8 replies to this topic

[Hames Junt]

And replaced by H-H Frentzen?

[Kpy]

Sauber decided not to run him since he'd earned a 10 place grid penalty following some red mist driving at Monza involving Pedro de la Rosa.

[scheivlak]

He was punished by the FIA for, let's say, a rather opportunistic move on Pedro de la Rosa in the Italian GP.

Massa's words on the incident: "I had enough fuel to do a single stop run, so I was at a disadvantage early on and lost places after a reasonable start. Then on lap 15 de la Rosa cut the first chicane, but instead of moving over to let me by he stayed ahead for a lap. He was so slow going down to Ascari that I put my car in the middle of the track and, as far as I was concerned, I was past him. Maybe he hit the throttle again. Whatever, we touched, and that damaged either my right rear suspension or the tyre, so a lap later I was out."
http://forix.autospo...20020015008&c=0

Pedro's: "I managed to get myself into 14th position and then found myself stuck behind Massa who did the most inexplicable things I have seen on a race track for ages. He kept moving all over the place and every time I made an effort to pass him, he blocked me. My patience was running out and I then made a move to pass him at the Ascari chicane when he moved over again and took my front wing off on lap 15. I had no choice to call it a day and take up the matter with the race stewards who are now looking into his behaviour."
http://forix.autospo...20020015017&c=0

[Zippel]

Originally posted by Kpy
Sauber decided not to run him since he'd earned a 10 place grid penalty following some red mist driving at Monza involving Pedro de la Rosa.

Didn't the FIA close up that loophole as a result?

[Apex]

Originally posted by Zippel


Didn't the FIA close up that loophole as a result?

Why is it considered a loophole? It's the driver who is supposed to be punished, not the team.

[OfficeLinebacker]

So the punishment isn't of the form "punished at his next start, whenever that might be?"

Odd.

[Youichi]

Originally posted by OfficeLinebacker
So the punishment isn't of the form "punished at his next start, whenever that might be?"

Odd.

It is now, thats what Zippel meant by closing the loophole, the stewards said the penalty was that "Massa would be docked 10 places on the grid at the US GP", so Peter Sauber said, I'll run Frentzen

After that the stewards now say "The driver will be docked 10 places at HIS next GP"

[Tolyngee]

Hmph. That actually sounds like double jeopardy.

If the FIA feels your shenanigans are worth a 10-spot demotion at the next GP, where you can now continue your shens, but from further back (which actually now lets him again possibly pass someone, then block them, how odd...), but the team feels your shens are worth a one-race removal from the car, well...

Hasn't the team gone beyond the call of the FIA?

There are plenty of instances of the driver not being punished for the actions of the team, so why must vice versa always be?

Then again, you do have those teams where that particular driver wasn't even planned on being used at the next GP anyway, so the FIA's stance makes sense there.

Perhaps "next planned" GP?

Sorry, still feel pulling a driver from a GP goes beyond the call of the FIA's punishment...

[Perigee]

Originally posted by Tolyngee
Sorry, still feel pulling a driver from a GP goes beyond the call of the FIA's punishment...

Just to be clear, you think that power should be only for stewards to use, rather than the FIA, or you don't think ANYBODY (except the team themselves) have the right to exclude a driver from a subsequent race?