Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

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

cavallino

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah

Recommended Posts

In your hypothetical, the decision that would best fulfill all the rules is for the race to be stopped, as happens if the weather prevents a race from continuing. Time permitting, the best solution would be to clear the track and let the cars do the last lap under green.

so you think the race should be stopped simply because the crash is in a different place?

personally I think there are 2 solutions...

SC comes in but no passing before start/finish line should be allowed (as I keep saying). Therefore drivers take it easy and thread their way safely through the wreckage (as they did before the SC came out and while behind the SC).

or

SC stays out and finishes the race. If the cars went through the debris behind the safety car for the 2 previous laps, why not the last one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you think the race should be stopped simply because the crash is in a different place?

You posed (and I answered) a hypothetical situation different from what actually happened. You said a crash after the SC line and before the start finish. In the actual situation, the crash was in a different place. Unless I missed something....

personally I think there are 2 solutions...

SC comes in but no passing before start/finish line should be allowed (as I keep saying). Therefore drivers take it easy and thread their way safely through the wreckage (as they did before the SC came out and while behind the SC).

I think the drivers have enough to thing about. Why throw this

or

SC stays out and finishes the race. If the cars went through the debris behind the safety car for the 2 previous laps, why not the last one?

Maybe. My opinion is that the SC rules should (and previously had been) pretty simple. The SC comes out when the whole field needs to be slowed down to allow time to make the track safe. The SC always accompanies a full-course yellow. The SC comes in only when the track is safe and can be green-flagged again. Racing resumes from the SC line. Now, if the track cannot be made safe (as in the case of your hypothetical or in cases of extreme weather conditions) the SC stays out and the race is moved from yellow to red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a bitterness about your post... it seems you don't like being reminded of what a farce F1 is, at least, nowadays.

Ah, lawyer tricks. How fun. You can't be this ignorant of how racing works, can you? I can only assume you're getting enjoyment out of arguing an irrelevant point with me. Irrelevant because the race was ending and the cars were not going to pass Trulli's wreckage at speed. Now, had the race a few more laps left, then the SC would have stayed out until the wreckage was cleared.

It seems to me it is you who's playing the lawyer. You and those that want a different outcome out of this mess.

First, there were arguments made earlier by you or someone else regarding whether or not the track was clear. Well, it appears that, as far as you are concerned, the track wasn't clear.

And so, when you say that the chunk of track left to be raced was fine and, therefore, it should've been ok to race, I ask you to point out which motorsport allows racing to take place when part of the track cannot be raced on.

Politeness to the crowd? You mean the crowd that paid to see a race? More to the point, the race had exactly one turn left, and as Schumacher had shown us, there were still opportunities for racing in that one corner. You seem a genuine fan of racing, and lament what you deem to be orchestrated results, yet you're strangely accepting of this one.

Yeah, yeah, Schumacher and his right to do as he pleases. Sure. Dream on.

I said politeness because the particular rule is purely ceremonial. You are being deliverately obtuse here, which is amusing.

Regarding my "acceptance" of this outcome, I ask, how the fck should I present my very, very low esteem of FIA and FIA's "legal" adventures that would satisfy you? For let's not forget that, amusingly, it is I who says the lot of them are a dishonest bunch.

You err. Schumacher has already proven that at the one corner of the race that was left, it certainly could be raced on. I find preventing drivers from racing to be far harder to justify than a 2 hour time limit. I would think any sane race fan would agree with me on this.

Again, you fail to show how racing is ok while part of the track is unraceable.

Regarding the 2 hour limit, for certain it is more irrelevant. A blocked track is a material obsticle to racing. A time span is a concept, an abstraction, an intangible. Again, you are being deliverately obtuse here, which is amusing.

I wonder why you're here, talking about a sport that you don't seem to enjoy.

When did I say I don't enjoy it?

I simply asked you to bring up those corpses Brawn buried in the backyard with a little help from his "friends". Don't get grumpy now.

Truthfully, I really don't care. My only concern is for the drivers and their battles. As long as they battle as fiercely as Schumacher at Monaco, I'll be happy. FIA be damned. Governing bodies come and go. Manufacturers come and go. Corporations come and go. So, what is left of F1 as a motorsport under Ecclestone? Find the answer with the drivers. Go ask Schumacher, who, despite finding himself on the wrong end of a bad rule, still pulled off one helluva move on Alonso. Totally unscripted. You might be right and the FIA might have a script, and they might enforce it by ridiculous rules and penalties, but as long as the driver's aren't given that script, or, in being given it, ignore it, then I'm happy.

Alonso was told not to pass and the "helluva" move is a fantasy you and friends have made up. But if that is what you need to do in order to "enjoy" F1, you are welcome to it of course.

Regarding FIA's script, you bet there was one. After all, you are utterly convinced Schumacher was in the right. Yet, FIA says no way. How come? I mean, how come _on_this_ and _hundreds_ of other times? Because the matters discussed and decided on have nothing to do with a rulebook, no matter how tight it is conceived (when the judge at the bench is the guy that also legislates, all is lost, no matter what. And if he does it on the run, the joke knows no end).

Regarding drivers and teams being involved the script, I say "come on, man, grow a pair". It's evident that there have been many times when drivers and teams have a part to play and much to gain from it (Brawn last season). I remember, for example, an anecdote (that I'll let you find for yourself if you care) of how Todt went to a couple of minor drivers (before a race) and told them to take out, that is, crash into a certain competitor that was in the way of his chosen driver.

Sure, I do like too the scripted parts... as well as the fckups. For instance, it is patent, unmistakable, and obvious that FIA bent many, many sporting rules during Hamilton's 1st season. Hamilton was on it up to his neck. He knew he could count on "extra" support because the players told him so e-x-p-l-i-c-t-l-y. But there you are. Hamilton fck up the script over and over and over. It was very amusing seeing FIA fall apart onto itself, stewards out-thinking each other to gain Ecclestone's favor... to then see the lot kicked out on the street when the season was over and Hamilton had made a fool of himself and everyone else.

Anyway, yeah, racing aside (which is why I watch F1 as well as MotoGP, etc), I do smile and laugh at FIA's clumsiness, of course I enjoy that too... and do so despite the fact that those idiots are dragging F1 through the mud to make a buck _when_it_is_unnecessary_. But that is what some people think business is or, at least, the best they can do to make a profit, namely, screw the very thing that makes money for you or, as some say somewhere, make money by p**sing on you own plate... monopolies and lack of freedom, for instance, are common among those business folk that do not believe (or are not sufficiently capable) in free markets.

No small irony that Competition (rightfully capitalized in this context) should be their enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You posed (and I answered) a hypothetical situation different from what actually happened. You said a crash after the SC line and before the start finish. In the actual situation, the crash was in a different place. Unless I missed something....

True and I understand your reasoning too - I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of a different course of action being taken by the stewards dependent on where on the track the crash happens - i.e. red flag if it's just before the finish line, but yellows if it's not (like monaco). I would consider it fairer to have one set of rules that works the same way irrelevent of where the crash occurs. But here lies the rub. I can't think of a catch-all, simple set of rules that I actually like.

Maybe. My opinion is that the SC rules should (and previously had been) pretty simple. The SC comes out when the whole field needs to be slowed down to allow time to make the track safe. The SC always accompanies a full-course yellow. The SC comes in only when the track is safe and can be green-flagged again. Racing resumes from the SC line. Now, if the track cannot be made safe (as in the case of your hypothetical or in cases of extreme weather conditions) the SC stays out and the race is moved from yellow to red.

Agreed - last years rules (no passing until after start/finish line when SC comes in) simplifies everything and would be a vast improvement and that's what I think should happen. (And what I've said should happen in countless posts around page 3 of this thread.) There we agree.

Going back to the hypothetical though (even when reverting to last year's rules) there's still no clear cut good answer. I posed the question exactly for that reason. i.e. to try to come up with a rule that fits every situation no matter whether its the last lap or not and no matter where on the course the cars crash.

If we say that cars can go through the debris fine behind the safety car then it would make no sense (to me) to red flag the race simply because we don't want them finishing after the SC.

If we decide that the SC should come in (no matter what) on the last lap, then depending on where the crash occured this could mean two very different situations for the drivers to deal with. (i.e. navigating through debris or simply finishing in line).

The only catch-all would be...

a ) revert to no passing until after start finish line.

AND

b ) if there is still debris on the track (no matter where), let the SC finish the race on track.

I'm not sure I'm fully in favour of this solution, but it would (as far as I can see) cover every possible eventuality (a crash on any lap of the race, anywhere on the track).

Its also very simple for everyone to understand. There's no room for confusion of any kind for anyone (drivers, teams or marshalls).

For me - this is a much more interesting question than the previous 10 pages ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, there were arguments made earlier by you or someone else regarding whether or not the track was clear. Well, it appears that, as far as you are concerned, the track wasn't clear.

And so, when you say that the chunk of track left to be raced was fine and, therefore, it should've been ok to race, I ask you to point out which motorsport allows racing to take place when part of the track cannot be raced on.

It's called local yellow and it happens in most forms of motorsports.

I said politeness because the particular rule is purely ceremonial. You are being deliverately obtuse here, which is amusing.

:lol: My obtuseness is never deliberate. I maintain that there was no reason why the track couldn't race from the SC line to the finish line and that would (and did) produce racing. You really can't argue with that except to point out a rule against it. Without that rule, it would have been far more exciting a finish than a ceremonial ending, right?

Again, you fail to show how racing is ok while part of the track is unraceable.

Only one turn of the track was unraceable and, on the last corner of the last lap, that portion of the track would not be raced upon.

Alonso was told not to pass and the "helluva" move is a fantasy you and friends have made up. But if that is what you need to do in order to "enjoy" F1, you are welcome to it of course.

I should do a bit more research. Is there a website where I can listen in on the radio transmission of this? Or a respected source mentioning it? I'll check Autosport and see what I can find. If the only source of this is Ferrari, well, do I need to mention how suspect this would be?

Regarding FIA's script, you bet there was one. After all, you are utterly convinced Schumacher was in the right. Yet, FIA says no way. How come? I mean, how come _on_this_ and _hundreds_ of other times? Because the matters discussed and decided on have nothing to do with a rulebook, no matter how tight it is conceived (when the judge at the bench is the guy that also legislates, all is lost, no matter what. And if he does it on the run, the joke knows no end).

I was never 'utterly convinced' Schumacher's move was legal. I had thought it was until the stewards brought up the rule that proved that wrong. By the rules, Schumacher was in the wrong. But I consider the rule in question to be a bad one.

Regarding drivers and teams being involved the script, I say "come on, man, grow a pair". It's evident that there have been many times when drivers and teams have a part to play and much to gain from it (Brawn last season). I remember, for example, an anecdote (that I'll let you find for yourself if you care) of how Todt went to a couple of minor drivers (before a race) and told them to take out, that is, crash into a certain competitor that was in the way of his chosen driver.

Sure, I do like too the scripted parts... as well as the fckups. For instance, it is patent, unmistakable, and obvious that FIA bent many, many sporting rules during Hamilton's 1st season. Hamilton was on it up to his neck. He knew he could count on "extra" support because the players told him so e-x-p-l-i-c-t-l-y. But there you are. Hamilton fck up the script over and over and over. It was very amusing seeing FIA fall apart onto itself, stewards out-thinking each other to gain Ecclestone's favor... to then see the lot kicked out on the street when the season was over and Hamilton had made a fool of himself and everyone else.

Anyway, yeah, racing aside (which is why I watch F1 as well as MotoGP, etc), I do smile and laugh at FIA's clumsiness, of course I enjoy that too... and do so despite the fact that those idiots are dragging F1 through the mud to make a buck _when_it_is_unnecessary_. But that is what some people think business is or, at least, the best they can do to make a profit, namely, screw the very thing that makes money for you or, as some say somewhere, make money by p**sing on you own plate... monopolies and lack of freedom, for instance, are common among those business folk that do not believe (or are not sufficiently capable) in free markets.

No small irony that Competition (rightfully capitalized in this context) should be their enemy.

Ah. Ok, you've answered my question about why you watch F1. As to the rest, well, I respect your opinions on the matter and to a far lesser degree, share some of them.

@adam: I like what you've suggested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@adam: I like what you've suggested.

I vote we break our way into the marshalls' enclosures at every GP and wave the right sodding flags from now on. Deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...