"Unsafe release"
Discussion
I'm not trying to start a new red/silver argument (one will start itself soon enough). This is just about how the rules were or should be applied.
If this was discussed before but I missed it, then apologies in advance.
If not: does anyone know the term's of Massa's "unsafe release" penalty in Singapore?
I ask this because it's seemed that we all have been comparing his release towards the path of Sutil in Singapore with a somewhat similar release in Valencia, were they alike enough or actually different, did the stewards redeem themselves with the Singapore penalty, etc. I don't want to go over that.
Regardless of his interaction in the pit lane with a competitor, was Massa'a driving off with a fuel hose still fully attached not in itself the very essence of an "unsafe release"? Is there any chance that his Singapore penalty applied to that, rather than to the subsequent Sutil moment? If the stewards did not act on his driving off with the hose attached, why not? Surely that sort of thing cannot be countenanced.
Any thoughts?
Personally I believe the fuel hose flailling from the side of his car was the more dangerous aspect of his release, as, I dont know how much they weigh but would guess it to be quite a lot as it took 4 mechanics to carry the thing back to their pit garage. Being on the left side of the car it, also could have made contact with the legs/ankle so any number of the other team mechanics.
Was he a little too close to Sutil, probably, but do not recall Sutil needing to alter speed or position of his car any unlike what has been seen in Gp2 where penalties have beeen given to Chandok and Senna.
Was he a little too close to Sutil, probably, but do not recall Sutil needing to alter speed or position of his car any unlike what has been seen in Gp2 where penalties have beeen given to Chandok and Senna.
flemke said:
If the stewards did not act on his driving off with the hose attached, why not? Surely that sort of thing cannot be countenanced.
Any thoughts?
Err, I think we all know on here why a further penalty was not applied, if it had been a silver car there would have been a 5 place grid penalty for the next race Any thoughts?
With respect, I'm surprised you had to ask the question?
Tony
Nick_F said:
Uncharacteristically poor use of apostraphe:
Hoisted by one's own petard.flemke said:
term's
As for Massa's release it was surely a double penalty, once for being released into the path of Sutil's car as in Valencia and secondly for leaving with the hose still attached. So a drive through and monetary penalty should have been the outcome to match up.
Oh and does Sutil's car have a Ferrari magnet to it, Monaco, Valencia, Singapore twice (remember he was the one caught out by Massa's recovery back into the race after spinning, Sutil came round the corner to find a Ferrari occupying it causing him to try and avoid but hit the barrier,
Exiting pit with hardware still attached is BAD. 
Exiting pit into path of approaching car is BAD.
I think that in this case, as in all penalty cases, the stewards identified that their BAD-o-METER had reached the 'something must be done' end of the scale and acted accordingly. Only 1 of these events would have likely resulted in no penalty?
I don't think there's as much rhyme or reason to their decisions, more a gut feeling.
Exiting pit into path of approaching car is BAD.
I think that in this case, as in all penalty cases, the stewards identified that their BAD-o-METER had reached the 'something must be done' end of the scale and acted accordingly. Only 1 of these events would have likely resulted in no penalty?
I don't think there's as much rhyme or reason to their decisions, more a gut feeling.
Ferrari were the last pit in Valencia, so though the release was "unsafe", it was not deemed serious enough to warrant more than a monetary fine as no other pit crews were at risk. Additional Massa's release did not impede the FI car, so there was in actuality no net loss to another team/driver.
In Singapore, Ferrari were at the other end of the pit lane. Massa's release caused Sutil to take avoiding action and therefore a collision was a possibility. With so many pit crew around the severity of the incident was much higher than at Valencia. This is why I believe there was a drive through penalty in this instance.
I'm not sure that hose still being attached to Massa's car was a factor in the decision making process.
In Singapore, Ferrari were at the other end of the pit lane. Massa's release caused Sutil to take avoiding action and therefore a collision was a possibility. With so many pit crew around the severity of the incident was much higher than at Valencia. This is why I believe there was a drive through penalty in this instance.
I'm not sure that hose still being attached to Massa's car was a factor in the decision making process.
Of the 2 unsafe releases then Singapore was the least safe.
Thus the penalty should have been greater at Singapore & indeed was so justice was served.
Urgent action needs to be taken to stop this sort of thing happening again though. Not because it ruins the offending driver's race but because trailing a fuel hose the length of the pitlane, apart from being bloody stupid, is potentially fatal.
Thus the penalty should have been greater at Singapore & indeed was so justice was served.
Urgent action needs to be taken to stop this sort of thing happening again though. Not because it ruins the offending driver's race but because trailing a fuel hose the length of the pitlane, apart from being bloody stupid, is potentially fatal.
Tony 1234 said:
flemke said:
I'm not trying to start a new red/silver argument...
Err, I think we all know on here why a further penalty was not applied, if it had been a silver car there would have been a 5 place grid penalty for the next race With respect, I'm surprised you had to ask the question?
Tony
VladD said:
Ferrari were the last pit in Valencia, so though the release was "unsafe", it was not deemed serious enough to warrant more than a monetary fine as no other pit crews were at risk. Additional Massa's release did not impede the FI car, so there was in actuality no net loss to another team/driver.
In Singapore, Ferrari were at the other end of the pit lane. Massa's release caused Sutil to take avoiding action and therefore a collision was a possibility. With so many pit crew around the severity of the incident was much higher than at Valencia. This is why I believe there was a drive through penalty in this instance.
I'm not sure that hose still being attached to Massa's car was a factor in the decision making process.
While I agree that the Valencia release was probably a lot less unsafe due to pit box position, it cannot be right that where the team's pit location is determines whether a penalty is applied or not.In Singapore, Ferrari were at the other end of the pit lane. Massa's release caused Sutil to take avoiding action and therefore a collision was a possibility. With so many pit crew around the severity of the incident was much higher than at Valencia. This is why I believe there was a drive through penalty in this instance.
I'm not sure that hose still being attached to Massa's car was a factor in the decision making process.
That being the case, the winner of the constructor's championship the previous season could elect to use the end of pitlane at every circuit and release their cars when they damn well pleased, while all other teams would be penalised for the same transgression that bore slightly riskier possible outcomes.
That's not how rules are enforced or how a penalty is applied.
Equal penalties for all on the basis that it is inherently unsafe to release a car alongside another already on pit road, rather than that it was exceptionally dangerous on a particular occasion!german tony said:
Of the 2 unsafe releases then Singapore was the least safe.
Thus the penalty should have been greater at Singapore & indeed was so justice was served.
Urgent action needs to be taken to stop this sort of thing happening again though. Not because it ruins the offending driver's race but because trailing a fuel hose the length of the pitlane, apart from being bloody stupid, is potentially fatal.
This raises the question, If Sutil had not been there, would there have been a penalty? Thus the penalty should have been greater at Singapore & indeed was so justice was served.
Urgent action needs to be taken to stop this sort of thing happening again though. Not because it ruins the offending driver's race but because trailing a fuel hose the length of the pitlane, apart from being bloody stupid, is potentially fatal.
I'm not sure that there would have been, although it seems obvious that, even without Sutil, running over a member of one's crew and then dragging that great hose along the pitlane seems the epitome of an "unsafe release."
//j17 said:
Tony 1234 said:
flemke said:
I'm not trying to start a new red/silver argument...
Err, I think we all know on here why a further penalty was not applied, if it had been a silver car there would have been a 5 place grid penalty for the next race With respect, I'm surprised you had to ask the question?
Tony
Tony
flemke said:
This raises the question, If Sutil had not been there, would there have been a penalty?
I'm not sure that there would have been, although it seems obvious that, even without Sutil, running over a member of one's crew and then dragging that great hose along the pitlane seems the epitome of an "unsafe release."
Accidents happen, and I think under normal circumstances nothing would have been said as Ferrari had done themselves enough damage without the need of penalty to make things worse.I'm not sure that there would have been, although it seems obvious that, even without Sutil, running over a member of one's crew and then dragging that great hose along the pitlane seems the epitome of an "unsafe release."
But these weren't normal circumstance, this was the 3rd such instance of danger percieved to have been created by the use of Ferrari's traffic light system over the traditional lollipop in as many races - Massa & Kimi in Valencia and then Massa again in Singapore.
I think in Valencia the stewards took a sensible pill and realised that depriving the deserved winner of the race win because of mistake created through no fault of his own would not sit too well with fans across the world, and probably felt that Ferrari would analyse what went wrong, realise how close they were to losing a win and make changes to prevent future occurances.
Sadly they didn't and with this in mind I think the Stewards at Singapore chose to make a statement.
Zhastaph said:
flemke said:
This raises the question, If Sutil had not been there, would there have been a penalty?
I'm not sure that there would have been, although it seems obvious that, even without Sutil, running over a member of one's crew and then dragging that great hose along the pitlane seems the epitome of an "unsafe release."
Accidents happen, and I think under normal circumstances nothing would have been said as Ferrari had done themselves enough damage without the need of penalty to make things worse.I'm not sure that there would have been, although it seems obvious that, even without Sutil, running over a member of one's crew and then dragging that great hose along the pitlane seems the epitome of an "unsafe release."
But these weren't normal circumstance, this was the 3rd such instance of danger percieved to have been created by the use of Ferrari's traffic light system over the traditional lollipop in as many races - Massa & Kimi in Valencia and then Massa again in Singapore.
It could have happened to any team, but only if that team had released the driver (or the driver released himself) before it was unmistakably safe to do so. Managing this risk is entirely within the team's control. On that basis, ISTM that any team that does such a thing should be penalised for an "unsafe" release, even if turns out that no harm was done, and regardless of the separate issue of whether there was interference with another car in the pitlane.
Cheers.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff