Hey, The "great cheating debate" got me thinking [Uh-oh!]: - If I were a team principal, I reckon I'd be pretty pi$$ed if I didn't get an answer to my question after 3 attempts - They were "too busy"? WTF? I'd want to talk to Charlie, or at least one if his lackey's, NOW!..... I guess the rules specifically state it's at the discretion of RC whether to respond, but even so. Too busy? - Get some more dudes in there. Yes, I realise the SC was out, crashes were happening etc - The pressure (for both the teams and the stewards) must be immense - All the more reason communication channels need to work IMHO. I wonder what percentage of Q's to RC go "unanswered"? IIRC, they also text message a lot during the race - Too late in this case I suppose. My 02c, Cheers, Ian
Yep, and the stupid stewards that are incompetent and ignorant of racing, apart from one or two chief's the rest are made up of local FIA appointed ,and IIRC do not need racing experience. You only have to look at the decision on Vettel in Melbourne, and Bourdais at Fuji last year where he was penalised coming out of the pits besides Massa, then Massa decided to turn in on him, but there again we all know the bigger picture. The whole system needs revamping, but first the head needs chopping off.
Good points, but shouldn't a team in the sport for many years also know the rules? The yellow flag rule is not new. If it were me at McLaren, I would have told Lewis to let Trulli pass again, and then send an e-mail to Charlie Whiting with the reasons for my decision (called CYA in business). Now I could do nothing about Hamilton's brain fade with different answers, but as the team representative, I could make a strong argument just by stating the truth. So Ian, keep in mind the problem that led to the penalty was not the interpretation of the rules, nor was it the inability to communicate with RC, and certainly not the experience level of the stewards. The problem for McLaren and Hamilton was the conflict of responses to the stewards that appeared to be genuine lies. Once a race fan gets past their fan adoration they will see only those people, McLaren and Hamilton, are responsible for the penalty. No one else put words into their mouths to cause Charlie Whitings response.
For certain folk that go crying like when LH wins and can't be found, to think that LH is solely to blame are living on another planet, where too much proclaimed sex has addled there brain. Its a sad aspect of modern life that there is a need to blame for everything, that people seem unable to accept that mistakes are made and feel the need to read malicious intent into everything, because of there own underline brain fade.
+1 Understood. That's kind of why I started a new thread - Nothing to do with penalties - I was just amazed that a Q from a team (doesn't matter who) went "unanswered" - That got me wondering how often that happens. Cheers, Ian
I don't think they should talk to Charlie at all. Charile should be giving out announcements/decisions and that's it. No other sport has a mothers meeting over what is happening. The problem we have seen in the passed time and time again is waiting for Charlie and friends to get back to them. Maybe Charlie and friends should have people listening in to all the radios while the race is on, it would of saved the embarrassment of giving Trulli a 25s pen then disqualifying Lewis later in the week. Doesn't help the sport. No matter what BS Lewis or Trulli may of said after the race, the radio chat should of been 1st thing they should of looked into, which clearly you can hear Mclaren telling Lewis to give the position up and then Lewis questioning that decision but McLaren came back with "we are waiting for Charlie". They shouldn't be waiting for anyone, they just do what they think is right and if it's not they get penalised. Since F1 isn't a start/stop type of event I agree with the post race change of results but not when it's based on who can spin the best BS at the post race interviews. kraftwerk: That's incorrect. The "local" stewards are still part of the FIA/clubs. They still have to sit tests and steward other events throughout the year and they would of also gone up thru the ranks being a marshal 1st. To become a marshal in F1 you need a few years experience and be pretty much dedicated "full time" marshal. My friend looked into it when he was marshalling and its a lot of hard work to get to hold a flag at an F1 event only the most dedicated make it. I would say they have a better clue than anyone else here on this site. I agree with you the system in place needs to be revamped but don't blame the stewards who are working with a broken system
I've got to respectfully disagree there - I agree motorsport is unique in this "mothers meeting" approach, but it's always been that way - Guys running down pit road in the early days to request "clarifications" and so on. I beleve there's almost constant "chatter" back and forth these days - Voice, text and email are all flying around, all weekend. We have? - I can't think of another incident in which we've heard (or been told) that the problem was "waiting for Charlie to respond". I actually thought they did - Not just listen, but also record - Unless the lackeys doing the listening simply didn't think it "important" at the time - If I was listening, why would I report that Mcl had told LH to give the spot back? [Until later at least.] - Remember, chaos pretty much reigned at the time. It seems that Speed Channel were the first to notice the "anomaly" - This alerted Charlie who dug up the radio recording. Charlie being a fair and respected guy asked for an explanation after the event - Confirmed they lied, and excluded 'em. With 20/20 hindsight, 100% correct. But Monday morning QB'ing is also a lot easier than the real thing. Remember, Charlie had been told face to face (by LH) that he hadn't been told to move - He believed him, issued his Trulli penalty and moved on. Then the proverbial hit the fan and as noted he had no choice but to verify the claims - He did, and took further action. Cheers, Ian
