Drivers deliberately not finishing a race

Julian Mayo · Post by **Julian Mayo** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:17 am

I think Bar should be starting from the back of the grid, along with Schuey for " bringing the sport disrepute" with their actions in Melbourne

Woogle · Post by **Woogle** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:07 am

VTEC wrote:Even though I am a Honda fan I was angry with what they did in Australia.

Yes Toyota did the right thing but the loopholes must be closed

Just like last year? Honda doesn't have an engine that can last for 1 weekend let alone 2 ??

Woogle · Post by **Woogle** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:54 am

julian mayo wrote:I think Bar should be starting from the back of the grid, along with Schuey for " bringing the sport disrepute" with their actions in Melbourne

BAR clearly cheated! on the 2nd to last lap (57?) !! Schumi did not!

Button, Sato & BAR were the ones who cheated. And the FIA brought out the 'No Team Rule' in 2002-3!!!!!!!!!!!

If Schumi & Rubens had done the same -> Convicted, Sentenced and then a Trial

Oh Bar Bar

Julian Mayo · Post by **Julian Mayo** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:17 am

Schumi yet again, clearly , caused an accident with another driver who had the line, and was about to overtake! His same tired old excuse was " I lost him in my mirrors then I felt myself being hit"! Did he think that Nick had pulled into Mackas for a burger and chips? Did he think it was possible that somebody might dare to overtake the Great Schumaker? Are the mirrors on ferraris smaller than on the other cars?
I am sick of schumaker robbing other drivers and spectators (you and me) of "what might have been". He is a lout of a driver who puts his own ego ahead of everything else, including other driver's safety! How many times will the gutless stewards let him get away with driving(?) tactics that endanger other people, mar the spectacle of rare F1 overtaking moves, and BRING THE SPORT INTO DISREPUTE.?

Woogle · Post by **Woogle** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:57 am

julian mayo wrote:Schumi yet again, clearly , caused an accident with another driver who had the line, and was about to overtake! His same tired old excuse was " I lost him in my mirrors then I felt myself being hit"! Did he think that Nick had pulled into Mackas for a burger and chips? Did he think it was possible that somebody might dare to overtake the Great Schumaker? Are the mirrors on ferraris smaller than on the other cars?
I am sick of schumaker robbing other drivers and spectators (you and me) of "what might have been". He is a lout of a driver who puts his own ego ahead of everything else, including other driver's safety! How many times will the gutless stewards let him get away with driving(?) tactics that endanger other people, mar the spectacle of rare F1 overtaking moves, and BRING THE SPORT INTO DISREPUTE.?

Rookiem with extra pimples

Julian Mayo · Post by **Julian Mayo** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:10 am

JayVee · Post by **JayVee** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:06 pm

Woogle wrote:BAR clearly cheated! on the 2nd to last lap (57?) !! Schumi did not!

Button, Sato & BAR were the ones who cheated. And the FIA brought out the 'No Team Rule' in 2002-3!!!!!!!!!!!

Woogle

Now what does 'No Team Rule' (I assume this is regarding team orders) have to do with the 2 BARs DNFing at the end of the race in Oz ?

The rule for engines is that any car taking the flag cannot change the engine for next race (if it is the first race). BAR decided to pit on the last lap rather than take the flag so they can change the engines for Malaysia. It is obvious this isn't the intent of the rule and a loophole that was highlighted yet the FIA in their wisdom thought teams won't do it

From Toyota's preview it seems that there is/was!! a gentleman agreement that teams will not exploit this loophole. Toyota even seem to hint that the gentleman agreement covers qualifying as well (i.e changing the engine if you qualify poorly) and Toyota claim that they didn't change Ralf's engine out of respect for the rules depsite being in 15th.
In the case of qualifying, both Sato and Michael changed their engines dropping just one place each

Massa didn't despite not setting a time. Was that financial or due to the agreement ?

Woogle wrote:If Schumi & Rubens had done the same -> Convicted, Sentenced and then a Trial

Thought you were a Minardi supporter

Graham Ross · Post by **Graham Ross** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:10 pm

Perhaps rather than penalise cars 10 places on the grid, force them to start from the pit lane with time delay. 20 seconds, 30 seconds, etc

This will stop those who stuff up their qualifying (weather or mistake or car failure) to change their engines.

Good to see Toyota, Sauber, Jordan and Minardi do the right thing

Kapel · Post by **Kapel** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:35 pm

Thank God!! Someone finally put some brains into the FIA.

They have now clarified on the engine rule and if BAR change their engine,they would get a penalty of 10 grid places.

?A distinction will now be made between failing to finish and choosing not to finish,? an FIA statement said.

?The former is normally accidental or beyond the control of the driver, while the latter is not.?

?In order to ensure the purpose of the regulation is fully respected, and unless the reason is completely clear, in future we will require the team of any driver who fails to finish the first of two races to explain the circumstances surrounding the retirement to the stewards of the meeting.?

K-D · Post by **K-D** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:56 pm

Kapel wrote:Thank God!! Someone finally put some brains into the FIA.

They have now clarified on the engine rule and if BAR change their engine,they would get a penalty of 10 grid places.

?A distinction will now be made between failing to finish and choosing not to finish,? an FIA statement said.

?The former is normally accidental or beyond the control of the driver, while the latter is not.?

?In order to ensure the purpose of the regulation is fully respected, and unless the reason is completely clear, in future we will require the team of any driver who fails to finish the first of two races to explain the circumstances surrounding the retirement to the stewards of the meeting.?

Still vague and ambigoues. Some team will get away with an intentional retirement, without penalty this season. Just wait.

I still do not understand that FIA continue to write such poor rules and regulations. A lot of the problems in and with F1 is due to the rules being formulated by people, who seemingly have no idea what F1 is all about.

Julian Mayo · Post by **Julian Mayo** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:23 pm

It seems pretty clear to me. If you don't retire with bits hanging off, or smoke coming out of something your vehicle and you are going to be very carefully examined

K-D · Post by **K-D** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:53 pm

julian mayo wrote:It seems pretty clear to me. If you don't retire with bits hanging off, or smoke coming out of something your vehicle and you are going to be very carefully examined

I would like to agree, but I do not. The addition or clarification of the rule, lies in this part:

In order to ensure the purpose of the regulation is fully respected, and unless the reason is completely clear, in future we will require the team of any driver who fails to finish the first of two races to explain the circumstances surrounding the retirement to the Stewards of the meeting.

It does not state that parts must be hanging from the car. It calls for the team to explain, why the driver retired, and in case the FIA find this explanation to their satisfaction, they will allow an engine switch without a penalty.

[Scenario]
Team DSM's leaddriver K-D is languashing in 10th place, with no prospect of making it into the points by the end of the race. On the third to last lap of the race, K-D retires to the pits.

The Stewards (FIA or whoever is the party that will rule on this) contact team DSM, asking for a clarification of the retirement. The team show the telemetric data for the engine, showing that it was running above the set rev-levels, and was running warm, making it certain that the engine woul expire in the next lap or two. The team explain that they opted to retire the car to the pits, instead of risikingcovering the track in oil and possibly influencing the raceresults.

The Stewards (FIA or whoever is the party that will rule on this) edclare themselves satisfied that the team acted soundly and with respect to the race, by retirering the car in the pits. And allow the engine to be switched without a penalty for the next race.
[/Scenario]

What is your verdict??

Julian Mayo · Post by **Julian Mayo** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:58 pm

Hmmm.. depends on wether the stewards have teeth doesn't it,which would suit ferrari

K-D · Post by **K-D** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:26 pm

julian mayo wrote:Hmmm.. depends on wether the stewards have teeth doesn't it,which would suit ferrari

My point is not that any particular team, can or will get a new engine under the above or similar circumstances.

My point is that the FIA have once more managed to write a rule, that is gaping full of holes.

However!!!!

The current state of F1 is an easy fix, the "only" problem is that the needed change is not possible by the FIA alone. It needs 10 teams to agree. Not a simple majority, not a qualified majority. But every single team must agree, if the needed changes are to be implemented.

It is easy to blame FIA, Max, Bernie, Stoddard, Jean, Dennis or whomever you like, but they are all partts of the reason that the needed changes are not implemented.

Because the needed changes are not in the best interest of all at the same time.

Julian Mayo · Post by **Julian Mayo** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:03 am

yes, hence we have ferrari,yet again,standing alone, and showing no sporting attitude whatsoever