Formula 1 - 2009 Season
- Thread starter Dave Baumann
- Start date
Trulli shouldn't be under investigation in the first place. Trulli was third when safety car was on and third when the safety car was off. The stewards screw up before they trusted Hamilton. Trusting Hamilton without checking their data was their second screw up. Then they penalised Trulli demoting him out of the point. It was a string of screw up. I rest my case in showing their incompetency.
The contact nudged Kimi backend. Even if damaged was minimal, Kimi lost a position in that moved. True, he was struggling and was defending, but you can't passed someone by nudging them off like that and Kimi has every right to defend his position.
It was very marginal, I don't think not penalising Barrichello is a big mistake. Penalising him wouldn't be a big mistake either.
Regarding the Trulli penalty, Trulli should have been penalised if Trulli made a mistake and then overtook Hamilton. It all changes when Hamilton goes slowly to let him past and then tells the stewards he didn't let Trulli through, making Trulli look guilty. The stewards screwed up by not checking the data and by trusting Hamilton and McLaren.
It's all over, though. No appeals and nothing we can do either way.
There may be more protest regarding the diffusers this weekend, BMW's protest wasn't allowed on a technicality (they were too late) last weekend, and they want to be a part of the appeal hearing in Paris.
My guess is that the diffusers will be deemed legal, but nobody knows what the FIA will decide.
It's really a shame how this all had to play out. I feel gutted for McLaren/Hamilton.
Sure, if it was a lie, then surely they need a good shake, but in the interest of the sport, Hamilton should have been 3rd and Trulli 4th. Neither Trulli deserved to be demoted and Hamilton's punishment is not due to his racing performance, but an inconsistency after it.
The incompetence lies within the people who investigated the matter. If they had checked the telemetry data of both teams as well as video footage, they wouldn't have had to rely on subjective information of the drivers and their teams. Given it was apparently quite obvious that Hamilton let Trulli pass, it should have led to further investigation or the direct and simple question to Hamilton "Why did you let Trulli pass" - to which the simplest answer would have been "We were unsure of the rule and were trying to get race control on the line. We decided in the heat of the race to let him pass". Then the investigation would have either had to result in a switch of places or leave the finishing result as is.
What I find disturbing is that on the race track, McLaren clearly wanted to do the right thing and evade any possibility of punishment, thus them wanting to let Trulli pass being unsure of the rule. Amazing how a good gesture like this could turn into a disqualification, despite what ever was said after the race.
Fact is, the investigation wasn't one and if the job there would have been done right, we wouldn't have this mess in the first place.
Sure, if it was a lie, then surely they need a good shake, but in the interest of the sport, Hamilton should have been 3rd and Trulli 4th. Neither Trulli deserved to be demoted and Hamilton's punishment is not due to his racing performance, but an inconsistency after it.
The incompetence lies within the people who investigated the matter. If they had checked the telemetry data of both teams as well as video footage, they wouldn't have had to rely on subjective information of the drivers and their teams. Given it was apparently quite obvious that Hamilton let Trulli pass, it should have led to further investigation or the direct and simple question to Hamilton "Why did you let Trulli pass" - to which the simplest answer would have been "We were unsure of the rule and were trying to get race control on the line. We decided in the heat of the race to let him pass". Then the investigation would have either had to result in a switch of places or leave the finishing result as is.
What I find disturbing is that on the race track, McLaren clearly wanted to do the right thing and evade any possibility of punishment, thus them wanting to let Trulli pass being unsure of the rule. Amazing how a good gesture like this could turn into a disqualification, despite what ever was said after the race.
Fact is, the investigation wasn't one and if the job there would have been done right, we wouldn't have this mess in the first place.
I'm not sure that's entirely correct though. There are arguments supporting that Vettel was going to be overtaken anyway. Him fighting for position (the way he did) was unwarranted and caused both to drop out.
I'm not so sure his appology had something to do with the penalty.
I'm not so sure his appology had something to do with the penalty.
Here's a bit more of the transcript in regards to Hamilton/Trulli:
To be fair though, I'm not sure Hamilton's "I let him passt" explicitly has to mean that he let him passt. The telemetry data would be much more relevant than whatever Hamilton told his team, as that would indicate what Trulli saw and felt he was forced to retake his 3rd position. If the telemetry data supports the claims by McLaren that Hamilton drove no differently in that lap to everyone before it under safety-car, then his comments to the team doesn't hold any weight IMO and is therefore not that relevant to the case at all.
Lets assume Hamilton didn't let him passt (and that there is in fact telemetry data to back this up) - despite him radioing the team that he did, would the case still be viewed the same? I'm sure it wouldn't, because then Trulli would have in fact have overtaken Hamilton wrongly.
In the heat of the race, I'm not sure everything is as black or white. It's probably not far fetched that Hamiltons exact words can not be used as evidence. The entire transcript shows a bit of confusion.
Transcript said:
To be fair though, I'm not sure Hamilton's "I let him passt" explicitly has to mean that he let him passt. The telemetry data would be much more relevant than whatever Hamilton told his team, as that would indicate what Trulli saw and felt he was forced to retake his 3rd position. If the telemetry data supports the claims by McLaren that Hamilton drove no differently in that lap to everyone before it under safety-car, then his comments to the team doesn't hold any weight IMO and is therefore not that relevant to the case at all.
Lets assume Hamilton didn't let him passt (and that there is in fact telemetry data to back this up) - despite him radioing the team that he did, would the case still be viewed the same? I'm sure it wouldn't, because then Trulli would have in fact have overtaken Hamilton wrongly.
In the heat of the race, I'm not sure everything is as black or white. It's probably not far fetched that Hamiltons exact words can not be used as evidence. The entire transcript shows a bit of confusion.
In case you hadn't noticed, there were two cars in the wall, one of which circling the track on 3 wheels, the other spitting wheels down the track, safety car deployed, there was a lot going on in the final 3 laps of the race and it's unsurprising that cleaning up that mess took precedence.
Because the stewards asked them specifically that very question? As someone else said, they wouldn't ordinarily resort to digging out all the possible video, telemetry, radio evidence if they can ask the team directly and get a quick answer.
The only mistake the stewards made was to believe McLaren without question. It says a lot that David Ryan has now been suspended by the McLaren team after that stewards meeting.
I fully expect that anything a team says to the stewards from this point onwards will be received with a healthy dose of suspicion and double-checked. Unfortunately this will probably lead to an even larger delay in sorting out these incidents.
I agree with the sentiment. Had McLaren been honest with the stewards then the only two options would have been to say "hard luck" and leave the finishing positions as they were, or to say "there was understandable confusion" and swap Hamilton and Trulli. McLaren's actions after the race, in misleading the stewards in their claim for 3rd ultimately cost them.
That would be interesting. I don't see a single thing that Vettel did wrong. Just because his tyres are fading doesn't mean he automatically has to allow everybody to pass. He moved to the inside and braked as late as he could.
I have to wonder at Kubica, he clearly has the faster car, he sees Vettel struggling to slow down in turn 1 yet in turn 3 he gives him the squeeze:
He was clearly going to pass eventually, he could have easily run around the outside of 3 and taken the inside of 4, I just don't get the lack of common sense. Forcing a guy onto the inside kerb who is already struggling to slow down? He also wasn't particularly clever when attempting to fly through turn 5 as if nothing had happened, he could have nursed it home 8s per lap slower and still taken 2nd, or alternatively pitted and dropped to 3rd.
Despite that, I don't think either driver should have been punished, and I think Vettel was particularly stupid to apologise, as an apology is effectively an admission of guilt.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74189
Now McLaren are admitting they lied. Hamilton have scheduled a press conference and Martin Whitmarsh, after having suspended Ryan, is now saying that Hamilton lied too.
I think it's amazing how much "stuff" has happened already this season even though there has been only one race! It's insane. I don't know if I'm to laugh or cry. I wonder what Bernie is thinking; "all publicity is good publicity"?
Now McLaren are admitting they lied. Hamilton have scheduled a press conference and Martin Whitmarsh, after having suspended Ryan, is now saying that Hamilton lied too.
I think it's amazing how much "stuff" has happened already this season even though there has been only one race! It's insane. I don't know if I'm to laugh or cry. I wonder what Bernie is thinking; "all publicity is good publicity"?
What gets me is that I really don't understand what McLaren thought they were doing by being "economical with the truth". Had they simply said that Hamilton/the team weren't sure of the rules/circumstances so they Trulli was allowed to retake his place, then I'm sure nothing more would have come of it other than Trulli being demoted to fourth. Seems a really odd thing to bullshit about.
Last edited by a moderator:
Case closed, I guess. Telemetry data showing nothing was a lie and Hamilton/McLaren found themselves with their pants down. How embarassing.
I still think it's very unfortunate how far this had to go and despite the "lie" I still think the penalty is most unfortunate, as on the race track, the most genuine intentions were there.
I also stand by my opinion, that the investigation wasn't done properly. If telemetry data and video footage would have been investigated properly, Trulli would have never been punished and Hamilton/McLaren confronted with the right questions or the right actions would have been taken without questioning as they [the stewards] were aware that there was some confusion going on during the safety-car.
Unfortunately, McLaren have found themselves in the spot light once again and given plenty of reasons for them to be punished, fair or unfairly, by the FIA.
I still think it's very unfortunate how far this had to go and despite the "lie" I still think the penalty is most unfortunate, as on the race track, the most genuine intentions were there.
I also stand by my opinion, that the investigation wasn't done properly. If telemetry data and video footage would have been investigated properly, Trulli would have never been punished and Hamilton/McLaren confronted with the right questions or the right actions would have been taken without questioning as they [the stewards] were aware that there was some confusion going on during the safety-car.
Unfortunately, McLaren have found themselves in the spot light once again and given plenty of reasons for them to be punished, fair or unfairly, by the FIA.
2nd practice:
1. Kimi Räikkönen Ferrari 1.35,707 40 kierrosta
2. Felipe Massa Ferrari + 0,125 38
3. Sebastian Vettel Red Bull-Renault + 0,247 40
4. Nico Rosberg Williams-Toyota + 0,308 39
5. Mark Webber Red Bull-Renault + 0,319 36
6. Rubens Barrichello Brawn-Mercedes + 0,454 37
7. Jenson Button Brawn-Mercedes + 0,547 31
8. Kazuki Nakajima Williams-Toyota + 0,583 35
9. Heikki Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes + 0,690 40
10. Nelsinho Piquet Renault + 0,694 35
11. Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes + 0,808 30
12. Jarno Trulli Toyota + 0,809 34
13. Sebastien Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari + 0,921 32
14. Timo Glock Toyota + 0,932 29
15. Fernando Alonso Renault + 0,933 20
16. Adrian Sutil Force India-Mercedes + 1,168 36
17. Robert Kubica BMW Sauber + 1,560 38
18. Sebastien Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari + 1,571 30
19. Giancarlo Fisichella Force India-Mercedes + 1,725 27
20. Nick Heidfeld BMW Sauber + 2,223 37
1. Kimi Räikkönen Ferrari 1.35,707 40 kierrosta
2. Felipe Massa Ferrari + 0,125 38
3. Sebastian Vettel Red Bull-Renault + 0,247 40
4. Nico Rosberg Williams-Toyota + 0,308 39
5. Mark Webber Red Bull-Renault + 0,319 36
6. Rubens Barrichello Brawn-Mercedes + 0,454 37
7. Jenson Button Brawn-Mercedes + 0,547 31
8. Kazuki Nakajima Williams-Toyota + 0,583 35
9. Heikki Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes + 0,690 40
10. Nelsinho Piquet Renault + 0,694 35
11. Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes + 0,808 30
12. Jarno Trulli Toyota + 0,809 34
13. Sebastien Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari + 0,921 32
14. Timo Glock Toyota + 0,932 29
15. Fernando Alonso Renault + 0,933 20
16. Adrian Sutil Force India-Mercedes + 1,168 36
17. Robert Kubica BMW Sauber + 1,560 38
18. Sebastien Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari + 1,571 30
19. Giancarlo Fisichella Force India-Mercedes + 1,725 27
20. Nick Heidfeld BMW Sauber + 2,223 37
Anyway, on a different note. If these super-soft tyres are proving to be unusable for more than 10 laps or so, are we going to see a significant number of teams going for a low-fuel strategy in qualifying? If you know you're going to have to do a very short stint on a set of tyres I guess you might as well make it the first stint to help your qualifying position.
No super-softs this GP, Bridgestone have brought the soft and the hard compounds.
I think the optimal strategy will be two long stints on the hard tyres followed by a short stint on the softs. The soft will most likely be the tyre of choice for qualifying, though the front-runners may elect to save them for Q2 or even Q3.
Ferrari tried your suggestion for Australia, and it didn't work. They were kind of saved by the first safety car.
Of course, it may rain so they may not have to use the soft tyres at all in the race; when a change in climatic conditions is declared, the tyre rule is bypassed because the teams must most likely use at least the inters or at most the wets.
I think the optimal strategy will be two long stints on the hard tyres followed by a short stint on the softs. The soft will most likely be the tyre of choice for qualifying, though the front-runners may elect to save them for Q2 or even Q3.
Ferrari tried your suggestion for Australia, and it didn't work. They were kind of saved by the first safety car.
Of course, it may rain so they may not have to use the soft tyres at all in the race; when a change in climatic conditions is declared, the tyre rule is bypassed because the teams must most likely use at least the inters or at most the wets.
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't realise that. What was the rationale behind having super-softs in the last grand prix? Seemed to be a pretty poor decision in hindsight.
Bridgestone offers four compounds: super-soft, soft, medium and hard.
In previous years consecutive compounds have been used for the prime and the option tyres. Bridgestone was criticised for this because there usually was a tiny gap in performance between the prime and the option at a given GP. Thus Bridgestone have decided it will bring non-consecutive compounds this year. As you saw in Australia, the super-soft (option tyre) was significantly faster over a single lap than the medium (prime tyre), but it lost performance after 5 laps or so while the prime was more consistently fast. This is why Kubica was such a threat before the crash.
http://www.f1technical.net/news/11664
The drivers seem to think it's a good idea:
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/090402191529_2.shtml
I like it too. PS: I updated my post after you quoted it, Gerry.
That's the problem. They just pulled the ruling out of their behind. They're incompetent if that's all they do.
Trust a team that was just in a scandal a couple years back ? Come on.
They need to get it right.
BTW this was not the first time drivers corrected themselves behind safety car, when they got out of placed. Before this, drivers have corrected themself behind safety car without the stewards even noticing and the times I noticed it is when commentators mentioned it.
The stewards typically investigated incidents when drivers didn't correct themself after the race restarted. Trulli was third when the safety car was deployed and he was third when safety car came in. So he did not overtake under the safety car.
Similar threads
