Formula 1 - 2012 Season

[Phil]

Looking through the results I think Webber has been ahead of Alonso 5 or 6 times. What I mean by costing him points is just that he's been ahead of him (obviously the main one being at Silverstone when he passed Alonso for the lead with only a couple of laps to go). I don't think there has been a single instance where Massa has taken points away from Vettel by finishing ahead of him on the track.

Ah, that's how you ment it. Well, by the same logic then, Webber took a lot of points away from Vettel too - as underlined by his 2 wins. As I said, if RedBull had put as much support into Vettel as Ferrari is giving Alonso, we wouldn't be having this discussion as the championship would be well wrapped up. Instead, the whole world would be crying foul-play by the dominant redbull. To hear voices that think it's fair that Ferrari does it only because they are the supposed underdog just reaks of hypocrisy.

About the legality and spirit of the rules thing - it's happening everywhere. Vettel being able to set up his car for straight line speed in the race after being DSQ during qualifying in Abu Dhabi is a technicality as well.

That's hardly comparable. Maybe you would have thought Vettel not taking part in the GP at all to be fairer - because that's how much difference it would have made if he had not been able to make crucial set-up changes.

What people fail to see, is that RedBull had a front-running car and they set-up their car for that in qualifying - good traction, more downforce, less straightline speed. They made an error - they were disqualified from qualifying. Now, they had to start from the back of the grid with a car set-up for traction but not straightline speed. If they had started the race like this, Vettel wouldn't have made up many places because he would have hardly got past many cars in the DRS zone. To solve that - they took another penality for changing stuff on the car and had to start from the pitlane.

Starting from the pitlane is a higher inconvinience than you think. If it weren't, then more teams would do it. RedBull had nothing to lose and they gave up the advantage of starting with the rest in order to change things on the car. What they did is within the rules (yes, even within the spirit of the rules) because it allows them just like everyone else to make changes to the car under park-ferme, but they then have to start from the pits. RedBull wasn't the first to do this btw.

This is a little bit different to Ferrari taking a bogus penality in order to get one of their drivers a clear advantage while also affected other drivers on the grid.

 

[Kaotik]

On unrelated news, Lotus has got some nice financial backing from Coca-Cola Company, which joins the team with their energy drink brand Burn.
Coca-Cola promises they'll be bringing never before seen things into F1 sponsorships

 

[jimbo75]

Ah, that's how you ment it. Well, by the same logic then, Webber took a lot of points away from Vettel too - as underlined by his 2 wins. As I said, if RedBull had put as much support into Vettel as Ferrari is giving Alonso, we wouldn't be having this discussion as the championship would be well wrapped up. Instead, the whole world would be crying foul-play by the dominant redbull. To hear voices that think it's fair that Ferrari does it only because they are the supposed underdog just reaks of hypocrisy.

Webber was still in with a chance of the championship with both his wins. After Monaco he was on the same points as Vettel (3 behind Alonso) and after Silverstone he was 16 points ahead of Vettel.

Had Red Bull started telling Webber to move over in those 2 races for Vettel, chances are he wouldn't even be there any more. There is no comparison here with what happened to Massa in the US.

That's hardly comparable. Maybe you would have thought Vettel not taking part in the GP at all to be fairer - because that's how much difference it would have made if he had not been able to make crucial set-up changes.

They broke the rules and gained from breaking it on a technicality that allowed them to improve the car in the pits. In a lot of ways that's worse - Ferrari broke no rules in the US.

This is a little bit different to Ferrari taking a bogus penality in order to get one of their drivers a clear advantage while also affected other drivers on the grid.

Yes, one of them actually broke the rules and gained from it. Red Bull broke the rules in qualifying while trying to gain an unfair advantage - Ferrari hasn't broken any rules. Do you think that underfueling the car and then trying to lie their way through it in the stewards room is any less a crime than breaking a seal on a car?

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Show me ONE incident where team has deliberately taken penalty for 1 driver to improve other drivers chance

I wasn't talking about taking penalties perse, but about teams giving more support to one driver in the team (eg vettel getting webbers wing). It happens all the time and I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[cjo]

They broke the rules and gained from breaking it on a technicality that allowed them to improve the car in the pits. In a lot of ways that's worse - Ferrari broke no rules in the US.

They didn't gain from it. I would be surprised if any team wouldn't choose starting from 3rd on the grid over being able to make changes between qualifying and the race with a start from the pit lane.

The cars are set up differently depending on where they think they will be on the grid - a car that expects to do a lot of overtaking needs to be able to get down the straights quicker than competitors to be able to overtake. A car expected to be leading will probably be set up to be easier on the tyres etc. When Vettel got put at the back of the grid, they probably changed to a setup that would be expected of a car in that position. Vettel was very lucky with 2 safety cars, which bunched everyone up enough that he wasn't left trailing as far behind.

I don't believe that Vettel was better off for breaking the rules than he would have been if he didn't.

 

[jimbo75]

He gained from the technicality allowing him to change setup. The penalty for not having enough fuel is to start from the pits - this was already determined so anything that he could do to the car in order to improve his position at that point was a gain.

 

[cjo]

He gained from the technicality allowing him to change setup. The penalty for not having enough fuel is to start from the pits - this was already determined so anything that he could do to the car in order to improve his position at that point was a gain.

No, the penalty for not enough fuel was to start from the back of the grid. The team then chose to take the car out of parc ferme to 'investigate the problem', and they then went on to make changes. Removing the car from parc ferme meant that he had to start from the pit lane instead.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Yes, one of them actually broke the rules and gained from it. Red Bull broke the rules in qualifying while trying to gain an unfair advantage - Ferrari hasn't broken any rules. Do you think that underfueling the car and then trying to lie their way through it in the stewards room is any less a crime than breaking a seal on a car?

Wasn't Renault responsible for the fuel amount and they drained 0.85 liters out of the car, with 1l being the minimum allowed in rules. How much do you think they gain from something like that? What exactly did they lie about?

 

[jimbo75]

No, the penalty for not enough fuel was to start from the back of the grid. The team then chose to take the car out of parc ferme to 'investigate the problem', and they then went on to make changes. Removing the car from parc ferme meant that he had to start from the pit lane instead.

You are correct. That however is a technicality - starting from the pits instead of the back of the grid is barely a penalty at all, and is of course no penalty when you can change the car setup so that you are easily able to sail past the cars in front of you.

The "spirit of the rules" would not agree with a team being able to do such a thing when the initial penalty is actually being reduced by taking another "penalty".

 

[jimbo75]

Wasn't Renault responsible for the fuel amount and they drained 0.85 liters out of the car, with 1l being the minimum allowed in rules. How much do you think they gain from something like that? What exactly did they lie about?

Difficult to say - there were only 2 tenths between 3rd and 6th. It is unlikely to have lost him any places.

Renault were supposed to investigate the fuel cell problem and were sure that there was still more fuel in the car but we didn't hear anything more about it so it's hard to say exactly what they were doing. Regardless, the rules were broken and all Ferrari broke was a seal.

 

[cjo]

You are correct. That however is a technicality - starting from the pits instead of the back of the grid is barely a penalty at all, and is of course no penalty when you can change the car setup so that you are easily able to sail past the cars in front of you.

Its quite a large penalty - on every other circuit starting from the pits means that the car cannot start moving until every other car has passed the pit lane exit. Because of the unique pit lane exit in Abu Dhabi, this was modified slightly to give a penalty on-par with other circuits. Anyone starting from anywhere on the grid is allowed to do the same thing. There is a reason they don't (i.e. Rosberg starting from 17th). If starting from the pits was such a minor penalty compared to starting at the back of the grid, it would be far more common to see it happen when more competitive cars qualified out of position.

The "spirit of the rules" would not agree with a team being able to do such a thing when the initial penalty is actually being reduced by taking another "penalty".

But you've already argued that Ferrari were ok to violate the "spirit of the rules", so obviously you don't think that is a problem - you shouldn't be holding the teams up to different standards. Furthermore, if RB did violate the "spirit of the rules", they didn't do it by screwing over their other driver.

 

[cjo]

Difficult to say - there were only 2 tenths between 3rd and 6th. It is unlikely to have lost him any places.

According to http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/...-on-new-track-in-austin-all-you-need-to-know/

It is estimated that 10kg fuel costs 0.38 seconds a lap
1 lap takes 2.55kg fuel.

So, 1 lap of fuel costs about 0.0969 seconds on average.

Vettel's time was 1:41.073, Maldonado's was 1:41.226, a difference of 0.153 seconds - Vettel could have carried about 1.5 laps worth of fuel for Maldonado to have had a chance of beating him. In reality, he would have only needed a small amount of extra fuel as he was half way around an in-lap so he wouldn't have been pushing quite so hard on the throttle. An extra litre of fuel weighs about 0.75kg, or about 0.03 seconds/lap.

 

[jimbo75]

I'm not holding the teams to different standards. Most of you are claiming that what Ferrari did was worse but in fact they were both going against the spirit of the rules.

Every other team would have done the exact same thing as Ferrari did had they been in Ferrari's position. If they hadn't they'd simply have thrown away their only chance at the championship.

Apparently (and this goes against what was allegedly said before), Massa agreed that it was the best thing for the team, as he should do. Massa has absolutely nothing to gain and Alonso everything to lose. There is simply no way that any of the other teams would have reacted differently in the same situation.

 

[Kaotik]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/104459

Lotus finally got their simulator ready. Meanwhile, Kimi won't be driving it because he doesn't like driving games

 

[Phil]

I'm not holding the teams to different standards. Most of you are claiming that what Ferrari did was worse but in fact they were both going against the spirit of the rules.

I think you are confusing what "to the spirit of the rules" means. Both incidents are very different. At Yas Marina, Redbull shafted themselves. If they had not made the error on fuel (whoevers fault it was), they wouldn't have been in that position at all. What they did was merely damage control and them deciding to change the car and start from the pits only affected their own car.

Cjo covered the other points already. I might just add that at Yas Marina, starting from the pitlane is a severe disadvantage, possibly more so than on other tracks due to the tunnel. Starting from the pitlane ment that he would lose half a lap before reaching the last of the backmarkers. Compare that to overtaking many backmarkers already at the start, which no doubt would have been easy for a car as quick as the RedBull. The reason starting from the pits turned out so well is that Vettels progress was also aided by safety cars. No one expected him to progress further than 8th. No one shouted foulplay before the race and well after RedBull had confirmed they would take the car out of park-ferme to make these adjustments. This is all accoarding to rules & regulations and anyone on the grid can use this on their own risk.

This is a far cry different than what Ferrari did in Texas and I don't believe for a second that other teams would have gone that far. What makes this incident worse, is that they not only shafted their own driver with an unnecessary penalty, them altering the starting lane like that also affected others on the grid. If they had merely used team-orders during the race or even broke the seals on Alonso's car, thus making him start in 13th rather than 8th - it would have been more in line,although it would have still affected others on the grid, but at least it would have been Alonso's own trade-off.

How worthy of a champion can he be if the team needs to resort to things like this in order to give him a chance to win the WDC?

 

[jimbo75]

Find me one team who shouted foul play after what Ferrari did. The grid problem is easily solved simply by having a 4 or 6 place penalty incurred instead of a 5 place - it's not Ferrari's fault that the rule was badly conceived (edit - this wouldn't actually fix the problem...).

How many times over the past few years has RBR forced changes to the rules because of their creative thinking? Wing changes, holes in the floor etc?

While I'm at it -

Taking Webber's front wing and giving it to Vettel (when Webber was still in with a chance in the championship).
The engine map controversy at Hockenheim.
The ride height controversy.
Brake duct issue in Canada.

This season alone! As soon as Ferrari pulls a stunt they are being lambasted while RBR is pulling one every other race and mostly getting away with it.

And I forgot that they pulled Webber in to the pits in Abu Dhabi so he would be out of Vettel's way, then released him into traffic (how often do you see Vettel being released into traffic?) which finished his race.

 

[Phil]

I never said a team shouted foulplay - if you watch the Sky broadcast though (post-race), you will see various comments by teams and ex-drivers who reflect on the penalty.

As for everything else you've written - I think you may want to look up a bit on F1 history. It's always been a sport that pushes the boundaries of the rules to get the maximum performance out of the car - EBD, DD, DDRS, F-Duct, McLaren using brake-heat to heat the tyres etc - they're all just examples of loop holes being found and used. RedBull just has been better at it than others. But that doesn't matter, because we're not talking about that, are we?

 

[Lightman]

To me Ferrari and their decision is not a problem. Real problem is starting grid varied grip levels. If, as requested by almost anyone except Red Bull, race organizers would put an effort to clean dirty side of the track to maybe not match but at least bring them closer in available grip levels, there would be nothing to argue now.
On top of that Ferrari were openly admitting why they are breaking seal, and hinting this has happened before at other teams, but dressed in nice PR (I mean technical issue).
One is also forgetting Alonso Qualified on the clean side of track, but thanks to 5 place grid penalty of Grosjean he moved up to dirty side of track.

Really, what I see in Texas is not a problem of Ferrari using rules to their advantage, but race organizers failing to guarantee similar grip levels on both sides of starting grid. This should be their priority and that would guarantee teams and drivers starting slots according to the job they did and not some random lottery.

 

[cjo]

One is also forgetting Alonso Qualified on the clean side of track, but thanks to 5 place grid penalty of Grosjean he moved up to dirty side of track.

Grosjean's gear box failed in free practice before qualifying, so it was known there was going to be a 5 place grid penalty. What Ferrari did was after qualifying had finished, which noone could have reasonably anticipated.

Really, what I see in Texas is not a problem of Ferrari using rules to their advantage, but race organizers failing to guarantee similar grip levels on both sides of starting grid. This should be their priority and that would guarantee teams and drivers starting slots according to the job they did and not some random lottery.

From what I recall of the coverage, one of the drivers was talking about how they spent time on saturday evening performing starts from the 'bad' side of the grid to lay down some rubber.

 

[jimbo75]

I never said a team shouted foulplay - if you watch the Sky broadcast though (post-race), you will see various comments by teams and ex-drivers who reflect on the penalty.

As for everything else you've written - I think you may want to look up a bit on F1 history. It's always been a sport that pushes the boundaries of the rules to get the maximum performance out of the car - EBD, DD, DDRS, F-Duct, McLaren using brake-heat to heat the tyres etc - they're all just examples of loop holes being found and used. RedBull just has been better at it than others. But that doesn't matter, because we're not talking about that, are we?

Can you remind me what we're talking about because it just seems like a bash Alonso/Ferrari thread to me.

How about we talk about the Toro Rosso's scarpering out of Vettel's way in Abu Dhabi. Aren't they supposed to be fighting for position?

If all of these "spirit of the rules" controversies were counted up over the season, RBR would have had more than the rest of the teams combined. I just don't buy the "poor Massa" excuse either - Massa has been dreadful for most of the season and single-handly ensured Ferrari had no chance in the constructors. He only has himself to blame, unlike Webber who is treated like a #2 driver even when he's leading Vettel in the championship.