Consistency from the stewards?

perfect

NASCAR Marshalling in F1

F1 is a scam

Vettel was punished in Italy and Abu Dhabi last year while charging for WDC.

However there were no punishments in Button/Perez and Perez/Alonso incidents.
Both Ferrari and McLaren have heavy investments comming from the Arabic Peninsula.
It's everybody against Vettel and RBR... including half of RBR.

Edited by Fastcake, 23 April 2013 - 17:25.

In the past few years, F1 and motorsport in general has developed a blame culture and rather than deem incidents as Racing Incidents, there's got to be someone at fault, which has led to a lot of penalties and a lot of them are unnecessary if we compare similar accidents which went unpunished in the 90s.

Then as soon as you start dishing out penalties, the F1 public wanted consistency, so any other slight error had to be punished because it was in the last race, even though really both should've gone unpunished.

I'm glad there are fewer penalties, don't punish honest errors, punish reckless driving and most of the time honest errors (like webber on Vergne) get punished because Webber had to pit for repairs so no need for the extra penalty.

Well I guess no penalties for anyone at all is at least some kind of consistency...

NASCAR Marshalling in F1

F1 is a scam

Vettel was punished in Italy and Abu Dhabi last year while charging for WDC.

However there were no punishments in Button/Perez and Perez/Alonso incidents.
Both Ferrari and McLaren have heavy investments comming from the Arabic Peninsula.
It's everybody against Vettel and RBR... including half of RBR.

...you forgot another 20 garages are also in cahoots to uproot the usurper

In the past few years, F1 and motorsport in general has developed a blame culture and rather than deem incidents as Racing Incidents, there's got to be someone at fault, which has led to a lot of penalties and a lot of them are unnecessary if we compare similar accidents which went unpunished in the 90s.

Then as soon as you start dishing out penalties, the F1 public wanted consistency, so any other slight error had to be punished because it was in the last race, even though really both should've gone unpunished.

I'm glad there are fewer penalties, don't punish honest errors, punish reckless driving and most of the time honest errors (like webber on Vergne) get punished because Webber had to pit for repairs so no need for the extra penalty.

Agreed. What needs punishing is (a) persistent idiocy (e.g. when a driver crashes at the start more often than not, mentioning no names), (b) cases where the rule-breaker gains an advantage. If you have a driver who is not generally speaking a menace but has made an honest mistake which has put him and somebody else out of the race, that always used to go unpunished, and I preferred that. We dont need penalties for every little thing.

The Button/Vettel case mentioned above is a perfect example. It required punishment because the transgressor gained an advantage. It wasn't a mistake. He made the pass by braking later into the corner, running in deeper, carrying more apex speed and accelerating out early, before getting the car straightened. He was committed to going off the circuit the minute he booted the throttle when he hadn't completed the change of direction to get the car pointed at the exit. If he had wanted to stay on the circuit he'd have had to have been much later on the throttle and he would have been well behind Button at corner exit. Anyone who thinks he was forced off the circuit by Button is entitled to their opinion, despite its absurdity, but this is part of the reason why it's a good thing we have driver stewards who actually understand this sort of thing.

I just wish they'd stay out of scenarios where natural justice has already prevailed and a steward's decision merely adds insult to injury for one driver without helping the innocent victim.

Edited by redreni, 23 April 2013 - 23:50.

the only thing that is consistent in F1 is raikonnen apparently

In the past few years, F1 and motorsport in general has developed a blame culture and rather than deem incidents as Racing Incidents, there's got to be someone at fault, which has led to a lot of penalties and a lot of them are unnecessary if we compare similar accidents which went unpunished in the 90s.

Then as soon as you start dishing out penalties, the F1 public wanted consistency, so any other slight error had to be punished because it was in the last race, even though really both should've gone unpunished.

I'm glad there are fewer penalties, don't punish honest errors, punish reckless driving and most of the time honest errors (like webber on Vergne) get punished because Webber had to pit for repairs so no need for the extra penalty.

Yeah, consistency, or lack of thereof. The goalposts do change all the time, that's perception I have. One wonders why no one, with all these computers, imagery, and skills created really good manual as yet; think of split page 3D visuals (in different views) what was permitted on one side, and what changes bring. I think it would help us, fans, to understand individual calls.

Then track mark up - where FiA considers a corner begins, and what rule they apply, in order there is not question about car positions at which location. I am still p**ed about that incident back between Button and Vettel, in which later ended up going off track, because more I thought about it, more I managed to convince myself that Button was wrong in his defensive move, based on Vettel's relative position when both cars were entering the crucial corner. But then, there was number of ambiguities (such as corner definition - where was location of the entry) which made me realize, that FiA was judging whole incident on parameters external to my understanding; thus today I think some clarity of intent would be nice touch to policing the race.

Yeah, consistency, or lack of thereof. The goalposts do change all the time, that's perception I have. One wonders why no one, with all these computers, imagery, and skills created really good manual as yet; think of split page 3D visuals (in different views) what was permitted on one side, and what changes bring. I think it would help us, fans, to understand individual calls.

Then track mark up - where FiA considers a corner begins, and what rule they apply, in order there is not question about car positions at which location. I am still p**ed about that incident back between Button and Vettel, in which later ended up going off track, because more I thought about it, more I managed to convince myself that Button was wrong in his defensive move, based on Vettel's relative position when both cars were entering the crucial corner. But then, there was number of ambiguities (such as corner definition - where was location of the entry) which made me realize, that FiA was judging whole incident on parameters external to my understanding; thus today I think some clarity of intent would be nice touch to policing the race.

But it's got nothing to do with where the corner begins. Button's line in and out of the corner was 100% legit, he went to the inside and stayed there until after the apex, when he took the natural line to the outside of the circuit (but without leaving the circuit). The only question was why Vettel left the circuit. If he left the circuit of his own volition and gained a place it's an obvious penalty. If he was on course to remain on the circuit but was then crowded beyond the track limits by Button then Button should be penalised for crowding another driver beyond the track limits. The crucial point is when Button took the natural line from the apex to the outside of track at corner exit Vettel wasn't there - Vettel was already leaving the circuit and committed to going further off. It follows that Button didn't force him off the track.