The Hammy rule on qualifying fuel

[Bagwan]

You know you're a real superstar when you inspire new rules .

http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/story-138678.html

[Mark]

The new rule requires a certain amount of fuel to remain in the tank after qualifying.

This could cause problems! A perfectly legitimate qualifying place being ruled out as the car is a few mililitres short of the regulatory requirement. Oh dear..

[Bagwan]

The name of this thread was "the Hammy rule" .

Lewis inspired a new rule when he did something that prompted the rest of the paddock to say "ok then , if they can do that , we can , too." .

" A perfectly legitimate qualifying place being ruled out as the car is a few mililitres short of the regulatory requirement."
This was what the others thought , clearly , was the case already .
Had they not , they would have tried it on , too .

This , if there ever was one , is the perfect example of the "spirit of the rules" idea , where a rule is assumed , because it makes sense , and people are insensed when it is broken .

Some will think this a clever gambit , and some will call it dirty pool .

Now , the rules are as everyone else thought they were in the first place , now that "The Hammy rule" is in effect .




It's nothing to be proud of .

[Big Ben]

I don't understand this. Isn't that why lewy boy turned off his engine? to save fuel? How is this any different?

[Shifter]

I don't understand this. Isn't that why lewy boy turned off his engine? to save fuel? How is this any different?

Exactly. The rule was already in place via the fuel-testing requirement. The issue is not how much fuel they can extract in the paddock post-qualifying, it's how that fuel was saved, via stopping on track. Isn't it the stopping on track that is the issue, not the fuel-test?

[Tazio]

Well all the teams bend the spirit of the rules if they can, especially if it gives them that edge. This is a highly competitive sport with teams who spend millions to compete and win at the end of the day . Brawn, Mclaren, Ferrari, Renault etc have all bent the rules or had devices banned over recent years, and theres no point crying about it.

Its all abit desparate IMO, as is starting a thread to have a dig at a disliked driver or team.. Leave that to Luca.. :down: +1
"The Boss" 's engineer and McLaren exploited a grey area of the ambiguous rules of F1.
(Something we all appreciate if it is executed by our team)
Short of being penalized it did not affect the outcome of the quali’ order or the final positions of the race.
F1 has clarified another rule. If I'm over it, I bet Luca is even over it.
But please don't quote me on that :uhoh:

[Bagwan]

Well all the teams bend the spirit of the rules if they can, especially if it gives them that edge. This is a highly competitive sport with teams who spend millions to compete and win at the end of the day . Brawn, Mclaren, Ferrari, Renault etc have all bent the rules or had devices banned over recent years, and theres no point crying about it.

Its all abit desparate IMO, as is starting a thread to have a dig at a disliked driver or team.. Leave that to Luca.. :down:

Gosh , I should have passed this by you before posting it .
Sorry for that .

I guess the fact that everyone might have done the same thing , prompting the deployment of the double decker bus to pick up all the drivers strewn around the track after quals , had there not been a rule to stop this action formulated before next race , would be a good thing .


It's too bad Lewis did this .
If anyone else had , you wouldn't have bother calling me "desparate" , which , by the way , isn't a word .

This is about Lewis , and "The Hammy rule" , not you or I .

Please stay on topic .


It seems , from your post , that you fully agree that it was against the spirit of the rules .

[AndyL]

The new rule requires a certain amount of fuel to remain in the tank after qualifying.

This could cause problems! A perfectly legitimate qualifying place being ruled out as the car is a few mililitres short of the regulatory requirement. Oh dear..

Yes, I don't understand why they wouldn't just rule that the car has to get back to the pit lane under its own power.

[Sonic]

Yes, I don't understand why they wouldn't just rule that the car has to get back to the pit lane under its own power.

Because that is obvious, sensible and logical. :dozey:

[Tazio]

The rule is not particularly about Lewis but has been highlighted through an action which he carried out. Plus The Boss doesn't even know how much fuel his favorite personal car holds :dozey:

[Sleeper]

Yes, I don't understand why they wouldn't just rule that the car has to get back to the pit lane under its own power.
As far as I can tell they have, the original rule stated that a certain amount had to be left in tank for testing, now its been amended so that the car also has to get back to the pits under its own steam to provide that sample. Another loop hole closed.

[SGWilko]

The name of this thread was "the Hammy rule" .

Lewis inspired a new rule when he did something that prompted the rest of the paddock to say "ok then , if they can do that , we can , too." .

" A perfectly legitimate qualifying place being ruled out as the car is a few mililitres short of the regulatory requirement."
This was what the others thought , clearly , was the case already .
Had they not , they would have tried it on , too .

This , if there ever was one , is the perfect example of the "spirit of the rules" idea , where a rule is assumed , because it makes sense , and people are insensed when it is broken .

Some will think this a clever gambit , and some will call it dirty pool .

Now , the rules are as everyone else thought they were in the first place , now that "The Hammy rule" is in effect .




It's nothing to be proud of .

Golly gosh, hot dingerty and all things not quite tickety boo. Why now, baggy, would you suggest this was inspired by Lewis when it was, in fact, Lewis that stopped the car on his return to the pits at the request of the team?

You letting your standards slip?

And what's all this about double decker buses? A coach would be much more suitable.

[Copse]

As far as I can tell they have, the original rule stated that a certain amount had to be left in tank for testing, now its been amended so that the car also has to get back to the pits under its own steam to provide that sample. Another loop hole closed.

How does this close any loop holes? If a driver crosses the line and the team estimates he will not make it back back around with enough left for sampling, he's still damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't stop/coast/creep. Still a choice between two "illegal" decisions. Or three, actually. He could (e.g. at Canada) turn left after turn 1 and go backwards into the pits, having enough fuel left, and not having stopped on track. I do know that going backwards on the track is even more illegal, but if the FIA insists on not specifying which decision carries the heaviest penalty, teams will keep trying stuff.

[Shifter]

If a driver crosses the line and the team estimates he will not make it back back around with enough left for sampling, he's still damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't stop/coast/creep.

It's going to be up to the teams to put in just enough fuel in the first place. I know that in Canada Lewis got a surprise extra lap by crossing the line a second before the checkered flag fell, but in such a case, the team will have to accept that they are underfueled for such an occurance and that the current lap will have to be an in-lap, regardless of the possibility of another flying lap.

[Shifter]

And what's all this about double decker buses? A coach would be much more suitable.

How about "in the case that all cars stop on course, the pole position will be determined by a foot-sprint by the driver from the car to the start/finish line"? I'd actually kind of enjoy that.

[truefan72]

Well all the teams bend the spirit of the rules if they can, especially if it gives them that edge. This is a highly competitive sport with teams who spend millions to compete and win at the end of the day . Brawn, Mclaren, Ferrari, Renault etc have all bent the rules or had devices banned over recent years, and theres no point crying about it.

Its all abit desparate IMO, as is starting a thread to have a dig at a disliked driver or team.. Leave that to Luca.. :down:

yep

[markabilly]

It's going to be up to the teams to put in just enough fuel in the first place. I know that in Canada Lewis got a surprise extra lap by crossing the line a second before the checkered flag fell, but in such a case, the team will have to accept that they are underfueled for such an occurance and that the current lap will have to be an in-lap, regardless of the possibility of another flying lap.
well, you do not need to say stuff like that as it should be obvious to even 6 year old kids.......OTOH, this is FORMULA ONE and the FIA...... :rolleyes:

[Mia 01]

The time should be nullified and the team should get a hefty penalty just as in Lewis case.

[Bagwan]

I do thinks its against the spirit of the rules and why would it make a difference if another driver did it? I also think that rules are there to be tested and be it Ferrari, Renault, Sauber etc, it makes no difference. Things like this happen and then its clarified so it doesn't get exploited in the future, and thats the way its always been. If you don't like my opinion and feel you have to resort to picking out spelling mistakes in my post, then you are very welcome to continue doing this. Its a discussion forum not an entry exam to study English at Cambridge.

The rule is not particularly about Lewis but has been highlighted through an action which he carried out. It won't be an option in future, and we'll be onto the next incident which is 'not in the spirit of the rules'.

Big deal.

You called it desperate(I assume that's the word you were looking for) for using any excuse to bash Lewis .
I suggested you would be here bashing me if it wasn't Lewis involved .

Have a nice day .

[Tazio]

You called it desperate(I assume that's the word you were looking for) for using any excuse to bash Lewis .
I suggested you would be here bashing me if it wasn't Lewis involved .

Have a nice day.
Quite right Bags :up:

What would be the reaction if Fred had used this strategy :eek: :beer: :laugh:

[SGWilko]

Quite right Bags :up:

What would be the reaction if Fred had used this strategy :eek: :beer: :laugh:

Or happy Jacques? :eek:

[Bagwan]

Thats called "paranoia".
I'm here to discuss F1, not you as a person believe it or not.

Back on topic.... Mclaren spotted a loophole in the rules which they exploited. The FIA have now clarified that this cannot be done in future and have set a president. Ferrari filmed a television commercial the other day in a car which had the updates for the next race. This could be seen by some that they have effectively performed an illegal in-season test. There is a loophole which allows teams to use their cars for advertising purposes and Ferrari may well have exploited that. I have no problem with that whatsoever, and if the FIA now turn round and ban teams filming commercials, well thats life. Move on. :)

You were the paranoid one when you called me desperate to find anything with which to bash Lewis .
I would have called Fernando out the same way .
Or Jacques , for that matter , as I , like many others in the paddock , found it distasteful that they would do this .

As I said previously , some will find it clever and some will see it as dirty pool .

That Ferrari MAY have pulled a fast one of thier own is largely irrelevent to this conversation .
If proven , I will condemn such action , because it isn't fair , just as this wasn't .

"The Hammy rule" is now in place to stop the whole field stopping out on track .

Since you believe it was against the spirit of the rules , it follows that you believe it was intentional .
If it was intentional , why did they not offer the same advantage to Jensen ?

Surely they must have thought this was a lock , or they wouldn't have risked Lewis's reputation , and points tally .

Was Lewis "expendable" , or was Jensen duped ?

If they were hedging thier bets , someone has to lose .
Who was favoured here , or is this the famous McLaren equality plan at work again ?

By the way , it's "precedent" not "president" .

[Tazio]

Or happy Jacques? :eek: Jacques would be overjoyed that he had a ride. Although it wouldn't be in a car that could make it to q3 ;)

[Bagwan]

Jacques would be overjoyed that he had a ride. Although it wouldn't be in a car that could make it to q3 ;)

That Toy car could have made it into Q3 .

[Mia 01]

Formula One is a ruthless sport and niceties are left to the sidelines in the heat of competition. Lewis stopped out on track because the team realised he had used one laps more fuel than Jenson in his final attempt at clinching pole position. Jenson wasn't duped because he started qualifying on the same amount of fuel than his teammate and had the advantage of starting with more fuel up until that point. Lewis messed up his hot lap and had just enough time to get one more lap in which wasn't the desired strategy for the session. Jenson admitted himself he could not get within 4 tenths of Lewis's time and ended the session in fifth place.

The act was intentional yes. If it wasn't an intentional act by the team, then why would Andy Latham order Lewis to pull the call over because there wasn't the required amount of fuel to end that session. The answer to your question was answered during the coverage.

Thanks for the grammatical correction on my previous post. I'd like to return the favour to convey my gratitude.

TIP: When ending a sentence with a full stop, an exclamation mark, or a question mark, it is not required to leave a space between the last letter of the last word, and the punctuation mark.

Any more please PM me rather than wasting space on the thread. :)

As you told me before, you like Lewis because he´s ruthless, and I agree, he is.

[Bagwan]

Formula One is a ruthless sport and niceties are left to the sidelines in the heat of competition. Lewis stopped out on track because the team realised he had used one laps more fuel than Jenson in his final attempt at clinching pole position. Jenson wasn't duped because he started qualifying on the same amount of fuel than his teammate and had the advantage of starting with more fuel up until that point. Lewis messed up his hot lap and had just enough time to get one more lap in which wasn't the desired strategy for the session. Jenson admitted himself he could not get within 4 tenths of Lewis's time and ended the session in fifth place.

The act was intentional yes. If it wasn't an intentional act by the team, then why would Andy Latham order Lewis to pull the call over because there wasn't the required amount of fuel to end that session. The answer to your question was answered during the coverage.

Thanks for the grammatical correction on my previous post. I'd like to return the favour to convey my gratitude.

TIP: When ending a sentence with a full stop, an exclamation mark, or a question mark, it is not required to leave a space between the last letter of the last word, and the punctuation mark.

Any more please PM me rather than wasting space on the thread. :)

He didn't have one more lap of fuel , though , did he ?
He "messed up his hot lap" as you said , and , though he didn't have the fuel to do it , he ran around again , getting the pole with less fuel than anyone else .
That's what irked the paddock folk , and coincidentally , what irked me , too .
In what position would he have placed , had he not had that under-fuelled flyer ?


Again , by the way , "precedent' has a completely different meaning to "president" , and has nothing to do with grammar .

And , thanks for that tip on the period .
If you'll notice , I usually put a space around any punctuation in my posts .
I find it makes it easier to read .

Have a nice day .

[truefan72]

Thats called "paranoia".
I'm here to discuss F1, not you as a person believe it or not.

Back on topic.... Mclaren spotted a loophole in the rules which they exploited. The FIA have now clarified that this cannot be done in future and have set a president. Ferrari filmed a television commercial the other day in a car which had the updates for the next race. This could be seen by some that they have effectively performed an illegal in-season test. There is a loophole which allows teams to use their cars for advertising purposes and Ferrari may well have exploited that. I have no problem with that whatsoever, and if the FIA now turn round and ban teams filming commercials, well thats life. Move on. :)

:up:

[truefan72]

He didn't have one more lap of fuel , though , did he ?
He "messed up his hot lap" as you said , and , though he didn't have the fuel to do it , he ran around again , getting the pole with less fuel than anyone else .
That's what irked the paddock folk , and coincidentally , what irked me , too .
In what position would he have placed , had he not had that under-fuelled flyer ?


Again , by the way , "precedent' has a completely different meaning to "president" , and has nothing to do with grammar .

And , thanks for that tip on the period .
If you'll notice , I usually put a space around any punctuation in my posts .
I find it makes it easier to read .

Have a nice day .

usually the last resort of a lost argument is to attack the person. I fail to see why you are so outraged by the whole incident when there is a long list of incidents of teams taking advantage of a loophole that are miles more severe than this one. It was a qualy lap FFS. and he qualified with little fuel left in the car. Wow, what a scandal! Lets be honest, it is Hamilton and mclaren outfoxing the competition that is bothering you. Because if it was Alonso and Ferrari, or Vettel and RBR, or renault ans Kubica, or Rosberg/Mercedes, you would be singing a different tune. You declaring it the "hammy rule"pretty much sums up how you feel.

[Bagwan]

usually the last resort of a lost argument is to attack the person. I fail to see why you are so outraged by the whole incident when there is a long list of incidents of teams taking advantage of a loophole that are miles more severe than this one. It was a qualy lap FFS. and he qualified with little fuel left in the car. Wow, what a scandal! Lets be honest, it is Hamilton and mclaren outfoxing the competition that is bothering you. Because if it was Alonso and Ferrari, or Vettel and RBR, or renault ans Kubica, or Rosberg/Mercedes, you would be singing a different tune. You declaring it the "hammy rule"pretty much sums up how you feel.


What they did is now cheating .

But , I guess that's no big deal , is it ?

[SGWilko]

What they did is now cheating .

But , I guess that's no big deal , is it ?

No , what they did has subsequently been amended within the rules by means of a clarification as to how the rules are applied . But as this was not the case prior to the clarification , it could not have been cheating .

[Bagwan]

Indeed, and I'd like to see actual evidence that this has outraged so much of the paddock. Apart from the highly unreliable source in the original post, I have read absolutely nothing on any other major F1 site which suggests anybody was angry with what Lewis did. The only opinion I have seen is from the FIA and they fined Mclaren, and released a statement whereby the rules have changed. A small fire fanned by a single minority it seems at the moment. :dozey:

Oh , that's right .
I guess it must have been cheating before as well , because they were reprimanded , and fined .

I guess the "spirit" isn't so unimportant after all .

[SGWilko]

Oh , that's right .
I guess it must have been cheating before as well , because they were reprimanded , and fined .

I guess the "spirit" isn't so unimportant after all .

No , they were fined and reprimanded because the car was stopped on the track . Now , here 's the rub , what is one to do ?

Stop on track , but with enough fuel for a the LEGALLY required sample , or come back to the pit on fumes , and present an ILLEGAL car to the scritineers ? We all remember B .A .R . don 't we ?

Tough one that ?

As stopping on the track was not illegal , just at that time an inconvenience to the FIA , one can see the rationale behind the thinking .

[Bagwan]

No , they were fined and reprimanded because the car was stopped on the track . Now , here 's the rub , what is one to do ?

Stop on track , but with enough fuel for a the LEGALLY required sample , or come back to the pit on fumes , and present an ILLEGAL car to the scritineers ? We all remember B .A .R . don 't we ?

Tough one that ?

As stopping on the track was not illegal , just at that time an inconvenience to the FIA , one can see the rationale behind the thinking .

Oh , I can see why they stopped .
They would not have had a fuel sample large enough to comply with the regs . That is not the same as the B.A.R. issue .

B.A.R. had fuel in , when it was supposed to be drained .

McLaren chose to qualify without enough fuel to make it back to the pits .



You know , guys , you think I'm very upset about this , but I'm not .
If this was an honest mistake on the part of the team , and they thought he would have had enough fuel to do the lap and get back , then fair enough .
Maybe they didn't calculate the amount of fuel that getting the car on pole would take correctly .

If so , rather than the fine , I think that , simply , that particular lap should have been dis-allowed .



I hope you're having fun writing like that .

[SGWilko]

I hope you're having fun writing like that .

It 's a bit of a pain , but if it makes it easier to read ...

[Bagwan]

Well then , I hope you're having a bit of pain writing like that , if that's what you prefer .

Just ignore the rest of my last post if you prefer that , too .

[pallone col bracciale]

This reminds me of the Ferrari sprung floor.

The rules had to be changed then. This happens.

[SGWilko]

ignore the rest of my last post

Okey dokey ...

[SGWilko]

This reminds me of the Ferrari sprung floor.

The rules had to be changed then. This happens.

As opposed to clarified?

[Retro Formula 1]

Can anyone here provide a source to support the claim that the rest of the paddock were "irked" by the qualifying incident involving Mclaren?

For "the rest of the Paddock", I take it you mean Bagwan?

Everyone else moved on ages ago.

[Sleeper]

How does this close any loop holes? If a driver crosses the line and the team estimates he will not make it back back around with enough left for sampling, he's still damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't stop/coast/creep. Still a choice between two "illegal" decisions. Or three, actually. He could (e.g. at Canada) turn left after turn 1 and go backwards into the pits, having enough fuel left, and not having stopped on track. I do know that going backwards on the track is even more illegal, but if the FIA insists on not specifying which decision carries the heaviest penalty, teams will keep trying stuff.
As Eddie Jordan joked in the GP build up, Whitmarsh found a tenth of a second for $10 000, which is pretty cheap by F1 standards. This now stops teams from trying it deliberetly. Unless a team had an actual problem that stopped them getting enough fuel in then they'll get a penalty, instead of a better grid slot and a slap on the wrist.

[Mia 01]

Next thing needed is a rule against racing in the pits.

[pallone col bracciale]

Can anyone here provide a source to support the claim that the rest of the paddock were "irked" by the qualifying incident involving Mclaren?

I have searched everywhere for an alternative opinion

"Although rival team principal Ross Brawn suggested that getting away with just a fine 'sounded cheap', McLaren insists that its priority was to ensure it did not breach the fuel regulations"

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84411

[pallone col bracciale]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8745862.stm

"The paddock assumed it was McLaren playing an old trick; running the car light so it does a quick lap on low fuel, but then doesn't have enough fuel to do the in-lap. Team principal Martin Whitmarsh explained that it was an honest mistake. There was an error in the fuelling procedure; a mechanic had not put enough fuel in the tank and the engineers only found out as Hamilton was about to start the last lap.
But it looked suspicious. When asked what he thought of the fine to McLaren for stopping on the in-lap, Mercedes boss Ross Brawn said '"it sounds cheap".

[Tazio]

It does sound cheap!!!!
I'm glad we got that circumvention of a rule clarified.
Because another team is preparing one as we speak.
I was under the impression that The Boss would get it with or without
the fuel because he was .25 ahead of p2 But Bags made a good point.
If you disalow that lap where would he have been on the grid??

[Mia 01]

FIA+Lewis= thrue.