Jump to content


Photo

Rule Consistancy


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:50

Today Kimi got let off, nothing against him, it was dangerous but no harm occured in the swerve, but how much difference is there between this and webbers incident last week and Lewis late breaking last year?

The only difference with the webber one was Lewis reacted quicker then Rubens.

We have two unsafe releases treated differently and now Renault getting punished like this, hell not even a suspended sentance :mad:

We've complained a lot but the rules need to be consistant?

Edited by Anomnader, 26 July 2009 - 16:51.


Advertisement

#2 MS7XWDC

MS7XWDC
  • Member

  • 305 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:51

Today Kimi got let off, nothing against him, it was dangerous but no harm in the swerve, but how much difference is there between this and webbers incident last week and Lewis late breaking last year?

The only difference with the webber one was Lewis reacted quicker then Rubens.

We have unsafe releases treated differently and no Renault getting punished like this, hell not even a suspended sentance :mad:


without opening this, i knew it was about Ferrari

#3 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 16:53

without opening this, i knew it was about Ferrari


This guy is always bashing Ferrari, why expect anything else?

#4 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:00

I was wondering is it consistant or consistent?

nice thread btw  ;)

#5 F575 GTC

F575 GTC
  • Member

  • 920 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:16

On the plus side, we do know they are consistantly inconsistant ;)

#6 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:20

Oh yes, but what set of critera do they use?

Lewis last year got a drive through for breaking late, but no contact was made with anyone, it wasn't on purpose and in the end more damage was done to himself.

Time and again we've seen similar situations that have got off?


What has webber got for unsafe realise, suspended sentance, 10,000 fine, nothing, do these stewards go eney meeie moo?

Edited by Anomnader, 26 July 2009 - 17:21.


#7 RodrigoL

RodrigoL
  • Member

  • 1,531 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:27

We all know what this is about Anomnader. You wanted to see Kimi punished.

Well, someone in the other thread summed it up perfectly:

Raikkonen's movement towards Vettel was due to him avoiding a car in front of him, whilst Webber's move into Barrichello the previous race was for no reason.



#8 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:30

We all know what this is about Anomnader. You wanted to see Kimi punished.

Well, someone in the other thread summed it up perfectly:



Actually No, I don't want Kimi punished, but I don't think Lewis should have being punished for his late braking last year! Thats really what I'm thinking.

I didn't think there was a problem with the Vettel Kimi coming together, I thought his swerve was dangerous though.


But, answer then, why are some of these getting punished like webber last race and lewis whilst others are called racing incidents.

#9 gindan

gindan
  • Member

  • 62 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:31

We all know what this is about Anomnader. You wanted to see Kimi punished.

Well, someone in the other thread summed it up perfectly:


The problem is they use 3 different stewards at each race, usually from within FIA's rank and file, as a reward for kissing the right ass. In many cases, these people know nothing about racing beyond having watched it. They need a consistent team of stewards that goes to each race, preferably including at least one former driver.

#10 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:34

The problem is they use 3 different stewards at each race, usually from within FIA's rank and file, as a reward for kissing the right ass. In many cases, these people know nothing about racing beyond having watched it. They need a consistent team of stewards that goes to each race, preferably including at least one former driver.


And did'nt they have one? That British Bloke, but for some reason they decided to fire him when donnelly arrived. The same bloke that they later made up stories in the court case about the Spa incident.



#11 mursuka80

mursuka80
  • Member

  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:34

Actually No, I don't want Kimi punished, but I don't think Lewis should have being punished for his late braking last year! Thats really what I'm thinking.

I didn't think there was a problem with the Vettel Kimi coming together, I thought his swerve was dangerous though.


But, answer then, why are some of these getting punished like webber last race and lewis whilst others are called racing incidents.


The way i saw it was Lewis came from the other side and Kimi on another.Neither swerwed.Im wioth you on a matter,that there needs to be clear rulebook,not inventing rules on a fly.


#12 RodrigoL

RodrigoL
  • Member

  • 1,531 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:37

Actually No, I don't want Kimi punished, but I don't think Lewis should have being punished for his late braking last year! Thats really what I'm thinking.

I didn't think there was a problem with the Vettel Kimi coming together, I thought his swerve was dangerous though.


But, answer then, why are some of these getting punished like webber last race and lewis whilst others are called racing incidents.


Even his swerve towards Lewis was caused because Kimi tried to avoid a car in front.

As for the FIA's decisions, can you name how many teams/drivers got penalised for a similar accident??

Hamilton himself swerved dangerously a few times(eg. Monza 07) but was 'let off', and most pitlane incidents have resulted in financial penalties.

#13 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:39

The way i saw it was Lewis came from the other side and Kimi on another.Neither swerwed.Im wioth you on a matter,that there needs to be clear rulebook,not inventing rules on a fly.



Thank you Mursuka. On the swerve it might appear different depending on the angle. A overhead shot would be good.

The vettel bit, Kimi backend lost control and so racing incident.


With the swerve I presume, that as no contact was made the stewards thought, no damage done, lets ignore it. Fair enough.


Lewis last year was different, but again he didn't crash into anyone.




On Webber today, do they penalise this dangerous releases or not??????





#14 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:42

The problem is they use 3 different stewards at each race, usually from within FIA's rank and file, as a reward for kissing the right ass. In many cases, these people know nothing about racing beyond having watched it. They need a consistent team of stewards that goes to each race, preferably including at least one former driver.

Absolutely true. :up:

#15 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:44

Absolutely true. :up:


They're know they've had a problem for years, so why has it never got sorted?

Will Todt or Vati introduce a new system?

#16 Andy35

Andy35
  • Member

  • 3,369 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:45

I will continue to keep comparing F1 rules to golfing rules until someone takes notice.

You hardly ever get inconsistent rules decisions in golf and you only get 1% of the arguing over then because they are clear and concise and leave little room for interpretation by the golfing sterwards. F1 rules are the other way round though because it suits them for it to be so.

Ban, suspension, fine, points, position drop .. nobody has a clue what you will get until you find out ! Could be anything ....

What a way to run a world wide sport.

Regards

Andy

#17 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:48

Yeah, I especially liked Sutils(?) 3 place grid drop for blocking on purpose a few races ago.

#18 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:51

They're know they've had a problem for years, so why has it never got sorted?

Will Todt or Vati introduce a new system?

That's the problem. It serves very well Mosley's dictatorship.

#19 jesee

jesee
  • Member

  • 1,664 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:52

Has anybody else noticed that incidents involving Ferari these days seems to be decided after the race even when the race is barely halfway?

Advertisement

#20 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:53

Well I suppose you can go back to Prost and Senna and even further back then that.

As mentioned before if FIA had acted then then probably MS wouldn't have tried it once or twice*



*Depending on your view

#21 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 17:57

oh common is this thread gonna be turned into Ferrari and MS bashing thread

#22 mursuka80

mursuka80
  • Member

  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:00

Has anybody else noticed that incidents involving Ferari these days seems to be decided after the race even when the race is barely halfway?


There was no need for penalty today,so i dont see the problem.I dont want to start a war which driver has been given "slap in the wrist" in recent years.

#23 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,188 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:04

The worst thing about Kimi was that it was investigated after the race for a lap 1 incident. What a farce. Penalty or not is debatable imo. However usually impacting title challengers gets more chance of a penalty (Bourdais at Fuji last year for example) so he should consider himself lucky, two races in a row.

Renault decision is a farce.

2007 Barcelona, Heidfeld and BMW. No punishment and if memory serves not even an investigation. There is no rule consistancy in F1. F1 is a circus.



#24 Wouter

Wouter
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:12

While Kimi went from his line, I think it was different than Webber last race because Kimi was fast off the line (or on the "magic button"), just like Hamilton, and both where trying to find space to pass the cars directly in front. Because Kimi was right behind one of the Red Bulls, he moved his car in the gap, where Hamilton was already going for much the same gap to pass the other Red Bull. So, more of a racing incident (same for the contact with Vettel in the first corner, I think). Having said that, stewards are horribly inconsistent about, among other things, unsafe pitstop releases. No punishment for releasing Webber into Raikkonen, but Renault gets suspended for the Alonso incident!??

#25 Hippo

Hippo
  • Member

  • 2,378 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:14

On Webber today, do they penalise this dangerous releases or not??????

Yes. Penalty states simply: reprimand.

Although I'm relieved there's no consequence for Mark I see the inconsistency. Ferrari was fined €10k in Valencia 08. The same day the same stewards penalized a GP2 with a drive through for unsafe release. A month or so later Massa received a drive through too in Singapore for unsafe release. And today the penalty is a reprimand. This really is a mess...

#26 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:16

While Kimi went from his line, I think it was different than Webber last race because Kimi was fast off the line (or on the "magic button"), just like Hamilton, and both where trying to find space to pass the cars directly in front. Because Kimi was right behind one of the Red Bulls, he moved his car in the gap, where Hamilton was already going for much the same gap to pass the other Red Bull. So, more of a racing incident (same for the contact with Vettel in the first corner, I think). Having said that, stewards are horribly inconsistent about, among other things, unsafe pitstop releases. No punishment for releasing Webber into Raikkonen, but Renault gets suspended for the Alonso incident!??


I think Kers is making starts a lot more dangerous, a lot of these recent incidents have being because of this boost. The Lewi vs Piquet one in Malaysia was very similar, where lewis had to go on the grass to avoid Piquet.

Kers makes starts exciting for your driver to get to the front, but these two different speeds is like when a car stalls on the grid.

#27 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:16

Yes. Penalty states simply: reprimand.

Although I'm relieved there's no consequence for Mark I see the inconsistency. Ferrari was fined €10k in Valencia 08. The same day the same stewards penalized a GP2 with a drive through for unsafe release. A month or so later Massa received a drive through too in Singapore for unsafe release. And today the penalty is a reprimand. This really is a mess...

do you have any idea who are the stewards???
GP2 stewards are not the same as F1 stewards


#28 TimEaston

TimEaston
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:19

Today Kimi got let off, nothing against him, it was dangerous but no harm occured in the swerve, but how much difference is there between this and webbers incident last week and Lewis late breaking last year?

The only difference with the webber one was Lewis reacted quicker then Rubens.

We have two unsafe releases treated differently and now Renault getting punished like this, hell not even a suspended sentance :mad:

We've complained a lot but the rules need to be consistant?


I agree it seems the old inconsistency of 2008 has reared it's head again and the major beneficiaries seem to be Ferrari again!!! :mad: I have nothing against Ferrari I just wish the stewards would punish them as they would any other team. Maybe Webber was unlucky to get a drive through at the Nurburgring and all those years of Schumacher doing and getting away with are the stewards saying it's a racing incident. But how different was Webber's move than Kimi's? OK Webber made contact with Hamilton but just because you didn't make contact doesn't mean you haven't committed an offense, in football you can win the ball with a two-footed challenge and still be sent off for dangerous play so why not in F1?

PS I think there should be 5 full time F1 stewards that go to each race and decide on the punishments and hopefully that will bring consistency.

Edited by TimEaston, 26 July 2009 - 18:23.


#29 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:20

I think Kers is making starts a lot more dangerous, a lot of these recent incidents have being because of this boost. The Lewi vs Piquet one in Malaysia was very similar, where lewis had to go on the grass to avoid Piquet.

Kers makes starts exciting for your driver to get to the front, but these two different speeds is like when a car stalls on the grid.

anyway the starts are great to watch now , rather than boring TC helped and dull starts without burnouts

i dont agree it being dangerous .....we have not seen any DANGEROUS accidents or crashes as such

#30 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:20

I agree it seems the old inconsistency of 2008 has reared it's head again and the major beneficiaries seem to be Ferrari again!!! :mad: I have nothing against Ferrari I just wish the stewards would punish them as they would any other team. Maybe Webber was unlucky to get a drive through at the Nurburgring and all those years of Schumacher doing and getting away with are the stewards saying it's a racing incident. But how different was Webber's move than Kimi's? OK Webber made contact with Hamilton but just because you didn't make contact doesn't mean you haven't committed an offense, in football you can win the ball with a two-footed challenge and still be sent off for dangerous play so why not in F1?

TROLL :down:

#31 JensonF1

JensonF1
  • Member

  • 586 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:29

Cars losing wheels, cars exiting pit stop into pit lane in front of oncoming traffic - sometimes there are penalties, sometimes not, sometimes the inconsistency even occurs within a single race.

With events as dangerous as these, you'd think they'd be more consistent with applying penalties. But I don't agree that they favour Ferrari and I don't agree that Renault should miss Europe, that is short sighted and puts the rule book ahead of the sport.

#32 gincarnated

gincarnated
  • Member

  • 442 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:41

Kimi wasn't "avoiding" anyone. He was trying to squeeze into position and almost forced Lewis into Vettel. Luckily Both Lewis and Vettel reacted quickly to avoid any accidents.

#33 grunge

grunge
  • Member

  • 4,266 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:46

why is this even debatable???..if yer going to impose penalties on things like this,then yer basically going to kill any little of racing that is left in f1...the most controversial thing u can find there is kimi's swerve on lewis..both were using their kers button trying to find space to get thru.the drivers in these car have nearly non existant ciew in their side mirrors becaue their trying to find their own way forward and the cars behind/on the side are also changing direction rapidly...many many starts by f1 drivers in years gone by have been far more dangerous..MS and senna to name a few...

#34 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:48

why is this even debatable???..if yer going to impose penalties on things like this,then yer basically going to kill any little of racing that is left in f1...the most controversial thing u can find there is kimi's swerve on lewis..



Thats fine. But then following that theory why was penalties given then to Lewis last year and Webber last week?

Edited by Anomnader, 26 July 2009 - 18:48.


#35 RodrigoL

RodrigoL
  • Member

  • 1,531 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:50

Kimi wasn't "avoiding" anyone. He was trying to squeeze into position and almost forced Lewis into Vettel. Luckily Both Lewis and Vettel reacted quickly to avoid any accidents.


I respectfully disagree. Kimi and Lewis just tried a very similar manouvre and ended up scrapping for the same piece of track.

Posted Image

#36 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 18:55

I respectfully disagree. Kimi and Lewis just tried a very similar manouvre and ended up scrapping for the same piece of track.


Unfortunatly Lewis was already occupying that piece of track.

#37 Mary Popsins

Mary Popsins
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:21

I don't recall anyone stalled on the grid today, therefore I find the argument that Raikkonen went off his line and risking to crash in a car on his right not very solid. I always thought that the first thing to do was to look at the traffic in front of you.

This said I didn't see the incident many times. When they showed the replay though, I really thought that he was in for a stop and go or something.

I don't buy the fact that this was investigated after the race "because in the end Raikkonen did nothing wrong". There was plenty of time to investigate and clear Raikkonen if that was the right decision much before the flag. Guilty or not guilty, this is what is to be ruled. This is certainly where there is inconsistency and it helps none of the competitors.

I don't believe at all in the stewards' consistency. I have my views on who I believe gets away with "driving errors" and who gets penalized before a new rule or agreement are decided.

But since I'm not the fan of any driver, and refuse to be tagged myself, I will say no more on the topic.

#38 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,492 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:22

Rules are inconsistent because stewards are primadonnas who like to leave their mark.

#39 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:23

That picture does highlight that was one hell of a getaway by Alonso!

Advertisement

#40 Lazy Prodigy

Lazy Prodigy
  • Member

  • 2,452 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 26 July 2009 - 19:27

I think it was made to look worse than it was with Kimi trying to go around Webber and Lewis around Vettel. I dont think punishment was needed as nobody was run off the road.

#41 Youichi

Youichi
  • Member

  • 2,994 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 27 July 2009 - 08:01

The problem is they use 3 different stewards at each race, usually from within FIA's rank and file, as a reward for kissing the right ass. In many cases, these people know nothing about racing beyond having watched it. They need a consistent team of stewards that goes to each race, preferably including at least one former driver.


This is absolutely correct, the stewards position is a reward for kissing Max's ass, am I right in thinking that Muhammed Bin Sulamen was the guy who claimed he won the vote of no confidence for Max by bullying all the little Middle East clubs ? :down:

Of the three stewards, two have a background in Rallying, and one in Karting, Its like having the World cup in football refereed by two rugby players and a hack-a-sack player :mad:

Hopefully Ari will get voted in in October, and overhaul the whole system.


#42 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 4,818 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 27 July 2009 - 08:22

No incident's punishment should be based on a previous punishment unless the offense is related to or was apart of a bond/probationary measure. The Stewards have a scale of, they can use it how they see fit in accordance with how they view the severity taking into account the mitigating circumstances if they find guilt on the party involved.

To place punishment based on something previous is biased and legally wrong. Just because fans who really don't have any inside information get butt hurt by it doesn't mean we need mandatory sentencing. The difference between punishments is because its a case by case basis. Its pretty simple stuff really.

#43 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,188 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 27 July 2009 - 17:37

No incident's punishment should be based on a previous punishment unless the offense is related to or was apart of a bond/probationary measure. The Stewards have a scale of, they can use it how they see fit in accordance with how they view the severity taking into account the mitigating circumstances if they find guilt on the party involved.

To place punishment based on something previous is biased and legally wrong. Just because fans who really don't have any inside information get butt hurt by it doesn't mean we need mandatory sentencing. The difference between punishments is because its a case by case basis. Its pretty simple stuff really.

By default the judgements should be based on previous punishments. Well not really but let me put it a different way. If the rulebook is the same 2 years ago or 1 year ago, the penalty and incidents should be similar and consistant. Unless there has been a clear announced change in rulings, which of course would make inconsistancies more understandable. For example, if after a race the FIA announced that there has been too many "x" lately and they will penalise "x" more harshly in the future, then fair enough. An example of this is when in Hungary 06 Schumacher cut a chicane to defend position, and there was a clarification after the race that this was ok. So then Alonso got away with it in Monza a few races later.

Question. Do you think that decisions affecting title challengers should be any different from decisions affecting the other 16 odd cars? In other words, if there is an incident between the cars at the front, should it be penalised differently to if it's a backmarker hitting another backmarker? I believe there was contact and a chop in Spain between Alonso/Nico/Trulli that resulted in alot more carnage, then Webber/Rubens at Nurburg that didn't even cause damage or a loss of position to either car. If Sutil crashed into Kimi at Monaco last year, do you think he might have been penalised? Do you think decisions should be made the same way in race 2 (when the WDC/WCC is uncertain) as they would with 2 races to go? Because there is always more penalties late in the season affecting the championships. These are just basic trends I see in the last 4 or more years.

I nearly always correctly guess what the FIA will do based on these formulas. The only exceptions were the Webber penalty two races ago (too biased and passionate to judge it) and the Renault penalty, because I didn't factor in the overreaction to Surtee's death and Massa's injury.

There is too much inconsistancy to even mention. It would take a mammoth post that most people wouldn't probably read anyway. The biggest thing that bugs me is that a few years ago you could botch an overtake attempt and crash into someone and wreck them (Fisi/Webber Sepang, Ralf/Heidfeld Nurburgring, Heidfeld/Schumacher Melbourne) and not be penalised. This is racing. But now you can't have side to side contact with someone without getting a penalty. Even without Kimi's penalties he was still being investigated. FIA send a message that they don't want close racing (where collisions happen).

You got Bernie whinging that drivers don't try to overtake without his medals idea, and you got FIA changing aero regs to allow more overtaking, and then you over penalise any contact. I'm not for blanket mandatory penalties but surely if they are using the same rulebook there should be some similarities in penalties from one year to the next. I am not totally against FIA's way of doing things. For example, the rulings often add spice to the championship and make the final races more exciting, and whether we like to admit it or not F1 needs it sometimes. But consistant and fair it's not.

Edited by HoldenRT, 27 July 2009 - 17:39.


#44 DEVO

DEVO
  • Member

  • 2,637 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 27 July 2009 - 18:53

Amomnader, if anything, you should be complaining about the decision to eliminate Renault from the next race. Then you would have something to talk about. Kimi's case was a racing incident, while Weber's wasn't.

#45 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,659 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 18:58

Amomnader, if anything, you should be complaining about the decision to eliminate Renault from the next race. Then you would have something to talk about. Kimi's case was a racing incident, while Weber's wasn't.


MMmm, one opinion. Mine is that both were racing incidents and neither should be or have been punished.

#46 DEVO

DEVO
  • Member

  • 2,637 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 27 July 2009 - 19:01

MMmm, one opinion. Mine is that both were racing incidents and neither should be or have been punished.



I agree, Weber should have NOT been punished but it was more deliberate than Kimi's (Kimi's was a reaction to another car). Anyway, if the stewarts can't even get Renault's decision correct, how are we to expect them to get a Weber/Kimi decision right?

#47 sreevishnu

sreevishnu
  • Member

  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 27 July 2009 - 20:03

Thats fine. But then following that theory why was penalties given then to Lewis last year and Webber last week?

you honestly believe that Lewis' first corner mayhem in fuji 08 is similar to Kimi today?

An Weber hit Rubens while trying to block him [but that penalty was not at all needed-it was a stupid decision]
But Lewis' fuji 08 was stupid , unnecessary and punished accordingly

Edited by sreevishnu, 27 July 2009 - 20:05.


#48 Demo.

Demo.
  • Member

  • 1,205 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 27 July 2009 - 20:28

Amomnader, if anything, you should be complaining about the decision to eliminate Renault from the next race. Then you would have something to talk about. Kimi's case was a racing incident, while Weber's wasn't.



Devo so you are saying that its ok to put dangerous cars out on track?
Or what penalty would you give Renault.
dont forget its not only the fact of letting the car continue out on track that upset the FIA so much.
almost worse was the fact that they did not even bother to inform Alonso that his car was in a dangerous condition.
Are you saying thats ok it doesnt matter?
Its the second fact that is so different to most other situations IMHO
and is the one that the FIA would have seen as differnt to all other situations in the past.
And yes IMHO Renault got off lightly for such a dangerous situation that through their (in)action (s) was made even more dangerous.
If Renault had informed Alonso i am certain the offence would have been looked at differently and the punishment would have been different too.

#49 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 27 July 2009 - 20:38

you honestly believe that Lewis' first corner mayhem in fuji 08 is similar to Kimi today?

An Weber hit Rubens while trying to block him [but that penalty was not at all needed-it was a stupid decision]
But Lewis' fuji 08 was stupid , unnecessary and punished accordingly


And what was Kimis on Sunday, I don't really see how you can castigate one and then defend the other. It was only Lewis and Vettels quick reactions that a massive pile wasn't produced due to Kimi's rash move. In Fuji Lewis didn't hit anyone, if you think that deserved punishment, then surly Kimi did.

#50 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,211 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 27 July 2009 - 20:46

you honestly believe that Lewis' first corner mayhem in fuji 08 is similar to Kimi today?

An Weber hit Rubens while trying to block him [but that penalty was not at all needed-it was a stupid decision]
But Lewis' fuji 08 was stupid , unnecessary and punished accordingly


Amazing.

Someone outbrakes themselves but doesnt hit anyone deserves a penalty, but someone who (Using your words) actually hits another car while attempting to block doesn't deserve a penalty. :rolleyes: