European GP 2010 - Valencia

[gcdugas]

Red Bull gives you wings.... LOL

[Mr Alcatraz]

Red Bull gives you wings.... LOL

[-X
Let's not lose sight of why this whole safety car fiasco changed Fred’s Valencia fortunes, and really pissed him off. One of the fastest and one of the slowest cars on the grid had a coming together in perfect racing conditions,
on the longest straight in the race causing one of the ugliest collisions I've seen in a very long time.
Fred venting:
People say some of the stupidest things they're capable of when they pass a certain threshold of frustration.
The result is in, so what?

[engineguru00]

This whole safety car incident reminds me of something that happened in NASCAR (gasp!) a few years ago. Different series, but racing strategies carry rather well. Car that was leading was being black flagged. The crew chief told the driver to stay out while he "argued" with the marshalls as to why they were being black flagged. Car crosses finish line in 1st place, takes the points and a large cash prize, and pays a $5000 fine for failing to come in when black flagged.

Did MaClaren mean to overtake the safety car? Who knows and we never will. Will they say they intentionally overtook it? No way, but it worked out well. Should Ferrari be angry? Maybe, but it is racing.

Maybe what we need are some of these old school antics coming back again.

[Shaddock]

Anyone, on which lap did Fernando Alonso receive his drive-thru penalty for the false start in China?

'Jump Starts' flag up on the Race Control computer as soon as they happen via the cars transponder and a receiver in the track.

Even then it took them 5 laps (at safety car speed) to issue the penalty. And this is for a clear cut jump start where the electronics tell them instantly that he was in the wrong.

True, but Race Control in run by committee, and everyone has their say, all the stewards need to be in consensus and discuss the issues at hand, whilst they consult the rule book etc. You will never get fast decisions whilst it's run in this manner.

[feynman]

... Did MaClaren mean to ...
Maybe what we need are some of these old school antics coming back again

*cough*

http://bigmsmallcbigl.com/

I like to think I've seen all the misspellings, but you've managed to come up with something just a little special there.



Anyways, 'antics' has always been a favorite word of mine.

I definitely don't think it was the case here.
More like: 'should I go, no wait, no hold on I can make it, bugger too late ...'

It's fun to watch reactions half-a-step behind the situation, like when you and someone else both start shuffling left and left, then right and right, trying to get past each other on the pavement.
It's the irony, looking before you leap, trying not to get a penalty, ends up with getting a penalty, whereas stomping the foot down and boldy blootering it, you would have got away with it free and clear. Life lessons?

[myurr]

Even then it took them 5 laps (at safety car speed) to issue the penalty. And this is for a clear cut jump start where the electronics tell them instantly that he was in the wrong.

True, but Race Control in run by committee, and everyone has their say, all the stewards need to be in consensus and discuss the issues at hand, whilst they consult the rule book etc. You will never get fast decisions whilst it's run in this manner.

Precisely why I'm saying it's not unusual for a decision to take a few laps and that it's not a conspiracy.

[Insomniac]

I definitely don't think it was the case here.
More like: 'should I go, no wait, no hold on I can make it, bugger too late ...'

I've been lurking here for some time, and I just had to sign up to congratulate you on your insightful comment. The last ten or so pages of this thread have been full of conspiratorial rubbish, and I think you nailed Hamilton's thought process perfectly.

I honestly believe he had no nefarious thoughts about 'blocking' Alonso. The guy was in a complicated situation (so complicated it took the stewards ~30 laps to make a decision on) and was both indecisive and unsure of the rules. Simple as that. If there is one entity that should take the blame it's the FIA for having such convoluted rules that neither the drivers, the teams or the stewards can easily interpret them.

[jwielage]

I honestly believe he had no nefarious thoughts about 'blocking' Alonso. The guy was in a complicated situation (so complicated it took the stewards ~30 laps to make a decision on) and was both indecisive and unsure of the rules. Simple as that. If there is one entity that should take the blame it's the FIA for having such convoluted rules that neither the drivers, the teams or the stewards can easily interpret them.

This is a fair set of statements. In all likelyhood there was no conspiracy, and no intentional wrong doing on the part of the stewards or race control.
Unfortunatly reality and perception are two seperate and very important things. The perception left in the eyes of many viewers was that the race results appeared "manipulated". The perception of this event calls into question the competancy and motivation of the officiating crew. It challenges the notions of fairness and sportsmanship, and leaves the door open for conspiracy theorists.

As for Hamilton, I think he knew exactly what he was doing. I don't blame him though because he gamed the system, and the system allowed it.

IMO yesterday did a lot of damage to the sport's reputation.

[komninosm]

Mark Webber wrote:
"The telemetry showed that he braked 80 meters earlier for that corner than I had on the previous lap, so it was completely unexpected."

Weber's car camera view clearly shows kovalainen breaking early, so this is not the right reason

The camera shows Kovi braking, but who can say that Webber did not brake late? In fact, it has been reported that telemetry shows that Kovi braked at the same point on the previous lap. Ther is no stewards enquiry, so they must be satisfied that it was a racing accident!

Really? LOL poor Lotus, the car must really suck.

[komninosm]

This whole safety car incident reminds me of something that happened in NASCAR (gasp!) a few years ago. Different series, but racing strategies carry rather well. Car that was leading was being black flagged. The crew chief told the driver to stay out while he "argued" with the marshalls as to why they were being black flagged. Car crosses finish line in 1st place, takes the points and a large cash prize, and pays a $5000 fine for failing to come in when black flagged.

Did MaClaren mean to overtake the safety car? Who knows and we never will. Will they say they intentionally overtook it? No way, but it worked out well. Should Ferrari be angry? Maybe, but it is racing.

Maybe what we need are some of these old school antics coming back again.

Source please. That sounds retarded if it really happened like that.

[jason.parker.86]

Anyway; life moves on and so should we. What happened happened...

[WhiteBlue]

IMO yesterday did a lot of damage to the sport's reputation.

I cannot follow that view. Ferrari and Alonso had a wild attack of toys out of the pram but F1 in general had simply one more day with a incompetent safety car rule. That is nothing new. It has happened a lot over the last four or five years.

Look at all the controversies that we have had beginning with Montoya for McLaren in Canada 2005. Every year we had rule changes to cope with the problems of a safety car and some people running out of fuel. I remember Australia 2008 where McLaren lost a 1-2 victory when Kovalainen had to refuel under safety car or the BMW 1-2 in Canada the same year when Hamilton ran into Kimi's Ferrari at the pit exit. How many times have drivers suffered in "free" pit stops because the teams could not refuel two cars? I also remember a race where Heidfeld was doing well in his BMW and fell foul of an early safety car due to a penalty for re fuelling. If you search you can probably find 30 or 40 examples since 2005. I do not even need to mention crash gate in 2008.

At the heart of this problem is the unsporting desire to improve the "show" through an element of luck and drama by the safety car. The solution is simply closing the pit lane as nobody needs to refuel.

[aral]

quote="mangesh"]

Mark Webber wrote:
"The telemetry showed that he braked 80 meters earlier for that corner than I had on the previous lap, so it was completely unexpected."

Weber's car camera view clearly shows kovalainen breaking early, so this is not the right reason [/quote]
The camera shows Kovi braking, but who can say that Webber did not brake late? In fact, it has been reported that telemetry shows that Kovi braked at the same point on the previous lap. Ther is no stewards enquiry, so they must be satisfied that it was a racing accident![/quote]
Really? LOL poor Lotus, the car must really suck.[/quote]

No, what it means is that Webber braked too late!

[feynman]

Mark Webber wrote:
"The telemetry showed that he braked 80 meters earlier for that corner than I had on the previous lap, so it was completely unexpected."

I don't think I buy this 80m malarkey.

Here he is just after Heikki braked, and there is the 100m board to the right.



I very much doubt the Red Bull brakes at 30m for that corner, so not sure what the story is supposed to be.

[Giblet]

Wouldn't the braking point be before Webber hit Kovy? There was some steering and squirrelling before he hit the wheel.

Still even if Kovy started braking 20m before the marker, its still not 80.