Roland Ehnström wrote:The Hamilton penalty must have been a mistake, since his car was stationary at the time - he was the reason for the safety car in the first place!
Linda Hardy wrote:never knew there was such a thing as speeding behind the safety car, if they were speeding wouldn't they of hit the car in front of them, so does that mean the car in front was speeding also, and so on and so on, interesting one though.
I don't know the rule , in fact I didn't know there was such a rule ....the safety car sets the pace and you follow the car in front of you ......
FIA Sporting Regulation 2011 wrote:40.7
All competing cars must reduce speed and form up in line behind the safety car no more than ten car lengths apart.
In order to ensure that drivers reduce speed sufficiently, from the time at which the “SAFETY CAR DEPLOYED” message is shown on the timing monitors until the time that each car crosses the first safety car line for the second time, drivers must stay above the minimum time set by the FIA ECU.
Pup wrote:It's doubly strange, since the minimum lap time should still allow the cars to catch up to the safety car under normal conditions. There should be no way at all that a car that's already up to the safety car should be in danger of catching a penalty.
Here are the lap times in question, btw, which someone posted on atlas -
andrew wrote:The Radio 5 commentary said was because they had gone faster than their delta time so are deemed to have been speeding.
andrew wrote:It's not to do with teh fastest. I think it is based on a target time.
Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], FoxHound, Gettingonabit, Google [Bot], HVS5b, Yandex [Bot] and 11 guests