Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Singapore track limit violations [split]


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 DaddyCool

DaddyCool
  • Member

  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 21 September 2014 - 14:45

So Alonso clears both bulls at the start by missing the first corner by a country mile, and he only has to give back one place to Vettel.

 

Meanwhile JEV gets a 5-sec penalty where he was arguably pushed wide by the Lotus in a close racing situation.

 

Job well done once again.



Advertisement

#2 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 21 September 2014 - 15:07

RB say the asked CW and were told he thought giving just the one place back was enough. Not for the first time I completely disagree with CW and his ability to recognize an advantage when it smacks him in the face.



#3 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 6,287 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 21 September 2014 - 15:43

I don't think it's a problem.



#4 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,648 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 21 September 2014 - 15:44

Some of us do.



#5 KavB

KavB
  • Member

  • 1,592 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 21 September 2014 - 19:29

It sets a bad precedent for future races at Singapore. I'm pretty surprised Ricciardo wasn't more annoyed. 



#6 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 September 2014 - 20:46

RB say the asked CW and were told he thought giving just the one place back was enough. Not for the first time I completely disagree with CW and his ability to recognize an advantage when it smacks him in the face.

 

Yet IIRC Whiting did refer it to the stewards, because the "no further action" decision came up on the screens. It would be interesting to see the reasons for this, but the links on fia.com to Stewards' Decisions 28-31 are broken, so I'm not able to check or to find out what reasoning, if any, the stewards gave for that decision.

 

If Alonso can make that move and remain ahead of Ricciardo without penalty, but Vergne's move at turn 7 is penalised even though he did everything he could to stay on track short of crashing, there's something very wrong. The Alonso one needn't have gone to the stewards, all it needed was for Whiting to suggest to Ferrari that they ought to let Ricciardo by, which they would have done. I don't think it affected the result today, but it's yet another shocking decision to be chalked up.



#7 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,272 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 21 September 2014 - 23:12

yep that jev one was :|



#8 travbrad

travbrad
  • Member

  • 1,058 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 21 September 2014 - 23:59

So Alonso clears both bulls at the start by missing the first corner by a country mile, and he only has to give back one place to Vettel.

 

Meanwhile JEV gets a 5-sec penalty where he was arguably pushed wide by the Lotus in a close racing situation.

 

Job well done once again.

 

That pretty much sums up the horrible stewarding in this race.  I guess the lessons we can take away from this race are:

 

1. If you want to pass other drivers by going off track, make sure to pass at least 2 of them then give 1 place back.

2. Forcing another driver off the track is deserving of a penalty....for the guy who was forced off.



#9 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 22 September 2014 - 00:02

Why brake at all for that first corner?  Just keep your foot in it, after all you were already past all those cars before you left the track (going 100 mph faster than them).



#10 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:24

It sets a bad precedent for future races at Singapore. I'm pretty surprised Ricciardo wasn't more annoyed. 

 

Rosberg did it in the past. He never made the first corner at the start and usually won a lot of places that way. Never got punished for it.



#11 CoolBreeze

CoolBreeze
  • Member

  • 2,450 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:19

I think the best if for the race director to provide the answer if the team radio in and asks for advice. For example, 'nando knew it and handed it over to Vettel when he deemed to have gained advantage. 

 

There's no perfection to judge if you are skipping the tracks on purpose. However i think Race Director should be the final person to make the call. 



#12 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • Admin

  • 19,094 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 22 September 2014 - 10:03

I have split this from the general 'track limit madness' discussion because that is more about the general point of whether track limits should be consistently policed, while these posts are about the specific incidents at Singapore of Alonso at the start and Vergne later on.

 

Please continue general discussion there.  This thread is about the specific incidents at Singapore.



#13 conkeso

conkeso
  • Member

  • 334 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 22 September 2014 - 10:27

Vergne's Lotus overtake penalty was ridiculous, no doubt about that.



#14 TopDog85

TopDog85
  • Member

  • 204 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 22 September 2014 - 11:43

These penalties are stupid beyond belief, how hard is it for Charlie to get on the radio and tell the driver to give the place back??

#15 byrkus

byrkus
  • Member

  • 1,011 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 22 September 2014 - 12:40

I believe that the JEV situation was that he was pushed from the track - and he STILL made the pass for position!

 

It was basically an overtake with all 4 wheels off the racing circuit - through the FIA eyes, at least.



#16 TopDog85

TopDog85
  • Member

  • 204 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 22 September 2014 - 12:45

I believe that the JEV situation was that he was pushed from the track - and he STILL made the pass for position!

It was basically an overtake with all 4 wheels off the racing circuit - through the FIA eyes, at least.


So why can't Whiting get on the radio and order him to let him back past instead of keeping quiet and giving someone a penalty? It's pathetic if you ask me!

#17 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 September 2014 - 15:08

So why can't Whiting get on the radio and order him to let him back past instead of keeping quiet and giving someone a penalty? It's pathetic if you ask me!

 

I think it would have been odd if the team had asked Whiting if the move was okay because it was a pretty clear-cut case of being forced off, and asking "should we give the place back" would have just made them look unsure of themselves. And anyway, the penalties are so ridiculously light that, when you're running fast on fresh tyres, you might just as well press on and try to pass and then put 5 seconds on as many cars as possible. By the time you've had a conversation with Whiting and established that you need to give the place back, you'll already have pulled a couple or three seconds on the Lotus, you'll have to fall back by that amount, then let the guy past, then follow him for a couple of corners to show you're not retaining any advantage a la Hamilton 2007, then re-pass at a place where you can't be shoved off the track - you're going to lose a lot more than five seconds, aren't you? And even if Whiting advises you to give the place back it's only his opinion, so you're weighing the certainty of losing time if you give the place back against the mere strong possibility of being penalised 5s if you don't. It's a no-brainer. So we've got yet another rule where, even if you agree with the decision, you have to question why it's better to break the rule by retaining a lasting advantage, rather than follow the rule by ceding the advantage promptly? Yet another rule where the cost of compliance far exceeds the penalty.

 

Luckily it didn't affect the result, though, because Vergne passed everybody he caught and then gapped them all by over 5s anyway. But there really is no way of interpreting these events as meaning that the track limits regulations are working well.


Edited by redreni, 22 September 2014 - 15:09.


#18 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,653 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 23 September 2014 - 15:54

Turn two at Singapore is a perfect example of "lines painted on a car park". It's not an acceptable way to make a track. I was sitting at turn 1 and I was thinking about the arguments for and against gravel traps, and you could easily have a gravel trap inside turn 2 without it causing any safety problems for someone careering off at turn 1. It just needs to start a bit later and would act as a disincentive.

Also, I haven't watched any of this back on TV so I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure that Hamilton did not make turn 2 on his qualifying lap. Yeah, he "lost time", but is that a valid get-out on a qualifying lap? Earl Bamber in the Porsche race was dropped from pole to sixth on the grid for exceeding track limits. http://www.fia.com/n...reets-singapore I'm not 100% sure but I think it was the same corner.

#19 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 23 September 2014 - 16:24

Stewards' Decision 29

"The driver of car 14 did leave the track at turn 1, but did not gain an advantage due to

the fact he gave the position back straight away."

 

 

That's in the opinion of stewards Lars Osterlind, Roger Peart, Nish Shetty and Alan Jones.

 

The only way this makes sense is if they think Alonso was legitimately ahead of Ricciardo before turn 1. Particularly disappointing that Alan Jones didn't explain to the others that Alonso was only ahead of Ricciardo before the corner because he basically didn't brake. When Ricciardo braked, Alonso was not cleanly ahead, so he was alongside, on the outside line. Given that that's the case, how on earth can he go off the track, rejoin clearly ahead of Ricciardo, not give the place back to Ricciardo, and escape a penalty? How does that work?

 

Still, I suppose it evens up the Silverstone situation a bit. It's just lucky for the FIA that Mercedes is so quick. Red Bull and Ferrari are having a terrific scrap, and if Mercedes weren't there and these stupid decisions were affecting the championship, it would look a hell of a lot worse for the FIA.



Advertisement

#20 DaddyCool

DaddyCool
  • Member

  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 23 September 2014 - 16:36

The ultimate irony is that ex-racers were brought to stewarding to make it more fair by having people there who actually had a career in auto racing. Seeing that even a World frickin Champion can't get something as simple as this incident right, I don't have high hopes that it will get any better in the future.

 

Then again, I'm just an average armchair expert forumer, what do I know about complex issues like racing 101 and 5th grade physics when we have such experts on board.


Edited by DaddyCool, 23 September 2014 - 16:36.


#21 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,726 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 23 September 2014 - 17:07

Jones is only one of the stewards, he has no greater vote on a decision that any of the other stewards.

#22 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,122 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 September 2014 - 17:13

Jones is only one of the stewards, he has no greater vote on a decision that any of the other stewards.

 

No greater vote, but he is there because of his experience and he's there to use that experience to help the other stewards understand thee full situation. So, in that respect, he ought to have more influence that any of the others.



#23 nosecone

nosecone
  • Member

  • 1,938 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 23 September 2014 - 17:20

That's in the opinion of stewards Lars Osterlind, Roger Peart, Nish Shetty and Alan Jones.

 

The only way this makes sense is if they think Alonso was legitimately ahead of Ricciardo before turn 1. Particularly disappointing that Alan Jones didn't explain to the others that Alonso was only ahead of Ricciardo before the corner because he basically didn't brake. When Ricciardo braked, Alonso was not cleanly ahead, so he was alongside, on the outside line. Given that that's the case, how on earth can he go off the track, rejoin clearly ahead of Ricciardo, not give the place back to Ricciardo, and escape a penalty? How does that work?

 

 

 

Good questions. Even if Alonso was ahead before T1 we don't know how the scene had continued. Ricciardo was at the inside for turn 1 and the follwing left hander. It is highly doubtful if Alonso could have kept him behind :well:

 

I don't blame Alonso. It was a decision made in milliseconds and i also don't believe it was his intention to get an unfair advantage. But FIA's law enforcement is crippling. There should be no benefit of the doubt in such cases. It gives wrong incentives


Edited by nosecone, 23 September 2014 - 17:21.


#24 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,726 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 23 September 2014 - 17:53

No greater vote, but he is there because of his experience and he's there to use that experience to help the other stewards understand thee full situation. So, in that respect, he ought to have more influence that any of the others.

He can only give his advice, if they do not want to take it then he can do no more.

#25 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 23 September 2014 - 18:26

Jones is only one of the stewards, he has no greater vote on a decision that any of the other stewards.

 

I'm wondering if the other stewards discounted what he said, because he like Ric is an Aussie.



#26 goingthedistance

goingthedistance
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,471 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 23 September 2014 - 18:33

I'm wondering if the other stewards discounted what he said, because he like Ric is an Aussie.

 

Quite possible as he's not a very neutral sort of person. 



#27 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 23 September 2014 - 18:48

I agree it's difficult for the stewards when they're high profile individuals, and obviously as a former world champion Jones must get asked about Ricciardo's emergence as a winner in F1 all the time, and has probably given answers that could be taken to imply that he's not completely neutral. And maybe this could have been a case of overcompensating, either by Jones himself or by his colleagues in not listening to him, in that they didn't want to make a decision in favour of the driver who is the same nationality as the driver steward.

 

But I suspect not, because apparently Red Bull have said Whiting told them that he thought giving the place back to Vettel was enough, so the more likely scenario in my view is that the stewards just didn't want to contradict Whiting. Whatever. They've made the wrong decision. They're only human, I guess. But still, I thought that one was pretty clear cut, and I'm probably considerably less neutral even than Alan Jones when Red Bulls and Ferraris do battle on track, but I can't defend the indefensible.



#28 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,122 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 September 2014 - 21:55

He can only give his advice, if they do not want to take it then he can do no more.

 

True



#29 evo

evo
  • Member

  • 431 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 23 September 2014 - 23:58

With the Lap1 Turn1 Alonso incident, my guess is that Ricciardo and Redbull didn't push the matter too much as they were dealing with their own car issues. Vettel closed the door on Ricciardo and that would've slowed his pace a little, however also exposing him to the cars behind. Alonso then pulled a gap from Ricciardo and kept up with Vettel. Ricciardo would have conceded the place later on anyway.

 

Besides, we may not hear much from Ricciardo anyway as we don't hear all radio messages and that it is Redbull's job to push the issue with Charlie.

 

with JEV I felt the penalty was harsh but he probably should've given the place back to Pastor and then take him at the next sets of corners.


Edited by evo, 23 September 2014 - 23:58.


#30 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • Admin

  • 19,094 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 24 September 2014 - 12:47

Good questions. Even if Alonso was ahead before T1 we don't know how the scene had continued. Ricciardo was at the inside for turn 1 and the follwing left hander. It is highly doubtful if Alonso could have kept him behind :well:

 

I don't blame Alonso. It was a decision made in milliseconds and i also don't believe it was his intention to get an unfair advantage. But FIA's law enforcement is crippling. There should be no benefit of the doubt in such cases. It gives wrong incentives

There are arguments in the Hamilton/Rosberg Spa incident which go like this;

 

No, he probably didn't do it deliberately, steering his car in an attempt to cut the tyre, but he probably thought long and hard beforehand about what he wanted to do and decided then that he wouldn't back out if the circumstances arose.  Therefore it is still 'deliberate' by any measure.

 

I'm not lending support or otherwise to that view, but I do think it applies here.  Most of the drivers spend time going through footage of previous starts, trying to work out what might be a good strategy for the next day with due consideration for where they find themselves on the grid.  Alonso has used that run off before and made up loads of places in previous years.  He knows that he can make an arguable claim to having been run off the circuit, and he also knows that shenanigans at the start tend to be punished less than on other laps.

 

This decision was not made in milliseconds, IMO.  I believe that he never once considered the turn 2 run off to be something to avoid, but something to exploit and, if I am honest with myself, I have to admire that willingness to take the risk.



#31 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 24 September 2014 - 15:32

There are arguments in the Hamilton/Rosberg Spa incident which go like this;

 

No, he probably didn't do it deliberately, steering his car in an attempt to cut the tyre, but he probably thought long and hard beforehand about what he wanted to do and decided then that he wouldn't back out if the circumstances arose.  Therefore it is still 'deliberate' by any measure.

 

I'm not lending support or otherwise to that view, but I do think it applies here.  Most of the drivers spend time going through footage of previous starts, trying to work out what might be a good strategy for the next day with due consideration for where they find themselves on the grid.  Alonso has used that run off before and made up loads of places in previous years.  He knows that he can make an arguable claim to having been run off the circuit, and he also knows that shenanigans at the start tend to be punished less than on other laps.

 

This decision was not made in milliseconds, IMO.  I believe that he never once considered the turn 2 run off to be something to avoid, but something to exploit and, if I am honest with myself, I have to admire that willingness to take the risk.

 

Do you think the dramatic reduction in the standard penalty from a drive-through to a 5-second pitstop or race time penalty plays into this as well? It's not as much of a risk as it used to be.



#32 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • Admin

  • 19,094 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 24 September 2014 - 16:54

It's not, and it's no doubt factored into the thinking.  There's always the risk that someone makes no attempt at all to brake for the corner and just does it because he can, and it is obvious from the footage so a harsher penalty is imposed.  In this case, he locked up so it would be pretty unreasonable to say that he was never going to try and make the corner.



#33 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 24 September 2014 - 17:32

It's not, and it's no doubt factored into the thinking.  There's always the risk that someone makes no attempt at all to brake for the corner and just does it because he can, and it is obvious from the footage so a harsher penalty is imposed.  In this case, he locked up so it would be pretty unreasonable to say that he was never going to try and make the corner.


I was impressed by that lockup. He knows exactly what he's doing, old Fernando.

#34 nosecone

nosecone
  • Member

  • 1,938 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 25 September 2014 - 06:38

There are arguments in the Hamilton/Rosberg Spa incident which go like this;

 

No, he probably didn't do it deliberately, steering his car in an attempt to cut the tyre, but he probably thought long and hard beforehand about what he wanted to do and decided then that he wouldn't back out if the circumstances arose.  Therefore it is still 'deliberate' by any measure.

 

I'm not lending support or otherwise to that view, but I do think it applies here.  Most of the drivers spend time going through footage of previous starts, trying to work out what might be a good strategy for the next day with due consideration for where they find themselves on the grid.  Alonso has used that run off before and made up loads of places in previous years.  He knows that he can make an arguable claim to having been run off the circuit, and he also knows that shenanigans at the start tend to be punished less than on other laps.

 

This decision was not made in milliseconds, IMO.  I believe that he never once considered the turn 2 run off to be something to avoid, but something to exploit and, if I am honest with myself, I have to admire that willingness to take the risk.

 

Basically it is FIA's job to make the drivers know that running wide in turn1 is not an option as it results in a penalty. So if Alonso considered running wide as an option to get an advantage, it shows that the handling of that matter has been really bad in the past as bad precedent were set. -> FIA'S failure


Edited by nosecone, 25 September 2014 - 06:38.


#35 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,805 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 25 September 2014 - 07:10

I'm wondering if the other stewards discounted what he said, because he like Ric is an Aussie.


They probably discounted what said because I doubt he even knew the race had started. Most likely still going on about how shlt Ford's are because KeKe's car was still stuck on the grid. He shows how clueless he is every race with his commentary, so I doubt he would be any more informed in the stewards room. I can't believe they even have him.

#36 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 25 September 2014 - 07:21

Basically it is FIA's job to make the drivers know that running wide in turn1 is not an option as it results in a penalty. So if Alonso considered running wide as an option to get an advantage, it shows that the handling of that matter has been really bad in the past as bad precedent were set. -> FIA'S failure

 

As somebody mentioned above, the track design doesn't help either, but the FIA has made a mess of it down the years. It's almost inevitable that, when it gets busy at the start, with the best will in the world that run-off area is going to be used if it's there, even if it's a guaranteed penalty, because drivers would rather use it than have contact in turn 2, and some drivers will occasionally be left with that stark choice. And I guess it can be difficult, once people have used the run-off and come back on, to work out what the running order ought to be, because as they enter that corner on lap 1, there is no settled running order, because everyone's still travelling at different speeds on different lines, trying to find the best position to slot in and pick up the normal racing line. So it's not always obvious.

 

It's just that, in determining where the cars that have left the circuit should slot in, the officials seem to be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the car that went off, and if you want to keep cars on the circuit as much as possible you would surely want to give the benefit of the doubt to the cars that stayed on the track. So in this case, if it's hard to tell whether Alonso or Ricciardo was ahead immediately prior to turn 1, you should say "well, Alonso went off, so he has to cede the position". It doesn't matter if it was premeditated or an accidental lock-up, unless he was actually forced off by the car he ended up passing (which he clearly wasn't) if he wanted to pass Ricciardo on the outside on the approach to turn 1 and finish the move in the braking zone, that is always subject to him then making the corner, and if he doesn't make the corner he should give the place back or get a penalty.



#37 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,539 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 25 September 2014 - 07:32

Why not give a 5 second penalty to everyone (bar accidents) leaving the track. In many first corners, you could really gain an advantage if you go 'wide' and rejoin.