Stewards Reprimand both drivers.

[AussieTimmeh]

I was responding to the 'literally no chance' comment.

How about: I'm tired of people not taking the time to read a post properly before replying.

Also, while we're on it, why do you reply if all you're going to say is "I'm tired of this"? If you're tired of something, it doesn't mean the whole internet community is. Those who wish to discuss, discuss. Those who don't...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by AussieTimmeh

I was responding to the 'literally no chance' comment.

How about: I'm tired of people not taking the time to read a post properly before replying.

Also, while we're on it, why do you reply if all you're going to say is "I'm tired of this"? If you're tired of something, it doesn't mean the whole internet community is. Those who wish to discuss, discuss. Those who don't...

Well said!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by AussieTimmeh

I was responding to the 'literally no chance' comment.

How about: I'm tired of people not taking the time to read a post properly before replying.

Also, while we're on it, why do you reply if all you're going to say is "I'm tired of this"? If you're tired of something, it doesn't mean the whole internet community is. Those who wish to discuss, discuss. Those who don't...

Because people complain far too much in the F1 section. It's like they have nothing better to do. Or the racing much suck so much they need to fabricate situations to make things interesting.

Hamilton and Seb did something wrong.

They were told it was not good to do.

They will most likely not do it again.

Thread done, no need for anything more.

Everyone needs to find more crap to complain about and to fabricate situations that didn't happen, to discuss if it had went wrong. Guess what, it didn't, so no need to talk about it.

Lots of things if went wrong would be catastrophically bad, but 99% of the time they don't happen. That 1% of the time would be okay to talk about.

All these people throughout all of F1 thinking of "what if" scenarios are the reason most F1 tracks are how they are, with millions of feet or paved runoff, grandstands miles away from the track, and every track basically consisting of the same corner sections.

Yes, since a car could possibly catch a rut in some grass while sliding and tumble a few times, and the driver could possibly seriously get hurt if a wall isn't 500feet away from then on a high speed corner, we must make all tracks flat, boring, and spacious.

FYI, on a high speed corner, if the outside barrier was right on the edge of the track, street course style, it is much more safe in an impact than having some grass, tarmac, sand, etc, then wall for the car to hit. It will hit at a less acute angle, therefore spreading the impact and energy throughout a further distance.

For example, Silverstone '99. If there had been an armco barrier at the immediate edge of the racing surface instead of the sand and grass, MS would not have broken his leg, as the car would have hit the barrier towards the beginning of the corner, and would have slid down the wall throughout the distance of the corner, dissipating speed at a manageable rate, and dispersing the energy of the impact over a greater distance.

[wnut]

I have been around racing a long time and your post is so wrong it is frightening.
Rindt, Revson, DeAngelis, Donahue, Cevert, Koinigg, Ratzenberger, Senna - barrier close - dead.
Porter, Sperafico barrier close -back into traffic - dead.
Drivers never get hit in the face - Pryce, DaMatta, Surtees
Racing is dangerous, safety is paramount!
Anything else is just stupidity!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Matt

Everyone needs to find more crap to complain about and to fabricate situations that didn't happen, to discuss if it had went wrong. Guess what, it didn't, so no need to talk about it.

Lots of things if went wrong would be catastrophically bad, but 99% of the time they don't happen. That 1% of the time would be okay to talk about.

Too many times I see a 'slow' sign posted on an obviously dangerous bend just after someone gets killed on it. It's what happens when people don't talk.

So we should only talk about the times that something bad happens and for all the near misses, do nothing. Safety in F1 is a serious issue, not to be taken lightly. The last thing that F1 needs right now is another 'Imola 94'.

If the drivers want to race then let them do it within the rules and not like a couple of 'boy racers' in an ASDA car park.

We don't need a discussion about there being a terrible accident in the pit lane and then having everyone slagging off the FIA stewards for being too lenient in previous similar situations.

I've no doubt that the 'police' will have to have a word with some other drivers before the seasons out and will have to point out the obvious 'what if' scenario to them. Maybe they'll learn something? Maybe not.

[VIVA GT]

/\ /\ Hear- Hear!
Rules and safety systems in motorsport are there exactly for 'what if' situations.
The possibility for carnage in the pits was clearly there and the likes of that should never happen again.
Following your reasoning Matt, if a homcidal maniac was to fire a gun at you, but purely by chance the bullet narrowly missed killing you, you wouldn't mind?
Somehow, I don't think so...

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by AussieTimmeh

Really? If the cars came together, wheels touched and one speared into a garage of mechanics, that wouldn't be considered serious?

It's not the time for that sort of stuff.

Watch it again. Neither driver was about to let that happen and at such a slow speed it wasn't about to. If you want to make a federal case out of it and make the incident to be more than it was, that's fine. Obviously the stewards thought differently.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by wnut

I have been around racing a long time and your post is so wrong it is frightening.
Rindt, Revson, DeAngelis, Donahue, Cevert, Koinigg, Ratzenberger, Senna - barrier close - dead.
Porter, Sperafico barrier close -back into traffic - dead.
Drivers never get hit in the face - Pryce, DaMatta, Surtees
Racing is dangerous, safety is paramount!
Anything else is just stupidity!

Explain Monaco and the Tunnel turn then.

[AussieTimmeh]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Watch it again. Neither driver was about to let that happen and at such a slow speed it wasn't about to. If you want to make a federal case out of it and make the incident to be more than it was, that's fine. Obviously the stewards thought differently.

Doesn't change the fact that it could happen, even if it didn't. Open wheelers can be flung/veer violently even at low speeds.

Like to know how you decided that 'neither driver was about to let that happen' too. Doesn't matter, the feds will arrive and you can tell them.

[JamesH]

Whilst I accept that the internet is very good for every man and his dog to comment on what if scenarios, I am inclined to back those who where at the track, have racing experience, and are paid to do the job - i.e. the stewards.

They thought the appropriate course of action was to issue a reprimand. I'm inclined to accept what they say.

Having said that, in previous years some stewards decisions have been questionable (but still more informed that the comment here, and I include my own), but the inclusion of a ex F1 driver this year I think makes their decisions more believable.

After all, absolutely no-one on this board is qualified to make the decisions they have to make each race weekend. (unless there is a hidden steward here, in which case, I apologise for missing you out!). It odd that so many comment here are, in effect, calling the stewards incompetent, and yet have never done any race stewarding themselves.

[pannenmann]

Mabot:
Oh I see, you're talking about these incidents. Fully agreed, like I said before LH and FA should have been punished for it as this was clearly against the rules (and I don't talk about the spirit, but the exact phrasing). So there should be no room left for interpretation by the stewards. Like said before, to me this is real "scandal" of the race, not the stuff inside the pits when it comes to the stewards' decisions.

But the whole discussion that is going on now seems rather pointless to me. Everybody agrees that the incident in the pit was dangerous and stupid. And everybody agrees that safety is vital to motorsports. That's not the question. The question is: Why do some people think that the a punishment does more for safety then the reprimands? I still haven't read a single argument regarding that question.... I can't see any difference with regards to future driver behaviour. I don't expect any driver to go like "They didn't get punished and even so Whiting told us next time we will be punished, I'll try it anyways again". Doesn't make sense does it? To me, the reprimands don't compromise safety and at the same time they are more reasonable (and better for the viewers also).

[Marbot]

It was interesting to hear that another retired driver (Martin brundle) would have given penalties to both. I wonder if his thoughts would have swayed the decision from being just a reprimand to a penalty if he had been on the stewards panel?

Anyway, we cannot be sure that Alex Wurz didn't actually recommend penalties and maybe the full time stewards had their hands tied a little bit by what has happened in the past.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by pannenmann

Everybody agrees that the incident in the pit was dangerous and stupid.

Not everybody it would seem.

And if that is the case, then surely it warrants a penalty?

Maybe just a reprimand for being stupid, but when it moves on to being dangerous......

[pannenmann]

Yeah I think with Brundle they would have been punished. Now that makes the whole ex-driver advicing the stewards not that much helpful as first expected by my naivety... Maybe this whole "interpretation of the rules" thing can never be sorted out properly. But I also haven't read anything from Brundle why a punishment would have been better than a reprimand. Maybe it's because he is used to that punishment kind of approach from his own experience? I still think you shouldn't dish out punishments only based on a personal sentiment.
And punishing for smth being dangerous: I would agree if there wasn't the problem of where to draw the line. Was Hamiltons weaving dangerous? Are certain highspeed overtake manoeuvres dangerous? Was the deliberate crashing of Piquet dangerous? Was the usage of the Toro Rosso suspension dangerous?

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by pannenmann

Mabot:
But the whole discussion that is going on now seems rather pointless to me. Everybody agrees that the incident in the pit was dangerous and stupid. And everybody agrees that safety is vital to motorsports. That's not the question. The question is: Why do some people think that the a punishment does more for safety then the reprimands? I still haven't read a single argument regarding that question.... I can't see any difference with regards to future driver behaviour. I don't expect any driver to go like "They didn't get punished and even so Whiting told us next time we will be punished, I'll try it anyways again". Doesn't make sense does it? To me, the reprimands don't compromise safety and at the same time they are more reasonable (and better for the viewers also).

An excellent point, and as you say, rather overlooked. I do wonder whether the fact LH was involved has got people more hot under the collar than had it have been Mr A.N. Other, because he does tend to polarise opinion!!

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by pannenmann

The question is: Why do some people think that the a punishment does more for safety then the reprimands? I still haven't read a single argument regarding that question....

first you get a reprimand and then you get a penalty. its the new system and it marks a serious break from the past in that with a ex driver as one of the stewards it shows a new level of responsibility and awareness of the true situation on track.

are they saying that any time something happens in the pits it will only get a reprimand. i hope not. i hope that now that a reprimand has been given the next time this type of incident happens (particularly if it involves the same drivers) a more graduated penalty system is applied. measured responses are called for and it is something F1 has been missing for a long time. i think the drivers will respect this and thus be more responsive to it.

also our responses should be measured as well. clearly what happened was potentially dangerous. it could have really hurt someone or worse. that said, for those who think something more serious is called for do you really think a penalty is enough of a punishment? why not a race ban, or a FIA investigation or better yet a criminal case? where do you draw the line of an acceptable response here because just a simple penalty or the loss of a couple of grid spots diminishes the value of human life in pit lane just as much doesn't it?

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by pannenmann

Yeah I think with Brundle they would have been punished. Now that makes the whole ex-driver advicing the stewards not that much helpful as first expected by my naivety... Maybe this whole "interpretation of the rules" thing can never be sorted out properly. But I also haven't read anything from Brundle why a punishment would have been better than a reprimand. Maybe it's because he is used to that punishment kind of approach from his own experience? I still think you shouldn't dish out punishments only based on a personal sentiment.

You will never have absolute consistency in applying the sporting regulations as a large element of human judgement is inevitably involved.

There will always be three kinds of incident:

a) Those where everyone (pretty much) can see a punishment is deserved
b) Those where everyone (pretty much) would not issue a punishment
and
c) Those that fall into a grey area

One of the roles of the governing body is to design the rules to reduce the number of (c) incidents as far as possible. The job of the stewards is to get (a) and (b) right all the time and use their judgement to do the best they can with (c) in order to maintain discipline and safety whilst encouraging racing.

If a driver doesn't want to get penalised he has to avoid both (a) and (c).

This is the best we can hope for, nothing better is, or ever will be on offer because it's simply not possible.

There hasn't been a season I can remember where there were no questionable judgements by the stewards but so far this season I think the signs are good that the revamp of the system is a huge improvement but it's early days and time will tell.

[VIVA GT]

I am one of the number of people on here who does (did?) think that the Hamilton/Vettel testicle measuring along a live pitlane was potentially extremely dangerous, and their actions very stupid.
However.
I also think that as the potential disaster that I could see unfolding didn't, and thankfully neither car was launched ito the innocent bystanders, plus as this is the first time I can remember such activity taking place in the pitlane, I feel that a reprimand to the drivers (and teams?) involved was a justifiable response on this occasion, followed by a clarification to all teams that should this happen again, far more serious action will be taken.

Possibly, now this (stupid driving side by side down a live pitlane) has occurred, it's time for a new rule to be written and the penalty stipulated so that everyone knows where thay stand?
(I would think this to be a sensible course of action once any 'new and potentially dangerous' situations arise. Maybe because it's sensible, that's why it won't happen?).

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I am one of the number of people on here who does (did?) think that the Hamilton/Vettel testicle measuring along a live pitlane was potentially extremely dangerous, and their actions very stupid.
However.
I also think that as the potential disaster that I could see unfolding didn't, and thankfully neither car was launched ito the innocent bystanders, plus as this is the first time I can remember such activity taking place in the pitlane, I feel that a reprimand to the drivers (and teams?) involved was a justifiable response on this occasion, followed by a clarification to all teams that should this happen again, far more serious action will be taken.

Possibly, now this (stupid driving side by side down a live pitlane) has occurred, it's time for a new rule to be written and the penalty stipulated so that everyone knows where thay stand?
(I would think this to be a sensible course of action once any 'new and potentially dangerous' situations arise. Maybe because it's sensible, that's why it won't happen?).

I'd say that it has happened before. I can't be the only one who remembers it happening in Valencia and involving I think Massa, although that one was slightly different because it did start with an unsafe release but this was followed by similar testicular comparisons, there was also a pocket money fine instead of a proper penalty. Someone with a better memory for details can fill those in or tell me I'm wrong.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I'd say that it has happened before. I can't be the only one who remembers it happening in Valencia and involving I think Massa, although that one was slightly different because it did start with an unsafe release but this was followed by similar testicular comparisons, there was also a pocket money fine instead of a proper penalty. Someone with a better memory for details can fill those in or tell me I'm wrong.

OK F-W-D thanks for that. (Just shows how many brain cells I'm losing on a daily basis!).
If that's the case, then really the procedure should have been set in stone after that event and the correct punishment meted out the next time it happened...

[djb]

as an aside, I have mentioned or referred to nasty track incidents that have led to certain rules (mechanic hit on start line for instance), well all this talk makes me remember pitlanes before pitlane speed limits were introduced.

take a peek on youtube and you should be able to find some stuff that isnt really that old (or to someone like me in their 40s it doesnt seem that long ago) with cars being released out a pit in the days of few pitstops, and just honking down the pitlane. Very scarey indeed. These discussions made me think of these clips and reinforces my attitude that we learn as we go with incidents and adjust accordingly, its part of the sport.

[ASCII Man]

The pitlane accident at Long Beach between Fittipaldi and Michael Andretti springs to mind, way back in '91 or '92.

[wnut]

IMO racing in the pit lane even in the darkest days when there were no speed limits was always strictly taboo.
As far as I new - you had a 1.5 pit box limit to get out of the slow (working) lane and crossing the lend line when leaving your pit box.

Is it now legal to drive down the slow lane like Hamilton did even if there is no car in the fast lane? I would hope not!

The stewards penalties should always act as a heavy brake on the drivers conscience not to do something stupid that he may get away with,
to err on the side of caution when approaching a dangerous situation.

This message has not been clearly passed on to those concerned!

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by wnut

This message has not been clearly passed on to those concerned!

You lost me - they got a reprimand - why is that not clear? Has it happened again since the race then, in which case your point may have merit?

[JamesH]

I'm confused. The constant references to testicular measurement doesn't seem applicable in this case. Since both cars were on the speed limiter, there was no 'bottle' required. They were both sitting at the same speed, almost next to each other. (imagine two cars on the motorway doing 70 next to each other) I fail to see where the testicle measuring is in this situation. Both being daft, certainly, and in SV's case quite dangerous trying to push LH in to the pitcrews, but certainly not a mines bigger than yours situation.