FIA Clarifies chicane rule

[truefan72]

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/13092008/58/fia-clarifies-chicane-rule.html


still find the clarification useless because:

1. LH was leading going into the corner
1.b . which invariably leads to the question of a driver not gaining a place but who maintains his place/or natural advantage entering into the corner who is then being forced to go over the chicane. LH did not gain a place in France or Belgium but was actually ahead in both cases when the chicane came into play so this rule doesn't address this particular incident.
2. doesn't address the fact of a driver being pushed into the chicane
3. seems like the clarification comes after the incident not before meaning they created the rule to cover their stupid stewards.
4. and they did not address overtaking outside the track as KR did and gained an unfair advantage over his own teammate
5. and didn't address what role the race director plays and if confirming and getting the green light "twice" from race control is a sufficient assurance to continue the course.

6. what does this mean for all those years when drivers didn't wait for the corner to overtake, as MS and Alonso did in the past.

To me this is just a bunch of hogwash to try and make up the rules after the fact. This rule about waiting to the next corner never existed before yesterdays' clarification and thus how can you penalize a driver for something that occurred before you made up the clarification. This entire effort is simply to cover the backsides of those incompetent stewards who have no business being a mile from a racetrack.

Until they have the same 5 permanent stewards with qualified credentials (at least 2 former drivers) present at each GP I give very little credence to the infractions and dubious punishments meted out.

[call_me_andrew]

I think Bruno Senna cut the same chicane while leading the GP2 feature race and didn't get penalized for it. Anyone care to explain that?

[Valve Bounce]

The fact that this clarification is made indicates to me that the issue was never certain before. How can a rule suddenly need such an exact specification when none existed before?

What if the next corner was half a kilometre away? I have always said that the F1 rules need a lot to be desired, especially when compared to yacht racing rules.

[wmcot]

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/13092008/58/fia-clarifies-chicane-rule.html


still find the clarification useless because:

1. LH was leading going into the corner
1.b . which invariably leads to the question of a driver not gaining a place but who maintains his place/or natural advantage entering into the corner who is then being forced to go over the chicane. LH did not gain a place in France or Belgium but was actually ahead in both cases when the chicane came into play so this rule doesn't address this particular incident.
2. doesn't address the fact of a driver being pushed into the chicane
3. seems like the clarification comes after the incident not before meaning they created the rule to cover their stupid stewards.
4. and they did not address overtaking outside the track as KR did and gained an unfair advantage over his own teammate
5. and didn't address what role the race director plays and if confirming and getting the green light "twice" from race control is a sufficient assurance to continue the course.

6. what does this mean for all those years when drivers didn't wait for the corner to overtake, as MS and Alonso did in the past.

To me this is just a bunch of hogwash to try and make up the rules after the fact. This rule about waiting to the next corner never existed before yesterdays' clarification and thus how can you penalize a driver for something that occurred before you made up the clarification. This entire effort is simply to cover the backsides of those incompetent stewards who have no business being a mile from a racetrack.

Until they have the same 5 permanent stewards with qualified credentials (at least 2 former drivers) present at each GP I give very little credence to the infractions and dubious punishments meted out.

I agree with some of what you say, but some "facts" are questionable:
1. LH was only leading because he was off the racing line and off the track.
2. I doubt LH was "pushed" if you watch his on-board camera. He realized that he was either going to have to back off, go over the kerbs, or turn left and take the smoothest path across the chicane. You'll see he chooses the last option and deliberately goes left, thereby gaining an advantage over the other 2 options.
3. I would remove the word "stupid"
4. True. They'll probably have to "clarify" that in the future.
5. Been covered on numerous posts - Race director is not a steward
6. Good question, I don't think they'll make it retroactive.

I totally agree about the permanent stewards, but I don't know about former drivers as they would probably never agree with each other anyway and the potential for bias is even greater depending on the teams they raced for. Could you imagine MH and DC as co-stewards? How about Prost and Senna(if he was still alive, of course)? I think they need to be totally neutral, much like Olympic judges are supposed to be. You couldn't have a British steward or an Italian steward.

[Tonieke]

I agree with some of what you say, but some "facts" are questionable:
1. LH was only leading because he was off the racing line and off the track.
2. I doubt LH was "pushed" if you watch his on-board camera. He realized that he was either going to have to back off, go over the kerbs, or turn left and take the smoothest path across the chicane. You'll see he chooses the last option and deliberately goes left, thereby gaining an advantage over the other 2 options.
3. I would remove the word "stupid"
4. True. They'll probably have to "clarify" that in the future.
5. Been covered on numerous posts - Race director is not a steward
6. Good question, I don't think they'll make it retroactive.

I totally agree about the permanent stewards, but I don't know about former drivers as they would probably never agree with each other anyway and the potential for bias is even greater depending on the teams they raced for. Could you imagine MH and DC as co-stewards? How about Prost and Senna(if he was still alive, of course)? I think they need to be totally neutral, much like Olympic judges are supposed to be. You couldn't have a British steward or an Italian steward.

on your first point..thought this was the ideal trajectoire to take a chicane..the line Lewis was on goin into the chicane..

point 2 you are saying a driver should go for the contact instead of deliberately avoiding it ?

[ShiftingGears]

So, if a driver concedes the position, say after the first chicane, does that mean he can pass after the Curva Grande, using the momentum he gained from the previous corner? Because technically it is a corner, but its really a curved straight.

[Ranger]

I think Bruno Senna cut the same chicane while leading the GP2 feature race and didn't get penalized for it. Anyone care to explain that?
Yes, it is quite simple.

You'd see more GP2 drivers in the pitlane serving penalties than actually racing if all their advantageous mistakes were penalised.

[ArrowsFA1]

Should Hamilton be penalised because he didn't follow a rule that has only now been introduced? This clarification wasn't in place at Spa.

[Ranger]

Should Hamilton be penalised because he didn't follow a rule that has only now been introduced? This clarification wasn't in place at Spa.

But the grey area was/is always there and hence he was always going to be open to the discretion of the stewards on that one.

[ArrowsFA1]

But the grey area was/is always there and hence he was always going to be open to the discretion of the stewards on that one.
True.

[Valve Bounce]

Should Hamilton be penalised because he didn't follow a rule that has only now been introduced? This clarification wasn't in place at Spa.

That was my point. The fact that a clarification is necessary to stipulate specifics of a rule makes it obvious the rule was ambiguous.

[Dave B]

Should Hamilton be penalised because he didn't follow a rule that has only now been introduced? This clarification wasn't in place at Spa.
A Ferrari fan might point out that Kimi didn't get DQ'd from Australia '07 because the clarification about flexible floors wasn't in place at the time ;)

Fair enough to issue a clarification, it makes sense, but you can't punish people retrospectively.

[ioan]

I think Bruno Senna cut the same chicane while leading the GP2 feature race and didn't get penalized for it. Anyone care to explain that?

Being first he wasn't going to take a jump on anyone. Maybe he got an advantage? How much, how do you compare it with anything else?


When you are behind and cut a chicane and gain an easily quantifiable advantage by passing the car in front, it's possible to prove you got an advantage.
When you are first it's impossible.

There's is a difference.

[ShiftingGears]

Being first he wasn't going to take a jump on anyone. Maybe he got an advantage? How much, how do you compare it with anything else?


When you are behind and cut a chicane and gain an easily quantifiable advantage by passing the car in front, it's possible to prove you got an advantage.
When you are first it's impossible.

There's is a difference.

You are saying the advantage lies in gaining a position in cutting the chicane, which under that logic would mean that getting re-passed would negate the advantage, which isn't how the stewards see it.

So, besides from allowing yourself to get repassed, I think theres the same amount of grey area in determining what constitutes an advantage from running through the chicanes, whether the driver in question is in front or behind another car.

IMO penalising Hamilton was unnecessarily petty.

[Jag_Warrior]

IMO, it's an example of the FIA only partially clarifying a rule. Another bandaid fix. As was pointed out during the Speed commentary, what if a driver is leading by say 5.5 seconds, and after cutting a chicane, his lead is 6.0 seconds? What then? Clearly he's gained a competitive advantage. But how do you right that? Are these weekend warrior stewards going to assess 25 second time penalties or drive-thrus in those cases too? Apparently Coulthard called in an incident by someone who passed him by cutting a chicane, but because there was not video evidence, nothing was said or done. I guess the people who are charged with watching the corners are not to be trusted. I wonder what they did before video playback? :rolleyes:

It's like the NBA or the NFL: the refs have rules to follow, but they're still going to see what they see... or what they choose to see. But unlike the NBA or the NFL, the FIA hasn't thought through its rule set for rather obvious possibilities. Increasingly, the FIA is becoming like the WWE, where one wrestler distracts the ref while the other one hits his opponent with a chair.

[truefan72]

to DC's point,. I think every car has an on board camera. It is a simople matter of looking at the two feeds later and determining if an infraction took place. So I'm not sure why the FIA wouldn't investigate it or forgot or whatever. But the whole thing stinks to high heaven anyway.

As you said, I think this new ruling opens more loopholes than ti closes. The original rule was fine. Give the position back, end of story. Also, in the past if it was that obvious that a leading driver cut the chicane to maintain or increase and advantage over the car before him then that driver was issued a drive through penalty or asked to slow down. These new clarifications actually now demand concrete answers to every chicane incident, which, of course the fIA will wait until the appropriate incident to rule and install clarifications retroactively

[PSfan]

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/13092008/58/fia-clarifies-chicane-rule.html


still find the clarification useless because:

1. LH was leading going into the corner
1.b . which invariably leads to the question of a driver not gaining a place but who maintains his place/or natural advantage entering into the corner who is then being forced to go over the chicane. LH did not gain a place in France or Belgium but was actually ahead in both cases when the chicane came into play so this rule doesn't address this particular incident.
2. doesn't address the fact of a driver being pushed into the chicane
3. seems like the clarification comes after the incident not before meaning they created the rule to cover their stupid stewards.
4. and they did not address overtaking outside the track as KR did and gained an unfair advantage over his own teammate
5. and didn't address what role the race director plays and if confirming and getting the green light "twice" from race control is a sufficient assurance to continue the course.

6. what does this mean for all those years when drivers didn't wait for the corner to overtake, as MS and Alonso did in the past.

1, is completely false... you could argue that hamilton had a slight lead into the previous corner, but Kimi was on the inside so Hamilton hadn't a prayer to pass before the chicane, after the right hand corner Kimi was clearly ahead and had the right to the racing line.

1b has become a moot comment because Hamilton didn't have the lead

2 wasn't meant to, Hamilton put himself in a position to be pushed, his pass attempt had no chance of success without cutting the chicane.

3 This clarification in the rules is simply to prevent drivers from coming to the conclussion they can decide what is fair or not. If you had paid attention to todays race, whenever a driver relequished a position because a cut corner you knew it. It hamiltons case, based on his post race comments about how he waited to see Kimi accelerate before he accelerated to be fair, one could argue that at that point Hamilton thought he had given enough even though after the corner and almost a bit up the straight he was still ahead of Kimi. Hamilton claimed he had been told to let Kimi by, but at that point he was clearly looking at being on the outside on the next corner, and would most likely been pushed wide again, so I ask this again... Did Lewis drop behind Kimi as a result of cutting the chicane, or did he drop back to get the inside line, in order to outbreak Kimi into the upcoming corner? This clarification eleminates any doubt, which is a shame because most drivers know that if they have to give back a spot, they make sure everybody knows they did!!!

4 Not sure I know what incident your referring to, but since I didn't record the race, and only the replays, well, whatever...

5 Because of the very first report of Ron Dennis asking Charlie about this incident came up even before hamiltons 25sec penalty was announced I believe what it said more then the "we where told 2 times that it was ok" And that was, Charlie said it was probably ok. Of course the truth will probably come out at the appeal, and in either case, Ron Dennis admitted then that he was only getting an opinion and nothing official, and even then, do we even know what question they asked Charlie?

6 Yah... whatever....


To me this is just a bunch of hogwash to try and make up the rules after the fact. This rule about waiting to the next corner never existed before yesterdays' clarification and thus how can you penalize a driver for something that occurred before you made up the clarification. This entire effort is simply to cover the backsides of those incompetent stewards who have no business being a mile from a racetrack.

No its a shame they had to make up this clarification because they have to tell a driver how to give back a position. As I said, drivers don't like to give back, and when they do, they make sure everyone knows their sacrifice... no doubts...


Until they have the same 5 permanent stewards with qualified credentials (at least 2 former drivers) present at each GP I give very little credence to the infractions and dubious punishments meted out.


If it was 5 permanent stewards that penalized hamilton, would you have accepted the penalty? somehow I doubt it...

[mstillhere]

on your first point..thought this was the ideal trajectoire to take a chicane..the line Lewis was on goin into the chicane..

point 2 you are saying a driver should go for the contact instead of deliberately avoiding it ?

Let's not forget that the driver could also slow down and rather than passing through the chicane he can over take further down

[mstillhere]

That was my point. The fact that a clarification is necessary to stipulate specifics of a rule makes it obvious the rule was ambiguous.

It is ambiguous for many of us but it was not for the other pilots who all agreed in saying that Lewis had broken the rules - althought hey found the punishment a little harsh. There was also something that was said by the pilots about some kind of clear agreement on this rule. In other word all the other pilots knew exactly what to do. Only Lewis seemed not to know about it. I think that yes the rule needed clarification but in Belgium that "unclear rule" was unclear for everyone not just for LH. So, my view is that the change should not have retroactive effects. It will only apply to resolve future issues. And good luck with that too, since as some you guys pointed out even with this clarification there are still plenty of grey areas left. Altough I would have a good solution to resolve this issue for good: get rid of the chicanes and PLACE CONCRETE WALLS at their place. You'll see how nobody would break the rules.

[call_me_andrew]

Being first he wasn't going to take a jump on anyone. Maybe he got an advantage? How much, how do you compare it with anything else?


When you are behind and cut a chicane and gain an easily quantifiable advantage by passing the car in front, it's possible to prove you got an advantage.
When you are first it's impossible.

There's is a difference.

How much of an advantage did Hamilton get if he gave the spot back immediately.