Following the demotion of Ron Dennis as the company's chief, McLaren Technology Group has announced that Zak Brown has accepted the position of Executive Director. The former McLaren F1 driver is set to start work in December.
The new TD (introduced after Silverstone) says that in case of car problems, the team must tell the driver to either return the car to the pits immediately, or to retire the car. They didn't, and instead allowed him to stay out, triggering the penalty.Alonso Fan wrote:Well maybe they're not being consistent. Rosberg received a similar message but only got a 10 second penalty. Why give button a drive through?
Because they just have a jar with several penalties in it... 10 second penalty, drive through, 5 second penalty, 5 place grid penalty. Whenever they investigate a case, they just take a paper out the jar. That's how consistent they are.Alonso Fan wrote:Well maybe they're not being consistent. Rosberg received a similar message but only got a 10 second penalty. Why give button a drive through?
Well yes I suppose, given the way it is written. But I think you have to look at the context and the intent of the rule, it most definitely needs changing if this is the outcome.diffuser wrote:cooken wrote:It is really just embarrassing, that the FIA continues to dole out penalties with almost no consistency or clarity, and certainly no perspective.
Who gives a F about driver coaching in a dangerous situation where any number of things could be going on with the car. All Jenson can do is feel the brake pedal and flip through a couple of pages on his wheel. He can only guess at what the actual issue is vs his engineers who have a wealth of data to pinpoint exactly what is wrong. How is he supposed to know what to do exactly, in order to maintain the car in a safe condition? Did his team coaching him really benefit him in any way, HE WAS ALREADY DROPPED TO LAST PLACE CHARLIE.
Ironically, if you want consitancy, it doesn't matter if the driver is in 1st place or 3 laps down a penalty is a penalty.
Don't mix up "not liking the rule" with consitancy. They are being rather consistant about it. I agree they we're NOT really clear that they were penalizing the "stop shifting coment".
They can always create some secret codes like this ones hahaha.graham.reeds wrote:I think the teams should be able to tell them by other means.
"Jenson, we are PMing you the fix on Twitter. If you need a diagram we've posted it to Instagram"
"Lewis, Paddy Lowe will show you how to turn off the warning message on your dash via the power of interpretive dance. Look for him on the pit wall"
I don't like the rule but I have no problem with the fact that they penalized JB even though he was already last. If that was a Merc instead of a McLaren, a drive through penalty might have made a difference of 4 points. Merc would have probably still been able to finish in the points. You suggesting that the stewards apply the penalty depending on the team or teams pace?cooken wrote:Well yes I suppose, given the way it is written. But I think you have to look at the context and the intent of the rule, it most definitely needs changing if this is the outcome.diffuser wrote:cooken wrote:It is really just embarrassing, that the FIA continues to dole out penalties with almost no consistency or clarity, and certainly no perspective.
Who gives a F about driver coaching in a dangerous situation where any number of things could be going on with the car. All Jenson can do is feel the brake pedal and flip through a couple of pages on his wheel. He can only guess at what the actual issue is vs his engineers who have a wealth of data to pinpoint exactly what is wrong. How is he supposed to know what to do exactly, in order to maintain the car in a safe condition? Did his team coaching him really benefit him in any way, HE WAS ALREADY DROPPED TO LAST PLACE CHARLIE.
Ironically, if you want consitancy, it doesn't matter if the driver is in 1st place or 3 laps down a penalty is a penalty.
Don't mix up "not liking the rule" with consitancy. They are being rather consistant about it. I agree they we're NOT really clear that they were penalizing the "stop shifting coment".
Not trying to suggest that, but I appreciate it is hard to avoid when you leave any wiggle room. I just mean that JB went from top 10 to last in one lap due to an engineering issue (non-driver related). Clearly this wasn't a driver aid issue, they just helped him get the car back to being safe and driveable. The driver aid rule, at least from my understanding, was to avoid engineers coaching the drivers in order to improve overall pace (lap/race time). It's not like he was all of a sudden able to brake deeper or carry more corner speed. As implemented the drivers are also having to diagnose and solve complex engineering problems albeit with very limited data. Its utter nonsense.diffuser wrote: I don't like the rule but I have no problem with the fact that they penalized JB even though he was already last. If that was a Merc instead of a McLaren, a drive through penalty might have made a difference of 4 points. Merc would have probably still been able to finish in the points. You suggesting that the stewards apply the penalty depending on the team or teams pace?
Once you make rule that leaves an opening for interpretation, it will get interpreted unfairly cause the stewards change at every race,
Not sure how I got on this side of this discussion..any-ways....I'll play the devil's advocate.bauc wrote:The difference is that JB had clearly a safety issue with the braking pedal going to the floor, where ROS had a performance issue, so overall this rule is ridiculous
Makes sense if you compare them to Williams. Well at least Williams in the two previous seasons, who were notorius for struggling at specific circuits.diffuser wrote:http://it.motorsport...ferrari-802379/
You have a good opinion of your chassis, but it was expected more of tracks like Monaco.
"We believe that our chassis is from top-3, we say that they can fight with Ferrari for third place. Monaco was a bit 'disappointing, but we know what happened. The problem was related to tire management. "
What you are missing compared to the Red Bull chassis?
"It 's difficult to make comparisons, we should compare high, low and medium speed. If you have more power you can use a higher downforce. But more downforce also means more drag, which can not deal with because we do not have enough horses. When Honda brings an update, we need to make an aerodynamic upgrade, which brings more downforce and drag, and it works. But now we have to be very efficient aerodynamically to not be penalized in terms of maximum speed ".
The efficient bit actually really does hold water when you consider the fact that their relative position is consistent no matter what type of track it is. The tracks they will suffer is those were all teams take significant downforce off because they then lose some of their aerodynamic efficiency advantage.diffuser wrote:http://it.motorsport...ferrari-802379/
You have a good opinion of your chassis, but it was expected more of tracks like Monaco.
"We believe that our chassis is from top-3, we say that they can fight with Ferrari for third place. Monaco was a bit 'disappointing, but we know what happened. The problem was related to tire management. "
What you are missing compared to the Red Bull chassis?
"It 's difficult to make comparisons, we should compare high, low and medium speed. If you have more power you can use a higher downforce. But more downforce also means more drag, which can not deal with because we do not have enough horses. When Honda brings an update, we need to make an aerodynamic upgrade, which brings more downforce and drag, and it works. But now we have to be very efficient aerodynamically to not be penalized in terms of maximum speed ".
Tim Goss. Has been with McLaren for a very long time.PABLOEING » 27 Jul 2016, 11:17
¿Need McLaren to James Allison ?¿Who is the McLaren role in his area?
