FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[spankyham]

Yea, don't need to bring the car back to parc ferme on the race; only the fuel sample rule applies on the race. The rule/penalty only applies for Q. The idea behind it is that in Q you have a more controlled condition.

Lewis had this issue before in canada, when he pushed the car back after Q. There was no rule then, so no penalty. He's been the only to run out of fuel after Q... So yea, the penalty only applies to him.

The rules for end of Q and end of race are different in that after Q you are required to bring the car back and still have enough fuel left for the sample. In the race you aren't required to drive the car back. HOWEVER, if your car can't make it then you must NOT accept anything from an outside source and the car must be only handled by the marshals who then have the responsibility of ensuring the return of the car. Technically Nando broke the rule by accepting a flag, but then again so did Lewis in Canada the previous race.

Everyone knows there was nothing wrong with Nando's car - he just had to come up with a reason to stop - all he wanted to do was celebrate with the fans - something F1 needs more of.

[bud]

Vettel stopped after his win this year too, I think if the rule applies to Qualifying it should apply for the race. Same principles behind it.

[myownalias]

Vettel stopped after his win this year too, I think if the rule applies to Qualifying it should apply for the race. Same principles behind it.

I agree; don't see why it applies to Q but not the race; it should be both or neither, more inconsistency by the FIA!

[darwin dali]

The rational seems to be that the teams have more 'control' over things in Q, i.e., they can and should put enough fuel in the tank for the few laps and it's easy to do (you can and should always err on the side of adding too much). Plus running out of fuel is not such a biggie in Q compared to the potential gain of pole by going extra light. Thus, the cost of purposely underfuelling should be made expensive, hence, the rather drastic penalties.
Under race conditions, there are many factors that could change fuel consumption and thus, predicting the appropriate amount of fuel over an entire race distance is a bit trickier. There's really no incentive for the teams to underfuel either as they would be punished with a dnf, i.e., zero points after a long race.

[Hammer278]

The rational seems to be that the teams have more 'control' over things in Q, i.e., they can and should put enough fuel in the tank for the few laps and it's easy to do (you can and should always err on the side of adding too much). Plus running out of fuel is not such a biggie in Q compared to the potential gain of pole by going extra light. Thus, the cost of purposely underfuelling should be made expensive, hence, the rather drastic penalties.
Under race conditions, there are many factors that could change fuel consumption and thus, predicting the appropriate amount of fuel over an entire race distance is a bit trickier. There's really no incentive for the teams to underfuel either as they would be punished with a dnf, i.e., zero points after a long race.

Agree with this....I don't see any problem as long as whoever stops on the track in qualifying from now onwards starts the race from last.

[geetface9]

I don't see an issue with stopping a car after the race before it gets back to parc ferme or whatever. fuel loads can have a much more drastic effect on grid position in qualifying. Plus, if there were no rule the teams would probably start making sure the fuel would run out as soon as drivers crossed the finish line after their fast lap in qualifying and the marshals would have to wheel back 24 cars to the pits. It'd just be a huge mess really. Like DD said, there are many things that could affect fuel consumption during the race. Any type of rule for fuel at the end of the race would likely have more negative effects than positive ones. I don't think it's an inconsistency of the FIA. It's just more of a pain in the @$$ than it's worth.

[LewEngBridewell]

Just don't ask Jean Alesi about fuel consumption in a race. Melbourne 1997 still hurts.

[MACH141]

Lewis Hamilton's disastrous pit stop in Valencia is not the norm say McLaren

McLaren believe their latest pit-stop error, which saw Lewis Hamilton drop from third to sixth during Sunday’s European Grand Prix thanks to a failure of their new front jack, was unrepresentative of a more encouraging general trend.

In fact, they claim that data from the race shows that the 2008 world champion’s first stop in Valencia was actually the “fastest stationary pit stop in motor racing history” at 2.6sec.
McLaren have come under fire this season for a succession of pit errors, which have cost their drivers valuable points.
However, sporting director Sam Michael claimed before the race in Valencia that changes to the entire pit-stop process, including both personnel and equipment, were paying dividends. And analysis of the race data suggests McLaren’s stops on Sunday were indeed quickest overall, at least when they did not suffer equipment malfunction.
McLaren had the two fastest pit-lane times during Sunday’s race — a 19.36sec for Hamilton and a 19.64sec for Jenson Button — while their average stationary pit-stop time, discounting the one which arguably cost Hamilton the chance to fight for victory, was a sprightly 2.95 seconds.
Mercedes were the previous record holders of the fastest stationary pit stop, achieving a time similar to McLaren’s 2.6secs in Korea last year. But the Woking team believe they were just quicker.

The data makes it doubly frustrating that all those tenths of a second clawed back against the opposition were lost in one fell swoop thanks to a technical issue. It was noted in Spain that the fastest pit stops in the world are no use if you have one which costs you the race, something McLaren have been guilty of too often this year.
In the end, Hamilton crashed out anyway after being hit by Williams’ Pastor Maldonado with two laps of the race remaining.
Although the Venezuelan was deemed to be the guilty party by the stewards, collecting a drive-through penalty post-race, McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh suggested his driver should have banked safe points rather than fight for third place on tyres which were shot, and with a driver who has earned a reputation as slightly reckless.

“With hindsight you have to say if you are dealing with someone like that then you maybe have to take a different approach,” Whitmarsh said.
Jenson Button, meanwhile, predicted McLaren would bounce back from their disappointing race in Valencia to post a strong result at Silverstone next week.
Button has never managed to finish on the podium at his home race, but after his eighth place in Valencia he is desperate for a second win of the season, and believes his car should be strong around the Northamptonshire circuit’s fast, flowing corners.

“We’re good at high speed,” he said. “That’s our strength. Our weakness is low speed. We still don’t know why. We’ve just got to make sure we don’t lose too much in the low speed corners there, which there are now at Silverstone. But it’s a circuit where we should be strong.” Asked if he felt he was still in the championship race — Button is 62 points behind Ferrari’s Fernando Alonso — he added: “Definitely.

"Sebastian [Vettel] and Lewis were fighting for the lead and now they’re 25-23 points behind. It’s flipped in one race.
“I’m a long way behind it the championship but it’s still possible.But I’m not thinking about that. I’m thinking about going to my home grand prix, and driving a fast, flowing circuit which hopefully our car should work well on.”

By Tom Cary, F1 Correspondent.

They change the crew and they changed the equipment but still the same problem, I think its about time to take it seriously.

[geetface9]

Jesus H. Christ here we go again

[1Lemon]

They seemed to have fixed the personal issue they had, with human error minimized in their recent races; their last issues was due to the jack breaking or collapsing..... Twice due to bad design. So I think that, as we near the halfway point the issues are going to be gone.................. I hope

[LRW]

Why are we discussing an artical that's almost 5 races old?

[andrew]

Jesus H. Christ here we go again

You called.

[MACH141]

Why are we discussing an artical that's almost 5 races old?

Sorry my mistake artical changed.

[Hammer278]

I'm still wondering why is Sam Michael in the McLaren team. This guy was picked by Whitmarsh I assume?

Whitmarsh seems to have a thing for 'soft spoken guys who can't cut it' at the sharp end.

Personally, I prefer a cut throat who gets the job done like Briatore heading McLaren instead of 'lets all hold hands and sing' Whitmarsh.

[myownalias]

If Briatore was in charge of McLaren, Lewis would be fired, Alonso hired and be in possession of technical dossiers from all the teams, while making Jenson crash into the wall!