Talk:2010 Monaco Grand Prix

Ironic?

There were no major incidents, though the anticipated traffic problem manifested on several occasions, though somewhat ironically it was the Ferrari of Felipe Massa that impeded the progress... Why is it ironic? What did Massa do to cause this to be ironic? --Falcadore (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the supposed irony comes from the fact that it was expected that the slower cars (Lotus, Virgin, Hispania, etc) would impede the faster cars (McLaren, Red Bull, Ferrari), whereas it turned out to be one of the faster cars (a Ferrari) that did the impeding. DH85868993 (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Barrichello

The cause of Barrichello's retirement was his accident, as per the FIA's result [1]. The cause of the accident may well have been broken suspension, but the cause of that was a manhole cover. "Suspension", implying suspension failure is not an appropriate reason to give for his retirement, given that it was broken by something outside the control of the driver.

I'd also point editors towards WP:BRD, which shows that when a change is made to the status quo and is then reverted, the next step is to discuss the matter on the talk page, not to revert again, as was done here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The cause of the accident was a suspension failure caused by the loose manhole cover. Accident implies either a driving error or two drivers coming together.  Dr. Loosmark  19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw the FIA also has Hamilton's retirement in Spain as due to accident [2] which is really absurd IMO.  Dr. Loosmark  19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So the cause of the accident was the manhole cover. Either way it was an accident. The suspension was not at fault, and it is incorrect to suggest that it was. To describe this huge accident as "suspension" and then something like a snapped wishbone as "suspension" as well is too unspecific. The casual reader would never know Barrichello had had a huge accident, and that is plain misleading.

Two drivers coming together is "collision". Usually I would have thought a driver error is described as "spun off". Hulkenberg's crash is the same thing. He crashed in the tunnel because his front wing mounting broke. It broke because he'd just run into the back of another car. Either way - accident.

Hamilton in Spain - that was a wheel rim failure which caused an accident. A component failure. Which is not what happened to Barrichello. If the FIA say that, then I wouldn't say it's absurd - you said on my talk page that it's wrong to blindly follow the FIA. I'm not doing that - I just feel strongly that Barrichello's retirement was an accident, not a component failure. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there's a wider point to be made here - that to describe, for example in Hamilton's case, a retirement as "wheel rim" or "accident" is insufficient either way. Both were part of the cause for retirement, so "wheel rim - accident" would be the most precise and accurate thing to put. I have no doubt that there are many many inconsistencies on Wikipedia in giving the causes for retirements in Grands Prix. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion it was a mechanical failure, only not caused by failure in design or material. If I remember correctly Montoya had to retire once due to a manhole cover too.  Dr. Loosmark  19:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the best solution would be to put a note about the causes of the accident.  Dr. Loosmark  19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Montoya did indeed hit a manhole cover (2005 Chinese Grand Prix), but he was able to keep going, and retired for other reasons. I agree that a note about the causes of the accident would be a good thing. Let's see if anyone else has any opinion. I'll put a note at the WP to direct people here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I remember Montoya had some damaged on the car which caused the engine to fail later. Anyway I have added a short note explaining Barrichello's accident.  Dr. Loosmark  19:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that the cause of the retirement was the accident, regardless of the cause of the accident. Go with the official results. I wouldn't take the meaning of the word 'accident' too literally with regards to crashes.- mspete93 19:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, unless we are going to go back and investigate every crash in formula one history and change the retirement reason to whatever was the cause (good luck with Imola 1993) then accident ticks all the boxes. And by the way, accident with another car isn't referred to as accident, but collision. --Falcadore (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, part of the reason why accident is referred to as retirement cause when the crashes may be caused by component failure? Because cars may (not often but it is possible) limp back to the pits, be repaired and rejoin the race. Accident is used because it is the accident that makes the car unable to take any further part in the race. --Falcadore (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Having a suspension failure is pretty terminal and more often than not leads to a crash.  Dr. Loosmark  21:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

But it's the crash that prevents the car from returning to the pits. To suggest that the car was not otherwise repairable is most often speculation, and speculation does not go into wikipedia does it? --Falcadore (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it depends on the nature of the problem, some things just can't be repaired. In Barrichello's case, even if that suspension failure would have occurred on another track and he would have avoided hitting anything, he'd either just park the car or taxi to the pits and retire.  Dr. Loosmark  22:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that he didn't just park it up because his suspension was screwed. The reason he could go no further was because of the crash ("accident"). - mspete93 22:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree MSP. To take an obscure example, if a terminal cancer pantient shoots themselves then the cause of death of suicide rather than cancer. In the Barrichello incident the crash was caused by the suspension failure, which was caused by manhole cover, which was caused by a circuit or city official not sufficiently securing a manhole cover to the circuit, which may have been caused by a malfunction TIG welder not providing a secure enough weld, which may have been caused by honeycombing in the weld weakening it's strength, which may have been caused by too much gas in the welding mixture, which may have been caused by the welder setting their equipment incorrectly, which may have been caused by insufficient training, which may have been caused by cut backs in spending on training of Monaco city officials which may have been caused by general tightening of budgets, which may have been caused by the global financial crisis, which may have been caused by poor unregulated banking practices in the United States. So is it then possible, theoretically that George Bush was responsible for Barrichello's retirment? He gets blame for a lot of things I'm sure he won't care.

How many levels are you willing to dig? The immediate cause of the car stopping prior to the race finish was it's impact against the fence. --Falcadore (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)