Jump to content


Photo

Raikkonen must get a penalty for engine change


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#1 osoul

osoul
  • Member

  • 61 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 23 June 2008 - 08:59

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/68581

It seems Kimi Raikkonen will have to change his engine for the next race. Bad luck, but penalty is deserved. Because this is NOT the first engine change for him this year. In Melbourne he scored a WDC point and was classified, but he had to change engine for the next race.

Advertisement

#2 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,450 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:04

Why - He's driving a Ferrari.........................................

#3 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 1,243 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:06

Originally posted by osoul
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/68581

It seems Kimi Raikkonen will have to change his engine for the next race. Bad luck, but penalty is deserved. Because this is NOT the first engine change for him this year. In Melbourne he scored a WDC point and was classified, but he had to change engine for the next race.


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Jeson Button's Honda blew up before the line one year in Melbourne, and he parked it before the line but was also classified. What happened there?

#4 Lazy Prodigy

Lazy Prodigy
  • Member

  • 2,452 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:07

Autosport.com and several other websites say he wont have a penalty but you say he is going to get one?

#5 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,076 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:11

It doesn't matter really, because it's Ferrari we're about to enter a parallel universe of 'discussion'

#6 Tigershark

Tigershark
  • Member

  • 996 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:12

Originally posted by osoul
It seems Kimi Raikkonen will have to change his engine for the next race. Bad luck, but penalty is deserved. Because this is NOT the first engine change for him this year. In Melbourne he scored a WDC point and was classified, but he had to change engine for the next race.

Exactly where during the opening round of this season did Kimi Raikkonen pass the finish flag after race winner Lewis Hamilton had completed his last lap?

He didn't? :eek:

Now, let's look at the sporting regulations:

28.4 a) Any driver who failed to finish the race at the first of the two Events for reasons which the technical delegate accepts as being beyond the control of the team or driver, may start the second with a different engine without a penalty being incurred.


Kimi gets no penalty.

#7 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:12

It doesn't matter if he scored a point in Australia, the fact of the matter is that he _retired_ from the race. Doesn't matter if he is still classified with a position for the purposes of a retirement.

So there will be no penalty.

#8 osoul

osoul
  • Member

  • 61 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:20

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
It doesn't matter really, because it's Ferrari we're about to enter a parallel universe of 'discussion'


Oh, I get it. :rolleyes:

Scoring point and changing freely engine, that's the rule for Ferrari.

#9 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,739 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:22

has it been different for any other team?

#10 Tigershark

Tigershark
  • Member

  • 996 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:24

There is a distinct and obvious difference between finishing a race and being classified and the sporting regulations on engine changes are quite well described on FIA.com.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem this thread was actually created to clarify the situation. :down:

#11 bond

bond
  • Member

  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:27

This year the teams get to change 1 engine without penalty.

#12 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,239 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:43

Reading that article the thing that concerns me more is their attitude regarding not removing the broken exhaust at the pit stop.

#13 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,090 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:46

1)
I understand the rule. There will, and should not, be a penalty.



2)
Is this really what FIA intended when they wrote the rule? It seems silly to me you can retire and get a free engine change when you also score point(s). I would think it ought to be one or the other. Not both.

#14 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,090 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:48

Originally posted by Clatter
Reading that article the thing that concerns me more is their attitude regarding not removing the broken exhaust at the pit stop.


I think most, including most Ferrari fans, agree that the stewards blew that call comprehensively.

We must also acknowledge that the attitude displayed by Ferrari yesterday is no different from the attitude of McLaren in 2005 on Nürburgring. In both instances they prayed the car would stay in one piece and the driver were in both instances aware of the danger to his car.

#15 Bernd Rosemeyer

Bernd Rosemeyer
  • Member

  • 1,296 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:50

No penalty, one change is for free. But should he suffered another one during the season, a penalty will be aplied.

#16 stormshadow

stormshadow
  • Member

  • 508 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:54

Mclaren, their drivers & their fans are having a really really problem understanding/interpretting the rules of late :drunk:

Yeah......go ahead and say it: FIA are letting Ferrari bend the rules again - it'll make ya'll feel better :kiss:

#17 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,076 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:56

Originally posted by jcbc3


I think most, including most Ferrari fans, agree that the stewards blew that call comprehensively.


I think they made the right (non)call. The piece in question was not a 'loaded' part of the car where failure would harm the car driver or other competitors. In fact the piece was already broken.

It wasn't affecting anything other than the performance in lap time of the car. It wasn't dangerously slow, it wasn't leaking, it wasn't unsafe, nothing was dragging on the race track.

And finally, though a very small justification; no one else was around him and at any risk.

#18 mursuka80

mursuka80
  • Member

  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:01

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
It doesn't matter really, because it's Ferrari we're about to enter a parallel universe of 'discussion'


:rotfl: :up:

#19 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,239 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:03

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


I think they made the right (non)call. The piece in question was not a 'loaded' part of the car where failure would harm the car driver or other competitors. In fact the piece was already broken.

It wasn't affecting anything other than the performance in lap time of the car. It wasn't dangerously slow, it wasn't leaking, it wasn't unsafe, nothing was dragging on the race track.

And finally, though a very small justification; no one else was around him and at any risk.


Totally disagree. When the exhaust first broke there was a car following close behind (think it was a lapped car) plus plenty of track workers and I'm sure in some places spectators in easy range of where it could have landed. The exhaust could have flown off at any time and in any direction it was the equivalent of a loaded gun.

Advertisement

#20 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,090 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:05

I said most, not all. I am not surprised you are on the side you are. But that's all good.


Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


I think they made the right (non)call. The piece in question was not a 'loaded' part of the car where failure would harm the car driver or other competitors. In fact the piece was already broken.

The lambda chord was not broken. You can not with a straight face say that the exhaust when it broke of was not a danger. Since I assume you saw what happened

It wasn't affecting anything other than the performance in lap time of the car. It wasn't dangerously slow, it wasn't leaking, it wasn't unsafe, nothing was dragging on the race track.

It was unsafe in as much as when it broke it flew uncontrollably away from the car. Neither the stewards, Ferrari or you could have any way of knowing if the failure would happen in a turn where it landed safely in the gravel, on a straight with a car behind (Bourdais was following Kimi closely when we first saw it on tv) or entering the pits with mechanics being centrimetres away from the car

And finally, though a very small justification; no one else was around him and at any risk. Bourdais was at first, Massa when he overtook for the lead.



#21 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,076 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:06

No, it's a thin metallic tube that's bolted to a car. It's not springloaded or under pressure. It 'flew off' because of windspeed/aerodynamics. If it had fallen off in the pits it would have had all of the energy of 50mph or whatever the pit speed limit is.

Have you been to an F1 track? You'd be disappointed at how far you have to sit from the cars.

#22 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:07

The rules are quite clear and the same for everyone,

No Penalty....

#23 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,090 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:08

Are you an accredited photographer that sits trackside, Ross?

Asking to get your perspective, since these are often very close to the action.

#24 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,076 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:08

No I don't take photos. I could ask our guys, but I doubt they were cowering in fear. Most of them seemed to be busy taking photos of the car.

#25 mursuka80

mursuka80
  • Member

  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:09

Useless thread again :down: Read the ****ing F1 rules and then post :wave:

#26 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,090 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:11

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
No I don't take photos. I could ask our guys, but I doubt they were cowering in fear. Most of them seemed to be busy taking photos of the car.



And now I should post the Youtube clip where a cameraman is filming his own death as an out of control car hurtles towards him, while he is 'busy taking photos'?

#27 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,076 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:12

If it took place in a Grand Prix within the last ten years or so caused by a mechanical failure, go for it.

#28 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,239 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:23

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
No, it's a thin metallic tube that's bolted to a car. It's not springloaded or under pressure. It 'flew off' because of windspeed/aerodynamics. If it had fallen off in the pits it would have had all of the energy of 50mph or whatever the pit speed limit is.

Have you been to an F1 track? You'd be disappointed at how far you have to sit from the cars.


Bolted on? It was hanging on by the a single wire, thats why it was flapping around so much. It didnt fly off just because of wind pressure, when it finally went it was on a corner and would have been traveling at least the same speed as the car, and possibly faster due to the slingshot effect. The ends of the pipe are no doubt relatively sharp, especially where it had broken. Much smaller pieces of shrapnel have proven fatal, and if it fallen off towards a following car the closing speed could have been well over 100mph. This was an obviously unnecessary risk to have allowed to continue. IMHO the stewards should have called the car in to get the broken piece removed, but at the very least it should have been sorted at the pitstop. I think they dropped the ball here.

Yep I've been to an F1 track, and know that for most of the track the spectators are a long way from the track. I also know that in some places you can be very close to the track (certainly true at Silverstone) and that a piece like that could go a long way.

#29 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,076 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:32

Originally posted by Clatter

when it finally went it was on a corner and would have been traveling at least the same speed as the car, and possibly faster due to the slingshot effect.




:confused: :lol:


Don't tell me, when cars hit wet grass they speed up?

#30 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,504 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:37

Originally posted by osoul
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/68581

It seems Kimi Raikkonen will have to change his engine for the next race. Bad luck, but penalty is deserved. Because this is NOT the first engine change for him this year. In Melbourne he scored a WDC point and was classified, but he had to change engine for the next race.

Cry me a river. Rules are rules.

#31 mursuka80

mursuka80
  • Member

  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:43

Originally posted by micra_k10

Cry me a river. Rules are rules.


I get the impression that kimi is new schumi in that way that everybody wants to punish him for everything he/ferrari does :lol:

#32 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,090 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:46

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
If it took place in a Grand Prix within the last ten years or so caused by a mechanical failure, go for it.



:confused:

Are you saying that because it hasn't happened in GP racing etc., it can't have any relevance? If so, you must really be hating Max's push for a safer sport. To think you can learn something from other branches of the sport? Perish the thought!

#33 Mark A

Mark A
  • Member

  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:46

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


I think they made the right (non)call. The piece in question was not a 'loaded' part of the car where failure would harm the car driver or other competitors. In fact the piece was already broken.

It wasn't affecting anything other than the performance in lap time of the car. It wasn't dangerously slow, it wasn't leaking, it wasn't unsafe, nothing was dragging on the race track.

And finally, though a very small justification; no one else was around him and at any risk.


Sorry but that is all totally wrong.

There were other competitors around him when the part was loose, Massa went past for starters, never mind all the cars he lapped.

2ndly, if it flew off on the approach to the Adelaide hairpin when they are travelling at 180mph + and it hits a following drivers helmet, that driver is dead!

There is no way of knowing when or how it would break free. Anyone with any engineering knowledge would know that a metal part hanging off a wire being buffeted in the wind at 200mph will eventually break the wire and fly off the car.

It would have been simple for them to have cut the wire and removed the remains of the exhaust at the pit stop. As they didn't the FIA stewards should have made them do so with an additional pitstop.

#34 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,076 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:47

No I just wanted to cut you off before you posted amateur footage from youtube of someone crashing a car into a hay bale in a rally or somethin.

#35 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,090 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:50

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
No I just wanted to cut you off before you posted amateur footage from youtube of someone crashing a car into a hay bale in a rally or somethin.



It was a rhetorical question in fact. I wouldn't dream of putting you off your breakfast.

#36 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,076 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:51

I'm pretty chilled about this actually. It's you guys that seem to think the exhaust was going to turn into a ninja star if the wind shifted.

#37 Beyond

Beyond
  • Member

  • 371 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:56

A lot of Hamilton-Raikkonen threads this year, and none of any interest :smoking:

#38 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,504 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:59

Originally posted by mursuka80
I get the impression that kimi is new schumi in that way that everybody wants to punish him for everything he/ferrari does :lol:

Give him any penalty, even if he did nothing wrong.

#39 mursuka80

mursuka80
  • Member

  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 23 June 2008 - 11:09

Originally posted by micra_k10

Give him any penalty, even if he did nothing wrong.


And this year kimi gets the Alonso hate from Mclada fans :up:

Advertisement

#40 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,450 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 23 June 2008 - 11:16

Originally posted by Tigershark
There is a distinct and obvious difference between finishing a race and being classified and the sporting regulations on engine changes are quite well described on FIA.com.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem this thread was actually created to clarify the situation. :down:


No, it was created to wind up Ferrari/McLaren fans and set them running.............................

#41 Two Jags

Two Jags
  • Member

  • 75 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 23 June 2008 - 11:28

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld




:confused: :lol:


Don't tell me, when cars hit wet grass they speed up?




:lol: Don't tell my (massively overpaid yet massively dim) boss that - he already believes the one that if an elevator cable snaps & the lift falls to the ground, you can survive by 'simply' jumping in the air just before it hits the ground.

#42 y2cragie

y2cragie
  • Member

  • 271 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 23 June 2008 - 11:33

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I'm pretty chilled about this actually. It's you guys that seem to think the exhaust was going to turn into a ninja star if the wind shifted.

To be fair Ross, while I understand where your coming from, the trackside officials, marshalls and photographers are in danger if that piece flys off at them. Marshalls and officials generally are required to focus on one part of the track so they can react to an accident or incident immediately, sections of the track in france for instance loop round so they have their backs to fast parts of the track. They have to know that they are as safe as possible with their back turned to the cars.
With the photographers, they are looking through a tiny window in their cameras which cuts out a huge portion of their periferal vision, and it takes away a great deal of their depth perception. I can tell you as a photographer myself, that if that exhaust pipe had flow off at a corner a few feet from a photographer, he'd never see it in his view finder flying towards him. And just watching the video of it flying off, small as it might have been. It came off of the car with enough force to do some damage.
As a ferrari fan myself I thought they should of cut it loose at the pitstop if nothing else. But I also understand why they didn't.

#43 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 23 June 2008 - 11:40

Originally posted by jcbc3
1)
I understand the rule. There will, and should not, be a penalty.



2)
Is this really what FIA intended when they wrote the rule? It seems silly to me you can retire and get a free engine change when you also score point(s). I would think it ought to be one or the other. Not both.

Agree completely on both points :up:

#44 sensible

sensible
  • Member

  • 1,893 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 23 June 2008 - 11:43

Gerry - you closed down the thread saying hamilton cracked under pressure because it was being used to some extent as a bashfest by "anti-hamilton"s. Surely to be consistent you need to close down this one as it is being used for some of the usual anti-ferrari bashing, especially as there already is a thread discussing it.

#45 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 23 June 2008 - 11:44

Originally posted by Gareth
Agree completely on both points :up:


I agree on part one, but part 2 not so much.

Would it be fair then say Lewis Hamilton is pootling along in P1 and his engine blows up with 2 laps to go. He loses the race win thanks to the engine failure, but by freak of circumstance still classifies P7, by virtue of completing more laps than say those running in P8 and lower.

He should then have to take a 10place grid penalty at the next race? Is that fair that he loses both the race win and has to take a grid penalty all for the benefit of a paltry 2 points?

It's a nonsensical set of regulations that would allow that to happen, and so I think jcbc is completely wrong in his viewpoint.

#46 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 4,769 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 23 June 2008 - 11:45

Originally posted by jcbc3
1)
I understand the rule. There will, and should not, be a penalty.



2)
Is this really what FIA intended when they wrote the rule? It seems silly to me you can retire and get a free engine change when you also score point(s). I would think it ought to be one or the other. Not both.


It has always been so that if you retire but pass the 90% mark then you are classified. I say again, you have retired, but you are classified. This rule has been in force for ages. It does not seem silly for me nor did it seem silly for me the last 20 years following F1. A driver who retires usually before the end of the race will loose out for sure. So did Kimi. He only got one point instead of the many he would have gotten without the problem. He lost out already. Now you want him to loose out again because other drivers were so bad that they couldn't finish the race and he happened to score a point.

#47 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 4,769 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 23 June 2008 - 11:49

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld




:confused: :lol:


Don't tell me, when cars hit wet grass they speed up?


:lol: :lol: :lol: I thought Clatter was a regular poster here for a while. He should be a grown man and know a bit about the "fizzix" and stuff  ;)

#48 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 4,769 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 23 June 2008 - 11:50

Originally posted by kar


I agree on part one, but part 2 not so much.

Would it be fair then say Lewis Hamilton is pootling along in P1 and his engine blows up with 2 laps to go. He loses the race win thanks to the engine failure, but by freak of circumstance still classifies P7, by virtue of completing more laps than say those running in P8 and lower.

He should then have to take a 10place grid penalty at the next race? Is that fair that he loses both the race win and has to take a grid penalty all for the benefit of a paltry 2 points?

It's a nonsensical set of regulations that would allow that to happen, and so I think jcbc is completely wrong in his viewpoint.


I was trying to say what you said here :up:

#49 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,239 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 23 June 2008 - 12:01

Originally posted by Dolph


:lol: :lol: :lol: I thought Clatter was a regular poster here for a while. He should be a grown man and know a bit about the "fizzix" and stuff  ;)


Never seen a slingshot then? Thats the effect that the strap could give considering it departed company on a corner and didnt just fall off.

#50 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,076 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 23 June 2008 - 12:06

Im sorry, but once force is reduced on an object, it's not going to increase it's energy.