Poll Who thinks that the Hamilton grid penalty is not the right grid penalty?

[KekeTheKing]

Incubus He was penalized for a combination of McLaren ineptitude, past transgressions, and the overriding need to make an example of Hamilton whenever the opportunity presents itself.

 

[Josh]

I'm pretty sure if it was Ferrari who cocked up and Alonso had to stop on track after doing he would have been thrown out of qualifying as well so your last point is a bit... of an overreaction.

Not to mention the outcry would have been much smaller

 

[KekeTheKing]

How do you know that Josh?

 

[Josh]

The first or the second?

The first because it's a technical infringement and you're automatically disqualified for that and the second because Hamilton always seems to wind people up.

I can't recall anyone complaining about Buemi last year

 

[Slyboogy]

I complained about Buemi last year

Sure it was fair, but the dude was always unlucky.

 

[KekeTheKing]

Buemi didn't claim Pole by a wide margin.

And we all know that the FIA can, and will do as they please. They didn't HAVE to do anything. Nobody gave a shit that the LAST car on the circuit came to a stop out there.

 

[Incubus]

Actually Hamilton was penalised because he put a whoopee cushion on Alonso's chair during the press conference.
The espanish stewards were always likely to take a dim view of that.

 

[KekeTheKing]

Well they had about the same effect on the Qualifying session.

 

[The Artist.....]

Let's go back to spa 1994 then. Schumacher span across the kerbs, causing the plank to be worn away.... This didn't give a performance advantage, and he won by about 40 seconds. After the race, he was disqualified... Despite only having damaged his car due to force majeure. Was it incorrect for him to have been disqualified?

 

[Slyboogy]

Rules are rules, so if they broke a rule then they have to be penalised.

You can't just break a rule and expect to get away with it. Would your boss let you get away with it for breaking a rule? I doubt it. Remember a sport is a job for those competing in it, for us, it's just entertainment.

It doesn't matter if we like the penalty or not, the stewards are doing their job, while the team penalised did theirs wrongly.

 

[Incubus]

re: Schumavcher Spa 94

Actually it did give him a performance advantage due to that year's regulations. That plank was there prevent the car from enjoying the kind of ride-height maximising downforce performance wasn't it?

 

[KekeTheKing]

Not sure if these two situations are comparable The Artist..... , but I always thought that Schumacher being stripped of that win was very harsh. My opinion is that he was excluded for different reasons altogether.

 

[The Artist.....]

Incubus... The plank was only damaged after he span over the serrated kerbs. The plank was to prevent them setting the ride height too low... Had the car not spun, then the plank would not have been damaged! They couldn't change the ride height in the middle of the race- the limit on ride height was a consequence of suspension settings, NOT the plank! As such, unequal damage to the plank would not let the car run lower to the ground, nor would it be a performance advantage! However, we're getting off topic now!

 

[KekeTheKing]

Rules are rules.

Rules are bent, broken, and massaged in Formula One every weekend.

 

[RasputinLives]

I'm not sure how this can be argued as 'making an example of Hamilton' - the rules state that after a qualifying lap a car needs to return to the pits with a certain amount of fuel in it. Lewis stopped his Mclaren on track because if he didn't do then there wouldn't have been enough fuel in the car therefore a rule was broken. Its not like its a rule thats not been discussed before. It was a rule that was reitterated and made clearer less than a year ago when something similar happened, coincedently to the same driver, because it was felt the rule wasn't clear then no action was taken with the understanding that afterwards all teams would stick to the ruling.

Trying to claim this is all about Hamilton is a bit bizare.

As Brogan says it was a technical infringment and I don't care if you're Lewis Hamilton, Fernando Alonso or blooming Shirley Crabtree that remains the fact by the letter of the law.

I can see some argument for the penalty being too harsh. personally I'd rather have seen them scrub the time done on the run the infringment took place and let the other times count (it would have meant starting on a different set of tyres too) but currently that is not the regulations.

Lets not get blinded by who its happened to once again!

 

[Incubus]

The Artist......Hmmm, can't quite remember. I was watching that race in France at the time, and Prost was working as a co-commentator, and I clearly remember then as soon as the spin happened Prost immediately realised Michael would have a problem at post-race checks.

Anyway as you say it's off-topic for now.

 

[Slyboogy]

Rules are bent, broken, and massaged in Formula One every weekend.

They are, but those that do it are rarely caught, and when are caught, they are penalised.

Just like at a work place, where several bend the rules unnoticed.

 

[KekeTheKing]

The problem RasputinLives, is that evidence and history indicate otherwise.

 

[Quintessentially]

Had they done that, Hamilton likely would have been disqualified from the entire event. No fuel sample = illegal fuel = disqualification.

Having less fuel sample and no fuel sample are two different things, the latter would not have happened. The teams also submit larger fuel samples before the race for FIA approval anyway so no McLaren would not have been disqualified for using "illegal fuel". The one litre sample they have to submit at the end of the race (only selected teams by the way) is extremely conservative bearing in mind a tenth of that would be sufficient in checking for consistency between compounds. It is still possible to drain the car and obtain a small sample even if it run out of fuel like Canada. I'm sure a number of teams have fallen foul of this minimum fuel sample rule post quali ( which is easy to contravene) and have successfully argued their case. They just haven't parked their car in full view of everyone.

 

[jez101]

The lack of knowledge of the rules is troubling...

I think what they didn't understand was the penalty they would suffer. This is what the FIA came down hard because they had knowingly let Hamilton finish the timed lap and knowingly broken the rules. They found out in time to bring him in, decided not to, chosing in the process to break at least one rule (hoping the penalty would be minor, perhaps?)

Farce majeur, not force majeur. Claiming that was dumb stupidity: I can just imagine the stewards responded something like "you mean you had the chance to bring him in, didn't and are claiming it was an act of God? "

Buemi didn't claim Pole by a wide margin.

Sorry, KekeTheKing, the fact that Hamilton set pole is irrelevant. McLaren broke the rules, it doesn't matter where he finished. As Slyboogy says,

Rules are rules, so if they broke a rule then they have to be penalised.

Well they had about the same effect on the Qualifying session.

It was a real shame, but I think you should be blaming McLaren's ineptitude, not the FIA.

Rules are bent, broken, and massaged in Formula One every weekend.

Agreed. McLaren are very, very bad at breaking rules. Every time they do, they seem to get caught when others get away with it. I think it's their own fault... you would never expect to hear Rocky tell Vettel to stop the car and then sort of sheepishly say "you are on pole... at the moment". He would have been something like "Emergency! Emergency! Stop the Car!".

Where have we heard that before, I wonder...