Poll Who thinks that the Hamilton grid penalty is not the right grid penalty?
- Thread starter P1
- Start date
- Status
But it was the only option for the stewards it is clear cut. any technical infringement means exclusion no matter who the driver is. I think an earlier poster was right if it wasn't Hamilton all the people who are saying it is wrong would have a different point of view..
Moving the pole-sitter behind a car that couldn't do a 107% time is a disgrace. I don't give a shit who the driver is. It makes a mockery of the proceedings.
That's just supposition. Thankfully, Ferarri didn't muck up, so we will never know for sure.
Hamilton is just one of several who have the ability to mix things up, which is why the paddock might cheer - but, again, we have no evidence for that assertion. The FIA, if anything, have their own agenda and, since, none are racers, they are focussed on the "rules" and their interpretation of them.
Hamilton is just one of several who have the ability to mix things up, which is why the paddock might cheer - but, again, we have no evidence for that assertion. The FIA, if anything, have their own agenda and, since, none are racers, they are focussed on the "rules" and their interpretation of them.
They have been penalised for transgressing the rules. The penalty awarded is to start from the back, I don't entirely like that but it's the way it is.
You can't tell me that the Spanish organizers weren't absolutely thrilled that they could move Alonso to the front row while puttting the fastest driver at the back.
They created a farcical scenario.
They created a farcical scenario.
"Spanish organisers" and the FIA are not the same thing - so who orchestrated the 'farcical scenario' - sorry to disagree with you KekeTheKing and understand why you are so pissed off with the penalty.
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
It didn't help Hamilton's cause that his low fuel incident after the qualies at the 2010 GP of Canada was what prompted the rewriting of TR 6.6.2. What is an appropriate punishment for a team who has violated a rule that their misbehaviour was the cause of? It's like Schumacher violating the "one move" blocking rule (not that Michael ever would do such a thing).
The penalty is correct as a technical infringement is automatic exclusion; no ifs or buts.
Whether the penalty is too black and white is a separate issue.
The only advantage after all was on the last lap of Q3, all of the previous qualifying times were valid and set within the rules.
It's not like having an illegal part which gives an advantage all through qualifying.
Whether the penalty is too black and white is a separate issue.
The only advantage after all was on the last lap of Q3, all of the previous qualifying times were valid and set within the rules.
It's not like having an illegal part which gives an advantage all through qualifying.
So, a question, if they had said cruise slowly back to the pits, rather than pull over, would there have been a different result? Or at least the possibility? As Hamilton pulled over in front of the whole crowd, IMO the stewards didn't have any room to manouevre and discretion, logical or not, could not be applied. Seems like Whitmarsh messed this up all way around, as he put his hands up to later.
The way I see it is if they had failed to provide a fuel sample at all then they would have definitely been excluded from all of qualifying, but by stopping to preserve a fuel sample I think many would have thought the penalty deserved was to exclude Hamilton's last lap or at worst to exclude all his Q3 times which would make him 10th. If this is the case then McLaren made the correct decision in stopping the car and preserving the fuel sample.
You may be misunderstanding my question. I'm asking whether the fact that he pulled over made the incident worse than returning to the pits with low fuel. While essentially the same infringement would have been in play, perhaps McLaren's argument would have been less damaged by pulling over in front of everybody.
Incubus
Champion Elect
Gary Anderson said "McLaren sometimes aren't very good at thinking on their feet".
A good way of proving him wrong would have been for them to order Hamilton to push his car all the way to the pit-lane rather than just stop it. Hey presto: enough fuel left for the sample and no penalty for stopping on the track. And sure the rule forbidding one from pushing the car doesn't apply once the session is over?
Get in! Can I apply for Whitmarsh's job now?
A good way of proving him wrong would have been for them to order Hamilton to push his car all the way to the pit-lane rather than just stop it. Hey presto: enough fuel left for the sample and no penalty for stopping on the track. And sure the rule forbidding one from pushing the car doesn't apply once the session is over?
Get in! Can I apply for Whitmarsh's job now?
Bloody hell that would be one hell of a long push even for someone who is fit apart from being dangerous if he had have managed I would think the penalty would have been worse, maybe a race ban or even a two race ban...
Sorry Incubus but there is a maximum time allowed for a driver and car to return to the pits this was brought about by Lewis and Alonso or was it Kovi? Not sure in the fuel saving era where they were going so slow to save fuel after their flying laps that they interfered with other drivers laps...
You see McLaren cock ups aren't just a recent thing..
You see McLaren cock ups aren't just a recent thing..
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article