Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 94
  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    411
    Like
    6
    Liked 30 Times in 19 Posts
    A more blatant example of an unsafe release without it actually ending in a collision I doubt you will see. The incoming car had not just to back off but stand the car on its nose to avoid the Ferrari.

    As for separating driver penalty from constructor penalty, this is the thin edge of the sword as where would you draw the line? For example, the Alfas were given those clutch settings, it wasn't the drivers doing it.

    So no, these guys compete as a team and should be penalised as such irrespective of where the error lies within the team. Yes, it would have been harsh on Leclerc but then his team should just work harder at their organisation and pit practices. Issuing a fine on a team like that simply puts a financial price on the unsafe release - a price pretty much all the teams would be q happy to pay for the gain it bestows.

  2. Likes: Tazio (30th July 2019),truefan72 (29th July 2019)
  3. #82
    Senior Member truefan72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    5,943
    Like
    1,228
    Liked 373 Times in 289 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by airshifter View Post
    And this is where the rules enforcement bothers me the most. There is a total lack of consistency, much less the proper (if any) regard to the advantage it created or the danger/risk on others it imposed. So maybe the Alfa's gained a second or two advantage on the start. In any case the advantage they gained was probably equal or less to the advantage gained by Leclerc's unsafe release, and in both cases the breach of regulations was caused by the team rather than driver. But the Leclerc release caused more danger to other drivers and people in the pits, yet no time penalty was given.

    Most of these penalties should be black and white, and known in advance. Unsafe release is "X" seconds time imposed and a "X" amount fine, period. Missing the entry bollard should be "X" seconds if purely driver error on entry, or "Y" seconds for unusual circumstances as in the case with Lewis this race.

    I like the suggestion made by Nitrodaze regarding unsafe release. Take away constructors points and/or drivers points, along with a fine that increases per penalty within a season. As pointed out in the Bottas example by TBK, safe releases can often cost time, but other teams manage them just fine most of the time.
    well said.

    I think the Alfa Romero penalties were absurd, especially on the timing of it as well. I guarantee you that if it was mercedes, rbr or ferrari (especially ferrari) there would be no penalties given, perhaps a warning and then a statement about "better clarification of the rules". For a midfield team to lose 3 valuable points is a huge loss for what amounts to nothing in a wet start.

    The Hamilton penalty really bothered me because it was unnecessary and callously took the mitigating situation not into account. As i said, did they want him to go around another lap with a broken wing and possibly falling pieces on the track, rather than enter the pits safely? He already lost a tone of time and positions with the accident, did his best to safely extradite his vehicle and himself from a potentially dangerous situation. Did so by not affecting anyone and allowing the race to proceed without additional safety car periods or issues, and yet they give him a penalty.

    Don't get me started on the leclerc unsafe release stewards call?
    Where they did the exact opposite and were completely deferential to the driver's situation.

    so far in 2019 the real story has been the stewards.
    Id rather the FIa focus on fixing that aspect instead of the constant reg changes which cost millions unnecessarily.
    If you keep the regs the same and allow for further development, within a year or 2 most cars will be separated by less than 1.5 secs up and down the grid as it was by the end of 2008 after along run of consistency
    you can't argue with results.

  4. Likes: Tazio (30th July 2019)
  5. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by greencroft View Post
    A more blatant example of an unsafe release without it actually ending in a collision I doubt you will see. The incoming car had not just to back off but stand the car on its nose to avoid the Ferrari.

    As for separating driver penalty from constructor penalty, this is the thin edge of the sword as where would you draw the line? For example, the Alfas were given those clutch settings, it wasn't the drivers doing it.

    So no, these guys compete as a team and should be penalised as such irrespective of where the error lies within the team. Yes, it would have been harsh on Leclerc but then his team should just work harder at their organisation and pit practices. Issuing a fine on a team like that simply puts a financial price on the unsafe release - a price pretty much all the teams would be q happy to pay for the gain it bestows.
    There are two separate titles being contested for, one is the constructors championship the other is a drivers championship. As there are two separate trophies given to the winning driver and team. Hence, it makes sense to separate the liability for infraction of the rules from driver and team. If a driver breaks the rules, very much as Hamilton did by not coming round the pit entry bollard, the FIA should punish the driver only for such an offense. It would not be fair to punish the team as well. That said, indirectly, the team may also be punished anyway, but this type of punishment forces the team to make the driver do better next time in the same situation.

    By the same logic, if the operations of the team break the rules, one idea is to punish the team and not the driver. The problem here, is that the driver may have also gained an unfair advantage from the team breaking the rules as in the Alfa Romeo case. This is where the difference between the Ferrari penalty and the Alfa penalty differs. Leclerc may have gained an advantage for the dangerous release into the path of the Haas, but it was not an unfair advantage. While the clutch setting on the Alfa, gave both Alfa Romeos an unfair advantage at the start of the race. It doesn't matter what happened later in the race to negate the advantage gained.

    From this line of thinking, we could say that fining the Ferrari team for unsafe release but not Leclerc makes very good sense. It also makes sense that the Afla drivers and the team were jointly penalized. I think the stewards were very spot on in these two instances. My only reservation is that, a fine is not a deterrent to teams with deep pockets. Taking constructors points off the teams would hit them harder.
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 30th July 2019 at 13:10.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  6. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oradea
    Posts
    2,637
    Like
    75
    Liked 137 Times in 110 Posts
    If somehow the accident happened a little further he could have entered the pit lane on the other side I suppose because that too would have been more convenient. Rules are supposed to be followed only if convenient, right? He crashed and had to take a shortcut and received a 5 second penalty. Tough luck. Grow up!

  7. #85
    Senior Member journeyman racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,077
    Like
    256
    Liked 146 Times in 113 Posts
    It was just a snapped front wing for Hamilton, he could've made it round another lap. It was hardly like Gillies Villeneuve at Zandvoort.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Ben View Post
    If somehow the accident happened a little further he could have entered the pit lane on the other side I suppose because that too would have been more convenient. Rules are supposed to be followed only if convenient, right? He crashed and had to take a shortcut and received a 5 second penalty. Tough luck. Grow up!
    I wonder if I've interpreted this correctly. Are you facetiously saying to enter pitlane through pit exit?

    Hahaha, that's a good one.

  8. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Ben View Post
    If somehow the accident happened a little further he could have entered the pit lane on the other side I suppose because that too would have been more convenient. Rules are supposed to be followed only if convenient, right? He crashed and had to take a shortcut and received a 5 second penalty. Tough luck. Grow up!
    Judging by the chaotic nature of the wet race, l would have thought the stewards would have been a bit lenient for a minor infraction such as missing the pit entry bollard, especially as it was a safer course of action compared to driving a full lap to return to the pits with broken bits that might litter the track and potentially cause other accidents.

    The stewards in this instance had the benefit of discretion on whether to impose a penalty or not. But chose not to employ the powers of discretion available to them. In this situation, the penalty in the rules apply and one cannot criticize the stewards for imposing it. Neither can we criticize the stewards for exercising their right to apply or not apply the powers of discretion available to them.

    The general consensus was that, we were denied a proper duel between Hamilton and Verstapenn for the top step of the podium. The way Mercedes were tripping over themselves, chance are that may never have happened anyway.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  9. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6,123
    Like
    634
    Liked 666 Times in 464 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Ben View Post
    If somehow the accident happened a little further he could have entered the pit lane on the other side I suppose because that too would have been more convenient. Rules are supposed to be followed only if convenient, right? He crashed and had to take a shortcut and received a 5 second penalty. Tough luck. Grow up!
    I personally thought the imposed penalty was too lenient. I would prefer that they would have made it at least 10 seconds, if not more. The way I see it Lewis got off easy, as a trip around a wet track with half a front wing would have cost him a lot more time. But in this strange incident where he could make it to the pits, I would prefer that over the chance that he gets in the way of another car limping around the track.

  10. Likes: gm99 (30th July 2019)
  11. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,858
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by airshifter View Post
    I personally thought the imposed penalty was too lenient. I would prefer that they would have made it at least 10 seconds, if not more. The way I see it Lewis got off easy, as a trip around a wet track with half a front wing would have cost him a lot more time. But in this strange incident where he could make it to the pits, I would prefer that over the chance that he gets in the way of another car limping around the track.
    As it turns out Lewis probably did the worst thing he could have done for his race. I doubt very much he would have lost a minute going around the track while his mechanics got ready. He would have probably ended up in the same place on track regardless, minus the 5 seconds. That aside, the penalty was fully deserved.

  12. Likes: truefan72 (1st August 2019)
  13. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    In retrospect, Redbull winning two races in a massively Mercedes dominated season with Honda engines, shows how very far behind Mclaren was on the chassis front when they had the Honda engine. I think Mclaren was holding back Honda's progress, hence it was a real blessing for Honda that Mclaren parted ways with them. Having the opportunity go develop their engine using one of the very best chassis on the grid has really helped Honda to release the potential of their engine. And there is more to come obviously.

    How many of us would have believe that Redbull would win a race in 2019 with a Honda engine before the start of this season? I think very few, but here we are.

    It also appears that the Redbull chassis has been carrying the Renault engine further than it was really capable of. It is looking very unlikely that any Renault powered car would win a race this 2019 season. It was not missed that a few Renault engines has failed so far this season and there has not been a Honda engine failure that l am aware of. If any, not as many as the Renault failures l am sure.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  14. #90
    Senior Member N. Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Woodridge, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    4,478
    Like
    634
    Liked 1,067 Times in 598 Posts
    No, I think it was the other way around. The chassis was good as it had grip and stability it was the Honda engine that just wasn't powerful enough.
    " Lady - I'm in an awful dilemma.
    Moe - Yeah, I never cared much for these foreign cars either."

  15. Likes: truefan72 (1st August 2019)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •