FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Peng]

To me they were all racing incidents: Kimi's, Vettel's and Ruben's.

Yes. Except that Vettel messed with a WDC contender. Which is very unfair on Vettel IMO, because as far as racing is concerned, all cars are equal.

Vettel couldn't have done that on purpose (he's not crazy) it was clear to see, he made a mistake and paid for it.

I think it is more unfair on Vettel that he was given such an amazing car so early in his career, every driver will go through these kinds of problems when learning but the difference with Vettel is that he was given a chance in a team that has extremely quickly become a top team, so his failures aren't happening at the back of the grid where people are competing for 15-16 etc but at the front where every point could make the difference between the WDC.

Vettel has the talent he has the speed but as has been said he just hasn't yet matured enough as a driver and because the spotlight is on him any mistakes will be blown out of proportion way more than previous years and similar crashes.

[The Immortal Dragon]

He'll learn the hard way, but he'll learn soon enough.

[petrolhead]

yes vettel is in big trouble as is webber if he doent get it together brutal start by him total waste of a good quailifying
hamilton is much stronger on race day he will win the championship easy if those red bulls keep driving like stock
car racers

[schumifan]

1. I dont think he got off light at all. He was actually hard done by. A. Button incident-shouldnt have been punished B. Alonso- Ferrari released Alonso right on top of Vettel, no penalty for Alonso C. Liuzzi- He was past Liuzzi

Vettel has made a lot of mistakes this year but is only 31 points behind Hamilton. With the points system this year, that isnt that far behind. Last year Vettel won Japan and Abu Dhabi while finishing well at Singapore and Brazil. Should be a great finish to the season with 4 drivers in the race for the WC

[myownalias]

1. I dont think he got off light at all. He was actually hard done by. A. Button incident-shouldnt have been punished B. Alonso- Ferrari released Alonso right on top of Vettel, no penalty for Alonso C. Liuzzi- He was past Liuzzi

I think the punishment was fair; a drive through for causing an avoidable accident; he was lucky to not get a stop/go penalty. The Alonso incident was completely unrelated and pit-lane incident didn't end a drivers race! As for the Luizzi incident; Vettel was clearly not past when he chopped across the Force India's bow! Pretty much the same thing that happened between Schumacher and Rosberg earlier in the race, no punishment for either incident! Vettel got what he deserved for his actions, time to move on!

[The_Stig_Money]

Vettel Vs. Button: Racing accident

Vettel was very aggressive with his swirve around Button and lost control, alot like his collision with webber months ago.

It was upsetting that Button was taken out and Vettel pitted right away

Ferrari pit lane accident: This happens all the time and no punishments, dont start now

Luizzi: Racing accident

Another aggressive move under pressure that didnt pay off

Was he overly aggressive? Yes on all 3 occasions

Was he "lucky"? Yes on all 3 occasions

[The_Stig_Money]

He needs to get his act together or keep taking out other WDC contenders

JK

[Jensonb]

It's funny, because I think Vettel got a bit of a raw deal in that it wasn't entirely his fault.

But before you go thinking the Button Fanboy/Vettel Critic in me has lost his marbles, I actually think the car should have been Black Flagged, because having reviewed the onboard shot the crash was caused, in part, by an illegally flexing front wing. Vettel's ridiculous sawing at the wheel didn't help like, he was still driving like a damn fool, but the chain was started by a dramatic reduction in stability caused by the flexible front wing. It's possible that what Sebastian was really doing was trying desperate to get the front wing out of the turbulence to get the downforce back.

[The Immortal Dragon]

That wing did pass the FIA tests; there's no way it could have been black-flagged.

[Jensonb]

That wing did pass the FIA tests; there's no way it could have been black-flagged.

Passing Scrutineering is not proof the car is legal, it is just defined as such to allow the car to race. The car can be judged to be illegal during or after the race based on its condition during the race - an example being Vettel's three-wheeled Red Bull in Australia 2009.

[The Immortal Dragon]

That wing did pass the FIA tests; there's no way it could have been black-flagged.

Passing Scrutineering is not proof the car is legal, it is just defined as such to allow the car to race. The car can be judged to be illegal during or after the race based on its condition during the race - an example being Vettel's three-wheeled Red Bull in Australia 2009.

If the wing passed scrutiny *before* the race (and after FP1, FP2), it can be assumed it would pass it *after* as well. There would be no reason to change it with an illegal wing after all the tests they had to do.
This means that they couldn't black-flag him. Even if they thought something didn't add up, they found nothing wrong with it although they scrutinised it for 3 races in a row.

[myownalias]

That wing did pass the FIA tests; there's no way it could have been black-flagged.

Passing Scrutineering is not proof the car is legal, it is just defined as such to allow the car to race. The car can be judged to be illegal during or after the race based on its condition during the race - an example being Vettel's three-wheeled Red Bull in Australia 2009.

I can't see Red Bull changing the wing after scrutineering as they can still be excluded from the race after the fact as the car remains in Parc Ferme conditions after the race; given all the controversy about the flexi-wing, I'm sure the FIA stewards tested the wing again after the race. As we haven't heard anything more, so it must be legal!

[Jensonb]

That wing did pass the FIA tests; there's no way it could have been black-flagged.

Passing Scrutineering is not proof the car is legal, it is just defined as such to allow the car to race. The car can be judged to be illegal during or after the race based on its condition during the race - an example being Vettel's three-wheeled Red Bull in Australia 2009.

I can't see Red Bull changing the wing after scrutineering as they can still be excluded from the race after the fact as the car remains in Parc Ferme conditions after the race; given all the controversy about the flexi-wing, I'm sure the FIA stewards tested the wing again after the race. As we haven't heard anything more, so it must be legal!

I didn't say they changed it. Read very carefully: passing scrutineering does not mean the car is legal. Why do you think they're lobbying for more stringent tests? The test used is arbitrary. There is photographic and video evidence of the front wing flexing illegally.

[Hammer278]

All in all, it's pretty pathetic the fact that the FIA have proven they are muttheads...they have indirectly admitted that their tests are not good enough to make sure the cars are complying to the regulations on print. Basically due to this, Redbull and Ferrari got a 'free run' in Hungary while other teams looked like snails as they were racing with the spirit of regulations.

What a bunch of personnel running this organisation...

[vaptin]

All in all, it's pretty pathetic the fact that the FIA have proven they are muttheads...they have indirectly admitted that their tests are not good enough to make sure the cars are complying to the regulations on print. Basically due to this, Redbull and Ferrari got a 'free run' in Hungary while other teams looked like snails as they were racing with the spirit of regulations.

What a bunch of personnel running this organisation...

There's no such things to either the teams (well at least the championship competing ones) or the FIA regulations, if it breaks the spirit of the regulations, they generally modify the rules themselves after a while though.

That wing did pass the FIA tests; there's no way it could have been black-flagged.

Passing Scrutineering is not proof the car is legal, it is just defined as such to allow the car to race. The car can be judged to be illegal during or after the race based on its condition during the race - an example being Vettel's three-wheeled Red Bull in Australia 2009.

I can't see Red Bull changing the wing after scrutineering as they can still be excluded from the race after the fact as the car remains in Parc Ferme conditions after the race; given all the controversy about the flexi-wing, I'm sure the FIA stewards tested the wing again after the race. As we haven't heard anything more, so it must be legal!

I didn't say they changed it. Read very carefully: passing scrutineering does not mean the car is legal. Why do you think they're lobbying for more stringent tests? The test used is arbitrary. There is photographic and video evidence of the front wing flexing illegally.

The tests are how the FIA decide if it's legal or not, they can change the tests if they want, but if the car passes the tests it gets to go.