Posts 
Atom Attempting to discuss things about Monaco has proved a frustrating experience. I am accustomed to being in discussions and even arguments about contentious bits of the race. I am not accustomed to major events happening in a race with seemingly only me noticing.
Firstly, the crash that caused the red flag. It has been established that it was a complicated mess, but what sparked it? I've seen blame put on several people, primarily Adrian Sutil. What none of those blaming Adrian seem to have noticed was that he took damage in a collision three laps earlier with Kamui Kobayashi. This is clearly demonstrated in Adrian suddenly falling into the clutches of the midfield pack that was in process of being lapped.
He was one second than usual on lap 65 (the lap of the pass - note that all lap numbers on the graph are transposed by one lap), became 3 seconds slower than usual on lap 66 (the lap after Kamui passed him) and 4 seconds slower than usual on laps 67 and 68. On laps 69 and 70, Adrian is 20 seconds a lap slower than usual - but both include pit stop time for replacing tyres. This indicates progressive damage. Given that Kobayashi hit the right rear tyre and it was this tyre that ended up in need of a replacement, it is perfectly reasonable to consider that a weakness in the tyre (underinflation from a slow puncture would be most likely) contributed to Adrian's crash.
I cannot begrudge Kamui his 5th because he was overdue one, but I do not feel that this exempts him from having his race properly analysed.
Secondly, the whole raft of complaints about being able to change tyres/wings/springs on the grid and Pastor Maldonado's removal from the results by Lewis Hamilton. While I see a point to the complaints about the Lewis/Pastor crash in particular, all three debates have missed the most important point - that Article 18 of the General Prescriptions prevented the restart from happening in the first place.
Article 18 of the General Prescriptions (link in PDF) has three cases concerning red flags. Initially I'd thought this was in the International Sporting Code, but it appears this particular rulebook also applies to every international racing series (Article 1). Article 18 describes mid-race stoppages using Cases A, Case B and Case C. These will be familiar to those who recall the contents of 2003-era F1 Sporting Regulations documents. For the people who haven't done so, the cases refer to when the red flag is flown and determine what happens thereafter.
Case A is for when the red flag flies within the first 2 laps. Basically, the race is treated as if it never began.
Case B is for when the red flag flies between 2 laps and 75%. The race is restarted on a 10-minute procedure when possible and the running resumes from the lap where it ended.
Case C is for when the red flag flies between 75% and the end of the race. The race result is called then and there. No restart is attempted even if it would be easy to do so. The race is deemed to have finished when the red flag flies, though there is a countback rule.
72 laps out of 78 is 92.307% of the race, which is considerably more than 75%. Clearly this is a Case C situation.
The inclusion of the General Prescriptions in the list of regulations applicable to F1 on the FIA's website means that the document must be taken seriously. Nonetheless, the General Prescriptions is overruled by the F1 Sporting Regulatoins and the International Sporting Code if there are contradictory clauses.
However, no such clauses exist in either document on the question of Case C restarts. There is nothing in either the International Sporting Code or the F1 Sporting Regulations that allows for a red flag beyond the 75% mark to be interpreted as anything other than the end of the race.
Even Article 41 of the F1 Sporting Regulations (the regulation most often cited as justifying the restart) doesn't do that because Article 18 of the General Prescriptions says the race ends when the red flag is flown in Case C situations. Article 41 doesn't mention anything about the definition of a red flag or end-of-race signal changing. Therefore a Case C situation falls under Article 43 (the regulations for finishing). The lack of mention of Cases A, B and C in the F1 Sporting Regulations (they was removed in 2005) does not suffice to negate the power of General Prescriptions Article 18. Article 1 of the General Prescriptions specifically says that precedence only applies in the case of contradictory regulations.
So a lot of the arguments of yesterday should have been null and void. There should have been no argument over tyre or wing changes because there shouldn't have been any laps in which to use them. Pastor and Lewis shouldn't have crashed because there shouldn't have been any time for them to crash in.
Pity the powers-that-be didn't care about their own regulations - again. Double pity that even people like Ted Kravitz (in BBC TV's coverage of the race (iPlayer link; expires 5 June 2011)) and Joe Saward presented Article 41 as if it was the only relevant item, even though it proved not to be especially relevant. When none of the people at the circuit appear to care, how can anyone else be expected to do so (other than stubborn people like me)?
I followed most of your argument except for why 'Case C' should not be ignored in the case of F1 when, as you say, the Sporting Regulations takes precedent over much of what is written in the General Prescriptions. Why should that be so?
I hope this comment appears because I tend to fail these eyesight test Captcha things...
Keith, your comment has made it in
I detest the CAPTCHAs but can't find a way of removing them...
The F1 Sporting Regulations only takes precedence in instances where they contradict other regulations. Obviously there is a fair amount of contradiction between the F1 Sporting Code and the General Prescriptions, but some parts of the General Prescriptions are not contradicted (otherwise there'd have to be much longer sections on things like regulation publication, weighing, general safety and start procedures).
There's nothing in the F1 Sporting Regulations that says a red flag flown beyond the 75% mark isn't a race-ending situation, therefore there is no contradiction with Article 18 of the General Prescriptions. A regulation cannot be ignored simply because it is not written in duplicate.
Intrigueing thought about the continuation of the race being irregular. I do think Brundle and Coulthard mentioned this should be the end of the race, before they were informed it would continue.
So might it be possible Sauber would protest (as Webber passed Kamui and they lost points) or even better, Williams protesting, as it lost them a wonderfull place for Pastor?
What would the FIA make of another case of dodgy rules / interpretation of the rules concerning how it ends after last years SC finish mess up?
The answer is tucked away in article 6.5 of the Sporting Code. If a race is suspended under Article 41, AND CANNoT BE RESUMED, no points will be awarded if the leader has completed less than two laps, half points will be awarded if the leader has completed more than two laps but less than 75% of the original race distance and full points will be awarded if the leader has completed MoRE THAN 75% of the original race distance. i.e. There is a proviso for the race not being able to be resumed beyond the 75% distance.
I think the first question that needs to be asked/answered is whether or not the "Except for the Formula one World Championship" statement at the beginning of the General Prescriptions document pertains to the whole document or just part of it. I would be guessing that this statement applies to the entire document, as much of its content is replicated in some form in the sporting regulations anyway, meaning the General Prescriptions don't apply to F1 at all.
Therefore, Article 18 and its Case C doesn't apply to F1 events and the sporting regulations rule the day (or more specifically, the lack of a necessity to declare a result when a red flag is flown after 75% race distance).
BasCB, I don't think there will be any appeals due to the time elapsed without any team implying it would go down that path, but there certainly could have been had any team wished. Even teams that gained from the restart may feel the wear on engines and gearboxes could outweigh their advantage.
Mav, Article 6.5 of the F1 Sporting Regulations (I assume it's that document from the quote) doesn't answer the question - if using the "cases" method of classification (see below for why there's suddenly an if), it says "Case B scores half-points and Case C scores full points", but in plain English instead of jargon. Good try though.
Manipe, the "except for the Formula one World Championship" bit is quite baffling as it doesn't indicate what it's excepting the series from. If it does include the entire document, it shouldn't be grouped with the other ones in the Formula one regulations section of the website and a lot of details on several subjects would need adding to the F1 regulations remaining (several sections are nowhere near as detailed in the regulations as they are in the Prescriptions). If it doesn't, why doesn't it say what bits are excluded in the statement? Also why, in either case, was it written as a phrase without a number, explanation or indeed a few words completing the sentence and providing it with sense? That statement has been implemented badly whatever its intended meaning.
If your interpretation that the phrase was meant to exclude F1 completely from its scope is correct, it would explain why the race was able to be restarted. There isn't enough information to prove the matter either way, but it does change the nature of the problem from a seriously-result-altering misapplication of regulation to a rather less serious case of poor document writing and categorising.