planetf1.com

Its becoming a joke.

Bottas. Clear Jump start. No penalty.
Albon. Drying his grid slot. No penalty.
Kimi. Lining up half a grid slot out of position. 5 second penalty.
K mag. Communication to pit at the end of the formation lap. 10 second penalty.
Racing point. Protest by salty Renault again. Possible exclusion.

And I've probably missed another 1 somewhere.

(Technically. Didn't verstappen break park ferme rules by having his suspension fixed prior to the race start where no components can be changed)
That is just this race and the inconsistency of the penalties being awarded to the drivers and teams


Something needs to be done about it And Fast.

Really a bad joke. It is ruining the sport.

Stroll pushing Ricciardo off track, then overtaking him off track and then rejoining dangerously no penalty.

Williams release Latifi from his pit box who hits Sainz - No penalty.

Basically, according to FIA, Haas asking their drivers to pit, is the worst offense of the season ...

Please fire these stewarts immediately.

mikeyg123 wrote:Williams release Latifi from his pit box who hits Sainz - No penalty.

I think Latifi got a 5 second penalty.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Williams release Latifi from his pit box who hits Sainz - No penalty.

I think Latifi got a 5 second penalty.

Fair enough. Seems oddly light still.

mikeyg123 wrote:Stroll pushing Ricciardo off track, then overtaking him off track and then rejoining dangerously no penalty.

This, after the Hamilton / Albon incident the previous weekend, had me scratching my head. That was possibly a racing incident (but I didn't get uptight when the penalty was given), the Stroll / Ricciardo one was a slam-dunk (in comparison) to me. I just don't get it.
The Haas penalty is just as bad if not worse still. Why is it OK to call drivers in during the race but not on the formation lap?

wire2004 wrote:Its becoming a joke.

Bottas. Clear Jump start. No penalty.
Albon. Drying his grid slot. No penalty.
Kimi. Lining up half a grid slot out of position. 5 second penalty.
K mag. Communication to pit at the end of the formation lap. 10 second penalty.
Racing point. Protest by salty Renault again. Possible exclusion.

And I've probably missed another 1 somewhere.

(Technically. Didn't verstappen break park ferme rules by having his suspension fixed prior to the race start where no components can be changed)
That is just this race and the inconsistency of the penalties being awarded to the drivers and teams


Something needs to be done about it And Fast.

Bottas: Weather you agree with the decision on Bottas, as I mentioned in another thread, their jump start tolerance does seem to be consistent and luckily all 3 times he's looked to be past this limit, he's been within the tolerance. Same with vettel in Japan last year. Alonso also had a questionable start in Russia one year too. I do not see inconsistency here.

Albon: They came to the conclusion from video evidence that the team did not attempt to alter the the grip of the track surface. Red Bull also will have been able to prove they they were using them for something else if this decision was the case.

Kimi: Getting a penalty for lining up incorrectly by the margin he did is consistent. As you state, he was well out of position. If anything I think I could argue that it was a little weak compared to what drivers have got in the past for being slightly out of position.

Magnussen: It wasn't just him, Grosjean got the same penalty. From the team radio transcript, the only words Grosjean was told was "Box, Romain, box." twice. But the question is, are you allowed to be told to box on the formation lap and not use your expected grid position to start the race? They used this to their advantage and it certainly benifitted them. If what I mention is the reason they got a penalty, then I think I understand it. If it is inconsistent, can you provide an example to show it is by comparing it to something similar that didn't get punished?

Racing Point: This isn't even confirmed yet so you can't prove anything about it being inconsistent.



The only one I can feel I also would question unless I'm corrected is Verstappen getting his car fixed seconds before the race.


You did admit you could have missed one, and that was to me the most obvious example and the only penalty I really feel was inconsistent and the wrong decision all year. Stroll on Ricciardo. That should have had a 5 second penalty with a couple of penalty points at least.

Most of your others, I just don't see how they are inconsistent penalties and you didn't compare them to anything.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

wire2004 wrote:Its becoming a joke.

Bottas. Clear Jump start. No penalty.
Albon. Drying his grid slot. No penalty.
Kimi. Lining up half a grid slot out of position. 5 second penalty.
K mag. Communication to pit at the end of the formation lap. 10 second penalty.
Racing point. Protest by salty Renault again. Possible exclusion.

And I've probably missed another 1 somewhere.

(Technically. Didn't verstappen break park ferme rules by having his suspension fixed prior to the race start where no components can be changed)
That is just this race and the inconsistency of the penalties being awarded to the drivers and teams


Something needs to be done about it And Fast.

Bottas: Weather you agree with the decision on Bottas, as I mentioned in another thread, their jump start tolerance does seem to be consistent and luckily all 3 times he's looked to be past this limit, he's been within the tolerance. Same with vettel in Japan last year. Alonso also had a questionable start in Russia one year too. I do not see inconsistency here.

Albon: They came to the conclusion from video evidence that the team did not attempt to alter the the grip of the track surface. Red Bull also will have been able to prove they they were using them for something else if this decision was the case.

Kimi: Getting a penalty for lining up incorrectly by the margin he did is consistent. As you state, he was well out of position. If anything I think I could argue that it was a little weak compared to what drivers have got in the past for being slightly out of position.

Magnussen: It wasn't just him, Grosjean got the same penalty. From the team radio transcript, the only words Grosjean was told was "Box, Romain, box." twice. But the question is, are you allowed to be told to box on the formation lap and not use your expected grid position to start the race? They used this to their advantage and it certainly benifitted them. If what I mention is the reason they got a penalty, then I think I understand it. If it is inconsistent, can you provide an example to show it is by comparing it to something similar that didn't get punished?

Racing Point: This isn't even confirmed yet so you can't prove anything about it being inconsistent.



The only one I can feel I also would question unless I'm corrected is Verstappen getting his car fixed seconds before the race.


You did admit you could have missed one, and that was to me the most obvious example and the only penalty I really feel was inconsistent and the wrong decision all year. Stroll on Ricciardo. That should have had a 5 second penalty with a couple of penalty points at least.

Most of your others, I just don't see how they are inconsistent penalties and you didn't compare them to anything.

What rule do you imagine was broken?

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

wire2004 wrote:Its becoming a joke.

Bottas. Clear Jump start. No penalty.
Albon. Drying his grid slot. No penalty.
Kimi. Lining up half a grid slot out of position. 5 second penalty.
K mag. Communication to pit at the end of the formation lap. 10 second penalty.
Racing point. Protest by salty Renault again. Possible exclusion.

And I've probably missed another 1 somewhere.

(Technically. Didn't verstappen break park ferme rules by having his suspension fixed prior to the race start where no components can be changed)
That is just this race and the inconsistency of the penalties being awarded to the drivers and teams


Something needs to be done about it And Fast.

Bottas: Weather you agree with the decision on Bottas, as I mentioned in another thread, their jump start tolerance does seem to be consistent and luckily all 3 times he's looked to be past this limit, he's been within the tolerance. Same with vettel in Japan last year. Alonso also had a questionable start in Russia one year too. I do not see inconsistency here.

Albon: They came to the conclusion from video evidence that the team did not attempt to alter the the grip of the track surface. Red Bull also will have been able to prove they they were using them for something else if this decision was the case.

Kimi: Getting a penalty for lining up incorrectly by the margin he did is consistent. As you state, he was well out of position. If anything I think I could argue that it was a little weak compared to what drivers have got in the past for being slightly out of position.

Magnussen: It wasn't just him, Grosjean got the same penalty. From the team radio transcript, the only words Grosjean was told was "Box, Romain, box." twice. But the question is, are you allowed to be told to box on the formation lap and not use your expected grid position to start the race? They used this to their advantage and it certainly benifitted them. If what I mention is the reason they got a penalty, then I think I understand it. If it is inconsistent, can you provide an example to show it is by comparing it to something similar that didn't get punished?

Racing Point: This isn't even confirmed yet so you can't prove anything about it being inconsistent.



The only one I can feel I also would question unless I'm corrected is Verstappen getting his car fixed seconds before the race.


You did admit you could have missed one, and that was to me the most obvious example and the only penalty I really feel was inconsistent and the wrong decision all year. Stroll on Ricciardo. That should have had a 5 second penalty with a couple of penalty points at least.

Most of your others, I just don't see how they are inconsistent penalties and you didn't compare them to anything.

What rule do you imagine was broken?

The one that I said I would also question. From the layout of my post, I would have thought it was pretty obvious that I was agreeing it seemed questionable in reply to the point made about Verstappen. I also said i could be corrected.

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

wire2004 wrote:Its becoming a joke.

Bottas. Clear Jump start. No penalty.
Albon. Drying his grid slot. No penalty.
Kimi. Lining up half a grid slot out of position. 5 second penalty.
K mag. Communication to pit at the end of the formation lap. 10 second penalty.
Racing point. Protest by salty Renault again. Possible exclusion.

And I've probably missed another 1 somewhere.

(Technically. Didn't verstappen break park ferme rules by having his suspension fixed prior to the race start where no components can be changed)
That is just this race and the inconsistency of the penalties being awarded to the drivers and teams


Something needs to be done about it And Fast.

Bottas: Weather you agree with the decision on Bottas, as I mentioned in another thread, their jump start tolerance does seem to be consistent and luckily all 3 times he's looked to be past this limit, he's been within the tolerance. Same with vettel in Japan last year. Alonso also had a questionable start in Russia one year too. I do not see inconsistency here.

Albon: They came to the conclusion from video evidence that the team did not attempt to alter the the grip of the track surface. Red Bull also will have been able to prove they they were using them for something else if this decision was the case.

Kimi: Getting a penalty for lining up incorrectly by the margin he did is consistent. As you state, he was well out of position. If anything I think I could argue that it was a little weak compared to what drivers have got in the past for being slightly out of position.

Magnussen: It wasn't just him, Grosjean got the same penalty. From the team radio transcript, the only words Grosjean was told was "Box, Romain, box." twice. But the question is, are you allowed to be told to box on the formation lap and not use your expected grid position to start the race? They used this to their advantage and it certainly benifitted them. If what I mention is the reason they got a penalty, then I think I understand it. If it is inconsistent, can you provide an example to show it is by comparing it to something similar that didn't get punished?

Racing Point: This isn't even confirmed yet so you can't prove anything about it being inconsistent.



The only one I can feel I also would question unless I'm corrected is Verstappen getting his car fixed seconds before the race.


You did admit you could have missed one, and that was to me the most obvious example and the only penalty I really feel was inconsistent and the wrong decision all year. Stroll on Ricciardo. That should have had a 5 second penalty with a couple of penalty points at least.

Most of your others, I just don't see how they are inconsistent penalties and you didn't compare them to anything.

What rule do you imagine was broken?

The one that I said I would also question. From the layout of my post, I would have thought it was pretty obvious that I was agreeing it seemed questionable in reply to the point made about Verstappen. I also said i could be corrected.

I see, well parts are regularly changed in parc ferme. Damaged parts can be swapped for like to like parts. This happens after every quali session. The FIA actually provide a document with a list of changed parts between quali and the race.

mikeyg123 wrote:Stroll pushing Ricciardo off track, then overtaking him off track and then rejoining dangerously no penalty.

In fairness, the FIA have now acknowledged that they should have penalised Stroll for that.

BMWSauber84 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Stroll pushing Ricciardo off track, then overtaking him off track and then rejoining dangerously no penalty.

In fairness, the FIA have now acknowledged that they should have penalised Stroll for that.

That’s embarrassing for them.

JN23 wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Stroll pushing Ricciardo off track, then overtaking him off track and then rejoining dangerously no penalty.

In fairness, the FIA have now acknowledged that they should have penalised Stroll for that.

That’s embarrassing for them.

It's rather troubling that everything is apparently "fixed" by midnight, if I understand Ricciardo's comments correctly. It's not the first time someone points out that fixed results are fixed, yet we have seen decisions reversed or altered afterwards.
Having said that, it does perhaps explain why a driver could be removed from the championship, yet retain all his statistics - Schumacher 1997.

How can it be that the Olympics are able to withdraw medals years after an event, yet the FIA can't the day after? Could the answer be that F1 overrules FIA?

BMWSauber84 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Stroll pushing Ricciardo off track, then overtaking him off track and then rejoining dangerously no penalty.

In fairness, the FIA have now acknowledged that they should have penalised Stroll for that.

I'm happy to see that otherwise it sets a precedent, but otherwise it doesn't help the feeling that sometimes the decisons depend on what side of the bed they get out of.

Fiki wrote:

JN23 wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Stroll pushing Ricciardo off track, then overtaking him off track and then rejoining dangerously no penalty.

In fairness, the FIA have now acknowledged that they should have penalised Stroll for that.

That’s embarrassing for them.

It's rather troubling that everything is apparently "fixed" by midnight, if I understand Ricciardo's comments correctly. It's not the first time someone points out that fixed results are fixed, yet we have seen decisions reversed or altered afterwards.
Having said that, it does perhaps explain why a driver could be removed from the championship, yet retain all his statistics - Schumacher 1997.

How can it be that the Olympics are able to withdraw medals years after an event, yet the FIA can't the day after? Could the answer be that F1 overrules FIA?

Why would Schumacher lose his statistics? He did win those races, he did get all the podiums/poles. The fact that he did that idiotic act and got banned from the WDC doesn't mean that the previous wins should not count towards his statistics.

Also, Fisico got his win when two days after the 2003 Brazilian race Whiting started an investigation, which resulted to the results being changed 5 days after the race. So this "fixed by midnight" is maybe not set in stone, is it?

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

JN23 wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Stroll pushing Ricciardo off track, then overtaking him off track and then rejoining dangerously no penalty.

In fairness, the FIA have now acknowledged that they should have penalised Stroll for that.

That’s embarrassing for them.

It's rather troubling that everything is apparently "fixed" by midnight, if I understand Ricciardo's comments correctly. It's not the first time someone points out that fixed results are fixed, yet we have seen decisions reversed or altered afterwards.
Having said that, it does perhaps explain why a driver could be removed from the championship, yet retain all his statistics - Schumacher 1997.

How can it be that the Olympics are able to withdraw medals years after an event, yet the FIA can't the day after? Could the answer be that F1 overrules FIA?

Why would Schumacher lose his statistics? He did win those races, he did get all the podiums/poles. The fact that he did that idiotic act and got banned from the WDC doesn't mean that the previous wins should not count towards his statistics.

Also, Fisico got his win when two days after the 2003 Brazilian race Whiting started an investigation, which resulted to the results being changed 5 days after the race. So this "fixed by midnight" is maybe not set in stone, is it?

The problem perfectly illustrated, Siao!

For the 2003 race, I don't remember how long they took to work out who won, but it can't have been long enough to look at the footage and the data. That's all it took, but that was too long. So it was more the "pressure" to respect the TV-schedules, and get a couple of drivers to the podium. Who cares about somebody not getting his trophy to the tune of his national anthem?

As for Schumacher; least said...

Haas farce aside, I actually think the stewarding has improved in recent years. But then again, I'm comparing it to the days of Hamilton getting a post-race time penalty at Spa based on an interpretation of a rule that was made up after the race. Or Alonso getting a grid penalty for being in the same sector as a Ferrari doing their qualifying lap in Monza.

Siao7 wrote:Why would Schumacher lose his statistics?

Fiki has been adamant that Schumacher's stats shouldn't count for 1997 since I've been on this forum, and quite likely since as early as 1998.

It doesn't make any sense. He cheated in the final race, but that doesn't provide any rationale for removing his stats earned in races where he didn't cheat. A far better case could be made for removing the stats of the 2007 McLaren drivers, who both drove an illegal car all year long.

Exediron wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Why would Schumacher lose his statistics?

Fiki has been adamant that Schumacher's stats shouldn't count for 1997 since I've been on this forum, and quite likely since as early as 1998.

It doesn't make any sense. He cheated in the final race, but that doesn't provide any rationale for removing his stats earned in races where he didn't cheat. A far better case could be made for removing the stats of the 2007 McLaren drivers, who both drove an illegal car all year long.

That's one hell of a rabbit hole, and probably where Fiki has you checkmate'd (A certain someone in '94).

In the modern era, what do you do with Ferrari's stats the last 2 years? Anyone with eyes can now see something untoward was going on.... are we going to get a 'Lance' moment in 10 years time? Doubt it.

Flash2k11 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Why would Schumacher lose his statistics?

Fiki has been adamant that Schumacher's stats shouldn't count for 1997 since I've been on this forum, and quite likely since as early as 1998.

It doesn't make any sense. He cheated in the final race, but that doesn't provide any rationale for removing his stats earned in races where he didn't cheat. A far better case could be made for removing the stats of the 2007 McLaren drivers, who both drove an illegal car all year long.

That's one hell of a rabbit hole, and probably where Fiki has you checkmate'd (A certain someone in '94).

In the modern era, what do you do with Ferrari's stats the last 2 years? Anyone with eyes can now see something untoward was going on.... are we going to get a 'Lance' moment in 10 years time? Doubt it.

I'm personally not in favor of taking away wins or championships after the fact under any circumstances, including when we know the individuals involved were cheating. I'm just saying that 1997 is one of the weaker cases if you're going to go around looking for stats to discount.

Exediron wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Why would Schumacher lose his statistics?

Fiki has been adamant that Schumacher's stats shouldn't count for 1997 since I've been on this forum, and quite likely since as early as 1998.

It doesn't make any sense. He cheated in the final race, but that doesn't provide any rationale for removing his stats earned in races where he didn't cheat. A far better case could be made for removing the stats of the 2007 McLaren drivers, who both drove an illegal car all year long.

That's one hell of a rabbit hole, and probably where Fiki has you checkmate'd (A certain someone in '94).

In the modern era, what do you do with Ferrari's stats the last 2 years? Anyone with eyes can now see something untoward was going on.... are we going to get a 'Lance' moment in 10 years time? Doubt it.

I'm personally not in favor of taking away wins or championships after the fact under any circumstances, including when we know the individuals involved were cheating. I'm just saying that 1997 is one of the weaker cases if you're going to go around looking for stats to discount.

Exactly, a moment of madness should not undo all a driver has done to that point, it is absurd. And I think Flash2k11 made a typo, he must have meant 1990 (wink wink)!

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

JN23 wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:
In fairness, the FIA have now acknowledged that they should have penalised Stroll for that.

That’s embarrassing for them.

It's rather troubling that everything is apparently "fixed" by midnight, if I understand Ricciardo's comments correctly. It's not the first time someone points out that fixed results are fixed, yet we have seen decisions reversed or altered afterwards.
Having said that, it does perhaps explain why a driver could be removed from the championship, yet retain all his statistics - Schumacher 1997.

How can it be that the Olympics are able to withdraw medals years after an event, yet the FIA can't the day after? Could the answer be that F1 overrules FIA?

Why would Schumacher lose his statistics? He did win those races, he did get all the podiums/poles. The fact that he did that idiotic act and got banned from the WDC doesn't mean that the previous wins should not count towards his statistics.

Also, Fisico got his win when two days after the 2003 Brazilian race Whiting started an investigation, which resulted to the results being changed 5 days after the race. So this "fixed by midnight" is maybe not set in stone, is it?

The problem perfectly illustrated, Siao!

For the 2003 race, I don't remember how long they took to work out who won, but it can't have been long enough to look at the footage and the data. That's all it took, but that was too long. So it was more the "pressure" to respect the TV-schedules, and get a couple of drivers to the podium. Who cares about somebody not getting his trophy to the tune of his national anthem?

As for Schumacher; least said...

I checked it and it was 2 days after that they started the investigation and then another 5 days that they took the decision to change the result. They had a timekeeping error and involved Tag, it just goes to illustrate that the results can change later than midnight that day. They had a little ceremony before the next day where Dennis and Kimi gave the trophies to the rightful winners, but no anthem for them as you mentioned

Siao7 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Why would Schumacher lose his statistics?

Fiki has been adamant that Schumacher's stats shouldn't count for 1997 since I've been on this forum, and quite likely since as early as 1998.

It doesn't make any sense. He cheated in the final race, but that doesn't provide any rationale for removing his stats earned in races where he didn't cheat. A far better case could be made for removing the stats of the 2007 McLaren drivers, who both drove an illegal car all year long.

That's one hell of a rabbit hole, and probably where Fiki has you checkmate'd (A certain someone in '94).

In the modern era, what do you do with Ferrari's stats the last 2 years? Anyone with eyes can now see something untoward was going on.... are we going to get a 'Lance' moment in 10 years time? Doubt it.

I'm personally not in favor of taking away wins or championships after the fact under any circumstances, including when we know the individuals involved were cheating. I'm just saying that 1997 is one of the weaker cases if you're going to go around looking for stats to discount.

Exactly, a moment of madness should not undo all a driver has done to that point, it is absurd. And I think Flash2k11 made a typo, he must have meant 1990 (wink wink)!

I believe now and will always believe that Senna should have been disqualified from the 1990 championship for what he did. Even if he had been, however, it wouldn't take anything away from the wins he earned on merit earlier in the year.

Exediron wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:

Exediron wrote: Fiki has been adamant that Schumacher's stats shouldn't count for 1997 since I've been on this forum, and quite likely since as early as 1998.

It doesn't make any sense. He cheated in the final race, but that doesn't provide any rationale for removing his stats earned in races where he didn't cheat. A far better case could be made for removing the stats of the 2007 McLaren drivers, who both drove an illegal car all year long.

That's one hell of a rabbit hole, and probably where Fiki has you checkmate'd (A certain someone in '94).

In the modern era, what do you do with Ferrari's stats the last 2 years? Anyone with eyes can now see something untoward was going on.... are we going to get a 'Lance' moment in 10 years time? Doubt it.

I'm personally not in favor of taking away wins or championships after the fact under any circumstances, including when we know the individuals involved were cheating. I'm just saying that 1997 is one of the weaker cases if you're going to go around looking for stats to discount.

Exactly, a moment of madness should not undo all a driver has done to that point, it is absurd. And I think Flash2k11 made a typo, he must have meant 1990 (wink wink)!

I believe now and will always believe that Senna should have been disqualified from the 1990 championship for what he did. Even if he had been, however, it wouldn't take anything away from the wins he earned on merit earlier in the year.

I agree wholeheartedly

I think that Schumacher should have been banned for the first three races of the following season after what he did at Jerez, but I can't see the logic in removing statistics that were earned.

If drivers/teams are found to have earned those statistics through cheating then there is more of a case for that course of action (like drug cheat cyclists having tour de France wins removed).

j man wrote:Haas farce aside, I actually think the stewarding has improved in recent years. But then again, I'm comparing it to the days of Hamilton getting a post-race time penalty at Spa based on an interpretation of a rule that was made up after the race. Or Alonso getting a grid penalty for being in the same sector as a Ferrari doing their qualifying lap in Monza.

It really isn't any better, apparently Ricciardo discussed the Stroll incident with Michael Masi at the drivers briefing were Masi explained that the Verstappen/Leclerc incident the year before at the same corner set a precedent and that's why Stroll wasn't penalised.

Ricciardo then had to explain why the 2 incidents were not the same as in Verstappen stayed on the track and Stroll didn't, eventually Masi agreed that Stroll should have been penalised and the stewards had made a mistake.

This is the level of compency we have were a driver has to explain to Masi what Stroll did wrong, something so obvious to many of us.

Exediron wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:

Exediron wrote: Fiki has been adamant that Schumacher's stats shouldn't count for 1997 since I've been on this forum, and quite likely since as early as 1998.

It doesn't make any sense. He cheated in the final race, but that doesn't provide any rationale for removing his stats earned in races where he didn't cheat. A far better case could be made for removing the stats of the 2007 McLaren drivers, who both drove an illegal car all year long.

That's one hell of a rabbit hole, and probably where Fiki has you checkmate'd (A certain someone in '94).

In the modern era, what do you do with Ferrari's stats the last 2 years? Anyone with eyes can now see something untoward was going on.... are we going to get a 'Lance' moment in 10 years time? Doubt it.

I'm personally not in favor of taking away wins or championships after the fact under any circumstances, including when we know the individuals involved were cheating. I'm just saying that 1997 is one of the weaker cases if you're going to go around looking for stats to discount.

Exactly, a moment of madness should not undo all a driver has done to that point, it is absurd. And I think Flash2k11 made a typo, he must have meant 1990 (wink wink)!

I believe now and will always believe that Senna should have been disqualified from the 1990 championship for what he did. Even if he had been, however, it wouldn't take anything away from the wins he earned on merit earlier in the year.

Also then Prost the year before even though he was far more subtle about it.

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

JN23 wrote:That’s embarrassing for them.

It's rather troubling that everything is apparently "fixed" by midnight, if I understand Ricciardo's comments correctly. It's not the first time someone points out that fixed results are fixed, yet we have seen decisions reversed or altered afterwards.
Having said that, it does perhaps explain why a driver could be removed from the championship, yet retain all his statistics - Schumacher 1997.

How can it be that the Olympics are able to withdraw medals years after an event, yet the FIA can't the day after? Could the answer be that F1 overrules FIA?

Why would Schumacher lose his statistics? He did win those races, he did get all the podiums/poles. The fact that he did that idiotic act and got banned from the WDC doesn't mean that the previous wins should not count towards his statistics.

Also, Fisico got his win when two days after the 2003 Brazilian race Whiting started an investigation, which resulted to the results being changed 5 days after the race. So this "fixed by midnight" is maybe not set in stone, is it?

The problem perfectly illustrated, Siao!

For the 2003 race, I don't remember how long they took to work out who won, but it can't have been long enough to look at the footage and the data. That's all it took, but that was too long. So it was more the "pressure" to respect the TV-schedules, and get a couple of drivers to the podium. Who cares about somebody not getting his trophy to the tune of his national anthem?

As for Schumacher; least said...

I checked it and it was 2 days after that they started the investigation and then another 5 days that they took the decision to change the result. They had a timekeeping error and involved Tag, it just goes to illustrate that the results can change later than midnight that day. They had a little ceremony before the next day where Dennis and Kimi gave the trophies to the rightful winners, but no anthem for them as you mentioned

So there's hope yet for Ricciardo! I have always respected the work stewards do, and the driver who assists them. But when they make a mistake, which is human after all, it shouldn't just be left as if it can't be helped.
I was delighted that Lance Stroll did as well as he did, last weekend. And not just because he's half-Belgian, but because he genuinely did well. But his mistake in the Styrian GP was a mistake, and didn't result in an accident because the more experienced driver jumped out of the way. While it would be difficult to resolve the difficulty of where Ricciardo and Norris would have finished had the correct penalty been given during the race, it is still easy enough to put Stroll behind these two in retrospect. Not taking action should be unacceptable in a sport that takes itself and sportsmanship seriously. (I suppose we should even take the same course of action if we consider F1 to be a business first and only a sport when it suits us to consider it that.)

Balestre may have been a divisive figure in his day, but you can't help but wonder whether F1 and motorsport in general might not have been better off if his threat to refuse a superlicence had been executed, when Senna's get-out-of-my-way-or-have-an-accident racing style started to seriously become problematic. Whatever he thought was wrong with 1989 is one thing, what he did in 1990 should have resulted in the most serious penalty ever given. Not doing so resulted in the action Schumacher took in 1994 and 1997. "We" only have ourselves to blame.

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:It's rather troubling that everything is apparently "fixed" by midnight, if I understand Ricciardo's comments correctly. It's not the first time someone points out that fixed results are fixed, yet we have seen decisions reversed or altered afterwards.
Having said that, it does perhaps explain why a driver could be removed from the championship, yet retain all his statistics - Schumacher 1997.

How can it be that the Olympics are able to withdraw medals years after an event, yet the FIA can't the day after? Could the answer be that F1 overrules FIA?

Why would Schumacher lose his statistics? He did win those races, he did get all the podiums/poles. The fact that he did that idiotic act and got banned from the WDC doesn't mean that the previous wins should not count towards his statistics.

Also, Fisico got his win when two days after the 2003 Brazilian race Whiting started an investigation, which resulted to the results being changed 5 days after the race. So this "fixed by midnight" is maybe not set in stone, is it?

The problem perfectly illustrated, Siao!

For the 2003 race, I don't remember how long they took to work out who won, but it can't have been long enough to look at the footage and the data. That's all it took, but that was too long. So it was more the "pressure" to respect the TV-schedules, and get a couple of drivers to the podium. Who cares about somebody not getting his trophy to the tune of his national anthem?

As for Schumacher; least said...

I checked it and it was 2 days after that they started the investigation and then another 5 days that they took the decision to change the result. They had a timekeeping error and involved Tag, it just goes to illustrate that the results can change later than midnight that day. They had a little ceremony before the next day where Dennis and Kimi gave the trophies to the rightful winners, but no anthem for them as you mentioned

So there's hope yet for Ricciardo! I have always respected the work stewards do, and the driver who assists them. But when they make a mistake, which is human after all, it shouldn't just be left as if it can't be helped.
I was delighted that Lance Stroll did as well as he did, last weekend. And not just because he's half-Belgian, but because he genuinely did well. But his mistake in the Styrian GP was a mistake, and didn't result in an accident because the more experienced driver jumped out of the way. While it would be difficult to resolve the difficulty of where Ricciardo and Norris would have finished had the correct penalty been given during the race, it is still easy enough to put Stroll behind these two in retrospect. Not taking action should be unacceptable in a sport that takes itself and sportsmanship seriously. (I suppose we should even take the same course of action if we consider F1 to be a business first and only a sport when it suits us to consider it that.)

Balestre may have been a divisive figure in his day, but you can't help but wonder whether F1 and motorsport in general might not have been better off if his threat to refuse a superlicence had been executed, when Senna's get-out-of-my-way-or-have-an-accident racing style started to seriously become problematic. Whatever he thought was wrong with 1989 is one thing, what he did in 1990 should have resulted in the most serious penalty ever given. Not doing so resulted in the action Schumacher took in 1994 and 1997. "We" only have ourselves to blame.

Yes, I completely agree, Senna taught this style to generations that came afterwards. The should have nipped it in the bud, but no one dared to go against the superstar. Well, Balestre tried...

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Why would Schumacher lose his statistics? He did win those races, he did get all the podiums/poles. The fact that he did that idiotic act and got banned from the WDC doesn't mean that the previous wins should not count towards his statistics.

Also, Fisico got his win when two days after the 2003 Brazilian race Whiting started an investigation, which resulted to the results being changed 5 days after the race. So this "fixed by midnight" is maybe not set in stone, is it?

The problem perfectly illustrated, Siao!

For the 2003 race, I don't remember how long they took to work out who won, but it can't have been long enough to look at the footage and the data. That's all it took, but that was too long. So it was more the "pressure" to respect the TV-schedules, and get a couple of drivers to the podium. Who cares about somebody not getting his trophy to the tune of his national anthem?

As for Schumacher; least said...

I checked it and it was 2 days after that they started the investigation and then another 5 days that they took the decision to change the result. They had a timekeeping error and involved Tag, it just goes to illustrate that the results can change later than midnight that day. They had a little ceremony before the next day where Dennis and Kimi gave the trophies to the rightful winners, but no anthem for them as you mentioned

So there's hope yet for Ricciardo! I have always respected the work stewards do, and the driver who assists them. But when they make a mistake, which is human after all, it shouldn't just be left as if it can't be helped.
I was delighted that Lance Stroll did as well as he did, last weekend. And not just because he's half-Belgian, but because he genuinely did well. But his mistake in the Styrian GP was a mistake, and didn't result in an accident because the more experienced driver jumped out of the way. While it would be difficult to resolve the difficulty of where Ricciardo and Norris would have finished had the correct penalty been given during the race, it is still easy enough to put Stroll behind these two in retrospect. Not taking action should be unacceptable in a sport that takes itself and sportsmanship seriously. (I suppose we should even take the same course of action if we consider F1 to be a business first and only a sport when it suits us to consider it that.)

Balestre may have been a divisive figure in his day, but you can't help but wonder whether F1 and motorsport in general might not have been better off if his threat to refuse a superlicence had been executed, when Senna's get-out-of-my-way-or-have-an-accident racing style started to seriously become problematic. Whatever he thought was wrong with 1989 is one thing, what he did in 1990 should have resulted in the most serious penalty ever given. Not doing so resulted in the action Schumacher took in 1994 and 1997. "We" only have ourselves to blame.

Yes, I completely agree, Senna taught this style to generations that came afterwards. The should have nipped it in the bud, but no one dared to go against the superstar. Well, Balestre tried...

Are we sure he did try? Or do you mean disqualifying Senna at Suzuka in 1989? If so, I agree, though the whole episode is still shrouded in uncertainty about what really happened at Race Control and in the Stewards' Office after the race.

More in line with the thread title, I found myself thinking that if the stewards do make "better" decisions than before, then that is also not being "consistent". Simply asking for consistency isn't good enough. Just as deciding to "let them race" isn't good enough from a sporting point of view, if that means the rules are simply left in the fridge with Kimi's icecream.

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
Why would Schumacher lose his statistics? He did win those races, he did get all the podiums/poles. The fact that he did that idiotic act and got banned from the WDC doesn't mean that the previous wins should not count towards his statistics.

Also, Fisico got his win when two days after the 2003 Brazilian race Whiting started an investigation, which resulted to the results being changed 5 days after the race. So this "fixed by midnight" is maybe not set in stone, is it?

The problem perfectly illustrated, Siao!

For the 2003 race, I don't remember how long they took to work out who won, but it can't have been long enough to look at the footage and the data. That's all it took, but that was too long. So it was more the "pressure" to respect the TV-schedules, and get a couple of drivers to the podium. Who cares about somebody not getting his trophy to the tune of his national anthem?

As for Schumacher; least said...

I checked it and it was 2 days after that they started the investigation and then another 5 days that they took the decision to change the result. They had a timekeeping error and involved Tag, it just goes to illustrate that the results can change later than midnight that day. They had a little ceremony before the next day where Dennis and Kimi gave the trophies to the rightful winners, but no anthem for them as you mentioned

So there's hope yet for Ricciardo! I have always respected the work stewards do, and the driver who assists them. But when they make a mistake, which is human after all, it shouldn't just be left as if it can't be helped.
I was delighted that Lance Stroll did as well as he did, last weekend. And not just because he's half-Belgian, but because he genuinely did well. But his mistake in the Styrian GP was a mistake, and didn't result in an accident because the more experienced driver jumped out of the way. While it would be difficult to resolve the difficulty of where Ricciardo and Norris would have finished had the correct penalty been given during the race, it is still easy enough to put Stroll behind these two in retrospect. Not taking action should be unacceptable in a sport that takes itself and sportsmanship seriously. (I suppose we should even take the same course of action if we consider F1 to be a business first and only a sport when it suits us to consider it that.)

Balestre may have been a divisive figure in his day, but you can't help but wonder whether F1 and motorsport in general might not have been better off if his threat to refuse a superlicence had been executed, when Senna's get-out-of-my-way-or-have-an-accident racing style started to seriously become problematic. Whatever he thought was wrong with 1989 is one thing, what he did in 1990 should have resulted in the most serious penalty ever given. Not doing so resulted in the action Schumacher took in 1994 and 1997. "We" only have ourselves to blame.

Yes, I completely agree, Senna taught this style to generations that came afterwards. The should have nipped it in the bud, but no one dared to go against the superstar. Well, Balestre tried...

Prost shunted Senna off to win a championship before Senna returned the favour. Had Prost been appropriately punished in 89 I doubt Senna would have felt safe to do what he did in 1990.

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:The problem perfectly illustrated, Siao!

For the 2003 race, I don't remember how long they took to work out who won, but it can't have been long enough to look at the footage and the data. That's all it took, but that was too long. So it was more the "pressure" to respect the TV-schedules, and get a couple of drivers to the podium. Who cares about somebody not getting his trophy to the tune of his national anthem?

As for Schumacher; least said...

I checked it and it was 2 days after that they started the investigation and then another 5 days that they took the decision to change the result. They had a timekeeping error and involved Tag, it just goes to illustrate that the results can change later than midnight that day. They had a little ceremony before the next day where Dennis and Kimi gave the trophies to the rightful winners, but no anthem for them as you mentioned

So there's hope yet for Ricciardo! I have always respected the work stewards do, and the driver who assists them. But when they make a mistake, which is human after all, it shouldn't just be left as if it can't be helped.
I was delighted that Lance Stroll did as well as he did, last weekend. And not just because he's half-Belgian, but because he genuinely did well. But his mistake in the Styrian GP was a mistake, and didn't result in an accident because the more experienced driver jumped out of the way. While it would be difficult to resolve the difficulty of where Ricciardo and Norris would have finished had the correct penalty been given during the race, it is still easy enough to put Stroll behind these two in retrospect. Not taking action should be unacceptable in a sport that takes itself and sportsmanship seriously. (I suppose we should even take the same course of action if we consider F1 to be a business first and only a sport when it suits us to consider it that.)

Balestre may have been a divisive figure in his day, but you can't help but wonder whether F1 and motorsport in general might not have been better off if his threat to refuse a superlicence had been executed, when Senna's get-out-of-my-way-or-have-an-accident racing style started to seriously become problematic. Whatever he thought was wrong with 1989 is one thing, what he did in 1990 should have resulted in the most serious penalty ever given. Not doing so resulted in the action Schumacher took in 1994 and 1997. "We" only have ourselves to blame.

Yes, I completely agree, Senna taught this style to generations that came afterwards. The should have nipped it in the bud, but no one dared to go against the superstar. Well, Balestre tried...

Are we sure he did try? Or do you mean disqualifying Senna at Suzuka in 1989? If so, I agree, though the whole episode is still shrouded in uncertainty about what really happened at Race Control and in the Stewards' Office after the race.

More in line with the thread title, I found myself thinking that if the stewards do make "better" decisions than before, then that is also not being "consistent". Simply asking for consistency isn't good enough. Just as deciding to "let them race" isn't good enough from a sporting point of view, if that means the rules are simply left in the fridge with Kimi's icecream.

Yes, he did take his super license him and then reverted it, didn't he? Although I now remember that it wasn't for 1990, he got scot-free for that one... Interestingly Wikipedia shares an article where apparently Balestre admitted benefiting Prost (https://acervo.estadao.com.br/pagina/#! ... esp-e8-not). This is a Brazilian article so a) maybe not the most objective and b) can't actually read it! Getting off topic now...

mikeyg123 wrote:Prost shunted Senna off to win a championship before Senna returned the favour. Had Prost been appropriately punished in 89 I doubt Senna would have felt safe to do what he did in 1990.

I'm getting a sense of deja vu and I suspect we've argued this point before, but I think there's a major difference between the two. What Senna did was unacceptably dangerous, and openly motivated by revenge. No legitimate regulatory body would allow someone to win a championship that way.

There does seem rather too much of a reluctance on the stewards part to award penalties for dodgy overtaking or dodgy defending when collisions are avoided.

Hamilton should really have had a penalty for Monaco 2016, Leclerc for his dangerous defence at Monza, Stroll in Austria, Kvyat's torpedo in China etc etc.

Also the modern penalty system can be a bit unsatisfying. There are times IMO where black flags would have been appropriate. Schumacher on Barrichello in 2010 springs to mind (I know that predates the current penalty point system), as does Grosjean at Spain 2018 which I can't believe wasn't punished with a race ban.

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Prost shunted Senna off to win a championship before Senna returned the favour. Had Prost been appropriately punished in 89 I doubt Senna would have felt safe to do what he did in 1990.

I'm getting a sense of deja vu and I suspect we've argued this point before, but I think there's a major difference between the two. What Senna did was unacceptably dangerous, and openly motivated by revenge. No legitimate regulatory body would allow someone to win a championship that way.

They both deliberately caused a crashed to win a title. Neither should have been allowed to win a title that way.

Senna's is only worse in the sense that it's higher risk but the precedent had been set the year before. Prost not only clearly tried to take him out but when that failed he got DSQ'd on a technicality. For something that had never even previously been punished. Yes, what he did was unacceptable but he was very heavily provoked. I think all of us would have had our judgement clouded by a sense of huge injustice had we been in Senna's position.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Prost shunted Senna off to win a championship before Senna returned the favour. Had Prost been appropriately punished in 89 I doubt Senna would have felt safe to do what he did in 1990.

I'm getting a sense of deja vu and I suspect we've argued this point before, but I think there's a major difference between the two. What Senna did was unacceptably dangerous, and openly motivated by revenge. No legitimate regulatory body would allow someone to win a championship that way.

They both deliberately caused a crashed to win a title. Neither should have been allowed to win a title that way.

Senna's is only worse in the sense that it's higher risk but the precedent had been set the year before. Prost not only clearly tried to take him out but when that failed he got DSQ'd on a technicality. For something that had never even previously been punished. Yes, what he did was unacceptable but he was very heavily provoked. I think all of us would have had our judgement clouded by a sense of huge injustice had we been in Senna's position.

I disagree with this, I personally think that while Senna's was a horrible act, Prost's is more debatable if you want. I know that Prost was the thinker, the professor, but I do not think that he wanted to win the title that way; more like he wanted to show Senna that he wouldn't bulge to his bullish tactics, paid him in the same coin of "I'll put my car there and you decide if we will crash or not". There's a difference. I can't prove it though and frankly I wouldn't be surprised nor object to Prost getting penalised for the crash and eventually losing the WDC.

As for 1990, revoking his license was taken back. And I agree that the 1989 technicality was wrong; he should have been punished for being push-started. He obviously felt provoked by Balestre not bulging in his ridiculous demand to change the grid sides, something that he was fine the years before that. I've never seen a driver demanding to change something on a track to suit him, never before, never after. That was Senna being bigger than the sport itself and I am not sure how it justifies using his car as a weapon. It was a premeditated act, not red mist, I am not sure we ever had this before or after. He was provoked the year before if you want, but his retaliation put lives in danger.

But we are slowly getting off topic.

BMWSauber84 wrote:There does seem rather too much of a reluctance on the stewards part to award penalties for dodgy overtaking or dodgy defending when collisions are avoided.

Hamilton should really have had a penalty for Monaco 2016, Leclerc for his dangerous defence at Monza, Stroll in Austria, Kvyat's torpedo in China etc etc.

Also the modern penalty system can be a bit unsatisfying. There are times IMO where black flags would have been appropriate. Schumacher on Barrichello in 2010 springs to mind (I know that predates the current penalty point system), as does Grosjean at Spain 2018 which I can't believe wasn't punished with a race ban.

I agree. Your example of Hamilton also shows that simply letting a driver continue racing, and telling him which time penalty he has to overcome, is not effective in every case or for every car.
Hamilton should have been ordered to give the place up and then try to overtake during the rest of the race. Surely that lesson had been learnt during Belgium 2008? Or it should have been.

Schumacher versus Barrichello reminds me of Prost and Senna; the FIA failed to take decisive action then, and they still fail today.There's consistency in that.

As far as I'm concerned, Suzuka 1989 showed us the problem of a late, possibly overoptimistic or overly intimidating lunge, and how an accident is to be avoided and what the consequences of that avoidance should be. "Letting them race, what?"

BMWSauber84 wrote:There does seem rather too much of a reluctance on the stewards part to award penalties for dodgy overtaking or dodgy defending when collisions are avoided.

Hamilton should really have had a penalty for Monaco 2016, Leclerc for his dangerous defence at Monza, Stroll in Austria, Kvyat's torpedo in China etc etc.

Also the modern penalty system can be a bit unsatisfying. There are times IMO where black flags would have been appropriate. Schumacher on Barrichello in 2010 springs to mind (I know that predates the current penalty point system), as does Grosjean at Spain 2018 which I can't believe wasn't punished with a race ban.

Sorry if I'm being daft, but the Grosjean incident is the one that he spun in the opening lap in the Spanish GP, right? Why a race ban?