Grand Prix Rejects

Aerospeed wrote:Lots of candidates but I;m going to give to Kobayashi for his bungling of his first race for Caterham.

Because the brake failure is entirely his fault

the Masked Lapwing wrote:

Aerospeed wrote:Lots of candidates but I;m going to give to Kobayashi for his bungling of his first race for Caterham.

Because the brake failure is entirely his fault

Brake failure? Didn't know that

ROTR renominated to Kobayashi's breaks then.

My vote goes to Kobayashi and Massa, the only two driver to crash: Kobayashi had some fault (he admitted that brake failure because he let the car overheat - at least I heard it on TV) , Massa wouldn't have been hit by a driver starting three rows behind him if he had a good start.

1. Red Bull - moar liek RIGHT FOOLS, m i rite?
2. Lotus - moar liek SLOWTUS, m i rite?

Waris wrote:1. Red Bull - moar liek RIGHT FOOLS, m i rite?
2. Lotus - moar liek SLOWTUS, m i rite?

And now a message from our sponsors, Amsterdam's "special crop"!

I originally nominated Lotus for ROTR but now that I know that Red Bull knowingly broke the rules with Ricciardo's car (and there was nothing Daniel could do about it), then Red Bull certainly deserve ROTR instead. Even in the very unlikely event that they win the appeal, you cannot run a race with the intention of breaking the rules. No one else tried it so its clearly an unfair advantage. In fact, Red Bull have got off quite lightly as I seem to remember BAR breaking a similar rule once and not only getting disqualified but also banned from the next race.

watka wrote:I originally nominated Lotus for ROTR but now that I know that Red Bull knowingly broke the rules with Ricciardo's car (and there was nothing Daniel could do about it), then Red Bull certainly deserve ROTR instead. Even in the very unlikely event that they win the appeal, you cannot run a race with the intention of breaking the rules. No one else tried it so its clearly an unfair advantage. In fact, Red Bull have got off quite lightly as I seem to remember BAR breaking a similar rule once and not only getting disqualified but also banned from the next race.

Actually they were banned for the next two races!

1. Red Bull - deprived Ricciardo of a well deserved first podium, after repeated warnings.
2. Lotus - I really hope they improve soon, a talent like Grosjean deserves a much stronger drive than this.

My ROTR podium:

3rd

Kimi Räikkönen. Locked his brakes about 5 times every session, crashed on Q2 and was off the pace in the whole weekend. I know that the car hasn´t been built for him, but still I don´t expect performances like that from a world champion.

2nd

Red Bull. Vettel was hugely off the pace all weekend, and Ricciardo finished second... with an illegal car.

1st

You know why the number isn´t gold? Because it´s papaya orange. And that is way more awesome than gold.

ROTR: Lotus. Seriously, both cars are dead last in pace, Grosjean and Maldonado went wide in a turn in about every fifth minute. Also, both cars retire with the same problem.

I'd like to vote more specifically for Red Bull arrogance. It has reached the point now that RBR believe they are above the law, simply because they are the current champions. Don't you remember that FIA stands for Ferrari International Assistance? You only get favours from the governing body if you paint the car red!

Well, the verdict is already on the newest podcast. Not only that, but Jamie and Enoch have revoked their first choice and reawarded the prize!

And for those who are impatient, this is why it's good to wait - the first choice may get revoked and reawarded. Patience is a virtue, my young padawans.

Indeed, for those of you who haven't yet listened to the Australian GP podcast, or who have no intention of doing so (if you fall into the latter category, I don't know whether to heap shame on you or to commend you for your superior intelligence), then just confirming that we backtracked on our original decision to award ROTR to Kamui Kobayashi, and instead gave it to Red Bull for consistently-excessive-fuel-flow-gate.

Not only did it rob Daniel Ricciardo of a famous 2nd place in his home race, leaving a sour taste in the mouth of every Australian F1 fan, but it also forced us to record an additional addendum to the podcast! I'll be amazed if Red Bull get up on appeal. In every sport imaginable, unless there's an instant review mechanism (e.g. the decision review system in cricket), the umpire or referee's word is final. Even if they're wrong. You can't just give a "stuff you" to the ref and keep going on your merry way, and not expect a sanction. Red Bull were warned during the race but deliberately decided to ignore the FIA, relying instead of an unapproved sensor that had not been homologated. You can't get much more brazen than that.

If it's any consolation, then had Ricciardo's car run at a lower fuel flow like others in the field, then chances are it would not have finished 2nd.

eytl wrote:Not only did it rob Daniel Ricciardo of a famous 2nd place in his home race, leaving a sour taste in the mouth of every Australian F1 fan, but it also forced us to record an additional addendum to the podcast! I'll be amazed if Red Bull get up on appeal. In every sport imaginable, unless there's an instant review mechanism (e.g. the decision review system in cricket), the umpire or referee's word is final. Even if they're wrong. You can't just give a "stuff you" to the ref and keep going on your merry way, and not expect a sanction. Red Bull were warned during the race but deliberately decided to ignore the FIA, relying instead of an unapproved sensor that had not been homologated. You can't get much more brazen than that.

If it's any consolation, then had Ricciardo's car run at a lower fuel flow like others in the field, then chances are it would not have finished 2nd.

I've been wondering, if Ricciardo could be shown to be unaware of the warnings and issue in general, would it be feasible for him to retain the position/points, but not Red Bull, la Mclaren 2007?

In my opinion the FIA ruling is the most rejectfull thing to have happened by far. Though Lotus were pathetic on track all weekend. Kudos to Maldonado for trying to keep it in the gravel as much as possible and no kudos to Grosjean for fuming in the cockpit and probably adding to overheating issues.

Sauber got nominated a lot, but i think their pace is misleading. They chose to go in full conservative mode for this race weekend, and it's easy to understand why. Less than 10 cars were likely to finish and theirs were slow and detuned and kind on their tyres enough for the job. Problem is, 15 cars crossed the finish line.

Yes they were horribly slow, but they were not trying to fight, only survive. Their chassis is the least demanding on tyres and when driven in anger the car could make up places on strategy if not pace. Though i doubt either driver will threaten the podium unless Sauber strike some development gold, they could be regular points scoreres. Since they drove well within limits we can't tell how likely they are to suffer reliability issues, but we don't know their pace either and can only guess it's not that great. Alongside tryes they have another potential ace up their sleeves, one Martin Brundle picked up on during FP2. The Sauber is the most stable and balanced car in a heavy braking zone, which is slightly surprising but, if either driver could learn how to take advantage of this Saubers could once again be very tricky cars to overtake.

Don't dismiss the Saubers just yet. Admittedly, their chances would be so much better if they had a harder driver behind the wheel. On that note, any truth in the rumor Sauber was the team that refused to take Magnussen, forcing Whitmarsh to dump Sergio and sign him? Kinda doubt it, but it would be ironic.

SgtPepper wrote:

eytl wrote:Not only did it rob Daniel Ricciardo of a famous 2nd place in his home race, leaving a sour taste in the mouth of every Australian F1 fan, but it also forced us to record an additional addendum to the podcast! I'll be amazed if Red Bull get up on appeal. In every sport imaginable, unless there's an instant review mechanism (e.g. the decision review system in cricket), the umpire or referee's word is final. Even if they're wrong. You can't just give a "stuff you" to the ref and keep going on your merry way, and not expect a sanction. Red Bull were warned during the race but deliberately decided to ignore the FIA, relying instead of an unapproved sensor that had not been homologated. You can't get much more brazen than that.

If it's any consolation, then had Ricciardo's car run at a lower fuel flow like others in the field, then chances are it would not have finished 2nd.

I've been wondering, if Ricciardo could be shown to be unaware of the warnings and issue in general, would it be feasible for him to retain the position/points, but not Red Bull, la Mclaren 2007?

I would like to see this happen, but the fact is the car was technically not legal. He may (or may not, who knows?) have had an advantage from his team's decision. As a result, I find it very difficult that this would be considered.

CarlosFerreira wrote:

SgtPepper wrote:
I've been wondering, if Ricciardo could be shown to be unaware of the warnings and issue in general, would it be feasible for him to retain the position/points, but not Red Bull, la Mclaren 2007?

I would like to see this happen, but the fact is the car was technically not legal. He may (or may not, who knows?) have had an advantage from his team's decision. As a result, I find it very difficult that this would be considered.

Same opinion here. This was the reason why I was against the McLaren 2007 ruling. While the car wasn't illegal technically, the team did gained unfair advantage by knowing what their rivals were up to. Somehow, though, their drivers were allowed to compete despite driving such cars.

SgtPepper wrote:

eytl wrote:I've been wondering, if Ricciardo could be shown to be unaware of the warnings and issue in general, would it be feasible for him to retain the position/points, but not Red Bull, la Mclaren 2007?

Well then you could argue that Sauber should have been punished for their rear-wing in 2011, but not their drivers. They were unaware of the problem. But:
If a car is not legal, you have to assume that it could be faster than the same car complying with the rules.

In reference to McLaren's 2007 ban, I think it came down to the fact that the drivers were ultimately innocent parties in it all. Likewise in 1995 in Brazil when Schumacher and Coulthard's points were wiped from their teams' results but they were allowed to keep them. I think the same applies for Ricciardo. If it could be proven that he knew little or nothing of the issue then he should get to keep the points, as the guilty party would thus be the team.

When did drivers stop being members of the team?

Biscione wrote:I'd like to vote more specifically for Red Bull arrogance. It has reached the point now that RBR believe they are above the law, simply because they are the current champions. Don't you remember that FIA stands for Ferrari International Assistance? You only get favours from the governing body if you paint the car red!

It's the Red Bullsh** International Assistance now, dude.
(I could no longer resist using "Red Bullsh**", sorry)

eytl wrote:Indeed, for those of you who haven't yet listened to the Australian GP podcast, or who have no intention of doing so (if you fall into the latter category, I don't know whether to heap shame on you or to commend you for your superior intelligence)

Or scratch your heads at my inferior internet connection.