141 replies to this topic

[Red Socks]

They do say that the only difference between an FIA steward and a supermarket trolley is that you can get more food and drink into an FIA steward than you can into a supermarket trolley, but you have more chance of getting the supermarket trolley to go in the direction you wish it to than you have an FIA steward.

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by Frank Verplanken

Yes I remember this one very well ! Gounon was a terrific starter in single seaters, and he more than once received unfair penalties (as per the French press at least lol).

From memory Allan Moffat in the Mazda RX7 copped a couple of jump starts because the lightweight Mazda took off so easily compared to the heavy V8 sedans that sat there wheelspinning for a moment or 2.

One Bathurst Greg Murphy who was a hot favorite for the race got penalised an obscene 5 minute stop and go for leaving the pit too early (under the direction of his pitman) while still refueling - as a driver I feel he was robbed especially as it was a round of the drivers championship, surely there was another way to penalise the team for their mistake and not the driver who was not at fault.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by cheapracer
From memory Allan Moffat in the Mazda RX7 copped a couple of jump starts because the lightweight Mazda took off so easily compared to the heavy V8 sedans that sat there wheelspinning for a moment or 2.....

When?

I couldn't remember any of this, but I realised that I wasn't at all the races nor following things all that closely those years. So I went through every major race for two years (1983 & 1984) and couldn't find a single instance. Moffat actually only had two or three good starts in that time, one of which saw him storming down the side of the track from an inferior grid position at Wanneroo.

The only minute penalty for jumping the start mentioned went to Johnson...

[fines]

Since we seem to get away with this one, I will add my tuppence, if only to act as the voice of reason ;) I watched the footage of the last three but one laps on YouTube, and as a manifest Ferrari hater and McLaren fan I have to say, the only person robbed was Raikkönen, crashing in pursuit of a car that had illegally passed him!

The only things that "forced" Hamilton off the road where his right foot that didn't want to lift, and his hands that steered the car onto the shortcut. Clearly he took advantage of an unforced off-course excursion to take the lead, there can be absolutely no question about that, and I'm sure once your insular blood has cooled off enough for reason to take over again, you will realize that.

Of course, all of this wouldn't have happened if the safety aspect hadn't led to such ridiculous trackside landscaping, as Richard so rightfully mentioned. Most stunning of all was the sequence when both cars ran off at Pouhon, only for the one to run furthest afield to gain an advantage! Ah so...

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
However, Spa was different from any precedent which springs immediately to my mind. Not a technical infringement, but a value judgement by three individual bystander judges - the Stewards of the Meeting.

Surely Senna at Suzuka in '89?

[alansart]

Originally posted by fines
Of course, all of this wouldn't have happened if the safety aspect hadn't led to such ridiculous trackside landscaping, as Richard so rightfully mentioned. Most stunning of all was the sequence when both cars ran off at Pouhon, only for the one to run furthest afield to gain an advantage! Ah so...

As my wife quite rightly pointed out "If they stuck a bloody great wall there no advantage would have been gained", although there may have been lots of broken carbonfibre

Mind you 2 days ago we did drive slowly around what remains of Rouen, Les Essarts and she now thinks the current crop of F1 stars are wimps

[ensign14]

Originally posted by fines
Since we seem to get away with this one, I will add my tuppence, if only to act as the voice of reason ;) I watched the footage of the last three but one laps on YouTube, and as a manifest Ferrari hater and McLaren fan I have to say, the only person robbed was Raikkönen, crashing in pursuit of a car that had illegally passed him!

Actually, at the moment Raikkonen crashed, he was ahead of Hamilton...

And Hamilton gave up the lead to Raikkonen after shortcutting. Which has been the accepted practice - one endorsed by stewards in identical circumstances - since 1989. It's like being given four years inside for parking on a double yellow line in an emergency. You know the penalty is a fine, you take the risk, but had you known that you were going to be Spanish Inquisitioned you'd've taken a different approach.

The Mirage M12 comes to mind.

[fines]

Originally posted by ensign14
Actually, at the moment Raikkonen crashed, he was ahead of Hamilton...

Nope. YouTube may be grainy, and I watched the footage only twice, but Hamilton was clearly ahead, with Raikkönen crashing out while passing Rosberg (? - not sure if I got that right from the narration).

As for giving up the lead, you're not serious, are you? The Ferrari out-accelerated the McLaren, and even if Hamilton lifted his foot momentarily (which I VERY much doubt), that's immaterial because he gained such a big advantage by cutting the chicane - he would never have been in a position to outbreak the Finn if he hadn't, that's for sure! All the more crazy because he was obviously so much faster, everywhere... A golden opportunity wasted because of DRIVER ERROR! If I were Ron Dennis, I'd have a few words with the boy...

[ensign14]

Originally posted by fines

Nope. YouTube may be grainy, and I watched the footage only twice, but Hamilton was clearly ahead, with Raikkönen crashing out while passing Rosberg (? - not sure if I got that right from the narration).

No, Raikkonen passed Rosberg AND Hamilton (under yellows, incidentally), got around the corner and then lost it. He must have had about 300 yards in the lead.

Originally posted by fines
As for giving up the lead, you're not serious, are you? The Ferrari out-accelerated the McLaren, and even if Hamilton lifted his foot momentarily (which I VERY much doubt), that's immaterial because he gained such a big advantage by cutting the chicane - he would never have been in a position to outbreak the Finn if he hadn't, that's for sure!

That's not the point. The point is every time this has happened before giving up the place was the accepted penalty and a prompt re-take of the lead was expressly approved by stewards in at least one race in the past. Indeed Kimi's move on the straight looked a bit two-move-ish.

Obviously (to get this more Nostalgia-based) these somewhat odd rules were generally made up ad-hoc to please a certain German driving an Italian car, but the stewards' decision was akin to FIFA taking two goals from a team that had conceded a penalty.

More to the point, the wording of the stewards' report was that Hamilton gained an advantage by not driving on the race-track. There probably wasn't a driver on that grid who didn't go off at some point - yet none was penalized for such a thing. Raikkonen himself passed his team-mate on lap 1 following a slingshot aided by using a non-race-track bit of driving.

As for being obviously so much faster everywhere, well, who's to say that the red flag might not have been thrown at any moment, giving the winner to the one who led on the lap previously?

Fact is, the rule does need looking at. But the time to do it is before a race, not to apply it retrospectively to screw a non-Ferrari driver over. And yes, I do believe it was a pro-Ferrari decision. The same way as big teams get the benefit of decisions in football. We've already had one steward say "well, we could have given a grid penalty, but decided to give the race to Ferrari". The metrosexual one.

[fines]

Originally posted by ensign14
No, Raikkonen passed Rosberg AND Hamilton (under yellows, incidentally), got around the corner and then lost it. He must have had about 300 yards in the lead.

Hmm. Perhaps it was the other McLaren I saw in front of them. Anyway, it doesn't matter, I'm not sufficiently attuned to current F1 to challenge anything you said, but as a casual viewer I find it inexplicable to challenge the verdict. Perhaps it's that F1 has moved too far away from common sense, and it can't be a good thing when you can only understand a decision if you're following the sport day-in day-out!

I have also read quite a bit about the alleged "two moves" of Raikkönen, whatever that actually means, but it struck me that up Kemmel straight Hamilton weaved about three or four times across the whole of the track to protect his lead - not a pretty sight, anyway. :

Also, isn't your reaction a bit over the top? "Two goals removed" etc. RELAX!!! He's just given a time penalty, and is still third!!!! In modern F1, that's 7 instead of 10 points, right?

[fines]

Originally posted by ensign14
And yes, I do believe it was a pro-Ferrari decision.

Now, THERE's something NEW!

Remember the one when they had those barge boards that were illegally formed? And Mosley's comedy of explaining why they weren't, I believe it included tilting the whole assembly! Or the one when it suddenly rained, and the Ferraris ran away and hid, because they had illegal traction control and forgot to switch it off?

Hey, we need a new thread: the funniest pro-Ferrari decision blunder!

[ensign14]

Originally posted by fines

Also, isn't your reaction a bit over the top? "Two goals removed" etc. RELAX!!! He's just given a time penalty, and is still third!!!! In modern F1, that's 7 instead of 10 points, right?

If you're into counting points, perhaps...;)

[fines]

I thought that was all there is (left)!

[Barry Boor]

Actually, third = 6. But that is emphatically NOT the point.

It seems that during the last 2 laps McLaren asked the stewards of the meeting, TWICE, if Hamilton's easing off to allow Kimi to repass was unacceptable? They were told, TWICE, that it was o.k. Had they been told "no", they would have told Lewis to let him by again.

The problem is that all this hysteria is being seen as nationalistic - I'm sure very few Italians (or indeed Finns) would agree with most Brits, but I view it purely as an error on the part of the stewards.

Their decision was just plain wrong!

[Allan Lupton]

Originally posted by Barry Boor

It seems that during the last 2 laps McLaren asked the stewards of the meeting, TWICE, if Hamilton's easing off to allow Kimi to repass was unacceptable? They were told, TWICE, that it was o.k. Had they been told "no", they would have told Lewis to let him by again.

In "normal" motorsport, Stewards must cause to be investigated any breach of the Regulations that they observe or which is reported to them, and determine the consequences of appeals made to them against the Clerk of the Course's decisions. Of couse they but they should not give an opinion in advance of such investigation and it would be quite improper to ask them to take a view on something that might or might not be seen as against the rules by the Clerk, or his team of observers (or themselves).
Is the "F1 circus" so different that the stewards are not only willing but permitted to express a view in those circumstances?

[Hieronymus]

For light entertainment read this forum thread. I thought F1 was sick, until I stumbled upon these nutters...

http://forum.planet-...132781&start=0

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by fines
...I have also read quite a bit about the alleged "two moves" of Raikkönen, whatever that actually means, but it struck me that up Kemmel straight Hamilton weaved about three or four times across the whole of the track to protect his lead - not a pretty sight, anyway. :
...

Try to watch again and see that Hamilton is weaving to lose Raikkönen from his slip stream. It is Raikkönen that is reacting to Hamiltons moves and not the other way round.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by fines

Hmm. Perhaps it was the other McLaren I saw in front of them.

No, you were right, I've just watched the onboard feed. Kimi went past Hamilton before, then Hamilton re-overtook and Kimi lost it whilst trying to rejoin the track having gone onto the run-off area for more grip - although Kimi passed Hamilton thanks to using the run-off area, so perhaps that should have evened things out...

[fines]

Originally posted by ensign14
No, Raikkonen passed Rosberg AND Hamilton (under yellows, incidentally), got around the corner and then lost it. He must have had about 300 yards in the lead.

Watched another (longer) YouTube sequence, and you're definitely wrong! After his spin, Raikkönen is passed by Rosberg and Hamilton as well as a car that looked like a Sauber back in the nineties, then both the McLaren and the Ferrari gain a track position before Blanchimont, but Hamilton is always in the race lead! Also, I slowed it down and watched very carefully, no yellow flags (for what?), but one lap later I could see them very well (for Raikkönen)!

Originally posted by jcbc3
Try to watch again and see that Hamilton is weaving to lose Raikkönen from his slip stream. It is Raikkönen that is reacting to Hamiltons moves and not the other way round.

I just did: Hamilton weaves from right to left to right to left and then turns right, into the corner! Raikkönen follows the first movement, and then stays on the left side, before turning into the corner. As I said, not a pretty sight - F1 drivers should take a look at the Bathurst vid I posted earlier today, how well behaved amateur (?) Formula Vee drivers are in Australia!

Well, over the last two days I watched almost ten minutes of F1 footage! Should last me another couple of years, I'd guess... :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

[ensign14]

Originally posted by fines

Watched another (longer) YouTube sequence, and you're definitely wrong! After his spin, Raikkönen is passed by Rosberg and Hamilton as well as a car that looked like a Sauber back in the nineties, then both the McLaren and the Ferrari gain a track position before Blanchimont, but Hamilton is always in the race lead!

Beat you to it. The other car passing is a Red Bull, I think, Raikkonen was indeed in the lead for about 300 yards before Rosberg and Hamilton get back past.

But the footage was fascinating. The Ferrari was like a one-legged cat on ice, Hamilton was making the McLaren DANCE.

[fines]

Originally posted by ensign14
Beat you to it.

Just.

Originally posted by ensign14
The other car passing is a Red Bull, I think

Ahh, makes sense - didn't Red Bull sponsor Sauber ten yeas ago? ;)

Originally posted by Hieronymus
For light entertainment read this forum thread. I thought F1 was sick, until I stumbled upon these nutters...

http://forum.planet-...132781&start=0

Nutters, yes, but quite funny. Liked this exchange:


Poster 1: "I think you're forgetting that if Ron Dennis hadn't joined McLaren in 1980 then McLaren would now be running a go-kart team in Wanganui."

Poster 2: "I think you're jumping to conclusions."

[Russ Snyder]

Andretti was ROBBED in 1981, no matter what anyone says.

You cannot pass during a yellow, blending or no blending.

"Video replays showed that Unser passed several cars under caution before blending into the single-file line. A day after Unser rolled into victory lane, he was stripped of the triumph and Andretti, who finished second, was named the winner."

"In the end, after a court-like proceeding, the board agreed with Penske's assertion that the Unser penalty didn't fit the crime, especially since other drivers in the race also failed to immediately blend in line. Unser was fined $40,000 but kept his victory."

those 'other" cars were not going for the lead....a stupid reversed decision that is one of the black marks on Indy 500 history!

[stevewf1]

Some actual racing finally breaks out in modern F1, and look what happens...

[sterling49]

Originally posted by stevewf1
Some actual racing finally breaks out in modern F1, and look what happens...

The amazing thing is, look in RC and see the amount of threads dedicated to it, dependent upon point of view. Because a lot of the posters are (not all) younger, I think "tough racing" is almost alien to them. That is what I want to see, as long as it is fair. I do not want stewards deciding the outcome of a race.

Contrived, orchestrated, call it what you will, it was just plain unfair, unsporting and a sad reflection on the true state of what once was a majestic and honest sport and what dear Bruce's team has to endure.

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by sterling49
.....a sad reflection on the true state of what once was a majestic and honest sport.

Wow, when was this? Not anything in the past several decades and probably hard to say that with a straight face for most of the years preceding those.

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


Wow, when was this? Not anything in the past several decades and probably hard to say that with a straight face for most of the years preceding those.

Why don't you tell us, since you consider yourself quite the expert?

[h4887]

Let us also remember The Great Zanardi, who passed Brian Herta in the Corkscrew with all four wheels off the track and largely off the ground. Much too exciting! Another thought: what will the stewards do at Monza, where traditionally half the field cuts the first chicane on lap one? Will it be 'after you, Claude, no, after you, Cecil'? (Sorry, showing my age there) After all, we don't want to encourage the young fellas to try overtaking each other, do we?

[stuartbrs]

Let us also remember The Great Zanardi, who passed Brian Herta in the Corkscrew with all four wheels off the track and largely off the ground. Much too exciting! Another thought: what will the stewards do at Monza, where traditionally half the field cuts the first chicane on lap one? Will it be 'after you, Claude, no, after you, Cecil'? (Sorry, showing my age there) After all, we don't want to encourage the young fellas to try overtaking each other, do we?

If your on pole at Monza just park it in the middle of the first Chicane, wait for everyone to gain an unfair advantage by avoiding hitting you, and then pocket 25 sec on the entire field before the end of lap 1.

[sterling49]

Originally posted by jcbc3


Why don't you tell us, since you consider yourself quite the expert?

Seconded, why don't you tell us?

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by sterling49
....a sad reflection on the true state of what once was a majestic and honest sport....

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
Wow, when was this? Not anything in the past several decades and probably hard to say that with a straight face for most of the years preceding those.

Originally posted by jcbc3
Why don't you tell us, since you consider yourself quite the expert?

Originally posted by sterling49
Seconded, why don't you tell us?

Goodness, sorry that I have to be the one to inform you that just because you wear rose-tinted glasses and see things as being all sweet and rosy that is how things actually are. Seems that I have touched a raw nerve by simply repeating what I have been saying and writing for years.

If one goes back to just the Sixties and begins to examine the way in which The Holiest of Holies, The Center of All Being, The Sport of Sports, The Alpha and The Omega of All Racing, The Pinnacle of All Motor sport, which is to say that activity now known as "formula one" of course, has been conducted and administrated, as well as how the participants have played their roles, one ends up with at least one permanently arched eyebrow.

It can be anything but a pretty picture.

Assuming that one wishes to ignore: the usual grumblings, mumblings, and revelations about the various ways teams pushed the technical envelope to put where it was ripped over the years; the various financial wheelings and dealings that could provide a nice subplot if there is ever a Godfather Part IV; the various malfeasances committed by members of the racing community over the years such as smuggling, larceny, fraud, and so forth; as well as the capricious nature by which formula one has been governed for years upon years; the method of "velvet extortion" by which formula one has enabled itself to tap into the funds of governments to obtain fees for events; and more than a few others that could be mentioned -- but why dad a dad horse? -- then, yes, until this past weekend it was indeed a "majestic and honest' sport.

One is, of course, free to question my expertise, or to be accurate in this case, my lack of expertise. Indeed, one is free to completely and utterly ignore any of my comments as being mere drivel. This being the internet, one is quite free, of course, to insult me and demean my intellectual capabilities by making snide, snippy remarks. One, surprisingly enough, does get used to it.

That I do not believe in the same fairy tales about motor racing as some obviously do, I apologize.

[Allan Lupton]

I shouldn't think that it would be safe to assume that honesty was ever universal in motor racing.

As someone said, "no unfair advantage is too small to not be worth having".

I think what's changed (and for the worse in my view and those of a certain age) is that the Rules now seem to include every aspect of everything concerned with the events that have replaced Grand Prix racing as we knew it.

Rules for racing conduct have always been with us, interpreted by observers and such-like with some commonsense, but many of the modern rules were unnecessary - e.g. nobody could see how an unfair advantage could be gained by going off the circuit, so there was no need to penalise someone who did (Mike Hawthorn found a way in practice at Reims, but that's another story!).

It's ridiculous that the formula that was once the acme of racing car design has rules that require a given number of cylinders, a standard engine management system, use of a set of tyres that are not the optimum for the day, use of a fuel tank that cannot hold fuel for full race distance and engines that have to be used for two races and forbids ABS (which most road cars have now) and traction control.

I really begin to feel my age when someone on this forum seriously thought that there would have been a rule requiring cars to be open-wheeled which D-B transgressed with W196.

[fines]

Originally posted by Allan Lupton
It's ridiculous that the formula that was once the acme of racing car design has rules that require a given number of cylinders, a standard engine management system, use of a set of tyres that are not the optimum for the day, use of a fuel tank that cannot hold fuel for full race distance and engines that have to be used for two races and forbids ABS (which most road cars have now) and traction control.

Hear, hear!

[Barry Boor]

Much though I still love F.1 and wouldn't miss a race, I have to agree with Allan's comments, endorsed by Fines.

It's a love/hate thing.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Allan Lupton
It's ridiculous that the formula that was once the acme of racing car design has rules that require a given number of cylinders, a standard engine management system, use of a set of tyres that are not the optimum for the day, use of a fuel tank that cannot hold fuel for full race distance and engines that have to be used for two races and forbids ABS (which most road cars have now) and traction control.

Funny, I was reading about a race where a car had to be withdrawn from its class because it was obliged to use the wrong tyres. Despite it meeting all the other requirements, like maximum weight and being painted in the prescribed colour. 1901, I think it was.;)

[fines]

But it didn't use the same engine management as the Panhard-Levassors, did it?;)

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by Allan Lupton
It's ridiculous that the formula that was once the acme of racing car design has rules that require a given number of cylinders, a standard engine management system, use of a set of tyres that are not the optimum for the day, use of a fuel tank that cannot hold fuel for full race distance and engines that have to be used for two races and forbids ABS (which most road cars have now) and traction control.

I really begin to feel my age when someone on this forum seriously thought that there would have been a rule requiring cars to be open-wheeled which D-B transgressed with W196.

That technology is one of the underlying problems for the many woes of formula one is easy to overlook or dismiss when one begins to sigh and dream nostalgic thoughts for a past that probably never existed. If one considers the implementation of the available technologies that could have been incorporated into the formula one machines since the 1992/1994 era of robo-cars, a formula one event would be more akin to some video game come to life than what was once considered a race. Just contemplate how such machines would use the technology available and how its use would affect lap times at places such as Spa and Monte Carlo to say nothing of the Tilkedromes. Would 350 kmph lap averages be out of the question for Monza with unfettered technologies available?

There are good reasons for the seemingly Luddite leanings when it comes to the formula, although those good reasons seem to be consistently implemented in such a poor manner as to negate any good that could have come from them.

Speaking of Acme, why is it that each time I see that word I think of Wile. E. Coyote?

[Russ Snyder]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


a formula one event would be more akin to some video game come to life than what was once considered a race.

Speaking of Acme, why is it that each time I see that word I think of Wile. E. Coyote?

Isn't F1 like a video game anyways? Max Mosely might disagree, altho a modern day video star he is!

Acme & the Coyote....showing your age Don.

[sterling49]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps



This being the internet, one is quite free, of course, to insult me and demean my intellectual capabilities by making snide, snippy remarks. One, surprisingly enough, does get used to it.

Thank you for your informed opinion Don, having had a more gentlemanly upbringing, I neither want nor need to make snide or snippy remarks, that is not what I do. I do however, understand fully, how you have got used to it though.

[David McKinney]

This post doesn't make sense, Sterl
Didn't they do punctuation at your school?

[OfficeLinebacker]

Originally posted by F1Fanatic.co.uk

Surely Senna at Suzuka in '89?

thank you

[Allan Lupton]

Originally posted by ensign14

Funny, I was reading about a race where a car had to be withdrawn from its class because it was obliged to use the wrong tyres. Despite it meeting all the other requirements, like maximum weight and being painted in the prescribed colour. 1901, I think it was.;)

If you are referring to the Gordon Bennett Napier, it was not obliged to use the wrong tyres in the sense I used of modern f1 where, no matter what the team thinks is best, the other (wrong) tyre has to be used for some of the race (and where's the safety logic of that, by the way?).
The rules of the GB specifically required the whole vehicle to have been manufactured in the country it represented. As Dunlop tyres were not up to the job that Napier set them, Edge and Napier gave up on the GB and raced in the normal Paris-Bordeaux race.

[ensign14]

The point is that there have always been contrived regulations that people have got around or been hamstrung by at top-level motor sport. Even with foreign tyres the Napier was more British than the "Austro-Hungarian" Mercedes, for example.