Ferrari were told to give back that place immediately
- Thread starter fat jez
- Start date
snowy said:Strueth!I'm a Pole Sitter! Is that like a static pole dancer?
http://cliptheapex.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1076
Brogan, don't really want to look like an idiot here, but I'm sure I watched that actual race on The BBC historic gp segment.
I may be wrong but I think that a little later on in that race that alonso was told to give back the position a further time. He had to drop back, and the commentators thought he had a problem with his car. It was not until later that they realised he had been contacted by the stewards. If that is not this clip, then there was another race with very similar circumstances. I'm sure you or Keke can enlighten me
I may be wrong but I think that a little later on in that race that alonso was told to give back the position a further time. He had to drop back, and the commentators thought he had a problem with his car. It was not until later that they realised he had been contacted by the stewards. If that is not this clip, then there was another race with very similar circumstances. I'm sure you or Keke can enlighten me
I think Danby may have a point here. But if you'll excuse me, that really is beside the point!
The fact is that regardless of the outcomes of Alonso's previous manoeuvre (with James Allen commentating) and Hamilton's Spa move on Raikoonen; both of them set clear precedents that the place should be given back immediately. It is absolutely crystal clear!
Yet on this occasion, Alonso chose not to do this; he chose to leave the outcome in the hands of others. - And that is almost literally putting one's destiny in the hands of the gods.
- How foolish can this guy get? He should not have waited for any corporate decision on his racing driving! He is the racing driver! And he knows his responsibilities as a racing driver.
Alonso chose to ignore his own precedent; to ignore the precedent reinforced by the Hamilton incident at Spa; to rely upon others to make a favourable decision for him; and to take no responsibility for ANY of these decisions or his incorrect manner of driving!. - I tell you that such shirking of responsibility is foolhardy at best, and a downright attempt to bend the rules (a.k.a. "cheat") at worst.
His penalty was totally correct and he should think himself lucky that his actions did not invoke more severe sanctioning. It could easily have been seen as a deliberate attempt to gain unfair advantage, which would have had far more serious consequences if he was found to be guilty.
Now Alonso, my advice to you is to forget about this, stop moaning about the fact that the world is a bad place; thank your lucky stars that it is you driving that car instead of me, and get on with your job of driving it!
The fact is that regardless of the outcomes of Alonso's previous manoeuvre (with James Allen commentating) and Hamilton's Spa move on Raikoonen; both of them set clear precedents that the place should be given back immediately. It is absolutely crystal clear!
Yet on this occasion, Alonso chose not to do this; he chose to leave the outcome in the hands of others. - And that is almost literally putting one's destiny in the hands of the gods.
- How foolish can this guy get? He should not have waited for any corporate decision on his racing driving! He is the racing driver! And he knows his responsibilities as a racing driver.
Alonso chose to ignore his own precedent; to ignore the precedent reinforced by the Hamilton incident at Spa; to rely upon others to make a favourable decision for him; and to take no responsibility for ANY of these decisions or his incorrect manner of driving!. - I tell you that such shirking of responsibility is foolhardy at best, and a downright attempt to bend the rules (a.k.a. "cheat") at worst.
His penalty was totally correct and he should think himself lucky that his actions did not invoke more severe sanctioning. It could easily have been seen as a deliberate attempt to gain unfair advantage, which would have had far more serious consequences if he was found to be guilty.
Now Alonso, my advice to you is to forget about this, stop moaning about the fact that the world is a bad place; thank your lucky stars that it is you driving that car instead of me, and get on with your job of driving it!
MajorDanby said:
I know some of you may find this hard to believe, but the FIA stewards hadn't a clue what they wanted to do in this situation.
Ultimately, I believe they did ask Renault to have Alonso hand the place back to Klien an additional time. But during the period that Flavio delivered the message to his driver and Fernando dropped back to relinquish the spot, they had decided that it wasn't necessary for him to let Christian by again. Alonso did however let Klien by before subsequently passing him again.
I had this video posted to YouTube a while back, before it was unceremoniously taken down, and there was endless debate between Renault/Alonso fans and pretty much everybody else. Alonso fans went on and on about how unfair it was and that it ruined his chance to fight for the win, while everyone else just flamed Fernando and called him a cheater.
Thanks for clearing that up Danby. I think the difficulty faced by the Stewards at the time was that they had no precedent on which to base their decision.
Indeed, it is interesting to consider that Alonso himself set the precedent! Then the Hamilton fiasco at Spa: Alonso's precedent was reinforced by Hamilton giving Raikkonen the position back immediately. (Regardless of one's views on decisions taken after the race which saw Hamilton given an additional time penalty).
- Both of these incidents made it crystal clear as to what was required of a driver who gains a place in a manoeuvre where he goes off track.
Indeed, it is interesting to consider that Alonso himself set the precedent! Then the Hamilton fiasco at Spa: Alonso's precedent was reinforced by Hamilton giving Raikkonen the position back immediately. (Regardless of one's views on decisions taken after the race which saw Hamilton given an additional time penalty).
- Both of these incidents made it crystal clear as to what was required of a driver who gains a place in a manoeuvre where he goes off track.
If what James Allen reported today is true, Alonso and Ferrari DID get screwed by Charlie Whiting and the stewards...
But then, did Ferrari really need to ask? I settle back into my original position that Alonso had to KNOW he had gained an unfair advantage and that--had he been thinking as a sporting race driver instead of as a recently "ill done" 2-time WDC and National Hero (and by LH, no less!
)--he would have reflexively and immediately given the position back.
But then, did Ferrari really need to ask? I settle back into my original position that Alonso had to KNOW he had gained an unfair advantage and that--had he been thinking as a sporting race driver instead of as a recently "ill done" 2-time WDC and National Hero (and by LH, no less!
)--he would have reflexively and immediately given the position back.
Your welcome cosi
I find it interesting that Ferrari further disputed this. I can't see Charlie lying to cover his own back to be honest
I find it interesting that Ferrari further disputed this. I can't see Charlie lying to cover his own back to be honest
I still can't help thinking that the issue stems from Ferrari trying to pull a fast one. Their case centres on the issue that Alonso had to take to the outside of the chicane because of the chop across the nose by Kubica. They seem to be arguing that Alonso was given no option but to move out of Kubica's way and therefore he should have retained his position. That would seem to be why instead of advising their driver to give the place back they took Alonso's case to the Stewards. I seem to remember Alonso saying immediately afterwards on the radio that "he pushed me off the track" or words to that effect.
The trouble is that if that had stood wouldn't it have set a pretty dangerous precedent? Anybody who fancied risking a banzai move down the inside of another driver at a chicane could then cut the chicane and claim that he was given no option.
I do agree with one aspect of Ferrari's complaint in that the stewards do seem to take a long time to issue their penalties. The other problem that Alonso had to contend with was the fact that the penalty was disproportionate to the crime once it was clear that taking it immediately after the safety car would be a massive handicap. In my opinion, once Kubica was out of the race, the penalty should have been in the form of a time punishment added after the race had finished.
The best method of preventing these sorts of incidents happening again are to add something to the outside of chicanes, rumble strips or good old fashioned gravel for example that would prevent any driver cutting a chicane and gaining an advantage by reducing their speed. If you make a chicane that can be easily driven across without any hindrance then these things are likely to happen.
The trouble is that if that had stood wouldn't it have set a pretty dangerous precedent? Anybody who fancied risking a banzai move down the inside of another driver at a chicane could then cut the chicane and claim that he was given no option.
I do agree with one aspect of Ferrari's complaint in that the stewards do seem to take a long time to issue their penalties. The other problem that Alonso had to contend with was the fact that the penalty was disproportionate to the crime once it was clear that taking it immediately after the safety car would be a massive handicap. In my opinion, once Kubica was out of the race, the penalty should have been in the form of a time punishment added after the race had finished.
The best method of preventing these sorts of incidents happening again are to add something to the outside of chicanes, rumble strips or good old fashioned gravel for example that would prevent any driver cutting a chicane and gaining an advantage by reducing their speed. If you make a chicane that can be easily driven across without any hindrance then these things are likely to happen.
I agree completely with the first paragraph. But regarding the last one, they do now tend to have rumble strips at chicanes don't they? The difference with Alonso's shortcut at Silverstone is that there isn't actually a chicane proper at that point; it is technically speaking more a conjunction of two different corners, as the exit of the lefthander at Vale merges into the first part of the wider, double-apex righthander Club Corner, where there is stil a substantial grass verge on the inside of the kerbs.
snowy
Champion Elect
MajorDanby said:
Remarkably similar turn of events as we saw in Spa 2008 where Charlie displayed his total lack of credibility and honesty. Lest we forget it was Charlie that made the flawed decisions and indecisiveness that created "Spygate" in 2007. He is more than capable of lying his ass off and perverting events.
The thing is, I though that during Spa Charlie had admitted the he thought the overtake was legal, and advised the team as much. However, ultimately the decision was not his, and lay with the Stewards. He didn't try to claim that he hadn't advised McLaren as much
Not sure what Ferrari feel they can acheive by publishing their version; it simply confirms what charlie said more or less
to be fair, regarding the speed of decision, whiting only took 2 mins to give his opinion. Im also pretty sure that Ferrari wouldnt have been quite so upset if a safety car hadnt been deployed as Alonso wouldnt have lost quite so much time. Finally, given how much they cried foul over Stewards taking a long time to make decisions at valencia, they made it a fair amount quicker at silverstone, so you cant have everything.
Wee Scot said:
to be fair, regarding the speed of decision, whiting only took 2 mins to give his opinion. Im also pretty sure that Ferrari wouldnt have been quite so upset if a safety car hadnt been deployed as Alonso wouldnt have lost quite so much time. Finally, given how much they cried foul over Stewards taking a long time to make decisions at valencia, they made it a fair amount quicker at silverstone, so you cant have everything.
snowy said:MajorDanby said:
Remarkably similar turn of events as we saw in Spa 2008 where Charlie displayed his total lack of credibility and honesty. Lest we forget it was Charlie that made the flawed decisions and indecisiveness that created "Spygate" in 2007. He is more than capable of lying his ass off and perverting events.
Hang on a second.
I think a few people are missing a very important point: It is the Stewards who decide whether or not an infringement of the rules has been committed, and to issue any punishment(s) if they deem that to be the case. Charlie Whiting is the race director and NOT a Steward, and can therefore only act in an advisory capacity when asked by a team to give his view of it. This does not mean that the Stewards will agree with Whiting! - His opinion is just that: an opinion, albeit based upon his expertise and knowledge.
Any team which decides to consult Whiting, is only going to get advice; and not a definitive answer on whether or not any rule has been broken, nor whether any corrective measures taken by the team in lieu of an incident, have adequately redressed the balance. This is entirely the job of the Stewards and is why they exist.
Therefore any team can choose to take a corrective measure, in the hope that it will assuage the Stewards, OR they can choose their own interpretation and run the risk of a penalty, in the event that the Stewards still feel such is warranted.
- In neither case can Charlie Whiting be considered to be at fault, since his role is advisory. And all of the teams know this!
For a moment, think of consulting a lawyer when there is a possibility that you may have committed a crime. The lawyer offers advice, and may sympathise and in a sense 'be on your side' but the lawyer does not decide whether or not you are guilty. Similarly, an arbitration service may mediate between parties (given sufficient expertise) but again, they do not decide the outcome of any dispute.
Charlie Whiting is innocent! He can only offer advice, which includes to the Stewards - much as a Judge can advise a Jury but it is still the Jury who passes judgement; not the Judge.
None of these analogies are perfect. I make no pretence at that. I am simply trying to get across the nature of the role played by Whiting and the Stewards. In a sense, you need to mix up all of these bits about each party, to come up with an adequate understanding of Whiting's role, in this capacity.
I hope that at least some of this makes sense, and can fully understand why there is so much confusion, when incidents of this nature occur. But you know who dreads this most? Yep! - Charlie Whiting!
Charlie Whiting is innocent! He can only offer advice, which includes to the Stewards - much as a Judge can advise a Jury but it is still the Jury who passes judgement; not the Judge.
None of these analogies are perfect. I make no pretence at that. I am simply trying to get across the nature of the role played by Whiting and the Stewards. In a sense, you need to mix up all of these bits about each party, to come up with an adequate understanding of Whiting's role, in this capacity.
I hope that at least some of this makes sense, and can fully understand why there is so much confusion, when incidents of this nature occur. But you know who dreads this most? Yep! - Charlie Whiting!
A point well made Cosicave. The problem is Whiting appears to be the first port of call for all the teams when a contentious situation arises and if he is not empowered to make a decision you have to question why. Either the teams ask Whitings advice as race director and accept it or they stop asking him and wait for a decision from the stewards. Presumably Whitings role should simply be to communicate the stewards decisions to the teams (apart from all the other stuff a race director has to do)?
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
