FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[acosmichippo]

I find it crazy how some things have become so much more relaxed when others have become so strict.

In 1994 for example Irvine and Hakkinen got race bans for being deemed to have caused large accidents, while most smaller incidents were left alone. Nowadays Maldonado is judged to have hit someone, on purpose, and only a grid penalty is applied - in 1997 Schumacher was disqualified from an entire championship because of this exact thing. Now you get grid penalties for having to change gearbox out of sync and the like; i mean how is needing a new gearbox in the same punishable league as deliberately hitting another driver's vehicle? It's beggar's belief.

I can't help but feel that some things in the bigger picture have been sorely lost sight of through recent years, and for no apparent reason. You have to wonder why that is. Perhaps it's the relatively short sighted culture there is in modern F1. Or they have simply wanted to punish smaller offences without actually bothering to scale the rest of the punishments accordingly.

I never thoroughly considered it until now, but wow, there is something very wrong in all of that.

If I had to guess, I'd say it has to do with the growing safety in F1, and the decreasing funds. Due to the safety improvements, shunts aren't nearly as dangerous as they used to be in '94 - and also back then everyone was still shocked by Senna's death. Now, instead of worrying about safety, the FIA is busy making sure no one spends any more money on kit as any of the other teams to keep costs down. If one team gets to use an additional gearbox or engine or whatever, that could be a huge advantage to them, maybe even more than 5 grid places. But in '94, no one cared how much money anyone else spent.

For what it's worth, I do agree with you, it's crazy. Intentional collisions should not be tolerated, period. Any other penalty should pale in comparison.

[What's Burning?]

Then again I'm sure one year of today's budget would have bought you a decade of running in the 80's and into the 90's. I guess you're answering your own comment... it comes down to being short sighted about the sport.

[scotty]

The thing i just don't get is the point that somewhere along the line someone has actually just gone 'ok, let's reduce the punishment for causing dangerous crashes', which is utterly unbelievable to think about it like that.

F1 is far too retroactive in too many areas, this is one, others being the spending (just one of many examples) as you guys mention.

[acosmichippo]

The thing i just don't get is the point that somewhere along the line someone has actually just gone 'ok, let's reduce the punishment for causing dangerous crashes', which is utterly unbelievable to think about it like that.

I don't think you can assume that's the case. To me it seems as if they've lost sight of the fact that it's a very dangerous situation to be in.

For example, during Q1, nearly every pundit on Sky was criticizing Jenson for lifting off in the final sector during the yellow flag. "If he stayed on it mostly, then lifted off just a bit near the stopped car, he'd have been in Q2" they essentially said. NEVER MIND the fact that the reason you're supposed to slow down is to be on the lookout for debris, stopped cars, people, etc on the track - there was no way for Jenson to know where any of that stuff was, so he slowed down to keep himself, and whoever else may have been on the track, safe.

I mean I know they always say s*** like, "this is a dangerous sport, etc etc" but they just don't act like it very much.

[Hammer278]

Button did not lift off by 1.5 seconds...he did state it as an one of the excuses but the reason he lost so much time was due to standing water in Sector 3 which the intermediates couldn't handle.

[racechick]

We watched quali from towards the far end of the International Pit Straight . The cars were really leery coming round Club corner, getting sideways, going off. It was cool to watch that bit.

[acosmichippo]

Button did not lift off by 1.5 seconds...he did state it as an one of the excuses but the reason he lost so much time was due to standing water in Sector 3 which the intermediates couldn't handle.

Whatever the reason was doesn't matter. My point is the pundits thought he missed Q2 because he lifted due to the flag, and suggested that he shouldn't have slowed down (or not as much at least). I don't think it's their place to judge what is safe for the driver to do in a yellow-flagged sector - the driver cannot see what's around the corners.

[Hammer278]

Button did not lift off by 1.5 seconds...he did state it as an one of the excuses but the reason he lost so much time was due to standing water in Sector 3 which the intermediates couldn't handle.

Whatever the reason was doesn't matter. My point is the pundits thought he missed Q2 because he lifted due to the flag, and suggested that he shouldn't have slowed down (or not as much at least). I don't think it's their place to judge what is safe for the driver to do in a yellow-flagged sector - the driver cannot see what's around the corners.

I agree with this. Always found it stupid to see that a driver 'needs to lift' in a yellow flag, what constitutes a lift? 0.010 second? 2 seconds? Ridiculous, but it's what we have now.

[geetface9]

I find it crazy how some things have become so much more relaxed when others have become so strict.

In 1994 for example Irvine and Hakkinen got race bans for being deemed to have caused large accidents, while most smaller incidents were left alone. Nowadays Maldonado is judged to have hit someone, on purpose, and only a grid penalty is applied - in 1997 Schumacher was disqualified from an entire championship because of this exact thing. Now you get grid penalties for having to change gearbox out of sync and the like; i mean how is needing a new gearbox in the same punishable league as deliberately hitting another driver's vehicle? It's beggar's belief.

I can't help but feel that some things in the bigger picture have been sorely lost sight of through recent years, and for no apparent reason. You have to wonder why that is. Perhaps it's the relatively short sighted culture there is in modern F1. Or they have simply wanted to punish smaller offences without actually bothering to scale the rest of the punishments accordingly.

I never thoroughly considered it until now, but wow, there is something very wrong in all of that.

Good stuff! Your thoughts point out all the political trash in f1. As soon as I read your sentence about the gearbox, it's all about 'going green' and saving money and materials. So the bosses are more worried about an image sometimes than dangerous incidents these days, where they were more worried about incidents back in the 80s and 90s rather than changing mechanical parts.

[madbrad]

You should get a 10 season ban for changing a side mirror bolt more than once in 20 races. But if you pull out your gun, slow down on the pit straight and shoot your rival to death when he goes by, you get a drive thru.

[racechick]

well thats the way it seems to be going

[andrew]

Bit over dramatic.

[racechick]

[acosmichippo]

Bit over dramatic.

Yeah, I think a 9-season ban should be sufficient.

[scotty]

Bit over dramatic.

Yeah, I think a 9-season ban should be sufficient.