Jump to content


Photo

Tech. Reg.: Get back to pit under own power


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 alg7_munif

alg7_munif
  • Member

  • 1,616 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:22

Unless there is some exemption, the only penalty would be disqualification right?

Advertisement

#2 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:26

Different rule for Hamilton basically.

#3 Goron3

Goron3
  • Member

  • 623 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:27

Unless there is some exemption, the only penalty would be disqualification right?


This didn't happen to anyone in qualifying....

#4 jeze

jeze
  • Member

  • 2,973 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:27

Spain 2009: Felipe Massa pulls off right after flag

Bahrain 2012: Sebastian Vettel pulls off right after flag




The in lap after the race is not part of the race session proper, since the track is under a red-flag esque situation.



#5 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:28

Different rules apply for Hamilton unfortunately.

#6 Mackey

Mackey
  • Member

  • 1,397 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:28

LOL Must be a tough day for all the Alonso haters.

#7 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,170 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:30

No it's perfectly fine to do this after the race, always has been.

What I would be interested in seeing is a certain poster who said Hamilton should be disqualified when he last did this. :p

#8 GotYoubyTheBalls

GotYoubyTheBalls
  • Member

  • 301 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:30

Stopping after qualifying is vastly different to stopping after a 57 lap race. Advantage doing it in quali is immense. Doing it in a race, no advantage.

Get over it.

#9 HPT

HPT
  • Member

  • 1,165 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:32

Different rules apply for Hamilton unfortunately.


Nope. Just Hamilton-sympathizers and Alonso-haters not knowing the rule book. That rule applies to qualifying only.

#10 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:38

I thought credit to Alonso and Ferrari today...they 100% deserve the win, but I have a big problem with the car not getting back to Parc Ferme under its own power. I had a problem with RB, McLaren and Ferrari doing it. The rule needs changing.

#11 walkindude

walkindude
  • Member

  • 867 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:40

Different rules apply for Hamilton unfortunately.

No.For qualifying.

#12 Muppetmad

Muppetmad
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:44

But why does it only apply during qualifying? Whether the advantage during the qualifying is greater than in the race is irrelevant - an unfair advantage is an unfair advantage, especially since it's clear that Hamilton would have got pole with the correct amount of fuel anyway.

#13 ev0lution

ev0lution
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 24 June 2012 - 14:48

But why does it only apply during qualifying? Whether the advantage during the qualifying is greater than in the race is irrelevant - an unfair advantage is an unfair advantage, especially since it's clear that Hamilton would have got pole with the correct amount of fuel anyway.


I'd guess everyone would've underfuelled their cars, set a time, and then become immobile obstacles. Come to think of it, this should be allowed. Imagine all the carnage with 20 extra chicanes in Q1! Though they would probably constantly red flag it :(

#14 alg7_munif

alg7_munif
  • Member

  • 1,616 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 June 2012 - 15:03

When Lewis did it, his Q1 time was legal, his Q2 time was also legal. Even his earlier Q3 time was legal but he was disqualified and had to start from the back of the grid, just because he was unable to get back under his own power after his last attempt.

#15 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,772 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 24 June 2012 - 15:05

Different rules apply for Hamilton unfortunately.



LOL Must be a tough day for all the Alonso haters.

How very true :)
It's a race, not qualifying.

#16 Starish

Starish
  • Member

  • 986 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 24 June 2012 - 15:11

This happens so much, why is this being brought up, its doesn't apply to the race.

#17 Sausage

Sausage
  • Member

  • 1,798 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 24 June 2012 - 15:15

There is no problem if your car has a different problem than fuel. If Hamilton in Spain had a dead engine or something it would be no DQ, simple. I doubt Fred stopped for too little fuel.

#18 Fudce

Fudce
  • Member

  • 289 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 24 June 2012 - 15:47

On the surface I can see why people say that it's double-standards, since they both stopped on track after a session. The difference is the fact that Alonso did so after a race, not after a practice session, so he didn't break a rule. If he's unable to supply a fuel sample, he would be in contravention to the regulations of course.

On a personal level, they need to either extend the 'own power' rule to the race, or we will end up with drivers all stopping on the last lap like we've seen previously.


If it's not fuel, then that's ok.

#19 InvertedLift

InvertedLift
  • Member

  • 199 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 24 June 2012 - 16:39

When Lewis did it, his Q1 time was legal, his Q2 time was also legal. Even his earlier Q3 time was legal but he was disqualified and had to start from the back of the grid, just because he was unable to get back under his own power after his last attempt.

Free Practice 1: One (1) session. A technical infringement = disqualification from the session.
Free Practice 2: One (1) session. A technical infringement = disqualification from the session.
Free Practice 3: One (1) session. A technical infringement = disqualification from the session.
(There's a pattern forming here, see if you can follow it.)
Qualifying Practice: One (1) sesison. A technical infringement = disqualification from the session.

Advertisement

#20 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 June 2012 - 16:59

But why does it only apply during qualifying?


THe main difference is that "the end of the race" is "the end of the race" for every car.
During a practice session, including Qualifying, you can finish your run early, while there are
still cars out there at full speed.
It's not about fuel, the main reason being safety.

If Alonso's car is returned to the parc ferme ( or any other car fro this matter) and it would have
not enough fuel for a sample, it will be dsq'd as well.

But the main reason, requiring cars to return under their own power during practice, and especially
Qualifying is to stop people from "parking" their cars for "strategic reasons", after completing their
own run.
IMHO

#21 MoggaOg

MoggaOg
  • New Member

  • 14 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 24 June 2012 - 17:57

If it is the case that it is not a problem to stop part way round the track I am quite surprised that it does not happen more often.


#22 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,772 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 24 June 2012 - 18:01

On the surface I can see why people say that it's double-standards, since they both stopped on track after a session. The difference is the fact that Alonso did so after a race, not after a practice session, so he didn't break a rule. If he's unable to supply a fuel sample, he would be in contravention to the regulations of course.

On a personal level, they need to either extend the 'own power' rule to the race, or we will end up with drivers all stopping on the last lap like we've seen previously.


If it's not fuel, then that's ok.

And what is the problem with that?

#23 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,442 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 24 June 2012 - 18:03

And what is the problem with that?


Bernie doesn't like it because it interferes with commercial TV ad breaks; got to keep the telly happy...


#24 sawyer_si

sawyer_si
  • Member

  • 347 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 24 June 2012 - 18:05

I don't think it was fuel related anyway... If it were, he would've just stopped on the main straight, not half way around, what's the point in doing that?

#25 Fudce

Fudce
  • Member

  • 289 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 24 June 2012 - 18:06

And what is the problem with that?

Safety. Yes, the race is over, but we don't want cars littered all over the place - all it takes is one driver's brain fade over the finish line and that car stopped on the pit straight becomes a dangerous obstacle.

It's also a fairness issue. Car A crosses the line with enough fuel to do a full lap plus the required litre. Car B does so with just enough to stop after the line and supply the litre. Which car has the advantage?

#26 Chubby_Deuce

Chubby_Deuce
  • Member

  • 5,919 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 24 June 2012 - 19:23

But why does it only apply during qualifying? Whether the advantage during the qualifying is greater than in the race is irrelevant - an unfair advantage is an unfair advantage, especially since it's clear that Hamilton would have got pole with the correct amount of fuel anyway.


So breaking the rules is okay as long as you could have done it without doing so... right?

#27 PLAYLIFE

PLAYLIFE
  • Member

  • 894 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 24 June 2012 - 19:40

Different rule for Hamilton basically.



It'd be less embarrassing for you if you knew the regulations before commenting.

#28 Muppetmad

Muppetmad
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 June 2012 - 19:46

So breaking the rules is okay as long as you could have done it without doing so... right?


I was merely making the point that if you're going to penalise somebody for an unfair advantage then you must be consistent. Whether that unfair advantage gives you a second or a tenth of a second is irrelevant - if you're going to follow the "unfair advantage" argument, then you must penalise accordingly. Let's assume that Alonso did stop due to being low on fuel, for sake of argument; would he have won the race with the correct amount of fuel? Sure. But (still assuming, merely theoretically, that he was underfuelled) did he gain an competitive advantage, however minimum, by running with lower fuel than those who were able to return to the pits under their own power? Yes.

Edited by Muppetmad, 24 June 2012 - 19:47.


#29 Aieljose

Aieljose
  • Member

  • 676 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 24 June 2012 - 19:49

Just give a penalty. Just give a penalty. I know! Can't we just give him a penalty?? This is just getting ridiculous.

#30 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 24 June 2012 - 20:22

Ferrari gave no indication of being marginal on fuel.

The regs are different for the race and quali.

There is no link to what I think was a very harsh penalty on Lewis!!!

For what its worth I really enjoyed seeing Alonso stop the car and celebrate with his fans. It was a spontaneous moment of expression that has become all too rare in F1 recently. Screw having to run the podium at a certain time for TV, I want to see a driver winning a race like that celebrating it and expressing himself!

#31 mcguin

mcguin
  • Member

  • 155 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 24 June 2012 - 20:26

I was merely making the point that if you're going to penalise somebody for an unfair advantage then you must be consistent. Whether that unfair advantage gives you a second or a tenth of a second is irrelevant - if you're going to follow the "unfair advantage" argument, then you must penalise accordingly. Let's assume that Alonso did stop due to being low on fuel, for sake of argument; would he have won the race with the correct amount of fuel? Sure. But (still assuming, merely theoretically, that he was underfuelled) did he gain an competitive advantage, however minimum, by running with lower fuel than those who were able to return to the pits under their own power? Yes.

Errr... no.


#32 Muppetmad

Muppetmad
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 June 2012 - 20:37

Errr... no.


Well, feel free to explain that to me. Running with less fuel means a weight advantage, and a weight advantage converts to a time advantage, however minimal that may be.

#33 mcguin

mcguin
  • Member

  • 155 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 24 June 2012 - 21:05

Well, feel free to explain that to me. Running with less fuel means a weight advantage, and a weight advantage converts to a time advantage, however minimal that may be.

Well you said competitive advantage, and I still think is no. Anyway is not ilegal, and I don't think Ferrari has stated it was because of fuel?


#34 Muppetmad

Muppetmad
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 24 June 2012 - 21:31

Well you said competitive advantage, and I still think is no. Anyway is not ilegal, and I don't think Ferrari has stated it was because of fuel?


Fair enough.

#35 Barky

Barky
  • Member

  • 67 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 24 June 2012 - 21:38

3 race ban

:rolleyes:

#36 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,468 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:28

Unless there is some exemption, the only penalty would be disqualification right?

Nope only applys in qualifing.

If 10 more cars had crashed earlier, then Hamilton would have scored points as he was classified 2 laps down... does not matter the wheels are hanging off it.

#37 Suntrek

Suntrek
  • Member

  • 1,796 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:00

Unless there is some exemption, the only penalty would be disqualification right?


no, there's no exemption, but it's always best to know what the rule actually says before getting undies in twist.

6.6.2

Competitors must ensure that a one litre sample of fuel may be taken from the car at any time
during the Event.
Except in cases of force majeure (accepted as such by the stewards of the meeting), if a sample
of fuel is required after a practice session the car concerned must have first been driven back
to the pits under its own power.


http://argent.fia.co...ed_on_20.07.pdf

Qualy = practice session.

Race = race. It is not a practice session. Hence rule 6.6.2 does not apply.

/ end thread.



#38 W154

W154
  • Member

  • 333 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:03

THe main difference is that "the end of the race" is "the end of the race" for every car.
During a practice session, including Qualifying, you can finish your run early, while there are
still cars out there at full speed.
It's not about fuel, the main reason being safety.

If Alonso's car is returned to the parc ferme ( or any other car fro this matter) and it would have
not enough fuel for a sample, it will be dsq'd as well.

But the main reason, requiring cars to return under their own power during practice, and especially
Qualifying is to stop people from "parking" their cars for "strategic reasons", after completing their
own run.
IMHO

Oh come on, surely you jest sir. No F1 driver would sink so low as to deliberately park their car on the circuit in the last few minutes of Q3 thus ensuring other drivers could not better his time? Such a driver would earn the epithet "cheat", "coward" amongst others not suitable for print.

#39 karne

karne
  • Member

  • 2,040 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:17

I thought credit to Alonso and Ferrari today...they 100% deserve the win, but I have a big problem with the car not getting back to Parc Ferme under its own power. I had a problem with RB, McLaren and Ferrari doing it. The rule needs changing.


I agree with this. I don't care who it is, the car should have to get back to parc ferme after the race under its own power. There were marshalls everywhere, touching Fernando, fiddling with the car. Who's to say what may or may not have gone on where the cameras couldn't see?

If the cars are supposed to be in parc ferme after the race, they should have to get there on their own power, like in qualifying. In rallying there have been several instances where a car has crossed the flying finish and technically finished the event, but had a problem on the final transport/crashed after the FF, could not make it to parc ferme, and was disqualified.

I have been complaining about this happening for a couple of years now, and think the rule needs to be changed. Cars must make it back to parc ferme under their own power, or be disqualified. End of story.

Advertisement

#40 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,468 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:29

I agree with this. I don't care who it is, the car should have to get back to parc ferme after the race under its own power. There were marshalls everywhere, touching Fernando, fiddling with the car. Who's to say what may or may not have gone on where the cameras couldn't see?

But like I said Hamilton was also a classified finisher, and more importantly that always has been the rule. It does not matter if you lose 3 laps at the start of the race with a repair, or if it is the opposite and you do not complete the last three laps of the race... either way you still are able to be classified and can potentially even get points. Surely you would not punish Hamilton more be applying DQ for somehow not getting a two wheeled car back to the pits! :p

FIA will not be too pleased sure, but MotoGP style celebration is favourable with FOM and Ecclestone, who frankly is far more powerful than FIA, wouldn't you agree?
Would it somehow be cheating for Alonso to jump into a pond Lorenso-style and get heavy mud on his race suit! :lol:

#41 Brother Fox

Brother Fox
  • Member

  • 5,005 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:50

For what its worth I really enjoyed seeing Alonso stop the car and celebrate with his fans. It was a spontaneous moment of expression that has become all too rare in F1 recently. Screw having to run the podium at a certain time for TV, I want to see a driver winning a race like that celebrating it and expressing himself!

:up:

I think the whole protocol rubbish is ..... well rubbish. That was awesome to see Alonso just soaking it all up, the crowd, the marshalls all feeling part of it.
More of this, less of the drive back to pac ferme, stand on nose of car, get cheered by mechanics formula.




#42 CatharticF1

CatharticF1
  • Member

  • 259 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 25 June 2012 - 04:11

Unless there is some exemption, the only penalty would be disqualification right?


You poor bleating little lamb.

The rules have not changed.

In qualifying the rule states that you need to get the car back to parc ferme and provide a fuel sample. Obviously during a qualifying session it's not acceptable or safe to have your car stop on the track. So the teams all know to fuel the car for their qualifying lap(s) + 1.

In the race the rule is that you need to complete the race distance, and as Lotus once did back in the 60s if your car fails immediately after it crosses the line - job done!

McLaren - not just once - have either deliberately or mistakenly under-fuelled their car in qualifying. They (Lewis too) gained benefit on both occasions by running with less fuel than the rule allows. On the first occasion they paid 10K and kept pole - which was a gain from incompetence or cheating depending upon your point of view. The SECOND TIME they tried the same thing they were penalised.

Imagine everyone's surprise!

:eek:

#43 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 25 June 2012 - 05:10

But why does it only apply during qualifying? Whether the advantage during the qualifying is greater than in the race is irrelevant - an unfair advantage is an unfair advantage, especially since it's clear that Hamilton would have got pole with the correct amount of fuel anyway.


Dreamer. And delusional.

#44 Muppetmad

Muppetmad
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 25 June 2012 - 05:34

Dreamer. And delusional.


Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with what I wrote - I don't think the rule should apply at all. However, if the justification for it is that an unfair advantage is gained, then it has to be applied consistently, no matter how anal and ridiculous it may be. Personally, I'd just get rid of the rule altogether.

#45 sergeym

sergeym
  • Member

  • 531 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 June 2012 - 06:48

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with what I wrote - I don't think the rule should apply at all. However, if the justification for it is that an unfair advantage is gained, then it has to be applied consistently, no matter how anal and ridiculous it may be. Personally, I'd just get rid of the rule altogether.


For qualifing it makes sense - you really can get some real advantage by underfueling the car. Besides stopping the car on track will result in yellows and will srew up all other drivers.

No such problem in race. Advantage will be too small and you really cant predict fuel consumption that preciesly for entire race.

#46 rdebourbon

rdebourbon
  • Member

  • 1,353 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:51

For qualifing it makes sense - you really can get some real advantage by underfueling the car. Besides stopping the car on track will result in yellows and will srew up all other drivers.

No such problem in race. Advantage will be too small and you really cant predict fuel consumption that preciesly for entire race.


This!

The qualifying rule is definitely needed so we don't get qualifying runs ruined by a parked car aka Monaco 2006.. The race is defined at a fixed distance - and it is to determine the overall fastest for that specific distance.. Whether you finish on fumes or with half empty tanks is irrelevant.. The aim is to finish that distance and to cross the line at the end.. Not that distance + 3kms.. The +3kms is only there for convenience/security/safety and is not mandatory..

While I really enjoyed seeing Alonso celebrate on track, and miss the days with donuts and other trackside celebrations for the fans, I did not enjoy seeing the media hound and crowd Alonso trying to get into parc ferme for weighing etc.. In the past such crowded celebrations have been used for slipping weights into driver pockets to meet legality requirements - hence the cordoned off area around the drivers prior to weighing etc.. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming any cheating or intent to cheat in this instance, am just pointing out why such things have changed.. Some sort of balance would be ideal IMO where the fans get some celebration, and the driver can still be weighed etc before any chance of dubious activity..

#47 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:15

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with what I wrote - I don't think the rule should apply at all. However, if the justification for it is that an unfair advantage is gained, then it has to be applied consistently, no matter how anal and ridiculous it may be. Personally, I'd just get rid of the rule altogether.


In quali parking the car cause it run out of fuel can guarantee you pole position. You just park it in a part of the track that forces a yellow -> by definition everybody behind you on the road can't post a purple sector in the area your car is parked in. After the race is over you have no influence on the result. You are just operating under the mistaken assumption that the regulation is trying to address the 1-2kg extra weight, and the 0.05 benefit that can be gained from it. It isn't.

#48 BellisEndis

BellisEndis
  • Member

  • 128 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 25 June 2012 - 11:20


Macca, sent a car out with the knowledge it didn't have enough fuel to make it back after the qualifying lap AND provide a sample, then tried to bullshit an excuse why the car had to be parked after the session; slightly different to shutting down after the race to make sure you have enough for a sample..

#49 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 25 June 2012 - 15:58

It's also a fairness issue. Car A crosses the line with enough fuel to do a full lap plus the required litre. Car B does so with just enough to stop after the line and supply the litre. Which car has the advantage?


The car that managed its resources better. It isn't Car B's fault that the team put 2kg too much fuel in Car A.


#50 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 902 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 25 June 2012 - 16:10

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with what I wrote - I don't think the rule should apply at all. However, if the justification for it is that an unfair advantage is gained, then it has to be applied consistently, no matter how anal and ridiculous it may be. Personally, I'd just get rid of the rule altogether.


But if there is no rule against it, how is it an UNFAIR advantage? Every team has the option of legally fueling the car short, and stopping on the in lap.