Yes, I could see that, but I can't see that the amount he moved (or didn't move) would have changed anything. Didn't seem to be more than a couple of feet, and no way could Webber have gone around him.

 

Kovalainen made an error in judgement by trying to assist Webber in making the pass. He knew he was way slower and was aware of Webber behind him. The error occurred when Hekki tried to help out Webber by moving out of the way rather than holding his line and letting Webber choose which way (left or right) he wished to make the pass on...

The closing speeds were tremendous and just a jink of the car resulting in a net movement of a couple of feet can cause mayhem for the overtaking driver not giving him enough time to react. Hekki tried to be the nice guy but in the end his help ended up spelling disaster for Webber.

So its just an unfortunate racing incident I'm afraid.


^^^^ Yup, that's about the whole of it.

I assume that the FIA rules of the road are similar to those of the SCCA and SCCA rule 6.8.2 B states: The lapped/slower driver should hold their line and point to the side on which an overtaking driver should pass.

Mind you, with the modern day F1 car enclosing the driver in such a fashion as to prevent hand signals pointing another driver around is impossible but it still hold true that he should have held his (Kovalinen's) line and allowed Webber to pick which way to go around.

 

According to Webber, it had nothing to do with the racing line, and everything to do with Heikki braking earlier than normal for that corner.

 

You're right Gromit... I got a chance to view the incident again and the Lotus is in the middle of the track not on the racing line.

When I first viewed the incident (during the race) it appeared that the Lotus was attempting to get out of the way of the onrushing RB6 of Webber but that was not the case as related by both Webber and Kovalainen.

Hekki states that he did brake earlier...

F1: Collision Not My Fault - Kovalainen

Adam Cooper | GMM Newswire | Posted June 28, 2010 Valencia (ESP)

Heikki Kovalainen says he was not at fault in the collision. The Finn says he braked a little earlier than he normally would as he was in the center of the track and off his normal line as he tried to defend his position.

“He ran into me, that’s all I can say. I knew I was racing him, so I defended a little bit, not even very aggressively. I went a bit more than half way. Then I hit the brakes and he missed his braking. I think I was just over 5m earlier than my normal braking point, which is about half a tenth something like this before my normal braking point, because I was obviously off line.

In any case I think when you come to the braking zone you commit to the inside or the outside, not necessarily straight behind. I was trying to make him go outside, and I was expecting that he can quite brake late anyway, so I might struggle to keep him behind. As I’m racing for Lotus I need to have a go at him, of course. There’s nothing that I have to say really. It’s just a shame.”

 

Yes......it happened primarily because Hiekki braked or let off earlier than normal. Just look at the incar from Webber. He's following HK and then as he's deciding which way to go he all of a sudden caught up quickly resulting in the contact.

Not that this is what it was - but.....a classic brake check resulting in the following driver hitting the guy in front. When your not expecting someone to do that then....KABLAMMO! (as Matchet would say)

 

Okay, another question. I'm not a racer (obviously!), but I don't understand why he was supposed to "hold the line" in this case, but overtaking drivers get PO'd during qualifying if a slower driver is on the line.

Really--what's the rule for each situation?

 

Well, Heikki wasn't being lapped. That pass was for position. Webber got a bad start and the team brought him in early to get him into some clean air. Heikki has actually mentioned that, even though the Lotus is no match for the Red Bull, he was going to defend the inside line (the dirtier line) and make Webber go around the outside. I cant say I blame him. He's a racer and it's his job to at least put up some kind of a defense.

Because he was on the dirtier line is why he braked (broke?) a little early for the corner.

I can also see it from Webber's perspective. He got a bad start, now in clean air, he wants to make hay while the sun is shining and just wants to whip around this Lotus so as to lose as little time as possible and ....you know the rest.

I think it was just a racing incident. Bad luck...glad everyone is ok.

 

I guess that the reasoning here is that they were racing and not qualifying. Kovalainen felt that it was necessary to defend against the Red Bull of Webber as it was for position.

My take on it is that it was foolish for Hekki to think that he could hold off the RB6 as his Lotus was no match for it. Consequently, Webber (having the superior car) should have excercised some restraint and passed him at a more opportune moment... but I guess that is all hindsight, yes?

Now as to why the Lotus should have held the line while being overtaken is due to the issue of the closing speed of the vehicles involved and the time/distance required to react.

Here's an analogy that we can all relate to...

You're spiritedly driving your MINI down a multi-lane interstate and up ahead you spy a slow moving vehicle in your lane. The distance between you and the slow car shrinks dramatically as you close on the vehicle ahead. You get set to take the MINI around the slow car by going into the lane on your left but as soon as you commit to that manuver the slow vehicle wanders over in the same direction!

Now you had better hope that you can stop your MINI in the rapidly shrinking distance that lies between both vehicles at least enough so that you can alter your direction to avoid a collision between your MINI and the slow car that now is blocking your intended path of travel.

Had the slower vehicle stayed the course all would be well and your drive uneventful.

On the track this condition becomes even more exacerbated as the speed differential between cars can be greatly dissimilar. Closing speed differential limits the amount of reaction time that a driver has in a given situation and less time for the overtaking car to alter its dynamics in the distance given.

I'm sure that RaceTripper, strshp, and those of us who are avid followers of endurance racing (ALMS) have witnessed many a coming together (both major and minor) of LMP1/LMP2 cars with the lesser GTs as they negotiate their way around the circuit. It's all about the speed differential the closing rate.

So, its easier for the overtaking car to pass if he knows that the slower car will not vary its intended path of travel.

As to the rule that can be applied apart from what is in the rulebook?

Something that can be applied here is the level of trust that develops between drivers who race each other regularly, moderated by common sense.

A feel for your opponent is something that develops among drivers that regularly compete against one another. You know who drives aggessively or who is difficult to pass or who will race you hard yet give you enough race room.

Think about it, we as fans know the racing personas of drivers: Aryton Senna was aggressive, Marc Webber is very hard to get around, David Coulthard would give your room but make you work for the position, etc.

Knowing your competitor, being to discern their innate strengths and weaknesses is an attribute that champion drivers possess.

No rule though can account for the heat of the moment it can only serve as a guideline nothing else... That's why some situations are best summed up as racing incidents...

 

My goodness what a mess Valencia was for the stewards.

You know, the FIA needs to get its act together and show some consistency in its enforcement/clarification of the rules.

Lax enforcement of the rules (Malaysia & China), Safety Car issues at Monaco, and now the latest incidents from Valencia, including an accusation (if substantiated and factual) that the stewards were discovered engrossed in the World Cup match that was being televised... "they were watching the Germany-England soccer match on TV immediately after the race rather than getting on with the job at hand!"

The FIA needs professional stewards... they need to step up their game.

 

Humorous article:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/300620...-valencia.html

 

This came as a bit of a shock to me because one of the pre-requisites for competing in F1 is that you have to construct your own chassis.

Now comes news that Ferrari will assist the new 13th team by supplying a chassis for them.


Ferrari plan to offer a third car to new teams

July 2, 2010 | by James Allen| Maranello, Italy

Ferrari have clarified that when they speak about a third car, they are not talking about a car which would be run by the Scuderia, but one which they would make available to a new team, such as ART GP, should they win the 13th franchise for 2011.

Speaking at the FOTA Fans Forum, powered by Santander, Ferrari spokesman Luca Colajanni said that “We would give them a competitive car, unless it is the one from last year.”

This sharing of technology and/or copying another chasis was a problem that was encountered several seasons back when the Toro Rosso team was accused of relying too heavily upon it's senior sister team Red Bull.

Is this the return of customer cars in F1? Anyone else hear anything about this?

 

I'd like to see something similar to what MotoGP does where they have guest riders from the country that each respective race is at. I'm not sure how they decide what team the guest riders race for and which team gets the guest riders at what race. But it was kind of cool when I went to Indy the first year they had MotoGP there, to see Ben Spies do well (P6 final classification?), when he doesn't race MotoGP. I think he's mostly been shunned in the MotoGP scene because he's so big.....like 5'8" 110lbs, or something huge-n-fat like that. But it was obvious that he was still a very talented rider.

For those that don't recall or don't follow MotoGP, there was a rare Amazonian Monsoon that hit Indy during that race . And it was incredible watching those guys hang the tail out and lay it over with all that water on the track. I think there might be something to the "Add water sprinklers to the tracks" idea.

 

A little dead in here lately.

Good for Webber! He did what he needed to do and he did it without doing anything unscrupulous.

I was glad to see Button make the most of a bad situation.

A little disappointed with the steward's call on Alonso. I realize it's to the letter of the law, but I thought that's why they have a former driver up there. Retalliation for Alonso's strong words from last race? I notice he's been a little more quiet this time.

I think the stewards really need to be quicker with handing out penalties. It would have been much easier if someone would have gotten on the radio, seconds later, and told Alonso that he needed to concede that position. Instead they waited how many laps later, and further manipulated the results.

Vettel did a good job of just driving to get back into the points, especially after almost getting lapped.

 

OK then let's see if we can jumpstart some life into this puppy!


Well, if I were the chief steward I don't think that I would have waited so long to hand down a decision on this incident for starters.

This is another one of those judgement calls (tempered by the rules) that if done in a timely manner would have solved all parties involved some grief.

Alonso's attempted pass on the Renault came up short (really tried to shoehorn the Ferrari into the corner and Kubica was having none of it) and he went off track cutting the corner and garnered the contested position (with Kubica).

He gained a competitive advantage by cutting the corner, something that is not allowed by the rules. So the fair & right call (IMHO) the stewards should have made is for Alonso to concede the position to Kubica's Renault and all is as it was before the incident... Continue racing lads!

To give Alonso a drive thru penalty is harsh considering the length of Silverstone's pitlane... very long! Compare this to Valencia's pitlane (short) and one can easily see a discrepancy in one drive-thru penalty v. another.

Benjam, perhaps you are right in suggesting that this might be a form of payback to both Alonso and Ferrari for the Valencia comments.

Ferrari voiced its displeasure after the event...

F1: Ferrari Rants Against F1 Decision-Making

Adam Cooper / GMM | Posted July 12, 2010 GMM Newswire

While the civil war develops at Red Bull, Ferrari on Monday resumed its own battle against alleged unfair treatment by Formula One's authorities.

After penalties handed out for the safety car incidents in Valencia, the Italian team reacted so furiously some suspected it would face sanctions by the FIA.

And on Sunday at Silverstone, Ferrari and Fernando Alonso were once again annoyed after the Spaniard was given a drive-through penalty for overtaking Robert Kubica.

Maranello based Ferrari's controversial website writer is therefore back in action on Monday, describing it as a "fact" that "decisions are taken slowly" by F1's officials.

Because Alonso did not immediately allow Kubica to re-pass him in Britain, by the time the penalty arrived, the Pole's Renault had retired and the safety car period meant the double world champion lost many positions.

The Ferrari report refers to a La Gazzetta dello Sport article that claims F1 "always penalizes in one direction".

"There remains the suspicion that too often, when it concerns a grey area in the rules, those rules are dealt with according to who is to be penalized," wrote Umberto Zapelloni.

Describing an article in Il Giornale, the Ferrari report writer said it speaks "of a race director and stewards who are legitimized to do what they want".

But elsewhere, the international press was critical of Ferrari's performance in Britain.

Corriere dello Sport described it as "a black day" for the marque, while Alonso "loses his composure", and Genoa-based Il Secolo XIX called Silverstone a "Ferrari-flop".

 

Conspiracy theory here--Bernie's orders?

 

Alonso's a 2 time world champion - he knows the rules. He also knows that his pass would not stand, so he should have let Kubby back past him. That's why he doesn't have much to say here - he was wrong and he knows it.

 

According to the BBC broadcast, this is how is went down (copied this from a SPEED forum comment to save time):


1- Alonso overtakes Kubica cutting the chicane.
2- Kubica called the team.
3- A few laps on, Kubica is informed Alonso must let him by . - Alonso is informed too.
4 - Same lap Kubica's car lets go.
5 - Stewards change penalty since there's no car to let go. and make it a Drive thru. and Informed Ferrari. (although in history they had, but regs are different now)
6- Alonso and the team do what they ALL do, push hard for 2 or 3 laps (the maximum allowed before a black flag will be raised) to open the Gap so the Drive through wont hurt too much.
7- The Koby incident that will bring in the SC.
8- SC is called in, and Ferrari is informed that they can't make it drive through until the SC is back in. Which is better for them any ways some cars wont make it to the SC with the new regulations.
9- it is all over for Alonso. Just a bunch of bad situations made it this bad.

 

You're right MINIdave, Fernando knows the rules (and so does Ferrari) but if you do it and you don't get called in... you get away with it.

Yeah, I know that getting away with it is extremely unlikely but hey, can't fault Alonso for trying.

I believe that Alonso continued racing waiting for orders from the team on wether or not he should concede the position to Kubica. In the interim Ferrari was no doubt appealing to Charlie Whiting (race control) in the hope that there is no penalty (or a reduced penalty) issued.

Still if the Chief Steward had issued a penalty right then and there, making the Ferrari drop back behind the Renault, it would be a moot issue.

 

I see SebVet has been taking Schumi lessons. Like, trying to drive the P2 guy into the wall on the start. BS move, I say.

Jim

 

Agree completely.

Gromit, that's an interesting timeline of the events, which seems to be a pretty unfortunate "perfect storm" resulting in ALO being given the drive through.

Jim, I don't think there was anything wrong with Vettel's tactics at the start. Pretty much any time someone doesn't get a good start, they go defensive, and that's what he did. There wasn't any contact. It was pretty much just good hard racing, imho. Webber didn't really have anything to worry about, unless Seb touched him.

I will say that Seb doesn't seem like the happy-go-lucky kid that he used to. I see a little less fun and a little more sinister in his smile when he's in the interview room.

 

Interesting observation benjam... I too noticed that Vettel is more stoic these days.

I really enjoyed his enthusiasm, it was refreshing to see (hadn't really seen that since the days of Schumi being on the podium).

F1 is a heartless taskmaster that places drivers under great stress both on and off the track.

I guess it just comes with the territory though. F1 plays that Flavor of the Week game... today you're the one everyone raves about... tomorrow your last weeks leftovers. Either produce and stay on the top of the pile or move over cause someone else is taking your place.

Presently, the F1 paddock is buzzing about Webber's new found speed and Vettel has taken a backseat in the press to the supposed #2 driver on the Red Bull squad. Not good for your confidence if your Vettel.

Additionally, poor SebVet now has to deal with two more things...

The rise of fortune for teammate Mark Webber...
Webber is proving that he can equal/best Vettel on any given day.

Trailing his teammate in the points...
This is a self-inflicted wound... incidents (where a tad bit of patience works wonders) like the one at Turkey or the start in Britain had they been avoided would change everything around for Vettel. It seems that patience is a virtue that SebVet has yet to grasp.

It will be interesting to see how this season fares for the young German...

 

Oh my, I know that the man is insidious and his reach is far but...

Then again we are talking about Bernie!

 

A few posts back deb jokingly hinted at a conspiracy...




I had a good laugh about it then I came across this article and the wheels started turning. No its not about Bernie and his machinations but it did pique the conspiracy theorist inside me...

So tell me, my friends, and fellow F1 afficionados...

Is Mark Webber a whiner?

OR

Is Sebastian Vettel doing PR work in an effort to disgrace Webber and therefore place himself in a better light publicly?

Here's the article and then chime in with your thoughts...


Vettel Wishes Webber Hadn’t Publicized Feelings

Adam Cooper / GMM | Posted July 14, 2010 GMM Newswire

Sebastian Vettel reportedly believes his teammate Mark Webber should have kept a lid on his unhappiness at Silverstone last weekend.

Although the controversial recipient of Webber's front wing in Britain, and accused of being favored by his Red Bull bosses, the 23-year-old German's voice has been the quietest throughout the latest saga.

At Silverstone he hinted that Australian Webber had shown his "true face," adding: "The most important thing is the atmosphere within the team. We have a really strong car and the only thing that can stop us is ourselves."

The implication is that Webber should have saved his grievances about the front wing so that it could be handled internally.

Germany's Bild newspaper now quotes him as saying: "I'm brought up to show respect for one another."

Referring to the wing saga, he added: "Such things do not belong in the public; they should be handled internally by the team."

Former driver David Coulthard, still a consultant for the energy drink owned team, agrees that Red Bull would have preferred if the matter had not gone public.

"Red Bull would doubtless prefer it if Mark aired his grievances in private," he wrote in his Telegraph column.

Nick Fry, chief executive of the Mercedes team, warns that Red Bull must quickly make clear to its drivers that they are not in charge.

"Drivers are a vital part of the team but they're not the team and that needs to be clear," he is quoted by the Sun newspaper.

"As soon as the lunatics start running the asylum you have big problems," he added.

 

That kind of talk from Vettel is pretty hypocritical. He's pretty much slamming Webber for the exact thing that he's doing to him in that interview.

 

Well, looks like they've kissed and made up

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/150720...-red-bull.html