Formula One is back......and how!

I'm not surprised at all. There's is still so much sour grapes from last season. I'm just glad that for once that the appeal has gone in Lewis' favour :) .
 
An excellent race, well worth getting up for! It is an interesting point (which was also brought up in commentary) that there's not been much comment from the drivers/teams about the merits of the new regs and whether they've improved ability to follow the car in front; i.e. overtaking. One race - too early to give a definitive answer? Oz used to be "you can't overtake" so maybe a circuit that's more amenable to it will give a better idea...?
 
I thought it an exciting race and think that the reg. changes have, on the whole, achieved what they were set out to do.

My only beef, apart from the protests and penalties, is the fact that the race was not stopped after the Vettel/Kubica shunt. Ludicrous to bring out the safety car with only 3 laps to go! What happened to the 95% rule?
 
Apologies to boga and to Jarno Trulli. Not that I'm blaming Lewis. I can see how the misunderstanding occured! In the past the best thing to do would be to contact Charlie Whiting in that situation, but we all saw what his opinion means in Spa! The Spa-Francorchamps debacle has lasting implications...

Jenov, I can see what you mean, finishing the race under Safety Car was pointless.

Anyone think that Vettel has got a penalty in Malaysia for trying to finish the race rather than causing the crash?
 
With you Teabag - Vettel's penalty was for keepin going. The shunt with Kubica was a 50/50 affair, I think, so should you penalise drivers for racing when that is the sole intention of all the reg. changes? Still no consistency from the "powers that be".
 
Thanks Bro.

Still think it was a 50/50 racing incident though. But you can't argue with them, can you? Probably the first of many mis-calls this season!!
 
One problem, Brogan, with your diagnosis is that you're thinking that Official FIA documents are worth the paper they're printed on when assessing the FIA!

The collision was a 50-50 thing, and I must be right about that because Murray Walker agrees with me!

Either way, it is about time the avoidability factor was not squared with the penalisability, eg. the Kubica-Vettel incident was a racing incident, Massa hitting Hamilton in Japan last year was penalisable! I think there should be some distinction, so long as they're on the track at all times (unlike Massa in Japan) and not doing anything deliberately (Schumi at Jerez) then its all good so far as I'm concerned.

Like I say, Murray Walker agrees with me! I'll stop the startwatch!
 
Ahhhhh I'm so happy to have this site to come to after visiting "the other place" for a bit of well reasoned debate and factual information.

I can actually tell the term times from 606 posts.

Bring on Malaysia :D
 
It was a 50-50 and if anyone was to blame it was Kubica. Vettel clearly had the line and Kubica gave him no room to avoid the accident. Kubica turned into Vettel to try to get the racing line but neither was willing to yield. In hindsight, I think Kubica would have given Vettel more room and taken him at the next corner (kinda sounds like the Kimi-Lewis incident at Spa )

At first I thought the grid penalty was for driving around in a tripod. Sadly, it seems like the stewards are going to have a say in the title this year .
 
Boyle99 said:
At first I thought the grid penalty was for driving around in a tripod. Sadly, it seems like the stewards are going to have a say in the title this year .

Even more true now! Only one race gone and we have two bad FIA decisions already!

The only question left for 2009 is which Ferrari driver is going to win the WDC?
 
Back
Top Bottom