingly keeps out, a driver with a loose wheel with an extremely high likelihood of it failing. Surprise, surprise, the wheel falls off half way around the race track! The team were fully aware of the problem and its potential consequence and yet failed to do anything.
The stewards aren't trying to blame Renault for any previous accidents, but purely highlighting a massively poor decision made by the the guys in charge.
One weekends a young guy is tragically killed by a stray wheel from another car - the blame for the wheel becoming loose is debatable.
The next weekend a stray broken component from a vehicle escapes onto the race track and causes a very serious injury to a fellow competitor - the blame for the component failure is ultimately Brawn, but the failure was not expected or known.
That evening all teams are reminded that safety is the no. 1 priority of the sport and that, as had been proven over the last 7 days, motor sport is still dangerous and so we should be minimising risks in all areas.
The next day one of the biggest teams in the sport sends out, and knowingly keeps out, a driver with a loose wheel with an extremely high likelihood of it failing. Surprise, surprise, the wheel falls off half way around the race track! The team were fully aware of the problem and its potential consequence and yet failed to do anything.
The stewards aren't trying to blame Renault for any previous accidents, but purely highlighting a massively poor decision made by the the guys in charge.
NightDriver said:
I think a much more simplified approach can be made, ignoring any potential FIA unfairness/scandal.
One weekends a young guy is tragically killed by a stray wheel from another car - the blame for the wheel becoming loose is debatable.
The next weekend a stray broken component from a vehicle escapes onto the race track and causes a very serious injury to a fellow competitor - the blame for the component failure is ultimately Brawn, but the failure was not expected or known.
That evening all teams are reminded that safety is the no. 1 priority of the sport and that, as had been proven over the last 7 days, motor sport is still dangerous and so we should be minimising risks in all areas.
The next day one of the biggest teams in the sport sends out, and knowingly keeps out, a driver with a loose wheel with an extremely high likelihood of it failing. Surprise, surprise, the wheel falls off half way around the race track! The team were fully aware of the problem and its potential consequence and yet failed to do anything.
The stewards aren't trying to blame Renault for any previous accidents, but purely highlighting a massively poor decision made by the the guys in charge.
I think that pretty much sums it up.One weekends a young guy is tragically killed by a stray wheel from another car - the blame for the wheel becoming loose is debatable.
The next weekend a stray broken component from a vehicle escapes onto the race track and causes a very serious injury to a fellow competitor - the blame for the component failure is ultimately Brawn, but the failure was not expected or known.
That evening all teams are reminded that safety is the no. 1 priority of the sport and that, as had been proven over the last 7 days, motor sport is still dangerous and so we should be minimising risks in all areas.
The next day one of the biggest teams in the sport sends out, and knowingly keeps out, a driver with a loose wheel with an extremely high likelihood of it failing. Surprise, surprise, the wheel falls off half way around the race track! The team were fully aware of the problem and its potential consequence and yet failed to do anything.
The stewards aren't trying to blame Renault for any previous accidents, but purely highlighting a massively poor decision made by the the guys in charge.
I think it may seem the punishment is draconian, but in the space of a week one driver has been killed and another seriously injured by loose bits of car hitting them, and then a team knowingly lets a car go back out with a loose component which when it finally comes off, has killed and injured many people both on and off the track over the years.
oilspill said:
Munter said:
I can't believe he spends most of the 1st 2 pages talking about them being punished for a lose wheel nut. When the FIA couldn't give a toss if the wheel nut was lose, but rather that the car was released in an unsafe condition while a team member was still working on the car to make it safe.
They care less about the effect (the lose wheel nut), but rather the cause (unsafe working practice).
While the punishment does seem a tad OTT I would have hoped he could have seen what it was for.
F1 cars are released with fuel hoses still attached, air guns, flames burning, exhausts loose, bodywork loose etc. Once the lollypop man drops it, the car is gone, end of. There is no time for observations or discussions, all of the above are unsafe and undesirable to a team and would certainly make a health and safety officer's hair stand on end. In the past the punishment was usually the natural loss off positions. It's part of teams and drivers culture and instinct to continue to the pits. They care less about the effect (the lose wheel nut), but rather the cause (unsafe working practice).
While the punishment does seem a tad OTT I would have hoped he could have seen what it was for.
This was a knee jerk reaction or just a nasty and vindicitve attack on Renault over something we don't know about.
When it comes to real safety, I would still like to know why old rubber tyres are used around circuits when they are often useless at absorbing and containing cars and flying components.
But If you can find me a car (apart from Kimis ferrari which should have been punished as we we're lucky not to have a Massa style accident), where it has been released and made it on to the track with a fuel hose attached, an air gun on it etc and the team not been punished.
The ONLY thing a pit crew has to do right is make sure that car is safe when they release it. Everything else is a bonus to the team. Doing everything fast is a bigger bonus. Doing it so fast you fail to make the car safe.... well thats not acceptable.
Why are tyres used. Because until recently everything they tested wasn't as good. And because they appear to be good enough. Witness Heiki's crash recently into a deep tyre wall. Went in a ~160mph was it. Basically walked away. What more could we want from a barrier.
Munter said:
But If you can find me a car (apart from Kimis ferrari which should have been punished as we we're lucky not to have a Massa style accident), where it has been released and made it on to the track with a fuel hose attached, an air gun on it etc and the team not been punished.
I don't believe that many would say that the FIA were wrong to impose a penalty on Renault. As you say, it would be unusual if the FIA had not done so.The objection is to the difference between a drive-through/25 sec, which is normal, and barring a WDC from even starting his home race.
We sadly know that a loose rolling wheel could kill someone. The same can be said for a ruptured fuel hose, or a heave spring that had not been properly secured.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff