Race #09, Europe: Post-Race Checks

As usual, send all appeals to fsradmin(at)gmail(dot)com. The appeal deadline is 23:26 GMT on Friday, June 25th.

Bono Huis

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 16, 36
Penalty: N/A

Rasmus Tali

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 16, 35
Penalty: N/A

Bruno Marques

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 15, 36
Penalty: N/A

Jaakko Mikkonen

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 18, 35
Penalty: N/A

Fredrik Nilsson

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 17, 35
Penalty: N/A

Mathieu Prevot

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 13, 34
Penalty: N/A

Lee Morris

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 14, 35
Penalty: N/A

David Greco

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 13, 33
Penalty: N/A

Mikko Puumalainen

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 15, 32
Penalty: N/A

Dennis Hirrle

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 12, 34
Penalty: N/A

Karol Poniatowski

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 26
Penalty: N/A

David Dominguez

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 14, 30
Penalty: N/A

Blair Disley

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 13, 29
Penalty: 1 Penalty point for Incident #1. Start from pit lane in the next race for reaching 3 Penalty points.

Agustin Canapino

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 14, 30
Penalty: N/A

Patrick De Wit

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 15, 19, 25, 38, 51
Penalty: 1 Penalty point for Incident #3.

John-Eric Saxen

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 3, 17, 34
Penalty: N/A

Ronny Hähnel

Q1: Clean
Log: Clean
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: Lap 12
Penalty: N/A

Atze Kerkhof

Q1: Started from the back of the grid
Log: Save All Replay Sessions="0"
Launch Control: Used
Pitstop: N/A
Penalty: Official Warning for log infraction.

Incidents:

#1
Driver(s) Involved John-Eric Saxen / Blair Disley
Lap/Replay Time Lap1 /Corner 1 / Replay Time: 3:29
Protest Description Saxen brakes in sync with cars around him for turn 1 and has to slow down due to the queueing effect. Disley does not observe this enough and approaches with too much speed, hits Saxen who suffers clear damage, forcing Saxen to make an extra pit stop.

Review: The pack is heading in to T2, Disley doesn't brake enough and hits Saxen, spinning him and causing damage.

Verdict: 1 Penalty point for Blair Disley.
#2
Driver(s) Involved Haehnel, Morris
Lap/Replay Time 4:56
Protest Description Morris in attempt to overtake Haehnel gets too much on a curb which throws him back on Haehnel and causes him front suspension damage.

Review: Morris attempts to overtake Hähnel in T25. Hähnel doesn't leave much room, so there is little margin for error. Morris turns in a bit too much which causes him to go over the inside curb. After that he makes a steering correction which causes him to hit Hähnel.

Verdict: Racing Incident.
#3
Driver(s) Involved Haehnel, De Wit
Lap/Replay Time 32:39
Protest Description De Wit loses control of his car under braking and hits Haehnel. Haehnel gets terminal suspension damage and is forced to retire.

Review: De Wit and Hähnel are heading in to T7 closely together. De Wit attempts to brake on the outside line, but brakes too late and loses control of his car. His car starts to move to the right, while Hähnel is moving slightly to the left to try to eliminate any extra room from De Wit. De Wit hits Hähnel which causes suspension damage to both cars. Hähnel stalls his engine after the incident while trying to get going again.

Verdict: 0.5 Penalty points for Patrick De Wit (2x for DNF).
 
Without analysing yet whether we agree with the review of the incident or not, I would like to point out that there's a mistake with Patrick's penalty, as Patrick did not DNF, he is classified 5 laps down, with over 90% of completed laps. Thanks.
 

David Greco

100RPM
Yes Patrick didn't, but Ronny did! As written in the review, the incident is what caused Ronny to DNF, and probably Mikko was pointing out just that in the penalty given, that the x2 is for causing Ronny to DNF
 
Driver(s) Involved Haehnel, Morris
Lap/Replay Time 4:56
Protest Description Morris in attempt to overtake Haehnel gets too much on a curb which throws him back on Haehnel and causes him front suspension damage.

Review: Morris attempts to overtake Hähnel in T25. Hähnel doesn't leave much room, so there is little margin for error. Morris turns in a bit too much which causes him to go over the inside curb. After that he makes a steering correction which causes him to hit Hähnel.

Verdict: Racing Incident.

im glad this came to nothing...

Suspension damage ? we hardly touched lol ? would be extremley suprised if it did cause suspension issues for him.

And im glad you pointed out there was very little room left.. as thats why i had to go on the kerb in the first place which basicaly threw me into him..

Thanks for the fair review mikko, appreciate it !
 
Without analysing yet whether we agree with the review of the incident or not, I would like to point out that there's a mistake with Patrick's penalty, as Patrick did not DNF, he is classified 5 laps down, with over 90% of completed laps. Thanks.
Yep he is classified but he did not finish because he had an engine failure.

If there was no 2x DNF rule then I would've given him the 1 Penalty point directly.
 
i hitted Haehnel yes not really sure if he had terminal damage i think he just stalled
Anyway i am sorry for this i lost the rear under braking and slide into him
sorry mate
i accept the penalty
 
Yes Patrick didn't, but Ronny did! As written in the review, the incident is what caused Ronny to DNF, and probably Mikko was pointing out just that in the penalty given, that the x2 is for causing Ronny to DNF
No, Mikko is applying a rule which says that you get twice the penalty if you DNF. Patrick apologized for the incident and we do not have any intention to appeal the 0.5 points penalty that was imposed. The problem is that Mikko shouldn't be aplying that rule in this case, since Patrick finished the race!

Rules are very clear, with over 90% of the leader's laps completed, the driver is classified as a finisher, even elegible to score points. It never says that if you suffer a mechanical failure after completing over 90% it's different. Mechanical failure with 5 laps to go or being lapped 5 times during the race is exactly the same thing.
 
No, Mikko is applying a rule which says that you get twice the penalty if you DNF. Patrick apologized for the incident and we do not have any intention to appeal the 0.5 points penalty that was imposed. The problem is that Mikko shouldn't be aplying that rule in this case, since Patrick finished the race!

Rules are very clear, with over 90% of the leader's laps completed, the driver is classified as a finisher, even elegible to score points. It never says that if you suffer a mechanical failure after completing over 90% it's different. Mechanical failure with 5 laps to go or being lapped 5 times during the race is exactly the same thing.
The way I looked at it was this:

You need to reach the chequered flag to finish, if you reach 90% distance but fail to get the chequered flag, you are eligible for points (classified) but you still DNF.

Now, if this is the wrong way to look at it, then I can just remove the 2x DNF part and directly give 1 penalty point. Like I mentioned in my last post, the idea was to ensure Pat was given 1 penalty point for the incident. If I had left the 2x DNF part out, it's possible that other people would be saying the opposite of what you are saying now.
 
The way I looked at it was this:

You need to reach the chequered flag to finish, if you reach 90% distance but fail to get the chequered flag, you are eligible for points (classified) but you still DNF.

Now, if this is the wrong way to look at it, then I can just remove the 2x DNF part and directly give 1 penalty point. Like I mentioned in my last post, the idea was to ensure Pat was given 1 penalty point for the incident. If I had left the 2x DNF part out, it's possible that other people would be saying the opposite of what you are saying now.
When I first saw the penalty, I really thought you had just overlooked the fact that Patrick had completed 90%, never thought we would disagree on such a basic thing as when does a driver finish a race or not. :DBut either way, the spirit of the 2x rule was to add further penalty to a driver who retired and as such, had no chance of scoring points anyway. If by completing 90% you can score points, it shouldn't apply.

If the 2x rule is associated with physically crossing the line and not the 90% distance, then if one of my drivers has to retire for any reason, even without completing 90%, I should advice him to remain parked in the pits and then cross the finish line at the end of the race to be safe, just in case. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Btw, if you thought the penalty deserved 1 point but gave 0.5 so that 0.5 x 2 = 1, then what do we have the rule for? (not that I think we should have it, the rule itself doesn't make any sense at all, in my opinion).
 
Btw, if you thought the penalty deserved 1 point but gave 0.5 so that 0.5 x 2 = 1, then what do we have the rule for? (not that I think we should have it, the rule itself doesn't make any sense at all, in my opinion).
Because it was part of the rules that the TOA voted on before the season started, but if you are saying I can pick and choose which rules to apply from the rulebook then so be it :).
 
Christian, there is no point to argue, Patrick caused an incident where another driver retired, and he is given a penalty point for it, whether he finished or not.
It's that simple. Maybe it would be a better idea to work on driving level, instead of complaining about deserved penalties every single time. It doesn't really increase credibility to say the least.

I think Mikko is doing a great job, we don't like it to be diminished every time with useless discussions about nothing, just for the sake of the polemics.
As you know you can appeal the verdict, so if you want to do that, there's the right procedure for it.
 
Christian, there is no point to argue, Patrick caused an incident where another driver retired, and he is given a penalty point for it, whether he finished or not.
It's that simple. Maybe it would be a better idea to work on driving level, instead of complaining about deserved penalties every single time. It doesn't really increase credibility to say the least.

I think Mikko is doing a great job, we don't like it to be diminished every time with useless discussions about nothing, just for the sake of the polemics.
As you know you can appeal the verdict, so if you want to do that, there's the right procedure for it.
Dennis, I'm very surprized by your post, since I'm not argueing with anyone. I absolutely never complain about penalties either. If you check all past "post-race checks" thread of the season, I believe this is the first time I post on one. I did this time simply because, as I said, I thought Mikko had made a mistake, and thought he would correct it inmediately. Directors have lots of things to check so they can overlook something once in a while, I thought that was the case, I obviously was wrong. If I would have had a problem with the incident review or the penalty itself, I would have appealed the formal way, which we have no intention to do, since we agree with his review.

I never dimished Mikko's work, since I agree with you that he is doing a great job. While we can disagree on the view of some rules or incidents, I never said anything against him. I really don't think Mikko feels the way you say, if he does, I apologize, it was never my intention.

PS: There is no driving level problem, it seems you didn't watch the race. The incident happened only because Patrick lost control of his own car due to brake issues, which many teams experienced in Valencia. While I'm sorry for Hahnel, it was something unfortunate, he never tried to make a risky move or anything. He didn't cause Hahnel's retirement either, his car was OK to continue until he stalled the engine. Patrick still apologized and we accepted the penalty.
 
Heh....ok Christian. :rolleyes:
Ironic smilies or not, it's correct. It's the first time I post on a post-race check thread all season. When we believed it was necessary, we made formal appeals, but we never complained about any penalties, it's not my style. Anyway, I don't understand why did you make such a fuss about a simple discussion about a different rule interpretation, but I prefer to stop it here, doesn't make sense to keep it going.
 
Because I well know what happened after China, for example, and it's getting a bit annoying. It's not important if this was your first public fuss of the year, you'd expect me to be in contact with the directors and therefore I'm aware of the consistent moaning or pressuring, in all categories, by many teams.
There is a Director who decides things, according to rules that were voted by the TOA in the winter, including your team.
That's it. If there should be a discussion about rules, I don't understand why it isn't done in the TOA which is the (only) organ that can actually change / assess them.

But I thank you for stopping anyway, good decision.
 
Because I well know what happened after China, for example, and it's getting a bit annoying. It's not important if this was your first public fuss of the year, you'd expect me to be in contact with the directors and therefore I'm aware of the consistent moaning or pressuring
No comments....... it seems you don't even read (or think) what you write.
 
Top Bottom