MaxZero wrote:This race was a superb demonstration of the new regulations, i never thought very much of the races in Malaysia but it was superb fun, theres hope for the Hungaroring yet ^_^
The Rudderless Russian reminds me of Glock in the Toyota at Australia 2008, can't remember why he got off line and was launched but it looked very similar.
Best image of an airborn F1 car? i vote this --> http://j.mp/fF2O9P
I wonder, is that Flugplatz? The cars tended to become airborne as they went over the crest of the hill there (which, given that the corner was named after a former airstrip nearby, is somewhat appropriate). I think that I prefer this one though:
Myrvold wrote:mario wrote:Wizzie wrote:BREAKING NEWS: Adam Cooper is reporting that Alonso has also been given a 20 second penalty for causing a collision. Has no effect to his finishing position. Hamilton's now 8th behind Kobayashi.
Hmm, I admit that in both instances I think the penalty is a bit excessive. Hamilton moving across on the straight was marginal - it looks more like he started to move to the left, straightened up a bit and then proceeded to continue moving to the left. To me, at least, it wasn't as if Hamilton was wildly swerving across the path of Alonso, and it was no more severe than what most other drivers were doing (like Buemi and Alguersuari in the opening laps when they were fighting each other, or Vettel off the line, since he made several moves both to the right and left to block Hamilton).
As for Alonso clipping Hamilton's rear tyre, that is an even sillier penalty to levy. It just looked like Alonso slightly misjudged the closing speed between himself and Hamilton and simply moved slightly too late to the right to attempt to pass him. It was a slightly clumsy mistake by Alonso, but hardly worth investigating, let alone penalising - since it was just that, a mistake. There was no malice or intention to hit Hamilton,
In fact, I must say that the stewards have been a bit harsh with their penalties for this race - why was Buemi given a 10 second stop-go penalty for speeding in the pit lane? Yes, unlike the Alonso and Hamilton situations, this was a clear cut transgression - but normally that would have been just a drive through, not a stop and go.
[EDIT] Actually, on reviewing the evidence, perhaps Buemi's penalty wasn't so harsh - the stewards say that he was clocked at 120.6kph in the pit lane, which is a long way over the speed limit, and might explain the harsher penalty.
I do think there are some sort of agreement regarding the start and how many moves you can make.
Hamilton's penalty is fair, he did move more than once, it's as easy as that.¨
Let's count togheter.
1. He leaves the corner at the right side, begins a slow and normal crossover.
2. He then turns the car faster to the left (that means, he have made one move by turning to left. You can clearly see that the car moves)
3. He then turns right, you can se he is moving away form the line the car does have(away from the ideal line), and make a right turn.(second move)
4. He then makes the car go left again, back to the ideal line (this is move three)
5. He then places the car more to right when getting to the far left on the track (this can be counted as the fourth move).
When the rules state that you can only make one move, FIA have said they are going to be more strict on this, I can't see what's wrong with it.
My issue is that the move that Hamilton made was similar to the defensive moves that other drivers made during that race. Take Petrov trying to defend against Massa on lap 44 - he exited the corner normally, whereupon Massa moved to Petrov's left. When Massa moved to the right, so did Petrov, before he moves back to the left to cover Massa, which surely counts as more than one change in direction.
The point I'm trying to make is that whilst Hamilton may have made more than one move, his actions were not exactly dissimilar to that of others, and at the time nobody seemed to suggest that what Hamilton was doing was any worse than anybody else. Whilst Hamilton's actions attracted the stewards, and earned him a penalty, I'd have preferred it if that standard was applied consistently, and throughout the field, not just applied to the front runners because they are the ones who get the most airtime. But, I suppose it's not really worth arguing over - everybody has accepted the penalty, and are moving on, and I guess so shall we.
Valrys wrote:And it turns out both HRT cars retired for safety reasons, as opposed to outright failures
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90621
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
In the case of Karthikeyan, it sounds as if the high water temperatures he had could have potentially caused a mechanical problem if left unchecked, so you might as well bring him in beforehand and save the engine from blowing (since they'll need that engine again later in the season). As for Liuzzi, I guess that the car must have been handling pretty badly (he lost about five odd second a lap once that problem emerged) - but if he had finished, and been classified, then HRT would have been ahead of Williams in the WCC.
Speaking of which, Williams were dire today - OK, both drivers were afflicted by mechanical problems, but they had no pace whatsoever today. Unless they can bring a big upgrade to China - which is unlikely, given the quick turnaround required - they might be in for another difficult weekend. What is also worrying is that Team Lotus were relatively close on pace to them - and this is before Team Lotus bring in their new floor and exhaust package in Spain, which is likely to give them a sizeable performance boost.
Klon wrote:I wanted to post that screenshot. You are a meanie.
Sorry, but it was such a dramatic picture that I couldn't help myself from posting it first.
Also the performance of Webber and Kobayashi was good, only thing I felt sorry for was Perez's retirement.
