What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

HAHA!!!!! F%*K YOU Jenson you pr%t!!!

Yeah F.U.CK you f.u.cking moaner. What a @#$%& that Jenson

so he broke the rules but they let him off... good for the team but bad for the stewards reputation...

lol, feel the love Jenson

Quote:

mad brummie
so he broke the rules but they let him off... good for the team but bad for the stewards reputation...

He obviously didn't break the rules otherwise he wouldn't have been let off...don't be bitter now

Where does it say he broke the rules?

Hahaha!! YES!! Take that Jenson!!

crusty, i have just read the notification by charlie whiting to the stewards which actually states that rosberg exceeded the time delta for the sector.

the stewards evidently took into account the fact that the sector time read out on the steering wheel was obscured by a 'low fuel' message etc etc. technically he was guilty but got away with it unlike vettel in singapore who was penalised for an infringement that never occurred.

i find the logic somewhat lacking and any consistency in decisions seems to be as far away as ever.

I'm not being bitter, i'm a Williams supporter and don't have any motive otherwise other than posing the question of steward consistency (or lack thereof). The release states that Rosberg was faster than the 'delta' but it was obscured on the screen by a 'low fuel' warning and yes they agree that he showed 'due care' in passing the incident but is that enough under the rules laid out under the safety car.

Don't get me wrong i don't want Rosberg to lose his well deserved 5th place but what is the point in having rules if they are not going to be policed.... it is similar to the white line thing in Singapore, no harm was done, no advantage gained and there was no safety implications but he still got a drive though because those are the rules.

As I said in the previous thread though, K1, Rosberg made some attempt to slow down during this period because there was no time delta display available to tim. With Regards to Vettel's punishment, did he make the necessary speeding adjustments?...

exactly my point brummie. F1 needs to sharpen up as decisions like these simply turn the race into a farce. it is if anything, getting worse not better.

Its karma after the hammering Rosberg got in Singapore- I think two hammerings in a row was too much for the Stewards to handle. The situation was not clear-cut by any means, and as such, discretion was needed. The Delta rule is new, and the situation was clouded by the fact that he couldn't see the information needed. They must have felt that in Rosberg's position, Rosberg still backed off significantly, and that if he broke the limit- then it was minor, and out of Rosberg's control. They should change the way the information is displayed as a rule to prevent reaccurance, but for me, this is a teething trouble which can happen when new rules are introduced. It is in no way comparable to the pit-lane speeding incident, as this rule needs visual communication to the driver at all times to enable the driver to make correct judgements at all times. There is no speed to adhere to- you cant just look at the speedo and do x if the alpha goes down (or if you speed limiter breaks), its very subjective.

I know you will argue differently, as I am sure there is little you would love more than to see Rosberg demoted to the back of the field for the second time in succession, F1 throws up so many complex scenarios that what ever the stewards decide, it is inevitably criticised by certain parties.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2009:10:04:11:22:32 by crusty_bread.

you miss the point entirely crusty. to assume that i would like to see roseborg demoted to the bottom of the pile is a stupid comment to make. what i am saying is simply, as brummie put it as well, there are rules which should apply equally across all teams/drivers.

as for the 'two hammerings' as being too much for the stewards to handle as you have stated is tantamount to saying that a favour was being done to roseborg because of previous infringements!

as far as the vettel case in singapore there was telemetry evidence to prove that he did not infringe the pit lane speed. by your analysis then he should not have been penalised and if so why wasn't there a retrospective time adjustment made to the final result? rosberg did exceed the speed limit and vettel did not!!!

This is pathetic. A rule is a rule, low fuel sign or not. I am absolutely amazed at this decision. Jenson MUST appeal.

Imagine if our court system worked like this...

Oh, the dude is from Ethiopia where you can marry 7 year olds against their will (sorry ethiopians, had to make something up). We shall let him off because he never knew...

Pathetic.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:10:04:12:06:14 by Duffer.

thank you duffer for your extremely succint interpretation of the point in question. why is it that others cannot see the glaring errors being perpetuated by this decision.

of course williams would be glad to get the points as any team would be under the circumstances but to get points as a result of extreme leniency/favor by the stewards is hollow.

I take back my comments on the stewards decision based on this from James Allen [via Twitter].... it was McLaren's fault!!! LOL

Jamesallenonf1 #f1 Rosb didn't get done for speed under safety car because it was a problem on standard ECU, never happened before. Not Williams problem

K1- it is you who is missing the point. Before lap-delta's were introduced, it was sufficient for drivers to back off under yellows to avoid punishment. In the absence of lap delta information, that is all Rosberg could do. It wouldnt have earned a penalty before they were introduced, and I't hasn't earned him a penalty now. What would you have him do? You cannot impose a penalty for failing to guess right in what would have been an excercise in hopeless subjectivity. The delta concept is totally abstract without the visual readout, so it is nothing like pit-lane speeding. It is a rule that can only be followed with onboard assistance, not like Duffer's example when that is just ignorance of a clearly defined rule which is easily followed.

For your comment regarding Vettel, I agree, he should not have been punished for speeding in Singapore and if there was a satisfactory way of reversing the penalty from Singapore, I would wish that to happen, just like I would wish the result of the 2008 alonso/singapore gp to be reversed. However, I don't think you were in favour of that happening if memory serves me correctly as it would have awarded Rosberg a win? Perhaps my comment regarding you wishing ill of Rosberg was not so stupid



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009:10:04:13:55:27 by crusty_bread.

Talk about it as much as you like Rosbeg has his points and I hope Brawn does not appeal as it would jts make the situation even more frustrating. Brawn will win their championship ... if it takes one extra race well I can wait.

Quote:

Duffer
Imagine if our court system worked like this...

Oh, the dude is from Ethiopia where you can marry 7 year olds against their will (sorry ethiopians, had to make something up). We shall let him off because he never knew...

Too funny, Duffer.

There aren't many people who could work 7 year old Ethiopian girls into this debate. Priceless.

Haha, where did I say girls? They are a strange bunch over there.

LOL- I completely missed that. I read it as "marrying 7 wives" for some reason. I think I need some serious catch up sleep.

WOW...Is Brawn the new Ferrari??? HAHAHAHA...Jenson you are gonna be the most stupid and worst champion ever!!!

GO RUUUUUUBIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!




GO TEAM WILLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seb's case was wrong, but it was the same for everyone. Seb was penalised because of the way that the pitspeed is calculated. Anyone could have fallen foul of it.

In Nico's case he was using a FIA warning system. Nico did not get the delta time on his steering wheel. That is what the telemetry showed and that is what the stewards accepted. It is quite simple, data supported the facts. Justice was done in this case.

Williams and proud of it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:10:04:22:46:52 by pgj.

absolutely not. charlie whiting has stated that rosberg exceeded the speed limit under yellow. is that a fact?

why was rosberg singled out? no one else was under a penalty charge by whiting.

i think crusty that you are having selective memory problems. when people started to claim a victory for roseborg in the singapore race i said that as each and every team/drivers results would have been changed as a result of the piquet debacle then the race results should have been annulled in their entirety and that there was a precedent in the FIA history books re a rally decision.

i still hold that view and that the records should show that as a fact.

Quote:

kenji
absolutely not. charlie whiting has stated that rosberg exceeded the speed limit under yellow. is that a fact?

why was rosberg singled out? no one else was under a penalty charge by whiting.

i think crusty that you are having selective memory problems. when people started to claim a victory for roseborg in the singapore race i said that as each and every team/drivers results would have been changed as a result of the piquet debacle then the race results should have been annulled in their entirety and that there was a precedent in the FIA history books re a rally decision.

i still hold that view and that the records should show that as a fact.

Source please.

Read here where Nico says that he did slow down. I have not seen anything where Nico or anyone else (other than detractors) claim he was speeding under a yellow flag. If that had happened, there would be no telemetry data that would off er defence especially with this collection of stewards who had already shown that they would penalise non-observance of yellow flags. You are just wrong here Kenji. If Nico admitted to speeding then Brawn would have every case for lodging an appeal. Unless you post your source Kenji, you are wrong.

Williams and proud of it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009:10:05:07:05:02 by pgj.

K1- What do you think the fia should do about Vettel's Singapore penalty?

apologise then cut their wrists

Crusty, Kenji cannot distinguish between tolerance and acceptance.

Williams and proud of it.

pj, don't be such a fool. check out planet F1. google it under the request, 'charlie whiting report rosberg speeding under yellow flags.'

i will quote exactly what it says,' nico rosberg has been cleared by suzuka stewards after FIA race director charlie whiting reported him for exceeding the speed limit during safety car period'.

if that is not clear i don't know what is. i think an apology is in order here.

OH, I SEE NOW!

Planet-F1 report it so it must be true!

ROL!



... and kenji quotes it as fact!



Planet-k1 more like.



Williams and proud of it.

pj, can you prove that the report was never made by charlie whiting? i said originally that i had read a report that stated what i have just posted re the whiting report to the stewards. what prompted the FIA to investigate in the first place? brawn presumably spoke with the race director who then made a report to the stewards.

once again egg on face until you can disprove it.

Quote:

K1
pj, can you prove that the report was never made by charlie whiting? i said originally that i had read a report that stated what i have just posted re the whiting report to the stewards. what prompted the FIA to investigate in the first place? brawn presumably spoke with the race director who then made a report to the stewards.
once again egg on face until you can disprove it.

You make an unsubstantiated remark and when you get challenged it is down to me to disprove what you say?

More hot-air from kenji!

ROL!

Williams and proud of it.

my remarks have been substantiated. what is it that you can't grasp? i thought that it was very plain to most people who understand simple english. i must be wrong again.

Quote:

K1
absolutely not. charlie whiting has stated that rosberg exceeded the speed limit under yellow. is that a fact?
why was rosberg singled out? no one else was under a penalty charge by whiting.

i think crusty that you are having selective memory problems. when people started to claim a victory for roseborg in the singapore race i said that as each and every team/drivers results would have been changed as a result of the piquet debacle then the race results should have been annulled in their entirety and that there was a precedent in the FIA history books re a rally decision.

i still hold that view and that the records should show that as a fact.

Third request: Please substantiate this comment, just show me proof.

Williams and proud of it.

for the third time pj, refute the report which was posted by planet F1. if you can't do that then i fear you will just have to live with the knowledge that you blew it.

that is it. i can't deal with the kiddies anymore.

Williams and proud of it.

back at you pj.

Quote:

K1
for the third time pj, refute the report which was posted by planet F1.

Worthless. As usual ole girl.

We were fifth and that is what it cares...end of story




GO TEAM WILLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

simple fact is kenji, the evidence if you like that Charlie provided the stewards was that Rosberg WAS speeding, however Rosberg had no way of knowing this because of the low fuel indicator light on the steering wheel.

In return, it is felt that Rosberg adequately made sufficient measures to reduce his speed in return by slowing down HE IS NOT PHYSIC AT KNOWING WHAT SPEED HE IS MEANT TO GO AT

End of story.

I think FIA is to blame with their stupid ban of bigger displays on steering wheel. I saw no purpose of that ban then and in combination with ECU low fuel message it blocked Nico from knowing how much he has to slow down. He really couldn't know and the steawards accepted that he did slow down to be safe enough.



You are too late, we are EVERYWHERE!

there are two aspects to this, one is the fact that rosberg claimed ignorance of his actual speed. surely ignorance as a plea is unacceptable. when travelling at say 80kph in a 60kph zone try telling the police that you couldn't see the speed sign because of a wayward bush when you drove past. F1 drivers would know when they are speeding.

the other point i wished to make was the inconsistency of stewards and decisions by same. singapore was a prime example re vettels penalty when the telemetry proved that he didn't speed in the pit lane. telemetry was also use in the rosberg case. why the disparity?

this is not a life or death issue but when it influences what might be WDC/WCC results it is right to criticise and seek some answers

Quote:

K1

The other point i wished to make was the inconsistency of stewards and decisions by same. singapore was a prime example re vettels penalty when the telemetry proved that he didn't speed in the pit lane. telemetry was also use in the rosberg case. why the disparity?

Until they are qualified guys, and the same guys at each race . . . instead of different bunch of unqualified guys with suspect agendas . . it's always going to be this way.

But having said that, Charlie Whiting should pull them in line . . clearly he doesn't.

Quote:

K1
there are two aspects to this, one is the fact that rosberg claimed ignorance of his actual speed. surely ignorance as a plea is unacceptable. when travelling at say 80kph in a 60kph zone try telling the police that you couldn't see the speed sign because of a wayward bush when you drove past. F1 drivers would know when they are speeding.

Well - there is where you are wrong, Rosberg didn't know what is the 'speed limit' as ECU overrided that information to show low fuel message over it. But he did slow down because he saw flags and SC signs, he just didn't know how much time per sector he is suposed to make.
If FIA hasn't banned big displays from steering wheels there could have been more then one line of text on them and all this could be avoided.
If you break speed-limit but don't know what the limit was because the sign was covered with ivy the judge won't punish you (I know this from personal experience). Same is the case here, Nico slowed down, it turned out he wasn't slow enough but he didn't disregard safety and went full throthle through the yellow flag zone like some drivers did in qualifying.



You are too late, we are EVERYWHERE!

Quote:

K1
there are two aspects to this, one is the fact that rosberg claimed ignorance of his actual speed. surely ignorance as a plea is unacceptable. when travelling at say 80kph in a 60kph zone try telling the police that you couldn't see the speed sign because of a wayward bush when you drove past. F1 drivers would know when they are speeding.
the other point i wished to make was the inconsistency of stewards and decisions by same. singapore was a prime example re vettels penalty when the telemetry proved that he didn't speed in the pit lane. telemetry was also use in the rosberg case. why the disparity?

this is not a life or death issue but when it influences what might be WDC/WCC results it is right to criticise and seek some answers

@everyone (except troll kenji)

Warning do not feed the troll.

If you read his posts in this thread from the last two days they say exactly the same thing. kenji enjoys seeing how long he can keep a thread going with repeat posts.

If you want an example, look at what he did to the post 2008 Monaco GP thread when he opened his first post of the day with exactly the same comments.

Williams and proud of it.

well pj, you have again resorted to childish posts. if you can't hack it then go away. others on this board post reasonable debates without resorting to these tactics. a very weak argument.

isn't it about time you ran back to the moderator,again.you are a stalker pj.

Quote:

pgj

@everyone (except troll kenji)

Warning do not feed the troll.

To be fair pj, you've been the main feeder here (and the Cosworth thread). K1 has just been standing his ground. Ignore him if it winds you up.

No. It is the only thing that stops him. Do as I suggest and look at the post Monaco GP thread from last year.

Williams and proud of it.

I get you pgj- The fact is, There simply was no fixed defined speed limit for Rosberg to be able to adhere to without the readout. What was it? 60mph in a hairpin? 70mph 20 metres further down the road? Oh no Nico- you accelerated too much- at this point you should have been doing no more than 65mph rather than 67mph, now you are "ahead of schedule". Get to the back of the grid.

Enforcing a penalty would have been sheer nonsense. There was no speed limit for Rosberg to follow just a target time- that's the difference adherance of the rules was out of the driver's control.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009:10:06:16:17:25 by crusty_bread.

This whole episode is another FIA farce. We need consistency at every level, as usual it's all in the interpretation and not in the book.

F1Royal



British Grand Prix: 01, 02, 03, 05, 06, 07, 09, 10
Italian Grand Prix: 09

[www.design-tank.co.uk]

I did a bit of analysis too. Just to see if there was any evidence that Nico did speed and do a hot in-lap. Taking the lap times from lap 45, the lap when Nico pitted to and subtracting the lap time from the previous lap gives the amount of time that driver slowed down by. I did it for the ten lead cars.

Car Number (n) slowed by xyz seconds:

(15) 3:356 (9) 6:949 (1) 6:422 (16) 5:767 (4) 13:133 (6) 15:975 (23) 11:332 (22) 11:743 (5) 13:468 (7) 15:635

It shows that from the front to back of the pack there is pretty much a linear rise in lost time due to the fact that some cars had less distance to travel under SC conditions. This data shows that all of the times sit within one standard deviation using a curve of best fit on a scatter diagram. I have plotted it, but I am not going to post it, if you doubt my analysis then do it for yourself it is simple enough. The three cars that show a biggest deviation are cars 9, 4 and 6 which all appear to display an excessive slowing for some reason. All of the other cars are extremely close to a straight line. Nico stated and supported his claims with evidence that he did not receive his delta time. So his time of less than a second is consistent with a voluntary reduction in speed. He may have used Lewis as his point of reference. The graph supports Nico.

The figures also show where Nico overtook Nick. Nick had the biggest reduction in speed. It is also interesting to see that Rubens and Jenson both had less of a speed reduction than either of the two cars in front of them.

It cannot be determined whether Nico did speed, that is not really the issue here. The figures do show that Nico did not have the blindingly fast lap that he was suspected of doing after Jenson came out with his 'four seconds' comment.

Nico had a huge slice of luck by being on the right part of the track at exactly the right moment in his strategy.

Williams and proud of it.

I see where you are coming from.

One of the biggest factors in explaining why Rosberg pipped Jenson, Rubens and Heidfeld was due to these cars trolling dowen the main straight under safety conditions, whilst Rosberg was free to take a normal pitstop. The time lost in taking a pitstop under such conditions was therefore vastly reduced and no rule would have needed to be broken to gain a strategic advantage.

No way could Button have seen Rosberg driving too fast on his inlap- he was 20 seconds down the road. Button simply assumed that Rosberg gained a huge time advantage because he expected to come out ahead after the pit stop.

Yes. Nico and the cars in front of him were under waved yellows before the SC came out. Because of the yellow flags they could get back up to speed once they were past the incident.

Nick may have been held up by something at the incident. But you can see where he lost the time that allowed Nico to overtake him in his pit stop. Another factor that I have heard is that under a SC the pitlane is faster than the track. So that may well have earned him some track time too.

Williams and proud of it.