Poll Let...them....RACE

[gdeacon7]

In truth, I think everyone here would like to vote yes, but it's up to the drivers and not the stewards to make sure the races aren't over-regulated. The rules all exist before the start of the race, and so if penalties need to be given to achieve a fair result, it's surely the fault of the drivers who provoked the penalties. Greenlantern101 has it right: if everyone raced fairly and cleanly there would be no need for stewards.

 

[Jen]

I have voted 'yes'. But this would assume that the drivers/teams show a degree of sportsmanship and race etiquette.

There is a theory that rules are there to be broken and that is what we are seeing now - everyone is constantly testing the boundaries.

The ideal, for me, would be fewer rules but stiffer penalties if they were breached.

 

[Josh]

I voted yes because the question says "less involved" and not "not involved" as many seem to think. The only thing I don't like is that they punish drivers for racing incidents, which is the reason I voted yes.

 

[ZakspeedYakspeed]

No... the rules are the rules... I would lay a good portion of the blame on Red Bull for not telling him to yield that position... if you were in any doubt of it being wrong, the consequences are a drive through 20s / 25s and you don't have to be a genius to work the math...

(no doubt SV would have been throwing the toys out of the pram if he was told to yield it back... but sometimes you have to tell the kids what to do... veiled reference to LH... "guys....[sniff sniff]...I should retire"...)

 

[RickD]

Chad Stewarthill - I wasn't only on about Vettel from yesterdays race, I was also on about all the others, including the race leader, who were using more than the track limits to get a faster lap time and keep others behind.

 

[cider_and_toast]

I've gone for No. Every sport needs its rules and its referees and F1 is no different. Sometimes the rules work in your favor and other times against. That's the nature of the beast.

Vettel can have little cause for complaint.

What we need to see is not less Stewards involvement but greater consistency of decision and greater clarity of regulation.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

RickD I know you weren't only on about Vettel (I can't comment on anyone else, as I was away from home and couldn't watch the race, only listen to it on the radio), that's why I mentioned about the BTCC stewards these days warning and/or penalising all drivers going off circuit, even when not overtaking or defending.

 

[soccerman17]

No, but I would like the stewards to actually do something during the race besides announcing they will investigate after the race.

 

[Slyboogy]

Well I watched GP2 today and I saw a lot of drivers pushing others off, or moving their cars towards them. GP2 I feel is a bit lenient compared to F1, and I can't say I didn't like it.

However I don't agree with a 20s penalty for Vettel either, usually the stewards tell the teams to give the position back, in this case, it that didn't happen, of course Red Bull are to blame too, I think demoting Vettel to 3rd would have been a better penalty.

But last season, I did feel penalties where getting thrown up constantly, also think the safety aspect is too much, with safety cars everywhere.

I really don't know what I'm on about, but I kind of voted yes, but not because of the Vettel incident.

 

[gdeacon7]

Does the Vettel penalty remind anyone of the Alonso-Kubica incident at Silverstone 2010? In both cases, the drivers would have been instructed to give the position back, except circumstances forced the stewards to reach for a much harsher penalty. Alonso was given a drive-through because Kubica had already retired, Vettel was given a time penalty (which obviously put him 2-3 positions lower than if he'd had the opportunity to give the position back) because the race finished.

 

[Pyrope]

Does the Vettel penalty remind anyone of the Alonso-Kubica incident at Silverstone 2010?

Yes, in both cases neither driver gave the place back anything like fast enough. If they had both done so at the next corner then neither would have had a penalty.

 

[Dizzi]

RickD - I never metioned swapping positions, I just said the 20s penalty worked out a lot harsher for some drivers than others mostly because of the individual racing circumstances.
I wholly agree with the rest of your post though & Seb 'showed his maturity' by not dropping back & re-taking.
That's what I like about this forum - posting with a definite thought & then being gently shown another point of view & going "Ah yes, erm, that too!"

 

[KekeTheKing]

I said yes, but only in an ideal world.

I think the cat is well and truly out of the bag in F1 however. Indiscretions need to be penalized, it's as simple as that. If Vettel's pass was allowed to stand on Sunday then that would have been an incredibly dangerous precedent to set and would have undoubtedly led to much consternation in the future.

Off track excursions that result in position changes have been penalized for years, there's no good reason to stop that practice now. Even if the punishment seems a tad harsh.

 

[Boyle]

I do not like some over interference by stewards in some cases but in Sunday's case with Vettel's 'overtake' they were completely right to penalise him - the track stops at the white line and he went beyond it to pass. If there was a gravel trap there, there would be no way he would have attempted to pass like that.

 

[teabagyokel]

If there was a gravel trap there, there would be no way he would have attempted to pass like that.

Curva Grande?

 

[Pyrope]

I really don't understand why there can't be a 2m wide grass or astroturf strip (or gravel in those countries where grass would die) on either side adjacent to the track. By all means then retain the huge asphalt areas outwith that, but what's the logic in having the track effectively simply painted on to a skidpan? It looks awful, and tempts drivers into abusing the rules in such a way that the stewards are forced into these inconsistent applications of the rules. If there were some real penalty for getting off track then we'd see far less need for the stewards to wade in (yay, knew I'd get back on topic eventually!).

 

[Brogan]

I said the same thing Pyrope.

Having those huge run off areas at each high speed corner just invites the drivers to use them.

 

[F1Yorkshire]

The downside of changes in material such as tarmac to gravel or grass is that on occasions cars would dig in and start cartwheeling. I'm sure someone will post a video example shortly.

Tarmac is the safest way as it gives the cars a nice flat area in which to slow down and recover. The technology is available to show when a car leaves the track extents and surely they could implement something that reduces engine power for a 5 second period if a driver leaves the confines of the circuit.

Why haven't we seen slowing down tarmac like there is at Paul Ricard at other tracks? It's BE's own playground so obviously he can't be opposed to it.

 

[Pyrope]

Cartwheeling wouldn't be a problem on grass or astro surfaces. The Ricard-style run off tarmac isn't there to slow the car down if the car doesn't want to slow down, it's just high-friction material that allows shorter braking distances and tighter turning circles, like the brown stuff they spread on roads near traffic lights and pedestrian crossings. I don't see how that would help.

 

[Boyle]

Curva Grande?

Always a retort from you for everything isn't there?

I see your point but he only had two wheels on the grass, and wasn't in the gravel for that brilliant pass at Monza. My point wasn't that he doesn't have the balls to pass but rather that he knew he wouldn't be able to get past Button without there being a tarmac runoff.