Barrichello's "poor" start at Indy?

[sashton]

Is it just me or is anybody else suspicious of Barrichello's poor start at the US GP?

He slipped from P2 to P5 holding up all those behind him on the right of the grid (including title contender Juan Pablo) while Schumacher was able to "jump" from P7 to P4.

Later, of course, he was closely involved in the incident which sealed Juan Pablo's title chances ...

And team orders are banned?

[Sarcastically ] Good work Rubens! Job done!

[Mr V]

Don't think it was anything "un-toward" after all, both he and JPM had bad starts and they lined up in front/behind one another.

[esorniloc]

Well if it his orders were to distroy Montoya's chances he had a goldern opertunaty a couple of laps later. He could have taken both out, if that were his `orders'.

So I don't think so, it was just a bad start!

[Redblurr]

ITVs Ted Kravitz touched on this when asked about team orders:

Rubens himself said that he had a bad gear change, then the automatic up shift failed and he had to switch to the manual system. This all cost him time. I’m not sure it did hold up Montoya, as he had his own bad start (Williams’ Sam Michael said this was either down to being on the dirty side of the grid or the track being slightly wet after the pre-race rain). However, it did look like Rubens braked early for turn 1, holding JPM behind him and letting Michael take 4th position. Did this make Juan Pablo angry with Rubens? Did it provoke Montoya’s ambitious move on Barrichello the following lap?

Read the rest here; http://www.itv-f1.com/asktheteam/asktheteam_story/18167

I think it may just be the dirty side of the grid and both RB & JPM had bad starts.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by esorniloc
So I don't think so, it was just a bad start!

I agree.

With all that is going on it would be practically impossible for Rubens to engineer that.

If (which I don't beleive they were) Ferrari wanted to play like that then it would have been better for Rubens to be further up front to come into play later when Ferrari knew what was going on. For instance with Montoya making a good start it might have been more important to 'hinder' Kimi. So if that was Ferrari's plan then it was a daft one.

BTW Welcome to ten-tenths. However I think that one can be put to bed!

[avsfan733]

im sorry but thats rediclous, RB was just as important to the Constructors championship, and got hit from behind...right...team orders

[Splatz the Cow]

Just a racing incident I feel.

Montoya chose a lower percentage chance to succesfully get Rubens rather than wait, and it really failed in many ways.

I think most people here can see he was trying to get through and past Rubens at the earliest possibility to catch the leaders but he picked the wrong fight.

You can't force someone to moveover, as he was trying, when they have less to lose than you. Montoya got his priorities wrong there.

The opposition have too much to gain by holding him up and hindering him, and even more if he goes of due to a racing incident. That didn't happen, but he unfairly knocked Rubens not just wide but off the track, and the FIA have threatened to be strict on this, (although that does not necessarily mean consistant,) and it does not matter whether the driver was Rubens, Firman, Kimi or Kiesa - he did knock him too wide and off the track. Had Rubens stayed on the track they may have been less strict.

But now Montoya should know that he can't treat other drivers as if they will be fair to him, when the championship is at stake. For different reasons and circumstances, its the same mistake Damon Hill made in Adelaide. Both drivers should have kept a minimum of 2 metres away from the opposition who had a (in)vested interest in an accident occuring. The reward is too great and there is no penalty or rule from the FIA that can enforce or punish enough, Motoya's rival, should he be knocked off, for whatever reason or circumstance, including racing incident. There is no protection for the title challengers other than to STAY WELL AWAY from their rivals.

We should remeber that this is something that Prost and Senna exploited against one another to win the world drivers championship.

But even so, that doesn't change anything. If the situations are reversed next year, the concept of lack of protection still exists, even if it is - just an accident.


Something that I suggest would give greater protection is for a team to be punished if one of their drivers knocks somebody off - give BOTH cars a drive through penalty.

Before you think I have gone out to pasture to feed on the fallow, consider the following scenario:




Suzuka 2003
Current situation exists in the points standings.

For the sake of the argument, Kimi is leading by 20 seconds, but on a different fuel strategy.

Michael came out of the pits behind Coulthard after picking up a puncture. Coulthard is running a long stint in twelveth.

Michael is very patient and follows for two laps but the gap to Kimi has gone from 32seconds to 35 now.

On the next lap Scumacher takes the oppurtunity to pass and gets it done. Coulthard tries to come back the next lap drafting him through 130R to the chicane helped by the extra wing on the Ferrari, Coulthard makes the move prior to the chicane.

He is deep into the corner aggressively forcing Michael off line.

With lightened fuel load and brake bias not adjusted accordingly and worn tyres - Coulthard locks up - slams into the front right of the Ferarri sheering of the stays that hold the wheel, the wing and suspension are gone.

Coulthard, half on track, keeps the revs up and drags the car and loads of dirt onto the track. With major flat spots and now no front wing or nose cone, he pits the next lap 3 minutes later.

But for Michael the world championship is over. Is that fair? No. But Coulthard is black flagged - a drive-through penalty, and later has to pull out due to a front suspension failure.

But the championship looks to be going to Kimi, until he also is given a drive through penalty for the Coulthard accident.

The harshness of this new rule is devasting. But the team has been made responsible for the actions of both its drivers. Coulthard is cleared of any further siciplinary action after an inquiry, and the crash is described as an avoidable incident.

====================================

To me this kind of scenario seems like fair punishment, and provides good protection for the title challengers, whether they are leading the points or not. Had Coulthard known about that sort of rule before the race he may have been less careless, knowing that his performance would reflect against his teammate's.

I really think this has potential, what do you goes think?

<Splatz puts hides behind desk to avoid any tomatoes coming his way>

PS. Cheers, and best of wishes and luck to all Schumacher and Raikkonen fans for Suzuka, and I hope the only blag flag we see has white squares on it.

[ralf fan]

Yeah Rubens, could not have predicted the JPM will get a bad start etc. etc.... just a racing in incident

[DriverT]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ some people are so biased against Ferrari that they believe that if a Ferrari driver has a good start they are cheating, and if they have a bad start they are cheating. What are they supposed to do?

[Gt_R]

Darn... some pro-JPM/Anti-Ferrari people actually find it easier to blame Ferrari for Montoya's exit from the WDC than to admit that on both incident, JPM is the one that screwed up his own chance.

Be suspicious all you want. But it is absolutely stupid for anybody to think it'd really work out by having Rubens make a bad start. if anything, they had more to lose..what if JPM (reputedly with a fast starting Williams) get by RB? Ferrari would lose in both the WCC and WDC stakes. The sensible thing is RB gets off well and only assist somewhere around mid-race only if the situation persist.

Don't let the blinded jealousy cloud your logic, if you would please.

If anything, it has more to do with starting on the bad side.

Sure, upon the first corner, maybe RB took it easy to let Michael through and conviently kept JPM behind. But it's perfectly correct AND logical not to risk taking out your teammate. But at the start, there's no doubt that RB's clean.

As for the clash, some sensible guys thankfully have noted that "JPM chose a lower percentage chance to succesfully get Rubens rather than wait". It's not that JPM made a stupid move..he merely miscalculated, and was over-impatient to squeeze through and it cost him. To think that RB took JPM out is an insult to RB's character. Both incidents were clearly NOT Rubens, let alone Ferrari's, fault and to blame them for JPM's misfortunes is extremely childish.

Team Orders? Better watch out for Williams and Mclaren helping each other overcome Michael in the next race instead. They aren't the clean angels.. Heck.

Quote:"some people are so biased against Ferrari that they believe that if a Ferrari driver has a good start they are cheating, and if they have a bad start they are cheating. What are they supposed to do?"

Indeed...some things are so blatantly ridiculous...you wonder what the critics were thinking with.

PS. This post is emotional, yes, but at least it is a justifiable retort to the unjustifiable accusations. It's not a personal attack, but if those who read feels it's directed at them, then think about it..."WHY??"