2009 Belgian Grand Prix

Discussion in 'Motorsport' started by Peter, Aug 25, 2009.

  1. SUPER NUMBBER

    SUPER NUMBBER

    Messages:
    1,230
    If you believe something is being taken out of context, you can simply clarify that on your response. Otherwise, people are gonna keep quoting the important snippets that are representative of whatever point you're trying to make.

    Writing a wall of text doesn't help either. Giving an opinion on one specific point is much more efficient and easier to understand than responding to one long winded ramble.

    ON TOPIC: Your videos are worthless. No offence, but they don't "prove" your point. Why? Because I can just as easily find instances where a driver BLATANTLY cut a chicane and wasn't penalized (Schumacher-DeLaRosa @ Hungary '06 comes to mind) If we're to use past non-enforcements intead of the wording of the rules themselves, then cutting chicanes is also legal, blatantly so as shown in some instances.
     
  2. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    67,059
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    The article says drivers must use only the track. Further articles mark the track as being the bit between the solid white lines.

    Not if no advantage is gained by doing so.

    Indeed it isn't the case but, as you say, it should be. That's the point.

    The rules are never applied with any consistency. Seemingly drivers are penalised or not on a whim - last year they even had to write a new rule (if you give an advantage back, you cannot then seek to regain it until after the next corner) and then retroactively apply it to the race! They even completely ignored several other offences against the Article - including but not limited to drivers using the runoff at Pouhon to open the curve and preserve speed - by every other driver in the race.

    All we want is for all drivers to be covered by all rules all the time.


    You make several points in your post. I'd rather respond individually to each point - and since I'm not changing your words in any way I don't understand how they can be taken out of context.
     
  3. Stang245

    Stang245

    Messages:
    26
    :tup:
     
  4. SUPER NUMBBER

    SUPER NUMBBER

    Messages:
    1,230
    Yeah, let's close down this whole forum since none of us are in positions of power to change anything...:rolleyes:
     
  5. tibiquera

    tibiquera

    Messages:
    327
    Well, I remember last year on the Fuji race when Massa overtook someone almost touching the wall on the straight away. Someone raised the concern of whether it was legal to go beyond the white line, which he did in that occasion (unfortunately I couldn't find the video, but it was a breathtaking maneuver). So my guess is that the interpretation isn't so literal.

    If in Monaco you cut the chicane of qualifying your lap is canceled no matter what. And during the race we all remember the warnings Massa got this year.

    Fair enough, but that's more a complaint about FIA lack of clarity. That isn't necessarily saying FIA was unfair on Kimi's case. I'll explain in further details later.

    Well, there is a difference. I can't remember what you've mentioned, but over the years drivers who cut chicanes have been consistently punished. If at one point it wasn't done, then it was an exception (which I can't discuss because as I said I don't remember any such incident). But I'll tell you why the videos are important:

    Taking the example of our legal system, when judges have to sentence someone they'll not only look at the law, they'll look at case laws, in other words, similar cases that happened in the past and how they were handled (in other words, how the law was interpreted). So the question is: has any driver ever been penalized for cutting a chicane? Yes. Has any driver ever been penalized for using the run-off area? No. And the videos show that this has been done for years, by different drivers, in different tracks. In other words, if it has been done for years and never punished, why would we have to interpret it differently now?

    Someone might argue that since the rules were changed, the previous arguments would be invalid. But the Rosberg video shows that even in 2009, after the rules were changed, drivers kept going beyond the track limits to take advantage and still have not been punished (there could be other drivers too, but I would have to watch the whole Australian GP weekend, which I'm not gonna do).

    Therefore, based on those videos, it's safe to say the interpretation given so far in that case would make Kimi's move legal. Any punishment would be an arbitrary change in interpretation. Now whether the interpretation is ideal is another discussion. But we have to keep in mind that whatever interpretation is given, it has to be the same for all.
     
  6. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    67,059
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    If you leave the boundaries of the white lines on any track, your qualifying time is cancelled except on corners where there is an additional concrete/astroturf (not tarmac) strip directly adjoining a rumble strip.

    It's worth noting also that rumble strips are actually outside the white lines.


    I'd say it was their consistency - they never seem to apply the same punishment to the same offence twice.

    I fear this is also the issue (with the FIA, not you).

    A sufficiently good rulebook doesn't need interpreting. Take the GTP_Registry rules - you either break them or you don't, and they were made by a handful of people for fun.

    As far as the FIA rulebook goes, drivers are not allowed to leave the boundaries of the solid white lines during the race. Where they do, they aren't permitted to gain positional advantage. Where they do, they must cede the advantage back and not seek to regain it until after the following corner. Kimi left the track, gained positional advantage and didn't give it back.
     
  7. sejtur

    sejtur

    Messages:
    3,521
    I'd say the FIA is quite consistent with first corner incidents like these. They also didn't say anything about Fernando alonso in the singapore GP last year. He didn't give his advantage back either.
     
  8. tibiquera

    tibiquera

    Messages:
    327
    Ok, fair enough. There's only one last thing I'd like to add on the interpretation matter: the silence from other drivers and teams would lead me to believe they all think the interpretation given by the FIA was correct in that case.

    Perhaps the problem is that the communication with fans from FIA's part is weak, so while all the teams and drivers know about it the fans are left confused with little information.
     
  9. SUPER NUMBBER

    SUPER NUMBBER

    Messages:
    1,230
    Or maybe the window to protest was too small and they didn't notice.

    Or maybe they know the FIA uses lodged protests as toilet paper...

    Maybe they thought there was little to gain from trying to convince the FIA that they made a mistake.
     
  10. NapoleonMikey

    NapoleonMikey

    Messages:
    1,134
    even if all of that where true (which 2 out of 3 normally are but maybe not in this case hypothetically) you would expect at least one team to make mention of it to the press at some point in a post race interview if they thought it was wrong. not once have i herd a peep about it in any press coverage only from here.
     
  11. the Interceptor

    the Interceptor Premium

    Messages:
    3,988
    Location:
    Germany
    Just for the record, with some relevance to this past race: according to the commentators on German pay-tv, the stewards officially announced for Monza that the "emergency exit" of the first corner can be used in the first lap to avoid accidents, but only if the driver has no advantage by doing so. Now, I'm terribly eager to see what will happen in Monza tomorrow, and whether any happenings will probably have any bearing on the wildly discussed "Kimi-incident" of Spa.
     
  12. Soundtrack

    Soundtrack

    Messages:
    1,537
    Maybe just a storm in a glass of water, but apparently the circuit of Spa has just seen it’s operation license suspended by the highest Court in Belgium following a complaint by locals residents. Hopefully not another Belgian Political Fiasco for Francorchamp.:ouch:
     
  13. prisonermonkeys

    prisonermonkeys Premium

    Messages:
    33,155
    Location:
    Peru
    I heard about that, something to do with an over-zealous judge. The residents just wanted the number of events scaled back, but the judge went ahead and revoked the licence anyway. But Spa will probably be on the 2010 calendar, anyway; FOM have a year to work it out.
     
  14. Grand Prix

    Grand Prix Premium

    Messages:
    4,263
    Location:
    Canada
    Ummm, they CHOSE to live there... What right do they have to complain in the first place? :lol:

    I can understand if it was a street circuit and you had to go away for the weekend to get away from those horrible and disgusting car noises, but a permanent track that has had houses and farmland beside it since the friggen' dawn of time? If I could afford to live next to race track I'd totally ROCK IT.

    Which leads to a question: What kind of imbecile do you have to be, to sell a house next to race track to a non-auto enthusiast? Just think of the money they could make on those houses if they advertised to race fans. Perhaps they already have, but I suspect they haven't.
     
  15. Alex.

    Alex. Premium

    Messages:
    8,833
    Location:
    England
    this^
     
  16. Roo

    Roo Premium

    Messages:
    6,357
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Yep. Spa's been hosting races since 1922.

    Happily, though:

     
  17. Ardius

    Ardius

    Messages:
    10,373
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I thought the same thing with regards to many British circuits like Brands Hatch but I guess people are stupid enough to move there not realising the circuit produces a fair bit of noise.