Idézet: vipisrac - Dátum: 2009. júl. 27., hétfő - 12:50
Az egy dolog, hogy elszabadulnak a kerekek... 2-300-nál nehéz megelőzni, bár arra is igazán lehetne törekedni, mint ahogy tették is...
Az viszont egy másik dolog, hogy fel se tekerik az anyát.
Persze ettől még én sem büntetném őket ilyen szigorúan, egyértelműen a két hétvégi esetnek tudható be a dolog (ami között nem 50 év telt el

). Szerintem is visszavonják az óvás után.
A Ferrariba meg biztos nem ül be... vagyis majdnem biztos. Az elég nagyot szólna, bár ugye Massa helye most sokáig biztosan üres...
Egy biztos, az elborult agyú spanyol sajtó tuti ezzel lesz tele 1 hónapig.
Nyalókás ember hibája miatt alakult ki, a kereket szerelő ember nem jelzett, hogy kész, ennek ellenére felrántotta azt, alo meg elindult. Nem az első és nem is az utolsó ilyen eset volt ez. Csapat nem szándékosan engedte ki alót kerékanya nélkül. Szabály meg nincs rá, hogy lötyögő kerékkel azonnal félre kell állni, mindenki megpróbál beevéckélni a boxba akár 3 keréken is.
Kerék mikor ütött agyon bárkit is, ami nem baleset miatt szabadult el? Szerintem soha. Alonsoé nem baleset volt, lassan is ment, fel volt készülve rá, hogy elszabadul a kerék. Ezért nem értem, hogy hogy jönide surtees esete, meg pláne massáé. Ennyi erővel visszamenőleg rengeteg pilótát, csapatot meg kellene büntetni, mert lefegő, törött alkatrészekkel versenytempóban köröztek, köröznek (pl. most vettel sokáig így nyomta a versenyen, vagy kiminek a 2006-os nürnburgringi felfüggőtörését is nézhetjük).
Ez tényleg arról szól, hogy legyen téma az uborkaszezonban, semmi másról. Ez veszélyes sport, mindenki tisztában van vele, bármilyen apróság is tragédiához vezethet. Vagy mindenki tankkal induljon max 20km/h-s sebességre limitálva.
Ezzel totál egyet értek:
The longer the period of time since the notification of this penalty, the stranger this decision seems. A cynic might suggest that the FIA traditionally makes an odd decision or proclamation just before the summer break to keep the sport in the public eye: in this case the decision seems to have been completely overwhelmed by Hamilton’s win in the mainstream media, so that ploy hasn’t worked out as well as usual, but I digress.
Let’s look at the steward’s statement, or at least the reasoning behind the penalty:
“1. that the Competitor knowingly released car no. 7 from the pitstop position without one of the retaining devices for the wheel-nuts being securely in position, this being an indication that the wheel itself may not have been properly secured,”
Bear in mind that the Competitor is noted as ING Renault F1 Team, not as any individuals within the team. This is important, as the FIA has previously differentiated between the actions of individuals within a team, and the team as a whole: specifically Benetton were let off serious charges of tampering with their refueling rig to allow a quicker flow of fuel which ultimately led to the explosion around Jos Verstappen’s car because the modifications were made by a junior engineer, not by “the Competitor.”
This is relevant because there would ultimately have been very few people aware of the tyre problem with the car was released: the right front tyre mechanic, obviously, and perhaps the guy standing over him to put the wheel on. Self-evidently the lollypop man didn’t know, and obviously no one on the pitwall was aware that there was a problem.
The term “knowingly released” is a curious choice of words, as it seems to suggest that there was a pre-meditated or conscious decision involved in the process, rather than an accident which was unfortunately missed. I think it’s safe to assume that the team would not consciously decide to release a car with a wheel loose: the team exists solely to compete for wins in a racing series, Alonso had been in the lead of the race, and it’s obvious that sending a car out with a loose wheel would be contrary to their team’s reason for being as, at best, they would lose time in another pitstop.
So was Alonso “knowingly released” with a wheel nut not in position? No, that clearly can’t be the case. And was it a decision process by “the Competitor”? Evidently not.
“2. being aware of this, failed to take any action to prevent the car from leaving the pitlane,”
This point refers to point 1. Was “the Competitor” aware of the problem? As noted the wheel mechanic was, but it’s unlikely that anyone else knew, at least until after the car was in motion and the telemetry picked up a problem. Unfortunately the speed of the cars means that Alonso would have been out of the pitlane before this was noted, and then the relevant technician in the back of the pits would have had to spot the problem on his screen and then tell the head technician, who would have to report it to the pitwall, who would have to then consider what to do. By which time they would have seen the onboard shots and known there was a problem anyway.
All of which combines to make it effectively impossible to prevent the car leaving the pitlane: the timeline behind discovering a problem and the fundamental speed of the cars makes it so.
“3. failed to inform the driver of this problem or to advise him to take appropriate action given the circumstances, even though the driver contacted the team by radio believing he had a puncture,"
From the onboard shots the vibration in the car was clear as soon as Alonso accelerated out of the pitlane, with the wheel shaking in his hands: it is impossible for him to see his wheels from inside the car, but he instantly knew there was a problem. In their statement the FIA accepts that Alonso knew there was a problem, even if he thought it was a puncture, so the “failed to inform the driver” seems to be a long bow to draw: if Alonso calls in to say that he has a problem, does the team need to say “we think you have a problem”?
So breaking this point down, it appears that “the Competitor” failed to inform Alonso of the specific nature of the problem, or to tell him to stop. We would have to accept that there would be some sort of delay on discovering the actual problem they were dealing with: while it’s easy in retrospect to look at the wheel and see the cover spinning, this is with full knowledge of what actually happened, but in the heat of the moment it would clearly take an amount of time to discover the cause of the problem.
Which leads to advising Alonso of the appropriate action to take. This would be the section where some people are now suggesting he should have been instructed to pull immediately off track and park the car, but this goes against historical precedent and the purpose of a racing team: there are a vast number of previous incidents of this type which have seen a driver returning to the pits after an error in the pitstop, so why would it now fall to the team to tell Alonso to stop? This has never been an instruction to the teams previously, would not appear to be a part of the sporting regulations, and as such it seems odd to retrospectively change the considered actions in this situation.
“4. this resulted in a heavy car part detaching at Turn 5 and the wheel itself detaching at Turn 9.”
It certainly did. But is it illegal for components of the car to become detached during an event? No, and you only need to look back one day to qualifying to see that Brawn weren’t penalised for a heavy car part detaching from one of their vehicles. So, while it is regrettable, it is hard to see how part of a car detaching can now become a criminalised action.
But of course it does mean that there will be something to talk about during the summer break, and that the FIA will be able to bring some of their members up to Paris in August, so things could be worse…