tifosi too!

Massa's Penalty

42 posts in this topic

The Low Pub has pointed it out, Tif, but you can clearly see Lewis alongside Massa at 6-seconds on that video clip (in fact, it even looks like he gets a nose infront). This was as they went into the braking zone (marked generally by the braking boards (150, 100, 50) on the side of the track). Whilst modern F1 c#ckpits are not great for peripheral viewing due to the high collars on the c#ckpit, Massa will have at least heard the car Lewis next to him. I think this video evidence disputes your point in response to my post regarding Lewis being alongside.

With reference to "overlap", from the Motorsport NZ Standing Regulations, overlap is defined as "when the front part of the rear vehicle is in front of the rear part of the vehicle immediately ahead". Whilst there is no technical rule saying that you must cede the corner if someone has gained overlap, every race driver knows that turning in on someone in that position only leads to one thing....a crash. You will find this definition in almost all FIA sanctioned motorsport organisation regulations (country to country) as it is a Standing Regulation...ie a global definition so that drivers can race in different countries (classes for F1 through to Formula First, to Pre-65's etc etc) under identical, or very near identical rules (case most in point, flags and their definitions).

In terms of F1 and the Massa penalty, it must be acknowledged that F1 (like all series/classes) have what are termed Supplementary Regulations, or Class Regulations or something along those lines. This could be sporting codes and the like. F1 has a very complicated Sporting Code. Part of that code is the Penalties section, and in this case, the rules used were those pertaining to "avoidable accidents". The stewards will have reflected on this, whilst looking at the footage, and also take into account telemetry, and the nature of the track (which I think is one of the key points, in that the next corner was a right hander, and thus Massa could have taken the left wider than normal then be back on the racing line for the following right hander...in other words, he could have avoided a collision). The other, more telling point, is that, proven by the video footage, Lewis was fully alongside, and Massa will have known he was on his inside "somewhere", and thus should have been prudent on his turn in. Herbert knows this, being an ex-driver of F1, and other classes, because at some time in his career, and certainly not only once, he will have been in Massa's shoes, with someone up his inside to the same degree as Lewis.

Whilst the following may be from the NZ Standing Regs, the general thought behind it, if not so much the exact wording, is in all reg's around the various FIA sanctioned organisations:

Any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any actions by any driver, which is considered to have had a negative effect on any competitor or competitors is not permitted and will be penalized.

These occurrences, may result in or from, but not limited to:

· The stopping of a test or qualifying session or the suspension of a race.

· Causing a false start by one or more cars;

· Causing a collision;

· Forcing a driver off the track;

· Preventing an overtaking maneuver by a driver;

· Impeding another driver during overtaking

· Causing an avoidable accident;

· Changing line to block another competitor more than once on a straight

You may ask, what's that got to do with F1, and the answer is "everything", because it is under rules of this sort that ALL drivers will have raced under on their way up to F1, right from Karting. So it is very much relevant, because the way you handle yourself on a track, or what is expected of you, does not change all of a sudden when you get to F1. This is why I was arguing with Mike that Perez can not be given a "pass" for missing the waved yellows in practise, and must be held liable just as much as Hamilton was being held by Mike for doing the same thing. These guys know the rules, so they can push them.

"Racing room" is a term not just related to Historics, and believe me when I say this, there are plenty of Historic cars from Formula Junior through to Can Am to Historic F1, still rubbing tyre walls when they are on track. If Martin Brundle doesn't mention the term "racing room" in every third race or so, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.

As for your thought of "braking hard enough to avoid the collision", on Lewis' part, I respond thus: The performance of the brakes are directly related to the adhesion of the tyres to the road, the caliper pads to the rotor, and the original inertia of the car. If you think for one minute that an F1 car, traveling about 180-200km (give or take, though seems possible for a 4th/5th gear corner), can come to an abrupt halt, for this is what would be needed in your scenario to avoid a collision, in the space of a few car lengths is preposterous. Granted modern F1 braking efficiency is almost off this planet, but no matter how good they are, they can still not break the laws of cohesion and physics. Your scenario would also imply that all accidents, even by commuter traffic on a motorway, could be avoided by "braking hard", and I think that you will know, even by just all the anecdotal evidence that you will have seen in your own life experiences, that this is not really possible.

(And for your info, I am involved in all this sort of stuff (race incidents, regulations etc) through my Co-Ordinators role for Historic Formula Ford Racing in NZ, where I have to deal with the CRO (Competitor Relations Officer), COC (Clerk of Course), Race Stewards and Marshal's whenever we have a bit too much argie-bargie in our racing.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with QO, mostly. And Pablo. It was a racing incident. I think the main thing is:

1) Massa knew he was there.

2) Lewis made an attempt to avoid the incident (by dabbing the brakes earlier) whereas Massa didn't.

Therefore I can see why Messy got a penalty; although (with the caveat that I haven't seen the extra data) I wouldn't have given a penalty to either of them.

And really, who has the "right of way" for the corner in such a situation is a matter of competing theories, like whether you believe the guy who is alongside and on the inside has more of claim or the whether the person slightly in front and on the racing line has the corner. Pick whichever theory you like but it isn't clear who really had the right to take the corner as they please, hence racing incident.

Conclusion: in Hammy's situation I wouldn't have gone for that move there against Massa, or would at least have to back out earlier. A small misjudgement I think, but points to the fact that Lewis doesn't have an overtaking dial, but more of a switch which is always on maximum attack (which as QO pointed is entertaining sure but very difficult to always maintain good judgement/not be at the mercy of others' stupidity with that approach). In Massa's situation I would have given more room, or not allowed him to put his car there in the first place and put him on the outside of the racing line where there would be no question as to whose corner it was (which points to Massa's general incompetence as a racing driver mf_tongue.gif) .

Sorry, can't resist Massa bashing! But anyway, I think that's about it.

I agree, and with the evidence on hand, it is simple really to see why Massa was penalized and not Hamilton, in this instance. The reason for the penalty being given in the first instance however, is that the stewards have been so picky over everything this year, they have backed themselves into a corner, and have to hand out the drive through's as a matter of course because of their own doing...however this is a doing in response to fan's calling for more consistent rulings, and I can't think we can argue that they are not being consistent...they are consistently penalizing!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look like it's all resolved now, as you can see from Lewis's new helmet design in my signature.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Low Pub has pointed it out, Tif, but you can clearly see Lewis alongside Massa at 6-seconds on that video clip (in fact, it even looks like he gets a nose infront). This was as they went into the braking zone (marked generally by the braking boards (150, 100, 50) on the side of the track). Whilst modern F1 c#ckpits are not great for peripheral viewing due to the high collars on the c#ckpit, Massa will have at least heard the car Lewis next to him. I think this video evidence disputes your point in response to my post regarding Lewis being alongside.

I didn't say Massa didn't know he was there. It was Hamilton's duty to control his car and avoid contact. In the video I just can't understand how can you see Hamilton next to Massa, especially after seeing clearly he hit the area just in front of his rear wheel.

In terms of F1 and the Massa penalty, it must be acknowledged that F1 (like all series/classes) have what are termed Supplementary Regulations, or Class Regulations or something along those lines. This could be sporting codes and the like. F1 has a very complicated Sporting Code. Part of that code is the Penalties section, and in this case, the rules used were those pertaining to "avoidable accidents". The stewards will have reflected on this, whilst looking at the footage, and also take into account telemetry, and the nature of the track (which I think is one of the key points, in that the next corner was a right hander, and thus Massa could have taken the left wider than normal then be back on the racing line for the following right hander...in other words, he could have avoided a collision). The other, more telling point, is that, proven by the video footage, Lewis was fully alongside, and Massa will have known he was on his inside "somewhere", and thus should have been prudent on his turn in. Herbert knows this, being an ex-driver of F1, and other classes, because at some time in his career, and certainly not only once, he will have been in Massa's shoes, with someone up his inside to the same degree as Lewis.

Whilst the following may be from the NZ Standing Regs, the general thought behind it, if not so much the exact wording, is in all reg's around the various FIA sanctioned organisations:

You may ask, what's that got to do with F1, and the answer is "everything", because it is under rules of this sort that ALL drivers will have raced under on their way up to F1, right from Karting. So it is very much relevant, because the way you handle yourself on a track, or what is expected of you, does not change all of a sudden when you get to F1. This is why I was arguing with Mike that Perez can not be given a "pass" for missing the waved yellows in practise, and must be held liable just as much as Hamilton was being held by Mike for doing the same thing. These guys know the rules, so they can push them.

"Racing room" is a term not just related to Historics, and believe me when I say this, there are plenty of Historic cars from Formula Junior through to Can Am to Historic F1, still rubbing tyre walls when they are on track. If Martin Brundle doesn't mention the term "racing room" in every third race or so, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.

So there is no such thing as an 'overlap' rule and therefore no-one can be penalized for violating it, right? Even the stewards or other commenters never used this term so I 'll just leave it at that. The reason I was a bit cynical about it was that it was passed on as 'legislation' of the sport, when in fact it isn't.

As for your thought of "braking hard enough to avoid the collision", on Lewis' part, I respond thus: The performance of the brakes are directly related to the adhesion of the tyres to the road, the caliper pads to the rotor, and the original inertia of the car. If you think for one minute that an F1 car, traveling about 180-200km (give or take, though seems possible for a 4th/5th gear corner), can come to an abrupt halt, for this is what would be needed in your scenario to avoid a collision, in the space of a few car lengths is preposterous. Granted modern F1 braking efficiency is almost off this planet, but no matter how good they are, they can still not break the laws of cohesion and physics. Your scenario would also imply that all accidents, even by commuter traffic on a motorway, could be avoided by "braking hard", and I think that you will know, even by just all the anecdotal evidence that you will have seen in your own life experiences, that this is not really possible.

What I meant was that Massa couldn't have known in the meantime between the time he last checked Hamilton's whereabouts and when they came in contact, if Hamilton had been mentally prepared for the scenario where he would have to brake, hard or not, to avoid contact. By 'braking' I mean a series of avoiding measures as a back-up when things don't go as planned. Hamilton had count on Massa taking a trip to the grassier areas perhaps, that's why his overtaking manoeuvre failed.

(And for your info, I am involved in all this sort of stuff (race incidents, regulations etc) through my Co-Ordinators role for Historic Formula Ford Racing in NZ, where I have to deal with the CRO (Competitor Relations Officer), COC (Clerk of Course), Race Stewards and Marshal's whenever we have a bit too much argie-bargie in our racing.)

I assure you I have total respect in your knowledge or expertise but we simply have different views on this. I might be a Ferrari fan, but don't mistake this as an attempt to defend Massa or anything. My problem is the way racing on track should be like. So what if Massa got a drive through? Did he lose the championship because of that or anything? My concern is about the rules that can't have been properly interpreted.

Edited by tifosi too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look like it's all resolved now, as you can see from Lewis's new helmet design in my signature.......

Ha ha!! This is absolutely fantastic!!

Excuse me for quoting Flavio but this bit from his interview was epic:

But while Button may be in Briatore's good books this week, the same cannot be said for Hamilton and Felipe Massa after their sixth clash of the season in India on Sunday.

"They make me laugh," he said. "They are like Laurel and Hardy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, I wasn't aiming it at you. You should have noticed by now that I never bother reading your posts at all. Even more so, I am only replying to your post based on what I guess you might be saying there. :P

My reply was aimed just at the generic Lewis defender.

And with regards with all the rest you said, no, I don't think that rumanian room decorators make good porn stars. I wonder where did you get that notion!

Only on Fridays and you need to use plenty of cream :whistling:

There are no Lewis defenders :lol:

You told me, after having your room decorated. Well, I think you said decorated. I'm pretty sure you said something about getting your walls prepared. In retrospect though................:eusa_think:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only on Fridays and you need to use plenty of cream :whistling:

There are no Lewis defenders :lol:

You told me, after having your room decorated. Well, I think you said decorated. I'm pretty sure you said something about getting your walls prepared. In retrospect though................:eusa_think:

I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with what you said. Quite the contrary. :eusa_think:

Back on topic. I liked Flavio's comments on both Massa vs Hammilton and Button.

On Button: "I never imagined he was so good" ("so good"? he called him a "paracarro", which means more like "no good at all" than "not so good". And I tended to agree with him :P) He is honest enough to recognize he was wrong at least. Good old honest Flavio! Wait... :eusa_think:

On Hammy vs Felipinho: "They are like Laurel & Hardy" (I can imagine Lewis saying "Can I be Stan Laurel Senna?")

Uh, oh...that's another fine mess you gotten us into...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with what you said. Quite the contrary. :eusa_think:

Back on topic. I liked Flavio's comments on both Massa vs Hammilton and Button.

On Button: "I never imagined he was so good" ("so good"? he called him a "paracarro", which means more like "no good at all" than "not so good". And I tended to agree with him :P) He is honest enough to recognize he was wrong at least. Good old honest Flavio! Wait... :eusa_think:

On Hammy vs Felipinho: "They are like Laurel & Hardy" (I can imagine Lewis saying "Can I be Stan Laurel Senna?")

Uh, oh...that's another fine mess you gotten us into...

I actually like Mark Webber's take on penalties -

If someone's had an absolute howler, then fine, give them a penalty but sometimes it might be better just to say it was one of those things - what we call in F1 "a racing incident" - and let it go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because he said something you don't agree with???

Of course not!

Idiot.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because he said something you don't agree with???

Noop because of his argued reasons. Everything in the world could be avoided except dead, back ache, be fooled by husband/wife and taxes. So next time he will give a penalty to the entire grid!!! With Johnny Giles and Arnoux were black flaged!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugly and rude, what a combination :whistling:

Oh yeah? Well...you are neither! HAH!

:eusa_think:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noop because of his argued reasons. Everything in the world could be avoided except dead, back ache, be fooled by husband/wife and taxes. So next time he will give a penalty to the entire grid!!! With Johnny Giles and Arnoux were black flaged!!!!

I would have the thought the reasoning would be the reasoning of the panel of stewards who made the decision, not necessarily of Herbert himself??

I don't know how much leeway the driver representative has once a penalty has been applied to say yes or no I agreed with the decision that the panel came to, but I would guess none. Presumably, once the decision has been made, he has to tow the corporate line and say that was what they, as a panel, agreed and that he stands by the decision. He may actually agree with it, or he may not, it's hard to say. For all we know, he may have argued against Massa getting a penalty, but got overruled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly penalty, but that's the problem when silly precedents have been set throughout the season.

I can think of at least 5 incidents this year when an unnecessary penalty was handed out. This was another.

The adjudicators need to reassess their criteria.

This.

Racing incident, with the emphasis on Racing. The stewards are justifying their jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now