2014 Pirelli Hungarian Grand Prix

Well, you really convinced me there. Way to refute what I'm saying with well considered points.

I have no idea what you're saying other than "crashing is not unsafe driving". Which seems a bit to me like saying that the sky is not blue. I'm sure there's some technicality by which it's true, but it sure looks blue from here, and that's sort of the point.

 

Crashing is part of racing, otherwise there wouldn't be such thing as a racing incident.

The track changes every lap and to expect a F1 driver to be a robotic computer and be mistake free is unjustified.

Considering the weather a spin isn't out of the question and even the best have done things similar the penalty is in the crash itself and putting more is just adding salt on the wounds for no reason.

 

Unfortunately The Project mistakenly thinks of itself as clever, well researched and funny.

 

It was covered in some of the commentary. It depends on the width of the "fast lane" component; cars must be in single-file in the slow lane but at some tracks (like Hungaroring) may go two-abreast in the fast-lane. Drivers who see another car leaving the slow lane in front of them (effectively that means exiting their box) should expect that they're going to end up on the "outside".

 

And I'd certainly agree with that had he been racing. Except that by definition he wasn't racing, he was under yellow flags. Racing is suspended, they're just going round and round at a pre-determined pace.

The track certainly does change every lap, and to expect an F1 driver to be perfect is indeed unjustified.

That's why it's expected that under yellow flags, the driver is not driving to the limits of the car, to allow some leeway for the inevitable mistakes or misjudgements of conditions that may arise.

Can I ask what you think yellow flags are supposed to achieve? I think a spin should be out of the question under yellows, barring force majeure. I don't think spinning it up while getting frisky warming tyres counts as "out of the control of the driver".

I'm sure they have. Wanna cite some, and we can compare how the penalties (or no penalties) that they received for those situations compare?

OK, if we take a crash as "you do not finish the race", it's similar to a black flag, with what's basically a fine tacked on for the team as they rebuild the car. A hefty penalty to be sure.

Do you think that any actions a driver could take on the racetrack should warrant a penalty greater than black flag + a fine? Or is that the maximum penalty that should be assigned for any infringement?

If a driver breaks a rule that doesn't normally result in a crash, yet in doing so does crash, should the penalty for that infringement be overlooked on the basis that he's essentially given himself a black flag and a fine?

 

The sky was actually different shades of grey.

 

Did you ever think that the torque Curve of a Highly Powerful Turbo charged car in the wet has the ability to spin a car with minimal throttle?

Infact it would do that in the dry let alone the wet, and minimal throttle is hardly what i would call dangerious driving even under Redflag conditions which would be the next Level after a Yellow flagged Safety Car.

if you want to give a penalty to a driver for such a thing i would say Kimi Raikkonen at Silverstone is a fair case as it was rejoining the track in such a dangerious manner that made it worthy of a penalty as it then involved other cars(Something Grosjeans was in no danger of), it wouldn't be even close to consistent to penalize what grosjean did without giving thought to that.

 

Does the parade lap of the Indy 500 count?

 

@Imari Unless you have Telementry Data on Grosjeans throttle response at time of accident then you have zero case for arguing a penalty because you have no proof that he didn't drive 'carefully' under the safety car.

 

I certainly did, and I'm sure Grosjean is aware of it as well. Again, when driving under yellow flags, he should be driving his car in a manner such that an understandable minute error does not send the car out of control.

Several drivers lost control of their cars in almost exactly that manner under racing conditions, and that's totally understandable. The cars look like they require knife edge accuracy under difficult conditions. I notice that Grosjean was the only one who dropped it when under yellow flags though, as the other drivers saw fit to rein in the aggressiveness of their driving to suit the situation.

Raikkonen lost it under racing conditions. It was an extremely dodgy rejoin, but it's not the same thing at all.

Had Raikkonen done that under yellow flags, he would have had a paddock full of drivers, marshals and fans looking for his blood.

And the opposite is just as true, you have no evidence that he was driving carefully without telemetry data. Neither of us can use telemetry to justify our statements, so I don't see why the standards for my claim are different for the standards for yours.

What we have as observables are what we see on tape, his statement that he spun it up on the painted line, and the fact that he crashed. None of which tend to indicate to me that he was being as careful as is warranted under yellow flags.

 

The opposite isn't as true because it's not guilty untill proven innocent, unless the penalty is already given which it isn't.

The term 'carefully' also isn't in the FIA rule book so unless you have rules to quote you still have no case or ground for a penalty.


You also ignored my point about minimal throttle being able to spin a car, and how minimal throttle can't be classed as dangerous driving.

 

Proof by verbosity isn't going to convince me, Imari. You have arguments of fallacy all over the place and they don't address the main problem you're having in arguing your point. I believe your point is that F1 should penalize the effect of the incident instead of the cause, which to me, is simply ludicrous.

 

So point out the fallacies then. I'm not being verbose to be confusing, I'm doing it because that's how many words it takes to explain what I want to explain.


I don't believe that they should penalise the incident instead of the cause, there are perfectly good reasons for which one could crash while under yellow flags and not receive a penalty. "Oops, I put my tyre on the painted line" isn't one of them, that's either careless or reckless, neither of which should be happening under yellows.

I think in this case that for the lack of any evidence to the contrary, the incident suggests that the cause was driving that was unsuited to the conditions. I think that is the null hypothesis against which any further hypotheses should be tested.

You two seem to believe that the null hypothesis is "**** happens". Maybe that's the case here, but in a safety related incident such as this I'm inclined to err on the side of overpunishment rather than underpunishment.

Punishment in this case is intended to act as a deterrent to all other drivers, it's not a judgement on what Grosjean has or hasn't done. He lost it under conditions that he shouldn't have, with no visible extenuating circumstances. All drivers need to be clear that it's not acceptable, and that they need to take whatever steps necessary to avoid that.

It's not a court of law, either.

As above, the argument is over what the null hypothesis should be. That's where innocent until proven guilty comes from.

Besides, we both agree that he's guilty of having an accident. You think that there are extenuating circumstances. I don't. If you look at it that way, it's you that has something to prove, which is why I said that we should stick to what we can both observe.

I'm not arguing that the FIA should give him a penalty by the book, I'm arguing that the particular situation should call for a penalty, whether the rules specify one or not.

Very, very vague. You could blast through sideways at 3 kmph under full chat and be within the letter of that law. Hence we have stewards for interpretation.

Anyway, I'm not claiming that he should merit a penalty under the strict letter of the FIA law. I'm claiming that for the safety of the personnel running and taking part in the event, that behaviour should be classed as penalty-worthy. If that wasn't clear from the start then I apologise.

Depending on the situation, minimal throttle certainly can be classed as dangerous driving. If it's in a situation where the car will spin with minimal throttle, I would have said that applying minimal throttle is a dangerous thing to do.

Is that somehow unusual, that applying an action that results in a dangerous situation is considered a dangerous action?

 

He crashed because he was driving unsafe because he crashed. Circular cause and consequence. Crashing is one possible consequence of unsafe driving. It certainly is not the “definition of unsafe driving” as you suggested earlier.

False dilemma. I reject these as the only two possible causes for the incident.

Forgive me, but I can't be bothered any further than that.

I see. Seems like we've got our answer then. Glad you weren't a steward in this instance.

Yes. Yes, we do. What do they have to say? ... [crickets]

 

And this is a discussion forum. Is it somehow inappropriate to discuss these things as though they might be changed? Or are the stewards the almighty beholders of all that is right and good and we should bow to their wisdom?

Tell me about fallacies, that's a mighty appeal to authority right there.

 

I'm not attempting to make this argument ad hominem, nor have I even suggested that you aren't afforded the right to defend your position. I appreciate your fervor in your attempt to prove you point. That said, the argument continues to fall flat on its face. If unsafe driving is a punishable offense, the effect is irrelevant. I completely disagree with the assertion that GRO was in any way, shape, or form driving in an unsafe manner.

Touché.

 

So you want him Penalized for driving on a white line?

since that is the reckless driving you have just said.


Also you still have no point or evidence on his soo called 'Dangerious driving' because of lack of telementry, you lack the evidence to express your point and its only you only that has to give that evidence since at current he has no penalty. So YOU have to prove otherwise, I and everyone else here agree with Current ruling.


which clearly your not and will never be able to without making up rules which you seem to be doing.

you still have yet to show me in the rule book anywhere that covers what grosjean did and you won't because its not there, hence the lack of penalty.

you can stop talking drivel now its purpose is nullified unless you actually bring some evidence to your argument.

 

In this case it would be rule Sporting Regs 40.5 (2014), wouldn't it? The one that covers drivers endangering others during Safety Car periods?

Overall I disagree with you in this particular case, @Imari , the delta isn't slow by any means and that corner is, according to the F1 drivers who've spoken of it, very difficult to see your way through even at low speeds.

It's fair to point out that only Grosjean made that error under the safety car and that, on his salary, he should be very embarrassed. I'm sure he is.

However, the reason that marshalls should beware when recovering an accident in dangerous weather conditions was illustrated by Grosjean's mistake. He wasn't driving wilfully dangerously, he just made a rookie mistake in one moment in a turn. It happens and track workers/race control should always be mindful of that.

As an aside to that; we've seen a lot of recent incidents where marshalls are admirably keen to get to the side of a crashed car but more and more often I find myself wincing at the danger they put themselves in. Always a tough call, of course.

 

There will never be a penalty for it because there was no one around him at the time of the incident, it was cleared up and the safety car was ready to return to pits just as the incident happened.

 

My disagreeing with @Imari doesn't imply that I agree with you.

You asked for evidence about where Grosjean's soo dagerious driving might be ruled against. I gave you a link and a handy bite-sized quote.

There can be a penalty for breaching any of the rules in the Sporting or Technical Regulations. That's simply a fact that has nothing to do with the circumstances of the incident you're discussing. It seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that the actions of Grosjean might have been considered by one of the many people employed at each F1 event to consider the rules (and expert they are too) and that the thought of action was dismissed.

To me that's the right decision, in my opinion, based on the location and overall circumstances/nature of the car.

That doesn't change the fact that there is a rule written down in the rulebook that gives the stewards the authority to prosecute such an incident as an offence if they see fit. That's an actual fact.

 

What I was actually meaning to say wasn't that there isn't a rule for this situation, what I was saying is there was no rule breached in what Grosjean did, being the FIA I would be surprised if there wasn't a rule for any given situation given how big the sporting regulations are.

But in this Case no rule was Breached and it was what i was basically saying since the first post, and thats what I was asking Imari for in that post you basically misquoted my point, a breached rule.

 

It's a written fact (which I linked you to the original source of) that if the stewards decided to take action against Grosjean for that incident then they have a mechanism to do so in Section 40.5 of the Sporting Regulations. That section specifically covers race procedure and conduct under Safety Car conditions.

There is, if the stewards see fit in the circumstances. Does that surprise you?

Ah.

 

Read what I said, I said I wasn't saying that.

 

Looks like the rest of the season has been decided already.



Edit: Hadn't realized Alonso and Button are the only two that have completed every race so far this season.

 

Until Hungary it was just Alonso and Hulkenberg I think, I think the little cross next to the 17th place of Button means he DNFed but was still classified or something.

 

Button was classified in Bahrain but he retired 2 laps from the end.

 

Didn't catch that marking. It's definitely the "not classified" mark in that scenario.

 

What idiocy. This is what I can't stand about fanboys (I want to state that in my mind, fans and fanboys are two very different things)!

After having seen an onboard view from Rosberg's car, I retract my opinion that Hamilton did not try to push him off the track after all. From the trackside view it seemed as if he simply oversteered mid-corner. But from the onboard camera on Nico's Mercedes, it's apparent Lewis left him little to no room to stay on track. He missed the apex anyhow due to having sod all grip left from his finished tyres, resulting in him running wide. Then he saw Nico coming just alongside, and pushed him off.

And do you know what? I can't say I blame him. Having watched the onboard highlights on CANAL+ most of the drivers were doing it, as you lot said. Yet we heard nobody complain, so I guess they're okay with it. Also he was probably more than a little wound up after Nico had demanded (on more than one occasion, as it turns out) to have him move over. Even though I dislike Lewis, there was no good reason for him to hand the position to Nico. So I agree with his decision to ignore the order.

All that said, I'm still hoping for Nico to come out on top this season. Just not as easily as the Wikitroll clearly wants Lewis to!

 

Hamilton was entitled to do it regardless, Nico didn't have enough overlap to claim the corner.