Italian GP 2011 - Autodromo Nazionale Monza

[nickl]

Vettel is the man-all the others are great as well-just returned from Monza-Alto Velocita 6c-great weekend-3rd time at Monza -Cafe Neffa rocks--Nick-Grand prix Tours as well-Party with Peter Windsor was great and so informative-he surely knows his stuff-Nick--also the v-6 turbos will be great when they arrive -you dont need cubic inches to make F1 sound great-never was a v-8 fan anyway -although the cars sounded magnificent at Monza they always do no matter what the configuration--

[Mandrake]

Is this right?

After a defensive move to hold the position, if the driver behind is still well behind then it is alright to go back to the racing line

I think it is, but Schumacher made 3 moves on the start-finish straight in the vid I posted. Right, then left, then right then left to go on the racing line.

That was all clean because Lewis aborted his attempts because he wasn't going by.

First attempt of Lewis: Schumacher 1 move. Then Lewis fell back and tried again, Schumacher defended again. That's it.

The often quoted example of Lewis in Malaysia was different, there Lewis tried to shake off Petrov over the whole straight. This was one overtaking attempt of Petrov over the whole straight.

[ringo]

Shumacher clearly moved more that once.
It's not attempt for attempt. The follower can have a million attempts. The leader can only have 1. That is how it is. This rule is to aid overtaking just like the DRS.
That is the rule.
It doesn't reset everytime each driver makes a move. As it would be pointless.
It only resets after the corner.

We just need to accept Shumacher broke the rule plain and simple and wasn't punished.
He didn't push them to the limit he just broke them.
That's just the fact which is shown in the race highlight on the Formula1 website.

The only one he pushed to the limit was when he almost put Lewis on the grass. The rule says a driver shouldn't push another off track. That's the only one we could argue was pushed to the edge, as Lewis back out in time and didn't full leave the track.

[Dragonfly]

Ringo, Derek Daly seems to have stolen your account

[komninosm]

Is this right?

After a defensive move to hold the position, if the driver behind is still well behind then it is alright to go back to the racing line

I think it is, but Schumacher made 3 moves on the start-finish straight in the vid I posted. Right, then left, then right then left to go on the racing line.

That was all clean because Lewis aborted his attempts because he wasn't going by.

First attempt of Lewis: Schumacher 1 move. Then Lewis fell back and tried again, Schumacher defended again. That's it.

The often quoted example of Lewis in Malaysia was different, there Lewis tried to shake off Petrov over the whole straight. This was one overtaking attempt of Petrov over the whole straight.

Ever think maybe Lewis aborted his attempts because Schumacher was moving around the track dangerously and illegally? Besides Lewis didn't abort anything in the start-finish straigh. He merely went right at top speed which was nearly identical to Schumacher who had no right to make 3 moves. The end, don't be an apologist mate.
Lewis in Malaysia broke no rule and the rulebook was changed to prevent it happening again. No matter how people want to spin it, those are facts. Lewis never blocked Petrov, he kept moving out of the way. Ergo they changed the rules and now you can't make more than 1 defensive move. Schumacher made 3, end of story.

[flynfrog]

Lewis in Malaysia broke no rule and the rulebook was changed to prevent it happening again. No matter how people want to spin it, those are facts. Lewis never blocked Petrov, he kept moving out of the way. Ergo they changed the rules and now you can't make more than 1 defensive move. Schumacher made 3, end of story.

Please show me the rule they changed after lewis

[ringo]

I see that some people just have a faint idea of what they are, and kinda fudge their way to understanding them.
It's like me watching NFL or Baseball. I get how the sport works, know some basic dos and don'ts but i couldn't resolve any technical dispute in any of these.


Flynfrog. Hamilton's weaving, which was not illegal before he did it, led to a clarification and thus a rule change.

That is fact, it's not a forum myth. Don't want to go over the past, but a defender can only react to an attack once.
In LH weaving Petrov was reacting to LH moves, therefore Hamilton didn't make 1 defensive move. You can't defend against inaction; not possible.
It's very important we understand this.

Look at it as lifting a shield to block an ax chop. Shumacher saw the ax swinging down and he lifted his sheild in reaction. The ax swung to the right and shumacher sheilded to the right in reaction. example of 2 defensive moves.

In LH and Petrov case. Hamilton doesn't put up a sheild at all and Petrov doesn't swing. Hamilton moves to one side, and Petrov follows. This case the attacker is reacting and the victim doesn't defend at all but is simply avoiding the opportunity to attack. Example of breaking the tow and simply driving faster to stop the following driver from getting in the DRS range.

Avoiding the opportunity for an attack is not defending from an attack. Ever heard the saying prevention is better than cure?
Well this was the whole point of the weaving, but in a creative way. This was not illegal, but it definitely went against the FIA intentions of making overtaking easier.

So a clarification was made to the regs. And Shumi and Hami lived happily ever after. The end.

[Mandrake]

@ kominosm, I think the discussion is a bit pointless....

In the textbook example you'd say that a driver comes from behind, out of the slipstream and tries to overtake with the additional speed he has. He mostly tries to do it on the inside. The covering driver tries to block the inside line and hopes that the overtaker cannot take advantage round the outside. This would be one move from the defender then. If he blocked the inside, and then went back to block the outside too, it would be 2 moves where he tries to defend twice from the same driver.

In Monza, Lewis' topspeed was too low to overtake Schumacher....he could barely keep up in the slipstream. So for Schumacher it would have been enough to just drive on the inside and cover the line because Lewis would not even get alongside on the outside. But Schumacher didn't care and didn't really move (talking about the S/F straight) until getting close to turn 1.
This is why I think it wasn't investigated by the Stewards....Schumacher was plainly too fast, he didn't have to defend from Hamilton.

To come back to the weaving in Malaysia, it was another story. Lewis tried to shake off Petrov in the slipstream, because Petrov would have reovertaken Lewis. MSC however didn't even feel the need to defend into Parabolica because Lewis in the wake of the MGP car couldn't home in a single bit.

In the whole Monza race I cannot a recall a single situation where Lewis had to brake because of being blocked off twice (with the exemption of being driven onto the grass by MSC).

[beelsebob]

Lewis in Malaysia broke no rule and the rulebook was changed to prevent it happening again. No matter how people want to spin it, those are facts. Lewis never blocked Petrov, he kept moving out of the way. Ergo they changed the rules and now you can't make more than 1 defensive move. Schumacher made 3, end of story.

Please show me the rule they changed after lewis

20) DRIVING
20.1 The driver must drive the car alone and unaided.
21) CAR LIVERY

20) DRIVING
20.1 The driver must drive the car alone and unaided.
20.2 Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as more than one change of direction to defend a position, deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted.
20.3 ...

[Richard]

I’ve been away and come back to see a race thread dominated by Hamilton. Some things never change.

Anyway, back to topic - I’ve captured the timing data and uploaded it to the data thread.

viewtopic.php?p=278568#p278568

[Dragonfly]

@beelsebob

The additional text has been for ages in Appendix L of the ISC. They simply took it from there and placed in the F1 sporting regulations. Perhaps, for convenience for the young generation of drivers, who use Google as their information source
Just like the young generation of fans too. I see very funny interpretation of the one move rule (and the rest of them) when Hamilton is the driver in question.

[beelsebob]

@beelsebob

The additional text has been for ages in Appendix L of the ISC. They simply took it from there and placed in the F1 sporting regulations. Perhaps, for convenience for the young generation of drivers, who use Google as their information source
Just like the young generation of fans too. I see very funny interpretation of the one move rule (and the rest of them) when Hamilton is the driver in question.

You're absolutely right – it moved from being driving etiquette to being a rule. The fact that it was a rule was what meant that he was not penalised against Petrov, but was for a much lesser offence one year later against alonso. Schumacher's weaving was much more severe than that employed by Hamilton against Alonso, clearly it is penalty worthy.

[Mandrake]

20.2 Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as more than one change of direction to defend a position, deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted.
20.3 ...

This is the point! On the S/F straight MSC didn't have to defend his position....therefore no penalty is to be applied. Had the straight been 10 miles long, Hamilton would never have gone by.

I know this is a different interpretation of the rule, but in my pov absolutely valid.

I agree his blocking into Ascari was on the limit, but still nothing worth a penalty. Button went by easily and so did others at that point of the track.

@ Richard: This is not really about Hamilton is it? It's about on track behaviour and a penalty for MSC. At least that's what it should be about.

[Dragonfly]

[...]
I enjoyed every moment of the Monza fight between two very good drivers of different generations and kudos for them both for doing it almost half a race without making anything stupid. My mind refuses to accept what a person would call himself a racing fan and would call for penalties. You can't guide a car with laser (or computer sim) precision at 300 km/h but those two almost did it.
One of the very rare moments of real racing which makes me not regret watching a season where a driver is subscribed to passing by with the DRS.

[beelsebob]

[...]
I call myself a racing fan, and I very much enjoyed the racing... That doesn't mean that I don't also call for fairness in the application of penalties... If Hamilton's wibble in front of Alonso at Malaysia was worthy of a penalty, then so too were several of Schumacher's wibbles in front of Hamilton at Monza.

If you don't have fairness in the rules' application, then inevitably you end up with drivers feeling victimised, and inevitably you end up with things like "Maybe it's cos I is black".