FIA CLARIFIES CHICANE CUTTING RULES (not a joke thread)

Exactly what I thought. As I mentioned before in the series I race, you usually wait for the next corner to overtake again. Look what happened to Bruno Senna, he cut the chicane also while he was in the lead. Didn't gain any positions but did gain advantage by increasing the gap between him and second place. In result they gave him a drive through penalty. I hope this puts this controversy to rest, lets move onto Monza.

 

So then, is this a new rule, or one that was there that nobody really knew about...even CW.

I'd would hazard a guess it's one they have made up, to justify the incorrect call, because if it had been there all the time why hadn't it been used in the many instances before.

What gets me is why the FIA think we are stupid enough to swallow this BS, lets face it even the drivers don't no, as Webber states, he welcomed the clarification on the situation, in other words if asked he wouldn't be sure.

 

So why didn't you post it before then...

 

I did, but being that there are so many threads about Hamilton's Penality, I think others didn't have time to read what I said. I even forgot which thread I posted my comment on,

 

Fair enough, I'll take your word for it, I didn't see any post, I wanted one to get some sanity in the call, I would have for sure asked how you knew this, though.

 

58 years since its inception and the WDC/WCC does not have a clear rule re: chicanes until now?!

 

Exactly..it's a joke.

 

Every week, the drivers hold meetings to discuss many thing, and some of these things are the pecularities of the track that is being raced that weekend. This meeting has lots of items on the agenda, but most importantly, it provides specific applications of rules on particular aspects of that track.

It has been reported--and I am too tired to look it up still again--that in the driver's meeting that very chicane was identified as a place where a 25 second penalty would be assessed. That's the reason for the penalty. Everyone knew the penalty ahead of time.

 

Honestly, this had seemed obvious to me.

 

If you decide to lookup that info again PLEASE post it so I can relay the info to the F1 forum I moderate, thanks.

 

I'm just glad that Mark Weber is "mega, mega clear" on this...

 

I'm sorry but you miss the point, I have no doubt the above is as you mentioned, however did they then go on to say, If you cut the chicane gain a place, then give it back , then wait until the driver you had gained a advantage on had turned a further corner, before attempting a pass again, to which end the same scenario could happen to the end of the race. I think not.

Which I also may add that thinking about it, it really is going to make drivers think twice about overtaking fullstop.

Or else why would Webber say what he has.

 

If you can find a source for that information then I'll gladly take back all the complaining that I've done about this penalty.

 

So....the fact that the morons at the FIA needed to 'clarify' the rule, means ipso-facto that they knew/know that the rule previous was 'unclear' and 'ambiguous'. That being the FACT, means that they: a) should not have penalised Lewis to begin with, and b) should overturn the penalty immediately. Bozo the clown wears a FIA suit....

 

Man I am so glad to hear this clarification.
Now the FIA will do the right thing and reinstate Hami's win.
Right ?
Riiiiiight.....!

 

LOL

 

I don't get how it was unclear in the first place. The only way to guarantee you didn't benefit is to not make a pass until after the next corner. This seems like basic racing information.

 

That supposedly was 'unclear' which is what all the hoopla is about, the rule's have too many 'grey area's and hopefully this clarification will eliminate any doubt's in the future.

 

What happens if you're 3 seconds behind, then end up on the rear wing of the car in front? Even if you wait until the next corner, you've still gained. They need this down in fine detail in print with signatures at the bottom.

 

I think all the stuff about waiting until the next corner is complete crap. The only thing I read was the 25 second thing in the driver's meeting. I think the problem is that they selectively enforced it. And, that leads to uncertainty, which is why there is so much passion on this thread.

Then again, we do have a Nazi-orgy guy leading the charge, so the ability to remain consistent in the face of pressure is not present.

I agree that the FIA is a mess, and the rules are a mess. I am a Ferrari fan, and I think there is a bias. But I still love watching races. It frustrates me to hell sometimes, but I can't ignore the races.

 

Thats because when you went off in the old days the track was not that drivable and it was more of a disadvantage. In the real old days they couldnt afford to becuase those bath tubes would roll.

 

Isn't this the way it's been for a while? My only question is, not all corners/tracks are created equal. What if, for instance, it happened on the 3rd chicane at Monza where the next corner isn't really until Parabolica?

 

Unfortunately, this is yet another "clarification letter".

The only thing actually in the rules is "don't race off track". Which is massively gray.

There's nothing at all in the actual F1 regulations or international sporting code published on the FIA's web site about cutting chicanes, giving back position or advantage, or how to give back positions. That's all a collection of previous driver briefings, clarification letters, and precedents from other races.

How is a guest steward of the week going to know all that?

Another "clarification letter" doesn't really help eliminate the gray area, when all the stewards can point to in the rules is "he didn't stay on track".

All these clarifications need to be collected into an appendix to the F1 regulations, and there need to be permanent stewards who are familiar with them, in order to get any consistency in the application of these non-rule rules.

I can see a benefit to having local stewards who are familiar with the track (and the things drivers try to get away with there), but there need to be permanent stewards, too, who know what the rules are and how they should be applied.

And when penalties like these are handed down, the "rules" may be the "charge", but the stewards need to list the "specification" too: they need to say *exactly* what they think the driver did wrong; not just point to some gray area rule.

We get that .. more or less .. when the stewards make a technical call: brake ducts too large or damping system invalid. Why not for driving penalties?