81 replies to this topic

[redreni]

Or you could bin the car the very next lap.

Agreed, you can't have grids decided on the basis of imaginary laptimes that the stewards reckon a car could have done if he hadn't been blocked. For a start, it would create an incentive for midfield teams like Force India or Mclaren to push like hell in Q1 and Q2 and then block each other in Q3 so the stewards will award them a grid position based on their Q1/Q2 times. Utter nonsense.

[KWSN - DSM]

Impeding is a rule, it is a super stupid rule however still a rule. It should not be there, but as long as it is the drivers need to adhere to it.

[PayasYouRace]

Agreed, you can't have grids decided on the basis of imaginary laptimes that the stewards reckon a car could have done if he hadn't been blocked. For a start, it would create an incentive for midfield teams like Force India or Mclaren to push like hell in Q1 and Q2 and then block each other in Q3 so the stewards will award them a grid position based on their Q1/Q2 times. Utter nonsense.

Obviously you'd have to demonstrate that you'd be well capable of reaching the spot in question. It would have to be based on past form not just Q1/Q2 times. At least all the practise sessions would have to be taken into account.

[Fastcake]

Impeding is a rule, it is a super stupid rule however still a rule. It should not be there, but as long as it is the drivers need to adhere to it.

So you want drivers to impede each other in qualifying?

[KWSN - DSM]

So you want drivers to impede each other in qualifying?

No I want drivers overtake during qualifying, or try to qualify when the track is not brimfull with a full field. There were no impeding rules in the old days, a bad lap was due to hitting traffic.

[Fastcake]

No I want drivers overtake during qualifying, or try to qualify when the track is not brimfull with a full field. There were no impeding rules in the old days, a bad lap was due to hitting traffic.

You can overtake during qualifying, as long as you do not impede another driver on a hot lap. I don't understand what your concern is.

[undersquare]

You don't have to leave room if the driver behind is not reasonably enough alongside. And anyway, it's pretty obvious that anyone is going to turn into that corner. He was nowhere near alongside Maldonado, whereas he was alongside Schumacher. The stewards got it right to punish Hamilton; it's just a shame it had no effect.

They were near enough identical, that's why Brundle changed his mind afterwards when people posted video frames comparing the two passes. But the stewards, for all their vaunted cameras and facilities, didn't bother to do that.

[KWSN - DSM]

You can overtake during qualifying, as long as you do not impede another driver on a hot lap. I don't understand what your concern is.

I do not understand why you find it difficult to understand.

Racing is about racing, overtaking cars. Before Fisichella got a hizzy-fit in France no one had ever been penalized for 'impeding'. Qualifying is for 'x' minutes, you go out and driver as many fast laps as possible and your grid place is assigned accordingly. Since you can not as such talk about lapped cars during sessions where the object is lap time, and not race distance covered the fastest, then qualifying used to be considered all on same lap, where fore when coming upon a slower driver you would overtake, this would cost time and you would complain afterwards that you 'hit traffic'. Some drivers would assist you in letting you by, some would not.

The impeding is a stupid stupid rule, it should not be there, the drivers can use the full session to set times, the fact that they chose not to, and chose that they all do it at the same time matters not. Just mean that some will have slower times, through not getting their car on track timely.

[Fastcake]

I do not understand why you find it difficult to understand.

Racing is about racing, overtaking cars. Before Fisichella got a hizzy-fit in France no one had ever been penalized for 'impeding'. Qualifying is for 'x' minutes, you go out and driver as many fast laps as possible and your grid place is assigned accordingly. Since you can not as such talk about lapped cars during sessions where the object is lap time, and not race distance covered the fastest, then qualifying used to be considered all on same lap, where fore when coming upon a slower driver you would overtake, this would cost time and you would complain afterwards that you 'hit traffic'. Some drivers would assist you in letting you by, some would not.

The impeding is a stupid stupid rule, it should not be there, the drivers can use the full session to set times, the fact that they chose not to, and chose that they all do it at the same time matters not. Just mean that some will have slower times, through not getting their car on track timely.

Qualifying is not a race, and should not be treated as such. Cars sharing the track is a necessity, not a feature, as one-lap qualifying was unfair for several reasons. There is no reason why a driver setting a time should have to force an overtake past a driver on an in/out lap, or face the possibility that a competitor may deliberately block you to destroy your qualifying time and gain an unfair advantage. That you were allowed to do so in the past is not a good thing.

Impeding is simply the qualifying equivalent of the blue flag rules in the race. You are not allowed to hold up competitors that are ahead of you in the race, neither are you allowed to hold up competitors that are setting a qualifying time.

[KWSN - DSM]

Qualifying is not a race, and should not be treated as such. Cars sharing the track is a necessity, not a feature, as one-lap qualifying was unfair for several reasons. There is no reason why a driver setting a time should have to force an overtake past a driver on an in/out lap, or face the possibility that a competitor may deliberately block you to destroy your qualifying time and gain an unfair advantage. That you were allowed to do so in the past is not a good thing.

Impeding is simply the qualifying equivalent of the blue flag rules in the race. You are not allowed to hold up competitors that are ahead of you in the race, neither are you allowed to hold up competitors that are setting a qualifying time.

Think we have to disagree on this one, what I suggest is exactly how it worked for 85 of the 100 years there have been auto races. You seem to see it in the light of the version of F1 we are currently being served as the pinnacle of the sport.

If you read my first post, I agree that the rules needs to be followed. I simply state my personal view that it is stupid.

[Fastcake]

Think we have to disagree on this one, what I suggest is exactly how it worked for 85 of the 100 years there have been auto races. You seem to see it in the light of the version of F1 we are currently being served as the pinnacle of the sport.

If you read my first post, I agree that the rules needs to be followed. I simply state my personal view that it is stupid.

I've never been been a member of the it worked in the past club, but fair enough we all have our opinions.

[SpartanChas]

It's not perfect but it could be worse. Just look at GP2.

[John B]

It's bloody not acceptable.



Stewarding on every level has been the single greatest problem in F1 since the 2002 Malaysian Grand Prix. The application of penalties reeks of pure incompetence from the very top, and previously, of corruption.

Poor decisions are often made with potentially significant championship implications: Malaysia 2002, Monza 2006 qualifying, Spa 2008. There is no such thing as a "precedent" as it changes between races and seasons, so the rules are obviously undefined. This has also led to a ridiculous situation where judgement calls are disputed between Charlie Whiting and the stewards (Monaco and Canada 2011).

Stewarding has also systematically worked against the driver attempting overtaking, and completely in favour of the defender. This led to hopeless racers such as Massa getting away with a whole season (2011) deliberately driving into whoever was overtaking him at the time in braking areas. Stewards punish racers having a legitimate go, which if fails, is part of racing. Artifical justice handed from above is not racing. It's effectively a gimmick to spice up a show which is no longer as truly dangerous as before, and it's only got worse since they've introduced penalties to fill the gap between nothing and the 10-second stop-and-go. They've been handing out endless, needless penalties for racing incidents in which more than a single party is to "blame" - and getting it wrong to boot.

The problems are really quite endless. The difference between malice and accidents is also completely undefined. Grosjean received a race ban for accidentally taking out title contenders in Spa last year, yet Maldonado has received an overall grid drop of 15 places for using his car as a weapon with malicious intent twice. Stewarding clearly is not about enforcing good driving, pure and simple.

Now for 2013, we have a new phenomenon: stewards are increasingly investigating some but not all straightforward incidents after the race and the fans are left in the dark as to why.

Stewarding in F1 gets a big fat 0/10.

Well said, echos my thoughts. Far far too many of these stupid investigations coming up for simple racing incidents. This isn't the only series at fault, sports cars have had some absurd ones that have lost people races for no reason (and NASCAR has taken it to the other extreme by condoning premediated kamikaze retaliation attacks at 200 MPH tracks and in races with championship implications). Wonder if Villeneuve and Arnoux would have been reprimanded for their Dijon battle....

Edited by John B, 16 August 2013 - 20:32.

[halifaxf1fan]

They were near enough identical, that's why Brundle changed his mind afterwards when people posted video frames comparing the two passes. But the stewards, for all their vaunted cameras and facilities, didn't bother to do that.

The stewards saw that incident the right way, Hamilton had three wheels off the track and drove through the bollard while sliding into the side of Maldonado's car. He deserved a penalty for that one.

[pingu666]

pastor left him no alternative really :\

[hupholland]

As long as there are penalties, people will always complain. It's not that bad, they have way more 'evidence' than we do, they know about things that were highlighted in drivers briefings.. and seeing people discuss penalties from over 2 years ago only confirms it's not that bad. Certainly there's always room for improvement and there will always be decisions that are debatable, but I can't remember a single penalty where a driver (or his team) was 100% innocent.

Edited by hupholland, 17 August 2013 - 03:56.

[TFLB]

The stewards saw that incident the right way, Hamilton had three wheels off the track and drove through the bollard while sliding into the side of Maldonado's car. He deserved a penalty for that one.

Precisely.

[sopa]

To those, who say that qualifying impeding "worked" in the past. See what Senna did at Monaco in 1985. Blocked others to stay on pole. I am sure there were more cases like that. So it did not "work" in the past. Just because we had less cameras, less coverage and no internet discussion, doesn't mean everything was fine.

[undersquare]

Precisely.

Lol, you just disqualified yourself from this discussion about impartial regulation .

[undersquare]

To those, who say that qualifying impeding "worked" in the past. See what Senna did at Monaco in 1985. Blocked others to stay on pole. I am sure there were more cases like that. So it did not "work" in the past. Just because we had less cameras, less coverage and no internet discussion, doesn't mean everything was fine.

Yeah. Qualifying is supposed to be about who is fastest, not who's least unlucky or least ripped off. Stewards are quite right to deter interference with another driver's fast lap.

[TFLB]

Lol, you just disqualified yourself from this discussion about impartial regulation .

I don't think I did. Anyway, all the debate about Hamilton is getting out of hand. What I was mainly complaining about is that, if they decide to punish a driver after the end of a race, sometimes the punishment does not affect his finishing position, and that's stupid. I believe it's also happened to Grosjean and Alonso in the last season or two.

[SpaMaster]

In my opinion there seems no end to the woeful inconsistency, judging and dawdle of race stewards, and yet there is little or no improvement for years in a sport that should be at the very forefront of excellence in all areas.

It ought to be very simple. The rules are straightforward and if they are not, they should be clarified for the following season or even the next race. Incidents are for the most part pretty clear cut as the parameters are not that many, but it still seems to overwhelm what seems a panel of amateurs and we get these constantly changing rulings or no rulings at all, even within the same race.

If the problem is an ever changing group of stewards, create a fixed group. Then create a quality control group to regularly evaluate the steward group. To me it's basic stuff.

To be honest my neighbor could probably sort out most races better than what you would expect to be the best group of race referees out there, and I'm not even saying that in jest, I mean it sincerely. Stewarding in F1 is frankly atrocious.

Do you agree?

It is better now than what it used to be 5 years or so back, but it could still be much better. We need much more consistency. Whatever happened to the transparency of decisions and their rationale Todt promised when he took over the office!? Whiting has been one of the problems, he is a main source of confusion. F1 needs a more accountable, transparent and professional race control director and group of stewards.

Also the rules need to be laid out simple and straightforward. Many drivers don't even know the basic rules of leaving space when it comes to racing. They just make up their own rules as they go along. This is a fundamental philosophy of racing and you won't see that in explicit simple words in the F1 rule book. This causes much confusion. The recent clarification on leaving one-car's width coming back to the racing line has put an end to lot of madness. But if you ask Villeneueve and Arnoux they will tell you in clear and simple rules of wheel-to-wheel racing - leave space when a car is alongside, this is possible only when there is reasonable reaction time for the driver ahead, last minute lunges don't count, etc.

Hanging someone out to the dry on the outside is a myth propagated out of proportion. It is true the defending driver truly runs out of space and control in the middle of the fight often, but some drivers proudly and intentionally do it as if it is okay and even proclaim it to the press. This shows basic understanding is lacking in many cases. Some young guns don't understand the concept of running someone of the track by desperate inside lunges. They think if it works great, otherwise okay. But it is not okay to force the other driver off the track because of your wrong estimation of what it takes to make a pass stick there. Leaving space argument does not work here. Now we have a lot of guys arguing they are still right even after their punishments and being pointed out the reason. Leaving space, reaction time and other driver's limitations - you need to develop a good understanding on the balance of these. Let's see, the leaving-one-car-space-width rule seems to have improved the behaviour of the drivers dramatically.

[SpaMaster]

after what they did to Grosjean in Hungary I would answer No

After what Grosjean did to Button in Hungary, I would say some drivers never learn. In such cases your reputation precedes you.

[undersquare]

After what Grosjean did to Button in Hungary, I would say some drivers never learn. In such cases your reputation precedes you.

This is the point though. A properly trained objective and impartial steward would not penalise him for running marginally over the white line just because his name is Grosjean, especially with all the other huge off-track excursions going on.

That was completely different from colliding with JB, which should quite properly be linked with his pattern of reckless contacts to decide on deterrence.

[SpaMaster]

^ Yes, in an ideal world it should not happen. But I have no sympathy for guys who continue to do the same mistakes. Lot of times they get away with it and many suffer because of him unnecessarily. This is being on the other side of the coin. It is normal that if you do more mistakes you would be scrutinized more intensely. The Massa incident itself was not punishable (even though it was outside the rules), but in the end it did not matter because he should have anyway got the same punishment for ramming into Button. It is not a great decision. But I wouldn't pick it as an example to site how disappointed I am with the stewards.

[undersquare]

^ Yes, in an ideal world it should not happen. But I have no sympathy for guys who continue to do the same mistakes. Lot of times they get away with it and many suffer because of him unnecessarily. This is being on the other side of the coin. It is normal that if you do more mistakes you would be scrutinized more intensely. The Massa incident itself was not punishable (even though it was outside the rules), but in the end it did not matter because he should have anyway got the same punishment for ramming into Button. It is not a great decision. But I wouldn't pick it as an example to site how disappointed I am with the stewards.

Why did they need to spend hours deliberating the incident with JB? It was open and shut. They must have been fussing emotionally about giving him two penalties. They should have left the Massa one alone and quickly given him a DT for the JB one.

For me it's a perfect example of emotional stewarding, and not good enough.

[SpaMaster]

^ Yes, it is nowhere near professional and being high-standard, but I feel it is much better than how it used to 5-6 years ago.

[undersquare]

^ Yes, it is nowhere near professional and being high-standard, but I feel it is much better than how it used to 5-6 years ago.

Oh yeah, I agree. Well with Max/Donnelly it wasn't so much stewarding as a campaign. It's as good as it's ever been, now, but with all the cameras and analysis the shortcomings are that much more obvious, I suppose.

[Lucass]

It is better now than what it used to be 5 years or so back, but it could still be much better. We need much more consistency. Whatever happened to the transparency of decisions and their rationale Todt promised when he took over the office!? Whiting has been one of the problems, he is a main source of confusion. F1 needs a more accountable, transparent and professional race control director and group of stewards.

More consistency is good and it seems FiA addresses that with their steward training programme the last few years.
Still every situation is unique and needs a unique approach also drivers who are habitual offenders like Hamilton (2011), Maldonado and Grosjean (of late) lose the benefit of the doubt with the stewards until they show they have changed their ways.

Reason why FiA don't make a huge effort to make all of it more transparent and accountable is imo because 99.9% of the fans just don't care. Why explain every stewards decision in detail when hardly anybody cares.

[SpaMaster]

^ Oh I have already made it clear this is intricately tied to the drivers. It is also related to the drivers in the sense that when the ones driving in the series don't have a clear understanding of the racing rules, what are the chances that the stewards do? There is so much confusion that drivers are racing by their own understanding, stewards judge with their own understand and in-between some loose-mouth passes down it's comment that 'it's okay (but let me refer to stewards anyway)'. This has been one big mess. Tomorrow Massa may become a driver-steward and this guy mostly has no clue why he is getting now and what chance does he have when he comes to stewarding. Yes, the steward training initiative is a very good thing. I just hope they don't discuss in terms of having to have more than half-car's length to be classified as alongside, hang out to the dry on the outside, you can cut across because the car behind was not yet alongside, etc. I hope they have a very sensible syllabus.

On the second point, I would say there are lot of fans who want to know the reason. Still whether the fans want it or not should be the reason for FIA to not do it. It already created a huge stir, particularly in the afermath of Spa 2008 which led to the new FIA President saying that FIA would make all the decision transparent. So, obviously there was a need. It just wasn't delivered as promised.

[mangeliiito]

What is wrong with them today?

[Paul084]

Perez taps Nico's rear while behind yet Nico get's a penalty for running wide and gaining an advantage o.O

Edited by Paul084, 22 September 2013 - 13:01.