F1 2012

[andrew bell]

So Williams don't actually lose any points, a non-punishment. He should have had a race ban minimum.

Williams does not get the punishment, but the driver does. If the incident happened on lap 15 Pastor would of had a drive through penalty, lost around 20 seconds and continued on his way. 20 seconds is the time lost for driving through the pitlane at 60 km/h (or whatever the speed for this race was) and the incident only warrented a drive through, but as the incident happened in last 2 laps the stewards wanted to see both drivers, hear their versions of events, see the data and then decide the punishment (if there is to be any)

 

[Failed Unit]

I am not surprised by the Hamilton ruling, he gets away with most things these days.

I would suggest getting 0 points is a punishment.

 

[GB]

I'm no fan of Hamilton, but I am struggling to see where any blame can be placed at his feet.

 

[gswindale]

Still not convinced thst Alonso shouldn't be punished for stopping out on track and picking up the flag etc.

I thought they weren't allowed to collect anything on the slowing down lap?

I also seem to recall teams being punished when they deliberately retired cars on the last lap (if out of the points) to allow them to cheat the restrictions bans at the time.

Do we know the reason for the failure of Alonso to drive to Parc Ferme? If it was a lack of fuel, then do they still need to provide a sample? My understanding was that it was after EVERY session including the race.

If it was another issue with the car, then fair enough, but his attitude with the marshals suggested he doesn't hold the rules in high regard to me. Other cars were still on track and could have had an incident.

 

[LE Greys]

Still not convinced thst Alonso shouldn't be punished for stopping out on track and picking up the flag etc.

I thought they weren't allowed to collect anything on the slowing down lap?

I also seem to recall teams being punished when they deliberately retired cars on the last lap (if out of the points) to allow them to cheat the restrictions bans at the time.

Do we know the reason for the failure of Alonso to drive to Parc Ferme? If it was a lack of fuel, then do they still need to provide a sample? My understanding was that it was after EVERY session including the race.

If it was another issue with the car, then fair enough, but his attitude with the marshals suggested he doesn't hold the rules in high regard to me. Other cars were still on track and could have had an incident.

I've always thought that was a bit of a killjoy rule (remembering how Ayrton Senna always collected a Brazilian flag after every win), but then it's really more about safety than anything, and you don't want some fan running on with a flag when he might be hit by someone who's still racing for the line. Still, is it worth changing the result of a Grand Prix because someone stopped to pick up a flag? And if they were racing hard, crossed the line on fumes, then ran out (a la Mansell at Silverstone in 1987), putting in all that effort only to lose because of a technicality doesn't seem to square with the spirit of motor racing. Sure, reprimand someone the first time, fine them the second, then escalate the fines if they become a repeat offender, but it's not worth changing race results over.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Still not convinced thst Alonso shouldn't be punished for stopping out on track and picking up the flag etc.

I thought they weren't allowed to collect anything on the slowing down lap?

I also seem to recall teams being punished when they deliberately retired cars on the last lap (if out of the points) to allow them to cheat the restrictions bans at the time.

Do we know the reason for the failure of Alonso to drive to Parc Ferme? If it was a lack of fuel, then do they still need to provide a sample? My understanding was that it was after EVERY session including the race....

The car and driver have to be weighed and be above a certain weight, my understanding is that they are not allowed to be handed anything or give anything away before being weighed. A fuel sample is required, but I think the only rule about getting back to the pits to supply it is for the practice sessions (including qualifying).

 

[Ivo]

Never mind Olympic Park - here's Bernie's latest idea...

Ecclestone unveils plan for £100m London GP (from the Daily Mail)

On a good day, a motorist would be lucky to go any faster than 8mph driving past Big Ben in the capital’s congested streets.

But under plans unveiled by Formula One supremo Bernie Ecclestone to bring a grand prix to the capital, racing cars could streak past some of the most famous landmarks at up to 180mph.

Cities normally pay the £30- 35million cost of staging F1 races, but Ecclestone has said he is prepared to waive the costs — as he will be likely to recoup more than £100m from sales to some 120,000 paying spectators on the route and the sale of TV rights and advertising.

Up to a billion people worldwide could watch the event along the 3.2mile route, which some believe would eclipse the most famous street race in the world, the Monaco Grand Prix.

Ecclestone has dreamt of holding a race in the capital’s streets for years, but has been blocked by bureaucracy and reluctance to spend public funds on the race. He said: ‘With the way things are maybe we would front it and put the money up for it.

‘It would be fantastic, good for London, good for England — a lot better than the Olympics.’

He made his comments on the same day the Serious Fraud Office said it was investigating allegations during a trial in Germany that Ecclestone made corrupt payments of £28.3m to German banker Gerhard Gribkowsky. Ecclestone denies offering any bribes.

Sceptics have dismissed the London plans as a PR stunt to promote Santander, who sponsor the McLaren team which employs British drivers Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button.

London Mayor Boris Johnson was keen to offer his views now that Ecclestone had offered to stump up the cash. ‘I am always interested in projects that attract jobs and bring growth,’ said Johnson, adding it was important to see if there was ‘a really good economic case’ for the project.

But how many times have we heard about a possible London Grand Prix? Who better to answer that than Sir Stirling Moss? ‘I’d love to see it but they have been talking about it since I was racing in the 1960s,’ he said. ‘It’s a wonderful dream.’

Dreamland was exactly where Santander’s publicity machine was residing last night.

Certainly an ambitious one. Bernie is even quoted as suggesting he would waive the fee owing to the profitable potential of the operation, which would result in London benefitting further. But could this system hurt Silverstone, which has only just undergone renovation? 10 days of road closures is also concerning. I would also like to know how they plan to navigate Admiralty Arch!

Either way, I think it's safe to say that F1 won't be leaving England any time soon.

Have a look at the map involved as well - it's an anti-clockwise circuit, which is becoming increasingly common with newer circuits.

 

[Liam]

But could this system hurt Silverstone, which has only just undergone renovation?

The BRDC signed a 17 year deal in 2010 to host the British Grand Prix at Silverstone.

 

[Bungle73]

I'd love to see it, even if it was just a one-off, but I think the practical problems would preclude it.

Anyone go to that "Formula One Comes to Regent Street" event a few years ago? That was a brilliant, and a slight taste of what a London GP would be like (without the speed of course). That's when the London GP idea was last doing the rounds; there was even a website with the aim of bringing it about, but it's not available now.

 

[LE Greys]

Never mind Olympic Park - here's Bernie's latest idea...

Ecclestone unveils plan for £100m London GP (from the Daily Mail)

Certainly an ambitious one. Bernie is even quoted as suggesting he would waive the fee owing to the profitable potential of the operation, which would result in London benefitting further. But could this system hurt Silverstone, which has only just undergone renovation? 10 days of road closures is also concerning. I would also like to know how they plan to navigate Admiralty Arch!

Either way, I think it's safe to say that F1 won't be leaving England any time soon.

Have a look at the map involved as well - it's an anti-clockwise circuit, which is becoming increasingly common with newer circuits.

That's mad! I might well go if it ever happens, but it's completely mad, imagine the Queen looking out from the balcony at cars passing at 130mph. Overtaking might be a bit tricky - although Charing Cross and Wellington look like possible out-braking zones. Still, it would be worth seeing even as a demonstration event.

 

[Lampshade]

The lyrics sum up the idea of a London GP.

[YOUTUBE]2A2O8Q5WxiM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Heinz57]

Do we know the reason for the failure of Alonso to drive to Parc Ferme? If it was a lack of fuel, then do they still need to provide a sample? My understanding was that it was after EVERY session including the race.

The thing I don't like is, he won the race, had a problem with his car, couldn't make it back to the pits but still kept the win. A similar thing happend to Hamilton a few races back, and he got stripped of his win almost straight away.

No matter what the problem was, Alonso couldn't make it back to the parc ferme in his own car. So he should be stripped of the win.

It seems to be one rule for the red cars and another for everyone else.

Certainly an ambitious one. Bernie is even quoted as suggesting he would waive the fee owing to the profitable potential of the operation, which would result in London benefitting further. But could this system hurt Silverstone, which has only just undergone renovation? 10 days of road closures is also concerning. I would also like to know how they plan to navigate Admiralty Arch!

Either way, I think it's safe to say that F1 won't be leaving England any time soon.

Have a look at the map involved as well - it's an anti-clockwise circuit, which is becoming increasingly common with newer circuits.

Its deffinatly ambitious, but I like it. A great looking track, alot of slow corners so there might be some overtaking opertunities there. They've also picked a great location for it. It'll be better than the original idea of riding around the Olympic Park a couple of times.
Although I'm not sure what Liz will reckon about having the F1 cars speeding past her front door. Having said that, I bet Phill, Charlie and the rest of the boys love the idea.

 

[Bungle73]

The thing I don't like is, he won the race, had a problem with his car, couldn't make it back to the pits but still kept the win. A similar thing happend to Hamilton a few races back, and he got stripped of his win almost straight away

Um, what? Hamilton has only had one win this season and was never stripped of it. You're comparing apples with oranges.

What did happen is that he didn't return to the pits after Q3 becuase otherwise he wouldn't have had enough fuel for a sample. This is a breach of the rules, which is why he was excluded from qualifying.

No matter what the problem was, Alonso couldn't make it back to the parc ferme in his own car. So he should be stripped of the win.

Um why? There's no rule to that effect. The winner is the car that crosses the finish line first (barring any technical issues found later).

It seems to be one rule for the red cars and another for everyone else.

Not really.

 

[andrew bell]

I do think the same rule should apply with the fuel in the car during the whole weekend, if you stop on circuit on the lap back to the pits after the race and there is nothing wrong apart from a lack of fuel then you should be disqualified from the race, like Hamilton was in Barcelona qualifying

 

[Bungle73]

I do think the same rule should apply with the fuel in the car during the whole weekend, if you stop on circuit on the lap back to the pits after the race and there is nothing wrong apart from a lack of fuel then you should be disqualified from the race, like Hamilton was in Barcelona qualifying

What for?

The reason the rule applies in qualifying is to stop teams basically cheating by running cars with too little fuel and gaining a weight advantage.

It would be silly to implement the same rule for the race. In motor racing it's always been a race to the chequered flag - I see no reason to change that.

 

[andrew bell]

What for?

The reason the rule applies in qualifying is to stop teams basically cheating by running cars with too little fuel and gaining a weight advantage.

For the exact reasons you just mentioned, to stop cheating. If they don't have enough fuel in the car to get back to the pits and they stop on track is that not cheating?

 

[Bungle73]

For the exact reasons you just mentioned, to stop cheating. If they don't have enough fuel in the car to get back to the pits and they stop on track is that not cheating?

No, because cars have only ever been required to pass the chequered flag first to win, if they break down ten seconds later it doesn't make any difference as long as they pass the flag.

I don't see what adding this extra bit onto the end of the race would bring to the racing - in fact I think it would be detrimental to the racing as drivers would be looking to conserve fuel rather than going for it.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

In qualifying you only have to be quickest over one lap, right? so once you cross the line it doesn't matter, right? So why is there a difference?

Wasn't the 'practice' rule drawn up after Hamilton had previously failed to make it back to the pits after qualifying?

The teams control how much fuel is in the car. They can control how fast the car uses it at any point during the race.

 

[andrew bell]

If they break down due to a brake failure or gearbox problem then that's ok, its just when they stop due to lack of fuel which annoys me

 

[Bungle73]

In qualifying you only have to be quickest over one lap, right? so once you cross the line it doesn't matter, right? So why is there a difference?

Wasn't the 'practice' rule drawn up after Hamilton had previously failed to make it back to the pits after qualifying?

The teams control how much fuel is in the car. They can control how fast the car uses it at any point during the race.

The only way to conserved fuel is to go slower. Do you want to see cars pootling along, or do you want to see racing?

If they break down due to a brake failure or gearbox problem then that's ok, its just when they stop due to lack of fuel which annoys me

Why? The race is over.

No one has answered my question: what would adding this silly little addition to the end of the race bring to the racing? The only thing it would bring is annoyance imo.

 

[andrew bell]

Because the rule in practice and qualifying is you must have enough fuel in your car to get back to the pits at all times, why can't they bring that rule into the race itself? It will not bring annoyance, it means the cars will be that bit heavier.

I do understand where you are coming from with this 'little petty' addition, all I am suggesting is having the same rule for the whole weekend

 

[LE Greys]

I thought the weight limit was without any fuel or driver on-board. The main reason for trying to retain a sample is to make sure they're not using illegal additives.

The only way to conserved fuel is to go slower. Do you want to see cars pootling along, or do you want to see racing?

Why? The race is over.

No one has answered my question: what would adding this silly little addition to the end of the race bring to the racing? The only thing it would bring is annoyance imo.

It was a standard rule in the turbo days, to try to cut horsepower output (the higher the boost, the more fuel you burn) so fuel conservation was a big thing. Cars running out on the way back to the pits, or more frustratingly on the last lap, were a common sight back then. On one bizarre occasion, it robbed Didier Pironi, Derek Daley and Andrea de Ceseris of the chance to win at Monaco when all three ran dry on the last lap.

Still, there are no 1,000hp turbo engines today, so limiting the size of fuel tanks when rev limits are already in place would be completely pointless.

 

[Bungle73]

Because the rule in practice and qualifying is you must have enough fuel in your car to get back to the pits at all times, why can't they bring that rule into the race itself? It will not bring annoyance, it means the cars will be that bit heavier.

I do understand where you are coming from with this 'little petty' addition, all I am suggesting is having the same rule for the whole weekend

Yes, but why? What good would it do to have the race finish...except it's not really finished, but the cars can't overtake? It would be pointless.

I thought the weight limit was without any fuel or driver on-board. The main reason for trying to retain a sample is to make sure they're not using illegal additives.

What I meant was if a car is running with very little fuel it weighs less, which means it goes faster.

It was a standard rule in the turbo days, to try to cut horsepower output (the higher the boost, the more fuel you burn) so fuel conservation was a big thing. Cars running out on the way back to the pits, or more frustratingly on the last lap, were a common sight back then. On one bizarre occasion, it robbed Didier Pironi, Derek Daley and Andrea de Ceseris of the chance to win at Monaco when all three ran dry on the last lap.

Still, there are no 1,000hp turbo engines today, so limiting the size of fuel tanks when rev limits are already in place would be completely pointless.

The teams only put enough fuel in the car to complete the race. What benefit would it be to add this further complication?

 

[Darandio]

The teams only put enough fuel in the car to complete the race. What benefit would it be to add this further complication?

In reality, they don't even put that much in, they are purposely fuelled 2-3 laps short at the start of a race, depending on track specification.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The only way to conserved fuel is to go slower. Do you want to see cars pootling along, or do you want to see racing?

The teams can put in as much fuel as they want before the race starts though, just as they can for a qualifying lap. McLaren's appeal for Lewis Hamilton failed earlier in the season simply because, error or not, they did not put enough fuel in the car. Why is the race any different?

.....No one has answered my question: what would adding this silly little addition to the end of the race bring to the racing? The only thing it would bring is annoyance imo.

The real question is not why should it be added, but why is the race any different to qualifying? You can't go faster in qualifying by short fueling, but you can in the race. Where is the consistency?

 

[LE Greys]

What I meant was if a car is running with very little fuel it weighs less, which means it goes faster.

I actually got the wording wrong, it's actually -

Article 4.1 Minimum weight:
The weight of the car must not be less than 640kg at all times during the Event. If, when required for checking, a car is not already fitted with dry-weather tyres, it will be weighed on a set of dry-weather tyres selected by the FIA technical delegate.

- by which they mean including the driver but without any fuel on-board (I accidentally used the old wording) but don't explicitly say that. The fuel regualtions are a bit more complicated (link below) but the point of keeping some fuel in the car is to do with making sure a sample can always be available.

Article 6.6 Fuel draining and sampling:
6.6.1 Competitors must provide a means of removing all fuel from the car.
6.6.2 Competitors must ensure that a one litre sample of fuel may be taken from the car at any time during the Event.
Except in cases of force majeure (accepted as such by the stewards of the meeting), if a sample of fuel is required after a practice session the car concerned must have first been driven back to the pits under its own power.
6.6.3 All cars must be fitted with a –2 'Symetrics' male fitting in order to facilitate fuel sampling. If an electric pump on board the car cannot be used to remove the fuel an externally connected one may be used provided it is evident that a representative fuel sample is being taken. If an external pump is used it must be possible to connect the FIA sampling hose to it and any hose between the car and pump must be -3 in diameter and not exceed 2m in length. Details of the fuel sampling hose may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
6.6.4 The sampling procedure must not necessitate starting the engine or the removal of bodywork (other than the cover over the refuelling connector).

Exact details of what is and is not permitted in fuel

The teams only put enough fuel in the car to complete the race. What benefit would it be to add this further complication?

None at all, they have better ways of restricting engine power these days.

 

[Bungle73]

I actually got the wording wrong, it's actually -



- by which they mean including the driver but without any fuel on-board (I accidentally used the old wording) but don't explicitly say that. The fuel regualtions are a bit more complicated (link below) but the point of keeping some fuel in the car is to do with making sure a sample can always be available.



Exact details of what is and is not permitted in fuel



None at all, they have better ways of restricting engine power these days.

You're going off at a tangent. The cars are required to proved a fuel sample after qualifying. They are also required to make their way to the pits afterwards by their own power. This is is ensure teams do not short fuel their cars, and thereby gain an unfair advantage. A car could stop on the circuit after qualifying, buy still have enough for a sample - this is what happened to Lewis. Unfortunatly this is against the regulations, so he was disqualified.

 

[andrew bell]

You're going off at a tangent. The cars are required to proved a fuel sample after qualifying. They are also required to make their way to the pits afterwards by their own power. This is is ensure teams do not short fuel their cars, and thereby gain an unfair advantage. A car could stop on the circuit after qualifying, buy still have enough for a sample - this is what happened to Lewis. Unfortunatly this is against the regulations, so he was disqualified.

We understand and agree with the cars having to supply a fuel sample after qualifying, what we're all trying to say is where is the consistency of the rule after the race has finished?
If your saying once the cars pass the chequered flag the race is over and all rules and regulations are now over, why do they do the tests after the event to see if the cars are at the right weight? Also why did Pastor get penalised 3 hours AFTER the last race if the race was over? All results are provisional until the FIA complete their checks, and it should include a fuel sample by the car getting back to the pits

 

[Bungle73]

If your saying once the cars pass the chequered flag the race is over and all rules and regulations are now over

I don't think I said that did I? No I didn't.

The reason the rules are different for qualifying and the race is because qualifying is qualifying and the race is the race.

 

[andrew bell]

But why can't they be the same during the course of the weekend, that is what we are saying?