Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Pit Lane. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Should Massa have been punished?
Topic Started: Aug 24 2008, 02:09 PM (2,097 Views)
stradlin24
Member Avatar
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
RJHSaints,Aug 24 2008
03:34 PM
I just hope Stradlin takes a step back from his hysterical rantings for a moment and considers that not all those arguing in favour of no penalty or a penalty which does not affect Massa are the same people who defended the actions of Ferrari with regards to team orders in the Schumacher era. <doh>

don't want to upset the ferrari 'fans' now do i
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stradlin24
Member Avatar
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
dazzerjp,Aug 24 2008
03:52 PM
Rams,Aug 24 2008
11:46 PM
Quote:
 
Felipe Massa has been reprimanded and fined by the European Grand Prix stewards, but the Ferrari driver has kept his victory at Valencia.

Massa's victory was in doubt after the stewards said they would investigate a pitlane incident after the race.

The Brazilian nearly crashed with Force India's Adrian Sutil when joining the pitlane following his pitstop and the stewards deemed his release had been dangerous.

As a result of the incident Massa has been reprimanded and fined $10,000 dollars.

The FIA embarrass themselves again with their total lack of consistency.

Two incidents, same type of incident, same pitlane - yet two completely different outcomes.

Interestingly Karun Chandhok who was penalised in the GP2 race was doing commentary for the F1 cinema feed, is said to be furious and wants to know why he was punished. Maybe he ought to have a Ferrari sticker on his car for next time?

I would like to say that the result is unbelievable, which it is.

Sadly, it completely believable.

FIA = WWF (Wrestling)

not only is it a shambles but it's also sad and an embarrassment to f1

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craze_b0i
Member Avatar
Refueller
[ *  *  * ]
Ferrari made an error, but these situations are touch and go. Had Massa gained a position there would be some argument for a penalty. But as he gained nothing a punishment would be harsh.

IMO the circuit designers are partly to blame. They should have ensured there was room for 2 cars side by side on the pit-lane exit. What if all of them had pitted together under the safety car and then tried to get out that tight exit, it would have been mayhem.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lord Tau
Member Avatar

Admin
Rams,Aug 24 2008
03:46 PM
Quote:
 
Felipe Massa has been reprimanded and fined by the European Grand Prix stewards, but the Ferrari driver has kept his victory at Valencia.

Massa's victory was in doubt after the stewards said they would investigate a pitlane incident after the race.

The Brazilian nearly crashed with Force India's Adrian Sutil when joining the pitlane following his pitstop and the stewards deemed his release had been dangerous.

As a result of the incident Massa has been reprimanded and fined $10,000 dollars.

The FIA embarrass themselves again with their total lack of consistency.

Two incidents, same type of incident, same pitlane - yet two completely different outcomes.

Interestingly Karun Chandhok who was penalised in the GP2 race was doing commentary for the F1 cinema feed, is said to be furious and wants to know why he was punished. Maybe he ought to have a Ferrari sticker on his car for next time?

What a load of bollocks. Stupid FIA.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nomad
Engineer
[ *  *  *  * ]
I can't speak to the FIA rules but in the Sports Car Club of America (FIA member organization) the driver is responsible for the actions or omisions of his/her team. If it is the same then Massa should be held responsible for the early release; but, there is a vast range of penalties available depending on the severity and results of the offense. In this case Massa took corrective action and there was no apparent effect upon the race or finishing order. Therefore, I would say that the Stewards settling upon a fine and reprimand was a reasonable decision.

IMO, consistency and precedent are two different things. Consistency is the application of the same penalty to the same offenses. This will hardly happen until the same Stewards work all the races. Besides, same offenses should mean the same proximate cause and the same effects. That is not all that likely to occur. Precedent is when a rule or law is established due to a prior application of the rule or law. Generally that is held to happen only when the prior application is the result of an appeal process.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Andy
Member Avatar

Moderator
Rams,Aug 24 2008
03:46 PM
Quote:
 
Felipe Massa has been reprimanded and fined by the European Grand Prix stewards, but the Ferrari driver has kept his victory at Valencia.

Massa's victory was in doubt after the stewards said they would investigate a pitlane incident after the race.

The Brazilian nearly crashed with Force India's Adrian Sutil when joining the pitlane following his pitstop and the stewards deemed his release had been dangerous.

As a result of the incident Massa has been reprimanded and fined $10,000 dollars.

The FIA embarrass themselves again with their total lack of consistency.

Two incidents, same type of incident, same pitlane - yet two completely different outcomes.

Interestingly Karun Chandhok who was penalised in the GP2 race was doing commentary for the F1 cinema feed, is said to be furious and wants to know why he was punished. Maybe he ought to have a Ferrari sticker on his car for next time?

But you're comparing across two different series with different (albeit similar) regulations. According to precedents set in F1 over the last few years, not giving Massa a drive-through penalty was the correct decision.

Incidentally, how long do you think it will take before McLaren appeal this ruling?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dazzerjp
Member Avatar
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
you still fail to nderstand the word precedent.

The most recent I can remember is Ralf in 2005 I think. He hit a car and received a 25sec, i think, penalty.

The "precedent" was set in the GP2 race. Not an FIA race, but govrned by the same stewards.

Beside which, F1 ruling is based on the French system of law, which doesnt use precednet, being tied to the dark ages of Napolanic rule.

So, how is it not safe to do this in GP2, but acceptable in f1?

It isnt. Because double standards are being used.

Aside from that,

http://planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3265_4041779,00.html

"Why Did It Take So Long?
Having announced they would investigate Massa's pit stop release within a few minutes of the actual incident occurring, only three more laps had passed before they announced that a judgement would have to wait until the end of the race. Why the wait? It could be for only three reasons:

1) the evidence was complex and required detailed analysis as well as the testimony of numerous witnesses.

2) the stewards were too busy dealing with another case to consider a separate incident

3) the incident took place near the end of the race, leaving the stewards with insufficient time to make a ruling.

It was none of those things. There was nearly a third of the race still to run, no other incidents were under investigation, and there was ample evidence immediately available courtesy of the televisions cameras on which to base a ruling. Ferrari were clearly guilty of failing to abide by article 23.1 of the FIA Sporting Regulations 2008 that states "It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so". The only decision the stewards had to make was determining the extent of their punishment. There was no justification for the delay - especially not when it meant that a television audience was still left to wonder whether the result stood long after coverage from Valencia had ended. "
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Andy
Member Avatar

Moderator
Nomad,Aug 24 2008
04:46 PM
I can't speak to the FIA rules but in the Sports Car Club of America (FIA member organization) the driver is responsible for the actions or omisions of his/her team.

I think this is a reasonable position to take; however, in F1, it is not the case as clearly demonstrated by several examples over the last few years.

In the 1995 Brazilian GP, the Benetton of Michael Schumacher and the Williams of David Coulthard were excluded from their respective first and second positions due to "fuel irregularities." Upon appeal, however, Schumacher and Coulthard were reinstated but Benetton and Williams docked Constructor's points from the race, on the basis that Schumacher and Coulthard had no real control over what fuel went into their car, and therefore the responsibility for the irregularity lay solely with the team. Moreover, there was nothing in the fuel that was deemed to give it an unfair advantage; it was just different to the control sample supplied to the FIA. As such the drivers kept their points but the teams were punished.

Then in 2000, at the Austrian GP, Mika Hakkinen won the race but his McLaren team were denied the ten Constructor's points for his victory, because a seal was missing on one of his car's parts. Again, Hakkinen was not personally to blame for the incident, and the missing seal conveyed no real performance advantage, so only the team was punished.

And obviously last year we had the Spygate saga. This is an extraordinary case in that even though McLaren had access to large amounts of confidential Ferrari data and almost certainly used it in the development of their car, their drivers were not excluded from the championship even though the team was disqualified from the Constructor's race. Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso, as McLaren drivers, undoubtedly benefited from their team's illegal activities, yet were not punished as they were not proven to have been personally involved in the espionage.

What all this suggests is that the team is responsible for their own actions or omissions, and if the driver is not directly involved then they are not considered to be culpable by the F1 authorities. To my mind this is a dangerous grey area and an approach such as that taken by the Sports Car Club of America would be far simpler, but unfortunately the F1 authorities have chosen not to take this path, and this is what we have to deal with as a result.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Andy
Member Avatar

Moderator
dazzerjp,Aug 24 2008
05:46 PM
you still fail to nderstand the word precedent.

The most recent I can remember is Ralf in 2005 I think. He hit a car and received a 25sec, i think, penalty.

The "precedent" was set in the GP2 race. Not an FIA race, but govrned by the same stewards.

I don't recall the specific incident to which you are referring, but I'll accept your superior memory in this case! The key difference is that Schumacher hit another car, thereby causing physical damage which was (presumably) both dangerous and detrimental to somebody's race.

In today's race, no physical contact was made between cars and nobody's race was adversely affected. This is more similar to the Alonso/Vettel incident of this year's German GP, where the pair ran side-by-side out of the pit lane but did not make contact (although Alonso had to take avoiding action by crossing the white line at the pit exit, which is not normally allowed). Because nobody's race was compromised, nobody was punished. But according to the literal meaning of the rules, Vettel and/or STR should have been punished because he was released into Alonso's path, again in contravention of Article 23.1.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dazzerjp
Member Avatar
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
yes, vettel should have been punished. hmm, what engine does he have? <dunce>


the differece isnt the result, but rather the possiblity.


The paltry monetary fine does nothing to discourage the problem.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lex
Member Avatar
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Nomad,Aug 24 2008
05:46 PM
I can't speak to the FIA rules but in the Sports Car Club of America (FIA member organization) the driver is responsible for the actions or omisions of his/her team. If it is the same then Massa should be held responsible for the early release; but, there is a vast range of penalties available depending on the severity and results of the offense. In this case Massa took corrective action and there was no apparent effect upon the race or finishing order. Therefore, I would say that the Stewards settling upon a fine and reprimand was a reasonable decision.

IMO, consistency and precedent are two different things. Consistency is the application of the same penalty to the same offenses. This will hardly happen until the same Stewards work all the races. Besides, same offenses should mean the same proximate cause and the same effects. That is not all that likely to occur. Precedent is when a rule or law is established due to a prior application of the rule or law. Generally that is held to happen only when the prior application is the result of an appeal process.

but if the stewards are reading from the same rule book then it should be irrespective if they are the same people or not.

Mass drove an impecable race and it is unfortunate that his team screwed up, but there should have been a drive through penalty.

Wasn't his fault, but the team created an entirely avoidable dangerous situation and thus should have been immediately punished.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steelstallions
Member Avatar
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]


I don't know the rules on side by side cars in the Pit, so can only guess how they should be administered.
But as far as i could see, Ferrari released him onto the track and he was side by side with the other car and then Massa let the other car through.

What's the big deal?,

Its not like he forced him into the wall or ran into the side of him and ended his race.

Its not the first time i have seen cars side by side in the pits, the only difference on this occasion are that the cars did it at the last garage of the pit lane and Massa had to relent quicker than if they were side by side further down the pitlane.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Norbert
Member Avatar

Admin
stradlin23,Aug 24 2008
03:56 PM
don't want to upset the ferrari 'fans' now do i

Why do you always have to play the pathetic 'Ferrari fans aren't fans' crap? Some of us aren't glory hunting Man Utd fans you know.....

<rolleyes>

Anyway, as regards the incident, it was inevitable that the silver people would be baying for blood, and I am very surprised that no action was taken during the race about the incident. There are zillions of resons that can be put forward for and against giving an in race penalty rather than just fine or slap on the wrist or just no action at all, so I'll list my thoughts on some of them, in no particular order....

1. In the GP2 race, penalties were given for similar incidents by (presumably) the same set of stewards, and I guess the rule is worded the same. However this is also a different series, although that shouldn't really make a difference.

2. Ferrari run their rather dubious gantry system for controlling the driver's exit, and only the chief mechanic has the facility to override the green light once the mechanics have pressed their buttons to say they are ready.

3. When Massa started to move off, Sutil was still a fairly long way behind him, albeit at full speed, and should have had plenty of time to see that Massa was leaving the pit lane.

4. Sutil was a lapped car, and therefore on the racetrack is required to yield position to a car on the lead lap. The running lane of the pits is deemed to be the racetrack. It could be somewhat tentatively argues that this gave Massa priority.

5. Massa saw exactly what was happening and conceded track positon, avoiding a collision.

6. The pit exit is (in my opinion dangerously) narrow which exacerbated the situation.

Overall, if there were penalties meted out in GP2 for this, then I think it is only right to suggest that a penalty was appropriate. However, if there hadn't, then I'd be less sure. We haven't seen these incidents in GP2 (or at least I haven't), so that also makes the situation a little less clear? Were they worse offenders perhaps?

Still, it gives McLaren fans another chance to make themselves feel better by ranting about Ferrari and the FIA, so that's always good for a laugh. However, I think the FIA will only have themselves to blame for it, after all, they're about as consistant as , well, something that's not very consistant.

However, let's lighten up - Alonso missed Q3, and got taken out on the first lap, giving him a 100% failure to finish a race infront of his home fans, and the look on their faces when he pitted was a treat!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rams
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
It was funny when Allen said "it seems the Spanish fans have forgiven Lewis" when they were clearly booing him.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ELUSIVEJIM
Member Avatar

Forum Host
Should Massa have lost the win???

Defo NO

How pathic was the commentry after Massa's enquire over the pitstop <grrr>

Massa has been in amazing form but for JAMES ALLEN it would be great is Massa was excluded for LEWIS to win.

I am SO glad ITV are to lose the F1 coverage next year as this is just bias pathic commentry.

Lewis seems a nice guy but i am starting to hate him just because of JAMES ALLEN and the media.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic »
Add Reply