Jump to content


Photo

Should Kimi have been Black Flagged for Loose exhaust ?


  • Please log in to reply
346 replies to this topic

#301 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,048 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 26 June 2008 - 14:50

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Car are not legal if they cannot pass scrutineering.

And you're wrong about the weight - why don't you do some actual research instead of making it up? If the car has been damaged and is missing parts, and the performance hasn't been improved, and its not deliberate, and nothing has been added, then the car no longer has pass the weight test.


I am sorry but a car which have lost a wing or an exhaust during the race, is allowed to compensate for the weight at post race scruteneering, this is clearly spelled out in the rules.

So I am 100% correct, and you are wrong.

:cool:

Advertisement

#302 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,048 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 26 June 2008 - 15:15

Originally posted by TT6


According to Whiting the part wasn't big enough to cause significan't danger. (Sorry, my wording).



I might be wrong, but I remeber seeing incidents in the past where a car that has been under weight has been excused if the weight loss has been because of missing parts.


But you are correct.

Contrary to what Melbourne writes I am not making up stuff, I simply went to www.fia.com and read the rules governing pre- post race scrutenerring, where it is written that accidental damage can be fixed.

I also think thatmelbourne should bear in mind that we basically never see cars disqualified after the race, despite various parts form the cars still lying out on the track somewhere.

A car will NOT be disqualified for being underweight due to an accidental loss of a part, that is a fact no matter what Melbourne thinks. I am at work and can not be searving through the rules once more, but I read them twice since Sunday, and the cars will pass.

They will not pass based on willfull underweight.

They will pass based on accidental underweight.

It does not take an accident, to be subjetc to accidental damage. Kimi's car was fully covered by the rules, and as we all know it did pass scruteneering.

Melbourne should spend more time on facts, than blaming me for fiction. Since I took the easy option of simply reading the rules, which he has seemingly failed to do.



:cool:

#303 Beej

Beej
  • Member

  • 409 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 26 June 2008 - 15:43

I think that he should have been Black and Oranged for the exhaust. I spend most weekends at one circuit or other and marshals safety is normally taken as a high priority. I was horrified to see that potential missile flapping around and no action taken. And for some posters drivers may where helmets but us marshals do not.

#304 Deeq

Deeq
  • Member

  • 5,661 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 26 June 2008 - 16:00

@Melbourne Park & KWSN - DSM :wave:
You are saying the same thing about the post race scrutinizing [re weight] so no need to disagree on principle i.e disagreement on it's own sake :stoned:
Step back and reread carefully what you have written and it will - hopefully - become clear....

#305 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 26 June 2008 - 23:25

Originally posted by TT6

I might be wrong, but I remeber seeing incidents in the past where a car that has been under weight has been excused if the weight loss has been because of missing parts.

That's correct. That is just what I said - if a car has been damaged accidentally, it no longer has to pass the weight test due to missing parts, as long as its performance hasn't gained.

I quoted a part of the rule before - so being under weight was never an issue. I never said it was - that was others. So too those talking about the hot exhaust pipe - by the time the exhause section would have detached itself, it would have been at air temperature. It flailed about behind the car for several laps.

All Ferrari had to do was bring the car in early. I am not sure on the damage to their race strategy, but the car had another pit stop coming. They should have brought it straight in, removed the pipe and fueled and tyred the car, the penalty would have been loosing some laps with light fuel and running some laps with heavier fuel, but I doubt that would have added up to a 10 second differential. If there was traffic then that would have hurt them however.

But the closeness of the racing situation doesn't excuse Whiting or Ferrari for breaking the rules or for running a dangerous car. Although probability of damage to another car was low IMO, it was still a significant probability. But that is in fact only one issue - a safety issue. The other black and white issue was that the car was illegal while it had an alloy metal tube tendered to the car by a weak communications cable. The rules require cars that race to be legal, and it should have been brought straight in and restored to a legal state.

Whiting has shown from this incident that he is no longer competent.

#306 Sneezy

Sneezy
  • Member

  • 54 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 26 June 2008 - 23:31

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
That's correct. That is just what I said - if a car has been damaged accidentally, it no longer has to pass the weight test due to missing parts, as long as its performance hasn't gained.

I quoted a part of the rule before - so being under weight was never an issue. I never said it was - that was others. So too those talking about the hot exhaust pipe - by the time the exhause section would have detached itself, it would have been at air temperature. It flailed about behind the car for several laps.

All Ferrari had to do was bring the car in early. I am not sure on the damage to their race strategy, but the car had another pit stop coming. They should have brought it straight in, removed the pipe and fueled and tyred the car, the penalty would have been loosing some laps with light fuel and running some laps with heavier fuel, but I doubt that would have added up to a 10 second differential. If there was traffic then that would have hurt them however.

But the closeness of the racing situation doesn't excuse Whiting or Ferrari for breaking the rules or for running a dangerous car. Although probability of damage to another car was low IMO, it was still a significant probability. But that is in fact only one issue - a safety issue. The other black and white issue was that the car was illegal while it had an alloy metal tube tendered to the car by a weak communications cable. The rules require cars that race to be legal, and it should have been brought straight in and restored to a legal state.

Whiting has shown from this incident that he is no longer competent.


But Trulli was really quick at the time, the time you mentioned Ferrari should have brought in Kimi to fuel him to the end. I have no doubt Charlie talked to Ferrari at the time. Don't forget that it was Felipe who was the one in danger of being hit by that exhaust piece because he was right behind Kimi. Race control found about the exhaust when both Ferrari's were next to each other, not earlier than that. Ferrari took the gamble and Charlie had to let it slide for Bourdais as well.

#307 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 26 June 2008 - 23:33

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


But you are correct.

Contrary to what Melbourne writes I am not making up stuff, I simply went to www.fia.com and read the rules governing pre- post race scrutenerring, where it is written that accidental damage can be fixed.

I also think thatmelbourne should bear in mind that we basically never see cars disqualified after the race, despite various parts form the cars still lying out on the track somewhere.

A car will NOT be disqualified for being underweight due to an accidental loss of a part, that is a fact no matter what Melbourne thinks. I am at work and can not be searving through the rules once more, but I read them twice since Sunday, and the cars will pass.

They will not pass based on willfull underweight.

They will pass based on accidental underweight.

It does not take an accident, to be subjetc to accidental damage. Kimi's car was fully covered by the rules, and as we all know it did pass scruteneering.

Melbourne should spend more time on facts, than blaming me for fiction. Since I took the easy option of simply reading the rules, which he has seemingly failed to do.


Why don't you read what I said? I said all along, that the car did not have to be legal in weight. It was you who said it had to be legal in weight :rolleyes: . You are either not comprehending what I said, or you are a liar. I don't know which it is.

I later went in and added the reference quote. I said back then you should read the rules - which finally you seem to have done.

I don't care about which team was at fault in this issue - the fact that its Ferrari is not relevant. I went all out against Renault against the TMD, in that dispute I was pro Ferrari if one wants to view things in a partizan way, which is how I believe you do. There is a squad here who think purely in terms of protecting their drivers or Ferrari. I am not interested in those issues at all - its the governance of the sport that is faulty here, which is an interest of mine.

As to Ferrari breaking the rules, they appear to have IMO, but then possibly Whiting told them that the car was OK to run. In that case, things would get complicated IMO. Only a fool would think that a car with an alloy tube located on the top of an F1 car by a communications table would be legal in F1, and only a fool would think the scrutineers would pass a car presented in that manner.

#308 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 26 June 2008 - 23:51

Originally posted by Sneezy
But Trulli was really quick at the time, the time you mentioned Ferrari should have brought in Kimi to fuel him to the end. I have no doubt Charlie talked to Ferrari at the time. Don't forget that it was Felipe who was the one in danger of being hit by that exhaust piece because he was right behind Kimi. Race control found about the exhaust when both Ferrari's were next to each other, not earlier than that. Ferrari took the gamble and Charlie had to let it slide for Bourdais as well.


How do you know when Race Control found out about the loose pipe? I have not read anything from race control about this matter - I'd love a reference.

We don't know that Whiting spoke to Ferrari though. IMO if Ferrari assured Whiting that the pipe could not come off, then Ferrari were wrong. But the TV commentators said that the pipe was located by a communications cable. I presume that cable would have been an optical cable which has a heat resistant coating on it. Normally optical cables are covered with Low Density Polyethylene, which melts at around 140 degrees C depending on the melt index of the polymer. But being close to the exhaust, the plastic coating might have been a higher temperature polymer. The cable coating's thickness and the material itself would affect the strength.

It might have been a wire cored cable too with a heavy heat resistant cloth coating, and if it was a thermocouple cable then it probably was such a cabl. But such cables are not designed to be tethers - let alone to be subjected to severe movement. IMO the cable likely did not fail anyway - it was where the cable was located to the exhaust that failed. I presume that was a thermocouple position. There would be no strength rating for how strong the thermocouple is attached to the cable IMO. I have not heard of it - maybe an engineer does? I now lots about thermocouples though, and one can pull them out by the cable, but the ones I know sit loosely and they slip out easily.

If Ferrari actually advised Whiting that the tube was safely attached, then they were wrong and they would be responsible for Whiting making an incorrect call in allowing the car to stay out and presuming it was safe and therefor legal.

As to the traffic, Ferrari had I think 12 seconds up their sleeve, excluding being caught behind cars. It is possible to work all that out - Autosport's graphic replay shows the gaps between the cars which are on the same lap, but if Ferrari were 27 seconds ahead of the third car, then they could have pitted and come out without loosing Kimi's second place. They would have lost time due to carrying extra fuel though, but then they still had more than 10 seconds up their sleeve.

I worked out the times earlier:

Pos Driver Team Time
1. Massa Ferrari (B) 1h31:50.245
2. Raikkonen Ferrari (B) + 17.984
3. Trulli Toyota (B) + 28.250
4. Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes (B) + 28.929
5. Kubica BMW Sauber (B) + 30.512
6. Webber Red Bull-Renault (B) + 40.304
7. Piquet Renault (B) + 41.033
8. Alonso Renault (B) + 43.372
9. Coulthard Red Bull-Renault (B) + 51.021


Add 10 seconds, and Kimi would still have come second, no points difference.
Add 15 seconds, and Kimi would have finished 5th, Kubica would have finished 4th and would be just behind Massa in the championship.
Add 25 seconds, and Kimi would finished 8th, scoring one point.

Still, the gap between 2nd and 5th was very small, but I suspect excluding traffic that a 15 second loss due to not running with low fuel was unlikely, so I think coming in straight away Kimi may still have come second.

#309 OfficeLinebacker

OfficeLinebacker
  • Member

  • 14,019 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 27 June 2008 - 01:38

I worry about the heat of the part more than anything.

For example marshals generally use strong gloves, a heat-resistant dust pan, and a metal stick to pick up debris such as brake rotors or basically any unknown part.

Trust me I know, I put near burned myself on a rotor off a Civic today!

#310 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 27 June 2008 - 02:11

Originally posted by OfficeLinebacker
I worry about the heat of the part more than anything.

For example marshals generally use strong gloves, a heat-resistant dust pan, and a metal stick to pick up debris such as brake rotors or basically any unknown part.

Trust me I know, I put near burned myself on a rotor off a Civic today!

Since the pipe was hanging behind the car for many laps, it would have been at air temperature. With an average air speed of over lets say 200 kph, the pipe would have cooled down to air temperature within a lap. Its heat was never an issue after just one lap IMO. So the heat of it was never a real issue.

Those carbon F1 disks might retain their heat for some time - and they operate at very high temperatures too.




#311 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,234 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 27 June 2008 - 09:21

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Since the pipe was hanging behind the car for many laps, it would have been at air temperature. With an average air speed of over lets say 200 kph, the pipe would have cooled down to air temperature within a lap. Its heat was never an issue after just one lap IMO. So the heat of it was never a real issue.

Those carbon F1 disks might retain their heat for some time - and they operate at very high temperatures too.

From Scarbs tech review of France;

The danger with broken exhausts, aside for the obvious danger of a length of Inconel flying off into the scenery, is that the exhaust gases are no longer routed where they should and can overheat carbon fibre parts and wiring further back down the car.

This usually effects the rear suspension and beam wing. Teams have sensors laid into these parts to measure their temperature and the telemetry that passed from the car to the garage during the race would have informed the team about how critical the temperatures were on the rear of the car.


If the gasses can overheat these items, I would guess that a piece of inconel (surely a good brand name for piss pads?) flapping freely above and slightly behind the hole is going to still be quite hot. Definitely not at wind-chilled ambient.

#312 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,048 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 27 June 2008 - 13:00

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Why don't you read what I said? I said all along, that the car did not have to be legal in weight. It was you who said it had to be legal in weight :rolleyes: . You are either not comprehending what I said, or you are a liar. I don't know which it is.

I later went in and added the reference quote. I said back then you should read the rules - which finally you seem to have done.

I don't care about which team was at fault in this issue - the fact that its Ferrari is not relevant. I went all out against Renault against the TMD, in that dispute I was pro Ferrari if one wants to view things in a partizan way, which is how I believe you do. There is a squad here who think purely in terms of protecting their drivers or Ferrari. I am not interested in those issues at all - its the governance of the sport that is faulty here, which is an interest of mine.

As to Ferrari breaking the rules, they appear to have IMO, but then possibly Whiting told them that the car was OK to run. In that case, things would get complicated IMO. Only a fool would think that a car with an alloy tube located on the top of an F1 car by a communications table would be legal in F1, and only a fool would think the scrutineers would pass a car presented in that manner.


We seem to be going in circles here.

I did not say it had to be legal. I said that it would not be an illegal car if losing parts on track. You are quoting the same part of the rules I have been referring to for several pages worth of this thread.

You contend that Ferrari and FIA somehow broke the rules, meaning that you do not understand the rules that you are so busy pointing out others should read.

Ferrari did not break any rules on Sunday, neither did FIA.

And you should cut down on the personal remarks.

:cool:

#313 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 28 June 2008 - 05:54

Originally posted by Buttoneer

From Scarbs tech review of France;

If the gasses can overheat these items, I would guess that a piece of inconel (surely a good brand name for piss pads?) flapping freely above and slightly behind the hole is going to still be quite hot. Definitely not at wind-chilled ambient.


If you look at the pictures, the pipe was bouncing all over the place - IMO it was going in an hot air upstream when wind caught the centre of the tubing, and then up it went. Then it hit the higher cool airstream. Add the tether, and it was going all over the place.

I reckon it would not have been hot at all, because of the varied air flows effecting it. Notice too that the burnt bodywork that copped lots of the heat was certainly burnt right through - but nothing else was damaged.

Impossible for us to agree I guess! It just doesn't seem intuitively right to think with all that airstream of cool air would not more than make up for some axhaust air.

#314 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 28 June 2008 - 06:00

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


We seem to be going in circles here.

I did not say it had to be legal. I said that it would not be an illegal car if losing parts on track. You are quoting the same part of the rules I have been referring to for several pages worth of this thread.

You contend that Ferrari and FIA somehow broke the rules, meaning that you do not understand the rules that you are so busy pointing out others should read.

Ferrari did not break any rules on Sunday, neither did FIA.

And you should cut down on the personal remarks.


This is what you said before got personal:

Contrary to what Melbourne writes I am not making up stuff,



I said you were either lying - which is what you said about me there - or you did not comprehend what I said.

I knew all along the weight was not an issue - but no one here has been paying much attention to the rules. I even partially quoted the official site's ruling, but did not put in the sentence about the weight - because I thought it detracted from the point I was quoting the rule for. That was quite a way back. I also thought the heat of the metal tube was a bogus - but that is my opinion. I have said that IMO the pipe could not hurt any spectators too. I haven't changed those views at all since I saw what happened. And yes I raced cars too, and have had a CAMs license for years, and owned race cars too, I am not at a high level of ignorance about racing.

You brought the weight issue up - and I said the weight is not an issue, you should read the web site, which I listed, and know you know, which is great.

Concerning Ferrari breaking the rules, its not a black and white issue since we do not know all the facts. I have said I look forward to the report about the race - I am still looking forward to it being published.

We do know what the rules in the book are though - and that some were not followed. But not following rules does not mean a team is cheating. What we do not know, is what the race director told Ferrari. IMO several things might of happened. If the Race Director decided to allow Ferrari to continue in the race, then one question is, since we know the pipe came off, the car was therefor dangerous before it came off, should Ferrari have continued on with a potentially dangerous car, or should they have followed the Race Director's invitation to carry on? What is your opinion about that? From your answers, I will have more of an understanding about what you think.

:cool:

#315 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,048 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 28 June 2008 - 07:05

The strange thing is that we argue even though we agree a long way.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park

This is what you said before got personal:

I said you were either lying - which is what you said about me there - or you did not comprehend what I said. - I believe stating me to be lying is the first personal comment, and I simply stated that you calling me a liar was factually not true. You not seeing yourself calling the first 'shot' is a strange sense of 'rightness'.

I knew all along the weight was not an issue - but no one here has been paying much attention to the rules. I even partially quoted the official site's ruling, but did not put in the sentence about the weight - because I thought it detracted from the point I was quoting the rule for. That was quite a way back. I also thought the heat of the metal tube was a bogus - but that is my opinion. I have said that IMO the pipe could not hurt any spectators too. I haven't changed those views at all since I saw what happened. And yes I raced cars too, and have had a CAMs license for years, and owned race cars too, I am not at a high level of ignorance about racing. - I have been maintaining through out this thread that the fact that the exhaust fell of or not, would never make the car illegal, and repeatedly referred to the rules stating exactly that. I do not believe that I have at any time called your racing records in to the discussion. In retrospect I agree that heat would not have been an issue at any time, I also agree that spectators were never in any kind of danger from the exhaust, which is why I posted that the Marshals and other cars were the ones in potential danger.

You brought the weight issue up - and I said the weight is not an issue, you should read the web site, which I listed, and know you know, which is great. - No I did not bring the weight issue up, I have repeatedly stated that weight was not, and would never be an issue for a damaged car. So the link was not really needed for me, since I had been referring to the rules (by name). Fine that you make a link to the rules, but most here actually know where to find them.

Concerning Ferrari breaking the rules, its not a black and white issue since we do not know all the facts. I have said I look forward to the report about the race - I am still looking forward to it being published. - Yes it is indeed black and white, Ferrari did not break a single rule during the race in France, the report will not state that Ferrari broke any rules.

We do know what the rules in the book are though - and that some were not followed. But not following rules does not mean a team is cheating. What we do not know, is what the race director told Ferrari. IMO several things might of happened. If the Race Director decided to allow Ferrari to continue in the race, then one question is, since we know the pipe came off, the car was therefor dangerous before it came off, should Ferrari have continued on with a potentially dangerous car, or should they have followed the Race Director's invitation to carry on? What is your opinion about that? From your answers, I will have more of an understanding about what you think. - As soon as the race director allow a car to stay on track, then the team fielding that car can not at a later time be called for breaking the rule governing fielding a dangerous car, a rule which I do not think come into play with a car, which have passed scruteneering, thus by definition being legal from the start of the race meet, after the race at post race scruteneering if illegal changes have been made to the car, then the dangerous car rule can be called into play, however never for an accidental damage, which (possibly we do not know) was allowed to continue during the race with a broken exhaust. Hindsight is 20/20 and there can be arguments made for both that the car was (potentially) dangerous, or for the fact that the car continued to a second place finish, and no other competitor nor Marshal was in any way hindered or in danger due to the broken exhaust. I still think that the non-call by race control was ill advised, but since that was the call I accept it.

:cool:


:cool:

#316 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 29 June 2008 - 00:42

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
The strange thing is that we argue even though we agree a long way.


Yes, I think the area we disagree are about a couple of issues only: One being the governance of the sport, which you accept as a fact of racing life I presume. Another thing I think we don't agree on is that while you say a car can be made up in post race scrutineering to be legal, I am saying that the rules say a car has to be legal at all times during the race. However I believe that rule is effected by accidental damage, and hence the race officials can effect the rule's application.

I think you believed the trailing exhaust deserved the car to be called in for removal as I did. You believe (I think) that because the head race official deemed it OK to stay out there with the trailing pipe, that is the end of the issue.

You've said that "approval" would have been by radio. Which seems likely to me, if it happened.

But I have also said that if Ferrari told Whiting that the trailing exhaust would stay on until their planned pitstop where it would be removed, then since it fell off before their pitstop, then I am saying that if Ferrari promised it would not fall off - then since it did fall off - Ferrari therefor broke the rules if that situation happened. The rule being that a car has to be legal at all times - and that while the damaged Ferrari was driving around with a trailing pipe the car posed a hazard to other cars when its pipe eventually fell off. Also the dangerous construction rule would apply if the car kept going around the track due the exhaust pipe being unsafely located.

So I am saying that if Ferrari promised the pipe was safely attached and would make their planned pitstop, since the pipe did fall off, before their car's pitstop happened, then I am saying Ferrari broke the rules.

If Whiting told Ferrari that he was happy for the car to continue on with the pipe dangling then I think Whiting broke the rules and thereby Ferrari cannot be accused.

Simple as that - which is why I look forward - as you do I presume - to the "transparent" FIA providing a race report on the incident.

I'll make another post on the rest of your reply. :cool:

#317 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 29 June 2008 - 01:25

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
No I did not bring the weight issue up, I have repeatedly stated that weight was not, and would never be an issue for a damaged car. So the link was not really needed for me, since I had been referring to the rules (by name). Fine that you make a link to the rules, but most here actually know where to find them.


You said something different to that, which was why I posted the rule. You said on post 294 - which I fully quoted and replied to:

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM It would be legal, as would the car which had passed scruteneering rules.

After the race the cars are placed under 'parc ferme rules', and there is a rule allowing for replacement of damaged pieces due to accidents.

So the car was legal at all times, and the weight of a missing piece lost during the race will be added to the overall weight of the car at time of post race scrutineering.

The only 'issue' is the general discomfort that most of us seem to have, in that the black and orange flag was not used, for Ferrari to clip the dangling piece of during a pitstop. And that missing flag is not a rule being broken either, as that flag is at the discression of race control. [/B]


If you read what you said in the bolded text, then possibly you'd understand why I quoted what the process the FIA claims happens. And that weight loss was never an issue.

I suspect you forgot what you wrote and then said I was making things up.

Not to worry though - I think you have been genuine and honest, so I apologize if its heated.

My issues are with the rules and thereby the governance of the sport.

The reason why I mentioned my racing issues, is that there is no way in club racing a car dangling something dangerous would continue on, due to not only common sense, but due to the rules also. And those same rules do apply in F1.

Incidentally, if you read the Kimi flat spotted tyre thread back when in the Nurburgring McLaren left Kimi out there and eventually the suspension failed, the vast majority in that thread supported McLaren (and Kimi's) decision to stay out there and try and win the race. I was outraged about that incident. I said the McLaren should have pulled him in within a couple of laps, and that if they had of done so, KR would have finished second. If they had of done it later, he'd have come fourth. But they left him out and he could of been killed. That was a case where Whiting presumed the team knew what to do. It was a team call since it was vibrating tyre. But eventually the carbon suspension broke. The car was legal though all the time, and if Whiting had of queried McLaren about the safety of their car and driver, then McLaren would I presume have said that Kimi wants to go on and that they felt the car should make it to the finish. But it was an outrageous decision - in my minority view - that McLaren left the car out there, with such severe vibration. I was incensed by their negligence back then, as it happened, and sure enough as I watched he crashed. But I doubt that was ever Whiting's call.

But with a trailing exhaust, I think the car posed a danger to others on the track due to the pipe eventually coming off, and therefor the car should have been brought in straight away and the car made safe for others on the track.

There is no doubt that a race car would fail scrutineering if presented with an 18 inch exhaust section pipe tethered by a feeble communications cable. It is not a matter of making the car up to be safe after the event. The unsafe issue was the pipe coming loose and being on the race track. Saying that a post race scrutineering repair would make it legal is incorrect - that would be like saying that a team could fill a car's holed oil tank back up with oil after it trailed all its oil over the track. Oil like a peace of metal on the track is a danger to other racers.

And of course, a race car with a pipe tethered with a communication's cable would be deemed a dangerous construction, and hence would fail scrutineering (rule 2.3). Stewards may apply rule 2.3 at any time too. :cool:

#318 Mat

Mat
  • Member

  • 7,674 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 29 June 2008 - 12:13

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
But I have also said that if Ferrari told Whiting that the trailing exhaust would stay on until their planned pitstop where it would be removed, then since it fell off before their pitstop, then I am saying that if Ferrari promised it would not fall off - then since it did fall off - Ferrari therefor broke the rules if that situation happened. The rule being that a car has to be legal at all times - and that while the damaged Ferrari was driving around with a trailing pipe the car posed a hazard to other cars when its pipe eventually fell off. Also the dangerous construction rule would apply if the car kept going around the track due the exhaust pipe being unsafely located.

So I am saying that if Ferrari promised the pipe was safely attached and would make their planned pitstop, since the pipe did fall off, before their car's pitstop happened, then I am saying Ferrari broke the rules.

If Whiting told Ferrari that he was happy for the car to continue on with the pipe dangling then I think Whiting broke the rules and thereby Ferrari cannot be accused.

Simple as that - which is why I look forward - as you do I presume - to the "transparent" FIA providing a race report on the incident.


You are just going around in circles MP. One thing to keep in mind MP is that a race official is a judge of fact. What that means is that if for example Charlie Whiting declares that the car is not dangerous and does not need to be shown the black/orange then that means the car is legal. Simple as that.

If he asked for the car to come in that would and the driver/team did not do that, then a rule would be broken.

If charlie decides not to show a black/orange flag then that means no rules have been broken because the race official (judge of fact) has decided that there is no danger and they are within their rights to continue.

It is one of those decisions that is borderline. Like what was said just a couple of posts above, there are arguments for and against getting kimi to come in for his exhaust. The thing broke off which could show that it was dangerous but it didnt hit anyone and the car still finished second so one could argue that the car was perfectly safe. The race official judged that a flag was not necassary so then no rules were broken. Very simple MP.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
The reason why I mentioned my racing issues, is that there is no way in club racing a car dangling something dangerous would continue on, due to not only common sense, but due to the rules also. And those same rules do apply in F1.

But with a trailing exhaust, I think the car posed a danger to others on the track due to the pipe eventually coming off, and therefor the car should have been brought in straight away and the car made safe for others on the track.

There is no doubt that a race car would fail scrutineering if presented with an 18 inch exhaust section pipe tethered by a feeble communications cable. It is not a matter of making the car up to be safe after the event. The unsafe issue was the pipe coming loose and being on the race track. Saying that a post race scrutineering repair would make it legal is incorrect - that would be like saying that a team could fill a car's holed oil tank back up with oil after it trailed all its oil over the track. Oil like a peace of metal on the track is a danger to other racers.

And of course, a race car with a pipe tethered with a communication's cable would be deemed a dangerous construction, and hence would fail scrutineering (rule 2.3). Stewards may apply rule 2.3 at any time too. :cool:


while it is a fundamental rule used amongst every motorsport series in the world, it is used differently by each series in their own way.

If you look at the precedents in F1, im sure you can agree that Race Control have usually (except for Melbourne 2003 with MS) erred on the side of the driver/team and not shown the black/orange flag.

#319 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 30 June 2008 - 01:17

Originally posted by Mat
You are just going around in circles MP. One thing to keep in mind MP is that a race official is a judge of fact. What that means is that if for example Charlie Whiting declares that the car is not dangerous and does not need to be shown the black/orange then that means the car is legal. Simple as that.

On what bazaar basis have you pulled that bureaucratic rabbit from? Whiting is not God - he is capable of error.

So now you are saying that Whiting thinks its safe to put an 18" piece of metal on the race track during a race?

Advertisement

#320 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,048 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 30 June 2008 - 02:31

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
On what bazaar basis have you pulled that bureaucratic rabbit from? Whiting is not God - he is capable of error.

So now you are saying that Whiting thinks its safe to put an 18" piece of metal on the race track during a race?


I read it to mean that appointed race control makes the judgment call, and if they do not declare a car dangerous / in need of a black / orange flag then the car can not later be called as infracting the rules.

Not a whole lot of mumbo jumbo, simply stating the facts as they occur during a race meeting. Yes race control makes poor calls on occasion, yes stewards impose penalties on occasion, which should have been made differently.

But once a call / penalty have been made / made, then the cars affected will be ruled legal / non legal on that basis. So pretty straight forward a comment on exactly what goes on in real life.

:cool:

#321 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 30 June 2008 - 05:08

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


I read it to mean that appointed race control makes the judgment call, and if they do not declare a car dangerous / in need of a black / orange flag then the car can not later be called as infracting the rules.

Not a whole lot of mumbo jumbo, simply stating the facts as they occur during a race meeting. Yes race control makes poor calls on occasion, yes stewards impose penalties on occasion, which should have been made differently.

But once a call / penalty have been made / made, then the cars affected will be ruled legal / non legal on that basis. So pretty straight forward a comment on exactly what goes on in real life.



:) That's why I described your view earlier: "One being the governance of the sport, which you accept as a fact of racing life I presume. ". Fair enough.

However, this thread is not about what happened - the thread topic is "Should Kimi have been Black Flagged for Loose exhaust ?". Obviously the black flag was not on - unless he had already been given the black and red. But that flag never appeared.

I think that a section of an exhaust pipe on a race track is dangerous. I have no idea what Whiting thinks about this issue, because I haven't read an official report.

If Whiting thinks it's 100% safe for a car to deposit a piece of metal 18" long on a race track, then I think he is not suitable to be a race director, at least not in Australia at a club meeting. If he thinks its not likely to be unsafe, then why the heck is he gambling with safety?

Still - we don't know yet due to the lack so far of an official report on the incident. I am curious about Whiting's decision, certainly.

#322 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,309 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 30 June 2008 - 05:24

If he thinks its not likely to be unsafe, then why the heck is he gambling with safety?


he left a piece of the Toro Rosso (I believe it was from the Toro Ross) on the track, but I don't see you complaining about that....

Just to get things straight - I think KR should have been shown the black and orange flag.

#323 Mat

Mat
  • Member

  • 7,674 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 01 July 2008 - 03:33

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
On what bazaar basis have you pulled that bureaucratic rabbit from? Whiting is not God - he is capable of error.

So now you are saying that Whiting thinks its safe to put an 18" piece of metal on the race track during a race?



Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


I read it to mean that appointed race control makes the judgment call, and if they do not declare a car dangerous / in need of a black / orange flag then the car can not later be called as infracting the rules.

Not a whole lot of mumbo jumbo, simply stating the facts as they occur during a race meeting. Yes race control makes poor calls on occasion, yes stewards impose penalties on occasion, which should have been made differently.

But once a call / penalty have been made / made, then the cars affected will be ruled legal / non legal on that basis. So pretty straight forward a comment on exactly what goes on in real life.

:cool:



Seems like KWSN understands my bazaar logic quite clearly.

Yes, Charlie is capable of making an error but it is HIS call on the matter. If he gets the call wrong then it is simply a wrong call, that doesnt make Kimi's car automatically illegal.

And since the ONLY precedent (within F1) that i can remember where a black/orange was used is MS in Melbourne 2003, and there are MANY precedents where a potentially 'dangerous' car has been left out on track id say Charlie made the correct call in following the rules and precedents of F1.

This is not some club day at Philip Island MP. Surely you can agree that the precedents show that Race Control are not keen on bringing cars in under the Black/Orange rule.

#324 PLAYLIFE

PLAYLIFE
  • Member

  • 894 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 01 July 2008 - 08:41

They don't give black w orange disc flags to cars that have half their noses broken or front wings hanging on by half a support, why would they give Kimi with his exhaust the black.orange flag?

Cars with damaged front wings sometimes continue on with the thing dangling for lap after lap if it doesn't slow them down too much (usually in the wet, like Monaco this year).

#325 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,234 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 01 July 2008 - 09:15

Originally posted by Mat

Seems like KWSN understands my bazaar logic quite clearly.

It's not bizarre logic, it makes perfect sense. When Charlie looks at something and thinks it's fine, then it is legal. If he doesn't, then it is illegal. You can call him on the decision if you like and launch an appeal.

Same argument, if you like, as for Ferrari's flexi floor.

#326 halr

halr
  • Member

  • 36 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 01 July 2008 - 10:16

Originally posted by PLAYLIFE
They don't give black w orange disc flags to cars that have half their noses broken or front wings hanging on by half a support, why would they give Kimi with his exhaust the black.orange flag?

Cars with damaged front wings sometimes continue on with the thing dangling for lap after lap if it doesn't slow them down too much (usually in the wet, like Monaco this year).


I think a red hot exhaust is more dangerous than a nosecone hanging off - as actually happended the pipe flew off into the air and as Ive said before it could easily have hit another driver, spectator or marshall
The chance of a wing flying through the air in the same manor is extremely remote without contact

#327 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 01 July 2008 - 12:26

Originally posted by Mat

Yes, Charlie is capable of making an error but it is HIS call on the matter. If he gets the call wrong then it is simply a wrong call, that doesnt make Kimi's car automatically illegal.

And since the ONLY precedent (within F1) that i can remember where a black/orange was used is MS in Melbourne 2003, and there are MANY precedents where a potentially 'dangerous' car has been left out on track id say Charlie made the correct call in following the rules and precedents of F1.

This is not some club day at Philip Island MP. Surely you can agree that the precedents show that Race Control are not keen on bringing cars in under the Black/Orange rule.


I don't know about how keen they are - you are presuming they are IMO. I don't know what Whiting thought in Magni - I've yet to read what he thought. There should be a report on what happened - but there hasn't been as yet, as far as I know anyway.

Following your post PLAYLIFE makes the point that cars often drive around with bits of wings broken and hanging off their cars, and that they have not been called in. However in the most cases IMO, cars come in straight away if its repairable. And there is a difference between a piece of composite and a steel pipe. It would be good to read what the FIA think about these issues though, would it not?

As to precedents, only this year, Red Bull had a call on their suspension arms under rule 2.3 - dangerous constructions (their track rod failures which occurred as part of an accident). There are lots of things which happen to do with safety - we don't see when things are questioned and then changed.

But I did not write the rules Mat. I'd appreciate it if you remembered, that its improper in modern society, to shoot the messenger. The rules say that a car has to be legal for the whole race. If I were Toyota, I'd have protested the car after the race. Since it contravened the rules, why should it parade around, and risk the cars behind it?

As to Philip Island - :up: :clap: . I saw one of my old F5000s there only a couple of months ago. And all those magnificent F5000s, and old Ferrari F1 car and a Benneton too - over 20 cars easily - they had a flying start that was totally awesome! :up: :clap: Sure if they had a loose exhaust, they'd come in straight away. But a dead person is the same in Philip Island as in F1. OK we know the F1 cars are invincible. But Whiting cannot change reality - he can only permit a dangerous vehicle. That makes him culpable - it does NOT make the car a safe construction.

But we also do NOT know if Whiting even gave an opinion. For all I know, he never gave an opinion. For all I know, some Stewards told him what was going on too, with a recommendation to bring the car in. And he then decided against their recommendation. We so far, do not know what happened. But if he made no decision, then it was Ferrari's obligation to bring the car in - just as it was Hamilton's obligation to let Vettel back past when he improperly overtook him. Afterall - the rule is the rule. And those rules exist. Just because Whiting picks on one rule, and not another, does not mean that the rule is being followed.

If I accept Mat that the precedent you claim is true, then the rule itself should be changed. Precedent is no excuse for not following the rules. What right has Whiting got, to choose to follow some rules, and ignore others?

#328 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 01 July 2008 - 12:47

Arguments: if... if... if.. if ...
Answer: NO

If my granny was a man ....


:

#329 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,234 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 01 July 2008 - 13:09

Originally posted by Dragonfly

If my granny was a man ....

You wouldn't be posting here but on a therapy forum?

#330 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,048 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 01 July 2008 - 14:17

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


I don't know about how keen they are - you are presuming they are IMO. I don't know what Whiting thought in Magni - I've yet to read what he thought. There should be a report on what happened - but there hasn't been as yet, as far as I know anyway.

Following your post PLAYLIFE makes the point that cars often drive around with bits of wings broken and hanging off their cars, and that they have not been called in. However in the most cases IMO, cars come in straight away if its repairable. And there is a difference between a piece of composite and a steel pipe. It would be good to read what the FIA think about these issues though, would it not?

As to precedents, only this year, Red Bull had a call on their suspension arms under rule 2.3 - dangerous constructions (their track rod failures which occurred as part of an accident). There are lots of things which happen to do with safety - we don't see when things are questioned and then changed.

But I did not write the rules Mat. I'd appreciate it if you remembered, that its improper in modern society, to shoot the messenger. The rules say that a car has to be legal for the whole race. If I were Toyota, I'd have protested the car after the race. Since it contravened the rules, why should it parade around, and risk the cars behind it?

As to Philip Island - :up: :clap: . I saw one of my old F5000s there only a couple of months ago. And all those magnificent F5000s, and old Ferrari F1 car and a Benneton too - over 20 cars easily - they had a flying start that was totally awesome! :up: :clap: Sure if they had a loose exhaust, they'd come in straight away. But a dead person is the same in Philip Island as in F1. OK we know the F1 cars are invincible. But Whiting cannot change reality - he can only permit a dangerous vehicle. That makes him culpable - it does NOT make the car a safe construction.

But we also do NOT know if Whiting even gave an opinion. For all I know, he never gave an opinion. For all I know, some Stewards told him what was going on too, with a recommendation to bring the car in. And he then decided against their recommendation. We so far, do not know what happened. But if he made no decision, then it was Ferrari's obligation to bring the car in - just as it was Hamilton's obligation to let Vettel back past when he improperly overtook him. Afterall - the rule is the rule. And those rules exist. Just because Whiting picks on one rule, and not another, does not mean that the rule is being followed.

If I accept Mat that the precedent you claim is true, then the rule itself should be changed. Precedent is no excuse for not following the rules. What right has Whiting got, to choose to follow some rules, and ignore others?


But the car was NEVER not legal.

You have many fine points and observations, but you simply do not read and apply the rules as they are written.

Kimi's car were not illegal at any time during the French Grand Prix.

Which would be why there have been zero rumblings or comments from any team after the race stating so.

:cool:

#331 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 01 July 2008 - 22:09

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
But the car was NEVER not legal.

You have many fine points and observations, but you simply do not read and apply the rules as they are written.

Kimi's car were not illegal at any time during the French Grand Prix.


Thanks for you're always being polite and positive! :blush: Much appreciated.

Besides the need to read what actually happened - to know what Whiting decided - I think there is a distinction between between being allowed to race - hence "legal" - and what an actual legal car is. IMO if the rules are not being followed, then the car might not be strictly legal. And it seems, that if the Race Director intervenes, then a dubious car can be interpreted by him as being able to race - and is henceforth not able to be excluded from the race.

Does that make it legal though if it contravenes the rules?

Lets just consider RBR this year. RBR had two front suspension - track rod failures - due to curb crashing. It looked like the track rods might have collapsed under normal racing conditions. The RBR4s were then investigated by the Stewards, before the next race, under rule 2.3, dangerous construction. The cars however passed the investigation.

The interesting thing though, is that if the car had of been failed, then should Mark Webber's points have been counted? He finished the races OK, but if his car had of been found to have a dangerous construction, then it would have been illegal in the previous race surely? And what if DC had of had an extremely serious accident in car found to have been illegal? I needn't point out, that having a lightweight front suspension lowers the unsprung mass, thereby improving the suspension characteristics, and also lowers the polar moment of inertia, thereby improving turning response. And it would also improve ballast turning. So if a car is made too light, the car benefits, but too light also means dangerous in this hypothetical case.

So getting back, if the RBR4 had of been found to have a dangerous construction, do we think that Mark Webber should have lost his positions for the time the car was carrying a dangerous construction? And by the way, I am a Mark Webber fan - but the rules are the rules aren't they?

And getting back to Magny, what if the Race Director washed his hands of the state of the red car, and did not make a decision? So far, there has been no evidence that Whiting did anything regarding the cars. What if the Stewards informed Whiting about a car with a pipe flapping about, and he did not respond to the Stewards? And what if no one asked to have the car come in, and Whiting himself simply did not know about it? Or he simply did nothing? If the race director does not act at all, then should the rules still stand? Because afterall there are rules there. IMO they are quite clear rules, but I may be wrong. And if the Race Director is choosing not to apply them, shouldn't the teams be informed of that, in writing? And if that happened, shouldn't then the rules could be changed?

The most obvious area where people have claimed I am wrong is that cars with dangerous constructions actually do return to the pits - but when they do, IMO they go straight to the pits, and although on the race track itself, they are hardly racing. Also, if they are trailing bits of carbon that might come off, and they do go lap after lap - shouldn't the rules be applied anyway? Just because Whiting doesn't bring them in, does not mean that Whiting is following the rules. It does appear though that he has the authority to override the rules - but how safe is that? How right is that?

#332 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,048 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 01 July 2008 - 23:17

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Thanks for you're always being polite and positive! :blush: Much appreciated.

Besides the need to read what actually happened - to know what Whiting decided - I think there is a distinction between between being allowed to race - hence "legal" - and what an actual legal car is. IMO if the rules are not being followed, then the car might not be strictly legal. And it seems, that if the Race Director intervenes, then a dubious car can be interpreted by him as being able to race - and is henceforth not able to be excluded from the race.

Does that make it legal though if it contravenes the rules?

Lets just consider RBR this year. RBR had two front suspension - track rod failures - due to curb crashing. It looked like the track rods might have collapsed under normal racing conditions. The RBR4s were then investigated by the Stewards, before the next race, under rule 2.3, dangerous construction. The cars however passed the investigation.

The interesting thing though, is that if the car had of been failed, then should Mark Webber's points have been counted? He finished the races OK, but if his car had of been found to have a dangerous construction, then it would have been illegal in the previous race surely? And what if DC had of had an extremely serious accident in car found to have been illegal? I needn't point out, that having a lightweight front suspension lowers the unsprung mass, thereby improving the suspension characteristics, and also lowers the polar moment of inertia, thereby improving turning response. And it would also improve ballast turning. So if a car is made too light, the car benefits, but too light also means dangerous in this hypothetical case.

So getting back, if the RBR4 had of been found to have a dangerous construction, do we think that Mark Webber should have lost his positions for the time the car was carrying a dangerous construction? And by the way, I am a Mark Webber fan - but the rules are the rules aren't they?

And getting back to Magny, what if the Race Director washed his hands of the state of the red car, and did not make a decision? So far, there has been no evidence that Whiting did anything regarding the cars. What if the Stewards informed Whiting about a car with a pipe flapping about, and he did not respond to the Stewards? And what if no one asked to have the car come in, and Whiting himself simply did not know about it? Or he simply did nothing? If the race director does not act at all, then should the rules still stand? Because afterall there are rules there. IMO they are quite clear rules, but I may be wrong. And if the Race Director is choosing not to apply them, shouldn't the teams be informed of that, in writing? And if that happened, shouldn't then the rules could be changed?

The most obvious area where people have claimed I am wrong is that cars with dangerous constructions actually do return to the pits - but when they do, IMO they go straight to the pits, and although on the race track itself, they are hardly racing. Also, if they are trailing bits of carbon that might come off, and they do go lap after lap - shouldn't the rules be applied anyway? Just because Whiting doesn't bring them in, does not mean that Whiting is following the rules. It does appear though that he has the authority to override the rules - but how safe is that? How right is that?


If the Red Bulls had been found not safe according to the rules, Red Bull would have been given the chance to alter the front suspension, and present that for approval. Had they not been able to do so, they would not have been allowed to race.

Either of the 3 scenarios:

1) Found not in breach.
2) Found in breach and fixed.
3) Found in breach and unable to fix.

Are clearly covered by the rules, and was acted on according to the rules.

Kimi's exhaust simply NEVER fall under that rule. It is an accidental damage during a race, of an already scrutenized car, with no lillegal parts.

The rule that Kimi's car would be juged at was the accidental damage scruteneering rule, and that would simply never make the car illegal.

Calling him in via a black / orange flag or not was never a question of a legal / illegal car, it was a question of the car being dangerous in a manner race control approved of or not.

You are trying to read legality in to part of the race / race meeting which simply does not follow as parallels.

Simple fact Kimi's car was never illegal at any time during the France Grand Prix.

I appreciate that you do not approve of the governance of F1, however that does not mean that the sport should be judged / controlled by your view.

The sport is handled very well by the stewards, race control and FIA, by letting the sport play out against the back drop of the rules in place.

:cool:

#333 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,490 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 02 July 2008 - 00:03

No he shouldnt. That pipe was less of a risk then the stones or carbon fibre flying when Sato drives off.

#334 Mat

Mat
  • Member

  • 7,674 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 02 July 2008 - 03:13

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
But I did not write the rules Mat. I'd appreciate it if you remembered, that its improper in modern society, to shoot the messenger. The rules say that a car has to be legal for the whole race. If I were Toyota, I'd have protested the car after the race. Since it contravened the rules, why should it parade around, and risk the cars behind it?


No you did not right the rules, but you have issue with how they are applied. We are all here trying to politely explain to you how in fact they have been applied correctly and/or consistantly.


Originally posted by Melbourne Park
If I accept Mat that the precedent you claim is true, then the rule itself should be changed. Precedent is no excuse for not following the rules. What right has Whiting got, to choose to follow some rules, and ignore others?


I dont necassarily think that rule should be changed. It is there for a reason (see BAR fuel cell incident as an example).

The precedent sets the rule, it doesnt by-pass it. Whiting is following precedents and the rules, he is not ignoring any of the rules.

Umpires can make a wrong call all the time, it happens in every sport throughout the world, i think F1 does a better job then many other sports out there.

#335 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 02 July 2008 - 04:38

Originally posted by Mat
No you did not right the rules, but you have issue with how they are applied. We are all here trying to politely explain to you how in fact they have been applied correctly and/or consistantly.

I dont necassarily think that rule should be changed. It is there for a reason (see BAR fuel cell incident as an example).

The precedent sets the rule, it doesnt by-pass it. Whiting is following precedents and the rules, he is not ignoring any of the rules.

Umpires can make a wrong call all the time, it happens in every sport throughout the world, i think F1 does a better job then many other sports out there.

Not applying a rule is not a small issue. It doesn't worry you though - since you don't even sem to have an opinion: "I dont necassarily think that rule should be changed.".

You say "No you did not right the rules" - well maybe they they can be righted though? Afterall the rules have been written for reasons. If the rule 2.4 " Compliance with the regulations " was written just for weight only, then it would have stipulated just that.

Its inane to suggest that rules which are there won't be applied because they have not been applied before. That means no new rules should be written. Go back over F1 history, and rules have been pulled out and applied that have not been seen before.

Furthermore the rules are supposed to be above the administration of them. Certainly some of their application - or lack of application - does now seem to be effected by the Race Director and his advisors. That is a political issue, which also should not have impinged upon F1. Consider the case last year with McLaren, when Hamilton promised to take care of the pack when leading behind the SC, and when he broke the 5 car length rule and caused accidents behind him, they retrospectively changed the rule to 10 car lengths. But they did not investigate the fact that Hamilton had been more than actually 10 car lengths behind the SC in that Fuji race. So they re-wrote the rule, but they did not apply either the old rule, or the new rule to the Fuji race. Only political reasons can explain such lack of application.

Certainly the application of the rules is an issue - but that does not in prevent the rules being applied. Most of the time they are - the Ferrari exhaust pipe was case - a rare one - where they were not. The reason overall that the rules sometimes are not followed is likely due to political effects. That is why when at times a team speaks out against a rules related issue, the next day clarifying comments come out of the team, "explaining" the previous remarks so that it becomes politically correct and does not impinge upon the governance of F1 racing.

Teams rarely protest issues - instead they use political processes. Last year with SpyGate teams came out in public, but that is not the usual way things work in F1. And precedent mean't nothing then - spying and using others IP has been part of F1 since it started. And it still is. Look at Renault's J damper this year for instance. Teams "have words" and then things happen. Such was the famous example with Renault's TMD. Ferrari's floor was supposed to have been a quiet word. So too with Honda's fuel. And many thought the TMD not being allowed was outrageous, due to other elements on cars also having aero effects. Such as the J damper itself does.

Bottom line is, the administration of F1 is cosy club. But its tough to have a quite word about what is happening on race day. Politics says - keep quiet about it. Too often with F1 the rules are used in an Ad Hoc manner. Such as suggesting that tyre width measurement should be applied to tyres after the race. The precedent was to measure them before the race - in fact only in 2003, and only for a short time - was tyre width measured after the race. So precident means squat with the rules, if the rule is there in print. Same too with the TMD's aero effect ruling - and yes, there was a rule in there about aero afterall.

But when the political application of rules effects basic safety, then that is just plain wrong.

#336 Mat

Mat
  • Member

  • 7,674 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 02 July 2008 - 05:01

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Not applying a rule is not a small issue. It doesn't worry you though - since you don't even sem to have an opinion: "I dont necassarily think that rule should be changed.".


1. Tell me where i use the words 'small issue'
2. how do you get 'you don't even sem to have an opinion' out of 'I dont necassarily think that rule should be changed'?

The rest is going over the same old ground.

#337 Mat

Mat
  • Member

  • 7,674 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 02 July 2008 - 05:03

P.S. I have always maintained that the race officials ****ed up in Fuji last year. Hamilton should have been penalised for his shit SC driving.

#338 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 02 July 2008 - 05:07

Originally posted by Mat


1. Tell me where i use the words 'small issue'
2. how do you get 'you don't even sem to have an opinion' out of 'I dont necassarily think that rule should be changed'?

The rest is going over the same old ground.


1. You didn't.
2. You did not refer to any particular rule, so I read it that you were talking overall.

As to old ground, these issues are happening now. It was you who brought up application of the rules. And its just as current an issue as an old one - we saw it at Magny Cores either the Race Director declare the car safe, or the Race Director did nothing, or Ferrari break the rule, or we saw that being able to race an F1 car trailing a piece of metal alloy pipe attached with a lambda sensor communication cable is legal.

Now - imagine if McLaren turn up to scrutineering at the Silverstone with an 18" section of exhaust attached to their car by a lambda sensor cable - no doubt you would think it would pass? If not, what then?

Or what happens if McLaren turn up to scrutineering at the last race - Brazil I think - with an 18" section of exhaust attached to their car by a lambda sensor cable, and the stewards request that its removed, and the teams and drivers are only a couple of points apart? What then?






#339 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,309 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 02 July 2008 - 05:30

Ferrari didn't turn up to the race with the peice dangling though did they........ :| :|

Advertisement

#340 Mat

Mat
  • Member

  • 7,674 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 02 July 2008 - 05:31

Originally posted by Melbourne Park

1. You didn't.


Well there you go. i think not applying a rule is a big issue. IMO However the only time in the last 12 months a rule has not been applied correctly is Lewis in fuji last year. I still have an issue with that one. But i am willing to accept the one bad call over the numerous good ones.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
2. You did not refer to any particular rule, so I read it that you were talking overall.


'I dont necassarily think that rule should be changed' I would have thought 'that rule' in bolded sentence would imply that i was talking about that rule we have been discussing over the previous 2 pages. You know, that rule, Duty of Competitor. :confused:


Originally posted by Melbourne Park
As to old ground, these issues are happening now. It was you who brought up application of the rules. And its just as current an issue as an old one - we saw it at Magny Cores either the Race Director declare the car safe, or the Race Director did nothing, or Ferrari break the rule, or we saw that being able to race an F1 car trailing a piece of metal alloy pipe attached with a lambda sensor communication cable is legal.


When im talking about old ground im talking about this thread mate. We are going over old ground in the sense that i have stated my opinion and explained, you have done the same. Old ground is our posts. back and forth and back again.

I brought up application of the rules because im trying to explain to you, that if you look at how the rules are applied, then nothing was done wrong. This is where you disagree. Hence 'old ground'.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Now - imagine if McLaren turn up to scrutineering at the Silverstone with an 18" section of exhaust attached to their car by a lambda sensor cable - no doubt you would think it would pass? If not, what then?


If any team turned up to Scrutiny on Thursday before Silverstone with an exhaust hanging loose then i would expect it to be rejected and request to resubmit once fixed.

If any team turned up to post race scrutiny on Sunday after the Silverstone with an exhaust hanging loose from accidental damage then i would expect it to pass Scrutiny.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Or what happens if McLaren turn up to scrutineering at the last race - Brazil I think - with an 18" section of exhaust attached to their car by a lambda sensor cable they do so in the last race of the championship, and the teams and drivers are only a couple of points apart?


Like i said above, if it is before the race id imagine it would get rejected. Either way, McLaren would be pretty bloody stupid to do that since it would be a huge performance disadvantage.

#341 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 02 July 2008 - 19:10

Originally posted by Buttoneer
You wouldn't be posting here but on a therapy forum?

In fact it may come to be of higher quality than this one with so many hysterical threads recenty.

Once upon a time when a driver managed to finish a race with a damaged car, not to speak about podium finish, he was hailed as a hero.

#342 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,048 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 02 July 2008 - 20:18

Originally posted by Dragonfly

In fact it may come to be of higher quality than this one with so many hysterical threads recenty.


This is not new, we have always been hysterical here, and all other BB's I go to.

No difference, only which driver is the flavour of the month and which is the designated villain.

:cool:

#343 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,057 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 02 July 2008 - 21:26

But this thread doesn't villify any driver? :confused:

Whiting, FIA, Ferrari (and some few mentions of McLaren and Nürburgring). But not Kimi. Or did I miss something.

#344 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,048 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 03 July 2008 - 00:51

Originally posted by jcbc3
But this thread doesn't villify any driver? :confused:

Whiting, FIA, Ferrari (and some few mentions of McLaren and Nürburgring). But not Kimi. Or did I miss something.


Maybe I did, there is 17 pages. Must be a slight at least towards one driver somewhere.

If not I will post one.

:cool:

#345 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,852 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 July 2008 - 08:14

I don't think he should have been black flagged but considering that the FIA have handed McLaren FOUR separate penalites since Mosley 'repurchased' control of the FIA, there is some reason to believe that a McLaren might have been black flagged for the same offence.

#346 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,072 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 04 July 2008 - 02:47

Originally posted by Rinehart
I don't think he should have been black flagged but considering that the FIA have handed McLaren FOUR separate penalites since Mosley 'repurchased' control of the FIA, there is some reason to believe that a McLaren might have been black flagged for the same offence.


There is now a precedent that a car trailing potential debris won't be able to be given a black and red flag, otherwise it would be proof positive that things are not equal. So its now legal to have a car trailing something that will likely come off and be dangerous to other cars.

Last year, the Red Bull RBR3 had some races with its fuel flap open. By not calling the car in to have it fixed, there was a precedent created. This year a rule appeared, rule 6.5.2: " A cover must be fitted over the car connector at all times when the car is running on the track. The cover and its attachments must be sufficiently strong to avoid accidental opening in the event of an accident. "

By not acting on Red Bull last year, another rule had to be put in place.

I wonder how the rules guys will handle this issue? I feel that the like of insurers etc. would not agree that cars that are likely to drop debris onto the race track should be allowed to stay on the track as they please. F1 is a strange business at times.




#347 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,048 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 04 July 2008 - 08:11

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


There is now a precedent that a car trailing potential debris won't be able to be given a black and red flag, otherwise it would be proof positive that things are not equal. So its now legal to have a car trailing something that will likely come off and be dangerous to other cars. - There is no such precedent. There is a precedent that a car with a loose exhaust hanging on by a lampda sensor wire will not be given a black and orange flag. Which is something very different from what you try to imply. Since your stance on 'governance' is as deep as you say, then that should be obvious. The rules will be applied equally for equal situations, this is what you have posted for the past 19 pages, why change now?

Last year, the Red Bull RBR3 had some races with its fuel flap open. By not calling the car in to have it fixed, there was a precedent created. This year a rule appeared, rule 6.5.2: " A cover must be fitted over the car connector at all times when the car is running on the track. The cover and its attachments must be sufficiently strong to avoid accidental opening in the event of an accident. " - Yes and? How many cars have you seen being called in for that particular offense?

By not acting on Red Bull last year, another rule had to be put in place. - But it was not, this seem to me once more being a case of race control making a deliberate decision, there are open fuel flaps, and there are open fuel flaps. The Red Bulls last season were not the first F1 cars to be racing with the flap open, I think Button and Honda did as well, if not last season, then the prior.[/b/]

I wonder how the rules guys will handle this issue? I feel that the like of insurers etc. would not agree that cars that are likely to drop debris onto the race track should be allowed to stay on the track as they please. F1 is a strange business at times. - [b]The 'rules guys' will handle it as they have been handling it, write rules that call for penalties / flags for certain occurences, while letting race control make the sensible call during racing, so no driver or team is punished for something which is not an issue.

Yes I still accept the rules and calls by race control. Sometimes I may not agree with them, that however does not mean I see a need to re-write perfectly good and well enforced rules.

:cool: