Pole Sitter
I have just been watching some V8 Super Cars and was impressed with the way that the series deals with some of their penalties. one of the drivers (the name eludes me) had to serve a penalty for too much contact with another driver. He had to have a piece of body work fixed.

However, this is the part that interested me. The race officials held the car, once it was serviced, for a ten second penalty. I believe that this is a rule that should be included in F1. Time and time again we have seen a car make contact with another car, received damage and a penalty and have to come into the pits twice and leaving them completely out of contention.

I understand that a penalty should ruin your day, but with the stewards at races being as consistent as as Mclaren's pits stops as of late a rule like this would lesson the sense of any wrong doing.

What do you guys think?
I don't think it would work in F1 as penalties aren't given out that quickly after an incident. Racing incidents have to be reported to the stewards then analyzed which takes time, so if say someone loses a front wing hitting another car their wing will be replaced within 2 mins as they'll pit that lap which isn't enough time for the stewards to hand out a penalty. So the only options are a drive-through, stop & go or time penalty later in the race.
Alternatively the stewards could get their finger out, give the penalty they think is correct and don't allow the teams to make "representations" to the race stewards but simply accept their decision. As in football, there will always be dubious decisions but they even each other out over the course of a season.

Another thing I'd like to see an end to is drivers coming on the radio asking for an incident to be investigated or calling for a race to be stopped "because it's a bit wet". This is the equivalent of footballers calling for red and yellow cards against their opponents and really is starting to hack me off.
Never thought of it like that FB but you are right it is a trend thats come in. I remember hearing Button moaning on the radio about Kobayshi weaving all over the road in Brazil 2009 and then the very next lap he got past with less fight than he had been getting. Similar thing happened with Schumi and the Mac's in Monza. Heard Fernando do it was well and he tried to do it with Petrov in Abu Dhabi 2010. That sort of thing is almost like a warning to the driver in front to get out the way or we'll be in the stewards office and you can guarentee the team will have weylaid it back to them and if you're in one of the midfield teams on for a good result its best to not risk getting the pen and move over and let em through. Really don't like that.

As for the moaning after. I think in the case of Rubens and Schumi in Hungary 2009 Rubens had every right to get on the radio and swear his head off.
No problem with the drivers moaning to their teams or sounding off and the Rubens/Schumi incident was so dangerous he had every right to. It's when the come on "Boo, hoo, hoo, such and such is weaving about a bit and I can't get past. Can you tell Charlie"
I think part of the problem is the difficulty applying anything less than a 20 second drive through - which could ruin someone's race disproportionately to the offence. Time penalties after the race are just ugly, while fines (eg for unsafe pit release) are pretty irrelevant.

Maybe they should think about restricting use of KERS for 3 laps or so, for when something deserves a slap on the wrist?
FB You mention football, but there they're bringing in goal-line technology which though may slow things down, tries to ensure that the correct decision is consistently made.
Think it's fine the way it is, if you make a severe mistake and the stewards think you are at fault, you should be punished, don't see why you should be allowed to make your way back in easily, not much of a punishment really.

Schumacher got a stop and go penalty in Silverstone last year while breaking a front wing, but it was exciting to see how fast he was and how he managed to get into the points.

Just as it was with Lewis Hamilton in Monaco last year.

One thing which irritates me, is the "reviewed after the race" when they have plenty of time to analyse the situaition i.e like the Rosberg incidents at the last GP.
Not sure if a V8 super car has a radiator fan but holding an f1 car that long especially with limited engines could be disastrous
while fines (eg for unsafe pit release) are pretty irrelevant.

On the subject of unsafe releases, I feel that this is one of the most ridiculously implemented rules ever. Surely all the side by side running in the pit lane should be considered unsafe releases. It's only a matter of time before there is a collision in the pit lane and some of the brain trust on the wall get a back full of shrapnel.

Good thoughts guys. Tonyw151, I hadn't thought about that.
tonyw151 Not these days, they are fine for much longer than that.

RasputinLives & FB - Yes, the Schumacher/Ruebens incident was dangerous, but I still don't think it was as dangerous as the Rosberg incidents @ Bahrain, especially the one involving Hamilton. At least Schumacher gave Ruebens some space..
Schumacher gave Rubens enough space to slide a bugs left nut between the car and the pit wall. Very gracious of him. Rosberg did run Hamilton and Alonso off the track, but at least they still hand plenty of room between themselves and the wall.
Schumacher gave Rubens enough space to slide a bugs left nut between the car and the pit wall. Very gracious of him. Rosberg did run Hamilton and Alonso off the track, but at least they still hand plenty of room between themselves and the wall.

I've had a fair few looks at the Schumacher / Barrichello incident and can't really see the difference between what Michael did, and Nico's efforts. yes, the wall is closer to the track in Hungary, but the rules don't distinguish between close walls and vast expanses of desert. If you watch the MS/RB incident, you can see MS drift quite slowly to the right expecting RB to go left, but RB just follows him into an ever decreasing gap. MS never made a violent move one way or the other. By the time Rubens' car has his front wheel ahead of MS rear wheel, he has two wheels over the white line.

Rubens could have backed out or gone left, but chose not to. How can MS move have been deemed worthy of a black flag or disqualification - as Derek Warwick would have liked, and Nico's moves be fine? It's either OK to move and crowd the car behind out of an overtake, or it's not. Circuit design is irrelevant, you can't make it up as you go along.
I was referring to your first point that Rosberg's move was more dangerous. Yes he moved over quicker than Schumy did, however Hamilton and Alonso could have backed out of the move just as easily as Rubens. Alonso did back out of the move showing that the speed of Rosberg's move is not a reason for a car not to be able to back out.

In this case circuit design is deffinately important when it comes to danger. Hamilton and Alonso were pushed off onto the sandy run off area on the inside. There was room for the pass and Hamilton was able to make it stick (the legality of which is a different topic). Schumacher could easily have pushed Rubens into the wall causing a VERY avoidable incident. The proximity of the wall is the very reason Derek Warwick thought the move was so dangerous. Rubens on board footage from that incident is very scary. The balls on that guys is insane.

Now, I don't agree with either of Schumacher's or Rosberg's moves. I thought there was a new rule this year that you had to leave a cars width of space at the edge of the track (I am clearly mistaken though after there was no penalty). Hopefully we won't see a repeat of either move.
Suppose it depends on which side of the track? Plenty of room on the other side of Rosberg and Schumie in both these incidents ;)
Alonso and Hamilton where not alongside Rosberg they were behind so they could have easily backed out of it.

Tell me something how the hell could Rubens have backed out when the cars wheels were overlapping? if he had both cars would have gone airborne as this picture shows.


As you can see from Rubens steering angle he would rather have hit schumi than the walll and I don't blame him..
Rubens put himself in that position. It's not as if Schumacher suddenly veered to the right while Rubens was alongside. By the time Rubens had any part of his car alongside Schumacher he already had his two right hand wheels off the track. Had he gone left, which was what Schumacher was trying to make him do, he'd have had loads of track. Schumacher made one constant move and Rubens chose to follow him. Rubens should have backed out about here:


Even I can see that's a rapidly decreasing gap. He still could have gone left!
He couldn't have gone left without coming off the gas, then he wouldn't have been able to make the pass. He wouldn't have had the time to draft and make up the pace before the braking zone.
Comes a time when the most basic common sense has to apply. Schumacher's move was downright idiotic and incredibly dangerous for Rubens. Rosberg's moves weren't all that dangerous, but unfair to the point of being a bit crass. It doesn't matter wether LH or FA had any part of their cars on front of him and quite frankly it doesn't matter what the wording of the rules are on this. Whether he veered continually or not to the right, the rule book shouldn't allow for that kind of quick veering through the entire width of the track when a car is so close behind because it leaves far too small a margin for error and if the rule-book allows for it, then there is a serious problem with the rule-book. They wouldn't have dreamt of doing that kind of move in the old danger days. The fact F1's much safer these days shouldn't have a bearing on what is fair and what isn't. Unfortunately it seems the relative lack of danger in today's F1 merely seems to encourage unfairness and that's why we are today plagued with over-regulation in F1 left right and centre.
There was no need for any of that in the days of yore because a certain code of honour among drivers meant things sort of regulated themselves. And far from being a rose-tinted-glass kind of thing, it was a reality time and time again on display.
Blimey, I feel very Jackiestewartish today.
Top Bottom