Another Pitlane Disaster For Ferrari

They have some of the best equipment, arguably the best drivers, the largest cash backing and this happens, it was as frustrating as watching Arsenal lose to Hull yesterday.

Just to say, “technically brilliant” in the sense that a light indicates to the driver when to go, not a team member standing in front of the car.

I would love an explanation as to why a drive through was the correct penalty this time while exactly the same offence for exactly the same team and driver at Valencia was given only an irrelevant financial penalty.

I think the difference was in the siting of Ferrari’s pit – in Valencia they were the last garage so when Massa was released alongside the other car he could take avoiding action without really impeding Sutil.

This time however with the full pitlane to travel it was much more dangerous.

I’m not saying I agree particularly, but I’m guessing that’d be their reasoning should they lower themselves to giving us an explanation!

Normally in any category of racing the mechanics can’t touch a car until it is in the pits but I have never come across a situation where it was illegal to work on it in any part of the pits other than the fast lane. I have seen in sports car races a driver pushing a car into the pits and the mechanics standing next to him shouting encouragement but until the car crosses the pit entry line they can’t touch it.

It is possible for the mechanics to work on the car in any part of the inner lane except those allotted to other teams and the FIA. Felipe hadn’t reached the pit exit line (where work would have been impermissible). So it was permissible for the mechanics to work on Massa’s car where it was (since it was positioned in what appeared to be an area not used by anybody in particular). That said, the other teams would have been entitled to stop the mechanics from running through their pit areas had they felt so inclined. Thankfully common sense prevailed and nobody challenged Ferrari’s attempt to get to their stricken car.

I don’t think a lollipop would fix the problem – David Coulthard had a lollipop system when he was given a false signal to go this race. Thankfully his reactions were faster than Felipe’s, so the fuel hose remained attached to the rig. It’s an anticipation problem, only soluable with better training for the people involved with the system. Some intense pit-stop practise would do Ferrari a lot of good.

Ultimately, I think the electronic system can be safer than the lollipop one. However, it doesn’t solve the whole problem with pit stop synchronisation – that will only happen when the people using the system learn to do their bit when it’s time to do it and not before.

At least Massa, being blameless in this incident, won’t be treated as harshly as the last driver to take a fuel hose with him. When Albers did it, he only lasted one further race.

It’s easy for the FIA to give Massa a drive through when he was 16th or whatever. He was neve going to score points so it was a nothing penalty. Had he been given the same penalty in Valencia it would have affected the championship. To be honest I would have had more respect for the FIA had they kept dishing out financial penalties for the rest of the season and then clarified it for next season. If nothing else this proves that the Valencia decision smells and should be investigated. It will be interesting to see what happens the next time Ferrari screw up when they are in a good position.

Ago,

I am not angry at anyone. I am less than happy with the inconsistency of the FIA and I am not happy at the unfair advantage that Massa has been given this year. Quite cleary Felipe did not know that he was being released unsafely on either occasion or as a result of Ferrari’s electronic system that he was being released with the hose attached. However it is right that he should be punished for it. Imagine instead of Sutil he was released in front of Hamilton unsafely and as a result won the championship. Should he not be penalised or should Hamilton unfairly lose the championship? If that is the case then any unsafe release must be given the same penalty.

Max during his tenure has introduced the nonsense that the team and driver can be seprately penalised. That makes no sense whatever.

Ferrari raises a huge budget – Massa benefits

Ferrari builds a great car – Massa benefits

Ferrari does great pitstops – Massa benefits

Ferrari release him unsafely – Massa benefits and should be penalised.

Team snd driver are one. It’s like saying Ferrari should get constructor’s points because it wasn’t the team’s fault Kimi stuffed the car in the wall. There is no logic to not penalising a driver for unsafe release. Drive through penalties have been handed out for that offence hundreds of times and I have never heard anyone argue it was the wrong penalty. Then the FIA give Massa the non-penalty in Valencia and people who have never objected to the drive through start trying to justify it.

Moving him from second last to last hardly compares with donating him the victory in Valencia. He should have been given a drive through there. That now has to be indisputable.

I promise you any rage you put on my comments does not come from me. It is not in my nature to get into a rage about anything.

Steven, you have what I call a pretty basic vision of the law. A rather black or white interpretation of the rules. The circumstances must be taken into account in sport like in life.

Last year McLaren lost all their points, but not the drivers I found that quite fair. Drivers where not involved in the affair.

The unsafe release in Valencia didn’t do any harm to anybody, and Massa didn’t take any advantage out of it, he rather lost a firstful of seconds. If you believe Massa should not have win this race, you have something else in mind. Or maybe you are a Mclaren lawyer 😉 In all fairness taking this victory out of Massa would have been unfair, totally and utterly unfair. As for the drive through penalty in Singapore it is only knowing what happened in the end that you can say it was a pointless penalty. Put yourself for 5s in Felipe’s head and just wonder what you would have thought in the same circumstances…

Now if you want somebody to pay for the injustice done to Lewis in Spa that is another story indeed…

Ago, the Sporting Regulations are governed by Swiss law, which says that the reasonable interpretation from the recipient is the key. It is not reasonable to a receipient to interpret that a table clearly permitting only four penalties (three if you discount the 25-second time conversion, which should have been irrelevant) would magically grow a fifth simply because the FIA did not wish to issue any of the other four. Even Ferrari would have been entitled to appeal the penalty upon itself, for the penalty was not a permissible one and it could have argued that no penalty at all would have at least been legal.

The circumstances in this case are pretty much irrelevant. There is nothing in the release of Massa in Valencia that permits the FIA to ignore the penalty table it wrote down in the regulations and make a new penalty instead. Also, if a sporting penalty had been issued, Ferrari might have got their act together quicker and the Singaporean disaster may never have happened.

Consistent rulings are good for everyone, including Ferrari.

Back when Schumacher was driving, it looked to me like he used a giant fish-eye mirror as a lollipop. I always thought what a great idea that was, he can watch the action behind him and judge for himself if all the work is done before leaving. Why hasn’t that system caught on? It seems like a perfect way to create a double safety-check, and with all the money these teams spend, they could even install a fixed overhead mirror in the pit area for the driver’s use.

On a different note, what a retarded rule that no refueling thing is when the safety car comes out. If you were due to come in at that time, you either take a penalty or risk running out of fuel. And as Peter Windsor said on Speed, when the pits are opened, all the cars come in anyway and create the usual traffic jam, so it solves nothing. It seems to me that if anything, the rule should be the opposite, for the first few laps under the safety car, race cars should be allowed to refuel only but not change tires, the idea being that you can always do a few more laps with worn tires but you can’t do that with an empty tank. The added bonus is that it takes just two men to refuel (and they’re on the garage side of the pits), so even if all the cars pit at the same time, there are less mechanics around to create a hazard.

Back to the controversies, i want to applaud both Hamilton and Massa for being such great racers this season. They’ve both had great drives and have conducted themselves like true champions both on and off track. Either one of them deserves the championship. And let’s not forget that for most of the season, Massa was only the second “star” of the Ferrari team. Thumbs down to the F1 race stewards and/or whatever antiquated system they use to dish out penalties. In any other sport, when there’s an infraction they either blow the whistle right away and hand out the penalty, or they let it go. Why does it take these stewards 2 to 3 fricken laps to make up their mind?

Hi a couple of questions I have maybe Alianora will be interested as we seem to share this attention to details in the regulations 😉

the F1 sporting regulations call “the competitor(s” the teams, not the drivers as the official competitors are the teams. The drivers are refered to as “the driver(s).

– The penalties as described in 16.3 are given to “drivers involved an incident” and are there are 3 (drive through, 10s, drop 10 grid positions next race)

What is an incident then? This is described clearly (?) in 16.1

“(…) any action by any driver (…) which

– necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41 ;

– constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code ;

– caused a false start by one or more cars ;

– caused a collision ;

– forced a driver off the track ;

– illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver ;

– illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.

Did an “unsafe release” constitutes an incident as defined here above? I don’t think so (I am talking about Massa in Valencia / Singapore).

Now 23 (pitlane) in 23 i) specifies very clearly:

i) It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so.

Who is the competitor (see above) the team! So how can this be classified as Incident when very clearly the responsbility doesn’t lie with the driver, and even if it was there is no reason to call it an “incident” as it doesn’t result in the very specifically described consequences of something that will be then called incident?

Now icing on the cake (cherry on the cake as we say in France) even if it was an incident (which I doubt, I know I shouldn’t but tell me why please!) no punishment is mandatory as the very smart the sub-chapter 16.2 is saying:

16.2 a) It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide, upon a report or a request by the race director, if a driver or drivers involved in an incident shall be penalised.

How about that? 😉

Needless to say I hope many replies to this! And I need to understand why it is classified as an incident (not challenging the stewards just want to understand !)

Ago, releasing a car into the path of another car is in breach of Article 23.1(i), which states

“It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so.”

There was a lengthy discussion/argument about it at F1 Insight after Valencia. The point of Article 16 is to define how incidents are punished. Anything breaching Article 23.1 (i) falls under the sub-category of “constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code”, and therefore is subject to Article 16’s stipulations.

The drivers are included in the definition of a competitor, as a sub-category. Also, Article 16 says “involves one or more drivers”, and since Massa and Sutil were involved (albeit in drive-on parts rather than lead parts), it still constitutes an incident. There is nothing in the regulations that says a driver must be responsible for an incident that led to being penalised – how else could drivers be excluded for having underweight cars or for flexible rear wings (both of which have happened as recently as 2006)?

16.2a) doesn’t allow the stewards to impose no penalty for an incident if they’ve decreed that the competitor/driver is guilty. It allows them to not punish incidents that they haven’t spotted. It’s also the check against Charlie Whiting or a team throwing their weight around excessively. Article 16.3 prevents the option of not punishing by stating:

“The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident”

That means that only those penalties below (which turns out to be four rather than three) can be used for responses to incidents. The “no punishment” option isn’t there. If, however, the stewards had ignored the incident, stated Ferrari were not guilty or deemed there to be insufficient evidence, 16.2 a) could have been used with impunity to defend that decision.

Ed Gorman is reporting that Ferrari is keeping the light system for 2009. He says that Ferrari will move to the lollipop for the last 3 races of 2008, and then bring back the lights in 2009. Ferrari also says that “several of their rivals are now researching their own version of the lights” and that “the system alone has gained them a couple of places this season,” citing Hungary was an example.