Ridiculous Parc Ferme rules

I've stated numerous times that the punishment for such an offence needs to be looked at but the penalty has nothing to do with a team being allowed to change everything on the car with no recourse simply because he is already at the back of the grid.

Well, i just don't see any problem here. If a team feels that they're better off starting from pitlane and changing everythinig on the car then that's their choice. And IMO that choice should be the same for everyone, whether or not you have a grid penalty. The penalty here ofcourse is that you can't overtake people in the start and first you have to catch them.

Had it been raining before the start, and set to rain for the whole race, under current Parc Fermé rules RBR would have been able to change Vettel's car to a full wet set-up; bigger wings, different dampers, roll bars and spring-rates; adjust the ride heights and cambers if neccessary. The potential is there for an extremely unfair advantage, in that hypothetical situation, Vettel could have lapped the field when starting from the back of the grid. As it was, he had an unfair advantage in that the team could change the car to suit the situation, wouldn't McLaren have likedthe opportunity to have changed Button's car in order to allow him an advantage in the two DRS zones...

Edited by Bloggsworth, 05 November 2012 - 17:19.

Had it been raining before the start, and set to rain for the whole race, under current Parc Fermé rules RBR would have been able to change Vettel's car to a full wet set-up; bigger wings, different dampers, roll bars and spring-rates; adjust the ride heights and cambers if neccessary. The potential is there for an extremely unfair advantage, in that hypothetical situation, Vettel could have lapped the field when starting from the back of the grid. As it was, he had an unfair advantage in that the team could change the car to suit the situation, wouldn't McLaren have likedthe opportunity to have changed Button's car in order to allow him an advantage in the two DRS zones...

1) A wet setup is not that different from a dry one nowadays. No "lap everyone" differences anymore. Ride height is raised by bigger tyres, lower pressures are used to get the softer car effect, wing levels are already really close to maximum in dry weather.

2) Everyone else has an option to take that "advantage". Button could have changed his setup and start from the pitlane.

There´s nothing wrong with Parc Fermé rules now but, if something must be discussed, it´s if we should kept Parc Fermé rules at all.

It's getting pretty old, I allready asked you to quote the rules that RB broke(or well, adhered) and you were not able to do it.

Now I would like to know at which point RB were allowed(by the FIA or what the hell are you talking about?) to change parts on the car with no recourse aka penalty.

Aaaand I'm asking again. If it is Karthikeyan(who qualified 23 and allready got a 5 place grid penalty for blocking someone in q1 . Happy that way e34?;)) changing his gearbox ... you would go nuts the same way, right? It's not because we are talking about Ferrari's main rival ... right?

You're just being difficult. I think it has already been posted numerous times already but I will say it again.

Because of his penalty, Vettel was allowed to change settings and components on his car that would otherwise have attracted a penalties on their own.

Say, Alonso qualifies 5th but has a legitimate gearbox problem and requests to change it. He loses 5 places because of the change. Now because he is no longer in his 5th position but 10th, they want to change his gearing. This brings on a further 5 place grid penalty meaning he now starts 15th. In this case he gets new parts but is penalised for it.

Vettel got all those changes free just because his team removed his car from parc ferme and has hence gone into the vital deciders with a fresh gearbox and who knows what else. If Red Bull had a fresh engine available they could have popped that in as well. In this case he was not punished for the new parts but got new parts as a consequence of his punishment.

Doesn't it disturb you that a competitor, due to these oversights, could go into the championship run-in with an advantage? An advantage that they didn't have prior to a penalty.

Come on man. This is not rocket science.

Edited by Ferrari2183, 05 November 2012 - 18:04.

1) A wet setup is not that different from a dry one nowadays. No "lap everyone" differences anymore. Ride height is raised by bigger tyres, lower pressures are used to get the softer car effect, wing levels are already really close to maximum in dry weather.

2) Everyone else has an option to take that "advantage". Button could have changed his setup and start from the pitlane.

There´s nothing wrong with Parc Fermé rules now but, if something must be discussed, it´s if we should kept Parc Fermé rules at all.

In which case Vettel's (or anybody else's) penalty would be equal to nil

It is not that RBR cheated; it is that rules are wrong, as they were when Schumacher was able to comply with his drive through in the last lap, nulifying the effects of the penalty.

Some people have asked why this option to break parc ferme and change setup is not taken more often, particularly when cars start close to back anyway. I think the answer is simple - changing setup does not produce miracles and wont really make up for having to lose time behind back markers. Besides its race that counts, not quali - so few team would use extreme qualifing setup.

Vettel's "overtaking setup" might have helped him, but he had fast car anyway.

You're just being difficult. I think it has already been posted numerous times already but I will say it again.

Because of his penalty, Vettel was allowed to change settings and components on his car that would otherwise have attracted a penalties on their own.

Say, Alonso qualifies 5th but has a legitimate gearbox problem and requests to change it. He loses 5 places because of the change. Now because he is no longer in his 5th position but 10th, they want to change his gearing. This brings on a further 5 place grid penalty meaning he now starts 15th. In this case he gets new parts but is penalised for it.

Vettel got all those changes free just because his team removed his car from parc ferme and has hence gone into the vital deciders with a fresh gearbox and who knows what else. If Red Bull had a fresh engine available they could have popped that in as well. In this case he was not punished for the new parts but got new parts as a consequence of his punishment.

Doesn't it disturb you that a competitor, due to these oversights, could go into the championship run-in with an advantage? An advantage that they didn't have prior to a penalty.

Come on man. This is not rocket science.

Could you for once actually answer the questions I ask? You are throwing around words like "not adhering" the rules. Why can't you quote the rule you are talking about?

And one thing is certainly no rocket science. Last place + 5 place penalty = Last place.

1) A wet setup is not that different from a dry one nowadays. No "lap everyone" differences anymore. Ride height is raised by bigger tyres, lower pressures are used to get the softer car effect, wing levels are already really close to maximum in dry weather.

You are comparing apples and oranges - The wet set-up is not much different if you have qualified in the top 10, but RBR practically rebuilt Vettel's car, and had it been wet they would likely have put on wings with far more downforce, which would have made a huge difference in the wet -But it is a hypothetical question; what I am saying is that the opportunity for that sort of manipulation should be removed from the table. RBR ran short of fuel, they then lied about why they had stopped the car, and as a result, used the situation to their advantage; I think that though they were disqualified from qualifying, they should have had to obey the same strictures as those who ran legally in Q3.

You are comparing apples and oranges - The wet set-up is not much different if you have qualified in the top 10, but RBR practically rebuilt Vettel's car, and had it been wet they would likely have put on wings with far more downforce, which would have made a huge difference in the wet -But it is a hypothetical question; what I am saying is that the opportunity for that sort of manipulation should be removed from the table. RBR ran short of fuel, they then lied about why they had stopped the car, and as a result, used the situation to their advantage; I think that though they were disqualified from qualifying, they should have had to obey the same strictures as those who ran legally in Q3.

A statement issued by the FIA said: "The stewards heard from the driver and team representatives and studied telemetry evidence that showed the reason why the car was stopped.

"The Stewards accepted the explanation and considered the incident as being a case of force majeure.

Allright.

Edited by Realyn, 05 November 2012 - 18:44.

You, people, are missing the fact that when a race is officially declared wet, teams are allowed to make setup changes. All of them. Not to the extent to change gear ratios but the latter brings additional penalty in starting from the pit lane, no warm up lap and a certain amount of time behind the last car.
Only because events unfolded in RBR favor and they as a team including Vettel, combined with the capabilities of their car, took the best out of the situation does not constitute a rule that choosing to start from the pit lane is always a winning strategy. More often it is the opposite.
Behind the arguments in the OP a see a clear disappointment because of failed expectations for an easy advantage for Alonso and not much objectivity.

------------------
To the attention of the thread opener: TV showed BE leaning over and having a chat with Vettel in his car. Maybe he revealed to Seb the scenario of the race and at which moments to expect the SC

I think some are missing the point. The rules are what they are and since time immemorial teams have taken advantage of loopholes and badly formulated rules. it's all part of the game.

The underfuelling rule is clear cut. If you don't have enough fuel in the car after qualifying you have broken the rules. Vettel's car didn't so the team had broken the rules.

RBR making use of the way the rules are written to re-configure the car is simply opportunism. And they can't be criticised for doing so.

If the rule makers didn't want people to do that they should write it into the rules. But they haven't.

In 2010 Alonso destroyed his car during the free practice of the Monaco GP. And a change of the chassis ment no qualifying and a pit lane start.
What an unfair advantage. First he breaks his chassis and then he is even awarded with a start from the pits.

Alonso set to miss qualifying and start from pitlane

Edited by ThomFi, 05 November 2012 - 22:49.

In which case Vettel's (or anybody else's) penalty would be equal to nil

And in the case that I get hit by a meteorite as I write this, that would be a bad thing for me.

Regulations are perfectly fine. Starting from the pitlane is an added penalty and even worse than a conventional grid penalty. So if you want to take the chance to break parc fermé, you still have to pay the price of not clearing the monkeys at the back before turn 1, and eat extra field spread effect. It´s not for free, you know.

The wet set-up is not much different if you have qualified in the top 10

Changing setup gives the same -little- pace advantage in wet conditions regardless of where you were going to start.

but RBR practically rebuilt Vettel's car, and had it been wet they would likely have put on wings with far more downforce, which would have made a huge difference in the wet

No. I explained it to you. Read again.

But it is a hypothetical question; what I am saying is that the opportunity for that sort of manipulation should be removed from the table.

Starting from pitlane with free setup is a handicap, not a opportunity.

RBR ran short of fuel, they then lied about why they had stopped the car

Have a read before saying anything about a topic.

and as a result, used the situation to their advantage

No. Starting from P3 was much better.

; I think that though they were disqualified from qualifying, they should have had to obey the same strictures as those who ran legally in Q3.

When someone complains about this nearly insignificant stuff in the regulations, without even mentioning how weird it is that the people making this mistake are sent to the back instead of just being robbed of the underfueled last run laptime, shows the blatant bias he has inside.

I don't think allowing them to change was fair because they can just make any changes they wanted, ie a fresh motor or what not. You should have to go with the same setup you ran in qualifying.

I however do not think the change in setup was the key factor. Two perfectly timed safety cars helped to get his strategy or point and the field bunched up. Same sort deal for Lewis in Monaco in 08, the circumstances of the race allowed him to move forward.

Just as innovation is frowned on in this sport, so is 'thinking' likely to be if you listen to this lot.
Just saying.

Earmarks of artificial handicapping - Parc Ferme. Regulation should be taken off the books, period. I think that it would improve racing if teams could make last minute changes on the car to correlate set-up to ambient conditions on Sunday, or even correct team error committed on quali set-up. I have never correctly understood benefits of having race with the equipment that is to be known in not best conditon for the race, and if allowed, could be easily corrected by some last minute work in pits. Choice of tires to begging with, etc.

Kimi, about to enjoy his favorite fruit drink!

Then why not qualify straight away with this magical "race setup"?

In general, i dont get this moaning about Vettel getting some kind of advantage from changing his setup and starting from the pitlane. Like it has been said many times, every team can do that.

I was thinking about if you can change gear ratios while you are changing the gearbox.

When someone complains about this nearly insignificant stuff in the regulations, without even mentioning how weird it is that the people making this mistake are sent to the back instead of just being robbed of the underfueled last run laptime, shows the blatant bias he has inside.

The problem with that penalty is that it is no penalty at all. And what would happen is that teams will do a banker lap, and then try a marginally fuelled lap. You'll end up with 10 cars parked by the side of the road in Q3, out of fuel.

It is a breech of the technical regulations. Therefore you can't just delete the lap time.

Earmarks of artificial handicapping - Parc Ferme. Regulation should be taken off the books, period. I think that it would improve racing if teams could make last minute changes on the car to correlate set-up to ambient conditions on Sunday, or even correct team error committed on quali set-up. I have never correctly understood benefits of having race with the equipment that is to be known in not best conditon for the race, and if allowed, could be easily corrected by some last minute work in pits. Choice of tires to begging with, etc.

I think the Parc Ferme regs are fine, but could be tweaked.

For instance, I would make it so that Parc Ferme ends when the pit lane opens 30 minutes before the race. But that all work on the cars must be performed in the pits - no fiddling with the car on the grid (other than tyre warmers, starters, change of tyres for wet conditions).

Currently Parc Ferme finishes when they start their warmup lap. That means that if the race is stopped teams can change things - all the teams changed tyres during the red flag period in Monaco 2011, and Lewis Hamilton had his rear wing fixed. I would again suggest that all such work be undertaken in the pits (ie they have to give up their position) unless wet tyres are required.

I think the Parc Ferme regs are fine, but could be tweaked.

For instance, I would make it so that Parc Ferme ends when the pit lane opens 30 minutes before the race. But that all work on the cars must be performed in the pits - no fiddling with the car on the grid (other than tyre warmers, starters, change of tyres for wet conditions).

Currently Parc Ferme finishes when they start their warmup lap. That means that if the race is stopped teams can change things - all the teams changed tyres during the red flag period in Monaco 2011, and Lewis Hamilton had his rear wing fixed. I would again suggest that all such work be undertaken in the pits (ie they have to give up their position) unless wet tyres are required.

Start-up procedure is 30 [min] in duration. What can teams accomplish in pits on more complicated set-up without affecting other activities? There is no objective rationale keeping Parc Ferme on the books IMO, unless I am missing something. If you want them racing, I say let them racing on the track, not off the track. Best of everything, in best condition, ready to race on the starting line. No handicaps, no semi-developed cars due to lack of track related testing, etc. But, that's again large picture on current state of F1. As mentioned previously in another thread, I do suspect teams are having second thoughts about it as well, and hence the drive for formation of subcommittee of 18 members, with tripartite having 6 members each in representation. Direction F1 is taking is under scrutiny, and hopefully for better in terms of commerce, technical and sporting regulations alike.

Start-up procedure is 30 [min] in duration. What can teams accomplish in pits on more complicated set-up without affecting other activities? There is no objective rationale keeping Parc Ferme on the books IMO, unless I am missing something. If you want them racing, I say let them racing on the track, not off the track. Best of everything, in best condition, ready to race on the starting line. No handicaps, no semi-developed cars due to lack of track related testing, etc. But, that's again large picture on current state of F1. As mentioned previously in another thread, I do suspect teams are having second thoughts about it as well, and hence the drive for formation of subcommittee of 18 members, with tripartite having 6 members each in representation. Direction F1 is taking is under scrutiny, and hopefully for better in terms of commerce, technical and sporting regulations alike.

An example....

Brakes are required to be between a minimum and maximum thickness. The minimum thickness ones weigh less and reduce unsprung weight. Thus they improve performance. But they can't do the race and still be within the limits. So, without Parc Ferme rules they would bolt on a thin set for qualifying and then swap them out for thicker ones for the race. It was for such things that the parc ferme rules were introduced.

Without parc ferme would there be a penalty for changing engines after the qualifying session?


During the 15 minute period between the pits opening and closing a team can adjust front and rear wings and adjust suspension settings. It is what used to happen 10 years ago. Schumacher would be one of the first to go out, he would hammer for a lap, return to the pits and either drive through and do another lap or stop and get adjustments. They can still do multiple laps through the pits, but there isn't any point to doing so.

In 2010 Alonso destroyed his car during the free practice of the Monaco GP. And a change of the chassis ment no qualifying and a pit lane start.
What an unfair advantage. First he breaks his chassis and then he is even awarded with a start from the pits.

Alonso set to miss qualifying and start from pitlane

Again, Alonso crashed on purpose to start from the pitlane, didn't he?

And again, changing a last grid position start for a pitlane start is a no-brainer, more so when you have a car able to obliterate the monkeys at the back. You change your setup to a full race one, you get a fresh gearbox without additional penalty and you avoid first turn carnage. And the proof is in the pudding: Red Bull did it voluntarily. And before them, probably other teams did it too. And I don't think teams should be given this kind of advantage.

And once again, I have no problem whatsoever with Red Bull doing what they did. It was the right thing for them, as the regulations allow it, and it is what almost every team would do in their situation. My qualms are with the regulation allowing it. Which is probably a left-over of a time when, as Sakae said, cars were not forced to race as handicapped as they are now.

An example....

Brakes are required to be between a minimum and maximum thickness. The minimum thickness ones weigh less and reduce unsprung weight. Thus they improve performance. But they can't do the race and still be within the limits. So, without Parc Ferme rules they would bolt on a thin set for qualifying and then swap them out for thicker ones for the race. It was for such things that the parc ferme rules were introduced.

Without parc ferme would there be a penalty for changing engines after the qualifying session?

I don't see any problem with the engines a long as they stay within the number of engines allowed per season. You can't take endless advantage with a limited number of engines.
Same with brakes, they still change them even in parc ferme.

@Wuzak: you may find that at some point arguments become subjective matter what racing should/could represent. Motto of Stuttgart based Mercedes-Benz is "Best or nothing". Why not in F1, and if it takes a different set-up for racing and different one for the race, so be it, for you will find people like me, who do preffer that. It's all about the speed at the end, and we can quantify that, whereas arguments who had most handicapped car and have done most with it is better left to RC forums like this one. Must admit, my opinion is not better that yours, it's just a different point of view.

Edited by Sakae, 06 November 2012 - 08:52.

@Wuzak: you may find that at some point arguments become subjective matter what racing should/could represent. Motto of Stuttgart based Mercedes-Benz is "Best or nothing". Why not in F1, and if it takes a different set-up for racing and different one for the race, so be it, for you will find people like me, who do preffer that. It's all about the speed at the end, and we can quantify that, whereas arguments who had most handicapped car and have done most with it is better left to RC forums like this one. Must admit, my opinion is not better that yours, it's just a different point of view.

The problem comes down to cost and waste. BMW even developed an exhaust system for qualifying which was lighter and cost more than the V12 from the McLaren F1. And they'd throw it away after qualifying.

I have no problem with them adjusting things that are on the car to obtain a better setup. But I don't think allowing them to change parts of the car to qualifying only spec and then back to race spec is healthy for the sport. And I'm sure most team owners wouldn't want to go back to that situation.

Again, Alonso crashed on purpose to start from the pitlane, didn't he?

And again, changing a last grid position start for a pitlane start is a no-brainer, more so when you have a car able to obliterate the monkeys at the back. You change your setup to a full race one, you get a fresh gearbox without additional penalty and you avoid first turn carnage. And the proof is in the pudding: Red Bull did it voluntarily. And before them, probably other teams did it too. And I don't think teams should be given this kind of advantage.

And once again, I have no problem whatsoever with Red Bull doing what they did. It was the right thing for them, as the regulations allow it, and it is what almost every team would do in their situation. My qualms are with the regulation allowing it. Which is probably a left-over of a time when, as Sakae said, cars were not forced to race as handicapped as they are now.

First of all, there are rules and as long as the rules are applied equally in every case, there is nothing "unfair".
It's not the first time, that a team pulled a car out of park fermé, repaired it, changed it or whatever and started from the pitlane.
But because it's Red Bull and Vettel some people have to complain.
It's also not of any relevance, whether Red Bull did it deliberately or not. The fuel sample was insufficient, Vettel was stripped of all times and demoted to the last place of the grid.
Secondly, let's compare both incidents.
Vettel took part at the qualifying, was stripped of his times and demoted to the last spot of the grid. At the Monaco GP 2010 Alonso was last, because he didn't even took part. I don't see a reason, why a driver who is last because he even was absent, should be treated better than a driver, who is last because he was stripped of all of his times.
In the case of Vettel, the car setup and gearbox were changed, in Alonso's case, they pretty much had to build up a new car.
Even without the "unfair" rule, Vettel could have started from the last spot of the grid with his normal setup, Alonso couldn't even have started at race, because he wouldn't have had a car.
If people like you didn't complain in the case of Alonso, then you shouldn't complain in the case of Vettel either.
But obviously, some people are disappointed, because Alonso only gained tree points.

Edited by ThomFi, 06 November 2012 - 17:42.

There is no objective rationale keeping Parc Ferme on the books IMO.

With DRS, there is a good reason for it actually: fixed gear ratios. You don´t want people running optimized gearing for race day -without free DRS- and hitting the limiter instantly when DRS is deployed. It would defeat its purpose. So forcing them to qualify with free DRS over a lap and with the same gearing than in race day you make sure people don´t hit the limiter inmediately on race day, or at least if they set the car like that you force them to have a hard time at some point of the weekend.

First of all, there are rules and as long as the rules are applied equally in every case, there is nothing "unfair".
It's not the first time, that a team pulled a car out of park fermé, repaired it, changed it or whatever and started from the pitlane.
But because it's Red Bull and Vettel some people have to complain.
It's also not of any relevance, whether Red Bull did it deliberately or not. The fuel sample was insufficient, Vettel was stripped of all times and demoted to the last place of the grid.
Secondly, let's compare both incidents.
Vettel took part at the qualifying, was stripped of his times and demoted to the last spot of the grid. At the Monaco GP 2010 Alonso was last, because he didn't even take part. I don't see a reason, why a driver who is last because he even was absent, should be treated better than a driver, who is last because he was stripped of all of his times.
In the case of Vettel, the car setup and gearbox were changed, in Alonso's case, they pretty much had to build up a new car.
Even without the "unfair" rule, Vettel could have started from the last spot of the grid with his normal setup, Alonso couldn't even have started at race, because he wouldn't have had a car.
If people like you didn't complain in the case of Alonso, then you shouldn't complain in the case of Vettel either.
But obviously, some people are disappointed, because Alonso only gained tree points.

You don't think it is unfair that Vettel could have gone into the last 2 races of the championship with a fresh engine?

Also, you don't think it is unfair that teams and drivers get penalties for changing essential parts but because you last, whether demoted or not, you can go for it? I'm sure the FIA will be happy when a team rips the seals off 20 engines just because they're last.

Change your setup and start from the pit lane, fine. Change essential parts and the grid penalties should apply at the following event. This is a fairer solution because you actually get punished for the benefit of using new parts like everybody else.

You don't think it is unfair that Vettel could have gone into the last 2 races of the championship with a fresh engine?

No, as it isn´t an advantage considering the penalty he faced.

If it was any sort of advantage, all the other F1 teams would be starting from the pitlane -or even better for them, taking just the 10 place penalty- to get that 9th engine. I don´t see anyone even thinking about it, so it doesn´t look like it´s any advantage, not even with just the 10 place grid penalty, so it´s not unfair.

Change your setup and start from the pit lane, fine. Change essential parts and the grid penalties should apply at the following event. This is a fairer solution because you actually get punished for the benefit of using new parts like everybody else.

It was already stupid when people got penalties for engine failures on Friday. Your idea has no word to describe it. Forget for a second it´s Vettel, and think again if what your saying makes any sense. If it still does, let´s pray you don´t ever get close to have any influence in these decissions.

You don't think it is unfair that Vettel could have gone into the last 2 races of the championship with a fresh engine?

Also, you don't think it is unfair that teams and drivers get penalties for changing essential parts but because you last, whether demoted or not, you can go for it? I'm sure the FIA will be happy when a team rips the seals off 20 engines just because they're last.

Change your setup and start from the pit lane, fine. Change essential parts and the grid penalties should apply at the following event. This is a fairer solution because you actually get punished for the benefit of using new parts like everybody else.

Of course, as long as the existing rules are applied equally in every case, there is nothing "unfair".
The park fermé rules exists quite for a while and it's not even the first time a team pulled a car out of park fermé, changed things and started from pitlane.
How often did you complain in the past, not once, i guess.

No, as it isn´t an advantage considering the penalty he faced.

If it was any sort of advantage, all the other F1 teams would be starting from the pitlane -or even better for them, taking just the 10 place penalty- to get that 9th engine. I don´t see anyone even thinking about it, so it doesn´t look like it´s any advantage, not even with just the 10 place grid penalty, so it´s not unfair.

This is not about the penalty but about parc ferme allowing this to take place. I think you need to forget that Vettel was involved.

It was already stupid when people got penalties for engine failures on Friday. Your idea has no word to describe it. Forget for a second it´s Vettel, and think again if what your saying makes any sense. If it still does, let´s pray you don´t ever get close to have any influence in these decissions.

Who said anything about Fridays? As things stand... If you qualify 10th and need a new engine you get demoted. Should you require an engine change prior to qualifying, you get demoted after qualifying. You pay a price for getting to use a new one.

If you're last, you can change it all willy nilly. No penalty for new parts.

Of course, as long as the existing rules are applied equally in every case, there is nothing "unfair".
The park fermé rules exists quite for a while and it's not even the first time a team pulled a car out of park fermé, changed things and started from pitlane.
How often did you complain in the past, not once, i guess.

You're right, I haven't complained in the past because I haven't noticed it. Hamilton got demoted and drove his race as is. Why don't you tell me when it has happened before because you're so sure that it has. And I'm not talking about changing the setup like wing angles and tyres... I'm talking about changing essential parts.

As for being applied equally, I don't think so. Does it mean because I'm slow, actually I'm last, I can change my engine without the penalties the rest receive?

You're right, I haven't complained in the past because I haven't noticed it. Hamilton got demoted and drove his race as is. Why don't you tell me when it has happened before because you're so sure that it has. And I'm not talking about changing the setup like wing angles and tyres... I'm talking about changing essential parts.

As for being applied equally, I don't think so. Does it mean because I'm slow, actually I'm last, I can change my engine without the penalties the rest receive?

Ever heard of google? Do a search and you will find plenty of sources for pit lane starts.

Button, Vettel to start from the pitlane

"In the end, the Japanese manufacturer have changed his gearbox and also used the opportunity to change the rear suspension, the rear wing, the front spring and the front anti-roll bar."

Toyota cars to start race from pitlane

"With the team having to withdraw its cars from parc ferme to make wing modifications so as to comply with the technical regulations, the rules state that both cars must now start from the pitlane rather than the last places on the grid."

Fisichella to start from the pitlane

And Monaco 2010, when Alonso was absent at the qualifying, because he wrecked his car and then he started with a build up new one from the pit lane, that didn't ring a bell ?
And in Spain, McLaren could have started from the pit lane too. But they didn't, because they preferred a start from the last spot of the grid. If you have a car with a good top speed, why change the setup and start from the pit lane.
In the last race, McLaren's top speeds were quite low. May be in this case, a pit lane start and a setup change would have been considered.

And lets make an example. Hamilton qualifies at the front of the grid and Button at the end. Both are stripped of their times, because the fuel samples were insufficient.
Hamilton loses 20 positions and Button just one. Well Hamilton loses more positions than Button but it's not unfair as long as the rule is applied in the same way if the situation would be reversed.

Edited by ThomFi, 06 November 2012 - 20:46.

Ever heard of google? Do a search and you will find plenty of sources for pit lane starts.

Button, Vettel to start from the pitlane

"In the end, the Japanese manufacturer have changed his gearbox and also used the opportunity to change the rear suspension, the rear wing, the front spring and the front anti-roll bar."

Toyota cars to start race from pitlane

"With the team having to withdraw its cars from parc ferme to make wing modifications so as to comply with the technical regulations, the rules state that both cars must now start from the pitlane rather than the last places on the grid."

Fisichella to start from the pitlane

And Monaco 2010, when Alonso was absent at the qualifying, because he wrecked his car and then he started with a build up new one from the pit lane, that didn't ring a bell ?
And in Spain, McLaren could have started from the pit lane too. But they didn't, because they preferred a start from the last spot of the grid. If you have a car with a good top speed, why change the setup and start from the pit lane.
In the last race, McLaren's top speeds were quite low. May be in this case, a pit lane start and a setup change would have been considered.

And lets make an example. Hamilton qualifies at the front of the grid and Button at the end. Both are stripped of their times, because the fuel samples were insufficient.
Hamilton loses 20 positions and Button just one. Well Hamilton loses more positions than Button but it's not unfair as long as the rule is applied in the same way if the situation would be reversed.

The examples you've provided just proves my point. In the Button and Vettel example there was actual damage to the parts or cars and they were replaced thus taking the penalty.

The Toyota example doesn't say if they changed their setup or parts but in this case they were forced by the FIA to withdraw from parc ferme to alter the flexible wing in order to adhere to the technical regulations.

The Fisichella example was once again due to damage. As was the situation with Alonso in Monaco 2010. Hell, Alonso didn't even take part in qualifying and thus was not bound by parc ferme regulations.

Now in Vettel's case he gets a free change due to a penalty not a penalty due to a change as normally happens.

The Hamilton and Button example is once again an attempt to throw an Aunt Sally into the works. Receiving a penalty for an infringement is hardly the same as gaining a potential competitive advantage by going into later races with fresher equipment purely because in one race you were somehow last.

Are there any more examples depicting what Red Bull did?

All of this just highlights again what a farce, and utter mistake, parc ferme is and always has been. It denies fans more running (no Sunday warmups), locks teams and drivers into their Saturday setup, and yes, it gives potential advantage to penalised drivers. However, that advantage only shows in exceptional circumstances such as seen at the last race and is secondary in my dislike of the rule. Any driver/ team has the option of doing what Vettel/ Red Bull did, only normally they'd not want to sacrifice grid position for setup changes as you don't tend to get two field bunching safety cars in the same event on these modern tracks (and to take a tangent, how is it there can be a carpark with white lines painted, in a desert, and *still* the safety car was needed, not once but twice?).

Someone said there's little difference between wet and dry setups nowadays - This is true *because* you lose more time stuck on a wet setup in the dry, than vice versa - And you *have* to choose one or the other before the race commences.

As much as it feels somehow intrinsically wrong Vettel came from the back to a third place due in no small part to his being able to alter his setup, the real issue his drive put in the spotlight was how parc ferme was a poor reaction to a mythical problem (McLaren suggesting they would run qualifying spec cars that bore little resemblance to the race spec, if things stayed as they were) and that on the right day it's made a total mockery of. Just as it is when the cars cannot run on anything more than mildly moist tarmac, just as it is they have to compromise tyre choice in the top ten slots, have to make a choice for Saturday that can hurt on Sunday, or make a choice for Sunday hoping it doesn't put them too far behind on Saturday..

I will say (begrudgingly) well done Vettel and Red Bull for making hte most of the rules on Sunday after breaking them Saturday. It's not their fault the rules themselves can lead to these situations, it is the fault of the rules. In this case, a rule that denies teams drivers and fans.

@Shambolic

All of this just highlights again what a farce, and utter mistake, parc ferme is and always has been. It denies fans more running (no Sunday warmups), locks teams and drivers into their Saturday setup, and yes, it gives potential advantage to penalised drivers. However, that advantage only shows in exceptional circumstances such as seen at the last race and is secondary in my dislike of the rule. Any driver/ team has the option of doing what Vettel/ Red Bull did, only normally they'd not want to sacrifice grid position for setup changes as you don't tend to get two field bunching safety cars in the same event on these modern tracks (and to take a tangent, how is it there can be a carpark with white lines painted, in a desert, and *still* the safety car was needed, not once but twice?).

Someone said there's little difference between wet and dry setups nowadays - This is true *because* you lose more time stuck on a wet setup in the dry, than vice versa - And you *have* to choose one or the other before the race commences.

As much as it feels somehow intrinsically wrong Vettel came from the back to a third place due in no small part to his being able to alter his setup, the real issue his drive put in the spotlight was how parc ferme was a poor reaction to a mythical problem (McLaren suggesting they would run qualifying spec cars that bore little resemblance to the race spec, if things stayed as they were) and that on the right day it's made a total mockery of. Just as it is when the cars cannot run on anything more than mildly moist tarmac, just as it is they have to compromise tyre choice in the top ten slots, have to make a choice for Saturday that can hurt on Sunday, or make a choice for Sunday hoping it doesn't put them too far behind on Saturday..

I will say (begrudgingly) well done Vettel and Red Bull for making hte most of the rules on Sunday after breaking them Saturday. It's not their fault the rules themselves can lead to these situations, it is the fault of the rules. In this case, a rule that denies teams drivers and fans.

Parc ferme is crap but I doubt that it will be done away with any time soon. So my opinion is that as long as parc ferme exists these oversights have to be looked at and not swept under a rug with the premise of it only happens in exceptional circumstances.

Edited by Ferrari2183, 06 November 2012 - 22:15.

First of all, there are rules and as long as the rules are applied equally in every case, there is nothing "unfair".
It's not the first time, that a team pulled a car out of park fermé, repaired it, changed it or whatever and started from the pitlane.
But because it's Red Bull and Vettel some people have to complain.
It's also not of any relevance, whether Red Bull did it deliberately or not. The fuel sample was insufficient, Vettel was stripped of all times and demoted to the last place of the grid.
Secondly, let's compare both incidents.
Vettel took part at the qualifying, was stripped of his times and demoted to the last spot of the grid. At the Monaco GP 2010 Alonso was last, because he didn't even took part. I don't see a reason, why a driver who is last because he even was absent, should be treated better than a driver, who is last because he was stripped of all of his times.
In the case of Vettel, the car setup and gearbox were changed, in Alonso's case, they pretty much had to build up a new car.
Even without the "unfair" rule, Vettel could have started from the last spot of the grid with his normal setup, Alonso couldn't even have started at race, because he wouldn't have had a car.
If people like you didn't complain in the case of Alonso, then you shouldn't complain in the case of Vettel either.
But obviously, some people are disappointed, because Alonso only gained tree points.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

I already said that other teams did what RBR did last weekend, and that I have no problem with RBR doing it. My problem is with the possibility of doing it, but as long as FIA does not change the rules, teams are OK making use of it.

As you seem to be desperately looking for a similar incident involving Alonso to try to draw a paralelism, you mention Monaco 2010. Well, the similarities end with both drivers in the last slot of the grid. Whan RBR did wrong was underfuel Vettel. What Alonso did wrong was to crash the car during FP1 and not being able to have it fixed for qualifying. Apparently if you don't take part in qualifying, you start last. That's why Alonso started last, and that is why Vettel was sent to the last position: because, effectively, he did not take part in qualifying. If, in your opinion, Alonso should not have taken part in Monaco, then neither Hamilton nor Vettel should have taken part in the GP where they were stripped of their times in qualifying.

From then on, the similarities end. RBR voluntarily moved from the last position in the grid to the pitlane, in order to change their set up, in an effort to gain an advantage. Kudos to them for doing it, because the rules allow it, but shame on FIA for having rules that allow it. Other teams have done it in the past (surprisingly, McLaren did not with Hamilton), and other teams will do it in the future. IMO, it is a mistake offering that possibility, because potentially we would end up with twenty-two cars starting from the pitlane. The possibility of starting from the pitlane should be exceptional, and not decided voluntarily by a team.

And again, it is not a matter of Vettel or Alonso (you will not find any comment from me saying anything against RBR for having used the possibilities offered by the rules). It is a matter of rules being wrong. IMHO, of course.

The examples you've provided just proves my point. In the Button and Vettel example there was actual damage to the parts or cars and they were replaced thus taking the penalty.

The Toyota example doesn't say if they changed their setup or parts but in this case they were forced by the FIA to withdraw from parc ferme to alter the flexible wing in order to adhere to the technical regulations.

The Fisichella example was once again due to damage. As was the situation with Alonso in Monaco 2010. Hell, Alonso didn't even take part in qualifying and thus was not bound by parc ferme regulations.

Now in Vettel's case he gets a free change due to a penalty not a penalty due to a change as normally happens.

The Hamilton and Button example is once again an attempt to throw an Aunt Sally into the works. Receiving a penalty for an infringement is hardly the same as gaining a potential competitive advantage by going into later races with fresher equipment purely because in one race you were somehow last.

Are there any more examples depicting what Red Bull did?

The problem is, that you have your very own interpretation of the term "fairness".
If you like it or not, the rules are as they are and the park fermé rules exist quite for a while and are for everyone the same.
Other teams had in the past the opportunity to start from the pit lane and to work on the car, change setup etc. it would be highly unfair to Red Bull if they would have been treated differently.
In Monaco 2010, it wasn't the car that failed, the car was destroyed because of a driving error of Alonso.
If you think, that starting from the pit lane and setup changes are unfair, in the case of Alonso they even build up a new car, then you should have complained two years ago. But of course you didn't, because it was Ferrari.
A driver, who destroys his car, doesn't show up in Qualifying and is even awarded with a new car and a pit lane start, that's the joke.
There a lot of things in F1 that are unfair, the special treatment of Ferrari by the FIA for example, or being still classified as a winner, also you just won, because your rookie teammate had to trigger a safety car by deliberately crashing into a wall.
But it's hardly that rule. If you think it's unfair, so be it, but as long as the rule exists and all the teams are ok with it, it really shouldn't concern you.

Edited by ThomFi, 07 November 2012 - 04:43.