SHOULD MCLAREN BE PENALISED?

Neil_s

I know a lot of people will not agree with what I am going to say but I think the way the McLaren team left Kimi racing when they knew they had a big problem not only was a risk for the driver himself but also for other cars (Kimi nearly touched a BAR whilst going out which would have had very bad consequences.)

When Minardi knew there were problems we did not race at Barcellona.

I know it was six laps to go when the problem arised and the finishing line was nearly in sight, but it that was very risky.

Ergo I think McLaren should be penalised one way or another!

Minardi4eva

The way Montoya has been recently, he should be penalised.

The way he caused the 3 car pile up at Monaco, then he has to take his fair share of the blame for causing Webbers retirement should also be noted.

As for the Mclaren situation its a tough call, i want to know if it was the tean or the drivers decision (or both) to keep the car on the track.

silverghost

It's up to the stewards - they could see the sitiuation, and they didn't call him in.

Apologi

If someone should be penalised the right address would be FIA. The new tyre rules have decreased safety.

Telstar

Ron Dennis
"Perhaps understandably the whole team has a strong sense of disappointment, heightened by the fact that Kimi's retirement took place on the last lap. Kimi flatspotted his right front tyre passing Jacques Villeneuve and from that moment on the front suspension was subject to extremely high levels of vibration. Kimi was able to cope with the inevitable blurred vision for over 15 laps and the team discussed with him his tyre condition. We jointly decided to go for the win and no member of the team including Kimi regrets this decision. The resulting suspension failure was understandable in the circumstances. Juan Pablo's race was looking good after a strong start putting him third after the first corner. Inevitably someone is going to get the braking wrong into the first corner and in this instance it appeared to be Mark Webber with Juan Pablo suffering the consequences. Once he had returned to the field and even with a badly damaged floor he was able to race to seventh place."


Thats what Dennis had to say, though I bet at least Kimi does regret the decision. He could have probably got on the podium had he changed the tire.

Selespeed

Let's face it: The new tyre rule is very, very dangerous. The FIA should - in this case - be more concerned about saftey, than money. The new tyre rule has not let to cheaper tyres, hence B and M are still trying new- and different compounds to get the edge over oneother. I propose one tryre manufacterer - who pay all tyre expences in return for exposure. They should produce 3 sets of tyres: groove, intermediates, and wet tyres. Moreover, teams should be allowed to change the tyres during a race. It's a to big risk to continue down this hazzardes road, before anyone get's killed.

Lease

The rule should be ammended to take into account, severely flat-spotted tyres. However, tyres and fuel not to be taken at the same stop.

Lots of talk about what McLaren should have done, but what about Renault? Alonso clearly had a big and sustained lockup during his off and yet no-one says anything?

clipper

[quote]The rule should be ammended to take into account, severely flat-spotted tyres. However, tyres and fuel not to be taken at the same stop.

You saying it should be changed to that? isn't that what it is currently?

SuperRoo

What annoys me (and i said it after Aus GP) is that 2005 racing is all about conservation. People say how exciting it is! What's so exciting about sitting ducks doing 300 kph.

Kimi should have won if not for this stupid rule.

Well it's starting to look like an Alonso cakewalk.

MCSF

TAlonso clearly had a big and sustained lockup during his off and yet no-one says anything?

He did not have a wobble from hell to deal with. It was obvious Kimi had an issue.

viges

I have no problem with the tyre rule - it adds another variable of driver skill and judgement. If you flatspot, tough.

The tyre rule is the single factor to have given us this fantastic season. Overtaking at Monaco? Not so impossible, it turns out. Bridgestone up the creek? Serves you right for becoming a branch of TOIT.

Formula 1 should be one race, not a series of 20 lap sprints. I certainly don't want to go back to 2004.

SuperRoo

Nor I, however I would prefer tyre changes and ban refueling.

Minardus

The rule should be ammended to take into account, severely flat-spotted tyres. However, tyres and fuel not to be taken at the same stop.

I agree completely !!!

Lots of talk about what McLaren should have done, but what about Renault? Alonso clearly had a big and sustained lockup during his off and yet no-one says anything?

And so did Massa and so did Michael !!!!!

You saying it should be changed to that? isn't that what it is currently?

No clipper, currently you may NOT change flat-SPOTTED tyres. Only flat-without-air or broken tyres!!!!

Selespeed

as PS predicted before this season:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=24659

silverghost

The new tyre rule is great. If the tyres aren't lasting, then the ones to blame are the tyre companies, the teams, and the drivers for trying to push the envelope too far.

Now the engine rules, they are stupid....

Minardus

The FIA could introduce one tyrechange during the race.
It would have to be with 20 laps to go. Changing tyres with more laps to go would NOT be allowed !!!!!

This would make things more secure, because at the moment the tyre companies can't produce lasting tyres !!!!!

Ger

I like the idea of seperate Fuel and Tyre stops (Limit to only 1 tyre stop though). This is a great way to solve this issue.

Oh should Big Mac be penalised -No Way.

Love the "Zoltan the Fortune" Teller Quote on Pitpass!

[Edited on 30/5/2005 by Ger]

Murph

I agree with Silverghost on the tire and the engine rules............. and there is no way McLaren should be penalized for going for the win.

Petroltorque

Don't think you can blame the tyre rules for McLaren's miscalculation. The rules don't prevent a team from changing a flat spotted tyre.
These same rules produced sme of the best overtaking at Monaco. Its part of the sport to produce a car that is gentle on its tyres and a driver capable of conserving them.

Ravlen

Random note about Webber and Montoya... If you watched the slow-mo replay, webber had actually locked up and skidded into Montoya. Afterwards, Webber explained that that is what happened... He took a risk and tried to brake late, and he skidded into montoya, montoya didn't turn into webber. Montoya was on the track, and had to either turn, or drive off the racetrack... Webber accepted responsibility.

As for the tire rule, I think it should be eliminated... mainly because I want people to start attacking more. After this race, you can bet there's going to be alot of "saving the tires" racing. Instead, with tire changes, a driver could have very little fuel left, and he can really go for a pass, without worrying about his tires. He's getting a new set soon, so time to really wear 'em down and get some passing done...

Ravlen

Ravlen

Petroltorque

Having a situation where you can run as many tyres as you like will remove the racing's unpredictability. Which everyone was complaining about last year.

Minardus

Sotddie made some comments yesterday about tyres (from Grandprix.com):

The European Grand Prix has raised questions about the safety of Formula 1 tyres with the current tyre regulations. Kimi Raikkonen's crash at the start of the final lap of the event was not caused by a tyre failure as such but the Finn's tyres were vibrating so badly by the end of the race that the front suspension of the McLaren failed under the battering.

After the race a number of people admitted to worries about the current situation, although McLaren itself was rather muted in its comments. Ron Dennis said it would be hypocritical of the team to criticise the rules given that McLaren has enjoyed success thanks to the problems encountered by other teams. In other words, he dodged the question and decided not to get involved in any controversy. It was a pragmatic decision: keep quiet and the team has more chance to win the World Championship. The results of the team will not improve by making any remarks about safety.

David Coulthard, one of the leading figures in the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, however felt less restrained and argued that restricting teams to one set of tyres in races means that accidents are more likely.

"It is a major worry," Coulthard said. "In one way the rules have been good for overtaking and entertainment, but there is no question that it is more dangerous. The FIA position is that the drivers make the decision, but they are asking us to throw away our races by coming in to change tyres. I could hardly see from the vibrations late in the race, but I couldn't afford to lose my fourth position."

On Monday Minardi boss Paul Stoddart joined the argument.

"What happened at the Nurburgring on Sunday was completely predictable, given the current, FIA-enforced tyre regulation," he said. "On this occasion it did not result in serious injury or a fatality, but how any regulator can argue that the rule change with regard to tyres is in the interests of safety, defies all logic. The regulation needs to be changed. If it is not changed and there is another, more serious incident, then the whole world will know where to lay the blame - fairly and squarely at the feet of the FIA President. Nine out of the 10 Formula 1 teams did not want this regulation. In fact, we implored Max Mosley to move forward with a single control tyre for Formula 1. Both he and Ferrari refused to do so."

The logic is entirely reasonable, even if the relationship between Stoddart and Mosley is not. Last autumn in Brazil nine of the 10 F1 teams signed the "Cost Saving Initiative", which included a request for a control tyre. It would have cut costs, reduced testing and cut performance. Ferrari refused to sign and over the winter the FIA refused to ignore Ferrari and impose a control tyre. The federation is entrusted to be the arbiter of safety in F1 and, quite rightly, takes the credit for doing important safety work in the past. It must also take criticism if things do not go right and this argument is often used when the FIA forces through safety changes which others do not believe are necessary. This was the case last year with the switch to V8 engines for 2006.

The rules in their current form allow tyre companies, teams and drivers to push tyres to the limit and sometimes beyond. The competitors go as far as they dare and sometimes they go too far in their efforts to win.

What else can a serious competitor do?

Kimi Raikkonen could have stopped and taken on a new tyre without the vibration problem. He might have salvaged some points by doing that, but then again he might have then faced the possibility that the change would not be deemed as being "a punctured or damaged tyre", which is necessary for a team to be allowed to change a tyre.

If it had been taken off the car the tyre would have been black, almost round and in one piece and it would have been a matter of interpretation as to whether it was punctured or damaged. The fact that it was the suspension that failed on the McLaren backs up this interpretation so a pit stop was a risk that the team might fall victim to post-race penalties which would have deprived Raikkonen of more points. One has to be very careful when interpreting the rules in F1 these days, as BAR-Honda recently found out.

All things considered, therefore, McLaren's decision was the correct one for a racing team to make. It was better to stay out and go for the finish. There was only one lap left. The chances were that Kimi would make it and would win. To have stopped would have risked no points at all. Staying on the track and suffering a failure offered the same penalty but also offered the chance of maximum points. It was, therefore, entirely logical to go for the victory.

The big question is not whether McLaren did the right thing or the wrong thing but whether it is right to put competitors in a position where they must make such decisions.

The FIA deems this to be acceptable and we can only hope that the federation is right.

One might argue that the risk being taken by the federation is not dissimilar to Raikkonen setting off on that final risky lap.

It may be all right - but then again it may not be all right.

The option is to change the rules and protect the sport from such a danger. Such a decision would save money, reduce lap times, reduce the need to test as much as is now the case. And it would reduce the bad feeling between Ferrari and the other teams over the Italian team's policy of testing.

That seems like a lot of positive points.

It would be interesting, in fact, to hear why the FIA thinks this would be a bad idea.

Minardimiracle

I seem to remember F1 beng more fun when refuelling was banned, and most drivers made it round a race without changing tyres.

Even when tyre changes were made, the best teams were getting them done in well under 5 seconds, sometimes under 4. With no pit lane speed limit, pit stops were nowhere near as costly.

Admittedly I think it was Goodyear supplying all the tyres, but surely if it was possible 15 years ago to build a tyre to last a whole race, it should be possible now.

I harbored a brief hope of refuelling being banned a while back when Verstappens Benetton was engulfed in flames, but it didnt happen.

I honestly think that if the FIA banned refuelling, it would create a demand from teams to get tyres that could last the distance, and the tyre companies would respond. Surely that would be a safer way to get rid of tyre changes, instead of just banning them with a book full of muddy rules.

max_torq

As I seem to remember no pitstop F1 back in the days of the active suspension williams etc was as boring as hell! The fast cars at the front would just drive off into the distance and that was it. The field would be strung out in speed order making for no passing at all.

I'd like to hear the opinions of the team mechanics on pitstops, despite the danger, do they prefer to be involved, or is it all too much hassle?