European GP 2010 - Valencia

[Poleman]

I have a better clip for you. What loophole rule was Hamilton trying to find?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6KYnS7EsU

What does this have to do with Hamilton trying to find a loophole?He didnt get off his car,dindn't drive the crane HIMSELF and put his car back on the track...Marshalls did it, more likely becaause his car was the only undamaged from the mayhem and able to continue...Blame the FIA,or the circuit crew for this and not the driver...Incdents like this where drivers were pushed back on the track have been before. Your hatred about Hamilton is beyond logic.

[ElTron]

What does this have to do with Hamilton trying to find a loophole?He didnt get off his car,dindn't drive the crane HIMSELF and put his car back on the track...Marshalls did it, more likely becaause his car was the only undamaged from the mayhem and able to continue...Blame the FIA,or the circuit crew for this and not the driver...Incdents like this where drivers were pushed back on the track have been before. Your hatred about Hamilton is beyond logic.

The two Toro Rosso were also undamaged. Sorry Liuzzi's car was damaged by a crane's wheel

[Poleman]

You are clutching at straws and i have every right to disagree with you so...I wont go any further. [-X

[komninosm]

komninosm is right. Schumacher is the chapion of loopholes Just remember when he wins by crossing the finish line in the box, during his drive-trough penalty I thin it was Silverstone 1997 or 1998 against Hakkinen.

Nobody discussed the next theoretical situation : What if Vettel and the race leaders stays out, didn't changing their tyres, and also Hamilton didn't overtake SC and staying behind SC ? Then Vettel would have lapped the whole field didn't he? Rejoining after at the back. And if you got lapped cars behind safety car and the leading car, it is allowed for lapped cars to overtake the SC and go around so the leader can take his position. Then, in this situation the whole field would have been allowed to overtake the SC and again, Hamilton would be second behind vettel

Tell me that I'm wrong here, maybe I missed something in my theory ?

Oh...just one little thing...how on earth Hamilton could tell how much penalty he gets? It was a very good chance that he gets stop&go or 10sec, and in that situation he's race would be ruined. At the time he's overtaking the SC, he could not tell if it would be a gain or loss for him. I can assume that it was a much higher probability of loosing big time because of the penalty. He simply cannot think he would get out gaining anything on others. He's was lucky, and I'm sure he was very much frustrated when the team told him that he's got penalised, and he was thinking "my race is over".

edited , too much spelling errors

Exactly. Also Hamilton couldn't know (at the time of the crash) that Button wouldn't pass Kobayashi, or that Kobayashi wouldn't pit much earlier.

The real questions that remain (illogical fanboys aside) are how and why was the 5 second penalty invented, and why did the SC not wave the Ferraris through since it is supposed to catch the leader (which it did later on)?
And why did the SC cross the pit-exit line? It is probably one of the reason Hamilton delayed his initial attempt at passing it. I think the SC driver/crew should be penalized too.

[komninosm]

komninosm is right. Schumacher is the chapion of loopholes Just remember when he wins by crossing the finish line in the box, during his drive-trough penalty I thin it was Silverstone 1997 or 1998 against Hakkinen.(

was the decision about taking penalty in the last lap decide by his team? why should MS to be the one that pointed for that decision?

anyway for the race, still can't find anything that make street circuit interesting

Actually in 1998 that race was a true scandal. The penalty was irregularly imposed (communicated) and FIA removed it completely (initially they added 10s to his time) and the Stewards were punished for incompetence (a real shocker) and removed from their position.
I think Schumacher did it again in 2002.

After true scandals like that (and Singapore 2008) it is a real shameless crime that Alonso and Ferrari are saying these things today over a non-issue really. It's despicable. :^o [-X

[WhiteBlue]

The real questions that remain (illogical fanboys aside) are how and why was the 5 second penalty invented, ....

I posted the story of the 5s penalty.
viewtopic.php?p=181467#p181467

And you even quoted it.
viewtopic.php?p=181474#p181474

[ringo]

anyone has the lap times of Alonso, massa and hamilton up to the accident?

[ISLAMATRON]

F1matrix.it... when they finally put them up

[WhiteBlue]

anyone has the lap times of Alonso, massa and hamilton up to the accident?

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1 ... alysis.pdf







Some other information that may give an insight into the events around the safety car:

The Guardian cited FIA officials in insisting that the delay "was a mere seven minutes and not the 20 laps claimed by Alonso". Actually, it was seven laps before the Hamilton investigation was announced, and another four laps before the penalty was imposed. The rules then allowed Hamilton another 3 laps before he had to serve the penalty.

Mark Hughes, the British broadcaster BBC's commentary box producer, insists race director Charlie Whiting "acted absolutely correctly". Hughes said Whiting was initially "primary concerned" with attending to Mark Webber's huge crash, and that is why no cars were waved past the medical car until after the crash site, "without regard to which competitors it affected".

Hughes, apparently writing with insider information, also revealed that Whiting was faced with "key difficulties" in coming to a decision about Hamilton's penalty. Whiting waited to collect helicopter video footage and car transponder information, because the footage from Hamilton's in-car camera was not conclusive. He also need to confirm the differing locations of the transponders on the McLaren and the safety car.

"Only once he had all this compiled did he feel confident in confirming that an offence had taken place," wrote Hughes. "What happened on Sunday was the opposite of manipulation; just a systematic, consistent response that took no account of who suffered or who gained," said Hughes.

This echoes what some people have said right from the first moment of the controversy. Charlie Whiting absolutely did the right thing. Alonso had no business to talk of manipulation and it is good that he has backtracked on that claim. In my view he owes an apology to Charlie.

[PlatinumZealot]

I don't know about you guys but I sure it will be very difficult for me to see a 4 inch white line going across the track when my eyes are only just over the bonnet and my car going at 200mph.

It was obviously a mistake on Hamilton's part. There was no need for him to cheat, especially when Alonso wouldn't have made it past the Safety car anyway.

[timbo]

Actually, it was seven laps before the Hamilton investigation was announced, and another four laps before the penalty was imposed. The rules then allowed Hamilton another 3 laps before he had to serve the penalty.

So it was 11 laps before the penalty announcement. With 1.40 laptime it gives just what Alonso said.

He also need to confirm the differing locations of the transponders on the McLaren and the safety car.

Is it too hard to check at least that before the race?

"Only once he had all this compiled did he feel confident in confirming that an offence had taken place," wrote Hughes. "What happened on Sunday was the opposite of manipulation; just a systematic, consistent response that took no account of who suffered or who gained," said Hughes.

Agreed. But more than that it just shows that the system s***s c**k.

[myurr]

Agreed. But more than that it just shows that the system s***s c**k.

This isn't some dictatorship - proper due process needs to happen, especially as the stewards decisions can ultimately be challenged in the courts.

Alonso's jump start in China took 5 laps to investigate, Hamilton's more complex infringement took 11 laps. That's not unprecedented nor such a big deal and you really should be getting over it by now.

[timbo]

This isn't some dictatorship - proper due process needs to happen, especially as the stewards decisions can ultimately be challenged in the courts.

Alonso's jump start in China took 5 laps to investigate, Hamilton's more complex infringement took 11 laps. That's not unprecedented nor such a big deal and you really should be getting over it by now.

So, are you saying that a system can't be improved?
There's all needed technology availabale. Jump-starts and overtaken SC does not involve any controversy. It is pretty black-and-white.
I hope that when next year teams will pay for GPS and meteo-services they would demand Bernie to improve race control.

[Richard]

anyone has the lap times of Alonso, massa and hamilton up to the accident?

Ringo - all the dace data for the season is archived here ... viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8168&start=0

[WhiteBlue]

Actually, it was seven laps before the Hamilton investigation was announced, and another four laps before the penalty was imposed. The rules then allowed Hamilton another 3 laps before he had to serve the penalty.

So it was 11 laps before the penalty announcement. With 1.40 laptime it gives just what Alonso said.

Sorry, but you are misrepresenting Alonso. He said 20 laps, but in fact it was 14 laps total (7+4+3) from SC to penalty serving. If you accept that Charlie used 7 laps to deal with Webber's accident and 4 to sort out the penalty with the stewards you will see that it makes total sense.

He also need to confirm the differing locations of the transponders on the McLaren and the safety car.

Is it too hard to check at least that before the race?

I don't think he ever had the issue before as the safety car line was never playing a role before. Cut the man a bit of slack please.