Massa crashes after being hit by heave spring

[modbaraban]

By the way, do you blame Clarke for killing Surtees?

How about that: had it been Alonso's wheel that killed Surtees, would you consider blaming Alonso and Renault for a tragedy that could have been avoided?

Yes. Not deliberately of course. But yes. The difference between Brawn's and Renault's 'failures' is that in Massa accident people are still guessing what really happened how and why that happened (the failure). In Renault's case even the TV viewers knew the wheel would surely come off before it actually happened, therefore I assume competent people on the pitwall knew that even earlier and just took the risk.

[Ray]

had the spring come off and killed Massa every single person here would agree with what I've said repeatedly.

Speak for yourself. By the way, do you blame Clarke for killing Surtees?

No I don't, and don't assume that I would. Clarke hit a wall and a wheel came off. Rubens was sent out with a suspect rear suspension, it failed, and it almost --- killed someone. Like I said before, had Massa been killed by that spring everyone and their damn brother would be foaming at the mouth wanting to know why the hell Brawn sent that car out knowing something was suspect. This could have been avoided completely. READ. You just might learn something. FFS.

[andartop]

By the way, do you blame Clarke for killing Surtees?

How about that: had it been Alonso's wheel that killed Surtees, would you consider blaming Alonso and Renault for a tragedy that could have been avoided?

Yes. Not deliberately of course. But yes. The difference between Brawn's and Renault's 'failures' is that in Massa accident people are still guessing what really happened how and why that happened (the failure). In Renault's case even the TV viewers knew the wheel would surely come off before it actually happened, therefore I assume competent people on the pitwall knew that even earlier and just took the risk.

I don't think that's the only difference. Another one would be that in Brawn's case an accident did happen, and someone got hurt, whereas in the Renault case it didn't. An obvious similarity is that in both cases, I'm 100% sure, there was no intent to cause any harm. Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure consequences of one's actions are taken into consideration when one decides on a possible penalty, whether there was an intention to cause harm or not.
Think about it this way: one drives while he is drunk, he knows he is drunk, and he gets off the road causing only some damage to his car. Should he be fined? Would he be fined?
One drives while he is drunk, he doesn't know he is drunk, but he knows he had a few more than he should have as he spent the best part of his day down the pub with his mates. He gets off the road and runs over a little baby boy, inflicting skull fractures and a severe concussion. Should he be fined? Would he be fined? Would he be more than fined?
I'm not saying here the FIA should have punished Brawn, as I don't know exactly what the regulations predict about such incidents. But it is schizophrenic, to say the least, to punish Renault and not Brawn!

[dave34m]

Well Renault is appealling and there is an investigation into the whole Massa incident, so we will find out more in good time.

Some people get a little carried away when others won't agree with them and I dont think that that is called for. No sense abusing peole just because they have a different view. Maybe some people need to start taking their meds again.

[WhiteBlue]

had the spring come off and killed Massa every single person here would agree with what I've said repeatedly.

Speak for yourself. By the way, do you blame Clarke for killing Surtees?

I have to assume you are joking. Even then it isn't a good joke. In fact it is a bad joke!!!! Go, find a quiet corner and do some praying for your sins.

[Diesel]

had the spring come off and killed Massa every single person here would agree with what I've said repeatedly.

Speak for yourself. By the way, do you blame Clarke for killing Surtees?

No I don't, and don't assume that I would. Clarke hit a wall and a wheel came off. Rubens was sent out with a suspect rear suspension, it failed, and it almost --- killed someone. Why the --- can't you and others in this forum not make that connection?! Are you stupid, can you not read? Like I said before, had Massa been killed by that spring everyone and their damn brother would be foaming at the mouth wanting to know why the hell Brawn sent that car out knowing something was suspect. But you, and other people can't make that connection. Instead you ask stupid questions about two situations that had completely different causes, or act like this was some 'freak' accident. This could have been avoided completely. READ. You just might learn something. FFS.

I've said my part, the answer is simple. This is Formula 1, it's dangerous, if you don't like it go watch snail racing or something.

[bar555]

Brawn's rear suspension third spring






weight 700-800 grams

[myurr]

I don't think that's the only difference. Another one would be that in Brawn's case an accident did happen, and someone got hurt, whereas in the Renault case it didn't. An obvious similarity is that in both cases, I'm 100% sure, there was no intent to cause any harm. Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure consequences of one's actions are taken into consideration when one decides on a possible penalty, whether there was an intention to cause harm or not.
Think about it this way: one drives while he is drunk, he knows he is drunk, and he gets off the road causing only some damage to his car. Should he be fined? Would he be fined?
One drives while he is drunk, he doesn't know he is drunk, but he knows he had a few more than he should have as he spent the best part of his day down the pub with his mates. He gets off the road and runs over a little baby boy, inflicting skull fractures and a severe concussion. Should he be fined? Would he be fined? Would he be more than fined?
I'm not saying here the FIA should have punished Brawn, as I don't know exactly what the regulations predict about such incidents. But it is schizophrenic, to say the least, to punish Renault and not Brawn!

For me there is one very very clear difference. For Brawn whilst they suspected failure of the part, they would have reasonably expected this to only affect their car and not leave debris on the track. Ditto for Vettel in the race when his front suspension failed.

In Renaults case they would have suspected failure and knew that the consequence of that failure would have been guaranteed debris on the race track.

There's nothing schizo about it - it's all about foreseeable outcomes and Brawn could not have foreseen Massa's unfortunate accident, whereas everyone and their dog knew that the Renault was going to lose that wheel at some point.

[modbaraban]

Read the posts by Diesel and myurr, cause that's what I was saying. Hopefully they aren't both schizophrenic idiots like me, are they? And I'm not going to answer inflamatory posts. This isn't going enywhere. Enough said.

[xpensive]

For what it's worth modbaraban, I'm with you on this issue. The Renault wheel thing was obviously down to human error, clearly without intent, while Brawn failing to safely secure a permanent component to the chassis, could be considered grossly negligent.

To slap renault with a race-ban is thus out of proportion and context to my mind.

[ISLAMATRON]

For what it's worth modbaraban, I'm with you on this issue. The Renault wheel thing was obviously down to human error, clearly without intent, while Brawn failing to safely secure a permanent component to the chassis, could be considered grossly negligent.

To slap renault with a race-ban is thus out of proportion and context to my mind.

again you are failing to recognize that the team ever notified Alonso, even after he radioed in to tell them he thought he had a flat, that is for damn sure gross neglegence

[Ray]

Xpensive, Renault never told Alonso the wheel was loose even after he radioed them saying he thought he had a flat. That was after they sent the car out knowing full well the wheel wasn't even close to being on all the way. I would say that was much more dangerous than what happened with Brawn, even though I think they both deserve a penalty.

[jddh1]

Xpensive, Renault never told Alonso the wheel was loose even after he radioed them saying he thought he had a flat. That was after they sent the car out knowing full well the wheel wasn't even close to being on all the way. I would say that was much more dangerous than what happened with Brawn, even though I think they both deserve a penalty.

But you don't ban a team for that. You fine the heck out of them, but not ban them from a race.

I think the FIA is doing this on purpose to push Renault to quit F1 and I guess prove their point that car makers can leave the sport whenever they want.
/end conspiracy theory

[Diesel]

Under normal circumstances it would have been a fine. It's just because of the unfortunate recent turn of events the FIA has had to been seen to be doing something, so Renault have been made an example of.

[andartop]

I'm afraid my post might have been misunderstood.

My opinion is that neither Renault nor Brawn should be punished. (And surely not Piquet Jr!!!)

Since they had to punish the one, they should have also punished the other, given the fact that an accident did happen, with severe consequences. In a Court of Law, the last time I checked, negligence was punishable according to the consequences it inflicted upon others.
However, someone more knowledgeable than me might be able to inform us whether the Sporting Code predicts any punishment or not for such an incident.

For me, the FIA reacted in an unbelieavably immature manner, obviously due to panic.
I 'm pretty sure Renault would have only received a fine (if anything at all) had it not been for the previous two incidents, which makes the whole thing quite hypocritical.
It begs the question though, why didn't the Race Director black flag Alonso straight away, if this whole deal was anything other than a ridiculous attempt by the FIA to find a scapegoat? And why didn't the Race Director face the sack since he allowed Alonso to complete a full lap, failing to inform him of the severe danger as his Team should, as it was so obvious to everyone from the moment he left the pitlane that that wheel was going to come off?

As for medieval style helmets or fighter plane style canopies, I was just wondering why no one suggested anything has to change in rallying as well after the death of Flavio Gugelmini in the Bulgarian Rally, or the many others who die so often in that form of motorsport? Is death more acceptable in some sports than others? Or should we just accept that motorsport in general was, is and always going to be a risky business?