official F1 World Championship 2011 Thread

[mps69]

That quote popped straight into my mind when I saw the people on here complaining about Hamilton. (Y) Everyone has to remember that the Monaco circuit is much harder to overtake than the other circuits on the calendar, so the stewards shouldn't have punished Hamilton. He made a clean overtake in the tunnel (which until yesterday, almost everyone would have said is impossible to do without crashing), then Massa screws up, and Hamilton gets penalised. Makes you wonder if the FIA are biased towards Ferrari? I mean, Jean Todt is the president after all...

He wasn't penalized for passing Massa in the tunnel, it was the way he tried to force has way past at the hairpin, the very same move Paul Di Resta did and he got a drive through, so Hamilton got the same treatment.

Given that there is even an ex F1 driver sitting with the stewards for every race, to offer their opinion it seems strange to think people are think they are picking on Hamilton. The offense was causing an avoidable accident, if he thought he was fast enough to pass Massa he could have done it coming out of the tunnel.

[Subject Delta]

I have no problem with drivers taking risk without undesired consequences. If a driver takes a risk that results in avoidable damage, he should be punished. There is no reason for irresponsible risk-taking.

Alonso did the same thing at Monaco in 2008 without punishment. People seem to have very short memories in their inane desire to criticise Lewis at every opportunity.

He wasn't penalized for passing Massa in the tunnel, it was the way he tried to force has way past at the hairpin, the very same move Paul Di Resta did and he got a drive through, so Hamilton got the same treatment.

Given that there is even an ex F1 driver sitting with the stewards for every race, to offer their opinion it seems strange to think people are think they are picking on Hamilton. The offense was causing an avoidable accident, if he thought he was fast enough to pass Massa he could have done it coming out of the tunnel.

An ex racing driver, not always an ex F1 driver. And Lewis wasn't at fault for what happened in the tunnel, Massa screwed that up himself, he got wide and hit the wall. Lewis took the normal racing line, he wasn't overly aggressive.

[vanx]

Alonso did the same thing at Monaco in 2008 without punishment. People seem to have very short memories in their inane desire to criticise Lewis at every opportunity.

I don't recall that occasion, but if he deserved punishment then it should have been administered. I am not trying to victimise Lewis. If he feels that officials are though, he can take it up with relevant authorities. He took a risk that led to a collision, he should accept the consequences.

[Subject Delta]

I don't recall that occasion, but if he deserved punishment then it should have been administered. I am not trying to victimise Lewis. If he feels that officials are though, he can take it up with relevant authorities. He took a risk that led to a collision, he should accept the consequences.

So basically what you're saying is "don't take a risk, unless it's certain to come off". If that's the case then all I can say is thank heavens you don't run Formula 1.

[vanx]

So basically what you're saying is "don't take a risk, unless it's certain to come off". If that's the case then all I can say is thank heavens you don't run Formula 1.

No, take a risk if you feel so inclined. If it comes off, great. If it doesn't come off, be prepared to face the consequences.

[Subject Delta]

No, take a risk if you feel so inclined. If it comes off, great. If it doesn't come off, be prepared to face the consequences.

So basically you're saying if you take a risk and it doesn't come off, the driver should be penalised for it? I'm still glad you don't run F1

[JoeC]

I think it's more a case of "If you take a really wild risk, or a long-odds maneuver, expect to get penalised". Trying to overtake into the hairpin where drivers are on full lock anyway, just to get round it, is probably a bit too long-odds. If you don't judge it perfectly (and there's huge odds against you), you're either going to have that driver turn in on you, or he's going to hit the wall because he didn't turn in on you. I'd love to see Lewis win another title, but the overtake into the hairpin he tried was more than a bit reckless, and I think it was right that both he and Di Resta (again, I'd love to see Paul do well, I'm supporting anyone British :p) got penalties for that.

[vanx]

So basically you're saying if you take a risk and it doesn't come off, the driver should be penalised for it? I'm still glad you don't run F1

So in your opinion, if a driver takes a risk and ploughs into another driver then he should get away with that scot-free? My turn to say that I'm glad that you don't run F1.

[what]

So in your opinion, if a driver takes a risk and ploughs into another driver then he should get away with that scot-free? My turn to say that I'm glad that you don't run F1.

There's a huge difference between ploughing into another car and rubbing wheels/trading paint with them. You make it sound like as soon as there is contact during a passing move, the guy needs to be brought in for a drive-through penalty, which is total crap. If what you're doing in inherently dangerous then yes, a drive-through is necessary and a black flag might come out if you do it again, but trying to exploit a potential gap and touching another car in the process isn't worth a penalty. As soon as you start saying, no contact otherwise you'll be penalised, no one will do anything and the race will be won on pit strategy alone, which is what we've finally moved on from this year.

The design of F1 cars doesn't help and it's inevitable that carbon fibre will start flying everywhere as soon as there is contact, but you need to accept that and understand that it's still motor racing as it always has been. If I want to see a procession I will go out onto the public roads and get involved myself.

[mps69]

This is why motor racing has track side stewards, who assess each incident individually, not just a blanket ruling.

Some accidents can be put down to a racing incident, others are just down right dangerous which could be avoided, and it's under these circumstances a penalty is then dished out.

[ahmz]

Are you guys still crying about Hamilton? He made 2 dumb moves because he felt entitled to be leading the race and beating Vettel with his slower car because he's the only one that can do that, and needed to dispatch these stupid drivers as soon as possible, remember?

The stewards and the BBC team (who have reason to be bias in favour of Hamilton), all said he was in the wrong, which he clearly was. So please, it's Tuesday now, move on.

[vanx]

There's a huge difference between ploughing into another car and rubbing wheels/trading paint with them. You make it sound like as soon as there is contact during a passing move, the guy needs to be brought in for a drive-through penalty, which is total crap. If what you're doing in inherently dangerous then yes, a drive-through is necessary and a black flag might come out if you do it again, but trying to exploit a potential gap and touching another car in the process isn't worth a penalty. As soon as you start saying, no contact otherwise you'll be penalised, no one will do anything and the race will be won on pit strategy alone, which is what we've finally moved on from this year.

Rubbing wheel/trading paint is one thing, but avoidable collisions that do meaningful damage are another. In Hamilton/Massa incident, Hamilton knew that the correct way to take that hairpin is to stay on the right and then cut to the left.

What he did instead was to use his car as battering ram in an attempt to bully Massa into steering wide. How was Hamilton expecting to turn in such a tight corner? The cars don't have enough steering lock to do that.

[Subject Delta]

So in your opinion, if a driver takes a risk and ploughs into another driver then he should get away with that scot-free? My turn to say that I'm glad that you don't run F1.

No, in my opinion some discretion should be applied, and penalties shouldn't be flung at drivers every time they make contact because of a failed passing attempt.

[vanx]

No, in my opinion some discretion should be applied, and penalties shouldn't be flung at drivers every time they make contact because of a failed passing attempt.

Some discretion is already applied. If a collision was unavoidable, say for technical reasons like when Schumacher's car halted just before pit lane entrance and if Alonso ran into the back of him, then no penalties should be due. Hamilton was playing with fire earlier in the race when he passed Schumi in Sainte Devote, nearly forcing him into the barriers. In neither situation for which Hamilton was penalised should he have expected Massa/Maldonado to get out of the way as they were ahead and had the right of way into corners. They could have got out of the way, like Shumi did, but they didn't have to. There was no blue flag for Maldonado, if I recall correctly.

[Subject Delta]

Some discretion is already applied. If a collision was unavoidable, say for technical reasons like when Schumacher's car halted just before pit lane entrance and if Alonso ran into the back of him, then no penalties should be due. Hamilton was playing with fire earlier in the race when he passed Schumi in Sainte Devote, nearly forcing him into the barriers. In neither situation for which Hamilton was penalised should he have expected Massa/Maldonado to get out of the way as they were ahead and had the right of way into corners. They could have got out of the way, like Shumi did, but they didn't have to. There was no blue flag for Maldonado, if I recall correctly.

In the case of Maldonado, I agree with the penalty for what it's worth, he forced him off the track and caused his retirement, I just don't think the Massa penalty was justified, despite what Massa said I believe it was his error that caused him to hit the wall in the tunnel, in my mind as long as the collision doesn't cause any damage I don't think penalties should be handed out

[vanx]

I just don't think the Massa penalty was justified, despite what Massa said I believe it was his error that caused him to hit the wall in the tunnel, in my mind as long as the collision doesn't cause any damage I don't think penalties should be handed out

I think Hamilton got penalised for ploughing into Massa at the Fairmont hairpin, not what happened in the tunnel. Here's a video from the onboard camera: http://dai.ly/jjMIsR Assuming that race stewards were able to see that, there should be no reason to punish Lewis for what happened in the tunnel as he did nothing wrong.

[vanx]

Since I can't edit the post above, here's a YouTube link of onboard footage of what happens in the hairpin, on the way to the tunnel and inside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBPCCPM3vLM

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

Since I can't edit the post above, here's a YouTube link of onboard footage of what happens in the hairpin, on the way to the tunnel and inside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBPCCPM3vLM

'This video contains content from Formula One Management, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.'

[.mcman]

Here are both videos of accidents:

Hamilton vs Massa (onboard)

Hamilton vs Maldonado (onboard)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CVDLBqdpwg

[vanx]

'This video contains content from Formula One Management, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.'

The Daily Motion video that I linked to in my earlier post is still up and working.

[san.W10]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=135088&view=findpost&p=5070957

[san.W10]

FIA reinstates Bahrain Grand Prix

-----------------------

2012 F1 calendar unveiled with 21 GPs

The FIA has announced a 21-race calendar for the 2012 Formula 1 season.

All 20 events on this year's series are retained, with the new United States Grand Prix at Austin in Texas added in mid-June. The calendar features six pairs of back-to-back events where grands prix take place just a week apart.

There had been question marks over the future of the Turkish GP, and this event appears with an asterisk and a "subject to confirmation" note.

The Bahrain GP is returned to its position as season-opener after this season's postponement due to the political unrest in the country.

Date Event Venue

11/03 Bahrain Sakhir

18/03 Australia Melbourne

01/04 Malaysia Sepang

08/04 China Shanghai

22/04 Korea Yeongam

06/05 Turkey Istanbul*

20/05 Spain Barcelona

27/05 Monaco Monaco

10/06 Canada Montreal

17/06 United States Texas

01/07 Europe Valencia

15/07 Britain Silverstone

29/07 Germany Hockenheim

05/08 Hungary Budapest

02/09 Belgium Spa-Francorchamps

09/09 Italy Monza

30/09 Singapore Singapore

14/10 Japan Suzuka

28/10 India New Delhi

11/11 Abu Dhabi Yas Marina

25/11 Brazil Interlagos

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91959

-----------------------------------

FIA open to delaying new F1 engines

The FIA has left the door open for the introduction of its 2013 Formula 1 regulations, which include the controversial 1.6-litre turbocharged engines, to be delayed.

The World Motor Sport Council today approved the rules, which include aerodynamic regulations based on those currently in use alongside modifications designed to achieve the target of a 35 per cent reduction in fuel consumption. However, an FIA statement does allow for the possibility of the timing of the rules' introduction to be changed by vote.

Such a vote would be held by the WMSC, but only if F1's stakeholders, which includes the teams and engine manufacturers, demand it.

The statement read: "In consultation with the main stakeholders, and following the outcome of this consultation, a fax vote by the WMSC could be considered by 30 June latest to redefine the implementation date of these technical regulations."

Although the FIA approved the 2013 engine regulations last December, the likes of Ferrari and Cosworth have raised concerns about the cost of developing the power units. At the Turkish Grand Prix, FIA president Jean Todt insisted that the new powerplants would be introduced, although he did allow for a change in policy if some new evidence were to be presented.

The regulations as approved by the WMSC today include an increase of minimum weight to 660kg and a restriction on the height of a car's nose for safety reasons.

The statement listed the rules as follows:

- Power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm :/ :pinch: , with extensive energy management and energy recovery systems (now known as ERS), reflecting the decision taken by the WMSC in December 2010

- The aerodynamic regulations have been based on 2011 rules, with modifications in order to improve the aerodynamic efficiency: together with the power train rules, this will enable a 35 per cent reduction in fuel consumption

- The height of the tip of the nose will be limited to ensure better compatibility in a T-bone style accident

- A limitation on transmissions (gear ratios, number of gearboxes) in order to decrease costs

- The overall weight of the car must be no less than 660kg

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/91958

[MightyJordan]

12,000 RPM? :unsure: Are they trying to make F1 a bit more down-to-earth? Because 12k is a bit low for an F1 car. Still higher than most production cars though. Actually, I don't know if there actually is a production car that revs that high. The highest ones I've heard of are usually by Honda; they rev up to 9,000 RPM. Anything higher than that, and you're venturing into superbike territory.

[Pleasureseeker]

For the Brits:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula_one/13631434.stm

[MightyJordan]

^ Thanks for that! :) I'll remember to watch that tonight.