FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Denthúl]

And Likewise Ferrari cannot really be blamed. The fault lies with the FIA (though Ferrari are quick to exploit).

And McLaren is not/has not and will not exploit? The absurd bias in that statement is frankly ABSURD!

Wake up Tex!
McLaren is in no position to exploit as you well know. It is partly because of Max's paranoid hatred of ron dennis that the Fia are aligned to ferrari. So how is this exploitation by mcLaren to take place??

That said, do you really believe that any team would not take such an opportunity arose?

I still don't see much in the way of the FIA being aligned to Ferrari. There is more evidence to suggest an anti-McLaren stance, but if they were so pro-Ferrari, then Massa would not even have been looked at in Valencia, would not have been told (twice) to give the position back to Rosberg in Monza and would not have been disqualified in Canada last season. Similarly, Raikkonen would not have been made to serve a drive-through in Monaco (without which he could have featured on the podium and have been in a much better championship position at the moment).

Furthermore, they would not have been forced to pit at Fuji to switch from intermediate tyres to extreme wets due to the safety car starts, perhaps preventing them from gaining a decent points-haul, especially as they were slipping well-behind Hamilton in the title battle. And finally, their flexible floor would not have been banned, especially if it gave them an advantage over all the other competitors.

[racechick]

And Likewise Ferrari cannot really be blamed. The fault lies with the FIA (though Ferrari are quick to exploit).

And McLaren is not/has not and will not exploit? The absurd bias in that statement is frankly ABSURD!

Wake up Tex!
McLaren is in no position to exploit as you well know. It is partly because of Max's paranoid hatred of ron dennis that the Fia are aligned to ferrari. So how is this exploitation by mcLaren to take place??

That said, do you really believe that any team would not take such an opportunity arose?

I still don't see much in the way of the FIA being aligned to Ferrari. There is more evidence to suggest an anti-McLaren stance, but if they were so pro-Ferrari, then Massa would not even have been looked at in Valencia, would not have been told (twice) to give the position back to Rosberg in Monza and would not have been disqualified in Canada last season. Similarly, Raikkonen would not have been made to serve a drive-through in Monaco (without which he could have featured on the podium and have been in a much better championship position at the moment).

Furthermore, they would not have been forced to pit at Fuji to switch from intermediate tyres to extreme wets due to the safety car starts, perhaps preventing them from gaining a decent points-haul, especially as they were slipping well-behind Hamilton in the title battle. And finally, their flexible floor would not have been banned, especially if it gave them an advantage over all the other competitors.

It was predictable that Ferrari would be given some sort of similar call after Spa. .....In a situation where the result would be unaffected.And note HE WAS ASKED to give his place back. lewis was told he had done enough.

The flexible floor was completely illegal and once the FIA realisd that curtesy of Stepney mcLaren knew all about it, they had no option but ban it. No points loss you notice. That illegal win of Kimmis was allowed to stand - the points should have been taken away making Lewis the champion. Had McLaren run an illegal car they would have been fined huge amounts or banned for the season.

[Denthúl]

And Likewise Ferrari cannot really be blamed. The fault lies with the FIA (though Ferrari are quick to exploit).

And McLaren is not/has not and will not exploit? The absurd bias in that statement is frankly ABSURD!

Wake up Tex!
McLaren is in no position to exploit as you well know. It is partly because of Max's paranoid hatred of ron dennis that the Fia are aligned to ferrari. So how is this exploitation by mcLaren to take place??

That said, do you really believe that any team would not take such an opportunity arose?

I still don't see much in the way of the FIA being aligned to Ferrari. There is more evidence to suggest an anti-McLaren stance, but if they were so pro-Ferrari, then Massa would not even have been looked at in Valencia, would not have been told (twice) to give the position back to Rosberg in Monza and would not have been disqualified in Canada last season. Similarly, Raikkonen would not have been made to serve a drive-through in Monaco (without which he could have featured on the podium and have been in a much better championship position at the moment).

Furthermore, they would not have been forced to pit at Fuji to switch from intermediate tyres to extreme wets due to the safety car starts, perhaps preventing them from gaining a decent points-haul, especially as they were slipping well-behind Hamilton in the title battle. And finally, their flexible floor would not have been banned, especially if it gave them an advantage over all the other competitors.

It was predictable that Ferrari would be given some sort of similar call after Spa. .....In a situation where the result would be unaffected.And note HE WAS ASKED to give his place back. lewis was told he had done enough.

The flexible floor was completely illegal and once the FIA realisd that curtesy of Stepney mcLaren knew all about it, they had no option but ban it. No points loss you notice. That illegal win of Kimmis was allowed to stand - the points should have been taken away making Lewis the champion. Had McLaren run an illegal car they would have been fined huge amounts or banned for the season.

This is true. However, the point is that everybody here who is in the 'FIA hate McLaren and love Ferrari' camp seem to be claiming that the FIA don't care. If that's the case, then regardless of whether or not it was out in the open, they could just have banned it. It's interesting that you bring up Stepney, though - does that mean that you are acknowledging the fact that McLaren very well may have (or, by what you're saying, have) used the Ferrari data? Because that's not the impression I got from the whole incident (to be honest, I got sick of reading it before the verdict, never mind afterwards).

Lewis was told he had done enough by a man who can't actually make the final judgement on the subject. Clearly the stewards (rightly or wrongly) disagreed with Whiting and investigated, subsequently imposing the penalty that they did. Felipe was then told once clarification had been made. Now, this is where the interesting part of it comes in - nowhere in the regulations does it say that a competitor must give back any unfair advantage gained from cutting a chicane or something similar. So this does mean that, technically, regardless of whether you do a Lewis or do a Massa (Spa and Monza respectively), you should still be penalised.

The rulebook may as well be thrown out and started again from scratch, as far as I'm concerned.

[EwanM]

And Likewise Ferrari cannot really be blamed. The fault lies with the FIA (though Ferrari are quick to exploit).

And McLaren is not/has not and will not exploit? The absurd bias in that statement is frankly ABSURD!

Wake up Tex!
McLaren is in no position to exploit as you well know. It is partly because of Max's paranoid hatred of ron dennis that the Fia are aligned to ferrari. So how is this exploitation by mcLaren to take place??

That said, do you really believe that any team would not take such an opportunity arose?

I still don't see much in the way of the FIA being aligned to Ferrari. There is more evidence to suggest an anti-McLaren stance, but if they were so pro-Ferrari, then Massa would not even have been looked at in Valencia, would not have been told (twice) to give the position back to Rosberg in Monza and would not have been disqualified in Canada last season. Similarly, Raikkonen would not have been made to serve a drive-through in Monaco (without which he could have featured on the podium and have been in a much better championship position at the moment).

Furthermore, they would not have been forced to pit at Fuji to switch from intermediate tyres to extreme wets due to the safety car starts, perhaps preventing them from gaining a decent points-haul, especially as they were slipping well-behind Hamilton in the title battle. And finally, their flexible floor would not have been banned, especially if it gave them an advantage over all the other competitors.

It was predictable that Ferrari would be given some sort of similar call after Spa. .....In a situation where the result would be unaffected.And note HE WAS ASKED to give his place back. lewis was told he had done enough.

The flexible floor was completely illegal and once the FIA realisd that curtesy of Stepney mcLaren knew all about it, they had no option but ban it. No points loss you notice. That illegal win of Kimmis was allowed to stand - the points should have been taken away making Lewis the champion. Had McLaren run an illegal car they would have been fined huge amounts or banned for the season.

This is true. However, the point is that everybody here who is in the 'FIA hate McLaren and love Ferrari' camp seem to be claiming that the FIA don't care. If that's the case, then regardless of whether or not it was out in the open, they could just have banned it. It's interesting that you bring up Stepney, though - does that mean that you are acknowledging the fact that McLaren very well may have (or, by what you're saying, have) used the Ferrari data? Because that's not the impression I got from the whole incident (to be honest, I got sick of reading it before the verdict, never mind afterwards).

Lewis was told he had done enough by a man who can't actually make the final judgement on the subject. Clearly the stewards (rightly or wrongly) disagreed with Whiting and investigated, subsequently imposing the penalty that they did. Felipe was then told once clarification had been made. Now, this is where the interesting part of it comes in - nowhere in the regulations does it say that a competitor must give back any unfair advantage gained from cutting a chicane or something similar. So this does mean that, technically, regardless of whether you do a Lewis or do a Massa (Spa and Monza respectively), you should still be penalised.

The rulebook may as well be thrown out and started again from scratch, as far as I'm concerned.

I'll rewrite the new rules.

Rule One: The New Rule maker gets a pit paddock pass to every Grand Prix. All expenses paid
Rule Two: The New Rule maker gets to push the button to start the light sequence. The new light sequence will no longer resemble the 5 light system but simply Funky Town.

[racechick]

And Likewise Ferrari cannot really be blamed. The fault lies with the FIA (though Ferrari are quick to exploit).

And McLaren is not/has not and will not exploit? The absurd bias in that statement is frankly ABSURD!

Wake up Tex!
McLaren is in no position to exploit as you well know. It is partly because of Max's paranoid hatred of ron dennis that the Fia are aligned to ferrari. So how is this exploitation by mcLaren to take place??

That said, do you really believe that any team would not take such an opportunity arose?

I still don't see much in the way of the FIA being aligned to Ferrari. There is more evidence to suggest an anti-McLaren stance, but if they were so pro-Ferrari, then Massa would not even have been looked at in Valencia, would not have been told (twice) to give the position back to Rosberg in Monza and would not have been disqualified in Canada last season. Similarly, Raikkonen would not have been made to serve a drive-through in Monaco (without which he could have featured on the podium and have been in a much better championship position at the moment).

Furthermore, they would not have been forced to pit at Fuji to switch from intermediate tyres to extreme wets due to the safety car starts, perhaps preventing them from gaining a decent points-haul, especially as they were slipping well-behind Hamilton in the title battle. And finally, their flexible floor would not have been banned, especially if it gave them an advantage over all the other competitors.

It was predictable that Ferrari would be given some sort of similar call after Spa. .....In a situation where the result would be unaffected.And note HE WAS ASKED to give his place back. lewis was told he had done enough.

The flexible floor was completely illegal and once the FIA realisd that curtesy of Stepney mcLaren knew all about it, they had no option but ban it. No points loss you notice. That illegal win of Kimmis was allowed to stand - the points should have been taken away making Lewis the champion. Had McLaren run an illegal car they would have been fined huge amounts or banned for the season.

This is true. However, the point is that everybody here who is in the 'FIA hate McLaren and love Ferrari' camp seem to be claiming that the FIA don't care. If that's the case, then regardless of whether or not it was out in the open, they could just have banned it. It's interesting that you bring up Stepney, though - does that mean that you are acknowledging the fact that McLaren very well may have (or, by what you're saying, have) used the Ferrari data? Because that's not the impression I got from the whole incident (to be honest, I got sick of reading it before the verdict, never mind afterwards).

Lewis was told he had done enough by a man who can't actually make the final judgement on the subject. Clearly the stewards (rightly or wrongly) disagreed with Whiting and investigated, subsequently imposing the penalty that they did. Felipe was then told once clarification had been made. Now, this is where the interesting part of it comes in - nowhere in the regulations does it say that a competitor must give back any unfair advantage gained from cutting a chicane or something similar. So this does mean that, technically, regardless of whether you do a Lewis or do a Massa (Spa and Monza respectively), you should still be penalised.

The rulebook may as well be thrown out and started again from scratch, as far as I'm concerned.

Its a rubbish mess to be interpreted as the FIA see fit...different everytime.

NO Im not saying they used data. Stepney opposed the floor and told Ferari it contravened rules but Ferrari used it anyway. This further pissed off an already upset Stepney who then told Mclaren that ferrari were running an illegal floor. This was right at the start of Stepneygate. So cat was out of bag and FIA had to act.

[darwin dali]

The rules have always left room for interpretation (that's what the stewards are for). The situation has changed since a few years back with run-off areas not being race-stopping gravel traps or grass anymore. In the name of safety, most run-offs these days are paved and thus, cutting the chicanes or other off-track excursions will less if at all punish a driver, hence the run-offs became a soft option for the drivers (also encouraging overtaking maneuvers where they normally wouldn't). Now, the FIA calls the drivers to keep their end of the bargain (for their rightly called in extra safety margin via paved run-offs) and keeps a much closer eye on the drivers' use of run-off areas and whether or not they gain an advantage in doing so.
I think most drivers understand this concept and have been extra careful in not exploiting it. McLaren didn't in Spa even though they had a hunch LH's incident could be iffy. Knowing the above, they should have simply made it extra clear that LH didn't gain an advantage and either make LH wait another corner before overtaking KR or even have him let KR by a second time like other drivers have in the past in similar situations.

[McLaren Fan]

The rules have always left room for interpretation (that's what the stewards are for). The situation has changed since a few years back with run-off areas not being race-stopping gravel traps or grass anymore. In the name of safety, most run-offs these days are paved and thus, cutting the chicanes or other off-track excursions will less if at all punish a driver, hence the run-offs became a soft option for the drivers (also encouraging overtaking maneuvers where they normally wouldn't). Now, the FIA calls the drivers to keep their end of the bargain (for their rightly called in extra safety margin via paved run-offs) and keeps a much closer eye on the drivers' use of run-off areas and whether or not they gain an advantage in doing so.
I think most drivers understand this concept and have been extra careful in not exploiting it. McLaren didn't in Spa even though they had a hunch LH's incident could be iffy. Knowing the above, they should have simply made it extra clear that LH didn't gain an advantage and either make LH wait another corner before overtaking KR or even have him let KR by a second time like other drivers have in the past in similar situations.

Your case is fine until the second paragraph. In it, you fail to mention the role of Whiting and how he interacts with the stewards in such circumstances, that Hamilton's attempt to pass Raikkonen looked to be borne by an evasive maneuver, the difficulties with Hamilton backing off in the maneuver, that other drivers did much worse things with run-off areas in order to overtake somebody, and that Hamilton and McLaren fulfilled the regulations, i.e. to give Raikkonen his place back again.

[billindenver]

The rules have always left room for interpretation (that's what the stewards are for). The situation has changed since a few years back with run-off areas not being race-stopping gravel traps or grass anymore. In the name of safety, most run-offs these days are paved and thus, cutting the chicanes or other off-track excursions will less if at all punish a driver, hence the run-offs became a soft option for the drivers (also encouraging overtaking maneuvers where they normally wouldn't). Now, the FIA calls the drivers to keep their end of the bargain (for their rightly called in extra safety margin via paved run-offs) and keeps a much closer eye on the drivers' use of run-off areas and whether or not they gain an advantage in doing so.
I think most drivers understand this concept and have been extra careful in not exploiting it. McLaren didn't in Spa even though they had a hunch LH's incident could be iffy. Knowing the above, they should have simply made it extra clear that LH didn't gain an advantage and either make LH wait another corner before overtaking KR or even have him let KR by a second time like other drivers have in the past in similar situations.

Amen, Bravo...a voice of reason at last. What some fans can't seem to fathom is that cutting a chicane used to cost you places if not beach you altogether. Now, with the added 'safety' of paved run off, those fans can't fathom how using that runoff after horribly overshooting a corner, tagging back onto the rear wing of the guy you are chasing and then passing him on the next corner is taking unfair advantage. So, for those that are really that dense...you simply have to explain it thusly.....

Because it is taking an unfair advantage..it just is.

Personally, I would rather they put the gravel traps back in....keep your car on the track or you may lose the race. Gravel traps likely won't happen so very large curbs set 6 feet off the track, along with spikes in the pavement for tire destruction?

[Mikep99]

The rules have always left room for interpretation (that's what the stewards are for). The situation has changed since a few years back with run-off areas not being race-stopping gravel traps or grass anymore. In the name of safety, most run-offs these days are paved and thus, cutting the chicanes or other off-track excursions will less if at all punish a driver, hence the run-offs became a soft option for the drivers (also encouraging overtaking maneuvers where they normally wouldn't). Now, the FIA calls the drivers to keep their end of the bargain (for their rightly called in extra safety margin via paved run-offs) and keeps a much closer eye on the drivers' use of run-off areas and whether or not they gain an advantage in doing so.
I think most drivers understand this concept and have been extra careful in not exploiting it. McLaren didn't in Spa even though they had a hunch LH's incident could be iffy. Knowing the above, they should have simply made it extra clear that LH didn't gain an advantage and either make LH wait another corner before overtaking KR or even have him let KR by a second time like other drivers have in the past in similar situations.

Amen, Bravo...a voice of reason at last. What some fans can't seem to fathom is that cutting a chicane used to cost you places if not beach you altogether. Now, with the added 'safety' of paved run off, those fans can't fathom how using that runoff after horribly overshooting a corner, tagging back onto the rear wing of the guy you are chasing and then passing him on the next corner is taking unfair advantage. So, for those that are really that dense...you simply have to explain it thusly.....

Because it is taking an unfair advantage..it just is.

Personally, I would rather they put the gravel traps back in....keep your car on the track or you may lose the race. Gravel traps likely won't happen so very large curbs set 6 feet off the track, along with spikes in the pavement for tire destruction?

Sound good to me.
That's what the race track is for, to stay on it & you should not be making moves & taking extra risks to be a hero just because you have a safety net ready for you JUST IN CASE.
If you don't take the racing line - you get punished in some way.
If there was a wall or a gravel trap there you would be out of the race or DEAD.

Sounds simple & logical to me.

[bud]

The rules have always left room for interpretation (that's what the stewards are for). The situation has changed since a few years back with run-off areas not being race-stopping gravel traps or grass anymore. In the name of safety, most run-offs these days are paved and thus, cutting the chicanes or other off-track excursions will less if at all punish a driver, hence the run-offs became a soft option for the drivers (also encouraging overtaking maneuvers where they normally wouldn't). Now, the FIA calls the drivers to keep their end of the bargain (for their rightly called in extra safety margin via paved run-offs) and keeps a much closer eye on the drivers' use of run-off areas and whether or not they gain an advantage in doing so.
I think most drivers understand this concept and have been extra careful in not exploiting it. McLaren didn't in Spa even though they had a hunch LH's incident could be iffy. Knowing the above, they should have simply made it extra clear that LH didn't gain an advantage and either make LH wait another corner before overtaking KR or even have him let KR by a second time like other drivers have in the past in similar situations.

Amen, Bravo...a voice of reason at last. What some fans can't seem to fathom is that cutting a chicane used to cost you places if not beach you altogether. Now, with the added 'safety' of paved run off, those fans can't fathom how using that runoff after horribly overshooting a corner, tagging back onto the rear wing of the guy you are chasing and then passing him on the next corner is taking unfair advantage. So, for those that are really that dense...you simply have to explain it thusly.....

Because it is taking an unfair advantage..it just is.

Personally, I would rather they put the gravel traps back in....keep your car on the track or you may lose the race. Gravel traps likely won't happen so very large curbs set 6 feet off the track, along with spikes in the pavement for tire destruction?

yeah your speech sounds brilliantly awe inspriring for this topic but you mention overshooting a corner..? hmmm a racer should know what he is seeing?? or atleast get his terms correct before opening his bitter mouth eh!
You see Lewis was pushed off by Kimi, he turned the car in a controlled manner he did not overshoot! infact he was more than behind him when he decided to take the chicane so giving back an advantage of being on his gear box was sufficient.
but lets say there was one of your traps or walls there we wouldnt be having this argument nooooo, thats because Kimi and Lewis would have gone crash crash

[onelapdown]

The rules have always left room for interpretation (that's what the stewards are for).

Not in my view. The stewards are there to judge whether a rule has been broken, not to make it up as the go along. The rules should be drawn up to leave as little grey area as possible and make the stewards' jobs as easy as possible so that everyone knows exactly what the rules are and can comply with them properly. And if they don't, and the stewards penalise them, they can have no complaints. It is not good enough to say "the car must stay on the track."

The situation has changed since a few years back with run-off areas not being race-stopping gravel traps or grass anymore. In the name of safety, most run-offs these days are paved and thus, cutting the chicanes or other off-track excursions will less if at all punish a driver, hence the run-offs became a soft option for the drivers (also encouraging overtaking maneuvers where they normally wouldn't).

True, but the fact is until now the rule book has failed to keep up with these changes, which is why we're in this mess.

Now, the FIA calls the drivers to keep their end of the bargain (for their rightly called in extra safety margin via paved run-offs) and keeps a much closer eye on the drivers' use of run-off areas and whether or not they gain an advantage in doing so. I think most drivers understand this concept and have been extra careful in not exploiting it. McLaren didn't in Spa even though they had a hunch LH's incident could be iffy.

Which is why McLaren called Whiting in to give guidance. The fact that his guidance was misleading is not McLaren's fault. It is the race director's role to refer to the stewards any incident that he believes merits further investigation. This is why every notice of an infringement of sporting regulations starts with "following a report from the race director". McLaren were within their rights to expect that since Whiting had OKed Hamilton's actions - twice - that Whiting would not advise the stewards to investigate.

[bud]

well said onelapdown, whitings role in this is the key point during the race, he gave the OK and he should have taken that into account before telling the stewards to look into it! ( he probably gave the OK by the time Kimi got back infront )
then the Scott andrews email cover up
and people wonder why theres talk of an Anti McLaren pro Ferrari agenda

this whole event is further evidence for the need of professionals to be used and if thats something the FIA cannot offer then F1 is big enough to exist on its own and the world of Motorsport does not end all with the FIA it can and does exist outside of it.

personally i would prefer an American run F1 the yanks know how to run sport in a professional manner

[darwin dali]

personally i would prefer an American run F1 the yanks know how to run sport in a professional manner

schmexy

corrupt

[texasmr2]

True, but the fact is until now the rule book has failed to keep up with these changes, which is why we're in this mess.

[bud]

personally i would prefer an American run F1 the yanks know how to run sport in a professional manner

schmexy

corrupt

i didnt say they were perfect but the Yanks are sure a hell of a lot better than the Europeans. Firstly they wouldnt have an amateur as head of the F1's governing body!