Formula 1 - The Eco Friendly Motorsport!

[Dave Baumann]

It was grey zone on the rules already, they were clarified right after that race that the marshals can push cars to track, but not lift

Where did you read that? The only discussion I saw on this was in the Time blog, and that pointed out that the crane is only to be used "if the car was in a place of safety", which was not the case for Lewis's car at the time.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2007/07/index.html

 

[Kaotik]

Where did you read that? The only discussion I saw on this was in the Time blog, and that pointed out that the crane is only to be used "if the car was in a place of safety", which was not the case for Lewis's car at the time.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2007/07/index.html

I re-checked it, the source is a local newspapers (one of the biggest daily newspapers in finland), and it's F1 reporter, Heikki Kulta, who has had quite good reputation among the F1 world for years and years (as in, it's not just some random guy from some small local paper)

The new rule, that marshals can only push the cars with their own strenght to re-enter the race, and can't use lifts / cranes / whatever anymore, came from the team managers (or whatever they're called, todt, dennis etc etc), and was approved by Charlie Whiting to F1 rules.

Sadly there isn't any official links I could give you, but I'm sure it could be digged up from some FIA site aswell.

For finnish folks anyway:
http://www.turunsanomat.fi/f1/?ts=1...4:599:1:2007-08-20,104:34:479999,1:0:0:0:0:0:

 

[Dave Baumann]

Interesting because the Times followed up on this and evidently spoke to the FIA about it and they had no issues:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2007/07/lewis-and-the-c.html

put this to Richard Woods of the FIA and this is what he said: "We are extremely happy with what happened. He was in a dangerous spot - he kept his engine running and the quickest and easiest way, under the circumstances, to get him and the car out of the way was to get him back on the track and get him going again and, as far as we are concerned, that was fine."

Richard Woods: "Marshalls can overrule the driver but, in this case, it is our understanding that there wasn't a dispute between the marshalls and Lewis. It seems clear that the quickest way for him to be moved out of harm's way, shall we say, was to do exactly what they did. That's what I've got from race control." Woods added that there had been no report of complaint to Charlie Whiting, the race director, from the marshalls about Lewis.

The use of the crane is unique is in this role(a far as I know). One supposes a crane driver is a "marshall". On this point the FIA say he is a "slightly different category of marshall/trackside official."

 

[Davros]

heh, i just have to wonder what nationality are all you people who believe that Hamilton is the greatest F1 driver ever?

No idea as no-one on this forum has said such a thing

 

[Dave Baumann]

Sadly there isn't any official links I could give you, but I'm sure it could be digged up from some FIA site aswell.

The Sporting Regs are available on the FIA website:

http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html

Last update that were made to the regs appeared to be prior to that race, and the "Appendix H" being discussed doesn't appear to have changed since the start of the year.

 

[dizietsma]

I have to say that the penalty for Kubica for hitting Hamilton was not deserved. Hamilton took a wide line through that corner and then cut across, whether because he found more grip there or simply bwecause he simply braked slightly too late. He could not see Kubica in the spray so no fault of his.

However Kubica should not have been penalised, he was very fast on the track with his BMW and he was on the proper racing line for that corner, it is not as if he went in too fast and drifted out into Hamilton causing the accident, he was just taking his chance and it was a "racing incident".

There's little enough overtaking in F1 nowadays with most of it only being possible in wet races (as we have too much downforce and traction in the dry as I have said here before eh Tongue ? ) so it is a shame the stewards penalised Kubica for doing what he is paid to do.

As a contrast both Kubica and Massa forced each other off the track in the last few corners and rather than penalise them it was allowed and claimed to be very exciting. Where is the consistency? With the Hamilton and Kubica incident there was no aggression and simply two lines that intersected due to circumstances.

I'm not claiming the stewards are pro Hamilton here, just that I think they made a bad decision and it was a bit tough on old Bob K.

As for Hamilton, he is doing very well indeed this year, I just hope he shuts up a bit, he is starting to take the sheen off his on track performances with some of his utterences.

I hope both he and Alonso stay at McLaren next year to continue this battle.

 

[chavvdarrr]

I'm not denying the fact that Hamilton looks to be very good and talented driver.
But I dislike the way he is pushed up - fact is, that every single problem around him this year is resolved in his favour. It simply does not look right and is unfair. Why did they penalize Kubica?
The only possible outcome is that next time someone is faster than Hamilton he won't even try to outrun him - "oh, no, if shit happens I'll be found guilty"
Ferrari and Mclaren seem to be more equal than others,

 

[DuckThor Evil]

The Sporting Regs are available on the FIA website:

http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html

Last update that were made to the regs appeared to be prior to that race, and the "Appendix H" being discussed doesn't appear to have changed since the start of the year.

The new rule was widely reported in Finland, I don't think it was made up by some reporter and got passed on, the Finnish commentators also announced it during the next race after the incident. So I believe this info is true, but I do find it odd if it's nowhere at FIA site...

edit: however Hamilton placed 9th in that race and thus didn't score any points and even still it was within the rules at that time, so no problem there imo. There might be some powerful forces out there that wish Hamilton to win the championship, but I think Hamilton clearly deserves the championship. He has driven superbly and has amazed me in a big way, however I don't think Mclaren deserves to get the drivers championship for what they have done.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

The setup's are ususally derived from what they find in testing - of which he is a critical element of.

Thats the point, apperantly hamilton doesnt and just do what Alonso does.

Many other drivers started out in fast cars and finished nowhere in relation to their more experienced team-mates.

Hamilton has beaten, fair and square, the two time world champion.

Let's say Hamilton joined Ferrari and beat Schumacher fair and square (although that wouldn't have happened as Schumacher wouldn't have allowed him to, but seeing as we seem to have descended into the fantasy zone why not) would it make him any less a driver?

Yes, he's lucky to be in one of the fastest cars in the grid, but he has also finished on the podium in almost every race even when the car wasn't the best on the grid.

For an indication to the guys talent you only need to look at the last race, being a new track everyone was pretty much even, and Hamilton was quicker throughout the weekend than Alonso.

Alonso obviously realises that next year Hamilton will know all the tracks as well as he does, which is why he's running away with his tail between his legs back to Renault.

What im trying to say is that people suddenly look at him like he's the best driver ever and would beat the likes of MS and Senna with 2 fingers in his nose.

Sure he's a good driver at the moment, buts its not that hard to look good in a car that most of the time is the fastest on the grid. Would everyone still be treating Hamilton with god like status if he started out at a team ath the back of the grid? Looking good in a bad car is alot worse than looking good in one that's very fast.

And dont forget the likes of Vilneauve, won the WDC in his rookie year because he had a car that just was alot better than the rest (or so I read, as I was to young at the time) but ended up like nothing failing at every team he raced. Not saying that will happen to hamilton as Mclaren would never drop him like a stone but I still have to see how he reacts when he doesnt have everything going for him.

 

[DJ12]

Look at Couthard, when he started out Williams were walking every championship, Damon Hill won for f#@$ sake

It is wrong to mention Hamilton in the same breath as Schumacher and Senna for sure, but as far as rookie seasons go, he's done better than anyone in my memory.

In a couple of seasons we will have a good idea of what he's really capable of, but as an English man I feel proud of what he's done and having suffered so many false dawns with Button and Coulthard etc.etc. I think I am entitled too

 

[chavvdarrr]

and having suffered so many false dawns with Button and Coulthard etc.etc. I think I am entitled too

Pure curiosity, but when was Button able to race having good car

 

[DJ12]

Williams weren't shit when he joined them.

They were challenging for wins.

 

[Dave Baumann]

It simply does not look right and is unfair. Why did they penalize Kubica?

Probalbly the same reasoning as why Montoya was penalised for taking a lunge at Schumacher at (IIRC) Brazil a few years ago.

Thats the point, apperantly hamilton doesnt and just do what Alonso does.

According to Hamilton, this impression is just flat-out incorrect.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2007/09/set-up.html

 

[Bludd]

And dont forget the likes of Vilneauve, won the WDC in his rookie year

No, you are mistaken. He didn't win, he came second in 1996 which was his rookie year in F1. He won in 1997.

Damon Hill won in 1996 and Michael Schumacher came third.

 

[DJ12]

I think he meant his dad, unless he's really young.

 

[Bludd]

I think he meant his dad, unless he's really young.

Gilles never won a F1 drivers' championship. In his first year, he raced 3 times for 2 different teams and scored a grand total of 0 points.

 

[Kaotik]

Villeneuve was also quite experienced Indycar (or something) driver, champion even I think, was he not?

 

[Bludd]

Villeneuve was also quite experienced Indycar (or something) driver, champion even I think, was he not?

Yes, Indycar World Series champion and runner up in Japanese Formula 3, but that is mostly true of any F1 driver in recent history. You have to have shown some level of excellence at a lower ranked motor sport to qualify for a FIA Super License so you can drive in F1.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

No, you are mistaken. He didn't win, he came second in 1996 which was his rookie year in F1. He won in 1997.

Damon Hill won in 1996 and Michael Schumacher came third.

Ah oke I was wrong then.

I think he meant his dad, unless he's really young.

I didnt ment his dad. I am 20 so in 97 I was only 10 and I dont remember my parents watching F1 so I didnt get to see any either.

Yes, Indycar World Series champion and runner up in Japanese Formula 3, but that is mostly true of any F1 driver in recent history. You have to have shown some level of excellence at a lower ranked motor sport to qualify for a FIA Super License so you can drive in F1.

No. You only have to do a certain amount of miles to be able to get a super license. For example its also possible for amateurs to get a super license. I believe this british realestate guy who bought a 1994 Ferrari F1 had to get his super license before Ferrari allowed him to buy and race the car.

 

[Bludd]

No. You only have to do a certain amount of miles to be able to get a super license. For example its also possible for amateurs to get a super license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_license

You are right, but only partially. I didn't quote that part of it since you have to get an unanimous vote to be granted the license. I am sure they won't vote you get one unless you have shown some amount of excellence at driving.