Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cavallino

Does Alonso Always Crack Under Pressure?

Recommended Posts

Because everyone including the FIA admitted the rules were completely unclear. The only people to whom they seem blindingly obvious are you and Andres.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Forget that the events at Monaco have happened. If Ross Brawn was shown rule and asked for his interpretation of it, do you really believe he would say "it seems clear that overtaking is not permissable in those circumstances, however if the lights are green and the safety car goes in before the lap has finished, I will instruct my drivers to overtake, if they can"?

No, neither do I.

The rule is blindingly obvious because it is blindingly obvious. The race finished under safety car conditions. It states that the safety car will enter the pitlane and no overtaking will be allowed. How is that unclear?

The safety car line, the green lights; they are all bits of information volunteered by Brawn in a desperate attempt to steer the stewards from the clarity of the rule. I haven't heard you once disagree with the rule in isolation, only by using Brawn's 'line/lights' defence.

So I stick by my analogy; Alonso was the boxer who had lowered his guard because he knew (or had been reliably informed) he wasn't allowed to get punched. Michael punched after the bell was rang and was rightly penalised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule is blindingly obvious because it is blindingly obvious. The race finished under safety car conditions. It states that the safety car will enter the pitlane and no overtaking will be allowed. How is that unclear?

/quote]

Steve, the fact that many F1 experts have questioned the event, plus what I have seen with my own eyes, plus the fact that the FIA have rushed to clarify the situation and to rewrote the rule, embarrassingly so, tells me they have ****ed up. THE SAFETY CAR CAME IN AND I SAW WITH MY VERY OWN EYES GREEN FLAGS BEING WAVED. Which means the race did'nt finish under the safety car as it came in and driver's were free to race!!! How blindingly obvious that is is very clear!

Alonso was caught napping. end of story!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule is blindingly obvious because it is blindingly obvious. The race finished under safety car conditions. It states that the safety car will enter the pitlane and no overtaking will be allowed. How is that unclear?

/quote]

Steve, the fact that many F1 experts have questioned the event, plus what I have seen with my own eyes, plus the fact that the FIA have rushed to clarify the situation and to rewrote the rule, embarrassingly so, tells me they have ****ed up. THE SAFETY CAR CAME IN AND I SAW WITH MY VERY OWN EYES GREEN FLAGS BEING WAVED. Which means the race did'nt finish under the safety car as it came in and driver's were free to race!!! How blindingly obvious that is is very clear!

Alonso was caught napping. end of story!!!!

Why are you mentioning the green lights AGAIN? Where does the rule mention green lights? The rule is clear. The only thing that needs to be clarified is the use of the green lights. The ruling itself is correct and easily understandable. Or is it me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Forget that the events at Monaco have happened. If Ross Brawn was shown rule and asked for his interpretation of it, do you really believe he would say "it seems clear that overtaking is not permissable in those circumstances, however if the lights are green and the safety car goes in before the lap has finished, I will instruct my drivers to overtake, if they can"?

That's a loaded question. If you asked him, last lap, you get a safety car in this lap message from the FIA, green flags on the track - he would ask his driver to overtake every single time.

The rule is blindingly obvious because it is blindingly obvious. The race finished under safety car conditions.

No it is not blindingly obvious that the race finished under safety car conditions. IF anything it is blindingly obvious that the race DID NOT finish under safety car conditions, I'll just use Gary Anderson's version:

37228547.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Forget that the events at Monaco have happened. If Ross Brawn was shown rule and asked for his interpretation of it, do you really believe he would say "it seems clear that overtaking is not permissable in those circumstances, however if the lights are green and the safety car goes in before the lap has finished, I will instruct my drivers to overtake, if they can"?

No, neither do I.

The rule is blindingly obvious because it is blindingly obvious. The race finished under safety car conditions. It states that the safety car will enter the pitlane and no overtaking will be allowed. How is that unclear?

The safety car line, the green lights; they are all bits of information volunteered by Brawn in a desperate attempt to steer the stewards from the clarity of the rule. I haven't heard you once disagree with the rule in isolation, only by using Brawn's 'line/lights' defence.

So I stick by my analogy; Alonso was the boxer who had lowered his guard because he knew (or had been reliably informed) he wasn't allowed to get punched. Michael punched after the bell was rang and was rightly penalised.

The rule like you said is blindingly obvious what it was confusing for people here was IF the race really finished under SC or not and given the events of the ending of the race is clear the this race didn't finished under SC as the track was declared clear, green lights and flags were shown, the people from Live Timing who are bieng feed by race control and race control also announced "Safety car in this lap" the people from live timing understood and announced that the race will finish under racing condition stated but the comment "Webber will be racing to the finish line" also SC boards were retired as were both cars one on lap 77 and the other on the final lap, the track was cleared before the end of the race and that statement about Brawn is not accurate as those topics were mentioned here before the Brawn video came out some of them pointed by me but the most important thing is that if this rule is so blindingly clear why if FIA going to modify it? i think there woouldn't be any need for that had this been just a try of a team to get an unfear advantage like you are implying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that people are questioning this absurd rule. It conflicts with other established rules for no good reason.

The issue isn't whether or not the rule was interpreted correctly, it's if the rule should be there at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule is blindingly obvious because it is blindingly obvious. The race finished under safety car conditions. It states that the safety car will enter the pitlane and no overtaking will be allowed. How is that unclear?

/quote]

Steve, the fact that many F1 experts have questioned the event, plus what I have seen with my own eyes, plus the fact that the FIA have rushed to clarify the situation and to rewrote the rule, embarrassingly so, tells me they have ****ed up. THE SAFETY CAR CAME IN AND I SAW WITH MY VERY OWN EYES GREEN FLAGS BEING WAVED. Which means the race did'nt finish under the safety car as it came in and driver's were free to race!!! How blindingly obvious that is is very clear!

Alonso was caught napping. end of story!!!!

Well, we now know that he was told overtaking is not allowed, so he wasnt actually napping, but relying on the rules... Which is a mistake, having learnt on the past how well FIA rules are written...

Like LH in SpaGATE...

Or Michelin tyre gate in 2003...

Or Alonso himself, punished for disturbing the air flow (never seen this written anywhere, actually this was the most ridiculous ever in F1, only Max Mosley could be that creative)

You are right, he should have learned... Luckily, his is now driving a red car...

Or do you think every time the rule is not clear, MS must be the favoured part??? Is that a rule itself, written somewhere else???

Because everyone including the FIA admitted the rules were completely unclear. The only people to whom they seem blindingly obvious are you and Andres.

It was not as unclear as the one about Alonso disturbing the airflow at Monza 100m ahead of Massa... Or LH in Spa... (which also had been rewritten specifically to punish him). At least this time, the rewriting was just to clarify, not to justify the willing to punish...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we now know that he was told overtaking is not allowed, so he wasnt actually napping, but relying on the rules... Which is a mistake, having learnt on the past how well FIA rules are written...

Like LH in SpaGATE...

Or Michelin tyre gate in 2003...

Or Alonso himself, punished for disturbing the air flow (never seen this written anywhere, actually this was the most ridiculous ever in F1, only Max Mosley could be that creative)

You are right, he should have learned... Luckily, his is now driving a red car...

Or do you think every time the rule is not clear, MS must be the favoured part??? Is that a rule itself, written somewhere else???

It was not as unclear as the one about Alonso disturbing the airflow at Monza 100m ahead of Massa... Or LH in Spa... (which also had been rewritten specifically to punish him). At least this time, the rewriting was just to clarify, not to justify the willing to punish...

Yep.

You guys are still talking about this bulls##t ?!

And when are we not talking bull, funny man.

Hey, it's Schumacher's arse and Alonso is the guy who kicked it way back when. Considering the embarrassing season Schumacher is having and considering his "glorious" past, it isn't strange that Schumacher's fan have been brought from cryogenic sleep to zombie through the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are still talking about this bulls##t ?!

Talking about this bullsh!t is how we sow the seeds of change. Revolutions have started from simple talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something for you Alonso worshippers to think about... "If Alonso was told overtaking is not allowed, and he wasnt actually napping, but relying on the rules"... why did he try to defend his position when Schumie passed him and not just let the guy pass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, just read the DOD Monaco thread, and Mike had the same question, in answer to a different point...

"I respect your view here, but the part in bold I can't really believe you meant as you'd typed it. Making a pass for position is at the heart of racing and to say otherwise sounds...odd, to say the least. If you meant that it wasn't racing because Mikey took Alonso unawares, then that conflicts with Alonso trying like hell to prevent the pass. Why try that hard to prevent something that Alonso and Ferrari supposedly knew to be illegal?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a loaded question. If you asked him, last lap, you get a safety car in this lap message from the FIA, green flags on the track - he would ask his driver to overtake every single time.

Yes of course he would. But I'm trying to refer specifically to the text of the rule to explore whether there is ambiguity in it. I maintain that there is none.

No it is not blindingly obvious that the race finished under safety car conditions. IF anything it is blindingly obvious that the race DID NOT finish under safety car conditions, I'll just use Gary Anderson's version:

I'm not disputing that the saga was confusing. I was one of those who was agreeing with Brawn, post race and was convinced a masterstroke had been pulled, until I saw the content of the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that people are questioning this absurd rule. It conflicts with other established rules for no good reason.

The issue isn't whether or not the rule was interpreted correctly, it's if the rule should be there at all.

I wrote this on about page 3 or 4 of the hahahaha thread...

The only rule that needs changing is that cars shouldn't pass until after the start/finish line (not the SC line). That's how it was up until this year, and that's how it should have remained.

What if the Trulli/Chandok crash had been in the last corner?

Nope - cars shouldn't pass until after the start/finish line - if it's the last lap, it doesn't matter if the SC comes in or not.

Simples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote this on about page 3 or 4 of the hahahaha thread...

The only rule that needs changing is that cars shouldn't pass until after the start/finish line (not the SC line). That's how it was up until this year, and that's how it should have remained.

What if the Trulli/Chandok crash had been in the last corner?

Nope - cars shouldn't pass until after the start/finish line - if it's the last lap, it doesn't matter if the SC comes in or not.

Simples.

My idea on the way it should have been handled: When the SC comes in, the track is green. If the track is green, then racing resumes at the point the SC leave the track. That is the SC line. In Monaco, if the rule stating that there can be no overtaking if the SC leads on the last lap was removed, there would have been no problem. SC leaves the track, track goes green, drivers race to the start/finish line. As I see it, this is a take much truer to the whole intent of a race. In your scenario, we would have been treated to a processional across the start/finish. In mine, we would have been treated to drivers trying what Mikey pulled off. I like mine better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something for you Alonso worshippers to think about... "If Alonso was told overtaking is not allowed, and he wasnt actually napping, but relying on the rules"... why did he try to defend his position when Schumie passed him and not just let the guy pass

Automatic instinctive reaction?

It seemed, though, that Alonso's driving at that point had to do with other matters.

Still, it doesn't matter if you claim that the entire Ferrari team lied about telling Alonso to not attack Hamilton and hold position (which could also explain Alonso's reaction to Schumacher's move). Still, lie or not, FIA did as it pleased on accord to different interests. It's irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My idea on the way it should have been handled: When the SC comes in, the track is green. If the track is green, then racing resumes at the point the SC leave the track. That is the SC line. In Monaco, if the rule stating that there can be no overtaking if the SC leads on the last lap was removed, there would have been no problem. SC leaves the track, track goes green, drivers race to the start/finish line. As I see it, this is a take much truer to the whole intent of a race. In your scenario, we would have been treated to a processional across the start/finish. In mine, we would have been treated to drivers trying what Mikey pulled off. I like mine better.

I like it better too - but it doesn't work if the crash occurs between the safety car line and the finish line - then you'd need another set of rules to make allowance for that possibility too. Thus making things more rather than less complicated.

I'm with you in spirit though - I'm just a stickler for having 1 simple rule that leaves no room for misunderstanding and covers all eventuaities.

Anywho - this is getting split into 2 threads now - perhaps discussing it in the hahahaha thread is more sensible - we're repeating ourselves.

EDIT - plus - I really think that thread's too short. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Automatic instinctive reaction?

It seemed, though, that Alonso's driving at that point had to do with other matters.

Still, it doesn't matter if you claim that the entire Ferrari team lied about telling Alonso to not attack Hamilton and hold position (which could also explain Alonso's reaction to Schumacher's move). Still, lie or not, FIA did as it pleased on accord to different interests. It's irrelevant.

Exactly...

Or else Alonso could be doubting his team really knowing the rules... Instead of asking back "are you sure no overtaking is allowed?" he choose (that is a racer reaction) to try to avoid the overtake...

For what he had been through in the past, in terms of FIA punishments/unclear rule which more often than not were conviniently interpreted to MS favor, he had every reason to think:

"Oh no... Not another of these rules... Maybe my team did not know how unclear this rule is... Let me try to defend my position..."

Bottom line is: Alonso defending does not prove anything. As Maure said, not that it is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Automatic instinctive reaction?

How about overtaking when the track goes green and have been declared clear and everything looks fine to pass? can that happen by an automatic instinctive reaction or this only affect the defense part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schumi Undeterred By Monaco Penalty

Michael Schumacher, refusing to feel hard done by his six place demotion in the Monaco GP for overtaking Fernando Alonso on the last lap under controversial Safety Car conditions, did not sit at home licking his wounds last weekend. Instead, the seven times champion was busy finishing second in a pair of DMV championship kart races at the Oppenrod circuit!

Schumacher, who has always said that his F1 return is more about the fact that he simply misses driving, told Germany's Auto Motor und Sport, "The fun aspect of karting is the most important. You don't learn much to help you in F1 but you can do quite a lot of overtaking!" He might have added, without being penalised...

Pat Symonds, Schumacher's Benetton race engineer in the mid nineties, comes down firmly on Micheal's side over the Monaco incident. Symonds, currently absent from the paddock after his role in the '08 Singapore 'Crashgate' affair, is providing F1 race analysis for the British magazine, F1 Racing. In its latest issue Symonds says that his take is that the final lap at Monaco did not finish under the Safety Car but as a racing lap.

"I believe that Ross Brawn and Michael were, as usual, more aware of the regulations than the other teams," Symonds says. "Michael's overtaking manoeuvre was not only legal and justified, but actually what racing was all about."

But like someone asked here before what could I know about this? :naughty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Tommy. So Gary Anderson in Autosport and Pat Symonds in F1 Racing both agree with Ross Brawn's interpretation. That's interesting and I'll go read those articles today. I still think that interpretation is the most sensible one given the wording of the rules.

Another thought is this: Alonso "instinctively" defending his position might be against the rules too. Common sense suggests that if the race is ending under a safety car then you shouldn't be racing other cars too aggressively. Of course, the rules are a complete and utter shambles and open to the most absurd interpretations so you could really argue anything without any expectation that the stewards would come to a sensible decision...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Tommy. So Gary Anderson in Autosport and Pat Symonds in F1 Racing both agree with Ross Brawn's interpretation. That's interesting and I'll go read those articles today. I still think that interpretation is the most sensible one given the wording of the rules.

Another thought is this: Alonso "instinctively" defending his position might be against the rules too. Common sense suggests that if the race is ending under a safety car then you shouldn't be racing other cars too aggressively. Of course, the rules are a complete and utter shambles and open to the most absurd interpretations so you could really argue anything without any expectation that the stewards would come to a sensible decision...

I wouldn't say against the rule but certanly it was as dangerous as the pass itself, he almost touched the walls two times while trying to keep his position, I doubt thee is a rule that specifially say something about not defending from a pass under some circunstances but yes, if the pass was not allow because it may be dangeours under the "SC conditions" then that move like you say must be against the rules too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Tommy. So Gary Anderson in Autosport and Pat Symonds in F1 Racing both agree with Ross Brawn's interpretation. That's interesting and I'll go read those articles today. I still think that interpretation is the most sensible one given the wording of the rules.

Another thought is this: Alonso "instinctively" defending his position might be against the rules too. Common sense suggests that if the race is ending under a safety car then you shouldn't be racing other cars too aggressively. Of course, the rules are a complete and utter shambles and open to the most absurd interpretations so you could really argue anything without any expectation that the stewards would come to a sensible decision...

I wouldn't say against the rule but certanly it was as dangerous as the pass itself, he almost touched the walls two times while trying to keep his position, I doubt thee is a rule that specifially say something about not defending from a pass under some circunstances but yes, if the pass was not allow because it may be dangeours under the "SC conditions" then that move like you say must be against the rules too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...