Your Reject of the Race - Malaysia!

[Myrvold]

Well, there is a fairly big risk for crashing when driving like Hamilton did, and we really don't want to cars to crash into eachother at speeds around 300km/h...

[Nessafox]

sauber again

what ís sauber doing?

[CarlosFerreira]

sauber again

what ís sauber doing?

They're risking the answer to be "nothing at all".

[Warren Hughes]

Ferrari engines. Three of them broke, and the ones in the Saubers did nine racing laps between them. I would also say Williams, for chucking away a brilliant qualifying and ending up with just one point.

[mario]

Well, there is a fairly big risk for crashing when driving like Hamilton did, and we really don't want to cars to crash into each other at speeds around 300km/h...

I'll admit that I am playing devil's advocate here to a certain extent, but it is in part because I'm interested to see where people stand on the issue. What we really need is a side on shot showing how far apart the cars were at the time, or ideally an onboard shot from Petrov's car, to be able to judge the situation accurately. In particular, what would be most interesting to see is whether Petrov was being blocked, or was simply trying to stay in Hamilton's slip stream (the former would be unacceptable, but if Petrov was choosing to follow Hamilton, then he would be able to defend himself more easily). If Petrov was relatively close, then it could be argued that it was unsafe; however, if Petrov was more then a few car lengths behind Hamilton (say, 4 or 5 car lengths back), then you could argue that Petrov was far enough behind Hamilton for him to be significantly effected by Hamilton's actions.

Now, to state my position on the matter, I would suggest that the course of action taken was probably what I would agree with - I don't think that Hamilton's actions were sufficiently reckless to warrant a penalty (assuming that Hamilton was reasonably far ahead of Petrov at the time, such that Petrov would have been able to react safely), and probably more down to frustration after being passed on the previous lap by Petrov, and being determined to prevent it happening again, then malicious. Nevertheless, since the situation could have been far riskier for all involved, I feel that a warning about his conduct was warranted.

Anyway, back on topic - what was up with the Ferrari 056 engines and drivetrains today? Kobayashi's engine broke down after 9 laps, and De La Rosa had a broken clutch. Alonso had a damaged clutch from the start, and eventually his engine also let go. Sauber use the same transmission and gearbox as Ferrari, and three of the four drivers had problems - did one of the suppliers make a mistake in manufacturing a component? This sounds a bit like the problem Ferrari had in 2008 with the dodgy crankshaft on Massa and Kimi's engines in order, thanks to a manufacturing error.

[Dj_bereta]

After this race, I change my vote:

FIA Stewards for didnt punish hamilton's illegal move!

[eagleash]

I'd like to give a mention to Webber for his "aprez vous Seb." attitude into the first corner. (Not that Vettel didn't warrant the win).

[CarlosFerreira]

What we really need is a side on shot showing how far apart the cars were at the time, or ideally an onboard shot from Petrov's car, to be able to judge the situation accurately. In particular, what would be most interesting to see is whether Petrov was being blocked, or was simply trying to stay in Hamilton's slip stream (the former would be unacceptable, but if Petrov was choosing to follow Hamilton, then he would be able to defend himself more easily). If Petrov was relatively close, then it could be argued that it was unsafe; however, if Petrov was more then a few car lengths behind Hamilton (say, 4 or 5 car lengths back), then you could argue that Petrov was far enough behind Hamilton for him to be significantly effected by Hamilton's actions.

Now, to state my position on the matter, I would suggest that the course of action taken was probably what I would agree with - I don't think that Hamilton's actions were sufficiently reckless to warrant a penalty (assuming that Hamilton was reasonably far ahead of Petrov at the time, such that Petrov would have been able to react safely), and probably more down to frustration after being passed on the previous lap by Petrov, and being determined to prevent it happening again, then malicious. Nevertheless, since the situation could have been far riskier for all involved, I feel that a warning about his conduct was warranted.

I don't think Petrov was that far. The images aren't clear, but I believe Petrov was, like in the previous lap, right up Hamilton's rear wing. As you mentioned before, since this was on acceleration and not on a braking area, the moves were quite harmless, Petrov and Hamilton were never really at risk of collision. Renault were fuming, not because of the danger posed, but because Hamilton was much faster than Petrov and, after the braking for Turn 1, Vitaly never saw Lewis again. To be honest, I think it may have been a result of integrating experienced drivers in the Marshall team, injecting some good sense into the decision process. Who was the driver this time around? In Bahrain it was Prost, in Oz it was Kristensen.

Again, I am a Hamilton fan, so take my opinion with a pinch of salt...

Anyway, back on topic - what was up with the Ferrari 056 engines and drivetrains today? Kobayashi's engine broke down after 9 laps, and De La Rosa had a broken clutch. Alonso had a damaged clutch from the start, and eventually his engine also let go. Sauber use the same transmission and gearbox as Ferrari, and three of the four drivers had problems - did one of the suppliers make a mistake in manufacturing a component? This sounds a bit like the problem Ferrari had in 2008 with the dodgy crankshaft on Massa and Kimi's engines in order, thanks to a manufacturing error.

They already had some issues in Bahrain. Maybe there really is something wrong with the Ferrari drivetrain? Toro Rosso use their own gearboxes, I think, and they weren't affected.

[danardif1]

Sauber easily... Alonso's blowup was down to him having to race sans clutch and using the throttle to engage lower gears...

[mario]

I don't think Petrov was that far. The images aren't clear, but I believe Petrov was, like in the previous lap, right up Hamilton's rear wing. As you mentioned before, since this was on acceleration and not on a braking area, the moves were quite harmless, Petrov and Hamilton were never really at risk of collision. Renault were fuming, not because of the danger posed, but because Hamilton was much faster than Petrov and, after the braking for Turn 1, Vitaly never saw Lewis again. To be honest, I think it may have been a result of integrating experienced drivers in the Marshall team, injecting some good sense into the decision process. Who was the driver this time around? In Bahrain it was Prost, in Oz it was Kristensen.

Again, I am a Hamilton fan, so take my opinion with a pinch of salt...

True - something tells me that had Petrov finished, then Renault might have launched an appeal to get Hamilton penalised in the hope of getting a few more points. It seems, though, that this time around, the marshall's decided to take a more cautious approach by issuing a warning first, rather then taking a more aggressive aproach. Given that in previous years the marshall's have been quick to penalise drivers harshly for minor infractions or even for simple mistakes, it's good to see them taking a more measured approach this time around.

After all, technically Vettel broke the rules by passing Trulli under a yellow flag situation, following Alonso's blown engine. If you go by the book alone, then he would have to be penalised, but the stewards decided to give him an exemption because he Trulli slowed down to let him pass, and Vettel had slowed down to a safe speed in the yellw flag zone.
At least, though, the response has been pretty measured here - because in some forums, I have seen some rather hideous examples of fanboyism, with abusive and insults casually thrown about.

They already had some issues in Bahrain. Maybe there really is something wrong with the Ferrari drivetrain? Toro Rosso use their own gearboxes, I think, and they weren't affected.

They did have a problem in Bahrein with the engines, but the transmission seemed to be working fine then. This is the second time that Ferrari have had problems in very hot conditions. It was suggested that they have been running a leaner fuel mix (which means higher temperatures in the pistons) this year, and seem to be quite marginal on the cooling (because of the drag penalty) - and the test sessions were abnormally cold this year. Perhaps they have underestimated the amount of cooling they needed?

[dr-baker]

To be honest, I think it may have been a result of integrating experienced drivers in the Marshall team, injecting some good sense into the decision process. Who was the driver this time around? In Bahrain it was Prost, in Oz it was Kristensen.

...And in Malaysia, it was Johnny Herbert.

[CarlosFerreira]

At least, though, the response has been pretty measured here - because in some forums, I have seen some rather hideous examples of fanboyism, with abusive and insults casually thrown about.

We wouldn't have it any other way. Besides, none of us gives a toss, we were all watching the drama unfold among HRT, Virgin and Lotus

They already had some issues in Bahrain. Maybe there really is something wrong with the Ferrari drivetrain? Toro Rosso use their own gearboxes, I think, and they weren't affected.

They did have a problem in Bahrein with the engines, but the transmission seemed to be working fine then. This is the second time that Ferrari have had problems in very hot conditions. It was suggested that they have been running a leaner fuel mix (which means higher temperatures in the pistons) this year, and seem to be quite marginal on the cooling (because of the drag penalty) - and the test sessions were abnormally cold this year. Perhaps they have underestimated the amount of cooling they needed?

Could it be that Toro Rosso also have a better cooling? They can certainly take a leaf off their book, then - I don't know how close the tech partnership is, but I am sure TR would be willing to share some parameters, to try and ensure the engine they use is reliable.

[Myrvold]

Well, from my point of view, after racing 9 years myself, the rules looks quite clear

However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
more than one change of direction to defend a position,
deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or
any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will
be reported to the stewards of the meeting.

And the way I see it, by swerving from side to side four times, Hamilton tried to get Petrov out of his slipstream, or make him loose momentum, so he couldn't pass him. In my eyes, that is defending his position, and the rules are clear, that he can only do that one time. And by letting Hamilton get away with only a warning, it sends a message out, that the drivers may do this, once in the race, because they will only get a warning. When someone then, do come together in high speeds, like at Monza, or Les Combes, and it's wheel to wheel, one driver can flip easily and we don't know what will happen then.

I truly belive that F1 is too safe atm, there ain't that much risk in the sport anymore, but if they shall make the sport more dangerous, then make the tracks more difficult, not let the drivers drive like this. If something happens, it's "better" to blame a track, than a driver.

Well... that was my thoughts on this situation.

[CarlosFerreira]

Well, from my point of view, after racing 9 years myself, the rules looks quite clear

However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
more than one change of direction to defend a position,
deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or
any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will
be reported to the stewards of the meeting.

And the way I see it, by swerving from side to side four times, Hamilton tried to get Petrov out of his slipstream, or make him loose momentum, so he couldn't pass him. In my eyes, that is defending his position, and the rules are clear, that he can only do that one time. And by letting Hamilton get away with only a warning, it sends a message out, that the drivers may do this, once in the race, because they will only get a warning. When someone then, do come together in high speeds, like at Monza, or Les Combes, and it's wheel to wheel, one driver can flip easily and we don't know what will happen then.

I truly belive that F1 is too safe atm, there ain't that much risk in the sport anymore, but if they shall make the sport more dangerous, then make the tracks more difficult, not let the drivers drive like this. If something happens, it's "better" to blame a track, than a driver.

Well... that was my thoughts on this situation.

If I get your point correctly, it's a question of "moral hazard", so to speak. Other drivers will engage in forceful manoeuvres, probably more forceful than Lewis', and expect to get away with a warning - like giving everyone 1 "get out of jail free" card per race, which could result in dangerous accidents. It's a fair point, the distance between the cars at the moment being a clear mooting point there.

Important point, and brilliantly put - I think this is part of the "measured response" mario was talking about. Thank you for that, and for sharing the experience as someone who races.

[mario]

Well, from my point of view, after racing 9 years myself, the rules looks quite clear

However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
more than one change of direction to defend a position,
deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or
any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will
be reported to the stewards of the meeting.

And the way I see it, by swerving from side to side four times, Hamilton tried to get Petrov out of his slipstream, or make him loose momentum, so he couldn't pass him. In my eyes, that is defending his position, and the rules are clear, that he can only do that one time. And by letting Hamilton get away with only a warning, it sends a message out, that the drivers may do this, once in the race, because they will only get a warning. When someone then, do come together in high speeds, like at Monza, or Les Combes, and it's wheel to wheel, one driver can flip easily and we don't know what will happen then.

I truly belive that F1 is too safe atm, there ain't that much risk in the sport anymore, but if they shall make the sport more dangerous, then make the tracks more difficult, not let the drivers drive like this. If something happens, it's "better" to blame a track, than a driver.

Well... that was my thoughts on this situation.

If I get your point correctly, it's a question of "moral hazard", so to speak. Other drivers will engage in forceful manoeuvres, probably more forceful than Lewis', and expect to get away with a warning - like giving everyone 1 "get out of jail free" card per race, which could result in dangerous accidents. It's a fair point, the distance between the cars at the moment being a clear mooting point there.

Important point, and brilliantly put - I think this is part of the "measured response" mario was talking about. Thank you for that, and for sharing the experience as someone who races.

It is indeed part of the measured response that I admire here - a logical and well thought out counterpoint is always refreshing to read. It is true that being lenient does create the risk of creating a moral hazard, whereby drivers may try to push both their luck and the rules to breaking point. And given the nature of the cars, it is entirely possible that at high speed we could have a quite serious accident.
On the other hand, we have seen some drivers push the definition of what counts as a single manoeuvre in the past, and sometimes give the other driver very little room for error, and others have cut aggressively across rival drivers - we had a few questionable moves last year for a start.
Although the FIA has chosen to merely warn Hamilton today, I expect that they will be having a strong word with the GPDA over driving standards. I expect that Whitmarsh (as head of FOTA) might be asked to have a word with the team bosses, and also with Hamilton, to reduce the risk of things boiling over in future. The FIA have sometimes been quite contradictory in their decisions, reprimanding some drivers one minute and not then letting off other the next; I suppose that they intend to be more progressive this time around (a first warning via the white and black flag, and then a penalty for repeat behaviour).

[watka]

Well, from my point of view, after racing 9 years myself, the rules looks quite clear

However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such
more than one change of direction to defend a position,
deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or
any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.
Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will
be reported to the stewards of the meeting.

And the way I see it, by swerving from side to side four times, Hamilton tried to get Petrov out of his slipstream, or make him loose momentum, so he couldn't pass him. In my eyes, that is defending his position, and the rules are clear, that he can only do that one time. And by letting Hamilton get away with only a warning, it sends a message out, that the drivers may do this, once in the race, because they will only get a warning. When someone then, do come together in high speeds, like at Monza, or Les Combes, and it's wheel to wheel, one driver can flip easily and we don't know what will happen then.

I truly belive that F1 is too safe atm, there ain't that much risk in the sport anymore, but if they shall make the sport more dangerous, then make the tracks more difficult, not let the drivers drive like this. If something happens, it's "better" to blame a track, than a driver.

Well... that was my thoughts on this situation.

If I get your point correctly, it's a question of "moral hazard", so to speak. Other drivers will engage in forceful manoeuvres, probably more forceful than Lewis', and expect to get away with a warning - like giving everyone 1 "get out of jail free" card per race, which could result in dangerous accidents. It's a fair point, the distance between the cars at the moment being a clear mooting point there.

Important point, and brilliantly put - I think this is part of the "measured response" mario was talking about. Thank you for that, and for sharing the experience as someone who races.

I agree that Myrvold's is the best constructed argument against Hamilton's move so far. I agree that the move was to defend his position, but Hamilton was moving by his own accord and Petrov was following, whereas the rule is usually applied when a car is cutting across to block off the overtaking car. Whilst I see your point, and Hamilton's moves may not have been the most sporting of gestures, my guess would be that the rule was brought in for safety purposes more than anything else. If Kobayashi wasn't penalised for shoving Nakajima off last year then Hamilton certainly deserves no punishment in the interests of consistency.

Anyway, I found it difficult to find many ROTR nominations this time, but I scraped together a few:

Michael Schumacher - A bit harsh, but he didn't really show any improvement this weekend, being thoroughly outclassed by his team-mate again. That was coupled with a retirement which may or may not have been his fault.

Lotus - They've been easily the best of the 3 new teams so far, largely due to their reliability, but they were a let down this race. Both Trulli and Kovalainen feel away with hydraulics issues to be the worst performing of the new teams, and not only that, they need it at their home race where I'm sure they would have wanted to attract a few extra sponsors though. To be fair though, the hydraulic system is the same that is used by all the new teams (and I correct), and they've all been having problems with it.

Williams - Started with 2 cars in the top 10, and went away with 1 point, which they wouldn't have got if either Luizzi or Alonso hadn't retired. Hulkenberg showed no real pace to suggest that he is going to be anywhere near the next best thing (to early to say anything with conviction, but Petrov is showing more potential at the moment), struggling against the Toro Rossos. Barrichello was even worse, fluffing his start, and then making no real progress through the field. They always seem to mess up the races where they finally get a chance for a big points haul.

Jenson Button - Jense had a disappointing weekend. He binned it in qualifying to deny himself a chance of challenging for the win when he got through to Q2. He then made a poor start and ended up behind Hamilton and the Ferraris. The final mistake was to think that he could get to the end of the race with tyres that he got on lap 9, on a hot track. Uh uh, and hence Massa smoked him.

Ferrari - Like McLaren, they were made to look foolish in Q1 by not sending their cars out on a banker. They then made hard work of getting through the pack, unlike Hamilton, but they profited from Button's errors. However, the weekend was finally brought down by Alonso's engine related retirement, which must have been gutting because Alonso had done well in a car that had gearbox problems from the beginning of the race.

New points system - The new points system is meant to reward wins, yet it is Massa who is leading the championship. So far Massa has probably only proved himself to be better than Schumacher out of all of the drivers in the top 4 teams, so he'll be chuffed with that!

Some of the above may be a bit harsh, but my ROTR winner probably deserves a little criticism:
Sauber - Lucky to escape not being ROTR in either of the first 2 rounds (lack of pace in Bahrain was disappointing, then the front wing debacle in Australia), but they hit a new low this weekend, with De la Rosa DNS'ing (when was the last time you saw that?) and Kobayashi managing only 9 laps (correct?). Considering that Hispania got both of their cars to the end, that is almost unforgivable. Perhaps they should have spent a lot more time looking at their engine (which was shoehorned into the car of course after BMW's departure) in winter testing to ensure that everything was okay rather than fooling everyone trying to top the timesheets. I hate to see Sauber in this way, I am genuinely angry

[thehemogoblin]

The last DNS was Trulli in Australia.

[CarlosFerreira]

I agree that Myrvold's is the best constructed argument against Hamilton's move so far. I agree that the move was to defend his position, but Hamilton was moving by his own accord and Petrov was following, whereas the rule is usually applied when a car is cutting across to block off the overtaking car. Whilst I see your point, and Hamilton's moves may not have been the most sporting of gestures, my guess would be that the rule was brought in for safety purposes more than anything else. If Kobayashi wasn't penalised for shoving Nakajima off last year then Hamilton certainly deserves no punishment in the interests of consistency.

Well put - although Cowboy-ashi's move is a great illustration of the risks Myrvold was talking about.

Williams - Started with 2 cars in the top 10, and went away with 1 point, which they wouldn't have got if either Luizzi or Alonso hadn't retired. Hulkenberg showed no real pace to suggest that he is going to be anywhere near the next best thing (to early to say anything with conviction, but Petrov is showing more potential at the moment), struggling against the Toro Rossos. Barrichello was even worse, fluffing his start, and then making no real progress through the field. They always seem to mess up the races where they finally get a chance for a big points haul.

Embarrassingly slow, weren't they? I wonder if Williams didn't go for an all-out wet setup and struggled during the race, the car was miles off the pace during the race, despite having been reasonably quick in qualifying. Rubens apparently told the Brasilian TV that the car today was simply "rubbish".

[watka]

Williams - Started with 2 cars in the top 10, and went away with 1 point, which they wouldn't have got if either Luizzi or Alonso hadn't retired. Hulkenberg showed no real pace to suggest that he is going to be anywhere near the next best thing (to early to say anything with conviction, but Petrov is showing more potential at the moment), struggling against the Toro Rossos. Barrichello was even worse, fluffing his start, and then making no real progress through the field. They always seem to mess up the races where they finally get a chance for a big points haul.

Embarrassingly slow, weren't they? I wonder if Williams didn't go for an all-out wet setup and struggled during the race, the car was miles off the pace during the race, despite having been reasonably quick in qualifying. Rubens apparently told the Brasilian TV that the car today was simply "rubbish".

Perhaps gunning for the win. Nevertheless, they've never been great decision makers with Sam Michael at the helm.

[CarlosFerreira]

Nevertheless, they've never been great decision makers.

Note corrected version.

[Pieman]

I vote for Sauber's reliabilty. It also looks as if the pre-season testing pace really was down to light fuel loads/sponsor baiting after all.

[mario]

Williams - Started with 2 cars in the top 10, and went away with 1 point, which they wouldn't have got if either Luizzi or Alonso hadn't retired. Hulkenberg showed no real pace to suggest that he is going to be anywhere near the next best thing (to early to say anything with conviction, but Petrov is showing more potential at the moment), struggling against the Toro Rossos. Barrichello was even worse, fluffing his start, and then making no real progress through the field. They always seem to mess up the races where they finally get a chance for a big points haul.

Embarrassingly slow, weren't they? I wonder if Williams didn't go for an all-out wet setup and struggled during the race, the car was miles off the pace during the race, despite having been reasonably quick in qualifying. Rubens apparently told the Brasilian TV that the car today was simply "rubbish".

Perhaps gunning for the win. Nevertheless, they've never been great decision makers with Sam Michael at the helm.

They haven't been particularly good with strategy calls in the past, and I doubt that'll change soon.
On another note, I don't think that Williams had gone for a purely wet set up. If they had, you would expect them to be running with more wing, and thus drag, yet Rubens was still fairly quick on the straights (doing 295kph, or 6th fastest (Glock was 5th fastest on the straights - probably because the VR-01 lacks a lot of downforce, and thus drag)). Perhaps Williams went for a slightly compromised set up and gambled on rain, but probably would have held back a bit from a full wet set up - otherwise everybody else would gave gone right past them before it started raining (which, as we know, it didn't in the end).
I think that it may be the case that the Williams simply didn't have that much in terms of raw pace - they only set the 11th and 12th fastest laps, and have not really been on the sort of pace which would have kept them in the top 10 at any point in the weekend. Timing results here from the FIA http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1 ... iming.aspx
Also, traditionally Williams have had reasonably good mechanical grip,which would have helped them out quite a bit in the wet conditions for qualifying.

All in all, though, it was a bit embarrassing - Rubens still seems to be suffering from his start line gremlins, and although Hulkenberg did persevere, he came away with little to show for his efforts. As a result, they are now 7th in the constructors championship - Force India are beating them comfortably (on 18 points - and they look very capable of scoring quite a few more points), and Renault are miles ahead of them. They're not even that secure from Toro Rosso (who are on two points now) - the only established teams they are beating are them and Sauber, and that is because the Sauber's either break down or wreck their tyres too soon. (At Melbourne, De La Rosa's tyres were shot by the end, hence why he went backwards so quickly at the end - so much for Bridgestone's claim that Sauber were the most gentle on their tyres, based on the pre season testing).

Speaking of Sauber, the man who's name is on those cars must be ruing the pre season showboating. Since they did do some long runs, it leads credence to the theory that they must have been running without ballast (since the car's aren't inspected until the first race, you can run underweight or with illegal parts if you want, although normally there'd be little point).

[EDIT] Taking a little look around, it does look as if Ferrari were running very aggressively on their cooling - compare this shot of the Red Bull

And then take a look at the back of the Ferrari


OK, Ferrari are running some gills on their car, as an extension of the exhaust hole (although only of the left hand side of the car) - but it is still much more tightly packaged, and the cooling apertures are far smaller.

And for the record, it's worth checking out the monster of a diffuser which Renault are using

[CarlosFerreira]

Speaking of Sauber, the man who's name is on those cars must be ruing the pre season showboating. Since they did do some long runs, it leads credence to the theory that they must have been running without ballast (since the car's aren't inspected until the first race, you can run underweight or with illegal parts if you want, although normally there'd be little point).

The same thought has been on my mind. They were probably quite underweight in pre-season testing, leading to quick times and little tyre degradation. Embarrassing.

[Archie2K]

Dishonourable mention for Rain hype for not coming during the race, but since it gave a good qualifying and would've almost certainly led to a farce, an easy win for

Quali Rain Gamblers: Made McLaren and Ferrari look unutterably stupid.

[MinardiFan95]

BMW Sauber Ferrari - Yet another double retirement due to mechanical issues
Ferrari - Didn't make it to Q2 as well as gearbox problems for Alonso throughout the race

[Captain Hammer]

I nominate BMW Sauber, like everyone else.

I'm also going to vote for Ferrari - three races in, and Alonso has already vomited up two of his eight engines. At this rate, they're not going to make it to the end of the season.

Where has Captain Hammer gone?

Sorry, had to go away on short notice.

[Myrvold]

Well put - although Cowboy-ashi's move is a great illustration of the risks Myrvold was talking about.

I could've been much worse, yes, I do think the cowboy was saved by more than one thing. Nakajima hit his back wheel, and was not outside the track when the crash occured so he wasn't forced off track, neither did the cowboy move more than once(oh well, after looked at it 6-7 times it's a hard call I'll go for two moves), and I guess the didn't dare, because the cowboy made the race very interesting to watch.
But I am not saying that the move was acceptable, but that might have been his savings.

This goes for Hamilton too, he drove good today, and made some passes, and looked like the fastest of the top-4 from the back of the grid. I do think they didn't dare to black flag him, or give him a penalty during the race because of that. But I still think both should've got a penalty afterwards. I know not many likes that, the race should be finished when the checkered flag falls. I still think that it was not a black-flag move, but as it is a break of the rules, it should be penalized.

Oh well, going from a rare well-written post to this one, I should've shutted up when I had the chance

[LionZoo]

The difference between Kobayashi's move on Nakajima and Hamilton's move this time is that Kobayashi's, while being marginal, still only moved once. Nakajima could've gone to the outside and blown past, but he misjudged and continued towards the inside and thus collided with Kobayashi. Nakajima had a course of action that he could've taken to avoid the crash; he just didn't do it.

Hamilton though, weaved in and out on the circuit. This is more dangerous because it's more unpredictable and basically blocks the entire width of the track leaving Petrov with no clear area to go that could avoid a collision while still being able to pass. It takes time for a F1 car to go alongside and indeed get past the car in front, but in this case there was no way Petrov could've pulled alongside or gotten past without risking a collision. Considering how valuable finishes are and how much faster Hamilton actually was (even if Petrov got him back this time, he probably would've been passed sometime later in the race), the weaving became a disincentive for Petrov to try to pass as any attempt while Hamilton was weaving would've come with a high risk of a collision.

By the way, the claim that Hamilton didn't weave in the braking zone and so the move was okay is faulty. These days, it's extremely extremely difficult to pass someone by outbraking them from a car length back. Rather, you need to pull alongside on the straights so that the distance that you have to gain under braking is less. It seems you need to be at least within half a car length to have a decent chance of outbraking the driver in front. With Hamilton weaving like that, Petrov wouldn't have been able to get that car a length alongside.

[Yannick]

Isn't it strange that Massa is points leader now despite not having won a race yet? What are his scores exactly? The new points system is my 1st nominee.

BMW Sauber Ferrari look worrying when it comes to reliability. That never was a problem before. What happened to this team? It looks like they didn't fit in the Ferrari engine correctly. Their car is still blank whereas the Renault isn't anymore. Are Sauber just saving mileage for saving money? I don't think so.

Ferrari engines have clearly shown their weakness at this hottest track that is Sepang. My award goes to Maranello this time around.

[Captain Hammer]

Isn't it strange that Massa is points leader now despite not having won a race yet? What are his scores exactly? The new points system is my 1st nominee.

Massa happens to be the most consistent driver. Of the three who have won races, Vettel has a 1st, a 4th and a DNF. Button has a 1st, a 7th and an 8th. Alonso has a 1st, a 4th and a 13th. But Massa has two 3rd places and a 5th or 6th or whatever he got last night. The point is that while he hasn't won races, he's been on the podium more than the other three, and certainly the most consistent.

The poitns system would only be Reject-worthy if Massa were leading with three races to go and no wins, not after three races and three consistently inconsistent rivals.

[CarlosFerreira]

The poitns system would only be Reject-worthy if Massa were leading with three races to go and no wins, not after three races and three consistently inconsistent rivals.

I agree with that bit. It's not 2009 all over again, and we've had three winners in 3 races.

[Ross Prawn]

Ferrari - Supplied two duff engines to Sauber, kept the other other duff engine for Alonso and connected it to a duff gearbox just to be sure. Kept their drivers in the pits in Q1 in case the cars got wet, thereby messing up the whole weekend.

[ADx_Wales]

The Official Webstie weather forecast.

All 3 days, the weather was predicted to be BLACK CLOUDS, THUNDER AND LIGHTENING, which we got on saturday, but NOWHERE to be seen on sunday, maybe they "said" it would be stormy, just to get more viewers, therefore it was publicicrap.

Bernie Ecclestone

For saying "for sure", if the guy at the top says it, that means EVERYONE on the F1 food chain says it, therefore nobody in F1 has a personality.

God and Jesus.

For the brits who didnt wake up, or had work so could not be there to realise that it WAS easter sunday, at 10am on BBC1, the F1 coverage was halfway through, and EVERY easter sunday sermon MUST be broadcast live at 10am, so the F1 switched to BBC2, if those late-risers and determined wage-getters set their digital recorders without realising that, would have missed the end of the race (not that they missed THAT much?), and to rub salt into the wound of devoted F1 watchers, at the vatican for urbi et orbi.......it was raining. What god giveth with one hand on saturday in sepang, he taketh away on the sunday with sunny weather.

[Collieafc]

Although I dont like Hamilton, I was applauding his manuvers on Petrov as it was good to see some actual racing again. If it was in the braking zone, yes, illegal and dangerous but it wasnt (or I dont think it was). And the fact Petrov still went for it shows that he has some guts too. Much better than a lot of other drivers who are just happy to cruise behind each other without trying to overtake.

As for the Reject, has to be Sauber really. When even a car that doesnt have a big enough fuel tank can still get too the end, questions need to be asked. Although Ferrari engines could also be classed here.

[Salamander]

Although Ferrari put up a good case, I think Sauber have ROTR in the bag here. The way their season is going, I wouldn't be surprised if they fall behind the new teams at some stages.

[CarlosFerreira]

And the fact Petrov still went for it shows that he has some guts too. Much better than a lot of other drivers who are just happy to cruise behind each other without trying to overtake.

Good point. He's been going up in my personal ranking as well.

[Ed24]

I already voted for Sauber, but I think Rubens Barrichello's starts deserve a dishonourable mention as well.

He must have 5 or more stalls from the last 20 races now....

[mediocre]

So what? He's bringing the good ol' days back to F1. Nobody else stalls.

[Jordan]

And for the record, it's worth checking out the monster of a diffuser which Renault are using

Forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is on that car? It looks like fire extinguishing foam or something

[Myrvold]

Maybe Petrov's car