And if there is any controversy, Max will see to it that only Honda are penalised with, ooohhhh, lets say a 2 race ban.......Quote:
Originally Posted by PSfan
Printable View
And if there is any controversy, Max will see to it that only Honda are penalised with, ooohhhh, lets say a 2 race ban.......Quote:
Originally Posted by PSfan
Hadn't realised you where such a comedian on here, first the speed limiter button suggestion, and now making another "honda reserve tank" joke, man you crack me up... :wink: (shame Valve's comment was funnier, good thing this isns't a competition...)Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Anyway, I somehow doubt that Honda would be the first team that had something found to be illegal on there car one year, only to have a similar device be deemed legal later. Also if I do recall, the FIA stewerts gave Honda to come clean when they asked point blank "is all the fuel out?" and Honda lied about it, so how much of the 2 race ban was for the extra tank, and how much was it for lying about the said fuel tank, and the fuel it was holding? And was the penalty for the extra fuel tank, or the car being under weight dry?
Depends on how you define lie in this instance. The Honda fuel TANK was empty, but the collector, part of the pressurisation system and not classed as part of the tank, still had fuel in.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSfan
To answer either yes or no would have technically been both correct and false. :wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean:
Another example of my 'warped' SOH PSfan....Quote:
Originally Posted by PSfan
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67984
;)
While continueing this direction of discussion is probably better served in the H&N section, FIA described the Honda case as "bad faith", "fraudulent behaviour"Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Is is a little bit away from "the FIA warning the drivers of the SC and then pushing a button and slowing everyone down" The drivers still have control in the scenario proposed in that autosport story.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGwilko
However, I still view it as a knee jerk reaction. It would reward "Johnny on the spot" drivers and will still impact on the results - imagine a race where Kimi is leading by some 15 secs ahead of heikki, Hamilton, Massa (because of a 1 stop strategy managed to bunch everyone up.) Kubica, Heidfeld, Rosberg, Webber... The SC comes out just as Kimi approached pit lane and is able to dip in right away, Hamilton then is stuck cued up behind HK and is then passed by Massa, RK, Rosberg and Webber, and a sure podium is gone...
I am opposed to any regulation that takes control away from drivers that are paid millions to drive. I also think that because the majority (Indycar, Nascar, ALMS etc etc) all close their pits at the start of a caution (safety car) period, there is more to it then just to prevent cars racing to the pits.
The pitlane incident during the Canadian GP should increase the pressure for changes to the safety car rules IMHO.
If the pitlane is open then it should be open, not open at the entry but closed at the exit :crazy:
I agree, especially if the train of cars has already gone completely past.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
It's an absolutely ridiculous situation. If they want to turn F1 into NASCAR or Indycar or whatever by putting a car out to slow the field to bunch them up and create artificial racing then so be it - but at least NASCAR and Indycar have the rules and pitlane infrastructure to accommodate it. Cars queuing side by side at the pitlane exit and potentially backing up half way down the pitlane is crazy.
They need to fix this now because sooner or later someone is going to get seriously hurt.
If the cars are queueing up at the exit, and jo fastdriver is in his pit, past which the queue is formed, what do they do then when he wants to pull out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby_Hamlin
It is a bit silly really.
It's ironic that these kind of issues were raised a year ago. Felipe Massa, who was penalised for ignoring the red light along with Fisichella, said then: ""What sense does it make? Was I supposed to stay stopped while the race went on?"
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/59664
And, with hindsight, he was absolutely right.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
I think it was in a British Touring Car race some years ago in which a similar thing happened — the pit exit was closed for some reason (possibly because the queue of cars was going past behind the SC), but the car at the front of those wanting to exit the pits stalled and blocked the exit for those behind. I don't especially want to see that happening in an F1 race!
The pitlane exit has nothing to do with this incident.
The train was moving at that point and that's why the red light was on.
Under any other SC rule, the same would have been the case.
The SC rules are fine as they are.
How far along the pit straight was the train? Again, I can't remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by aryan
At the time Hamilton hit Räikkönen, driver on the hairpin was Trulli. There was three drivers behind him: Glock, Fisichella and Vettel.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
What we're actually saying is that the pitlane infrastructure in F1 isn't conducive to pitting so many cars at close quarters and then having them stop and queue at a red light whilst potentially battling for position with another car.Quote:
Originally Posted by aryan
With rules (from 2007 season on) now meaning the pits are closed and the cars pack up behind the SC before the pits open it exacerbates the situation - in previous years cars would immediately pit (if necessary) and yes, we did occasionally see cars queuing at their teams pit box but given the field spread prior to the SC being deployed there wasn't the volume there is now. There wasn't a train to wait for either because it hadn't been established yet.
Clearly the pitlane exit played a part in the particular incident in Canada regardless of the reason (red light), which we are all aware of and especially of why it was on (the train). It is not true to say, in my opinion, that it would happen under any SC rules and I would like to see a rethink.
I may understand, why there are those, who like the current SC rules. As the results of the majority of the races are quite similar, then folks are happy to see underdogs getting a decent result at times, even if the achievement itself was a fluke and hardly deserved.
There is no way Wurz in 2007 and DC in 2008 Canadian Grand Prixs would have ended on podium with the previous SC rule. Actually they would have been in trouble to make it into the points!
Safety car appearance itself is unfair to the leaders, because they lose all their time advantage they have gained. Why must it be even more unfair by besides losing time advantage they also lose track position?