10 place penalty for Hamilton and Rosberg

[OZ_HCR32]

Hang on. He suffered at his own hands in Canada, you cant stuff up and say oh i made a mistake, thats the same as a penalty. If he had finished the race and been excluded from results and taken 10 place penalty for the next GP, well that is double dipping. But you cant lose your pay check the day after you tell a client to get stuffed for which you are docked a weeks pay and say "oh , you don thave to dock me now because i lost that paycheck anyway. Thats not the same as being docked!

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by OZ_HCR32

Inconsistant? Vettel got done for hitting Webber behind a pace car. They provided evidence that Lewis had contributed to the accident with his behaviour behind the pace car and the FIA agreed and come China overturned the 10 place penalty.

Playing Devil's advocate, if Kimi had lined up behind Kubica as he should have done, rather than alongside, with limiter light off, leading LH to believe that Kubica might have a problem and Kimi was about to race away...

[climb]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Hamilton is punished twice effectively. If he would had driven through red he would had been taken out of the race, resulting in zero points. Now Hamilton made the same mistake but drove into Raikkonen's back, resulting in zero points, but he also received a penalty for France what is very likely to result in a point reduction.

This penalty is beyond reason.

If he only had driven thru the red light, Kimi Raikkonen would have been able to continue his race; then he actually made a double mistake, therefore he deserves a double penalty.

[Teretonga]

[QUOTE=JohnSSC]
Second, the rules are the rules.

Yes they are.
There are rules to apply penalties, and definitions of incidents, and the right of the stewards to apply appropriate penalties.

Under the general sporting code of the FIA the stewards have the right to inflict reprimands, fines time penalties, exclusions, suspensions, and disqualifications.

Under Article 16.3 of the sporting regulations, for a racing incident, (Causing a collision in this case) they may inflict the following penalties:
a drive through,
a 10 second time penalty (ie a 10 second stationary pit stop),
a drop of 10 positions at the drivers next Event

In this case the last penalty was the only one available to the stewards of the event as the prior two could not be applied.

What Lewis did was dumb, and unnecessary.

However does the penalty fit the crime? Especially in the light of the way other on track incidents are handled when drivers make errors.

Thats the basis of my argument that the judicial process is at fault here.
Its not that the incident doesn't deserve a penalty. It is that the FIA code and judicial processes are inadequate in themselves and inconsistently applied.

[Ralf's Girl]

Originally Posted by dsg

What's the big fuss about the lights. Its not as if they had never driven past them before and should be well aware of the location and that of any other signals.

I can't recall any other circuit where exiting the pitlane has caused so many problems, which makes me think that perhaps the lights should be looked at. For example, could they be bigger, could they be stationary instead of flashing on and off, do the blue lights need to be on at the same time as the red lights...? That doesn't excuse Hamilton and Rosberg for not seeing them (and if they didn't, their teams should have been screaming at them over the radio to stop at the end of the pitlane, knowing that even if there was no accident they'd be disqualified for ignoring a red light), but this type of problem has occurred two years running, which is very unusual.

Back to the penalty...if McLaren and Williams felt that they had any major cause for complaint about the penalty, they could presumably appeal in the hope of getting it overturned (as Vettel's penalty from Fuji was last year), but I don't think they'll go down that route. Yes, it's frustrating, and the FIA isn't great at applying the rules consistently, but they both got into an accident that could have been avoided, and that's the long and short of it.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by climb

If he only had driven thru the red light, Kimi Raikkonen would have been able to continue his race; then he actually made a double mistake, therefore he deserves a double penalty.

Lewis made one mistake. He didn't see the red. But it had other consequences than it would normaly have.

[climb]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Playing Devil's advocate, if Kimi had lined up behind Kubica as he should have done, rather than alongside, with limiter light off, leading LH to believe that Kubica might have a problem and Kimi was about to race away...

and if my mum had wheels , I'd be a supercar!

Ensign14, why don't you just say: "Guess what? I'm a Lewis' fan and I always want him to win!" ?

Why defending an act that Lewis himself didn't even try to?

He caused an accident in a very risky area of the track, and he deserves the punishment, word out.

[ensign14]

I don't give a monkeys who wins. I just want to see fairness. And I don't see it applied here. It seems certain drivers get a free pass with excuses and others do not.

And of course Hamilton was already penalized in the most grotesque way - his lead was wiped out because another car was parked off the track. Like success ballast and arcane points systems, the "safety" car - which should really be called the bloody dangerous car, it causes more incidents than it solves - is directly incompatible with sport.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by ensign14

And of course Hamilton was already penalized in the most grotesque way - his lead was wiped out because another car was parked off the track. Like success ballast and arcane points systems, the "safety" car - which should really be called the bloody dangerous car, it causes more incidents than it solves - is directly incompatible with sport.

Indeed, it does need addressing. How about a limiter in each car which is operated by race control and can reduce all competitors to the same safe speed in the event of an on-track incident? This would enable the gaps between competitors to be maintained.

To use a football analogy, the current system is a bit like resetting the score to 0-0 everytime a player goes down injuired.

[ensign14]

^ I've said that for ages. Someone pointed out that the Dutch use something similar in club racing.

[JohnSSC]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Indeed, it does need addressing. How about a limiter in each car which is operated by race control and can reduce all competitors to the same safe speed in the event of an on-track incident? This would enable the gaps between competitors to be maintained.

To use a football analogy, the current system is a bit like resetting the score to 0-0 everytime a player goes down injuired.

Except that, unlike football, an injured player being run into will not result in the death of one or both players. Further, in football play is stopped, so whatever momentum one or the other team had is lost.

Ensign, I understand your desire for "fairness," but the reality here is that you are picking a situation where there are clear rules and clear consequences for the rules and comparing it to incidents that occur on the track under green flag conditions. A "racing incident" always has been and always will be subject to interpretation based on where someone views the incident from whether it be race control, the driver's seat or my favorite chair in front of the telly.

The rules here are clear. The actions of the penalized drivers is clear. The actions of the stewards was clear and consistent with the rules in place.

[kristof14]

I'm not going to get into the argument of whether the penalty is just or not as what's done is done, however I am of the opinion that there could possibly be a problem with the lights at Montreal. 2 drivers failed to stop for the red there last year and the same has happened again this year, whilst i'm not making excuses is it possible there could be a visibility issue with the pit lights?

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by ensign14

^ I've said that for ages. Someone pointed out that the Dutch use something similar in club racing.

It seems almost too obvious, and wouldn't be difficult to implement.

However, the current rules allow the pack to be jumbled up, and creates a sort of artificial unpredictability. Only rain or safety cars seem to cause excitement nowadays, therefore, I think Bernie and co would be reluctant to introduce fairer SC rules

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by kristof14

I'm not going to get into the argument of whether the penalty is just or not as what's done is done, however I am of the opinion that there could possibly be a problem with the lights at Montreal. 2 drivers failed to stop for the red there last year and the same has happened again this year, whilst i'm not making excuses is it possible there could be a visibility issue with the pit lights?

I think you're probably right. The in-car footage from Rosberg's car seemed to suggest that the lights are only visible once you've entered the wider exit area of the pitlane. Prior to that, the lights are obscured by the wall right-hand wall.

[Ingsy]

Ok, my tuppence worth:

In Monaco, if Kimi hadn't held onto his slide and had smashed into the barrier in the braking zone, the car behind could well have ploughed into him and ended his race as well. Would Kimi have been held responsible for that? No, probably not. So just because Kimi's accident took out some ahead of him rather than someone behind, it shouldn't make any difference. Kimi had an accident in unknown conditions - it was the first time through there after the safety car had come in.

In Canada the conditions were ideal - dry and clear. This whole thing about lights is a load of tosh. For a start the blue light means that faster cars are coming along the main straight - reminding LH that the snake was still going past. It doesn't give conflicting messages to the red light at all. Secondly, and more importantly, there were two cars STATIONARY in front of him. Even if the light was green, he would have had to have stopped as he had no other option - no room to do anything else!

He made a mistake. It's as simple as that. He is a bloody good driver, but no matter how good you are, at some point a mistake will be made. It's nothing to be ashamed of - just accept it. When interviewed he should have said "I've been a plank and cocked up. Sorry everyone." But he didn't.

To sum up what has become a longer reply that I intended:

1. You can't compare this to the Kimi / Sutil thing in Monaco.
2. The 10 place grid drop is just in my view, for causing an avoidable accident.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

Except that, unlike football, an injured player being run into will not result in the death of one or both players.

Fair point, but I'm not in favour of abolishing SC / Yellow Flag conditions.

I just feel that a centrally operated speed limiter on all cars would allow safe speeds to be maintained without causing drivers to lose a hard-earned on-track advantage.

Especially as it all seems so arbitrary. Sutil's incident brough out a safety car which caused chaos, whereas for Fisichella's similar incident, only localised yellows were deemed necessary. Therefore Hamilton had his lead cut, but Kubica didn't.

It's too much of a lottery for my liking.

[JohnSSC]

In the IRL here when the track goes full-course yellow, a flashing yellow light is activated on the steering wheel of each car to inform the driver.

Could be the basis for a solution...

[MRJUCY]

A stupid mistake & the penalties are well & truly deserved.
I wasn't very impressed with Hamilton's interview I thought he should have been more of a man about it & own up to his mistake & apologise to Kimi.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by PK Kart

One of the biggest delibarate attempted sporting cheats of all time went unpunished. The fact that he was not banned from a few races or points deducted for the next season goes a long way to proving all FIA Ferrari conspiracy theories.

Off topic: But isn't it funny how people forget Senna/Prost?

How far off the beaten track do we want to go? Whats the point of trying to link the events of 11 years ago when the sports rules have changed so much?

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by ensign14

I've lost what tiny amount of faith I had in the FIA applying penalties unfairly. It's beyond repugnant. Acts of gross battery don't get penalized yet get within 100 yards of a Ferrari at Monza and it's down the grid for you.

I had to read that twice to make sure you weren't joking

Lewis took another driver out of the race when he should have been stationary, he deserves the penalty. What would have happened had he hit the BMW? Woulkd that then have been justified?

[cmifsud]

some of the people here need a reality check! It was 100% Lewis Hamilton's fault, and no amount of ITV smoothing it over or Ronspeak will alter that fact. There is nothing wrong with the light system in Canada, because its exactly the same as everywhere else.

Lewis should just man up and accept responsibility that he stuffed up! Everyone makes mistakes at some point.

Here in Australia in V8 Supercar racing, any pitlane contact means an instant drive through penalty (no exceptions) and seeing as Hamilton was already out I'm not suprised he was penalised. The penalty was 100% justified.

[cmifsud]

sorry double post

[beau1]

Oh well you want conspiracy theorys? Lets not forget Hamiton ran into the back of Alonso in Bahrain... The guy just loses his head when the pressures gets to him i'm afraid.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Let's not forget that Lewis ran into the back of Alonso at Bahrain and suffered no penalty for it. (From my vantage point just along the track it really did seem like Alonso slowed).

Fernando didn't slow, his telemetery that Renault allowed all to see proves this

Iirc, Lewis had an already damaged front wing and didn't have the required downforce and he went a bit quicker than expected This was the official line anyway.

As for him not getting a penalty, he didn't seemingly ruin Alonso's race.

Didn't Vettel get a penalty after taking Webber out under the safety car last season? and didn't Nakajima not get a penalty for causing an avoidable accident with Kubica in Oz this season?

[Asp]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

I just feel that a centrally operated speed limiter on all cars would allow safe speeds to be maintained without causing drivers to lose a hard-earned on-track advantage.

A speed limiter could be imposed purely in the 'danger sector' too, thus eliminating the need for a SC altogether.

In theory.

However, the SC does more than just slow the pack. It does bunch up the field, creating a large gap for recovery etc. to work in without needing to worry about a car appearing (yes, I accept that some cars may need to 'catch-up' the train, but they are spaced out more, and marshals can be updated to let them know about such stragglers).
Sometimes, you need this big gap to (eg) pull a car across the track into a safe position. Therefore, you need a SC and the bunching that happens as a result. Yes, it's unfortunate if you're in the lead - but an advantage if you're trying to catch someone: you win some, you lose some.

There is an alternative way of safely neutralising the race without wiping out leads. Red flags and aggregate times. Remind me why we got rid of them?