Malaysian GP 2011 - Sepang

[CyleB]

^^ agreed if only for pit straight where the race starts. if the track were half as wide then there is no racing at the start until the first corner, where as here as soon as the lights go out its game on

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

No we don't - the rules are quite clear and make no exception for the start of the race.

Like I said the rules allow 1 movement. A failure to adhere to this is not a failure of my argument. It just means the stewards didnt act where they should have.
Allowing a weave is tantamount to killing racing. Having the guy drive and change direction whenever he wants at any point, absolves him of any guilt in an accident,
this is not correct IMO.

1 movement, once you move thats it, your bed is made.

[CyleB]

does this rule apply to the start since every car would be moving to get around the car in front... because there is no such rule for the car behind correct???

[volarchico]

I'm not arguing JET, but I have a question as to what is a "move": If bloke A is on the racing line, and moves right to defend against bloke B going down a straight, is he allowed to move back to the racing line before the next corner or is he now stuck in a compromised spot for the next corner?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I'm not arguing JET, but I have a question as to what is a "move": If bloke A is on the racing line, and moves right to defend against bloke B going down a straight, is he allowed to move back to the racing line before the next corner or is he now stuck in a compromised spot for the next corner?

This is exactly the risk reward measure the driver has to calculate before making the move. I get what both you and JAF are saying, I get it every weekend racing Go Karts. Some people will take you out by ensuring you gain no advantage at any point even if you are quicker.

a move can best be described as moving off the racing line, to stop or break a pass. This is actually allowed....once.
By allowing more, you allow a can of worms to be opened...

[chepoi]

Having seen this image it is clear that the track is way too wide. This made for an unreal start for Nike Heidfeld and others

Should FIA now revise their regulations for track design

I like wide tracks for exactly that reason. Multiple ways to get ahead.

me too. I like wide track. it gives more opportunity to overtake. If it narrow then people also complained about no overtaking and so on......

u might like no overtaking in F1 i think......

[hollus]

I'm not arguing JET, but I have a question as to what is a "move": If bloke A is on the racing line, and moves right to defend against bloke B going down a straight, is he allowed to move back to the racing line before the next corner or is he now stuck in a compromised spot for the next corner?

AFAIK, the rule, which is as much an agreement between all parts as a rule, as the definition of "move" is not written anywhere, says one move and back to the racing line is allowed.
So, effectively, if you started out of the racing line, you can only make 1 blocking move, but if you started in the racing line, you can move out of it once to block, and if you time it right, you can block a second time by going back to the racing line. For example, between two right handers, you'd typically start the straight in the left (racing line), you can move right when you want, and then you can move back left when you want, as it is back to the racing line and you would need to do it before the next corner anyways. Of course, if by then there was a car on your left, you are not allowed to push it off the track.

But again, is this actually a rule? Where is it written? I'd like to see the actual rule, sentence, formulation or whatever.

[keoxiv]

Quite funny review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh26n8rODYI

[marekk]

As for Vettels weave, I saw nothing like someone attempting to overtake him and he weaved to break airflow.

Hamilton was all over him. He moved every time Hamilton did. Weaving is weaving - doesn't matter if it's trying to "break airflow" (whatever that is) or any other reason.

The rule allows 1 movement, if he broke that then the stewards failed.

He moved more than once and thus broke the rule. Lots of drivers did it, both at the start and throughout the race. Only one lost points because of it though...

We need to be careful not to put the start of GP and jockeying for postion 5 or 6 cars abreast as the same as 1 car attempting an overtake on another and the guy spazzing out by moving to and fro.

No we don't - the rules are quite clear and make no exception for the start of the race.

You have stated that 1 movement is enough or it's going to be dangerous. The most dangerous period in the race is the first lap and the run to the first corner is when the cars are at their closest. Weaving here is more dangerous than at any other time but you think it's ok? Well, excuse me for not following the logic there...

I'm afraid if this rule has to be applied so strictly to the 1st corner run, then there will be only one possibility - all the cars moving to the outside of this corner forming nice looking queue. Hardly racing at all.

And as the cars are so close to each other, one can always argue that his 1st move was to defend Lewis, this second to defend Button, third to defend Webber ...

[beelsebob]

As for Vettels weave, I saw nothing like someone attempting to overtake him and he weaved to break airflow.

Hamilton was all over him. He moved every time Hamilton did. Weaving is weaving - doesn't matter if it's trying to "break airflow" (whatever that is) or any other reason.

The rule allows 1 movement, if he broke that then the stewards failed.

He moved more than once and thus broke the rule. Lots of drivers did it, both at the start and throughout the race. Only one lost points because of it though...

We need to be careful not to put the start of GP and jockeying for postion 5 or 6 cars abreast as the same as 1 car attempting an overtake on another and the guy spazzing out by moving to and fro.

No we don't - the rules are quite clear and make no exception for the start of the race.

You have stated that 1 movement is enough or it's going to be dangerous. The most dangerous period in the race is the first lap and the run to the first corner is when the cars are at their closest. Weaving here is more dangerous than at any other time but you think it's ok? Well, excuse me for not following the logic there...

I'm afraid if this rule has to be applied so strictly to the 1st corner run, then there will be only one possibility - all the cars moving to the outside of this corner forming nice looking queue. Hardly racing at all.

And as the cars are so close to each other, one can always argue that his 1st move was to defend Lewis, this second to defend Button, third to defend Webber ...

Your argument is a great argument why the one move rule is crap, but it's not a great argument why Vettel should not have been penalised. Both Vettel and Hamilton got good starts, the two were basically on their own – Vettel wove violently 4 times. As an aside – I considered Alonso and Hamilton's racing some of the best racing we've seen in a good long time. I find it very very sad that either driver was penalised for some of the best stuff we've seen.

[mx_tifoso]

It was know that Perez suffered a DNF because he was struck by debris from another car but now it turns out that it might have been ballast. And it happened to penetrate the tub and come close to his seat!

"Something was there on the track – we don't know if it was from a Toro Rosso or another team. When [Jaime] Alguersuari drove into it, it just came straight at me and into my car. It was a very dangerous situation because it came into the computer software box and it stopped just before my seat."

He will use a new tub in China because of this.

[andrew]

If it was ballast then would one of the cars not be underweight and declared illegal?

After Massa was hit by a spring in 2009 I would have thought that this would be something that the FIA would investigate and look to penalise the team who own said piece of debris?

[mx_tifoso]

Could it have been Petrov's? After landing from his airborne excursion some floor ballast could have come off...

Although one would have to see where Petrov went off and Perez hit the debris, and along with the timeframe. Possible Perez' incident happened before Petrov's. I fell asleep during the race so I'm a little fuzzy on the second half.

[andrew]

Perez retired on lap 23. Petrov didn't reach take off until lap 52.

It seems something fell of Buemi's car - source.

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/257428/perez-lucky-not-to-be-hurt-in-malaysia/

To top it all, his extinguisher went off!

[mx_tifoso]

Duh, I could have just checked the race results and I would have seen how many laps they did. Lazy me.

But yeah, I knew the extinguisher had gone off but I didn't know how serious the debris had been.