Stewards Reprimand both drivers.

[6157]

Originally Posted by Matt

Still pit roads, just as many, if not more mechanics out on the track, and usually narrower overall. Oh, and there's an additional 21 cars in the race itself. If anything, shouldn't NASCAR be the one penalizing the drivers for 'dangerous releases.'

Agreed. Pretty much every NASCAR "release" would be considered a "dangerous release" in F1. Not to mention some of the entrances too.

[dsg]

Originally Posted by Matt

Still pit roads, just as many, if not more mechanics out on the track, and usually narrower overall. Oh, and there's an additional 21 cars in the race itself. If anything, shouldn't NASCAR be the one penalizing the drivers for 'dangerous releases.'

No, your right, interlocking open wheels and banging fenders always has the same result.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by dsg

No, your right, interlocking open wheels and banging fenders always has the same result.

You know 99% of the time they never touch one another.

Plus, Lewis and Alonso wouldn't have touched whels, they woulda had a sidepod to wheel collision, which doesn't do anything.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Matt

You know 99% of the time they never touch one another.

Plus, Lewis and Alonso wouldn't have touched whels, they woulda had a sidepod to wheel collision, which doesn't do anything.

Hmmm.

What happened to TGF when he and Hill got into a "sidepod to wheel collision" at roughly the same speed during the final GP of 1994?
Most likely has nothing to do with LAUNCH control, so its UP IN THE AIR, really.

Oh, I do wonder...

[Matt]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

Hmmm.

What happened to TGF when he and Hill got into a "sidepod to wheel collision" at roughly the same speed during the final GP of 1994?
Most likely has nothing to do with LAUNCH control, so its UP IN THE AIR, really.

Oh, I do wonder...

What happened to Liuzzi when he and Massa got together at the start of the race? Or Massa and Alonso at the Nürburgring in 2007, or Massa at Kubica in Japan in '07 as well?

There's a common denominator in all of those examples too, haha.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Matt

What happened to Liuzzi when he and Massa got together at the start of the race? Or Massa and Alonso at the Nürburgring in 2007, or Massa at Kubica in Japan in '07 as well?

I've no idea, as I haven't watched even one race during the '07/'08 seasons..

[hgmonaro]

the rule might be wrong (or not) but it's a rule so should be enforced consistantly. Anyone who ends up beside another competitor has not had a safe release. If there are other pit crews out servicing their car, is there room for that behaviour?

What amuses me about NASCAR pitstops is the wheel nuts going everywhere which probably get run over and spat at speed at the pit bay behind as the car takes off.

[Tourer]

Agree that NASCAR releases are generally more "out there" - it is great racing and the pit road action is wild but suits the racing in general.

There are some differences though - firstly, NASCAR crews are only allowed "over the wall" when their car is (from memory) one bay away - this means that exposed personnel in the pit road are limited in number. There is still exposure, but like I say, limited.

Secondly, all NASCAR tracks have a low wall at the back of the (much wider than most F1) pit road which the crews (& others) are required to stay behind for most of the time - in an F1 pit lane, there is no wall across garage openings so (for example) a wheel coming off a car in pit lane could enter a garage and directly impact personnel.

Lastly, NASCAR does not have the "prat perches" right there next to the cars out in the faster lane - they are behind the wall in NASCAR and the personnel on them are facing the direction of any likely danger whereas in F1 the personnel in the prat perches often have their back to pit lane.

I love NASCAR racing - (someone suggested earlier that they wouldn't watch it - that person is missing out) but it is very different from F1 as is the physical construction of the pit lanes for each type of racing.

Allowing F1 cars to effectively race (at pit lane speed limited pace of course) in pit lane is extremely short sighted in my view. Even at the lower speeds, there are too many exposed bodies in that environment for the racing to go on - the stewards or controlling body need to harden the hell up and do something about it. No need to hang drivers - just give everyone fair warning and stop it now before it gets out of control and people get hurt or worse.

[MillRat]

I am with the unsafe release crowd here. Okay, so ultimately nothing happened, however there was a real potential for one, or both of those cars to end up on the pit wall and/or into a group of mechanics. If that had happened, then this would be a very different argument.

My understanding is that the new pit release ruling is clear cut however, as has happened on several occasions thoughout Hamilton's short career, such an infraction has been... overlooked.

I also have to say that I am amazed Schuy was not penalised for his defence against Massa late in the race. With the current F1 rules, the cars are very flimsy, and do not take kindly to bumper cars style racing. As such, the FIA has to give drivers the confidence to pass, and not feel the defending driver will punt them into the tyres.

Also, I am surprised by some of the comments stating that two F1 cars getting into the side of each other is okay, because they don't always get launched. An analogy to that would to be to fire a gun blind folded because you won't always shoot someone. What happens when a car does get launched...? People can die (Monza 2000, Melbourne 2001)

My 2 cents.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Tourer

No need to hang drivers - just give everyone fair warning and stop it now before it gets out of control and people get hurt or worse.

That is the nub of the gist.

[Kempi]

I also have to say that I am amazed Schuy was not penalised for his defence against Massa late in the race.

Schuey defended like most drivers did: Shut down the inside and then moved back out a little for the actual turn in. Massa simply was surprised he also had to brake earlier due to the shot tires. Massa should simply have waited and taken him at the exit. There was nothing to penalise.

[JamesH]

Seems to be some blame going to Hamilton for this 'unsafe' release. Pretty sure he cannot be blamed for the release itself as he cannot see anything in those daft little mirrors - he has to rely on the lollipop man!!

Not sure what to say about the side by side stuff. Braking/backing off and slotting in behind whilst still in the pit area also has its own risks, whereas just cruising at 65mph or whatever down both lanes of the pits where cars are expected to be, doesn't seem overly hazardous. In this case, they simple ran parallel to each other down the lane - not racing until the speed limiter line was reached (Unlike the Vettel incident) - at which point LH obviously knew he was going to have to slot in behind so did so, not having got any advantage.

[johnh875]

Given the thread title, I find it strange that no action has been taken against Hamilton at least for repeating the behaviour for which he had previously been reprimanded!

I agree the release wasn't unsafe as they were close enough to simultaneous, the key thing = one lane, one car not two (okay there are two lanes, the second is where the cars are worked on). The blue bit in the middle is to create the room to deal with release situations as in this case.

Finally what is the difference between Hamilton dropping in behind at the end of pit lane or immediately he sees that Alonso has got the jump on him?

[pannenmann]

With all that high tech going on in F1 I wonder why you can't have a system that detects when a car is coming up from behind and switches some red lights on for all other pitting cars that would otherwise have an unsafe release. Because I see no way this can be avoided, as for example in Hamilton's case it was way to too close for a human to judge if Ham could've made it or not. And let's be honest, in F1 when they think there is the possibility that it might work out for their advantage, they will try it. Hadn't they released Hamilton, they would have been criticized for it - both the public and Hamilton.

[wnut]

Stewards once again fail to deal with penalty involving Hamilton correctly!

Are the stewards biased?

Quote

"An irate Fernando Alonso hit out at race stewards for creating what he called an “unreal and unfair” result in the European Grand Prix over the time they took to issue Lewis Hamilton with his drive-through penalty."

from: http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=48721

20 laps to deal with an obvious video incident of Hamilton overtaking the safety car under yellow!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Stewards once again fail to deal with penalty involving Hamilton correctly!

Are the stewards biased?

Quote

"An irate Fernando Alonso hit out at race stewards for creating what he called an “unreal and unfair” result in the European Grand Prix over the time they took to issue Lewis Hamilton with his drive-through penalty."

from: http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=48721

20 laps to deal with an obvious video incident of Hamilton overtaking the safety car under yellow!

As much as I hate this sort of thing, which is becoming more and more prevalent in F1, Alonso does have a point. There needs to be consistency in F1, when it comes to meeting out these penalties.

[broadrun96]

It's step in the right direction with the ex-driver consulting in the steward's room but would really like to see an official F1 steward. I know they like to have home country FIA officials as the stewards but wouldn't it be better to have maybe 2 at each event from a pool of 5 FIA reps. It could add a little stability and they would have knowledge about the debates about penalties at other races.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

It's step in the right direction with the ex-driver consulting in the steward's room but would really like to see an official F1 steward. I know they like to have home country FIA officials as the stewards but wouldn't it be better to have maybe 2 at each event from a pool of 5 FIA reps. It could add a little stability and they would have knowledge about the debates about penalties at other races.

The only problem at the moment, with ex-F1 drivers as stewards, is they are more like observers, without the real clout of the FIA officials; this was highlighted by Damion Hill in regards to the Shumy/Alonso and the safety car incident at Monaco.

[pannenmann]

Originally Posted by wnut

Stewards once again fail to deal with penalty involving Hamilton correctly!

Are the stewards biased?

Quote

"An irate Fernando Alonso hit out at race stewards for creating what he called an “unreal and unfair” result in the European Grand Prix over the time they took to issue Lewis Hamilton with his drive-through penalty."

from: http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=48721

20 laps to deal with an obvious video incident of Hamilton overtaking the safety car under yellow!

Although the time needed to come to a decision doesn't imply that they did something fishy per se as you probably imply. They just seem real damn slow even on the most obvious things, I noticed this quite often. But as it has shown that they don't either know, understand or care about their own rules, it's not really that suprising. Gambling takes its time...
But I still don't get why they didn't wait for the race leader when deploying the SC. Isn't this the usual approach?

I'm not really convinced that the situation got better with the ex-drivers being advisors. Seems like the FIA acts more random than ever, and is probably using that whole advisor-thing as an justifaction to go lunatic. As in "Hey look, Frentzen was with us, so we can't be wrong.".

[Adam43]

It is annoyingly inconsistent. None of the incidents have been the same. Outrageous. Why can't these drivers do things wrong in a consistent manner?

I think they should have an F1 steward present in every car.

[pannenmann]

That's not the issue, duh. Take the 5sec penality for example: They pick out a rather unimportant rule that the drivers seemingly couldn't follow in that case as it seems. So they stick very closely to the written word. Yet the impose a penality that is not possibly by the rules. Not even remotely. So you either go with a close interpretation of the rules, then the 5secs wouldn't be possible. Or you go with a rather lose interpretation, then nobody should have been punished at all.

Now remember this one: When Schumi overtook after the SC restart, he got a severe penality. Schumi interpreted the rules very closely to written word and FIA interpreted them according to their intent. FIA said they had no other option for another punishment as everythings specified within the rules. Yet now suddenly there are other punishments available?

They switch their view on the valid interpretation of rules as they wish, total random. And now they even break clearly their own rules. Would you really call that consistent?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by pannenmann

That's not the issue, duh. Take the 5sec penality for example: They pick out a rather unimportant rule that the drivers seemingly couldn't follow in that case as it seems. So they stick very closely to the written word. Yet the impose a penality that is not possibly by the rules. Not even remotely. So you either go with a close interpretation of the rules, then the 5secs wouldn't be possible. Or you go with a rather lose interpretation, then nobody should have been punished at all.

Now remember this one: When Schumi overtook after the SC restart, he got a severe penality. Schumi interpreted the rules very closely to written word and FIA interpreted them according to their intent. FIA said they had no other option for another punishment as everythings specified within the rules. Yet now suddenly there are other punishments available?

They switch their view on the valid interpretation of rules as they wish, total random. And now they even break clearly their own rules. Would you really call that consistent?

Arbitrary would also be appropriate.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It is annoyingly inconsistent. None of the incidents have been the same. Outrageous. Why can't these drivers do things wrong in a consistent manner?

I think they should have an F1 steward present in every car.

The doctor is in the house....
That is a great idea I think the idea of inconsistent racing is pure rubbish..

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

The doctor is in the house....
That is a great idea I think the idea of inconsistent racing is pure rubbish..

Well, you can figure that inconsistent racing has a clear pattern...

[pannenmann]

Even when we forget about their strange and ever changing interpretation of the rules, I think there's quite an issue evolving this year. I find it quite strange why Hamilton only got a drive through instead of a stop-n-go. Overtaking the SC is not a minor issue. Did they want to make up their mistake of Monaco? It seems like the FIA indeed does not really care about the marshals. Schumi got a severe punishment when he overtook the SC although nobody could've been put in danger by his "mistake". Now Hamilton's overtaking and the speeding of several drivers under yellow/SC isn't punished that hard. Although both was could lead to very dangerous sitation in track involving the marshals or crashed drivers. Maybe they only dish out punishments whenever a (popular) car/driver has a disadavantage that everbody can see on screen, but they don't care whenever smth happens that the public doesn't really care about either.
If that's true, that might be a dangerous tendency indeed. The purpose of the whole regulations should be to ensure the safety on track foremost, not to put up a great show.