Consistency

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
taeleon

taeleon

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2011
492
330
63
What's done is done and I'm not saying anything should be done about this now, I just wanted to get people opinions on this:

If Hulkenberg was penalised for his collision with Hamilton which to me was a racing incident and un-avoidable (kind of) given the slipper surface of the track why was Vettel not penalised earlier in the race for his collision with Senna which was completely avoidable given he turned into the racing line cutting off Senna?

Before anyone says anything I'm a McLaren fan so wasn't really bothered who won out of Alonso and Vettel, I'm just curious why one driver was penalised for what in my opinion was more of a racing incident than the other's who wasn't.
 
I didnt understand the hulk penalty. it was a racing incident nothing stupid or reckless just but luck.
 
Don't see why Seb should of been punished when Senna dives on the inside from 2 car lengths away from Seb. Seb did the same thing to Senna at Abu Dhabi and Brundle still blamed him for it... The track was becoming tricky for all drivers and you have Bruno diving on the inside of a corner to a WDC contender who already made the turn even before he got there.

He got spun anyway so the damage was already done "penalty wise" even if it was his fault, which it wasn't in my opinion.


Oh and stewards understand crashes will likely happen on the first lap and consider 99.9% of all incidents as just racing incidents regardless what would of happend 40 laps down the line. It's all close quarters in the first lap etc...
 
I have to agree with you and whilst I didnt think that Vettle deserved a penalty for the contact with Senna, I felt agrieved that he hadnt when Hulk was later punished. I didnt want to raise this in the Brazil thread because I felt it would be in bad taste due to his incredible achievments, but on another day the cards could have fell very differently.

He could have recieved a penalty for the Senna race ending incident.
He could have been taken out by Kimi - God only knows how he missed him.
The yellow Flag incident. I know the FIA have stated that it was yellow/red but on the TV replay there were 3 yellow lights he passed.

This is not about whether or not Vettle should have won his 3rd WDC but whether or not the Stewards judge incidents fairly and consistently. It seems that the incidents are judged by which driver is involved and the penalty is dictated by the seniority of the driver involved. I still stand by my comments that if Grosjean hadnt taken out Alonso in Spa, or that incident happend futher down the grid he would not have recieved a race ban.
 
The biggest reason for the apparent inconsistency is that the congestion experienced in the first few corners can often (and usually) make deciding who was to blame very difficult or downright impossible: the reason being that there is a 'knock-on' effect with drivers making adjustments in their position to avoid someone else, which may cause another driver to avoid them, who in turn may get in someone else's way who may also need to take avoiding (and inherently unpredictable) action – etc., etc. …

For this reason, penalties are unusual for very early incidents; although earlier in the year, Grosjean was penalised for a ridiculously optimistic and dangerous move.
 
SilverArrow said:
Don't see why Seb should of been punished when Senna dives on the inside from 2 car lengths away from Seb. Seb did the same thing to Senna at Abu Dhabi and Brundle still blamed him for it.
Click to expand...

This. It was clearly Senna's fault, much in the same way it Vettel's in Abu Dhabi.

I agree Hulk's penalty was harsh. It was his fault, but off the racing line, with conditions getting worse and a Caterham in the middle of the corner it only took a slight loss of control to have a collision, it wasn't a wild or overly speculative move.
 
It was a racing incident. Senna perhaps a little optimistic, but crucially he doesnt outbrake himself and is going to make the inside with no issues when Seb doesn't see him and cuts across. In those conditions in the midfield on the first lap its just something that happens. I do though wonder if Vettel was a little early on the brakes given that Raikkonen had to take avoiding action as well.
 
AbsolutelyGlorious said:
This. It was clearly Senna's fault, much in the same way it Vettel's in Abu Dhabi.

I agree Hulk's penalty was harsh. It was his fault, but off the racing line, with conditions getting worse and a Caterham in the middle of the corner it only took a slight loss of control to have a collision, it wasn't a wild or overly speculative move.
Click to expand...
Hmm… I should stress that I'm not comparing incidents here. Comparisons are always subjective; and therefore, wherever possible, one should aim to speak of a particular incident in isolation. For this reason, I've highlighted part of what you've said here AG, where you have essentially agreed Hulkenberg caused an avoidable collision. From the point of view of penalties, this is all that matters.

He put himself in that position and was unable to retain the necessary control in order to complete the move safely.
Clear cut.
Therefore, in this instance, the penalty was correct.
- - -o0o- - -

And seperately…
I should add that I also agree that Senna was essentially at fault. However, the circumstances were quite different: there was far less space available and it occurred in an altogether less predictable environment. Furthermore – and however unfair this may seem – by sheer luck, the consequences were different. And although that last sentence may seem on the face of it to be unfair, its consideration does have a small influence on the outcome of any decision.

That said – and this is a direct comparison – Vettel was less innocent, in my view, than Hamilton!
<laugh>
 
And also if you think about it, Seb was on the dry line like the rest of the field, Senna was on the wet stuff...

I think there was a reason why Seb didn't get a penalty and it was because the guy who caused it was DNF'd as a result.
 
In the case of Hulk/Hamilton I thought it was complete crap that Hulk got a drive through for what I also feel was a racing accident. All the guys on Speed thought so too so we're not alone in thinking this.
 
No one made Hulk attempt the move - he had the DRS section after the esses where he would have had a better chance. He new, as do all drivers, that the inside line to turn 1 was slippery and thus should have been aware that there was less grip available. He was responsible for when he came off throttle, when he applied the brake and when he turned the steering wheel. How anyone can say that him sliding into Hamilton due to poor judgement was 'luck' or a 'racing incident' is beyond me. He was not in control of his car, therefore it was a mistake on his part and the penalty was deserved.
 
WestCoastBoogaloo said:
I feel I should also point out that, up until that point, he was my driver of the day!
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, until that moment, he was heading that way with me too!

Hulkenberg did a great job but also made an unfortunate misjudgement. For anyone interested in the future (which I will presume involves most of us) Hulkenberg is a man to watch: very few (if any) can match a world champion called Button in such variable conditions. The biggest difference between them is surely that Button does not make this sort of error.

But, as seems borne out by his performance relative to his team mate, I'm sure Hulkenberg is still very much on a learning curve. Despite a dip in performance, di Resta is highly regarded*. Hulkenberg's emergence is therefore all the more impressive.

- - -o0o- - -

If di Resta can become a little more 'racey', he may well prove his doubters wrong. That said, at the moment I tend to agree with the consensus that his conservative driving is a little too conservative…
 
What Senna had to say a bit later after rewatching his own move:

---
Bruno Senna, Williams, DNF
Bruno Senna was more contrite about his first lap accident in the BBC forum than he was during the race. Coming down the straight to Lake Descent he was behind Raikkonen, and Di Resta with Vettel two places in front. He made a move on Raikkonen, tried to get DiResta and thumped into Vettel. It wasn't an overtaking move it was a total misjudgement. As Bruno confessed afterwards: "When I saw it was Sebastian I thought - uhoh, that's a bad one."
---
 
I was more impressed that Hulk was matching Hamilton in straight up wet conditions, as well as Button during the changeable period, not many drivers can do that. So he took on 2 McLarens, in conditions the McLaren drivers enjoy, and nearly beat the pair of them.

Remind me why McLaren signed Perez instead?

Hulk for Red Bull in 2014.
 
Kyle?:3838988 said:
I was more impressed that Hulk was matching Hamilton in straight up wet conditions, as well as Button during the changeable period, not many drivers can do that. So he took on 2 McLarens, in conditions the McLaren drivers enjoy, and nearly beat the pair of them.

Remind me why McLaren signed Perez instead?

Hulk for Red Bull in 2014.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that they were able to run more wing on that Force India than the McLarens. As soon as conditions began to clear, McLaren took the advantage, as soon as it became a bit slippy again it swung back to the FI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back