Jump to content


Photo

Vettel excluded from Abu Dhabi GP Qualifying [split]


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
934 replies to this topic

#101 showtime

showtime
  • Member

  • 2,585 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:36

Probably going to turn out to be a lot of drama over nothing, as these things often do.

My money would be on alternator or electrical problem. Other than that it could be an attempted fuel cover up with a furphy engine issue, but Red Bull don't make mistakes like that, do they?


Most likely.

Advertisement

#102 sawyer_si

sawyer_si
  • Member

  • 347 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:40

I dont think thats right. I think there's a list of certain things they'll let the teams change if damaged, but I dont think the entire engine is one of them.

I think they can, Ferrari changed engines in Australia 2010 from Q to race. If they have to put a new engine in, than there will be a penalty, for sure, but otherwise I believe you are allowed to do it once a year.

Edited by sawyer_si, 03 November 2012 - 15:42.


#103 Kimiraikkonen

Kimiraikkonen
  • Member

  • 2,238 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:41

I just hope we dont hear "force majeure" :lol:


:rotfl: :rotfl: good point....

#104 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 5,792 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:42

This could cost Vettel the title, another reprimand in one of the next races would result in a 10 place drop too... tense times.

Why would Vettel get a reprimand? I believe Renault will be able to show the FIA/Race Stewards why they had advised or instructed Sebastian to stop the car.

#105 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 5,792 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:44

I think they can, Ferrari changed engines in Australia 2010 from Q to race. If they have to put a new engine in, than there will be a penalty, for sure, but otherwise I believe you are allowed to do it once a year.

Back then, you could use a Joker I believe. But I could be wrong....

#106 exogenesis1203

exogenesis1203
  • Member

  • 181 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:44

I think they can, Ferrari changed engines in Australia 2010 from Q to race. If they have to put a new engine in, than there will be a penalty, for sure, but otherwise I believe you are allowed to do it once a year.

I thought Ted said something along the line that if you have a engine problem in Q, you can change into a engine for that specific race only with no penalties and you are not allowed to use that specific ever again in that season.

#107 Kimiraikkonen

Kimiraikkonen
  • Member

  • 2,238 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:47

Electrical problem for Vettel?? Anyone can confirm it? Thanks!

#108 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 2,155 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:49

10 place grid penalty for vettel






















:p

#109 sawyer_si

sawyer_si
  • Member

  • 347 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:49

I thought Ted said something along the line that if you have a engine problem in Q, you can change into a engine for that specific race only with no penalties and you are not allowed to use that specific ever again in that season.

They can use it in the last event and in FP otherwise and you can only do it once. At least that was the case back in 2010, I don't know if those regulations changed since.

Edited by sawyer_si, 03 November 2012 - 15:49.


#110 StefK

StefK
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:49

Ted Kravitz ‏@tedkravitz
Still on the Vettel trail - He just emerged from stewards smiling along with Renault and Red Bull engineers.. More soon

#111 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:50

Why would Vettel get a reprimand? I believe Renault will be able to show the FIA/Race Stewards why they had advised or instructed Sebastian to stop the car.


Yeah, i meant another reprimand on the 2 he already has would result in a penalty if at some point in the next races he was to do something wrong.

#112 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:51

Could the problem be related to Vettel touching the wall earlier in qually?


#113 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:52

Wow Vettel starting from the back could actually make me watch this thing :p

#114 StefK

StefK
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:53

looking forward to the forum meltdown if there is no further action :D

#115 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 5,004 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:54

Ted Kravitz ‏@tedkravitz
Still on the Vettel trail - He just emerged from stewards smiling along with Renault and Red Bull engineers.. More soon

#116 TheSpecialOne

TheSpecialOne
  • Member

  • 84 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:56

No penalty im hearing, dont quote me though!

#117 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:57

Posted Image

Here it comes^

#118 Absulute

Absulute
  • Member

  • 873 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:57

He should be disqualified from the championship.

#119 Kimiraikkonen

Kimiraikkonen
  • Member

  • 2,238 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:59

He should be disqualified from the championship.



jajaj same as Fernando in Singapur 2008 with Piquet-gate

Advertisement

#120 MichaelPM

MichaelPM
  • Member

  • 2,587 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 November 2012 - 15:59

As it turns out Newey registered this year car as a low orbiting satellite which means they are not prone to those regulations. Don't worry though because in 2024 the loophole will be closed but no one else can use it in the mean time.

#121 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 2,155 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:01

He should be disqualified from the championship.


:rotfl: :lol: :lol:

#122 Kimiraikkonen

Kimiraikkonen
  • Member

  • 2,238 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:01

Any fresh notice guys?

#123 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,355 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:02

He should be disqualified from the championship.


I agree, and have his 2 title withdrawn too. The FIA need to set a precedent I feel on this issue.

#124 Kimiraikkonen

Kimiraikkonen
  • Member

  • 2,238 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:04

Last info (no oficials) said that no penalty for Vettel. More soon.

#125 alg7_munif

alg7_munif
  • Member

  • 1,616 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:04

I bet we will have 5 news articles on this from autosport, one for the result of the stewards session, one for the comment from Vettel, one for the comment from Horner, one for explaning the reason of the stewards decision and another one a comment from a competitor, maybe Alonso. No wonder I can hit the 50 news monthly limit easily.

Edited by alg7_munif, 03 November 2012 - 16:06.


#126 SealTheDiffuser

SealTheDiffuser
  • Member

  • 932 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:05

I agree, and have his 2 title withdrawn too. The FIA need to set a precedent I feel on this issue.


yes, I hope the FIA has some 2010/2011 front wings in the fridge.

#127 rodlamas

rodlamas
  • Member

  • 8,045 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:05

All clear for Vettel.

#128 joshb

joshb
  • Member

  • 3,281 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:06

I bet we will have 5 news article on this from autosport, one for the result of the stewards session, one for the comment from Vettel, one for the comment from Horner, one for explaning the reason of the stewards decision and another one a comment from a competitor, maybe Alonso. No wonder I can hit the 50 news monthly limit easily.


that's the idea! You didn't expect to get value for money did you? :)

#129 windy1603

windy1603
  • Member

  • 42 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:06

As it turns out Newey registered this year car as a low orbiting satellite which means they are not prone to those regulations. Don't worry though because in 2024 the loophole will be closed but no one else can use it in the mean time.



or a new clarification switching off to save fuel on a RB stops the alternator which is classed as an electrical fault :blush:

#130 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 5,792 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:08

All clear for Vettel.

Great news.

Now he just has to make sure to stay away from Maldonado at the start.

#131 Gyan

Gyan
  • Member

  • 837 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:09

Reminds me of Hamilton's penalty in Spain. McLaren argued that it was 'Force Majeure' but the stewards said it was a human error that his car was underfuelled.

Now, in Vettel's case, there is apparently a mechanical problem, which can be construed as Force Majeure, but it really wasn't so since his car didn't retire or stall or stop and in fact even went through all the qualifying sessions. That proves to me that his car was perfectly able to conduct one cool down lap and slink back into the pits, and that he was told to stop the car to prevent a Force Majeure which could happen but did not happen.

I guess it's just down to the car's data, on which either argument rests, so I'll be a pessimist and go with Vettel getting no penalty.

#132 Niceone

Niceone
  • Member

  • 640 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:09

All clear for Vettel.

I don't know what the problem was, but I'm sure that FIA did favor Vettel there.

#133 fololo

fololo
  • Member

  • 960 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:10

I don't know what the problem was, but I'm sure that FIA did favor Vettel there.

No clear fia is still deciding :confused:

#134 SamH123

SamH123
  • Member

  • 1,212 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:10

All clear for Vettel.


......is the rumour ):

#135 Mandzipop

Mandzipop
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,142 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:10

Before he was told to stop he was apparently told to hurry up back to the pits. Maybe the alternator was about to go pop.

#136 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 5,004 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:11

All clear for Vettel.

where do you guys get that info from? all I can see on twitter is everyone saying "still waiting for official info re: Vettel"

#137 hotstickyslick

hotstickyslick
  • Member

  • 3,390 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:11

We don't even know what the issue is yet.

#138 fastdriver

fastdriver
  • Member

  • 575 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:12

I don't know what the problem was, but I'm sure that FIA did favor Vettel there.

..for a change :lol:

#139 Niceone

Niceone
  • Member

  • 640 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:12

No clear fia is still deciding :confused:

Nope.. I wasn't being serious there. There are few people here who almost say that Vettel should be banned from racing forever. This despite they don't know what the problem was and were there any rules broken.

Advertisement

#140 paulogman

paulogman
  • Member

  • 1,893 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:12

not really concerned about vettel or alonso.
but a penalty would move maldonado up to third and give him a better shot at the start to get past webber who always starts slow.

#141 artista

artista
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,217 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:15

Reminds me of Hamilton's penalty in Spain. McLaren argued that it was 'Force Majeure' but the stewards said it was a human error that his car was underfuelled.

Now, in Vettel's case, there is apparently a mechanical problem, which can be construed as Force Majeure, but it really wasn't so since his car didn't retire or stall or stop and in fact even went through all the qualifying sessions. That proves to me that his car was perfectly able to conduct one cool down lap and slink back into the pits, and that he was told to stop the car to prevent a Force Majeure which could happen but did not happen.

I guess it's just down to the car's data, on which either argument rests, so I'll be a pessimist and go with Vettel getting no penalty.

Again, the rule only applies to fuel, Article 6 of the "Technical Regulations", the one you guys are talking about, is called FUEL SYSTEM. If the reason why he didn't make it back to the pits is not related with not having enough fuel, force majeure or not, the rule doesn't apply

Here you guys can find the whole Technical Regulations document:
http://argent.fia.co...009-03-2012.pdf

Edited by artista, 03 November 2012 - 16:17.


#142 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,136 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:17

The ridiculous thing about the rule is having to go to the back of the grid ... when really, you should go back to 10th place if you've made Q3. How ridiculous a rule ...

Our Australian commentators reckoned Seb was driving as if he was low on fuel ... damn silly if they did that, but silly mistakes can happen ...

Edited by Melbourne Park, 03 November 2012 - 16:17.


#143 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 4,629 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:18

Again, the rule only applies to fuel, Article 6 of the "Technical Regulations", the one you guys are talking about, is called FUEL SYSTEM. If the reason why he didn't make it back to the pits is not related with not having enough fuel, force majeure or not, the rule doesn't apply

Here you guys can find the whole Technical Regulations document:
http://argent.fia.co...009-03-2012.pdf


so your saying force majure only applies if it is a fuel related issue?

#144 StefK

StefK
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:18

Again, the rule only applies to fuel, Article 6 of the "Technical Regulations", the one you guys are talking about, is called FUEL SYSTEM. If the reason why he didn't make it back to the pits is not related with not having enough fuel, force majeure or not, the rule doesn't apply

Here you guys can find the whole Technical Regulations document:
http://argent.fia.co...009-03-2012.pdf




ahhh the anguish. chin up old chap

#145 Ravenak

Ravenak
  • Member

  • 939 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:20

Curious that it lasts this long.

When it does, they usually say it's not looking good.

Wait & see, then.

#146 artista

artista
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,217 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:21

The ridiculous thing about the rule is having to go to the back of the grid ... when really, you should go back to 10th place. How ridiculous a rule ...

Our Australian commentators reckoned Seb was driving as if he was low on fuel ... damn silly if they did that, but silly mistakes can happen ...

Nope, the rule is in the technical regulations not in the sporting ones. If you don't comply with the technical regulations you're disqualified, in this case of Qualifying, which is considered as one single practice, and then you go to the back.

#147 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:21

Last time it went on this long Lewis ended up at the back.

#148 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 4,629 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:23

I can bet my house he won't get a penalty, Red Bull are way too smart.

#149 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,136 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:24

I reckon it was fuel, because otherwise, how did Seb know that the reason for being told to turn off the engine "Could not be anything major". He did not speak to the team either ... so, what would not be major, that a driver would know for sure wasn't an issue? Sounds like fuel to me ... I hope he gets off though, because to be pushed back behind 10th spot, is quite unfair.

I know it happened to Lewis, but that was wrong too, obviously. They should have changed the rule's interpretation back then IMO.

#150 artista

artista
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,217 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 03 November 2012 - 16:24

so your saying force majure only applies if it is a fuel related issue?

yep:

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.