Maldonado's cat like reflexes

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

I think he probably did - if he had started normally he may very well have been mixed up in the carnage.

... and might have avoided an even heavier sanction.....

[TrapezeArtist]

Surprised as I am to find myself speaking in Maldonado's defence, I do agree that on this occasion the penalty is unfair. This was not a matter of safety. It was simply a driving error that actually gave him an advantage (like cutting a chicane) so it needed to be punished with a penalty which negated the advantage gained, and some more besides. (The drive-through would do that nicely.) Once he had retired, the whole thing was irrelevant.

Perhaps the FIA realise that they have let him off far too lightly on other occasions, and are now keen to clobber him for any minor transgression. That's not the way it should be though.

[QnickFTW]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Surprised as I am to find myself speaking in Maldonado's defence, I do agree that on this occasion the penalty is unfair.

Penalty for overtaking Di Resta - UNFAIR (it was legit racing, very aggresive but fair, and no damage was caused)

Penalty for impeding Hulkenberg - UNFAIR (Mark Gillan said he cost less than 2 tenth to Hulk who got into Q2 anyway, and an engineer in his position wont talk complete ******** when it comes to figures. He also said that a few corners earlier it would have been no issue, but Hulkenberg just catched up with him at the worst part of the track, it happens all the time, there is probably not a single driver who didnt cost a tenth or two to another driver during a Quali, it's called traffic)

Penalty in Italy for a jumping start in Belgium - UNFAIR ('nuff said)

Penalty for a coming together with Glock - DONT KNOW (I havnt seen it, but as far as I know Glock has carried on with no problem whatsoever and Maldonado has retired with a broken suspension? Safe to say it's not your typical penalty material)

[wnut]

Originally Posted by werner

I also think it's stupid to give anyone a penalty at the next race for a jumpstart. At the end of the day, Maldonado did not gain any advantage from his start. No other drivers have been disadvantaged or put in danger. Grosjean did, so a penalty for him at the next is justified IMO (although the raceban is a bit harsch I think)

Has anyone ever served a penalty at the next race for a jumped start?

I think not.

Grosjean's penalty is really caused by the FIA putting the start in the wrong place. Way too close to the first corner.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I still don't think its right. He jump started in the Spa race, not the Monza race. His race ended before he took a penalty. The idea of the penalty was to impede him for jump starting in that race, thus undoing any advantage he would have gained from getting an unfair start. Giving him a penalty for the next race makes no sense. I'm pretty sure its happened before that a driver has gone out of the race and then been handed down a drive through or some other sanction.

That

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by QnickFTW

Penalty for overtaking Di Resta - UNFAIR (it was legit racing, very aggresive but fair, and no damage was caused)

Penalty for impeding Hulkenberg - UNFAIR (Mark Gillan said he cost less than 2 tenth to Hulk who got into Q2 anyway, and an engineer in his position wont talk complete ******** when it comes to figures. He also said that a few corners earlier it would have been no issue, but Hulkenberg just catched up with him at the worst part of the track, it happens all the time, there is probably not a single driver who didnt cost a tenth or two to another driver during a Quali, it's called traffic)

Penalty in Italy for a jumping start in Belgium - UNFAIR ('nuff said)

Penalty for a coming together with Glock - DONT KNOW (I havnt seen it, but as far as I know Glock has carried on with no problem whatsoever and Maldonado has retired with a broken suspension? Safe to say it's not your typical penalty material)

It's fairly obvious that, at the behest of the other teams, the FIA are throwing the book at Maldonado in the expectation that it will coerce him into changing his behaviour or better still just go away. I won't be surprised if he'll be serving a race ban soon for wearing a loud race suit in a built up area or for giving another competitor a dirty look at the drivers briefing.

The other teams don't like him and they don't want him. It's akin to the old Hesketh days where the others ganged up on Alexander and tried to have him removed from the grid for having too much of a good time !

[Peralta]

Originally Posted by QnickFTW

Penalty for overtaking Di Resta - UNFAIR (it was legit racing, very aggresive but fair, and no damage was caused)

Penalty for impeding Hulkenberg - UNFAIR (Mark Gillan said he cost less than 2 tenth to Hulk who got into Q2 anyway, and an engineer in his position wont talk complete ******** when it comes to figures. He also said that a few corners earlier it would have been no issue, but Hulkenberg just catched up with him at the worst part of the track, it happens all the time, there is probably not a single driver who didnt cost a tenth or two to another driver during a Quali, it's called traffic)

Penalty in Italy for a jumping start in Belgium - UNFAIR ('nuff said)

Penalty for a coming together with Glock - DONT KNOW (I havnt seen it, but as far as I know Glock has carried on with no problem whatsoever and Maldonado has retired with a broken suspension? Safe to say it's not your typical penalty material)

completely agree with all assessments.
There is a witch hunt for him and it's a bit unfair. I still think he didn't jump the start. I think the others just didn't react as fast. I didn't see the accident with Glock but maybe Glock chopped across and took his wing off. We don't know but it involved Maldonado so it has to be his fault. Those every accident constitute a penalty from now on?

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Peralta

I still think he didn't jump the start. I think the others just didn't react as fast.

There are sensors in the track surface that are used to detect jump starts. The others reacted fine - Maldonado just went too early (not by a lot but too early all the same), there's no argument to be made in defence of his start - he jumped. End of.

The punishment is more tricky but I think ultimately correct - he should have been punished with a drive through during the race (as we've seen before for jump starts) but given the fact he didn't get the drive through and retired the punishment has to be carried over to the next race surely? Otherwise he's just not being punished for the jump start. If he'd caused a collision (if you can iimagine such a scenario ) and retired as a result then the penalty would be applied to the next race - so why not with a jump start?

[QnickFTW]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

The punishment is more tricky but I think ultimately correct - he should have been punished with a drive through during the race (as we've seen before for jump starts) but given the fact he didn't get the drive through and retired the punishment has to be carried over to the next race surely? Otherwise he's just not being punished for the jump start. If he'd caused a collision (if you can iimagine such a scenario ) and retired as a result then the penalty would be applied to the next race - so why not with a jump start?

Yea, there is a fundimental difference between jumping a start and causing an avoidable collision.

A.) If you jump the start (or cut a chicane or overtake with all 4 wheels over the white line ) what you do is gain track positions in an illegal way. A drive thru is the default standard for that and it will be given (unless your name is Kimi and you overtake 3 cars in the run off area of La Source and nobody gives a fudge) In this case, if you are given a drive-thru = END OF THE STORY, if you retire before the penalty is given or during the 3 laps you have beforing coming in = END OF THE STORY. It's common sense, there is nothing to carry forward for next race. Track position gained, track position is given back (by either artificial ways as a penalty or natural ways as a retirement) = END OF THE STORY.

You might want to give us a few examples when somebody has been penalized for cutting chicanes/jumping starts/overtaking off-track not at the very race, but the race after. Go on please.

B.) Causing an avoidable incident is a different story. With that you typically not even gaining track positions, you typically lose some, even more typically retire. So the story is not finished there, you were being dangerous and caused financial damage (worse yet, injury) So its common sense that if your penalty cant be given at the very race weekend, it will have to be carried forward for the next.

[Greem]

The FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations are written such that one (and only one) penalty from the following can be applied to any incident.

Section 16 is the relevant bit here ("Incidents"):

16.1 "Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and subsequently investigated) which:
- necessitated the suspension of a race under Articles 41;
- constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code;
- caused a false start by one or more cars;
- caused a collision;
- forced a driver off the track;
- illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver;
- illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.
Unless in the opinion of the race director it was completely clear that a driver was in breach of any of the above, any incidents involving more than one car will normally be investigated after the race.

16.2 a) It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide, upon a report or a request by the race director, if a driver or drivers involved in an incident shall be penalised.
b) If an incident is under investigation by the stewards a message informing all teams which driver or drivers are involved will be displayed on the timing monitors.
Provided that such a message is displayed no later than five minutes after the race has finished the driver or drivers concerned may not leave the circuit without the consent of the stewards.

16.3 The stewards may impose any one of the penalties below on any driver involved in an Incident :
a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping.
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
If either of the two penalties above are imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 20 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned in the case of a) above and 30 seconds in the case of b).
c) A time penalty.
d) A reprimand.
If any of the four penalties above are imposed they shall not be subject to appeal.
e) A drop of any number of grid positions at the driver's next Event.
f) Exclusion from the results.
g) Suspension from the driver's next Event.

So... ignoring all the "THEY CAN'T DO THAT" calls - they can; they did.

Interestingly, if Maldonado hadn't jumped the start there wouldn't have been a massive gap for Grosjean to head into. Make of that what you will!

[tgm999]

Originally Posted by werner

No other drivers have been disadvantaged or put in danger. Grosjean did, so a penalty for him at the next is justified IMO (although the raceban is a bit harsch I think)

harsh? He endangered lives how can a one race ban and a fine be too harsh.

[Lancsbreaker]

Catching upon this thread it occurred to me that, as Greem's point above suggests, Maldonado's undeniable jump start might well have indirectly triggered the move from Grosjean that caused so much chaos - as Maldonado went I'd have been amazed if Grosjean didn't react and thus gain what was probably an almost perfect start, thus launching him into the disaster zone....

[QnickFTW]

Originally Posted by tgm999

harsh? He endangered lives how can a one race ban and a fine be too harsh.

because its too harsh

[QnickFTW]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

t I'd have been amazed if Grosjean didn't react and thus gain what was probably an almost perfect start, thus launching him into the disaster zone....

Right, because THATS why a professional racing driver does a perfect start nowadays. Because of someone else's jumping start. Makes perfect sense mate.

Just for the record, Hamilton had a rubbish start.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by QnickFTW

Yea, there is a fundimental difference between jumping a start and causing an avoidable collision.

A.) If you jump the start (or cut a chicane or overtake with all 4 wheels over the white line ) what you do is gain track positions in an illegal way. A drive thru is the default standard for that and it will be given (unless your name is Kimi and you overtake 3 cars in the run off area of La Source and nobody gives a fudge) In this case, if you are given a drive-thru = END OF THE STORY, if you retire before the penalty is given or during the 3 laps you have beforing coming in = END OF THE STORY. It's common sense, there is nothing to carry forward for next race. [B]Track position gained, track position is given back (by either artificial ways as a penalty or natural ways as a retirement) = END OF THE STORY.

It's not really the "end of story" though - by jumping the start you're gaining positions and therefore putting other people out of position. There is no way of undoing the effects of that - a drive through penalises the jump but doesn't negate the impact of the jump on others. For example - if you jump the start and then box in another driver so they lose positions to a third driver the drive through penalty will not redress that position change. Looking at Maldonados jump in Belgium - it could be argued that he triggered the first corner accident - every little event has a knock on effect, by going early he opened a gap behind him that Grosjean drove into - leading to contact with Hamilton etc etc. A drive through would have penalised Maldonado but there is no way of undoing the subsequent events.

If a driver earns a penalty and retires before serving it then it should logically be carried forward - earn a penalty, serve a penalty - the cause of the penalty is irrelevant. That surely is the common sense answer?

Originally Posted by QnickFTW

B.) Causing an avoidable incident is a different story. With that you typically not even gaining track positions, you typically lose some, even more typically retire. So the story is not finished there, you were being dangerous and caused financial damage (worse yet, injury) So its common sense that if your penalty cant be given at the very race weekend, it will have to be carried forward for the next.

You're contradicting yourself to some extent with this argument - if you "more typically retire" then according to your jump start logic that would be "end of story" as you'd retired and not gained from the collision.

But as Greem points out both scenarios are covered by the same section of the regs and therefore the way the punishments are handed out (and carried forward if relevant) are the same.

[MCWB]

What about this then: overtake off the track during the race = drive through during the race (or time penalty afterwards if in the final laps). But if you overtake off the track then cede the place back, no penalty.

So what happens if you overtake off the track then immediately bin it? Did you cede the place back (and subsequently were able to continue) or did you not cede the place back and crash out and hence get a penalty carried forward?

As far as I can see, the only thing Maldonado did wrong (to get the jump-start penalty carried forward) was to bin it before the penalty could be assessed... and he already got a penalty for doing so!

[QnickFTW]

Originally Posted by Greem

So... ignoring all the "THEY CAN'T DO THAT" calls - they can; they did.

I dont recall anyone calling "THEY CANT DO THAT" so thats a bit irrelevant an argument. You answered a question nobody really asked.

I recall a few people calling it stupid to give penalty for illegal position gain at the next race, as the illegally gained positions are given back by either a drive-thru or a retirement.

I also heard few people asking for any example from the past when somebody has been penalized for cutting chicanes/jumping starts/overtaking off-track not at the very race, but the race after.

[QnickFTW]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Looking at Maldonados jump in Belgium - it could be argued that he triggered the first corner accident - every little event has a knock on effect, by going early he opened a gap behind him that Grosjean drove into

Really? Maldonado started from the left side, yet caused a gap on the right hand side that Grosjean drove into? Makes perfect sense.

Just for the record , everybody and their grandma was driving towards the right hand to avoid a very obviously smoking Sauber. But that doesnt make your point any less valid (as it is completely invalid to start with)

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by QnickFTW

Really? Maldonado started from the left side, yet caused a gap on the right hand side that Grosjean drove into? Makes perfect sense.

By moving early he creates a big space for those behind to accelerate into and Grosjean was heading left to right when he hit Hamilton. Are you saying that Maldonados jump start had no impact on any other driver? Just by getting his car ahead of where he would have been from a 'normal' start he was already influencing the positioning of other cars.

Originally Posted by QnickFTW

Just for the record , everybody and their grandma was driving towards the right hand to avoid a very obviously smoking Sauber. But that doesnt make your point any less valid (as it is completely invalid to start with)

Or everybody heads right into La Source as that's the inside line (Sauber or no Sauber). Not sure what your point is here?

[QnickFTW]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

By moving early he creates a big space for those behind to accelerate into and Grosjean was heading left to right when he hit Hamilton. Are you saying that Maldonados jump start had no impact on any other driver? Just by getting his car ahead of where he would have been from a 'normal' start he was already influencing the positioning of other cars.

I agree with you that everything has (or can potentially have) a domino effect. Also from a penalty point of view, gaining a position can sometimes do more than just gaining a position, so thats a fair point. My take on the Grosjean story is that:

• Grosjean did have a very good start

• Hamilton had a poor start.

• Hence Grosjean was rightfully ahead of him, hard to argue.

• Grosjean drove very carelessly to the right, not realizing it was a few tenths to early to drive to the right to this extent (as Hamilton was still there), bad judgement

• Hamilton, the guy he is, he wont back up. Nor will he use the WHOLE width of the track to move aside.

• They collided.

Sounds more plausible than Grosjean driving into a gap that was on the right and caused by a jumping start from the left? It does to me anyway.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by QnickFTW

I dont recall anyone calling "THEY CANT DO THAT" so thats a bit irrelevant an argument. You answered a question nobody really asked.

I recall a few people calling it stupid to give penalty for illegal position gain at the next race, as the illegally gained positions are given back by either a drive-thru or a retirement.

I also heard few people asking for any example from the past when somebody has been penalized for cutting chicanes/jumping starts/overtaking off-track not at the very race, but the race after.

I wasn't answering a question, I was making sure we all had the relevant section of the SRs to hand which contain the precedent for the imposed sanction. No, I can't find any grid drops applied retrospectively for a false start, but I wasn't talking about the fact that I had or hadn't found any.

We can all discuss the "fairness" aspect of it, but the reality is that Maldonado has basically had it coming. It might surprise you to hear that I actually quite like the guy - he's a balls-out racer, after all - but his corners need rounding off. It would be far better if he did that without knocking anybody else's corners off at the same time.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by QnickFTW

My take on the Grosjean story is that:

• Grosjean did have a very good start

• Hamilton had a poor start.

• Hence Grosjean was rightfully ahead of him, hard to argue.

• Grosjean drove very carelessly to the right, not realizing it was a few tenths to early to drive to the right to this extent (as Hamilton was still there), bad judgement

• Hamilton, the guy he is, he wont back up. Nor will he use the WHOLE width of the track to move aside.

• They collided.

For the most part I'd agree - I don't think Hamilton could move any further over though (although as you say he could have backed off a bit earlier). Maldonados influence on all this will of course forever just be conjecture and guesswork (some admitedly better than others ).

[QnickFTW]

Originally Posted by Greem

We can all discuss the "fairness" aspect of it, but the reality is that Maldonado has basically had it coming. It might surprise you to hear that I actually quite like the guy - he's a balls-out racer, after all - but his corners need rounding off. It would be far better if he did that without knocking anybody else's corners off at the same time.

I agree that these Maldonado penalties serve an "educational" purpose, and rightly so. I just think they come at all the wrong places for all the wrong reasons.

When Maldonado deliberately drove into Perez in Monaco and/or drove into him again in Silverstone, courtesy of an outrageously poor and careless driving, I think those were the times to say, listen amigo, sit out one out and chill (as opposed to giving him 8 different smaller and not so small penalties ever since, quite a few of them for debatable incidents)

[luke g28]

posted in wrong thread but,

Drivers should not be able to get 3 separate grid penaltys in one race. Especially after the talk of the 3 strikes ruling.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

Catching upon this thread it occurred to me that, as Greem's point above suggests, Maldonado's undeniable jump start might well have indirectly triggered the move from Grosjean that caused so much chaos - as Maldonado went I'd have been amazed if Grosjean didn't react and thus gain what was probably an almost perfect start, thus launching him into the disaster zone....

You're not wrong there. Grosjean definitely triggered that accident because of Maldonado's start. Maldonado had him under a spell... he was a mental hostage, a passenger throughout the incident, just as Hamilton was. It's Maldonado that should be serving the one race ban, not Grosjean... and he should be picking up the tab for all the damaged cars... and while we're at it, he should be banned for a few more races just for good measure because too many people dislike him ! The FIA must all be high on drugs for not doing it. It's just ridiculous.