Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

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

cavallino

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah

Recommended Posts

"Mercedes GP would like to emphasise that we fully support the inclusion of past drivers on the stewards' panel and are completely satisfied that the Monaco Grand Prix stewards acted professionally, impartially and properly in this matter...."

"Mercedes GP would like to emphasise that although Michael shafted Damon up the arse in 1994 (or more specifically, bent his upper wishbone, therefore giving him a face like a bull dog chewing a wasp, eliminating him from the championship and in the process making Michael become hated by all the idiots who believed Damon was entitled to the title and was the better driver), we fully support the inclusion of the grey haired moaney old has-been who never really was anything like a match for our now washed up old has-been. Although Damon clearly laughed his wrinkly old c0ck off when he passed judgement on our big chinned cheat, it was done with professionalism and only approximately twenty minutes of laughter filled gloating."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very useful summary!

I think this is the most sensible interpretation. There seem to be 2 main arguments against this view: that rule 40.13 makes more sense as a definition of a SC finish than simply as instructions on what to do if one happens, and that rule 40.13 is very specific and therefore takes precedence over other considerations.

All of the points you raised were logical and it is simply a question of interpretations Muzza.

same thing as anytime a car crashes or fails behind a safety car - others can overtake them.

case in point - vettel crashed into the back of webber when hamilton backed them up behind SC in 2008 (someone help my dodgy memory - where?) the field over took them. no problem there.

if a car has stopped on track then it can be 'overtaken'.

Yes, there are a set of rules which govern "overtaking" under a SC condition, e.g. on the formation lap to the grid. Those kind of rules would also apply to an SC finish.

Exsqueeze me!! I think you'll find I was just enjoying the discussion and have no bias! :lol:

:lol: Yes, you are one of the good ones, though! Keep it up and you'll get a gold star.

Aye, pretty good summary. Personally, I would say 3 has occurred.

It does beg the question though, if the car-pit radio had failed (I can't remember which team, but I seem to remember 1 of the drivers mentioning that theirs keeps failing this year) then is the driver expected to know this rule, or should it be evident from the track status, as indicated by the flags/lights, what the 'situation' is?

Yes, I'd also say no.3 on my summary happened, and that seems to be what the stewards thought too.

This is exactly how I interpret the rules (which is not to say it is how FIA intended them to be interpreted). If 40.13 is to take precedence, then the rule clearly should have said "If the SC is on the track on the last lap..." instead of "If the race finishes while SC is deployed....". Now, since there are rules which say what happens when SC is taken off the track (=no longer deployed), confusion arises as to what happens on the last lap if those rules (40.11) take effect. If 40.13 takes precedence, then one would assume 40.11 is not followed, and thus the lights on the SC should stay on the whole lap, and yellow flags should be shown together with SC signs. If I'm not completely off, the procedures of 40.11 are there exactly because they allow to prepare the drivers to race again. If there is no racing allowed anymore, then these procedures should not be followed. In Monaco, they were, and one can't blame MS for actually racing when opportunity came.

I believe 40.11 governs the usage of the SC in all conditions whereas 40.13 provides for the SC in a specific condition, i.e. it means "on the last lap, if the race ends under a SC, the SC will pit at the end of the lap as per 40.11, however overtaking will not be permitted as usual" is something like how the rule should read and how the stewards have interpreted it.

I think the rules specified in 40.11 and 40.13 interract between each other. Or FIA thinks so. In 40.11 when they say in the last sentences that the yellow is to be replaced by the green they do not say that there is to be a race again. So whenever the SC goes in the yellow is to be replaced with the green. And since they specify that the SC is to go in at the end of the final lap and the cars are to finish the race without overtaking... anyway the green should be there when the SC goes in according to 40.11.

Yes, they interact with each other. You can't look at them in isolation. 40.11 instructs the drivers and teams about the usage of the SC in all situations, 40.13 effectively modifies the rule saying "yes, the SC will still do this, but the part about overtaking from the SC line no longer applies on the last lap".

No, the green flag doesn't stipulate that -

And from Appendix H to the International Sporting Code -

2.4.5.1 f) Green flag

This should be used to indicate that the track is clear: it

should be waved at the marshal post immediately after

the incident that necessitated the use of one or more

yellow flags.

It may also be used, if deemed necessary by the Clerk of

the Course, to signal the start of a warm-up lap or the start

of a practice session.

So for this situation, the green flag means the SC is coming in and the track is clear.

I am agreeing with you, Cav. Even if the rules turn out to be 'right' and the green flags should have been waved in this situation (end of Monaco race), I don't think it's a very logical rule(s).

Yeah, so clearly the marshals actually technically did show the correct flags because the track was clear, there was no debris on the track. However the race was still ending under a SC (if you take that interpretation) and overtaking was still a no go as in 40.13.

The flags are certainly misleading in that situation, though. I suppose the problem is that an SC finish was generally intended to apply if the incident still hadn't been cleared up on the last lap, yet in Monaco it had been cleared up so greens were waved, yet if you interpret the rule (40.13) in a fairly reasonably way you can still reach the conclusion that overtaking is illegal.

http://www.totalf1.c...macher_penalty/

MGP withdraws appeal, recognize that they failed to understand how rule 40.13 work, said that it is confusing on how it interacts with the other rules (40.11 and 40.4) and got a promise from FIA to clarify it in the future. They also stated that they don't think Damon Hill was the culprit here.

But...what do they know? Guys at MGP are just a bunch of Alonso Blind fanbois, after all.

I think that says a few things: 1) MGP know that the rule is open to interpretation and there is no solid evidence they can use as a grounds for appeal (not even the waving of green flags), 2) the FIA are getting better, remember the rule wasn't changed by Todt (I think?), this is the best way of dealing with it (they are going to sit down and discuss the problems with the rule rather than a lengthy and fruitless appeal), 3) Even MGP don't buy the Damon Hill is biased rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mercedes GP would like to emphasise that although Michael shafted Damon up the arse in 1994 (or more specifically, bent his upper wishbone, therefore giving him a face like a bull dog chewing a wasp, eliminating him from the championship and in the process making Michael become hated by all the idiots who believed Damon was entitled to the title and was the better driver), we fully support the inclusion of the grey haired moaney old has-been who never really was anything like a match for our now washed up old has-been. Although Damon clearly laughed his wrinkly old c0ck off when he passed judgement on our big chinned cheat, it was done with professionalism and only approximately twenty minutes of laughter filled gloating."

laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mercedes GP would like to emphasise that although Michael shafted Damon up the arse in 1994 (or more specifically, bent his upper wishbone, therefore giving him a face like a bull dog chewing a wasp, eliminating him from the championship and in the process making Michael become hated by all the idiots who believed Damon was entitled to the title and was the better driver), we fully support the inclusion of the grey haired moaney old has-been who never really was anything like a match for our now washed up old has-been. Although Damon clearly laughed his wrinkly old c0ck off when he passed judgement on our big chinned cheat, it was done with professionalism and only approximately twenty minutes of laughter filled gloating."

:lolroll::clap3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that says a few things: 1) MGP know that the rule is open to interpretation and there is no solid evidence they can use as a grounds for appeal (not even the waving of green flags), 2) the FIA are getting better, remember the rule wasn't changed by Todt (I think?), this is the best way of dealing with it (they are going to sit down and discuss the problems with the rule rather than a lengthy and fruitless appeal), 3) Even MGP don't buy the Damon Hill is biased rubbish.

Yup, that pretty much sums it up. Some conseuquences of all this whole silly controversy:

- James Allen (which wrote an article with the title which was something like "Schumacher penalised by Damon Hill" had to rewrite the title to "Schumacher punished by Hill AND STEWARDS FOR ILLEGAL OVERTAKE" and add a clarification that he never intended it by mo means to imply that this was just a revenge act from Hill.

- He also made another (actually, a comment on Hill's interviw on the Times) about all the hate mail Hill got and how uncomfortable Hill felt about it all.

- Finally, he wrote an article about Mercedes withdrawing the appeal where he actually says what we (well, to be fair mostly George, Alex and Adam, and the pertinent questions from Paul) have been saying through all this argument.

- Still, in a last act of defiance, he states that 60% of voters in a poll on his site voted in favor of MGPs position. Which proves that our members with more than half a brain were not alone, but still wrong on most accounts.

- There's also anothe site that mentions that Alonso was asking his crew about taking a shot at trying to overtake Hamilton but was told to hold station while Schumi was doing his banzai move. If true, that would turn what seemed like a brilliantly opportunistic move into just an ill conceived move from Brawn/Schumi/whoever and as brilliant as Hamilton overtaking Trulli at Melbourne 2009.

Yes, I am a blind Alonso fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Would you mind repeating that?:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree, but still funny clap3.gif Smart Alex!

tiphat.gifvictory.gif

Thank you Jay, so hard to hear something nice lately!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, that pretty much sums it up. Some conseuquences of all this whole silly controversy:

- James Allen (which wrote an article with the title which was something like "Schumacher penalised by Damon Hill" had to rewrite the title to "Schumacher punished by Hill AND STEWARDS FOR ILLEGAL OVERTAKE" and add a clarification that he never intended it by mo means to imply that this was just a revenge act from Hill.

- He also made another (actually, a comment on Hill's interviw on the Times) about all the hate mail Hill got and how uncomfortable Hill felt about it all.

- Finally, he wrote an article about Mercedes withdrawing the appeal where he actually says what we (well, to be fair mostly George, Alex and Adam, and the pertinent questions from Paul) have been saying through all this argument.

- Still, in a last act of defiance, he states that 60% of voters in a poll on his site voted in favor of MGPs position. Which proves that our members with more than half a brain were not alone, but still wrong on most accounts.

- There's also anothe site that mentions that Alonso was asking his crew about taking a shot at trying to overtake Hamilton but was told to hold station while Schumi was doing his banzai move. If true, that would turn what seemed like a brilliantly opportunistic move into just an ill conceived move from Brawn/Schumi/whoever and as brilliant as Hamilton overtaking Trulli at Melbourne 2009.

Yes, I am a blind Alonso fan.

:lol: I liked you pre-empting the standard reply!

Anyway yes, I just read the James Allen explanation and came here to post it: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/05/why-mercedes-walked-away-from-schumacher-appeal/

Pretty much sums it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently one of them was Brawn's. biggrin.gif

Brawn's was the only correct decision. Correct being altogether different from within the rules. Rules can be changed up, down and sideways but what is correct will always be correct. I know you like simple one liners, but try to follow me here.

Any rule should follow the basic conditions of the track. Those conditions are based on the eternal system of flags. If the track is green, passing is allowed (if a rule states otherwise, then the rule is incorrect). If the track is yellow (or a section of the track) then no passing is allowed. The safety car only comes out on a yellow or red flag, never a green flag. At the time of Mikey's passing move, the track was green and the safety car was called into the pits. The condition of the track must be the final authority. Currently it is not and that is simply absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any rule should follow the basic conditions of the track. Those conditions are based on the eternal system of flags. If the track is green, passing is allowed (if a rule states otherwise, then the rule is incorrect). If the track is yellow (or a section of the track) then no passing is allowed. The safety car only comes out on a yellow or red flag, never a green flag. At the time of Mikey's passing move, the track was green and the safety car was called into the pits. The condition of the track must be the final authority. Currently it is not and that is simply absurd.

What was the condition of the track? Was it clear?

Besides which, Brawn order Schumacher to go for Alonso before any flags were shown, are you claiming Brawn can see into the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brawn's was the only correct decision. Correct being altogether different from within the rules. Rules can be changed up, down and sideways but what is correct will always be correct. I know you like simple one liners, but try to follow me here.

Your one-line post got a one-line reply. smile.gif

Any rule should follow the basic conditions of the track. Those conditions are based on the eternal system of flags. If the track is green, passing is allowed (if a rule states otherwise, then the rule is incorrect). If the track is yellow (or a section of the track) then no passing is allowed. The safety car only comes out on a yellow or red flag, never a green flag. At the time of Mikey's passing move, the track was green and the safety car was called into the pits. The condition of the track must be the final authority. Currently it is not and that is simply absurd.

I basically agree. You probably were too busy and didn't read some previous posts d'moi.

AFAIK, there's only one change on that respect. In 2010, when the SC leaves the track, overtakings are allowed after the SC line at the pit-lane entry. In 2009, and as past as my memories can go, overtaking was allowed after the Start/Finish line.

In 2009 the SC leaving the track in the last lap automatically meant the race ends under SC. In 2010 things are not so clear. I understand why Mercedes told their drivers to try to pass the car in front after the SC line, and I understand Ferrari telling their drivers not to try to pass the car in front. Three stewards + Damon Hill thought Ferrari decision was the correct one as I thought initially, now I think there's no correct decision. The SC rules suck big time.

If some teams, the stewards and Damon Hill thought the race finished under the SC it was for some good reason. Maybe it's somewhere in the rules or maybe it's called common sense. The penalty should go for the guy who wrote the SC rules.

Could it not be like tennis? The same f*cking set of rules year after year? mad.gif

At least SC rules, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading some of this thread you begin to see why it took the stewards the time it did to reach a decision on the Schumacher overtake move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading some of this thread you begin to see why it took the stewards the time it did to reach a decision on the Schumacher overtake move.

What? You mean they came here first before making a decision? No wonder Damon's hair is grey.

*typo*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading some of this thread you begin to see why it took the stewards the time it did to reach a decision on the Schumacher overtake move.

So much that they made the wrong call... and did'nt have time to punish Barrichello <---- this is true folks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading some of this thread you begin to see why it took the stewards the time it did to reach a decision on the Schumacher overtake move.

You wish.

Even the incredibly low quality back and forth given life here in TF1 is Socratic discourse compared to what must have happened among the stewards... which was nothing more than phone calls back and forth negotiating what some drivers/teams could get away with and what couldn't. When the pockets of the relevant people were quenched (in Whitings case dog food), the resolutions were made public. Some drivers were fined, others given virtual drive-throughs, others walked free. That's FIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny. If it was Alonso overtaking Michael, there'd be the hugest bitch fest ever. I shudder to think actually.

The rules are a little unclear, but they only suck according to some because it doesn't suit you.

Its gone on for days now and frankly, i am bored to tears of it. Lets look forward to the next race. See if the rules suit you then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny. If it was Alonso overtaking Michael, there'd be the hugest bitch fest ever. I shudder to think actually.

The rules are a little unclear, but they only suck according to some because it doesn't suit you.

Its gone on for days now and frankly, i am bored to tears of it. Lets look forward to the next race. See if the rules suit you then.

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny. If it was Alonso overtaking Michael, there'd be the hugest bitch fest ever. I shudder to think actually.

The rules are a little unclear, but they only suck according to some because it doesn't suit you.

Its gone on for days now and frankly, i am bored to tears of it. Lets look forward to the next race. See if the rules suit you then.

It _is_ funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules are a little unclear, but they only suck according to some because it doesn't suit you.

Oh really? ""The problems identified during the final lap of the Monaco Grand Prix, counting for the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship, showed a lack of clarity in the application of the rule prohibiting overtaking behind the safety car," - that's from the FIA - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83738

So the FIA thiemselves accepted the rules were unclear, but still some on here think everything was blindingly obvious.

You don't care because Jenson F#$king Button wasn't involved and then someone went and criticized your darling Damon Hill, the new Pontius Pilate. Fine. Spare us the self righteousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

, recognize that they failed to understand how rule 40.13 work,

Wow how clever you sneaked that bit of bullsh#t in, why is this thread full of misquotes? Mercedes said no such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow how clever you sneaked that bit of bullsh#t in, why is this thread full of misquotes? Mercedes said no such thing.

Perhaps because since its conception it was just a mud slinging contest? Do not bemoan the low level of the thread, it's the standard you set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the FIA are cleaning up the rules on this one now. That is a positive. Can't help but think how long it is before we stumble upon some other unclear part of the rulebook, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh really? ""The problems identified during the final lap of the Monaco Grand Prix, counting for the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship, showed a lack of clarity in the application of the rule prohibiting overtaking behind the safety car," - that's from the FIA - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83738

So the FIA thiemselves accepted the rules were unclear, but still some on here think everything was blindingly obvious.

You don't care because Jenson F#$king Button wasn't involved and then someone went and criticized your darling Damon Hill, the new Pontius Pilate. Fine. Spare us the self righteousness.

Oh. Is this a personal attack?

I don't like Damon, once again I point this out to you. Now please tell me what Jenson Button who you claim to have liked since day one has done to get a mention?

Stop being such a whining little ****ing girl, accept the punishment, shut the **** up, and be a good little boy.

Yes. That was personal. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

-adds self to Cav's ignore list-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh really? ""The problems identified during the final lap of the Monaco Grand Prix, counting for the 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship, showed a lack of clarity in the application of the rule prohibiting overtaking behind the safety car," - that's from the FIA - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83738

So the FIA thiemselves accepted the rules were unclear, but still some on here think everything was blindingly obvious.

You don't care because Jenson F#$king Button wasn't involved and then someone went and criticized your darling Damon Hill, the new Pontius Pilate. Fine. Spare us the self righteousness.

You are one motherfcker screeching screamer. Amusing.

We've seen drivers be fined for less, heck! fined for nothing at all while we've seen drivers get away with virtually murder. Get over it.

You lost your marbles (see title of this thread) and then it blew in your face. End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...