Mmmmh....

[Quiet One 15]

Chapter III - 6.1 "If a car stops" - Appendix "H" to the FIA Sports Code:

"...In such cases other means, such as breakdown vehicles, cranes, etc should not be brought into action until the driver has made it clear that he will not continue"

*******************************

So...

[pumpdoc 2]

Chapter III - 6.1 "If a car stops" - Appendix "H" to the FIA Sports Code:

"...In such cases other means, such as breakdown vehicles, cranes, etc should not be brought into action until the driver has made it clear that he will not continue"

*******************************

So...

You don't think it was because of McLaren and MB Bugger all...............

[aussief1 4]

Great minds think alike, Bruce and Andres.

Two threads about the same thing created 6 minutes apart.

[AleHop 0]

No one is going to stop the engine and leave the car in the near future until it is clear what the standard procedure is.

FIA could spread cranes all over the place, driver could get off the car take the crane put his car back on track and go back to F1 racing.

[Halfie 0]

The reason is that a car may receive assistance to be placed back onto the track if it is deemed to be in a dangerous position. i.e. there is no point having Marshals on the track for a healthy car with the engine running to be retired as they push it back if they can run out, push it out and clear the problem. It is in the rules if a car is in a dangerous position then it can be placed back onto the track and continue.

Schumacher knew this before and received help from marshals, in 1997 when he hit Villeneuve out he tried to do the samething then. However the marshals refused after seeing what he did.

[pumpdoc 2]

The reason is that a car may receive assistance to be placed back onto the track if it is deemed to be in a dangerous position. i.e. there is no point having Marshals on the track for a healthy car with the engine running to be retired as they push it back if they can run out, push it out and clear the problem. It is in the rules if a car is in a dangerous position then it can be placed back onto the track and continue.

Schumacher knew this before and received help from marshals, in 1997 when he hit Villeneuve out he tried to do the samething then. However the marshals refused after seeing what he did.

Has no bearing, Hammy like the others was against the tire wall, think!!!

[Halfie 0]

Has no bearing, Hammy like the others was against the tire wall, think!!!

FIA said it was legal http://www.totalf1.com/view-article.php?newsid=218918

So therefore he did nothing wrong, perhaps he was the only one to keep the engine running, I doubt the other cars could last that long. Whats even more incredible is that the engine survived (it was a 2nd race engine) had that huge shunt in qualifying and ticked over for 2 to 3 minutes and didnt give up. Obviously very reliable.

[aussief1 4]

The reason is that a car may receive assistance to be placed back onto the track if it is deemed to be in a dangerous position. i.e. there is no point having Marshals on the track for a healthy car with the engine running to be retired as they push it back if they can run out, push it out and clear the problem. It is in the rules if a car is in a dangerous position then it can be placed back onto the track and continue.

Schumacher knew this before and received help from marshals, in 1997 when he hit Villeneuve out he tried to do the samething then. However the marshals refused after seeing what he did.

MS tried they same thing at the Australian GP in 2005 when he collided with NH. He was sitting there waving his hands in the motion to the marshals like please help me. They did but he retired due to the damage after the collision.

Has no bearing, Hammy like the others was against the tire wall, think!!!

He just touched the wall very lightly.

[Max Mosley 2]

You don't think it was because of McLaren and MB Bugger all...............

Surely not?

[Quiet One 15]

FIA said it was legal http://www.totalf1.com/view-article.php?newsid=218918

So therefore he did nothing wrong, perhaps he was the only one to keep the engine running, I doubt the other cars could last that long. Whats even more incredible is that the engine survived (it was a 2nd race engine) had that huge shunt in qualifying and ticked over for 2 to 3 minutes and didnt give up. Obviously very reliable.

www.formula1.com does not say anything about it...interesting, being the "official site." I quoted a paragraph of FIA's own Code. It clearly states that cranes cannot be put into action UNLESS the driver expresses his will not to continue the race. If he wanted to continue the race, then no crane should have been used. Note that this is not appliable in Schumi's case, as there was no crane involved. I am not objecting the help itself, but the means used. Maybe there is some other part of the code and/or regulations that allow this exception. I couldn't find it.

[AleHop 0]

Do you remember Suzuka 1989.

Senna won the race but he was disqualifyed.

Next year was fed up about FIA's decisions

It reminds me Alonso last year when FIA penalized him after Massa's complaints.

[Kay 0]

It's not against the rules, but in my opinion that doesn't stop it from being wrong. Endangering several marshals' life and injury to other drivers for the sake of returning a car to the track adds to the danger; not take away.

[Quiet One 15]

It's not against the rules, but in my opinion that doesn't stop it from being wrong. Endangering several marshals' life and injury to other drivers for the sake of returning a car to the track adds to the danger; not take away.

Why is it not against the rules?

[Jem of the Shire 0]

It reminds me Alonso last year when FIA penalized him after Massa's complaints.

Where is the similarity? By the way Massa didnt make any complaints. It was the race stewards who decided Alonso held up Massa

It's not against the rules, but in my opinion that doesn't stop it from being wrong. Endangering several marshals' life and injury to other drivers for the sake of returning a car to the track adds to the danger; not take away.

I dont think anyone endangered the marhalls' lives, they went straight onto the gravel trap in their tractor, no-one forced them, they could've stayed behind their barrier if they felt unsafe, so they were endangering themselves

[Jem of the Shire 0]

Why is it not against the rules?

The reason its not against the rules is because if a car is in a dangerous position, marshalls are allowed to push the car back onto the track to rejoin the race (for safety reasons). Hamiltons car wasnt really in a dangerous place but you're still allowed to be brought back onto the track!

[Kay 0]

Why is it not against the rules?

Because nothing that they did breaks any rules that aren't covered anywhere else for circumstances i.e. Hamilton's car was viewed in a 'dangerous' position and then you can remove the car with the means necessary. Unfortunately the rules do not protect the marhalls.

[Kay 0]

I dont think anyone endangered the marhalls' lives, they went straight onto the gravel trap in their tractor, no-one forced them, they could've stayed behind their barrier if they felt unsafe, so they were endangering themselves

Did I say a particular person did? No. I'm talking about the rules endangering their lives because they do. They make reference to a car being in a dangerous position without any thought to what risk they are then putting the marhsalls under.

[Quiet One 15]

The reason its not against the rules is because if a car is in a dangerous position, marshalls are allowed to push the car back onto the track to rejoin the race (for safety reasons). Hamiltons car wasnt really in a dangerous place but you're still allowed to be brought back onto the track!

Read my first post!!! It says that cranes cannot be used to put the car back into race!

If the marshalls had pushed him by hand, you would be right. But they used a crane.

And yes, you are right: nobody forced the marshalls. This was their decision and they are to blame for breaking the rules.

[Kay 0]

Read my first post!!! It says that cranes cannot be used to put the car back into race!

If the marshalls had pushed him by hand, you would be right. But they used a crane.

And yes, you are right: nobody forced the marshalls. This was their decision and they are to blame for breaking the rules.

Read the rule about being in a dangerous position.

[Jean Todt 4]

Has no bearing, Hammy like the others was against the tire wall, think!!!

Some of the cars parked there already had few things damaged.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

Read my first post!!! It says that cranes cannot be used to put the car back into race!

If the marshalls had pushed him by hand, you would be right. But they used a crane.

And yes, you are right: nobody forced the marshalls. This was their decision and they are to blame for breaking the rules.

But that cant be right, otherwise Hamilton would've been disqualified. But he has received no punishment, in fact FIA dont appear to have even mentioned it

[AleHop 0]

Where is the similarity?

Because of public complaints about a FIA decission.

By the way Massa didnt make any complaints. It was the race stewards who decided Alonso held up Massa

How can the race stewards penalize Alonso if Massa had said everything was ok. One way or the other it was something dirty, dirty, dirty...

[Quiet One 15]

Read the rule about being in a dangerous position.

The only thing I found was right before the crane phrase, where it says (I am paraphrasing as I am now at work and don't have the regulations at hand) that marshalls can do whatever they deem necessary to ensure that safety is not compromised in their sector. However, as the crane phrase comes right after that, I get the impression that cranes are expressely not included in the first paragraph.

I guess the FIA will find a way to explain that contradiction (I don't believe I am smarter than the FIA, after all) but it surely would not sound too convincing.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

Because of public complaints about a FIA decission.

How can the race stewards penalize Alonso if Massa had said everything was ok. One way or the other it was something dirty, dirty, dirty...

Marshalls rescuing Hamilton was not an FIA decision!!! Please explain.

Alonso was penalised at Monza without Massa being asked anything. He didnt make any complaints at all, I politely advise you to look up the subject on an F1 website or something, you will see!

[AleHop 0]

Marshalls rescuing Hamilton was not an FIA decision!!! Please explain.

Alonso was penalised at Monza without Massa being asked anything. He didnt make any complaints at all, I politely advise you to look up the subject on an F1 website or something, you will see!

FIA now says it was all legal according to their rules. Please explain! Next GP race drivers won't leave their cars until a crane put them back on track. Then we'll see if law is same for everyone.

If Massa did not complain at all it would be even mor dirty penalty for Alonso... But marshals asked Massa and he complained about that. There is only on person that could know wether Alonso was blocking him or not and it was only Massa.