[Driver] The TGF thread

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by garcon

Schumacher admitted fault, but in the quotes above he didn't actually say he deserved the penalty.

He said it here: http://www.formula1.com/news/headlin...1/7/12291.html

It was right to get a penalty but why it had to be a stop-go, and not a drive-through penalty, I would like to understand better as I felt it was too hard.

Davyboy, you say several good things in your post, but personally I would take a few of your points up with you.

Originally Posted by davyboy

his race nous is as good as any on today's grid. His starts are amazing and he regularly seems to be able to haul himself from mid-lower grid positions to the top 5-7 in the first few turns.

Some of his race nous is good (the bits you mentioned). But he is questionable in wheel-to-wheel combat: too much driving without a front wing. This is not something that could be defended as due to his age either, because he was like this even when he was at Ferrari.

Originally Posted by davyboy

He comes across very relaxed and jovial before during and after the races. The steely edged determination of old is no long there. Schumacher is clearly enjoying what he's doing and that's the main reason he's there.

I've felt this. He does the Moto GP wave and kiss to the camera when he's waiting in the garage and the intensity does seem to have gone somewhat, which must be nice for him because he can get on with doing it without the same stress as before.

Originally Posted by davyboy

I think his presence on the grid should be embraced.

Personally, I agree. I do embrace it. I was excited to see him again at Silverstone and at Spa last year. I'm also glad to see his recent improvement.

Originally Posted by davyboy

This is a commonly held view, which is naive to say the least.

It might have been Michael who was naive, because he was the one who came back expecting to have a personal performance that would enable him to win, which he hasn't shown yet. The stuff about him not being the guy he was before was not mentioned by him or Mercedes when he came back. He is willing and able to be an F1 driver, but hasn't shown he is able to be one of the best (anymore). Is that able enough?- that's the question.

Nevertheless, the timing of my last remark is not the best, because he is at last showing signs of improvement. I hope he sticks around, stops sticking his front wing into places it won't go and sticks it to the critics like me!
So while he's still willing and able to do it.

[Marbot]

Unfortunately for Schumacher, the lowest penalty available was a ten second stop and go.

[garcon]

Ah, fair enough.

[Paradise City]

Schumacher shouldn't have got a penalty for his latest accident. There never used to be so many penalties. It's become ridiculous at this point.

You should not get a penalty for a simple mistake. You should get one for gross negligence - yes. Just a mistake - no.

Mansell did a good job stewarding. He's very level headed when he's not talking about himself. I don't fault the stewards at the track. New guidlines need to be drawn up at a higher level as to what merits a penalty and it should be a worse offense than a mere mistake.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

You should not get a penalty for a simple mistake. You should get one for gross negligence - yes. Just a mistake - no.

Hmm. Not sure, think it depends on what results from the mistake. In this case MS took another driver completely out of the race. Which I think in this case deserves some sort of penalty, because the mistake was rather elementary.

If they had just bounced off each other, MS had lost his wing but KK kept going, then perhaps no penalty would be necessary. Much like the LH/FM incident perhaps.

This is where the views of the stewards can be subjective and different from race to race, and yet still be correct.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

New guidlines need to be drawn up at a higher level as to what merits a penalty and it should be a worse offense than a mere mistake.

Since Schumacher said that he deserved a penalty, I can't see what the problem is.

Sometimes you have to give a penalty to a driver just for being a plonker.

If they only handed out penalties for "gross negligence", there aren't going to be too many cars left running at the end of a race.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by JamesH

If they had just bounced off each other, MS had lost his wing but KK kept going, then perhaps no penalty would be necessary. Much like the LH/FM incident perhaps.

This is where the views of the stewards can be subjective and different from race to race, and yet still be correct.

But when is it going to get to the point where drivers are less willing to have a go because they think "sod it, it risks a penalty"? We had them less willing in the refuelling era. At least we don't have that now.

Originally Posted by Marbot

If they only handed out penalties for "gross negligence", there aren't going to be too many cars left running at the end of a race.

With respect, that's rubbish. That was never the case in the pre-penalty era. Drivers aren't just going to suddenly think they're in the BTCC (plenty of plonkerish driving in that).

Originally Posted by Marbot

Since Schumacher said that he deserved a penalty, I can't see what the problem is.

Post-race comment PRish diplomacy perhaps. Even if Schumacher himself said it, it doesn't necessarily mean he's right.

[Marbot]

The regulations were recently changed at the end of June.

PENALTIES

16.3 The stewards may impose any one of the penalties below on any driver involved in an Incident :
a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping.
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
If either of the two penalties above are imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article
16.4b) below will not apply and 20 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned
in the case of a) above and 30 seconds in the case of b).
c) A time penalty.
d) A reprimand.
If any of the four penalties above are imposed they shall not be subject to appeal.
e) A drop of any number of grid positions at the driver’s next Event.
f) Exclusion from the results.
g) Suspension from the driver’s next Event

WHAT YOU COULD GET ONE FOR


20) DRIVING
20.1 The driver must drive the car alone and unaided.
20.2 Manoeuvres likely to hinder other drivers, such as more than one change of direction to defend a position, deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted.
20.3 Drivers must use the track at all times. For the avoidance of doubt the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not. A driver will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with the track.
Should a car leave the track for any reason the driver may rejoin. However, this may only be done when it
is safe to do so and without gaining any advantage.
20.4 As soon as a car is caught by another car which is about to lap it during the race the driver must allow the faster driver past at the first available opportunity. If the driver who has been caught does not allow the faster driver past, waved blue flags will be shown to indicate that he must allow the following driver to overtake. Any driver who is deemed to be ignoring the waved blue flags will be reported to the stewards of the meeting.

Schumacher definitely hindered a driver. Hamilton did not, nor did he crowd Massa beyond the edge of the track (all four wheels off it).

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by JamesH

If they had just bounced off each other, MS had lost his wing but KK kept going, then perhaps no penalty would be necessary. Much like the LH/FM incident perhaps.

Hhhmmm... so the penalty's made on the effect of the infringement rather than the cause ?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Hhhmmm... so the penalty's made on the effect of the infringement rather than the cause ?

Looking at the regulations, it certainly seems that way.

There's also a 'cover all' regulation.

30.13 At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person. This will apply whether any such car is being driven on the track, the pit entry or the pit lane.

Did I forget to mention:

18.2 Any driver who receives three reprimands in the same Championship season will, upon the imposition of
the third, be given a ten grid place penalty at that Event. If the third reprimand is imposed following an
Incident during a race the ten grid place penalty will be applied at the driver’s next Event.
The ten grid place penalty will only be imposed if at least two of the reprimands were imposed for a driving
infringement.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

I know the apologists will say he is there because he is enjoying it. Fine, but in that case perhaps he should be paying Mercedes rather than the other way round.

Apparently he is on a relatively low wage. Lower than many and much lower than he was before. He does also still return on that wage, even if it isn't lap times. He is doing what you say, it is just that it is a different relative scale.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Apparently he is on a relatively low wage. Lower than many and much lower than he was before. He does also still return on that wage, even if it isn't lap times. He is doing what you say, it is just that it is a different relative scale.

Well Michael does not need the money let's face it...

He has pride and I am sure he will knock it on the head if he feels he can help Mercedes no further..

He is a lateral thinker, brilliant driver really...

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Hmm. Not sure, think it depends on what results from the mistake. In this case MS took another driver completely out of the race. Which I think in this case deserves some sort of penalty, because the mistake was rather elementary.

If they had just bounced off each other, MS had lost his wing but KK kept going, then perhaps no penalty would be necessary. Much like the LH/FM incident perhaps.

This is where the views of the stewards can be subjective and different from race to race, and yet still be correct.

I disagree. I don't think the stewards have any business regulating standard mistakes regardless of who's damaged. For me that's a normal part of the fortunes of battle. A penalty rarely really addresses much anyway. It's not much of a deterent and stewards that are too trigger happy will have their authority eroded in the long run.

The stewards should only intervene if it's a gross mistake or wilful conduct unbecoming of a driver. I think Barrichello nearly being driven into the wall in Hungary last year by MS might be such a circumstance where you would assess a penalty of some kind.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Hmm. Not sure, think it depends on what results from the mistake. In this case MS took another driver completely out of the race. Which I think in this case deserves some sort of penalty, because the mistake was rather elementary.

If they had just bounced off each other, MS had lost his wing but KK kept going, then perhaps no penalty would be necessary. Much like the LH/FM incident perhaps.

This is where the views of the stewards can be subjective and different from race to race, and yet still be correct.

If Schumacher received a penalty for dropping it into Kobayashi, who did keep going after the incident, then I fail to see how Hamilton wasn't treated in the same way. To me it was a deliberate punt. "There was no way I was going to let him (Massa) keep the place."

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Since Schumacher said that he deserved a penalty, I can't see what the problem is.

Sometimes you have to give a penalty to a driver just for being a plonker.

If they only handed out penalties for "gross negligence", there aren't going to be too many cars left running at the end of a race.

During every race there's two or three 'court dramas' on the go. That's not right. F1 is what I switched on not the latest episode of Judge Judy. There's all the initialled gizmos and activation zones that we have to keep an eye on.

The sporting rules are becoming too complex and are threatening to replace the drama of sport with the drama of intrigue. I don't watch an F1 race to see intrigue during the racing itself. There's a surplus of that off the track.

Along with overtaking that's becoming too cheap this will hurt the sport in the long run. Hamilton may have a point.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Hamilton may have a point.

I've forgotten what it was now. But he keeps wittering on about something that Senna once said, but doesn't seem to realise that Senna said it in a different context.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Hmm. Not sure, think it depends on what results from the mistake. In this case MS took another driver completely out of the race. Which I think in this case deserves some sort of penalty, because the mistake was rather elementary.

If they had just bounced off each other, MS had lost his wing but KK kept going, then perhaps no penalty would be necessary. Much like the LH/FM incident perhaps.

This is where the views of the stewards can be subjective and different from race to race, and yet still be correct.

I fail to see how you believe Schumacher should be penalised for dropping it and bumping Koba, who he bumped on lap 9 and Koba retired on Lap 23.
Hamilton on the other hand punted Massa on the final lap.
"There was no way I was going to let him have the place."
"My brakes had cooled and faded and I was unable to pull it up in time."

How do you distinguish one as deserving a penalty and the other not?
In my book the one is guilty of a mistake and Hamilton's efforts look completely deliberate and gained him a place!

Interstingly the FIA lap chart does not even deign to recognise the contact though there was certainly plenty of body damage to both cars!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by wnut

I fail to see how you believe Schumacher should be penalised for dropping it and bumping Koba, who he bumped on lap 9 and Koba retired on Lap 23.
Hamilton on the other hand punted Massa on the final lap.
"There was no way I was going to let him have the place."
"My brakes had cooled and faded and I was unable to pull it up in time."

Interstingly the FIA lap chart does not even deign to recognise the contact though there was certainly plenty of body damage to both cars!

Kobayashi was spun around by Schumacher. Massa was not spun around by Hamilton. Kobayashi retired later in the race due to an oil leak at the rear of the car that was probably caused by contact with another car. Massa, on the other hand, made it to the finish.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Kobayashi was spun around by Schumacher. Massa was not spun around by Hamilton. Kobayashi retired later in the race due to an oil leak at the rear of the car that was probably caused by contact with another car. Massa, on the other hand, made it to the finish.

Or a ban on cold air blowing..

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Or a ban on cold air blowing..

Probably caused by a Butterfly beating its wings on the other side of the planet.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Kobayashi was spun around by Schumacher. Massa was not spun around by Hamilton. Kobayashi retired later in the race due to an oil leak at the rear of the car that was probably caused by contact with another car. Massa, on the other hand, made it to the finish.

Great stewarding then, bearing in mind the Schumacher contact occurred on Lap 9; Kobayashi lost 1 place; and he served his penaly on Lap 12.
Koba did a change to slicks on lap 12; responding to the purples set by Schumacher following a new wing and change to slicks; and retired due to an oil leak on lap 23.

Now thats what I like from stewards - accurate ability to predict the future - marvellous boys just marvellous!