Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

Did Mercedes break pit rule?


  • Please log in to reply
265 replies to this topic

#251 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • Admin

  • 19,094 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 10 July 2015 - 12:47

And how do they prove "genuine" intention? Even if Mercedes do the exact same thing as previous race, with Toto saying they did it as a dummy and all, it still seems they could provide evidence that they were genuinely going to pit. If it is up to the FIA to determine their intention then expect mixed results such as in the case of track limits or contact. I suppose that in itself will make the team's think twice.

I don't know how this might get proven or policed save for the FIA statements we have both read so I think your last sentence is the point. You carry out a risk/benefit analysis and either do or do not*.



*There is no 'try'.

Advertisement

#252 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 10 July 2015 - 13:03

And how do they prove "genuine" intention? Even if Mercedes do the exact same thing as previous race, with Toto saying they did it as a dummy and all, it still seems they could provide evidence that they were genuinely going to pit. If it is up to the FIA to determine their intention then expect mixed results such as in the case of track limits or contact. I suppose that in itself will make the team's think twice.

 

Good question that goes to the heart of the issue. One example I can think of is that if a team sends their crew members out, then cancels, they will be summoned (post-race) and have to prove that something substantial occurred between those two events. Almost all times these decisions are based on rational logic, tire wear, or the need to undercut. The teams have reams of data on tire wear, that is one set of data they spend all weekend collecting.

 

So any decisions have to be based on rational facts, a profound event, and I strongly suspect the FIA will not accept "we changed our minds", or "we felt it was not the time".



#253 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 13,533 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 10 July 2015 - 14:55

It doesn't matter how often you change the code; if the driver is told to pit, acknowledges the message (or doesn't respond over the radio saying "no, I want to stay out"), nobody cancels the call, but the driver doesn't pit; then the FIA is entitled to investigate and entitled to decide it was a coded message, which is not allowed.

 

And your second point is wrong. From now on if the pit crew is deployed and then withdrawn without working on the car, the FIA doesn't have to prove anything. The team has to prove it had a genuine intention to pit which was conveyed to the driver, otherwise it cops a penalty.

 

It's worth noting, though, that if the penalty is only 5s on your race time, it may well be worth copping a penalty for this (and a whole host of other infractions). This is what the FIA is too boneheaded to understand. If you're in the position Mercedes were on Sunday, stuck behind a couple of cars that are much slower than you, your priority is to get ahead of them. Once you've got track position you will automatically pull away, so a 5s penalty is a complete irrelevance and well worth it if it allows you to get the jump.

 

But it didn't help them get ahead, it just made them look stupid.

 

I'm not sure how often there have been suspected dummy pit stops, has any team ever gained anything from them?



#254 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 6,121 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 July 2015 - 15:39

The point is not whether anything was gained by the dummy stop, but whether a rule was broken. Clearly in this case it was. After all if you rob a bank with no money, it is still robbery. It is the act that is illegal, not the result. This should also be applied to track limit violations, in my opinion. In both cases intent is irrelevant. Designing rules that adequately (and fairly) cover these situations is not necessarily easy.



#255 Riverside

Riverside
  • Member

  • 3,382 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 10 July 2015 - 15:45

I can't believe this thread is still going! 

 

 It's only because certain posters mutated the thread into:

 

 Pitstops are useless and only for show and tradition.  (In actual fact that's total BS because mandatory P.S. have only been since the two compound rule.)

 

 The rule itself is stupid and safety is of no concern.  (FIA reducing access to those doing "actual work" is stupid and the frequency of injury is low.) 

 

The insinuation of posters attacking Mercedes.   :cool:  

 

Arrivabene ******* his pants in pitlane during FP has everything to do with what Mercedes did on race day.  Not. (There are no sporting rules for individuals

crossing pitlane)

 

 Anyway - FIA reacted correctly in my opinion - blantant dummy/fake pitstops won't be tolerated.  



#256 Riverside

Riverside
  • Member

  • 3,382 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 10 July 2015 - 15:48

But it didn't help them get ahead, it just made them look stupid.

 

 

 

 Toto made them look stupid -  if he didn't admit to it - we would not even be talking about it.   



#257 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 10 July 2015 - 16:39

But it didn't help them get ahead, it just made them look stupid.

 

I'm not sure how often there have been suspected dummy pit stops, has any team ever gained anything from them?

 

No, because it didn't work, which is why I've never suggested a sporting penalty of any kind.

 

My comment was intended, really, as a kind of musing as to whether this rule is actually going to be enforceable, and strong enough to deter teams from continuing to do these dummy stops. So I was thinking more about its future application, than about the race just gone. When I say "a position like Mercedes was in on Sunday", I meant to refer to any case where a faster car is stuck behind a slower one and would be capable of pulling a gap if it could find its way past. I'm aware that things didn't play out like that on Sunday because (a) Williams didn't fall for it and (b) it rained anyway.

 

Ultimately, if a team wants to do a dummy stop and is prepared to tell the driver to come in and then cancel the call at the last minute, they could easily concoct a plausible-sounding reason for this. They could say they made a decision to pit based on a misinterpretation of the data, and that once this was pointed out to the pitwall, the decision was reversed. I know the burden of proof is on the team, but the standard of proof is unlikely to be unattainably high, and any plausible story would stand a chance.

 

There seems to be a consensus, with which I broadly agree, that once the team knows it will have to bear the burden of proving to the FIA that it was a genuine call, they won't want to take the chance, but that's a risk/reward calculation. I'm pointing out that unless the actual sanction to be applied for this offence is going to be assessed on a sensible, case-by-case basis, and not just as a blanket, automatic, standard 5s like most other infractions, then there isn't going to be any risk for the teams to factor in. They will evaluate it like this:

 

Reward: We increase our chances of getting past the car that is ruining our race.

Risk: We may or may not get a 5s penalty. If we don't get past and remain stuck behind the slower car, the 5s may or may not effect our finishing position. Taking Sunday as an example, the Mercedes cars were running 3rd and 4th and were well clear of 5th, so if the race had continued like that, even if Mercedes remained stuck, a 5s race time penalty would have cost them no places. If we do get past, the 5s penalty definitely won't make any difference as we have the pace to pull away.

 

The danger is, if a team thinks the trick might work, it's going to seem like mainly reward and very little risk.



#258 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 10 July 2015 - 17:21

 It's only because certain posters mutated the thread into:

 

 Pitstops are useless and only for show and tradition.  (In actual fact that's total BS because mandatory P.S. have only been since the two compound rule.)

 

 The rule itself is stupid and safety is of no concern.  (FIA reducing access to those doing "actual work" is stupid and the frequency of injury is low.) 

 

The insinuation of posters attacking Mercedes.   :cool:  

 

Arrivabene ******* his pants in pitlane during FP has everything to do with what Mercedes did on race day.  Not. (There are no sporting rules for individuals

crossing pitlane)

 

 Anyway - FIA reacted correctly in my opinion - blantant dummy/fake pitstops won't be tolerated.  

Stop misquoting misrepresenting what people are saying an people might have more respect for your opinions. NOBODY HERE SAID SAFETY IS OF NO CONCERN, so why suggest that anybody did ? You said pitstop safety is paramount. I took that to the logical conclusion and asked why we still need pitstops.

 

Why do we still need regular pitstops in F1 ? If we accept that pitstops are inherently dangerous and sooner or later a serious accident is going to occur, are the rule makers setting themselves up for a future lawsuit by mandating the teams perform at least one in the race, whether they want to or not ? 



#259 Peter Perfect

Peter Perfect
  • Member

  • 5,618 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 10 July 2015 - 17:31

Stop misquoting misrepresenting what people are saying an people might have more respect for your opinions. NOBODY HERE SAID SAFETY IS OF NO CONCERN, so why suggest that anybody did ? You said pitstop safety is paramount. I took that to the logical conclusion and asked why we still need pitstops.

 

Why do we still need regular pitstops in F1 ? If we accept that pitstops are inherently dangerous and sooner or later a serious accident is going to occur, are the rule makers setting themselves up for a future lawsuit by mandating the teams perform at least one in the race, whether they want to or not ? 

 

Welcome to Assessing Risk 101



Advertisement

#260 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 10 July 2015 - 18:08

 

Why do we still need regular pitstops in F1 ? If we accept that pitstops are inherently dangerous and sooner or later a serious accident is going to occur, are the rule makers setting themselves up for a future lawsuit by mandating the teams perform at least one in the race, whether they want to or not ? 

 

Pitstops are risky, but they are done only under strict control to raise the odds. As mentioned, speeds are limited, anyone out in the pit lane must wear specific safety equipment, and so on. It's all about balancing risk versus reward. If a section of roadway requires repairs, they do not shut the entire roadway down, but instead deploy specific trained teams and equipment to contain the risk. Life and safety is not always just black or white, most of the time it is shades of grey and compromises.

 

On a side note, that little battle of two cars racing side-by-side out of the pits will probably be banned. Toto's stupid comments have shone a spotlight on pit lane safety, and IMO an unsafe release will be redefined as ZERO overlap to any car on the outside lane.



#261 Riverside

Riverside
  • Member

  • 3,382 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 10 July 2015 - 18:40

Stop misquoting misrepresenting what people are saying an people might have more respect for your opinions. NOBODY HERE SAID SAFETY IS OF NO CONCERN, so why suggest that anybody did ? You said pitstop safety is paramount. I took that to the logical conclusion and asked why we still need pitstops.  

 

Saying safety is paramount in pitstops is not suggesting that they be abolished - rather that  any risk during  pitstops should be removed if possible:

 I.E. NOT being in the pit for no reason just like Merc on Sunday at Silverstone.   Meanwhile,  I don't agree with your opinion that pitstops are redundant

and only for entertainment or tradition - I've mentioned already that the tradition in F1 is not mandatory pit stops FAR longer than mandatory in conjunction

with the two compound rule.

 

 I've shown plenty of respect to your posts - If anything you have misrepresented my statements about safety  to go on a tangent about the redundancy

and abolition of pitstops - which has nothing to do with the initial intention and discussion of this thread. 

 

 are the rule makers setting themselves up for a future lawsuit by mandating the teams perform at least one in the race, whether they want to or not ? 

 

 

Now you are just getting into gross exaggeration and something that will never ever happen.  The entire world of motorsport has pit stops - and other series

with two compound rules .. Please stop with these ridiculous notions.  


Edited by Riverside, 10 July 2015 - 18:54.


#262 Riverside

Riverside
  • Member

  • 3,382 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 10 July 2015 - 20:19

Pitstops are risky, but they are done only under strict control to raise the odds. 

 

Et voila - Safety in pitstops is paramount.  



#263 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 10 July 2015 - 20:28

[snip]

 

On a side note, that little battle of two cars racing side-by-side out of the pits will probably be banned.

 

[snip]

 

It won't be banned. It can't be, because it's not allowed at the moment.

 

Cars must merge into the fast lane before leaving the pits. Massa didn't, because Rosberg wasn't lifting (nor should he have done), so the only way Massa could have got into the fast lane without causing a collision would have been by dropping back behind Rosberg. So he didn't follow the rules, it was dangerous, and he gained a place which, if it hadn't rained, he would probably have kept until the end. I don't know why that isn't the controversy, frankly, rather than Mercedes breaking a rule without advantage, and in a far less dangerous way.


Edited by redreni, 10 July 2015 - 20:30.


#264 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 6,966 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 10 July 2015 - 23:38

 Toto made them look stupid -  if he didn't admit to it - we would not even be talking about it.   

Ha!..You have articulated it beautifully Riverside. If an infraction of the rules during the race ...  had taken place in the  eyes of the FIA,some sort of action would of been enacted upon. Nothing was, meaning this is a non story!.



#265 kapow

kapow
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 11 July 2015 - 00:04

If the FIA is concerned about pit safety then why don't they also restrict the number of mechanics allowed to do pit stops?

1 to insert an hydraulic line for inbuilt jacks and 2 to change each tyre should mean a reduction of 5 people in the pit lane.

#266 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 11 July 2015 - 01:23

But it didn't help them get ahead, it just made them look stupid.

 

I'm not sure how often there have been suspected dummy pit stops, has any team ever gained anything from them?

 

Monaco. Lewis Hamilton saw on a big screen that the Mercedes pit crew had come out and assumed that Rosberg had come into the pits. Ironic to the Nth degree.