dj219957

only mclarean could make a **** up like that! *********!

madmerlin

iTrader: (14)

um.. not so acording to Yahoo sports Kobayashi ran out of fuel, so Sauber are as useless.

The bigger question is, if this is correct WHY hasnt Kobayashi been chucked to the back with Hamilton?

Which leads to an even bigger question does it not?

ilogikal1

Kobayashi was hydraulics failure, not fuel.

madmerlin

iTrader: (14)

Oh ok, Yahoo as on the ball as ever then

Cheers for the update

ilogikal1

That was according to Ted Kravitz yesterday, I accept no responsibility for any inaccurate reporting on Sky.

I believe it came direct from the team though. It was originally thought to be a low fuel issue until that point though, so whoever wrote the article on Yahoo can't have been watching closely.

madmerlin

iTrader: (14)

Haha probally right there mate

i dont usually watch it much on there tbh, dont know if its just my laptop but it has an anoying habit of not allowing you to scroll down to read earlier posts, as soon as you let the button go it shoots back up to the top - ARGhhhh....

Should be a good race though,

Leslie

The mechanic was trying to refuel the car but the rig was extracting fuel from the tank instead. He reversed the rig but there was no time to check the fuel level before Hamilton ran out of time to get his qualifying laps in.

Les

richs2891

I guess when your trying to squeeze every advantage possible including putting put the least amount of fuel in a F1 car (less fuel = less weight) and have a technical problem with the fueling. Its going to cause problem later on.
I do think that the penalty was extremely harsh.

Richard

madmerlin

iTrader: (14)

I agree, i dont understand why he wasnt just bumped back to 10th, as the prev. quali period was all fine...

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Personally I don't buy McLaren's explanation as it being an engineer who misused the fuel rig.

McLaren don't just 'guess' how much to put in. If a mistake was made they'd be pretty meticulous about correcting it, especially something as important as fuel.

And, is it just a coincidence that of the 5 or 6 times the car had to be refuelled that day, this 'failure' happened on the very last, and most important, run of the whole day?

richiewong

Have you see the price of petrol nowadays, no wonder they couldn't fill the tank! Tsh

Luan Pra bang

It seems very odd though that Mclaren get screwed every which way for mistakes but others get away with blatant cheating, like when Beneton had traction control after it was outlawed, F1 is as corrupt and dishonest as a sport gets, as Bernie Himself said, its not the cheating its the getting caught he does not like.

RA Dunk

I'm in the middle of reading No Angel, The secret life of Bernie Eccelstone..

He is one ruthless **** who has done some serious things over the years.

Boro

iTrader: (1)

Why didn't McLaren just invent a problem with the car?

If they'd also had a hydraulics failure ;-) ;-) would they have been penalised?

GazTheHat

This makes the most sense. Back of the grid is a bit harsh.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

I wouldn't waste your time, it's a sensationalist piece of **** that contains more inaccuracies than truths.

It's books like that that make people believe things like Benetton using traction control when it was banned.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

To be frank he was lucky not to have been excluded from the race. If he had continued back to the pits he would not have had enough fuel for a sample and the penalty for that is disqualification from the race entirely. So in some ways the stewards treated him lightly.

McLaren need to sort their house out though. They are costing Lewis points with stuff like this, Jenson too a few races back.

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

Agreed, they have got very sloppy this year. Compare their pitstops to Red Bull or Ferrari and Macca's look amateurish.
Wakey wakey another championship slipping away boys

Luan Pra bang

So Benetton never cheated in 1994 ? Thats at odds with the opinion of the majority of people who actually worked in F1 at the time so please explain why your opinion is so different ? It is established fact Benetton had something illegal on their car that was blatantly traction control but they denied switching it on and the FIA never proved exactly what it was, even Senna claimed thty had traction control and I trust his opinion and those of every F1 engineer I ever met more than yours.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

LOL, bait well and truly taken

Er well try that although the FIA on several occasions took Michael's race winning Benetton off him at the end of a race and conducted a number of investigations including using external tech companies and the fact that they did find some sort of control software in the car's systems they could find

a) no way to engage it either physcially or electronically

and more importantly

b) no sensors or input wiring to the car's computer 'brain' to make the system work. Benetton claimed the software was still in the system form the preceding year, but all sensors and wiring for it were gone.

Also you can really hear traction control working on an F1 car and although Senna claimed he could hear something different on the Benettons (and the Ferraris as it happens) it is believed that the noise he heard was more an engine mapping difference and indeed this is probably where any clever performance tricks with the cars was to be found.

You have to remember that as great as Senna was he was getting his **** kicked. We know it was in part due to the twitchiness of the Williams as much as the superiority of the Benetton yet no champion driver, especially Senna, likes to have to cope with that so they start looking for other reasons.

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

I think McLaren sound like they are trying to make up excuses when really they could just admit what happened.

If the rig was faulty they'd have been able to show it to the stewards, they messed up. Not too hard, I mena they left a wheel in the way of Hamilton as he tried to leave the pits too.

almost as bad as Red Bull assuring Webber he din't need to make another run to get into the next stage of qualifying (oowf).

The real issue was that this wasn't just 0.001 of an advantage, he was half a second in front, that wasn't down to a couple of litres of juice sot the punishment was rather harsh.

5t.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

The rig wasn't faulty, the fueller left a drain plug open so he thought more fuel was in it than was. It's obvious given the advantgae Hamilton had that they weren't cheating, but rules is rules!

Luan Pra bang

Except when they apply to Bernies mates, how many race results should have been stripped from Schumaker for illegal fuel stops and incorrect weights, not to mention Verstappen, a Benetton driver claiming that Schumacker had traction control. I had traction control but diddn't use it is hardly a good excuse. Same as deliberate rule changes just to stop Williams winning,. F1 is too much about cheating and politics not enough about racing.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

jura11

iTrader: (7)

But if someone will not take the part(simply will not run,want save tyres) in the Q3,he can race,this is OK for you or stewards,which is wrong

How much he gain with underfuelling the car,i don't think he will gain 0.500


Agreed McLaren needs to sorting out and Sam Michael seems will not helping out from this mess,

Jura

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

I'm not defending the rule, just explaining it. To be fair if a car does not run in Q3 then it is in the pit and available for fuel sampling and not gaining any lap time advantage by not running. It is true that Lewis could have gained an advantage and that is why the rule exists, the fact he didn't in this case is beside the point!

Leslie

I think it would be more sensible to know the full and correct story just why Hamilton was short of fuel before making guesses and maybe getting it all wrong.

I agree with you about the harshness of the penalty and his outstanding lap time.

Les