Apparently not

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20531638

Quote :

its own rules appear to oblige it to do so.
Article 179b of the international sporting code says: "If, in events forming part of an FIA championship, a new element is discovered, whether or not the stewards of the meeting have already given a ruling, these stewards of the meeting or, failing this, those designated by the FIA must meet… summoning the party or parties concerned to hear any relevant explanations and to judge in the light of the facts and elements brought before them."
It adds: "The period during which an appeal in review may be brought expires on 30 November of the year during which the decision that is liable to review has been handed down, if that decision is likely to have an effect on the result of a championship."
That appears to give the FIA until Friday to resolve the situation one way or another.

I can't see, from the 'evidence' that Vettel did anything wrong if that flag was green and not blue.

Quote from GianniC :

No, cause the car has an issue then. Here it had no appearant issue.

Anyway, doesn't matter much as by seeing the images RE: the green flag on left and stuff it's borderline but yeah... Nobody, not even Ferrari, will protest as it's just not done. I also think that Alonso is pretty happy with P2 and being hailed as "the better driver" for that performance.

yyyeeehhh ssuuuurrreeee Ferrari and Alonso 'happy' with second.

Quote :

Andrew Benson ‏@andrewbensonf1
Ferrari trying to establish whether there is enough evidence to protest Sebastian Vettel for overtaking under yellow flags. Story soon

I don't think anything will come of it, but the motivation is certainly there!

Does anyone have the exact regulation that states that the flags supersede the lights?

Edit: I would need to read the F1 supplementary regulations. Anyone got them? lol That seems to affect it. If the lights were supplementing the flags then there is enough grey for Vettel to be OK, however if they were a 'replacement' then Ferrari have a case.

Last edited by Intrepid, Wed, 28 Nov 2012 22:02.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f ... &v=LFER0esusF0#t=577s

So he did make a 100% illegal pass... but the nature of the pass (TR lifting) would mean a penalty would be very harsh.

Quote from Stig209 :

This years RedBull was nowhere near superior! McLaren had possibly the best car of all but Vettel was able to take the champ. He had some luck but some unluck aswell (Valencia for example which was a pure lucky victory for Alonso)

The Redbull dominated several races, never was massively off the pace at any point, and got to the end of most of the races. While Hamilton in the McLaren over the season was probably the fastest package, the bleedin' thing had a habit of breaking down or failing. In retrospect I think there isn't a driver on the grid who would pick the McLaren over the RedBull once you factor in reliability (and reliability is a factor in assessing car performance and superiority). And anyway that reference was with regard to the RBR's performance against the Ferrari and I don't think any sane driver would rather have that Ferrari over the RBR.

Regarding Webber Boris. I don't regard Webber as a first class driver so he doesn't factor into any equation.

Quote from DarknessPainF1 :

Vettel is atm the best driver out there, deal with it

He was so good he only beat Alonso by three points in a far superior car.

I wonder what Hamilton did in a past life to deserve such crazy bad luck. haha Fairplay to Alonso, played the numbers game and nearly won. But it's twice now they've got so close, I am not sure Ferrari have it in them, not for another 10 years or so.

Quote from Myffe :

Holy **** that was a hard hit! Why do they race bikes on a street circuit, thats just stupid imo

Doing a skydive from the edge of space is stupid too.... some ppl are just born different

Quote from sinbad :

Vettel will almost certainly have the faster car. If they fight it out it might be clean but it wouldn't be "fair". That's f1; every year we argue about whether the champion "deserves it", when often they only have to be better than 1 other driver half the time.
The Ferrari is not as bad as people suggest. It might not have outright pace, but if Redbull knew how to make an alternator the championship would be over already. Both the challengers' teammates have made the car look bad at times. With RBR we say car good, Webber bad, but for some reason it's the other way round with Massa and Ferrari. We like to think Alonso is getting 101% from the Ferrari because it's a better underdog story.
People say we need Vettel to move to another team to prove he's a "great", but why? He should stay there and win every year, this is f1. If you want to compare drivers you need them all to go to one make formulae, or one team in f1 fielding 24 cars. Oh well, good season on the whole.

Yep. AGreed... i actually think the Renault is another car which is far better than it looks.

The reason F1 is so marketable though is the inherent conflict in the way the championship is promoted. We have a driver's championship which lavishes praise on any driver who wins, when in fact what the championship really represents is more of a constructor/driver recognition. With 80% of the performance based on the speed of the car.

The reason this is genius is because it allows the formation of fans and arguments between said fans. You have 12 pairs of drivers all competing in different cars. it means someone can be a fan of a certain driver, and state why they think they're the best, despite the fact they are two seconds slower. That lack of speed is legitimate of course, but it means that you can follow any drivers you want and praise them even when they are not winning.

But at the same time... there is nothing more infuriating than seeing a driver you don't rate winning the WDC and getting all the glory... again it's marketing gold!

An Alonso win would be better for the 'sport' so I wouldn't be surprised to see him come out on top with some weird thing happening.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

This may or may not end up being a good track for F1, but it's been fantastic for the support series. Porsche GT3 and Ferrari challenge. Tons of action

dirty side of the grid any problem?

Fair play to Ferrari... screwing over Massa.. THAT'S why having a clear #2 driver is essential in F1.

I think SkyFall was a middle of the road Bond movie. Didn't live up to the hype, but didn't fail to satisfy.

Red Lights - kinda interesting concept... but felt very poorly executed

Cockneys and Zombies... MUCH better film than it sounds!!!

Quote from thisnameistaken :

When the 50p rate was introduced, the most right-wing tories argued that this would put the burden of raising over 25% of income tax on the richest 1% of the population, and declared that this was unfair.

Did those people actually pay over 25% of income tax revenue for that year?

From the BBC, though despite being utterly detestable right now (not like I didn't tell you lot ), I trust these figures are right

Quote from Becky Rose :

Well it wasn't stated as a scientifically testable fact, but centre-left parties have been getting elected and then swinging to the right for quite a long time now :P Certainly polls and discussions here on this forum in the past have shown most of the Brits showing a left of centre, slightly anarchistic political disposition.

Well of course centre-left parties are far more electable. They promise more government, more help, more stuff - that's a vote winner. A centre right party saying "less government, less help etc...", despite in my opinion being far more financially viable, is FAR less electable. It's far easier being the politician that can fix all, than being one who says you really should get on with it yourself.

it's no surprise when they actually get into government and realise what they are actually promising only produces more debt and more problems do they have to do a u-turn... Hollande in France is having to reconsider some of his misguided socialistic policies.

And I think most britains a pretty much solidly centre, you just don't see them on Twitter etc... The Daily Mail is hugely successful and the most successful news site on the planet right now... while the Guardian is hemorrhaging money like there's no tomorrow. It's all about where you look.

Quote from Becky Rose :

I'm not being funny, but there is a sizable proportion of the working class who actually read and believe what it says in the Daily Mail and think that it is a newspaper - and that illegal immigrants get houses, cars, don't work and have luxury lifestyles and cause cancer in the rest of us.

On the flip side there are plenty on the other side who don't recognise the problems with the social system in this country. I know a couple state workers. one specifically in social care who tells me repeatedly how dillusionally left-wing everyone is. The system is exploited and goes un-noticed, hence why the Daily Mail can run (though obviously exaggerated) stories that catch the nation's mood. It's the Guardianista viewpoint to just say DM readers are all idiots and should be taken with a pinch of salt. that fuels people's anger, especially when fair points are raised. The DM is only a product of an ignored and ridiculed viewpoint.

And the majority of people in the UK being centre-left? Really?

Quote from thisnameistaken :

You also have an odd definition of the word 'success'. It's used by rich people to glorify rich people and skip over the bit where they exploited a lot of poor people and kept them poor in order to make a massive financial gain for themselves. And you're ignoring those who inherited their wealth or made their money by using inherited wealth. And you're ignoring the fact that these independently wealthy people were all fiddling their expenses and arguing that there should be no regulation in the financial system. I wonder how they arrived at that decision...
.

The financial system and regulations is a pointless discussion because we live within a fiat currency system. It's inherently exploitable. I am big into gold, and well, it's proved fair more stable for me than fiat money. I think a few years ago I told you lot to buy it when it was 800 USD and ounce... now it's 1700 But that's the inner libertarian in me speaking out.

This idea 'workers' are exploited... that's very socialistic a-level student talk. There are plenty of businesses that provide thousands of jobs and provide excellent products and services. i don't think people who start businesses, and provide jobs and growth should be activiely punished, especially when they are the ones providing most of the tax revenue. Don't forget the top 1% of earners in the UK pay over 25% of all income tax. But I guess they are all evil

Quote from Hyperactive :

How is that in any way socialism? Lol. Next time before you use those fancy words at least check wikipedia. You clearly have no idea at all what socialism is. You just use it to label stuff bad you do not personally like.

anti-wealth & anti-business rhetorique is very much a 'path to socialism'.

and I know what socialism and communism is... I was once a naive Che Guevara t-shirt wearing teenager too

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I suppose it would sound like that to someone who doesn't know what communism or socialism are.

I'm proposing a more democratic house, so if you were unhappy about the government leaning to the left you could actually do something about it. Y'know - how it's supposed to work.

Imposing a ban on wealthy business type individuals from holding positions in government sounds a lot like the path to socialism to me. You want a more democratic house yet you want to ban a certain section of society from running for office? doesn't sit right with me. The current system isn't perfect, but banning someone from running for office because they've happened to make a success out of their life is ridiculous to me

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Well I was thinking of a few simple rules that would make parliament more representative, and I thought excluding the independently wealthy and those with large private sector investments would be a good start,

Well, that sounds like thr beginnings of communism/socialism to me... and yh.. no thanks!

Quote from Rappa Z :

Just got this email from my brother. Really sums up how we both feel about the election.



Another part of his email brought up a story that no one has really talked about. Interesting, because we're going to need a new flag if the story carries through.

There's an inherent conflict with the Republicans that I think will take a long time to solve.

How can anyone who believes in true small-government justify wanting to 'run the show' as a president. "Hi, elect me so I can do nothing!" It's a very hard sell, and it will always come across as crony-capitalism. And as I said before anyone 'free-market' person tends to run businesses and actually get on with life which once again will raise questions about their 'motives' if they ever wanted to be pres.

The Republicans lost because their most attractive policy of small government and minimal economic interference has been hijacked by fundamentalists who have very unattractive views on death penalties, gay marriages etc... It presents a very confused image and makes them rather ugly. It's very hard to vote for Republicans even IF you agree with their economic vision (though is still more bias towards crony capitalism than free-market capitalism)

There is also another problem. The most talented people who are into free-markets, small government, low taxes 'tend' (I say that hesitantly) don't want to go into government jobs. They 'tend' to get good jobs, start their own businesses and become successful and wealthy individuals. And Romney proves even if this type of individual gets into politics they find it hard to 'relate' to the electorate.

Those who believe in social justice and distribution of wealth (and I hesitate again) tend to want to go into governmental jobs. You don't find many right-wingers working for the state (and I know several state workers who back that theory up). So the most talented and charismatic left wingers end up proving very popular politicians, because that's the obvious career route to take.

And that's why you end up with the charismatic and talent Obama trouncing someone like Romney... well that's my theory anyway

Quote from PMD9409 :

Actually most of the younger people here like Obama. It's the older ones that see something in Romney.

that's because young people are too naive to realise government bailing everyone out isn't viable, probably because on average their tax bill isn't too high. After years and years and years of paying tax older people generally get a little wiser to the game

Quote from CSF :

Yes we know the winglets were broken, but the nose itself shouldn't have been damaged in either impact... unless you mean the TV camera?

Sorry I mean cameras/winglet thigns, whatever the **** they are called.

Who knows how load/pressure is distributed through a wing when it ocntacts with something like a tyre or a distance board (how did he hit that? that's karma from when BUtton nearly hit him when he randomly stamped on the brakes behind a S/C a few races ago)

If this was 'normal' movement the mechanic would be thick as shit to try and lift it from that point and then revert to the centre of the nose to place his hand.

Actually, having looked at this, it's a broken wing. Look where the guy with the new wing positions his hands. It's the same as the guy trying to lift the wing pff the car. He lifts the winglet and it's snapped, and then moves his hand. It's broken, nothing more.

Better view http://www.youtube.com/watch?f ... mbedded&v=_JN0F5H29v0 . The mechanic holding the new one seems suspect, but maybe that's because we're looking for someone dodgy