Suzuka qualy and all those penalties and crashes
Discussion
Right, I'm not going to apologise for Button and co- ultimately they went 100% through waved yellows, waved yellows are there for the safety of drivers, spectators and marshalls.
But, while the FIA is happy to hand out penalties like sweeties, shouldn't they be looking inwardly at what they could do differently? Fact remains, after the 2nd red flag, JB and co were left with 1 hot lap and that was it... and asking a racing driver to potentially sacrifice his qually is gonna be a conflict of intrest.
Would it have been that hard to have said "okay, we'll add 5 mins to the sess and (perhaps) everyone gets an extra set of tyres". Are the rules really that sacrosanct?
But, while the FIA is happy to hand out penalties like sweeties, shouldn't they be looking inwardly at what they could do differently? Fact remains, after the 2nd red flag, JB and co were left with 1 hot lap and that was it... and asking a racing driver to potentially sacrifice his qually is gonna be a conflict of intrest.
Would it have been that hard to have said "okay, we'll add 5 mins to the sess and (perhaps) everyone gets an extra set of tyres". Are the rules really that sacrosanct?
But that would be reasonable, and the way in which F1 seems to run is anything but.
Its the same as the Singapore GP. I would have liked them to allow anyone on a flying lap when Bari crashed to have another. Possibly a rule that states that if qualifying is stopped with less time than is needed to get an out lap in then it is increased to allow one hot lap for all the drivers.
I realise there would still be problems with tyre wear and fuel but at the moment it seems unfair to effectivly stop qualifying 1 minute (or whatever) earlier than everyone expects.
Its the same as the Singapore GP. I would have liked them to allow anyone on a flying lap when Bari crashed to have another. Possibly a rule that states that if qualifying is stopped with less time than is needed to get an out lap in then it is increased to allow one hot lap for all the drivers.
I realise there would still be problems with tyre wear and fuel but at the moment it seems unfair to effectivly stop qualifying 1 minute (or whatever) earlier than everyone expects.
hairyben said:
Fact remains, after the 2nd red flag, JB and co were left with 1 hot lap and that was it... and asking a racing driver to potentially sacrifice his qually is gonna be a conflict of intrest.
Everybody else had the opportunity for more than 1 run in Q3 - so why did the brawns not? Because it was a balance - using tyres, for example. They chose to risk it (and baring in mind all the previous sessions had had a red flag) it was quite a risk.They gambled, it didn't go in their favour. Shame really - I agree, it's a pain, especially the way things worked out, but it's the same for everybody and so very fair
Planet F1's take on it - Good stuff.
Race Stewards
Let's hope the New-Look FIA of Jean Todt or Ari Vatanen can clear out everyone currently involved in race stewarding. F1 is a high tech sport governed by referees with the consistency of a weather vane. How can Sebastian Vettel get a drive-through penalty in Singapore for exceeding the pit lane speed limit (even though he didn't go faster than the speed limit, just took a shorter route) when Nico Rosberg didn't. Rosberg exceeded his Safety Car in-lap delta time by driving too quickly. Fact. That's an end-of-story kind of penalty. The fact that he couldn't see his delta time because he had a Low Fuel warning light on his steering wheel is a Williams problem. It's the dog-ate-my-homework of F1 excuses. He may not have been unsafe, he may not have gained any advantage, but when you leap from an estimated P8 or P9 to P5 then you have to have an excuse that is more compelling than a Low Fuel light warning obscured my target time. This is the stewards and the FIA ignoring evidence from their own officials, it's Interlagos 2007 all over again and it absolutely stinks.
It also takes some comprehension to work out how and why Rubens Barrichello can get a one-place grid demotion in qualifying while Button gets a three-place demotion for committing the same offense only four or five seconds apart. If that kind of adjustment can be made many hours after the event then they should adjust the race result. It almost certainly won't affect the outcome of the season but it just makes clear-cut offenses seem negotiable.
Race Stewards
Let's hope the New-Look FIA of Jean Todt or Ari Vatanen can clear out everyone currently involved in race stewarding. F1 is a high tech sport governed by referees with the consistency of a weather vane. How can Sebastian Vettel get a drive-through penalty in Singapore for exceeding the pit lane speed limit (even though he didn't go faster than the speed limit, just took a shorter route) when Nico Rosberg didn't. Rosberg exceeded his Safety Car in-lap delta time by driving too quickly. Fact. That's an end-of-story kind of penalty. The fact that he couldn't see his delta time because he had a Low Fuel warning light on his steering wheel is a Williams problem. It's the dog-ate-my-homework of F1 excuses. He may not have been unsafe, he may not have gained any advantage, but when you leap from an estimated P8 or P9 to P5 then you have to have an excuse that is more compelling than a Low Fuel light warning obscured my target time. This is the stewards and the FIA ignoring evidence from their own officials, it's Interlagos 2007 all over again and it absolutely stinks.
It also takes some comprehension to work out how and why Rubens Barrichello can get a one-place grid demotion in qualifying while Button gets a three-place demotion for committing the same offense only four or five seconds apart. If that kind of adjustment can be made many hours after the event then they should adjust the race result. It almost certainly won't affect the outcome of the season but it just makes clear-cut offenses seem negotiable.
The counter argument is that it's the same for everyone (unless one team deliberately crashes a car but I can't see that ever happening 
). Not saying I agree with that view point but it is one that the FIA would likely trot out.
Personally I'd like qualifying to go back to one session, fastest lap on fumes. What's the qualifying format for next year given that there will be no in-race refuelling?
). Not saying I agree with that view point but it is one that the FIA would likely trot out.Personally I'd like qualifying to go back to one session, fastest lap on fumes. What's the qualifying format for next year given that there will be no in-race refuelling?
hairyben said:
Right, I'm not going to apologise for Button and co- ultimately they went 100% through waved yellows, waved yellows are there for the safety of drivers, spectators and marshalls.
But, while the FIA is happy to hand out penalties like sweeties, shouldn't they be looking inwardly at what they could do differently? Fact remains, after the 2nd red flag, JB and co were left with 1 hot lap and that was it... and asking a racing driver to potentially sacrifice his qually is gonna be a conflict of intrest.
Would it have been that hard to have said "okay, we'll add 5 mins to the sess and (perhaps) everyone gets an extra set of tyres". Are the rules really that sacrosanct?
Yes. They have to do this, otherwise a number 2 driver might chuck it in the wall to get a red flag thrown for a number 1 driver to get some fresh rubber and another chance. Rules are rules. The fact that penalties were given for qualifying are some of the better decisions given by the FIA recently, the penalties were not entirely consistent however. But then they had to outweigh the balance of sundays decision in favour of Rosberg, where the advice given to Williams should have been "Rules are rules, Low fuel is not higher priority than a waved yellow flag at the fastest corner on the track." But, while the FIA is happy to hand out penalties like sweeties, shouldn't they be looking inwardly at what they could do differently? Fact remains, after the 2nd red flag, JB and co were left with 1 hot lap and that was it... and asking a racing driver to potentially sacrifice his qually is gonna be a conflict of intrest.
Would it have been that hard to have said "okay, we'll add 5 mins to the sess and (perhaps) everyone gets an extra set of tyres". Are the rules really that sacrosanct?
Brawn had chosen a risky strategy and it backfired for them.
Edited by Project 644 on Monday 5th October 11:06
Project 644 said:
t then they had to outweigh the balance of sundays decision in favour of Rosberg, where the advice given to Williams should have been "Rules are rules, Low fuel is not higher priority than a waved yellow flag at the fastest corner on the track."
According to the bloke from Williams they interviewed on the BBC coverage, the problem where the low fuel warning overrides the lap delta is in the FIA-supplied software, so Williams couldn't do anything about it. Rosberg must have backed off significantly to get that close to the correct lap time, so I think common sense has prevailed.
RichB said:
hairyben said:
Fact remains, after the 2nd red flag, JB and co were left with 1 hot lap and that was it.
Blame therefore goes to Ross Brawn for selecting a high risk strategy. Edited by Wanta996Gotta on Monday 5th October 11:44
TonyHetherington said:
They gambled, it didn't go in their favour. Shame really - I agree, it's a pain, especially the way things worked out, but it's the same for everybody and so very fair
That's how I see it.They all have 15 mins to get a run it. They all know the circuit may be red flagged.
The allocation of penalities for the yellow flagged qualy 3 session was a very strange thing indeed, but I have come to have no faith in anything the FIA do these days.
However, am I alone in not trusting anyone's motives these days? The Torro Rosso's caused mayhem with red and yellow flags through qualy and the race. The resulting penalties/safety cars assisted the sister team's lead driver in making a significant gain on his title rivals!! Hmmmmm???????
However, am I alone in not trusting anyone's motives these days? The Torro Rosso's caused mayhem with red and yellow flags through qualy and the race. The resulting penalties/safety cars assisted the sister team's lead driver in making a significant gain on his title rivals!! Hmmmmm???????
Yes, Brawn were at fault but interestingly, they were still better off after the penalty. If they'd both aborted the lap they'd have started 14th and 15th. At least by getting the time in they got into the top ten and in the case of Barrichello, it hardly affected him. Just look what happened to Alonso who did back off.
The teams have been getting more aggressive in their qualifying strategies lately, probably because it has been quite a long time since we had a good red flag in qualifying that really messed everybody up.
If red flags happened more often the teams would less often take the risk of lapping once.
If red flags happened more often the teams would less often take the risk of lapping once.
I have no problems with the penalties issued to the Brawn drivers, and neither I think do they. I am still trying to understand how a driver who qualifies with the 5th fastest time and gets a 5 place penalty starts in 6th whilst a driver with the 7th fastest time and the same penalty ends up 10th however, but I haven't tried to work it out fully, it just seems completely illogical and I am not sure it has ever happened that way before.
More than that, however, is the fact that there were penalties on Saturday for not lifting sufficiently (if at all) past a wing on the track but no marshals, car or driver, but there was no penalty on Sunday for a driver not slowing down to a proscribed speed when there were marshals, recovery team and vehicles, medical car, safety car, race car, driver and debris on the track. That is the sort of inconsistency which is inexcusable in sport at this level, with the amount of effort and money involved.
More than that, however, is the fact that there were penalties on Saturday for not lifting sufficiently (if at all) past a wing on the track but no marshals, car or driver, but there was no penalty on Sunday for a driver not slowing down to a proscribed speed when there were marshals, recovery team and vehicles, medical car, safety car, race car, driver and debris on the track. That is the sort of inconsistency which is inexcusable in sport at this level, with the amount of effort and money involved.
andyps said:
I am still trying to understand how a driver who qualifies with the 5th fastest time and gets a 5 place penalty starts in 6th whilst a driver with the 7th fastest time and the same penalty ends up 10th however
on another thread jamieboy said:
From the FIA website, it looks like the order of penalties was:
FA - speed / yellow flag
RB - speed / yellow flag
SB - impeding
JB - speed / yellow flag
AS - speed / yellow flag
HK - gearbox change
If you apply them in that order, then I think it stacks up.
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Docu...
FA - speed / yellow flag
RB - speed / yellow flag
SB - impeding
JB - speed / yellow flag
AS - speed / yellow flag
HK - gearbox change
If you apply them in that order, then I think it stacks up.
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Docu...
andyps said:
I am not sure it has ever happened that way before.
What happened the last time six drivers were all given penalties during/after qualifying?andyps said:
More than that, however, is the fact that there were penalties on Saturday for not lifting sufficiently ... but there was no penalty on Sunday for a driver not slowing down to a proscribed speed
I suspect you know this ( ) but it looks like Rosberg couldn't see his target time due to a fuel warning caption. Despite that, his telemetry showed that he "reacted adequately to the yellow flags and safety car boards".So Rosberg reacted adequately, the others didn't. They got punished, he didn't.
They should have driven though the yellows using the old Mika Hakkinen ploy of raising the arm out of the cockpit to acknowledge the yellows. Then claim that they backed off because the following lap would have been quicker. There wouldn't have been marshals on the track recovering Buemi's wing with cars still coming past.
In the race at Singapore they left a piece of wing on line and on track until there was a big gap on track but I don't recall anyone getting post-race penalties for not slowing down until that piece was picked up.
In the race at Singapore they left a piece of wing on line and on track until there was a big gap on track but I don't recall anyone getting post-race penalties for not slowing down until that piece was picked up.
Edited by FourWheelDrift on Monday 5th October 12:56
Note that this all happened in Q2 aswell so they should have had their Q2 laps stricken from the record. Is it impossible for the stewards to rule soon enough to exclude them from Q3? I guess that would leave the teams with no time for an appeal that would get them back into Q3 so in a slightly compromised sense they have to do it all after the whole session.
brierleys said:
Yes, Brawn were at fault but interestingly, they were still better off after the penalty. If they'd both aborted the lap they'd have started 14th and 15th. At least by getting the time in they got into the top ten and in the case of Barrichello, it hardly affected him. Just look what happened to Alonso who did back off.
They were both in Q3 that the penalty was applied to - if they'd have not set a time, surely they'd have ended up 9th and 10th?TonyHetherington said:
brierleys said:
Yes, Brawn were at fault but interestingly, they were still better off after the penalty. If they'd both aborted the lap they'd have started 14th and 15th. At least by getting the time in they got into the top ten and in the case of Barrichello, it hardly affected him. Just look what happened to Alonso who did back off.
They were both in Q3 that the penalty was applied to - if they'd have not set a time, surely they'd have ended up 9th and 10th?Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff