Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2010 Formula One Thread
- Thread starter RaceTripper
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Looks like the hard tyres are significantly slower than the softs initially - Button might be able to clear a few cars here. Nico also has a good chance.
EDIT: If Alonso gets away with that, then we know who's being favoured and who's not.
EDIT: If Alonso gets away with that, then we know who's being favoured and who's not.
haha
i guess we know.
not that is surprising in any way, but the double standard is astounding
For Hamilton's incident, Autosport did an interesting piece. Essentially, the original images weren't satisfactory (so it took them time to access the helicopter images), and the stewards had to find out where the GPS locator was placed on the cars. As Martin says, Alonso should have let him past - it's a very similar situation to people going over the kerb at Casino after the tunnel at Monaco.
bottom line is, hamilton should have been tenth and ended up second, alonso should have been 5th and ended up 15th.
and hamilton's infraction was clearly a more severe one.
How would we?
Alonso braked later and was ahead on turn in, but the natural effect of been on the inside closed Kubica up (though of course he would've been behind for the 2nd part of the chicane) point is though, Kubica never had complete claim on that corner, because at no put was he sufficiently ahead to claim it.
Given that Alonso was alongside, it wasn't necessary to force him off the road, it's not like hanging someone out to dry when their front wheel is alongside your rear Alonso was ahead turning in, and level on the entry.
I really can't be bothered to check whether the stewards are the same as in Valencia, but like I said in a previous post, the stewards have made some shocking decisions this season, and that was one of them.
And that is why the incident should've been dealt with after the race, because of the duration of time it took for them to obtain the evidence, the penalty they did gave was not then sufficient to negate the advantage he gained.
He should've had 1 minute added to his time after the race, to reflect the seriousness of the infraction.
Anyway... it's puzzling how Red Bull can build such a fast car, yet be so shambolic.
Vettel really lucked out today. How many times is the safety car deployed during a dry race at Silverstone? He should have finished out of the points. That was a real bonehead move at the start. It's a shame how the Austrian sponsor Red Bull are treating Webber.
Nigel was not the Driver's Rep at Valencia. I want to say it was Timo Glock, then. As for the other stewards, I am not sure if the FIA has a single team now, or if they still pull from each host nation for that race.
Disagree with this, Alonso never really had the corner, not fast enough or close enough. 50/50 at best.
i agree it was a close call, but exactly because of that, either you decide immediately and tell him to let kubica go back in front (the standard procedure) or if you wait long enough, you let it go, especially considering that the only driver that was damaged by the manouvre had retired for unrelated reasons.
to give him a non-standard penalization equivalent to 10 positions is ridiculous.
for a much more severe and clear-cut infraction, that moved him UP ten positions in the race and projected him in the lead of the championship, hamilton was given a 'ghost' penalty that cost him nothing.
the most penalized by this are button, who would lead the standings, and alonso, who would be ~30 points behind button instead of ~50 behind lewis. (not that i think he has much of a chance at the championship, but still)
Sorry meant that it was 50/50 at best in terms of chances of Alonso being able to over take I think Kubica still had the corner, not in the judgement made by the officials.
In terms of non-standard penalty I agree, its up to luck, Alonso was unlucky that there was a safety car otherwise it would of not been as bad. Hamilton was lucky, if there had been another safety car he would of suffered the same.
BUT the penalty awarded - as in just a drive through is consistent. Would it been seen as fair if you award a drive through penalty, and then say after that was not enough, deduct 10 points or that was too harsh here have a bonus 10?
In terms of the if the other driver retired I still disagree, if cheating has occurred it can't go unpunished.
Yeah, it wasn't the celebrity steward I was wondering about, I can't remember either if the stewards are from the host nation or whether they adopted a professional group of stewards that attend each race so as to maintain a degree of consistency (something that is lacking this year).
I'm rather perplexed how you can claim that Alonso was neither fast enough nor close enough.
Given that Alonso was on the racing line, arguably slightly ahead on turn in, and faster, he had just as much of a claim to the corner as Kubica, who was offline, slightly behind on turn in (until the effect of been on the inside, when he pulled back up alongside though we should remember it was a chicane and Kubica would then of been on the outside of the second part) and was slower.
All they had to do was give each other a little space. Alonso managed to do this, Kubica didn't. Kubica acted like the corner was completely his, when it wasn't, and ran Alonso (who was alongside) off the track, which was completely unnecessary. It's clear in the in-car view that mid corner, Kubica's wheels were near straight (we see Alonso having to take avoiding action), and that Kubica only started turning once he'd pushed Alonso off the track.
As you said it was 50/50 at best, though given the facts above, I'd argue that Alonso had perhaps a better claim to the corner, but I'd be more inclined to put it down to a racing incident myself, and that neither driver deserved a penalty, or both did.
Of course it wouldn't have been fair to penalise a driver twice, I don't think anyone is suggesting that, but given the delay in the stewards obtaining the evidence, perhaps the fairest way of handling it would've been to instead announce that the incident would be investigated after the race has ended (which has happened numerous times in the past) and then hand a penalty that would've actually penalised him. 1 minute to his time would've been sufficient.
Who cheated? The driver who was ahead and forced off the track or the driver who was behind and forced the other driver off the track?
P.S. Click on image, it's an animated gif.
It doesn't matter either way because Alonso is still going to win the title.
Fred 'eh... the Ferrari doesn't even look close to winning another race let alone the title.
Alonso should have just let Kubica right back by the moment he cut over the curbs to pass him. He might have finished as high as fourth. It really wasn't that close a call. The problem was that Kubica retired shortly thereafter. Then Alonso got screwed because the safety car bunched up the field and so he lost a lot more positions than if all the cars were as spread out as they were before the safety car. It made the penalty seem a lot worse than it actually was. That's just racing luck.
I don't agree that Alonso should've received a penalty given the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident (unless Kubica had received one as well), but it really is bad form from Ferrari to try and ignore Race Control.
Ever since Todt/Brawn/Schumacher left... they really are becoming like the shambolic team of old.
Rinky dink link.
Ever since Todt/Brawn/Schumacher left... they really are becoming like the shambolic team of old.
Rinky dink link.
This made me smile, apologies if it's already been posted: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport...-start-next-race-in-a-'98-punto-201007122898/
rezenclowd3
macrumors 65816
Seems Ferrari were more naughty than they want to admit:
http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport/story/23218.html
Charlie Whiting advised Ferrari 3 times to let Kubica through...
"On the radio, I suggested to them that if they exchange position again, there would be no need for the stewards to intervene," he told Italy's Autosprint magazine. "We told Ferrari three times that in my opinion they should give the position back to Kubica.
"And we told them that immediately, right after the overtaking manoeuvre. But they didn't do that and on the third communication they said that Kubica was by then too far back to let him regain the position."
http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport/story/23218.html
Charlie Whiting advised Ferrari 3 times to let Kubica through...
"On the radio, I suggested to them that if they exchange position again, there would be no need for the stewards to intervene," he told Italy's Autosprint magazine. "We told Ferrari three times that in my opinion they should give the position back to Kubica.
"And we told them that immediately, right after the overtaking manoeuvre. But they didn't do that and on the third communication they said that Kubica was by then too far back to let him regain the position."
That is a very nice gif, but it does not show much, the view is very narrow and does not show the position of Kubicas car. Those camera shots are great, but are best for showing what is going on in front, not to the side.
That would be a great camera shot, side cameras to get a view of overtakes, especially at the start when cars are close together.
I agree now penalty quite harsh, it ruined his race, maybe after race points deduction would of been better.
In terms of who cheated - that was a general statement at the situation of F1, not specifficaly at this case, I should of been clearer on this.
Already pointed that one out
It's this sort of thing that's always conveniently forgotten by some.
Ferrari International Assistance they'll cry when a decision eventually does go Ferrari's way though.
It clearly shows that despite your assertions, Alonso was both fast enough, and close enough, it shows that Alonso passed Kubica under breaking on the run to Vale and was fractionally ahead on turn in (because when we next see Kubica's car in the clip it is coming from behind and is not level with Alonso's car).
It shows that Kubica closed back up in the corner because of both the effect of being on the inside, albeit offline, and going near straight to force Alonso off the track.
I fail to see what Alonso did wrong at all to be honest. If he'd have stayed on the track Kubica would've hit him. Simple. But stupid.
It was the wrong call by the stewards, much like how they got it wrong in Malaysia, when Hamilton weaved 4 times down the straight to prevent Petrov overtaking, and was only reprimanded, rather than punished. Or when Hamilton was allowed to keep his Montreal pole position, despite only having enough fuel to complete his final qualifying lap, and not to make it back to the pits, a grossly unfair advantage if ever there was one.
With those, Valencia and Schumachers Monaco punishment, it's been a shocking year for the stewards.
It would, it is a shame that they've not got cameras similar to those in Indycar (or whatever on earth it's called now) that can be panned left or right.
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why should a driver be penalised at all if he was pushed off the track?
Anyway, I think I've pretty much exhausted myself on this topic... onto the next race.
rezenclowd3
macrumors 65816
As far as Hamilton not having enough fuel, it was only an email sent something like 5 years ago RECOMMENDING that not happen. It was not in the rules. Really, that's just sub-par, and should not take place within the FIA. Either it's a rule in the book, or you can completely ignore it.
rezenclowd3 said:
Indeed, but you must complete your in-lap within a specified time and you must have enough fuel left in your tank when you return to the pits so as to enable a sample to be taken and checked.
But regardless, it was clearly against the spirit of the rules, and can be considered cheating because it gave them an unfair advantage over the other teams.
Meanwhile... Ferrari 'not asked' to let Kubica pass
If true, it makes the stewards decision even more farcical and shameful. I wonder if we shall here more from the FIA regarding this matter?
rezenclowd3
macrumors 65816
In regards to being against the spirit of the rules, then I say congrats to the team finding an advantage that is not AGAINST the actual rules. Even so, there was no cheating. Hamilton made a close call, being wrong and was punished in accordance to the rules.
As far as the other info you posted, I agree with you.
rezenclowd3
macrumors 65816
Some interesting stats:
http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/23584.html
Driver value for money: 2010 British Grand Prix
Driver Estimated cost per point
1 GBR Kamui Kobayashi $3,300
2 GBR Adrian Sutil $6,600
3 AUT Nico Rosberg $10,500
4 GBR Mark Webber $12,600
5 BEL Rubens Barrichello $15,800
6 RUS Nico Hukenberg $26,300
7 RUS Jenson Button $43,900
8 RUS Lewis Hamilton $58,500
9 RUS Sebastian Vettel $70,200
10 RUS Michael Schumacher $263,200
Team value for money: 2010 British Grand Prix
Team Estimated resources per point
1 GBR Red Bull $350,000
2 GBR McLaren $370,000
3 GBR Sauber $470,000
4 GBR Williams $620,000
5 GBR Mercedes $870,000
6 GBR Force India $1.57m
http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/23584.html
Driver value for money: 2010 British Grand Prix
Driver Estimated cost per point
1 GBR Kamui Kobayashi $3,300
2 GBR Adrian Sutil $6,600
3 AUT Nico Rosberg $10,500
4 GBR Mark Webber $12,600
5 BEL Rubens Barrichello $15,800
6 RUS Nico Hukenberg $26,300
7 RUS Jenson Button $43,900
8 RUS Lewis Hamilton $58,500
9 RUS Sebastian Vettel $70,200
10 RUS Michael Schumacher $263,200
Team value for money: 2010 British Grand Prix
Team Estimated resources per point
1 GBR Red Bull $350,000
2 GBR McLaren $370,000
3 GBR Sauber $470,000
4 GBR Williams $620,000
5 GBR Mercedes $870,000
6 GBR Force India $1.57m