Australian Grand Prix 2018: Grand Prix Weekend Thread

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by E.B

For not slowing enough I think you will find. (Although he did slow significantly it was not for long enough and he was under the minim time delta)

Cheers E.B. I read that report wrong. Such a shame that once again the penalty does not fit the crime. FFS it was a practice session and the issue was on the start finish line. No where near where DR was, or was going towards! And it's just not a 3 place grid penalty but 2 penalty points as well!


100% agree with Ted Kravitz...

Ted Kravitz: Talk about not seeing the bigger picture: The red flag was for a loose wire on the start line, not a crash, and Ricciardo wasn’t going to drive over it anyway as was coming into pits. Disproportionate 3 place grid penalty that could take home driver out of contention for race win.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

100% agree with Ted Kravitz...

Ted Kravitz: Talk about not seeing the bigger picture: The red flag was for a loose wire on the start line, not a crash, and Ricciardo wasn’t going to drive over it anyway as was coming into pits. Disproportionate 3 place grid penalty that could take home driver out of contention for race win.

Once more conspiring to keep an Aussie of the podium of a Championship Aussie GP. (Danny did become the first but was DSQd for fuel flow meter irregularities. )
Webber never got closer than his 5th place Minardi AGP debut. Actually that is wrong, he did once get a 4th I think. Our Aussie WDCs preceded the championship status of the event.(Unless you include Jones in the Beatrice in the first Championship race)

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Cheers E.B. I read that report wrong. Such a shame that once again the penalty does not fit the crime. FFS it was a practice session and the issue was on the start finish line. No where near where DR was, or was going towards! And it's just not a 3 place grid penalty but 2 penalty points as well!


100% agree with Ted Kravitz...

Ted Kravitz: Talk about not seeing the bigger picture: The red flag was for a loose wire on the start line, not a crash, and Ricciardo wasn’t going to drive over it anyway as was coming into pits. Disproportionate 3 place grid penalty that could take home driver out of contention for race win.

On this occasion, I feel the stewards were exactly right. The rules are pretty clear, and this was an obvious breach of them.
It shouldn't matter where or how it happened - if it broke the rules it broke the rules.

If a Red Flag is issued, I don't think we should be bringing in extra checks for a driver over 'how bad is it?', 'where did it happen?', 'what is the flag for?' etc. All the driver(s) need to know is that there is a Red Flag, and they have certain requirements they have to follow in response.

The stewards took the circumstances into consideration, and were lenient in the punishment issued. I'm not sure why the incident being in FP, Q or R should make a difference? Or even whether they are a home driver or not?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by E.B

Once more conspiring to keep an Aussie of the podium of a Championship Aussie GP.

The fault here was made by the Aussie though - so we have an Aussie conspiring to keep himself off the podium!

'Ricciardo "admitted an error in reading his dash and was slightly below the minimum time".'

[E.B]

The stewards also pointed out that he had slowed considerably.

“The Stewards also found that Ricciardo slowed by as much as 175km/h from his fast times at Turn 12 and was consistently and significantly slower in the final three turns, indicating that he was fully complying with the requirements of Appendix H of the International Sporting Code.

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by E.B

Once more conspiring to keep an Aussie of the podium of a Championship Aussie GP. (Danny did become the first but was DSQd for fuel flow meter irregularities.)

Yep, he hasn't had the best luck at his home race that's for sure.

2012 - 9th. 2013 - DNF (no fault of his). 2014 (2nd but DQ'd. No fault of his). 2015 - 6th. 2016 - 4th. 2017 - DNF (no fault of his).

He was hoping for a better luck this year.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

On this occasion, I feel the stewards were exactly right. The rules are pretty clear, and this was an obvious breach of them.
It shouldn't matter where or how it happened - if it broke the rules it broke the rules.

If a Red Flag is issued, I don't think we should be bringing in extra checks for a driver over 'how bad is it?', 'where did it happen?', 'what is the flag for?' etc. All the driver(s) need to know is that there is a Red Flag, and they have certain requirements they have to follow in response.

The stewards took the circumstances into consideration, and were lenient in the punishment issued. I'm not sure why the incident being in FP, Q or R should make a difference? Or even whether they are a home driver or not?

If those are the rules, then those are the rules but I think a 3 place grid penalty is disproportionate. This after all is a practice session and it's not as if Ricciardo was trying to gain some sort of advantage.

I really think F1 needs to review the whole business of grid penalties because quite frankly, they seem to be handed out too frequently and subsequently detract from the sport. Why not a fine instead?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If those are the rules, then those are the rules but I think a 3 place grid penalty is disproportionate. This after all is a practice session and it's not as if Ricciardo was trying to gain some sort of advantage.

I really think F1 needs to review the whole business of grid penalties because quite frankly, they seem to be handed out too frequently and subsequently detract from the sport. Why not a fine instead?

I tend to agree - it appears that the rule he transgressed was new this year but presumably there has been behaviour that has led to the rule being introduced.

Over the top penalty is what if feels like and probably another one of the myriad grid penalty infringements that should be reviewed.

[Mike Harte]

I would like to believe that my understanding of the English language is fairly decent. Therefore, when it says: 'Ricciardo did in fact fail to stay above the minimum time set by the FIA CPU', I take it to mean that he was travelling too slowly.

Either that, or the meanings of the language changed whilst I was asleep last night.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I would like to believe that my understanding of the English language is fairly decent. Therefore, when it says: 'Ricciardo did in fact fail to stay above the minimum time set by the FIA CPU', I take it to mean that he was travelling too slowly.

Either that, or the meanings of the language changed whilst I was asleep last night.

It's a bit confusing the way the article is written - it refers to minimum time, not minimum speed. By staying below the minimum time, he is travelling at a higher average speed through the specified distance.

So if the minimum time was 20 seconds, travelling the same distance (above the minimum time) in 22 seconds would generate a lower average speed in that zone.

He got pinged for going through the zone below the minimum time, so at a higher speed than was wanted.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I would like to believe that my understanding of the English language is fairly decent. Therefore, when it says: 'Ricciardo did in fact fail to stay above the minimum time set by the FIA CPU', I take it to mean that he was travelling too slowly.

Either that, or the meanings of the language changed whilst I was asleep last night.

In this case, it is the understanding of Speed, Distance, Time.

The distance is constant (the length of the sector I presume) so the higher the time, the lower the speed.

Theoretical example:

Sector - 1km
Minimum time - 1 minute

Travelling at 60 kph, time to travel through sector = 1 minute
Travelling at 55kph, time to travel through sector = 1minute, 5.45seconds (slower speed, above the time)
Travelling at 65kph, time to travel through sector = 55.38seconds (higher speed, lower time)

So in Ricciardo's case - the time he took to travel through the measure distance was too little, so he must have been speeding.

[S griffin]

I feel this one will run and run, hope Ricciardo can recover in the race

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I would like to believe that my understanding of the English language is fairly decent. Therefore, when it says: 'Ricciardo did in fact fail to stay above the minimum time set by the FIA CPU', I take it to mean that he was travelling too slowly.

Either that, or the meanings of the language changed whilst I was asleep last night.

Agreed, that was my first thought. The whole thing is rubbish and no wonder people are turning off in droves, here we have a contender for the race win penalised in a free practice sessionsfor what the stewards said ""However, in this case, the stewards thoroughly reviewed the breach and found that the driver slowed significantly, such that no danger was created, and that the driver proceeded with due care."

Liberty must have their head in their hands..

[bjohnsonsmith]

Is this the first time a driver has been given a grid penalty in a free practice session?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Agreed, that was my first thought. The whole thing is rubbish and no wonder people are turning off in droves, here we have a contender for the race win penalised in a free practice sessionsfor what the stewards said ""However, in this case, the stewards thoroughly reviewed the breach and found that the driver slowed significantly, such that no danger was created, and that the driver proceeded with due care."

Liberty must have their head in their hands..

Not sure why Liberty are being criticised because the stewards applied the rules?

A minimum time is given when a red flag is issued. This appears as a Delta on the driver's display.
Ricciardo, although he reduced his speed, didn't reduce enough and so still was below the minimum time.
The stewards took his reduction in speed into consideration, and hence applied a lenient penalty.

Remember, over a fixed distance - lower time means higher speed. Ricciardo's time was too low. Black and white penalty.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Not sure why Liberty are being criticised because the stewards applied the rules?

A minimum time is given when a red flag is issued. This appears as a Delta on the driver's display.
Ricciardo, although he reduced his speed, didn't reduce enough and so still was below the minimum time.
The stewards took his reduction in speed into consideration, and hence applied a lenient penalty.

Remember, over a fixed distance - lower time means higher speed. Ricciardo's time was too low. Black and white penalty.

I was making the point that Liberty is all about sales and marketing, they desperately need a good product to sell and to have a potential winner, penalised at their home GP, for a transgression the stewards deemed was not dangerous and the driver slowed sufficiently, is hardly sales and marketing gold.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[chillibowl]

first session of a new season, i would have thought that they would have started with a warning and then fines before issuing a penalty particularly when they say no danger was created....but thats just me.

of course rules are rules and for all i know this was something explicitly stated during the drivers briefing, but all things equal if you start with a 3 grid spot penalty for a relatively minor and non dangerous infraction, the next time something happens one would expect a harsher penalty and well things just escalate from there.

or at the very least, if anyone else gets off for a minor infraction then you open the whole thing up to so much more criticism.

as always, poorly worded press releases and opaque stewarding system leading to more questions then answers...must be the start of another F1 season!

i missed these little storms in a teacup!

[Adam43]

All this distracts from the real interest of the race weekend and the season - the new hair cuts.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Adam43

All this distracts from the real interest of the race weekend and the season - the new hair cuts.

right!

i see that vetee has given himself a Halo inspired lid!

[Adam43]

I’ve watched a bit of practice. Only a few minutes because I had to change over to watch some rugby on a channel I subscribe to. Two things struck me. Firstly, when watching on telly, the halo makes little difference.

Secondly, and more importantly, when the cars first went out it showed the crowd. People ran down to the front to be nearer the cars. There was one, looked like a kid, practically skipping with delight as the cars went past. They win. Massive win.

[Richard C]

As others points out, the wording makes it non-obvious as to what the issue was. He didn't slow enough. And I believe he would have had the info in the cockpit to define if he was doing the right thing or not.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If those are the rules, then those are the rules but I think a 3 place grid penalty is disproportionate. This after all is a practice session and it's not as if Ricciardo was trying to gain some sort of advantage.

I really think F1 needs to review the whole business of grid penalties because quite frankly, they seem to be handed out too frequently and subsequently detract from the sport. Why not a fine instead?

It's a safety issue Not race advantage issue. Fines mean nothing to deep pockets. Grid penalties hurt. I think is not a bad idea to make an example out of someone. However, now they need to be consistent on that penalty.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Not sure why Liberty are being criticised because the stewards applied the rules?

Agree.

Richard

[Hammerdown]

Anyone notice the substantial upgrades the McLaren promised to bring to Australia?

[RWill2073]

To be honest, I wouldn't mind if grid penalties were used more liberally. If so, maybe we see some actual shook up grids with Mercedes, Ferrari and red bull occasionally having to drive through the fields. So as far as that goes, keep up the grid penalties for random infractions.

The biggest problem I've had with ths grid penalties has been that it has had the opposite effect. The most reliable team engine wise has been mercedes. So while all the other teams are playing catch up, they are also getting grid penalties. It has allowed Mercedes to have even easier paths to victory. But if they start handing grid penalties out for things such as ricciardo got, eventually Hamilton will get one for something. How about insitituting a no cell phone policy in the paddock. He'll be starting from last every week.

[F1Guy]

If we are going to discuss being consistent on penalties, what happened to the penalty for Raikkonen for what he did to Bottas??

Bottas had to go off the track and onto the kitty litter to avoid hitting Raikkonen. That to me was more dangerous than going a little faster than permitted, during a practice session, when you are no where near the incident, and when no marshals were on the track I would have thought.

[Adam43]

That one of these got punished and the other didn’t does not point to the need to worry about consistency. The situations are different. Not least because one is easily judged then other not. The consequence could have been worse (no marshals on track there either), but that doesn’t mean the fault was there.

The Bottas Räikkönen incident was investigated http://www.planetf1.com/news/raikkon...-bottas-block/