planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:31 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28413
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Vettel's penalty is ridiculous IMO.

In terms of the title race but both Ricciardo and Ocon have been penalised earlier in the season for doing similar, it took Vettel 23 seconds to bring his speed down to the required level of 90Km/h during which he also saw it wise to accelerate from 110Km/h up to 170Km/h.

I'm not doubting he broke the rules but I assume they are there for safety. He was not in danger of endangering anyone so why the need to apply them. F1 has far too many of these arbitrary rules.

Because letting safety rules slide is a really bad idea? The bottom line is that Vettel does not have absolute knowledge of what's going on all over the track, and he knew it was a red flag period. You don't go fast in a red flag period. There's no reason to go fast in a red flag period, and there's no excuse for it. He broke the rules and he got penalized. I don't see any problem, and I don't agree that it's an arbitrary rule.

Can't quite see how Vettel could argue with the application of the rule given he sped up after seeing the lights but when you've got Horner and even Toto Wolff saying the rule is 'stupid' and needs looking at then it probably is too stringent. Was red flag driving ever an issue with the way they did it before? I don't recall any dangerous instances before they adjusted the rule.

Vettel got penalised 2 years ago, I think he passed a car?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28413
mikeyg123 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Vettel's penalty is ridiculous IMO.

In terms of the title race but both Ricciardo and Ocon have been penalised earlier in the season for doing similar, it took Vettel 23 seconds to bring his speed down to the required level of 90Km/h during which he also saw it wise to accelerate from 110Km/h up to 170Km/h.

I'm not doubting he broke the rules but I assume they are there for safety. He was not in danger of endangering anyone so why the need to apply them. F1 has far too many of these arbitrary rules.

Because letting safety rules slide is a really bad idea? The bottom line is that Vettel does not have absolute knowledge of what's going on all over the track, and he knew it was a red flag period. You don't go fast in a red flag period. There's no reason to go fast in a red flag period, and there's no excuse for it. He broke the rules and he got penalized. I don't see any problem, and I don't agree that it's an arbitrary rule.


It's application of it in this incident is arbitrary as it exists for safety reasons but Vettel didn't endanger anyone's safety. Why not just have a rule that says you must run below racing speed and head back to the pits in a safe manor? Then if a driver does something dangerous he can be penalised but if he doesn't he's ok. The current rule is over regulation at its worse.

That's the thing they don't want a driver to do something dangerous in the first place.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 542
Location: Kansas
Well at least we now know that the Verstopper sausages work. Stopped Max just fine! :lol:

Was kind of hoping that Max would be right up there though. Would have been great entertainment watching Sebastian do a gut check about when and where to pass Max.

Still it will be fun to watch Seb navigate his way around Ricciardo and Bottas. Wonder what great Kimi-ism reply on the radio will be when the call comes to let Vettel pass him. :D

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28413
Mort Canard wrote:
Well at least we now know that the Verstopper sausages work. Stopped Max just fine! :lol:

Was kind of hoping that Max would be right up there though. Would have been great entertainment watching Sebastian do a gut check about when and where to pass Max.

Still it will be fun to watch Seb navigate his way around Ricciardo and Bottas. Wonder what great Kimi-ism reply on the radio will be when the call comes to let Vettel pass him. :D

Kimi might be leading the race so Vettel might have to pass Hamilton first?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6402
Location: Nebraska, USA
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
Clarky wrote:
Mercedes-Benz wrote:
Any reason why qualifying is so late here. FP3 time should have been qualifying start time :?

I think it is to do with the event afterwards.


happened last year as well i think. wonder if any other race would be allowed this. only happened since the americans took over. it should be tough s***. make em wait like everyone else has to at other races. there'll be plenty of food to keep them busy.

You don't make them wait when the other sports out-draw you as F1 is trying to build their U.S. following. As for the "plenty of food to keep them busy" comment, is that get another dig at Americans?

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Last edited by Blake on Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 542
Location: Kansas
pokerman wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
Well at least we now know that the Verstopper sausages work. Stopped Max just fine! :lol:

Was kind of hoping that Max would be right up there though. Would have been great entertainment watching Sebastian do a gut check about when and where to pass Max.

Still it will be fun to watch Seb navigate his way around Ricciardo and Bottas. Wonder what great Kimi-ism reply on the radio will be when the call comes to let Vettel pass him. :D

Kimi might be leading the race so Vettel might have to pass Hamilton first?


That's a distinct possibility with Kimi starting on the Ultras and Lewis, Valtteri, Sebastian, and Daniel starting on the Supers.

Still if Kimi is leading the race when Seb gets to him there will most certainly be a call from the pits for him to move over for Seb! ...won't there???

They might also use Kimi to push Lewis back towards Sebastian if they get a chance.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 6827
Location: Mumbai, India
Ocon doing a splendid job as always in being 'Best of the Rest' qualifier!

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 6827
Location: Mumbai, India
Image
Source - www.imgur.com

Image
Source - www.imgur.com

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6083
Location: Michigan, USA
UnlikeUday wrote:
Ocon doing a splendid job as always in being 'Best of the Rest' qualifier!

Does anyone know why Leclerc only did one run in Q3? I was expecting to see him contend for best of the rest, but he spent most of it in the garage and then his only run wasn't what I had hoped for... :(

Yes, apparently I've become a Leclerc fan without really noticing it. Oh well!

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 6827
Location: Mumbai, India
Exediron wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
Ocon doing a splendid job as always in being 'Best of the Rest' qualifier!

Does anyone know why Leclerc only did one run in Q3? I was expecting to see him contend for best of the rest, but he spent most of it in the garage and then his only run wasn't what I had hoped for... :(

Yes, apparently I've become a Leclerc fan without really noticing it. Oh well!


Only reason I see is shortage of new Ultrasoft tyres. Checo & Ocon even did their 1st runs in Q3 on used ultras.

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm
Posts: 319
pokerman wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
Well at least we now know that the Verstopper sausages work. Stopped Max just fine! :lol:

Was kind of hoping that Max would be right up there though. Would have been great entertainment watching Sebastian do a gut check about when and where to pass Max.

Still it will be fun to watch Seb navigate his way around Ricciardo and Bottas. Wonder what great Kimi-ism reply on the radio will be when the call comes to let Vettel pass him. :D

Kimi might be leading the race so Vettel might have to pass Hamilton first?


Will Kimi allow him oast without a fight? Ferrari didn't make that call in Austra or ib Jaoan (albeit the gap was massive in Japan).

If Hamilton retires from the race and Kimi is 1st with Seb second then perhaps they make that order. It doesn't mean he'll comply.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14223
Mort Canard wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
Well at least we now know that the Verstopper sausages work. Stopped Max just fine! :lol:

Was kind of hoping that Max would be right up there though. Would have been great entertainment watching Sebastian do a gut check about when and where to pass Max.

Still it will be fun to watch Seb navigate his way around Ricciardo and Bottas. Wonder what great Kimi-ism reply on the radio will be when the call comes to let Vettel pass him. :D

Kimi might be leading the race so Vettel might have to pass Hamilton first?


That's a distinct possibility with Kimi starting on the Ultras and Lewis, Valtteri, Sebastian, and Daniel starting on the Supers.

Still if Kimi is leading the race when Seb gets to him there will most certainly be a call from the pits for him to move over for Seb! ...won't there???

They might also use Kimi to push Lewis back towards Sebastian if they get a chance.


They didn't swap positions in Japan so I don't see them doing it here if it's for the win. I'm not even sure Kimi would give up his final win anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 542
Location: Kansas
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
Well at least we now know that the Verstopper sausages work. Stopped Max just fine! :lol:

Was kind of hoping that Max would be right up there though. Would have been great entertainment watching Sebastian do a gut check about when and where to pass Max.

Still it will be fun to watch Seb navigate his way around Ricciardo and Bottas. Wonder what great Kimi-ism reply on the radio will be when the call comes to let Vettel pass him. :D

Kimi might be leading the race so Vettel might have to pass Hamilton first?


That's a distinct possibility with Kimi starting on the Ultras and Lewis, Valtteri, Sebastian, and Daniel starting on the Supers.

Still if Kimi is leading the race when Seb gets to him there will most certainly be a call from the pits for him to move over for Seb! ...won't there???

They might also use Kimi to push Lewis back towards Sebastian if they get a chance.


They didn't swap positions in Japan so I don't see them doing it here if it's for the win. I'm not even sure Kimi would give up his final win anyway.


We will have to see how this plays out.

Historically Ferrari have been much less reticent about using team orders than Mercedes, although this year Mercedes has used them more.

Kimi is indeed something of a wild card and with his Ferrari career down to three races after this one, indeed might not take team orders to surrender to Sebastian.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28413
UnlikeUday wrote:
Exediron wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
Ocon doing a splendid job as always in being 'Best of the Rest' qualifier!

Does anyone know why Leclerc only did one run in Q3? I was expecting to see him contend for best of the rest, but he spent most of it in the garage and then his only run wasn't what I had hoped for... :(

Yes, apparently I've become a Leclerc fan without really noticing it. Oh well!


Only reason I see is shortage of new Ultrasoft tyres. Checo & Ocon even did their 1st runs in Q3 on used ultras.

This

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1648
BMWSauber84 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
Well at least we now know that the Verstopper sausages work. Stopped Max just fine! :lol:

Was kind of hoping that Max would be right up there though. Would have been great entertainment watching Sebastian do a gut check about when and where to pass Max.

Still it will be fun to watch Seb navigate his way around Ricciardo and Bottas. Wonder what great Kimi-ism reply on the radio will be when the call comes to let Vettel pass him. :D

Kimi might be leading the race so Vettel might have to pass Hamilton first?


Will Kimi allow him oast without a fight? Ferrari didn't make that call in Austra or ib Jaoan (albeit the gap was massive in Japan).

If Hamilton retires from the race and Kimi is 1st with Seb second then perhaps they make that order. It doesn't mean he'll comply.


I think in talking about Kimi vs Seb here on strategy alone if this situation occurs Seb is not going to need the team orders as he is on the durable SS so going to go longer into the first stint, by virtue of that alone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2144
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
It needs to be mandated because this is Formula 1, not the Dominoes Saturday Tea time competition at the Bingleford retirement home.

Every session of a weekend is competitive, and unless given explicit and unambiguous instructions the teams will always look to try and gain an advantage. Now, we can question whether the red flag was necessary in this situation, but red flags are only ever put out when there is a critical incident on the track and once one is put out you can't second guess "is the red flag actually necessary"

If the teams are allowed to "use their judgement" then will push to to the limit to extract an advantage. In this specific incident, there was no advantage to be gained, however - again - you can't start putting "if this else that" flowcharts into red flag situations - they have to be binary. If it was the last practice session on a weekend where there had been limited running, and it was left up to teams to apply "their judgement" - then the teams would push beyond the limit and then argue in the stewards office they had lifted enough. It's exactly what happened during Jules Bianchi's accident. That's why the teams now have deltas.

While a practice session is less competitive than a race, they are still a limited resource for the team, and there are circumstances - such as the example I described previously - where teams would feel the need to push the limits. A mandated time delta takes they away from them.


What advantage can be gained by returning to the pits under a red flag a bit faster in a practice session? The only rule needed is that the driving must be safe.

"Driving must be safe" is ambiguous. The driver can go around at full race speed saying those areas weren't affected so 'it was safe'. Even saying "reduced speed" isn't enough, as proven by Bianchi. While, in Vettel's specific case, there was no advantage to be gained, they can't have a hundred different red flag conditions "This is Red Flag Condition 27B, you can drive fast in sector 1, but ease off in 2, and put your hazard lights on" - a red flag is put out when there is a dangerous situation, no questions asked, no room for wiggling. There are some situations where a team would want to push the boundaries - even during a practice sessions.


Back to this topic...
How you can argue that enforcing a speed limit under red flags is unnecessary I do not know. Whether you or vettel.or anyone other than the rule makers think it is extreme heat s moot, I think 70mph on a clear motorway is too slow but if you break the speed limit you get punished. Just like if they speed in the pitlane regardless of whether or not it SEEMS to be 'safe' they get penalised. How can you argue that it's a pointless rule whennl the most recent and only on track death in modern F1 occured because someone was driving too fast under flags in the wet


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14223
FormulaFun wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
It needs to be mandated because this is Formula 1, not the Dominoes Saturday Tea time competition at the Bingleford retirement home.

Every session of a weekend is competitive, and unless given explicit and unambiguous instructions the teams will always look to try and gain an advantage. Now, we can question whether the red flag was necessary in this situation, but red flags are only ever put out when there is a critical incident on the track and once one is put out you can't second guess "is the red flag actually necessary"

If the teams are allowed to "use their judgement" then will push to to the limit to extract an advantage. In this specific incident, there was no advantage to be gained, however - again - you can't start putting "if this else that" flowcharts into red flag situations - they have to be binary. If it was the last practice session on a weekend where there had been limited running, and it was left up to teams to apply "their judgement" - then the teams would push beyond the limit and then argue in the stewards office they had lifted enough. It's exactly what happened during Jules Bianchi's accident. That's why the teams now have deltas.

While a practice session is less competitive than a race, they are still a limited resource for the team, and there are circumstances - such as the example I described previously - where teams would feel the need to push the limits. A mandated time delta takes they away from them.


What advantage can be gained by returning to the pits under a red flag a bit faster in a practice session? The only rule needed is that the driving must be safe.

"Driving must be safe" is ambiguous. The driver can go around at full race speed saying those areas weren't affected so 'it was safe'. Even saying "reduced speed" isn't enough, as proven by Bianchi. While, in Vettel's specific case, there was no advantage to be gained, they can't have a hundred different red flag conditions "This is Red Flag Condition 27B, you can drive fast in sector 1, but ease off in 2, and put your hazard lights on" - a red flag is put out when there is a dangerous situation, no questions asked, no room for wiggling. There are some situations where a team would want to push the boundaries - even during a practice sessions.


Back to this topic...
How you can argue that enforcing a speed limit under red flags is unnecessary I do not know. Whether you or vettel.or anyone other than the rule makers think it is extreme heat s moot, I think 70mph on a clear motorway is too slow but if you break the speed limit you get punished. Just like if they speed in the pitlane regardless of whether or not it SEEMS to be 'safe' they get penalised. How can you argue that it's a pointless rule whennl the most recent and only on track death in modern F1 occured because someone was driving too fast under flags in the wet


The Bianchi accident is totally irrelevant to this. There is a benefit to driving as fast as you can under yellows in a race (where incidentally there is no speed limit). However under red flag in practice their is no advantage to be gained so drivers will naturally drive slowly. Just to point out as well - Speeding in the pitlane in a practice session only gets you a fine because you gain no competitive advantage for it. How can speeding in the pitlane be judged as less dangerous than driving well off the pace on a clear track with a good sight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2144
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
It needs to be mandated because this is Formula 1, not the Dominoes Saturday Tea time competition at the Bingleford retirement home.

Every session of a weekend is competitive, and unless given explicit and unambiguous instructions the teams will always look to try and gain an advantage. Now, we can question whether the red flag was necessary in this situation, but red flags are only ever put out when there is a critical incident on the track and once one is put out you can't second guess "is the red flag actually necessary"

If the teams are allowed to "use their judgement" then will push to to the limit to extract an advantage. In this specific incident, there was no advantage to be gained, however - again - you can't start putting "if this else that" flowcharts into red flag situations - they have to be binary. If it was the last practice session on a weekend where there had been limited running, and it was left up to teams to apply "their judgement" - then the teams would push beyond the limit and then argue in the stewards office they had lifted enough. It's exactly what happened during Jules Bianchi's accident. That's why the teams now have deltas.

While a practice session is less competitive than a race, they are still a limited resource for the team, and there are circumstances - such as the example I described previously - where teams would feel the need to push the limits. A mandated time delta takes they away from them.


What advantage can be gained by returning to the pits under a red flag a bit faster in a practice session? The only rule needed is that the driving must be safe.

"Driving must be safe" is ambiguous. The driver can go around at full race speed saying those areas weren't affected so 'it was safe'. Even saying "reduced speed" isn't enough, as proven by Bianchi. While, in Vettel's specific case, there was no advantage to be gained, they can't have a hundred different red flag conditions "This is Red Flag Condition 27B, you can drive fast in sector 1, but ease off in 2, and put your hazard lights on" - a red flag is put out when there is a dangerous situation, no questions asked, no room for wiggling. There are some situations where a team would want to push the boundaries - even during a practice sessions.


Back to this topic...
How you can argue that enforcing a speed limit under red flags is unnecessary I do not know. Whether you or vettel.or anyone other than the rule makers think it is extreme heat s moot, I think 70mph on a clear motorway is too slow but if you break the speed limit you get punished. Just like if they speed in the pitlane regardless of whether or not it SEEMS to be 'safe' they get penalised. How can you argue that it's a pointless rule whennl the most recent and only on track death in modern F1 occured because someone was driving too fast under flags in the wet


The Bianchi accident is totally irrelevant to this. There is a benefit to driving as fast as you can under yellows in a race (where incidentally there is no speed limit). However under red flag in practice their is no advantage to be gained so drivers will naturally drive slowly. Just to point out as well - Speeding in the pitlane in a practice session only gets you a fine because you gain no competitive advantage for it. How can speeding in the pitlane be judged as less dangerous than driving well off the pace on a clear track with a good sight.


Obviously not cus you got vettel doing ~180kmh on a wet track under red flag. Also your argument earlier was not against the penalty but against the rule its self - you're aguing against placing a speed limit on a red flagged track, its very strange.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14223
FormulaFun wrote:

Obviously not cus you got vettel doing ~180kmh on a wet track under red flag. Also your argument earlier was not against the penalty but against the rule its self - you're aguing against placing a speed limit on a red flagged track, its very strange.


Vettel was driving way off the pace. Are you honestly saying it seemed dangerous to you? There's absolutely no need for a speed limit on red flag track. It's absolutely typical of F1 style over regulation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6083
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:

Obviously not cus you got vettel doing ~180kmh on a wet track under red flag. Also your argument earlier was not against the penalty but against the rule its self - you're aguing against placing a speed limit on a red flagged track, its very strange.

Vettel was driving way off the pace. Are you honestly saying it seemed dangerous to you? There's absolutely no need for a speed limit on red flag track. It's absolutely typical of F1 style over regulation.

This is a bizarre position, honestly. When a red flag comes out the competitive session is instantly stopped. How does it seem unreasonable to you for there to be a speed limit on track when the competitive session is stopped due to some hazard on track?

I usually respect your opinion, but I just can't see this one. It seems like you're so set on the idea of over-regulation that you're applying it to a case where the regulation makes perfect sense.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7520
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:

Obviously not cus you got vettel doing ~180kmh on a wet track under red flag. Also your argument earlier was not against the penalty but against the rule its self - you're aguing against placing a speed limit on a red flagged track, its very strange.

Vettel was driving way off the pace. Are you honestly saying it seemed dangerous to you? There's absolutely no need for a speed limit on red flag track. It's absolutely typical of F1 style over regulation.

This is a bizarre position, honestly. When a red flag comes out the competitive session is instantly stopped. How does it seem unreasonable to you for there to be a speed limit on track when the competitive session is stopped due to some hazard on track?

I usually respect your opinion, but I just can't see this one. It seems like you're so set on the idea of over-regulation that you're applying it to a case where the regulation makes perfect sense.

I'd say a simple "don't drive in a dangerous manner" would do, no need to make it rigid by putting a number on it. On a VSC I can understand the need for a delta, if there's a competative advantage to be gained the drivers will push it so leaving wiggle room in the regulation is a bad idea.

On a red flagged track however there's no competative advantage to driving quicker, by putting a number on it you end up with pointless penalties like the one here and Japan etc. Sure all of those penalties were correct since the drivers broke the regulation, but the only reason for the regulation is to stop dangerous driving and the drivers penalised weren't driving dangerously.

I think in this situation since there's no competative advantage to be gained you could have a vague regulation that allows the stewards to penalise dangerous driving but also apply common sense and not be rigidly locked in to giving penalties for dangerous driving when the driving wasn't actually dangerous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:32 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3207
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:

Obviously not cus you got vettel doing ~180kmh on a wet track under red flag. Also your argument earlier was not against the penalty but against the rule its self - you're aguing against placing a speed limit on a red flagged track, its very strange.

Vettel was driving way off the pace. Are you honestly saying it seemed dangerous to you? There's absolutely no need for a speed limit on red flag track. It's absolutely typical of F1 style over regulation.

This is a bizarre position, honestly. When a red flag comes out the competitive session is instantly stopped. How does it seem unreasonable to you for there to be a speed limit on track when the competitive session is stopped due to some hazard on track?

I usually respect your opinion, but I just can't see this one. It seems like you're so set on the idea of over-regulation that you're applying it to a case where the regulation makes perfect sense.

I'd say a simple "don't drive in a dangerous manner" would do, no need to make it rigid by putting a number on it. On a VSC I can understand the need for a delta, if there's a competative advantage to be gained the drivers will push it so leaving wiggle room in the regulation is a bad idea.

On a red flagged track however there's no competative advantage to driving quicker, by putting a number on it you end up with pointless penalties like the one here and Japan etc. Sure all of those penalties were correct since the drivers broke the regulation, but the only reason for the regulation is to stop dangerous driving and the drivers penalised weren't driving dangerously.

I think in this situation since there's no competative advantage to be gained you could have a vague regulation that allows the stewards to penalise dangerous driving but also apply common sense and not be rigidly locked in to giving penalties for dangerous driving when the driving wasn't actually dangerous.

Conversely, why is it unreasonable to expect a driver to drive at 90km/h after the red flag when it in no way disadvantages his race weekend? Vettel applied sustained acceleration TWICE after the red flag came out. There was no need to do so, and that's why he got the penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7520
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:

Obviously not cus you got vettel doing ~180kmh on a wet track under red flag. Also your argument earlier was not against the penalty but against the rule its self - you're aguing against placing a speed limit on a red flagged track, its very strange.

Vettel was driving way off the pace. Are you honestly saying it seemed dangerous to you? There's absolutely no need for a speed limit on red flag track. It's absolutely typical of F1 style over regulation.

This is a bizarre position, honestly. When a red flag comes out the competitive session is instantly stopped. How does it seem unreasonable to you for there to be a speed limit on track when the competitive session is stopped due to some hazard on track?

I usually respect your opinion, but I just can't see this one. It seems like you're so set on the idea of over-regulation that you're applying it to a case where the regulation makes perfect sense.

I'd say a simple "don't drive in a dangerous manner" would do, no need to make it rigid by putting a number on it. On a VSC I can understand the need for a delta, if there's a competative advantage to be gained the drivers will push it so leaving wiggle room in the regulation is a bad idea.

On a red flagged track however there's no competative advantage to driving quicker, by putting a number on it you end up with pointless penalties like the one here and Japan etc. Sure all of those penalties were correct since the drivers broke the regulation, but the only reason for the regulation is to stop dangerous driving and the drivers penalised weren't driving dangerously.

I think in this situation since there's no competative advantage to be gained you could have a vague regulation that allows the stewards to penalise dangerous driving but also apply common sense and not be rigidly locked in to giving penalties for dangerous driving when the driving wasn't actually dangerous.

Conversely, why is it unreasonable to expect a driver to drive at 90km/h after the red flag when it in no way disadvantages his race weekend? Vettel applied sustained acceleration TWICE after the red flag came out. There was no need to do so, and that's why he got the penalty.

Agreed he shouldn't have risked getting the penalty. Doesn't mean the system is a good one though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14223
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:

Obviously not cus you got vettel doing ~180kmh on a wet track under red flag. Also your argument earlier was not against the penalty but against the rule its self - you're aguing against placing a speed limit on a red flagged track, its very strange.

Vettel was driving way off the pace. Are you honestly saying it seemed dangerous to you? There's absolutely no need for a speed limit on red flag track. It's absolutely typical of F1 style over regulation.

This is a bizarre position, honestly. When a red flag comes out the competitive session is instantly stopped. How does it seem unreasonable to you for there to be a speed limit on track when the competitive session is stopped due to some hazard on track?

I usually respect your opinion, but I just can't see this one. It seems like you're so set on the idea of over-regulation that you're applying it to a case where the regulation makes perfect sense.

I'd say a simple "don't drive in a dangerous manner" would do, no need to make it rigid by putting a number on it. On a VSC I can understand the need for a delta, if there's a competative advantage to be gained the drivers will push it so leaving wiggle room in the regulation is a bad idea.

On a red flagged track however there's no competative advantage to driving quicker, by putting a number on it you end up with pointless penalties like the one here and Japan etc. Sure all of those penalties were correct since the drivers broke the regulation, but the only reason for the regulation is to stop dangerous driving and the drivers penalised weren't driving dangerously.

I think in this situation since there's no competative advantage to be gained you could have a vague regulation that allows the stewards to penalise dangerous driving but also apply common sense and not be rigidly locked in to giving penalties for dangerous driving when the driving wasn't actually dangerous.


Said it better than I would. This is exactly what I think. Having a rule that is unnecessary just means at some point you're going to have to penalise someone for something that caused no harm, and was never in danger of causing any harm what so ever. That does negatively effect the show.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14223
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:

Obviously not cus you got vettel doing ~180kmh on a wet track under red flag. Also your argument earlier was not against the penalty but against the rule its self - you're aguing against placing a speed limit on a red flagged track, its very strange.

Vettel was driving way off the pace. Are you honestly saying it seemed dangerous to you? There's absolutely no need for a speed limit on red flag track. It's absolutely typical of F1 style over regulation.

This is a bizarre position, honestly. When a red flag comes out the competitive session is instantly stopped. How does it seem unreasonable to you for there to be a speed limit on track when the competitive session is stopped due to some hazard on track?

I usually respect your opinion, but I just can't see this one. It seems like you're so set on the idea of over-regulation that you're applying it to a case where the regulation makes perfect sense.

I'd say a simple "don't drive in a dangerous manner" would do, no need to make it rigid by putting a number on it. On a VSC I can understand the need for a delta, if there's a competative advantage to be gained the drivers will push it so leaving wiggle room in the regulation is a bad idea.

On a red flagged track however there's no competative advantage to driving quicker, by putting a number on it you end up with pointless penalties like the one here and Japan etc. Sure all of those penalties were correct since the drivers broke the regulation, but the only reason for the regulation is to stop dangerous driving and the drivers penalised weren't driving dangerously.

I think in this situation since there's no competative advantage to be gained you could have a vague regulation that allows the stewards to penalise dangerous driving but also apply common sense and not be rigidly locked in to giving penalties for dangerous driving when the driving wasn't actually dangerous.

Conversely, why is it unreasonable to expect a driver to drive at 90km/h after the red flag when it in no way disadvantages his race weekend? Vettel applied sustained acceleration TWICE after the red flag came out. There was no need to do so, and that's why he got the penalty.


It's not so much unreasonable as unnecessary. F1 has enough rules drivers and teams can mess up on as it is without adding in more than is required.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1407
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:

Obviously not cus you got vettel doing ~180kmh on a wet track under red flag. Also your argument earlier was not against the penalty but against the rule its self - you're aguing against placing a speed limit on a red flagged track, its very strange.

Vettel was driving way off the pace. Are you honestly saying it seemed dangerous to you? There's absolutely no need for a speed limit on red flag track. It's absolutely typical of F1 style over regulation.

This is a bizarre position, honestly. When a red flag comes out the competitive session is instantly stopped. How does it seem unreasonable to you for there to be a speed limit on track when the competitive session is stopped due to some hazard on track?

I usually respect your opinion, but I just can't see this one. It seems like you're so set on the idea of over-regulation that you're applying it to a case where the regulation makes perfect sense.

I'd say a simple "don't drive in a dangerous manner" would do, no need to make it rigid by putting a number on it. On a VSC I can understand the need for a delta, if there's a competative advantage to be gained the drivers will push it so leaving wiggle room in the regulation is a bad idea.

On a red flagged track however there's no competative advantage to driving quicker, by putting a number on it you end up with pointless penalties like the one here and Japan etc. Sure all of those penalties were correct since the drivers broke the regulation, but the only reason for the regulation is to stop dangerous driving and the drivers penalised weren't driving dangerously.

I think in this situation since there's no competative advantage to be gained you could have a vague regulation that allows the stewards to penalise dangerous driving but also apply common sense and not be rigidly locked in to giving penalties for dangerous driving when the driving wasn't actually dangerous.


So how do you define "driving in a dangerous manner"?

I like the rule simply because it's arbitrary. No if's , no buts. It's not open to interpretation, it's not open to conjecture, it's not open to influence, inconsistency, corruption or favouritism. 90km/hr in red flag conditions. Same for everyone and everyone knows where they stand. Simple

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7520
Jezza13 wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:

Obviously not cus you got vettel doing ~180kmh on a wet track under red flag. Also your argument earlier was not against the penalty but against the rule its self - you're aguing against placing a speed limit on a red flagged track, its very strange.

Vettel was driving way off the pace. Are you honestly saying it seemed dangerous to you? There's absolutely no need for a speed limit on red flag track. It's absolutely typical of F1 style over regulation.

This is a bizarre position, honestly. When a red flag comes out the competitive session is instantly stopped. How does it seem unreasonable to you for there to be a speed limit on track when the competitive session is stopped due to some hazard on track?

I usually respect your opinion, but I just can't see this one. It seems like you're so set on the idea of over-regulation that you're applying it to a case where the regulation makes perfect sense.

I'd say a simple "don't drive in a dangerous manner" would do, no need to make it rigid by putting a number on it. On a VSC I can understand the need for a delta, if there's a competative advantage to be gained the drivers will push it so leaving wiggle room in the regulation is a bad idea.

On a red flagged track however there's no competative advantage to driving quicker, by putting a number on it you end up with pointless penalties like the one here and Japan etc. Sure all of those penalties were correct since the drivers broke the regulation, but the only reason for the regulation is to stop dangerous driving and the drivers penalised weren't driving dangerously.

I think in this situation since there's no competative advantage to be gained you could have a vague regulation that allows the stewards to penalise dangerous driving but also apply common sense and not be rigidly locked in to giving penalties for dangerous driving when the driving wasn't actually dangerous.


So how do you define "driving in a dangerous manner"?

I like the rule simply because it's arbitrary. No if's , no buts. It's not open to interpretation, it's not open to conjecture, it's not open to influence, inconsistency, corruption or favouritism. 90km/hr in red flag conditions. Same for everyone and everyone knows where they stand. Simple

It would be up to the stewards and depend based on speed/location on the track/conditions/how close they are to the scene of the accident etc. 'Dangerous driving' is a judgement call type of thing, by putting a figure on it you potentially punish drivers who are driving safely and don't punish those driving dangerously. A driver at 100kph on the main straight at Mexico is driving safer than a driver doing 80kph through Monaco for example.

Since the drivers have no incentive to break the rule I don't see it ever needing to be enforced but as it is in the regulations the stewards would have the power to penalise if it ever did happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2144
Honestly baffled here as to how you can argue that it doesn't make sense to put a speed limit on a red flag. Completely baffled. I'll leave you guys to tackle this one it's too much for me lol


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7520
FormulaFun wrote:
Honestly baffled here as to how you can argue that it doesn't make sense to put a speed limit on a red flag. Completely baffled. I'll leave you guys to tackle this one it's too much for me lol

What's the purpose of doing so? To stop dangerous driving right?

This year we have seen the rule give grid penalties, which are a general annoyance to fans, to drivers when they were not driving dangerously. The regulation as is doesn't do what it should do, even if it is relatively easy for the drivers to follow.

I don't see what's baffling about that. It's pretty easy to follow the reasoning actually.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6083
Location: Michigan, USA
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Honestly baffled here as to how you can argue that it doesn't make sense to put a speed limit on a red flag. Completely baffled. I'll leave you guys to tackle this one it's too much for me lol

What's the purpose of doing so? To stop dangerous driving right?

This year we have seen the rule give grid penalties, which are a general annoyance to fans, to drivers when they were not driving dangerously. The regulation as is doesn't do what it should do, even if it is relatively easy for the drivers to follow.

I don't see what's baffling about that. It's pretty easy to follow the reasoning actually.

I don't really get the whole annoyance at grid penalties, which probably has a lot to do with why I'm not bothered by the red flag speed limit. If people are sloppy and they break the rules, they get a penalty.

But I think at this point it's clear that both positions have been laid out, everyone understands and disagrees, and we're not going to change any minds here.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alienturnedhuman and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group