Hamilton Stripped of Win - Official

[Knock-on]

Stop telling people what they are thinking and saying!!!!!! It's RUDE and you keep on doing it. People have come out and said why they think Lewis was penalised and that they agree with it and you should accept that this is their opinion. Just as I accept that people feel he shouldn't have been penalised. If you can't keep to the discussion you simply resort to calling people biased and so on and on. It's not cool and you just make yourself look silly. You've had your say numerous times and we all know what you think so unless you have something new and useful to add to the discussion.....

Rather than personal attacks, why not get back to the facts I posted.

Then again, why ;)

:laugh:

[Knock-on]

I think that leaving the track is a slightly different thing to leaving the track AND gaining an advantage. What penalties are stipulated for just leaving the track, never mind gaining advantage?

Perhaps, since cutting a chicane is a faster way of getting through the corner, they considered Lewis to be getting an advantage there. It seems that the FIA does not consider it advantageous to use the runoff at the outsides of corners like La Source and Pouhon.

Good point.

I think that the rule is pretty ambiguous.

For example, in the PdlR / Schumacher example, Schumacher went off track and gained an advantage by not losing his position which he would have done otherwise. However, he gained no "actual" advantage regarding race position.

However, he did gain an advantage by going off track as he would have lost his place but there was no penalty.

With Kimi at the beginning, he made a mistake and went off track but rejoined in the same place thereby not gaining any advantage but did not lose a place or any time.

Is this to be considered an advantage though as there was no penalty for going off track and although he gained benefit by going off track in not losing a position he otherwise would have done, he didn't gain a place.

With Lewis, before he had to avoid a collision, he was partially alongside. Then he cut the chicane and ended up ahead so he lifted giving Kimi the lead, about a cars length gap and superior momentum down the straight meaning he was in a worse position than before he cut the chicane.

Yet he is further penalise 25 seconds when the others who it could be argued benefited from going off track were not penalised.

Regardless of the teams or drivers involved, this is obviously wrong isn't it?

[Daniel]

Rather than personal attacks, why not get back to the facts I posted.

Then again, why ;)

:laugh:

I've not personally attacked you at all. Stop trying to cause trouble. As you can see above I'm happy to talk facts. It seems you're the one going on about bias :mark:

Then again gerbil telephone pesticide woop woop! ;)

:laugh:

[PolePosition_1]

It was Klien. It was 'fine' because Alonso had to lose another 5-10 seconds to let Klien re-pass him again, despite already conceding to Klien after cutting the chicane.

He was penalised for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdy6qzI2-A4


Yes but he still gained an advantage from his competitor. Its not the competitors fault Alonso sped off being realising he had to let him pass.

And the link provided, to my knowledge he didn't get penalised for this move. Have you got source for your claim?

[PolePosition_1]

The question was:
Is it allowed to pas race leader like Hamilton did or is it not allowed?

And when we are looking on the pictures and the video we can clearly see that obviously it’s not allowed – that means: if Lewis had been on the track it had been impossible for him getting past Kimi as he did.. so what are stewards supposed to do? They must punish the driver who is breaking the rules – that easy it is. If they don’t do it – were we are going then??

My opinion is that they made right decision – and I’m sure they did know what the media should say about it afterwards. Especially the English … a Courageous decision in my mind.. :)


But Hamilton was so much quicker in those conditions. He caught him up 2s that lap alone. Surely even if he'd take the chicane, he'd have got past him eventually. Plus fact Kimi crashed, no sporting advantage was gained, reason for Massa not getting penalised at last race.

[Knock-on]

I've not personally attacked you at all. Stop trying to cause trouble. As you can see above I'm happy to talk facts. It seems you're the one going on about bias :mark:

Then again gerbil telephone pesticide woop woop! ;)

:laugh:


Well, rather than going obout telling people how rude they are :rolleyes: perhaps you would care to answer this post.

I will repeat the facts.

In the PdlR / Schumacher example, Schumacher went off track and gained an advantage by not losing his position which he would have done otherwise. However, he gained no "actual" advantage regarding race position.

However, he did gain an advantage by going off track as he would have lost his place but there was no penalty.

With Kimi at the beginning at Spa, he made a mistake and went off track but rejoined in the same race position thereby not gaining any advantage but did not lose a place or any time which he would have done if, for example, there was gravel there instead of nice sticky tarmac.

Is this to be considered an advantage though as there was no penalty for going off track and although he gained benefit by going off track in not losing a position he otherwise would have done, he didn't gain a place but merely maintained one.

With Lewis, before he had to avoid a collision, he was partially alongside. Then he cut the chicane and ended up ahead so he lifted giving Kimi the lead, about a cars length gap and superior momentum down the straight meaning he was in a worse position than before he cut the chicane.

Yet he is further penalise 25 seconds when the others who it could be argued benefited from going off track were not penalised.

Regardless of the teams or drivers involved, this is obviously wrong isn't it?

[PolePosition_1]

Ok, tell me how it is possible that a car that goes off the circuit is only 6km slower on the next straight (and right behind) a car that goes around the circuit correctly? Fair? No advantage? How can going off the circuit result in an overtaking manouvre in the next corner? That shouldn't be possible. Anyway it's up to the stewards to tell the drivers what they can do before these things happen, but they just aren't very good, are they?

Yes but in the past what Hamilton has done is enough. But when he does it its not.

Plus no sporting advantage gained, reason given for not penalising Massa.

Its like Schumacher is allowed to save a position by cutting a chicane, but when Hamilton does, its a drive through penalty...

Its not Ferrari's fault, but they always seem to benefit from inconsistant Steward decisions.

[PolePosition_1]

It's "drive through", not "drive true," although that is no doubt a useful sentiment.

You might also ask why Kimi was not penalised for staying on the runoff at Pouhon, getting better grip from the abrasive tarmac and overtaking Rosberg and Lewis.

Perhaps the FIA does not penalise these because in both cases rather than cutting the corner Kimi instead went around the outside of the corner?

Thats a good point. Or a couple of years back, I remember Schumacher overtaking off the circuit after the hairpin....no penalty.

Again, not Ferrari's fault, but highlighting inconsistancies with a tendency to favour Ferrari.

[PolePosition_1]

Drivers have always used the outside line after the first corner in Spa and for some reason the FIA has always allowed it to happen.

Drivers have always let cars past if they overtake by cutting a chicane, and that is enough to not get penalised. But apparently McLaren should have guessed that the Stewards were going to take into account the time he would have lost had he taken the chicane properly.

[Bagwan]

"I got in his tow ..." -Lewis Hamilton .

"Fortunately , I got back in his slipstream ..." -Lewis Hamilton .

"Shut up , Lauda . " - bagwan .

[BDunnell]

It wasn't an overambitious overtaking move, because Räikkönen braked so early that Hamilton had not other option than to take alongside him. Secondly he stayed on the circuit, with overambitious move he should have flown off.

Or rammed Räikkönen.

Of course, no blame can be attached to Räikkönen because he was clearly being very cautious in the changing conditions, and who can blame him? But, to me, it seems fair to say that 'blame' isn't necessary here.



You mentioned Monza. Well, I'm not sure, but I think it has been done several times in the past that after cutting the first chicane rival driver will be passed in the next chicane? Or not? Chicane shortcuts are quite normal there especially on the opening laps. Don't remember anyone getting penalized though.

I can certainly recall such incidents. However, am I right in thinking that at least one driver (possibly Panis?) was penalised for cutting a chicane at Hockenheim?

[PolePosition_1]

Stop telling people what they are thinking and saying!!!!!! It's RUDE and you keep on doing it. People have come out and said why they think Lewis was penalised and that they agree with it and you should accept that this is their opinion. Just as I accept that people feel he shouldn't have been penalised. If you can't keep to the discussion you simply resort to calling people biased and so on and on. It's not cool and you just make yourself look silly. You've had your say numerous times and we all know what you think so unless you have something new and useful to add to the discussion.....

All due respect here Daniel....but your telling Knock On what to think now.

Surely he is allowed to express an opinion that he thinks some people are being biased.

If you look at past incidents, none have been penalised after letting a car past, even if they did get slipstream after. And on top of that no sporting advantage was gained, reason for not penalising Massa (unsafe release standard penalty is 25s added on).

Its just totally inconsistant. And while I can see the reasoning behind the Stewards verdict, this has not been the case in the past. And it always seems McLaren lose out to this, while Ferrari benefit. And for any Ferrari fan to deny this, I cannot help but think they're being slightly niave to the facts themselves.

I'm supporting Massa for the title, but even I can see the FIA and Stewards seem to be taking a hard line against McLaren. I read somewhere McLAren have been investigated 13 times this year, to Ferraris 4. McLaren been penalised 11 times to Ferrari's 1. Sure each incident is individual, and different circumstances, but you can't help but feel if a different team was involved, a different outcome would happen.

And the incidents with Massa in Spain and Hamilton in Belgium highly support this. Both found to be guilty of rule breaking (whether we agree or not as to whether they're guilty or not). Both did not gain a sporting advantage. One had a 25s time penalty, other had no punishment, just team given €10,000 fine.

And standard penalty for unsafe release is 25s time penalty (Imola 2005) when they decide to penalise it.

[Daniel]

Well, rather than going obout telling people how rude they are :rolleyes: perhaps you would care to answer this post.

I will repeat the facts.

In the PdlR / Schumacher example, Schumacher went off track and gained an advantage by not losing his position which he would have done otherwise. However, he gained no "actual" advantage regarding race position.

However, he did gain an advantage by going off track as he would have lost his place but there was no penalty.

With Kimi at the beginning at Spa, he made a mistake and went off track but rejoined in the same race position thereby not gaining any advantage but did not lose a place or any time which he would have done if, for example, there was gravel there instead of nice sticky tarmac.

Is this to be considered an advantage though as there was no penalty for going off track and although he gained benefit by going off track in not losing a position he otherwise would have done, he didn't gain a place but merely maintained one.

With Lewis, before he had to avoid a collision, he was partially alongside. Then he cut the chicane and ended up ahead so he lifted giving Kimi the lead, about a cars length gap and superior momentum down the straight meaning he was in a worse position than before he cut the chicane.

Yet he is further penalise 25 seconds when the others who it could be argued benefited from going off track were not penalised.

Regardless of the teams or drivers involved, this is obviously wrong isn't it?


Thing is and with all due respect there are going to be times where things happen like at turn 1 where a mass of cars go off through no fault of their own and some may gain advantage and some may lose position or time. IMHO that's a racing incident. The thing about Lewis' off was that it was completely his fault. He knew full well he had very little chance of passing Kimi there yet went for it unlike others who may have had to avoid another car which was having a momen or accident.

As for the Schumacher thing I don't see the point in arguing about a tiny snippet of a race. These sort of clips are very selectively picked to show someone's point. I'm sure if I wanted I could gather clips which show Hamilton doing this sort of thing and not getting penalised as well and claim that there is bias towards McLaren.

I fail to see the problem with me pointing out the fact that you putting words in other people's mouths and telling them what they're thinking contrary to what they're saying. It is rude.......

[Daniel]

All due respect here Daniel....but your telling Knock On what to think now.

Surely he is allowed to express an opinion that he thinks some people are being biased.

If you look at past incidents, none have been penalised after letting a car past, even if they did get slipstream after. And on top of that no sporting advantage was gained, reason for not penalising Massa (unsafe release standard penalty is 25s added on).

Its just totally inconsistant. And while I can see the reasoning behind the Stewards verdict, this has not been the case in the past. And it always seems McLaren lose out to this, while Ferrari benefit. And for any Ferrari fan to deny this, I cannot help but think they're being slightly niave to the facts themselves.

I'm supporting Massa for the title, but even I can see the FIA and Stewards seem to be taking a hard line against McLaren. I read somewhere McLAren have been investigated 13 times this year, to Ferraris 4. McLaren been penalised 11 times to Ferrari's 1. Sure each incident is individual, and different circumstances, but you can't help but feel if a different team was involved, a different outcome would happen.

And the incidents with Massa in Spain and Hamilton in Belgium highly support this. Both found to be guilty of rule breaking (whether we agree or not as to whether they're guilty or not). Both did not gain a sporting advantage. One had a 25s time penalty, other had no punishment, just team given €10,000 fine.

And standard penalty for unsafe release is 25s time penalty (Imola 2005) when they decide to penalise it.


In my opinion Massa's pitstop incident doesn't justify a penalty for the driver. Massa went when he was told to and he slotted in behind Sutil after a short distance alongside and Sutil didn't need to take significant action. It was in my opinion borderline unsafe and it wasn't the drivers fault so the team were given a small fine. If Massa had pulled out into a car I'd be supporting a significant penalty but he didn't.

Why was Lewis craned back onto the track last year? I've never seen that done for anyone else. Surely that's a clear, obvious and undoubtable sign of bias?

Like I said. No bias.... just bad decisions.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Thing is and with all due respect there are going to be times where things happen like at turn 1 where a mass of cars go off through no fault of their own and some may gain advantage and some may lose position or time. IMHO that's a racing incident. The thing about Lewis' off was that it was completely his fault. He knew full well he had very little chance of passing Kimi there yet went for it unlike others who may have had to avoid another car which was having a momen or accident.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNN5W_B-Zk

At 3:27 Kimi is very early on the brakes. It looks like Lewis is taking avoiding action as much as he is trying to make a pass, the result of this is that he ends up in a position where Kimi can force him wide.

That said Hamilton, could have still stayed on the track but it wasn't completely his own fault. It was a racing incident.

[Rollo]

Why was Lewis craned back onto the track last year? I've never seen that done for anyone else. Surely that's a clear, obvious and undoubtable sign of bias?

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr706.html

with a little help from three marshals and what appeared to be a spectator (although it was in fact the man who had driven a tractor to the scene to pull the Ferrari away into retirement) the Ferrari was pushed back on to the track

Neither have I :D

[Knock-on]

Thing is and with all due respect there are going to be times where things happen like at turn 1 where a mass of cars go off through no fault of their own and some may gain advantage and some may lose position or time. IMHO that's a racing incident.

I agree. Although it was Kimi's mistake and he was the 1st person to go off, I think it is a racing incident and although going off track allowed him to maintain his position, there should be no penalty.


The thing about Lewis' off was that it was completely his fault. He knew full well he had very little chance of passing Kimi there yet went for it unlike others who may have had to avoid another car which was having a momen or accident.

Are you telling Lewis now what he was thinking :laugh:

In case you missed it, Kimi braked early and Lewis was alongside him on the outside of the first corner. Lewis had the inside as the 2nd corner but Kimi came across forcing him off the track. Now, according to the FIA regulations, this sort of driving should be severly punished. However, the more realistic of us consider it hard racing and again, I don't think Kimi should be penalised for it.


As for the Schumacher thing I don't see the point in arguing about a tiny snippet of a race. These sort of clips are very selectively picked to show someone's point. I'm sure if I wanted I could gather clips which show Hamilton doing this sort of thing and not getting penalised as well and claim that there is bias towards McLaren.

It was several instances in a race where he was guilty of maintaining his position that he would have otherwise have lost by cutting corners and not yielding the position.

Yet you argue this is inadmissible yet the tiny snippet at Spa you consider to be worthy of a 25 second penalty even though Hamilton conceeded the position immediately.

Do you not see why people may consider your opinion hypocritical?


I fail to see the problem with me pointing out the fact that you putting words in other people's mouths and telling them what they're thinking contrary to what they're saying. It is rude.......

As I have said previously, I don't give a figg what personal comments you care to direct at me. However, if it's something you consider against forum rules, there is a "report post" option but making personal attacks against me could be seen as being against forum rules.

Up to you fella but might I suggest you stick to the topic?

[Daniel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNN5W_B-Zk

At 3:27 Kimi is very early on the brakes. It looks like Lewis is taking avoiding action as much as he is trying to make a pass, the result of this is that he ends up in a position where Kimi can force him wide.

That said Hamilton, could have still stayed on the track but it wasn't completely his own fault. It was a racing incident.

I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation but be that as it may if Lewis had stayed on the track on the line he was on he would have been significantly slower than Kimi on the exit of the corner and wouldn't have been in a position to fight for the next corner.

[Tonieke]

Thing is and with all due respect there are going to be times where things happen like at turn 1 where a mass of cars go off through no fault of their own and some may gain advantage and some may lose position or time. IMHO that's a racing incident. The thing about Lewis' off was that it was completely his fault. He knew full well he had very little chance of passing Kimi there yet went for it unlike others who may have had to avoid another car which was having a momen or accident.

As for the Schumacher thing I don't see the point in arguing about a tiny snippet of a race. These sort of clips are very selectively picked to show someone's point. I'm sure if I wanted I could gather clips which show Hamilton doing this sort of thing and not getting penalised as well and claim that there is bias towards McLaren.

I fail to see the problem with me pointing out the fact that you putting words in other people's mouths and telling them what they're thinking contrary to what they're saying. It is rude.......

Daniel...please...you say Kimi went off track at the very first corner and it wasn't his own fault ? When you look at the footage..By what or whom was he forced to leave the track ? if he hit the brakes (Like Lewis should have donne according to the pro penalty people) he would have been able to make the corner in a proper way..but by doin so he would have lost momentum..instead he choose to keep the foot down....keeping the pace..and closing in on massa..who took the corner in a correct way..so again..No advantage ? No punishment ? Why not ?

[dwf1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNN5W_B-Zk

At 3:27 Kimi is very early on the brakes. It looks like Lewis is taking avoiding action as much as he is trying to make a pass, the result of this is that he ends up in a position where Kimi can force him wide.

That said Hamilton, could have still stayed on the track but it wasn't completely his own fault. It was a racing incident.


CORRECT my friend

[Daniel]

I agree. Although it was Kimi's mistake and he was the 1st person to go off, I think it is a racing incident and although going off track allowed him to maintain his position, there should be no penalty.



Are you telling Lewis now what he was thinking :laugh:

In case you missed it, Kimi braked early and Lewis was alongside him on the outside of the first corner. Lewis had the inside as the 2nd corner but Kimi came across forcing him off the track. Now, according to the FIA regulations, this sort of driving should be severly punished. However, the more realistic of us consider it hard racing and again, I don't think Kimi should be penalised for it.



It was several instances in a race where he was guilty of maintaining his position that he would have otherwise have lost by cutting corners and not yielding the position.

Yet you argue this is inadmissible yet the tiny snippet at Spa you consider to be worthy of a 25 second penalty even though Hamilton conceeded the position immediately.

Do you not see why people may consider your opinion hypocritical?



As I have said previously, I don't give a figg what personal comments you care to direct at me. However, if it's something you consider against forum rules, there is a "report post" option but making personal attacks against me could be seen as being against forum rules.

Up to you fella but might I suggest you stick to the topic?

If Lewis was here I wouldn't be saying what i thought he was thinking. I'd be more than happy to ask what he was thinking at the time but in his absence it's safe to think that someone of his skill and experience didn't really expect to get around Kimi like that and he was just having a look. :)

Lewis didn't really concede the position immediately. he held on for quite a while in racing terms.

Yes I can see why people might consider my view hypocritical but tbh I don't have a view on the schumacher incident. It's a small snippet and who knows what else happened before or after? I certainly don't remember so it would be silly of me to have a view of the incident. All I'm saying is that you can use a small video clip to prove anything. This incident is very fresh in my mind and that's the only reason I feel able to make a judgement.

All I asked is that you didn't put words into people's mouths and didn't make out that people were thinking one thing when they were clearly thinking and saying something else. It's just common courtesy that's all.

[PolePosition_1]

In my opinion Massa's pitstop incident doesn't justify a penalty for the driver. Massa went when he was told to and he slotted in behind Sutil after a short distance alongside and Sutil didn't need to take significant action. It was in my opinion borderline unsafe and it wasn't the drivers fault so the team were given a small fine. If Massa had pulled out into a car I'd be supporting a significant penalty but he didn't.

Why was Lewis craned back onto the track last year? I've never seen that done for anyone else. Surely that's a clear, obvious and undoubtable sign of bias?

Like I said. No bias.... just bad decisions.


Hey - I'm first to defend the decision to not penalise Massa in Spain. Though I do go along the lines of F1 is a team sport, you win and lose together. But I was against it because similar situations have happened on numerous occassions and no action take. Sure its against the rules if deemed unsafe, but the stewards can't decide to take action when it suits them. They got to be consistant so the teams know where they stand. But fact is, when unsafe releases are penalised. They give the driver a 25s penalty, as in Imola 2005.

Massa wasn't. On grounds no sporting advantage was gained.

Same principles apply to Hamilton. In nearly all cases, letting a driver past is enough for the Stewards to not penalise. This can be seen in Charlie Whitings thoughts that what Hamilton did was enough. And again, in this situation, they decide to penalise (similar to Massa that all of a sudden they're penalising it), and again, no sporting advantage was gained. But this time they go the full wack with a 25s time penalty.

Surely you can see the inconsistencies. And sure if wrong is wrong it should be punished. But while Ferrari seem to get off lightly, McLaren are always the victims of these inconsistancies. And its got so bad these last two years - theres a case to say its bringing the sport into disrepute. If the English legal system was handled this way, the country would be rioting.

Regarding Lewis being put back on track, Schumacher had exactly the same a couple years ago, because it was deemed to be in a dangerous place. No one else was moved off because only Lewis kept his engine running. So I wouldn't class that as a sign of bias.

[Daniel]

Hey - I'm first to defend the decision to not penalise Massa in Spain. Though I do go along the lines of F1 is a team sport, you win and lose together. But I was against it because similar situations have happened on numerous occassions and no action take. Sure its against the rules if deemed unsafe, but the stewards can't decide to take action when it suits them. They got to be consistant so the teams know where they stand. But fact is, when unsafe releases are penalised. They give the driver a 25s penalty, as in Imola 2005.

Massa wasn't. On grounds no sporting advantage was gained.

Same principles apply to Hamilton. In nearly all cases, letting a driver past is enough for the Stewards to not penalise. This can be seen in Charlie Whitings thoughts that what Hamilton did was enough. And again, in this situation, they decide to penalise (similar to Massa that all of a sudden they're penalising it), and again, no sporting advantage was gained. But this time they go the full wack with a 25s time penalty.

Surely you can see the inconsistencies. And sure if wrong is wrong it should be punished. But while Ferrari seem to get off lightly, McLaren are always the victims of these inconsistancies. And its got so bad these last two years - theres a case to say its bringing the sport into disrepute. If the English legal system was handled this way, the country would be rioting.

Regarding Lewis being put back on track, Schumacher had exactly the same a couple years ago, because it was deemed to be in a dangerous place. No one else was moved off because only Lewis kept his engine running. So I wouldn't class that as a sign of bias.

I was being sarcastic when I was saying it was a sign of bias ;)

[Mickey T]

As for the Schumacher thing I don't see the point in arguing about a tiny snippet of a race. These sort of clips are very selectively picked to show someone's point. I'm sure if I wanted I could gather clips which show Hamilton doing this sort of thing and not getting penalised as well and claim that there is bias towards McLaren.



and, in the hamilton case, we are all arguing over, funnily enough, a tiny snippet of a race.

all race incidents are, after all, tiny snippets of a larger race.

or do you not see the point in arguing because it so clearly shows an obvious case of a driver gaining an advantage not being penalised while a driver who gained no / minor / arguable / irrelevant advantage (tick your own box) was penalised?

to wave off one clear cut piece of footage because it's inconvenient to your argument, on the basis that it's a "tiny snippet" is pretty hypocritical. Schumacher's scenario was far, far worse, yet he got away with it, then tried to crash heidfeld off the road in the same place a few laps later.

it doesn't help F1's credibility at all that the chief steward (donnelly) is not an ex race driver and, what's worse, until quite recently had Ferrari's road-car division as one of the biggest clients in his political lobbying company...

... a company that lobbied, amongst others, the FIA!

go right ahead, then, and gather all the alleged hamilton clips together. do that, and you might regather some of your lost credibility.

by the way, hamilton was craned out because he's one of the few who knew the rules as they stood at that time. The rules allowed for that to happen and nobody else thought to take advantage of them.

simple as that. the rules were subsequently changed because people didn't like that situation and that, i should hope, is the nature of the rulebook and the job of the rulemakers.

[Knock-on]

Regarding Lewis being put back on track, Schumacher had exactly the same a couple years ago, because it was deemed to be in a dangerous place. No one else was moved off because only Lewis kept his engine running. So I wouldn't class that as a sign of bias.

With the crane incident, it took quite a lot of debating and rule searching to confirm that he shouldn't have been craned back on.

I have no doubt that if he had of scored points, they would have been deducted as would have been entirely justified.

However, he didn't score and therefore, there was no action to be taken.

[schmenke]

No not at all. The stewards took too much time to make a decision in my opinion and missed their opportunity to issue a drive through penalty. Fair enough issue a penalty but its too late to issue a drive through penalty when the flag has dropped. By not dispensing their form of justice until after the race they removed any opportunity for the penalised driver to react and minimise the impact of the judgement.

Obviously you can't have drivers flouting the rules at the end of a race for the sake of a victory. Under these circumstances penalise, suspend or fine the drivers till they bleed but retroactively altering race results is probably not the way to go.

At worst this incident was a 10 place penalty at the next grid and could've been handled quite adequately by issuing that judgement. We must keep in mind that the race result would've been the same even if the 'offence' had not occurred.

If they believe that it needed an extra harsh penalty then make it 10 places at the next two grids. This is how I believe serious offences should be dealt with and especially for offences committed towards the end of races. When a penalty is issued it must be consistent with the offence, and, with the complexity of modern F1, this may require investigations which can't be completed on race day. Arbitrarily altering race results open's the door to suspicion and nothing will kill a sport faster than the public losing confidence in the integrity of its racing.

I do not believe that the penalty that has been handed down was balanced as it unfairly penalised a point scoring driver. This may not have been the intention but I think that it is the result as a lower placed would not have felt the same sting. In the case of Lewis Hamilton it was a doubly harsh punishment in that it also took a race win away from a young driver.

Just my opinion... :)

This was posted earlier in this thread...

2009 Formula One Sporting Regulations, section 16.3, 16.4:

"16.3 The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident:

a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping ;
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
c) a drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.

However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.

16.4 Should the stewards decide to impose either of the penalties under Article 16.3a) or b), the following procedure will be followed:

a) The stewards will give written notification of the penalty which has been imposed to the competitor concerned and will ensure that this information is also displayed on the timing monitors.
b) From the time the stewards’ decision is notified on the timing monitors the relevant driver may cover no more than three complete laps before entering the pit lane and, in the case of a penalty under Article 16.3b), proceeding to his garage where he shall remain for the period of the time penalty. ..."

[Daniel]

With the crane incident, it took quite a lot of debating and rule searching to confirm that he shouldn't have been craned back on.

I have no doubt that if he had of scored points, they would have been deducted as would have been entirely justified.

However, he didn't score and therefore, there was no action to be taken.

Good to see we agree on that :up:

I personally think he should have been black flagged during the race but the end result is the same so no big deal. At least with no being black flagged he could run his race and if need be he could have been penalised and McLaren could have appealed and so on.

[Knock-on]

and, in the hamilton case, we are all arguing over, funnily enough, a tiny snippet of a race.

all race incidents are, after all, tiny snippets of a larger race.

or do you not see the point in arguing because it so clearly shows an obvious case of a driver gaining an advantage not being penalised while a driver who gained no / minor / arguable / irrelevant advantage (tick your own box) was penalised?

to wave off one clear cut piece of footage because it's inconvenient to your argument, on the basis that it's a "tiny snippet" is pretty hypocritical. Schumacher's scenario was far, far worse, yet he got away with it, then tried to crash heidfeld off the road in the same place a few laps later.

it doesn't help F1's credibility at all that the chief steward (donnelly) is not an ex race driver and, what's worse, until quite recently had Ferrari's road-car division as one of the biggest clients in his political lobbying company...

... a company that lobbied, amongst others, the FIA!

go right ahead, then, and gather all the alleged hamilton clips together. do that, and you might regather some of your lost credibility.

by the way, hamilton was craned out because he's one of the few who knew the rules as they stood at that time. The rules allowed for that to happen and nobody else thought to take advantage of them.

simple as that. the rules were subsequently changed because people didn't like that situation and that, i should hope, is the nature of the rulebook and the job of the rulemakers.

Great post :up:

[Daniel]

and, in the hamilton case, we are all arguing over, funnily enough, a tiny snippet of a race.

all race incidents are, after all, tiny snippets of a larger race.

or do you not see the point in arguing because it so clearly shows an obvious case of a driver gaining an advantage not being penalised while a driver who gained no / minor / arguable / irrelevant advantage (tick your own box) was penalised?

to wave off one clear cut piece of footage because it's inconvenient to your argument, on the basis that it's a "tiny snippet" is pretty hypocritical. Schumacher's scenario was far, far worse, yet he got away with it, then tried to crash heidfeld off the road in the same place a few laps later.

it doesn't help F1's credibility at all that the chief steward (donnelly) is not an ex race driver and, what's worse, until quite recently had Ferrari's road-car division as one of the biggest clients in his political lobbying company...

... a company that lobbied, amongst others, the FIA!

go right ahead, then, and gather all the alleged hamilton clips together. do that, and you might regather some of your lost credibility.

by the way, hamilton was craned out because he's one of the few who knew the rules as they stood at that time. The rules allowed for that to happen and nobody else thought to take advantage of them.

simple as that. the rules were subsequently changed because people didn't like that situation and that, i should hope, is the nature of the rulebook and the job of the rulemakers.

Oh no I've lost all credibility :( I'll never be able to argue a point on an internet forum again! Oh the pain! The pain of it all! It is important to not take this whole internet too seriously and start using words like "credibility". If you want to talk about credibility you'll want to look at the fact that you took my words out of context. When I was saying that you can use a snippet to prove anything I was talking about selective editing of an incident that's happened way back in the past. OMFG you credibility is in tatters! Back in the real world

I don't see a problem with a steward not being an ex driver. A lot of motorsport officials have never competed in their lives but have spent lots of time around motorsport so have experience of being officials which is what you want from an official. The fact that he's worked for Ferrari... does it matter? Perhaps it does and perhaps it doesn't. You'll find a lot of people in the FIA that may have worked for McLaren or Ferrari in some capacity and perhaps for both. To start saying they shouldn't be doing their job without any evidence of wrongdoing is something which could be bad for your credibility.

You say I'm being hypocritical and I merely respond with the fact that I don't remember the incident which is the truth. In fact I probably never even saw the race the clip came from. If someone doesn't know the context of a clip then it's silly of them to make a judgement from what is a very small snippet. If I don't know then I don't know. There are countless threads in this forum that I don't get involved with because I never saw the incident and I don't feel that a small snippet or a bit of heresay is good enough evidence for me to base an opinion on. If you don't believe me then it's your problem not mine :)

[Knock-on]

With the crane incident, it took quite a lot of debating and rule searching to confirm that he shouldn't have been craned back on.

I have no doubt that if he had of scored points, they would have been deducted as would have been entirely justified.

However, he didn't score and therefore, there was no action to be taken.

Sorry, this post is fundementally wrong.

The post by Micky is correct. The FIA confirmed that it was not only legal but the best course of action to get him craned back on track.

Afterwards, the rules were amended.

[Daniel]

Sorry, this post is fundementally wrong.

The post by Micky is correct. The FIA confirmed that it was not only illegal but the best course of action to get him craned back on track.

Afterwards, the rules were amended.

Why were the rules ammended then? :confused:

Not a dig at you but I do think that the car was in a dangerous position and the race was safer without the car there so the right thing was done. Perhaps Lewis should have been black flagged but that sort of penalty can always be applied retrospectively as required.

[schmenke]

...Afterwards, the rules were amended.

Typical :mark:

[Knock-on]

Why were the rules ammended then? :confused:

Not a dig at you but I do think that the car was in a dangerous position and the race was safer without the car there so the right thing was done. Perhaps Lewis should have been black flagged but that sort of penalty can always be applied retrospectively as required.

Personally, I think the FIA was fundementally wrong in saying it was the best course of action and if it was, as you rightly point out, why did they change it?

We need to look at a bit of History here.

The rule was not designed to be used to recover cars that would be out of the race but when Ferrari / Schumacher used it for justification when he was pushed back in Germany, they sort of had to leave it in.

Lewis did the same so they couldn't really go back on it but perhaps it illustrated that it needed changing.

Ideally, the FIA should have disqualified Schumacher for getting pushed back into the race but they let it go opening the excuse for others to use a loophole that was never really there.

I do agree with you though that it always should have been illegal and Lewis should have got out of the car and retired.

Another consequense of FIA rules.

[Daniel]

Personally, I think the FIA was fundementally wrong in saying it was the best course of action and if it was, as you rightly point out, why did they change it?

We need to look at a bit of History here.

The rule was not designed to be used to recover cars that would be out of the race but when Ferrari / Schumacher used it for justification when he was pushed back in Germany, they sort of had to leave it in.

Lewis did the same so they couldn't really go back on it but perhaps it illustrated that it needed changing.

Ideally, the FIA should have disqualified Schumacher for getting pushed back into the race but they let it go opening the excuse for others to use a loophole that was never really there.

I do agree with you though that it always should have been illegal and Lewis should have got out of the car and retired.

Another consequense of FIA rules.

Agreed :up:

[PolePosition_1]

I was being sarcastic when I was saying it was a sign of bias ;)

What do you think of rest of my post? Surely if you agree it was right to let Massa off, same should apply to Hamilton?

[PolePosition_1]

With the crane incident, it took quite a lot of debating and rule searching to confirm that he shouldn't have been craned back on.

I have no doubt that if he had of scored points, they would have been deducted as would have been entirely justified.

However, he didn't score and therefore, there was no action to be taken.

Come on Knock On, you seem enough of my posts, source stuff like this please :) .

I'm not aware of this. I understand he was in a dangerous place and was more than entitled to be pushed back on, just like Schumacher a few years before.

---------------------

ignore posted before reading end of topic

[PolePosition_1]

Good to see we agree on that :up:

I personally think he should have been black flagged during the race but the end result is the same so no big deal. At least with no being black flagged he could run his race and if need be he could have been penalised and McLaren could have appealed and so on.

Was it wrong for Schumacher to be pushed back on track before then?

[Daniel]

What do you think of rest of my post? Surely if you agree it was right to let Massa off, same should apply to Hamilton?

No.

[PolePosition_1]

No.

Why not? Same principles, but different results.

You think they shouldn't be treated in same way because one is red and one is silver? Whats your reasoning?

[Daniel]

Was it wrong for Schumacher to be pushed back on track before then?

I didn't see it but by the sounds of it yes.

[Daniel]

Why not? Same principles, but different results.

You think they shouldn't be treated in same way because one is red and one is silver? Whats your reasoning?

Damn! You got me! Yes it's because one is silver and one is red :laugh:

Or perhaps they are totally different incidents and one happened on the track and another in the pits.

[PolePosition_1]

Damn! You got me! Yes it's because one is silver and one is red :laugh:

Or perhaps they are totally different incidents and one happened on the track and another in the pits.

Well they're not though are they, as I've said, the Stewards only enforce the rules of unsafe pit release and letting a car past with full distance when they feel like it (sometimes they don't and sometimes they do).

Both have a punishment of a drive through / 25s time penalty when punishment is enforced.

Hamilton recieved this. Massa didn't. They said Massa didn't because he didn't get a sporting advantage. But neither did Hamilton in his incident. How can you say they're totally different?

Different incidents, but the past shows they treated in the same way.

[jens]

I can certainly recall such incidents. However, am I right in thinking that at least one driver (possibly Panis?) was penalised for cutting a chicane at Hockenheim?

I don't know if you meant this, but back in 1999 Coulthard got penalized by passing Panis with shortcutting the chicane at Hockenheim - he didn't gave that position back though.

Generally I'm quite tired of this discussion here already. :D
But I've to mention one more thing. FIA should change this 25-second penalty rule. It was introduced back in 1998, when 10-sec stop & go was used as a standard penalty. Drive through penalty was introduced in 2002, which has often been used during races. However, 25s is equivalent to stop & go, not drive through. Why should a post-race penalty be harsher than a drive through?

[PolePosition_1]

I didn't see it but by the sounds of it yes.


You think it was wrong despite it being fully within the rules?

What can I say, its hard to take you seriously if you openly admit to thinking somone should be penalised for being within the rules.

[Daniel]

Well they're not though are they, as I've said, the Stewards only enforce the rules of unsafe pit release and letting a car past with full distance when they feel like it (sometimes they don't and sometimes they do).

Both have a punishment of a drive through / 25s time penalty when punishment is enforced.

Hamilton recieved this. Massa didn't. They said Massa didn't because he didn't get a sporting advantage. But neither did Hamilton in his incident. How can you say they're totally different?

Different incidents, but the past shows they treated in the same way.

The whole thing is that I agree that Lewis DID get an advantage out of what he did......

[Knock-on]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70440

One of the stewards claims that the penalty was for cutting the chicane.

He makes no mention of giving the place back or that this had any effect but a blanket judgement that this was what the penalty was for.

Seems strange considering others such as Kimi went off.

Think the FIA are digging a hole and if this is the best they can come up with after 2 days...

[Knock-on]

I've posted this on the appeal thread because it's moved on to a new stage now but here it is again.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70443

[ioan]

Massa offers a good opinion:

'"What Lewis did is the sort of thing that can happen," admits the Brazilian, "but I think he was maybe a bit too optimistic in thinking he could just hand back the position, albeit only partially to Kimi and then immediately try and pass him again.

"Incidents like this have often been discussed in the official driver briefings when it has been made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained. If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it. That was my immediate opinion after seeing the replay. Maybe if Lewis had waited and tried to pass on the next straight, that would have been a different matter."'

I'll take this opinion over Lauda's anytime. He also gives us a chance to know what is expected from the driver in such cases when he cuts the chicane.

Thanks a lot for posting this quote!

[Bagwan]

"When I had a look around the outside at the chicane , we almost had an accident and I needed to steer left to avoid him ." -Lewis

"I got in his tow..." -Lewis

"Fortunately , I got back in his slipstream..." -Lewis

He "had a look" .
Then he got a "tow" .

Lewis says he got an advantage .
But , I don't think Lewis knows he says he got an advantage .
He should really have a talk with him about this .
Maybe he could have a talk with Lauda , too .

[ioan]

well ya..but what about my above post than ? and all them drivers not using the track either at the first corner..and also gaining advantage from it..like Kimi fe ? Can anyone tell me why none there got a penalty ?

Than you agree that by not going off the track Massa and Heidfeld are rightfully 1st and 2nd after the race?!

[Mickey T]

I'll take this opinion over Lauda's anytime. He also gives us a chance to know what is expected from the driver in such cases when he cuts the chicane.

Thanks a lot for posting this quote!

wow, massa endorses a stewards' move that gifted him an undeserved race win and moves him much closer to the world championship lead.

he is also, like all of them, on a dollars for places deal, so he also benefits financially.

so he is the major beneficiary of the decision, plus the incident involved his team mate, with whom he has sided.

that'll be an impartial opinion, then...

[Tonieke]

"When I had a look around the outside at the chicane , we almost had an accident and I needed to steer left to avoid him ." -Lewis

"I got in his tow..." -Lewis

"Fortunately , I got back in his slipstream..." -Lewis

He "had a look" .
Then he got a "tow" .

Lewis says he got an advantage .
But , I don't think Lewis knows he says he got an advantage .
He should really have a talk with him about this .
Maybe he could have a talk with Lauda , too .


Ioan and Bagwan..are you guys willing to give your thoughts about Kimi's action at the start (1st corner)..see me earlier posts...and maybe explain me the difference between that action and lewis ??? Both went of the track...doing it themself..Not forced of (like been said for lewis)...and also kimi clearly gaining advantage...thx in advance !

[ioan]

"Shut up , Lauda . " - bagwan .

:up: Someone had to say it!

[Tonieke]

Than you agree that by not going off the track Massa and Heidfeld are rightfully 1st and 2nd after the race?!

well yes..But only if penalties where handed out in the very same way on every race this season..and the same for every team...and don't think that's the case ?

[ioan]

wow, massa endorses a stewards' move that gifted him an undeserved race win and moves him much closer to the world championship lead.

he is also, like all of them, on a dollars for places deal, so he also benefits financially.

so he is the major beneficiary of the decision, plus the incident involved his team mate, with whom he has sided.

that'll be an impartial opinion, then...

If you didn't bother reading the comment by Massa, then why bother posting about it?
What I liked in Massa's comments was the part about the drivers briefing and the description of what is expected form a driver in case he cuts a chicane and gains an unfair advantage from doing so.
This is the first time anyone was able to tell us what Hamilton should have done. And the answer from the Hammy fanatics is that Massa is biased, like if you aren't! :rolleyes:

[ioan]

well yes..But only if ...

What IF? What BUT?

YES or NO?

[BDunnell]

If you didn't bother reading the comment by Massa, then why bother posting about it?
What I liked in Massa's comments was the part about the drivers briefing and the description of what is expected form a driver in case he cuts a chicane and gains an unfair advantage from doing so.
This is the first time anyone was able to tell us what Hamilton should have done. And the answer from the Hammy fanatics is that Massa is biased, like if you aren't! :rolleyes:

I too am getting weary of this thread. But I would add that everybody would seem to think that the penalty was a surprise given the fact that there is almost no precedent for it under these circumstances, which, in their basic form, are not unique.

Oh, and ioan - can you honestly say that your opinions on this subject would be exactly the same had a Ferrari driver been penalised? I think we ought to know in the interests of fairness.

[Tonieke]

What IF? What BUT?

YES or NO?

I stick with my previous comment...If FIA have been handing out penalties the same all season as they did in Spa..iow..being consequent in there decissions...I say yes..YES (in case you not read it)Massa deserved the win...

But than again kimi should have gotten a drive through at the start to..and the race would have looked totaly different from the start..so that's why I not just say YES or NO !

[ioan]

I too am getting weary of this thread. But I would add that everybody would seem to think that the penalty was a surprise given the fact that there is almost no precedent for it under these circumstances, which, in their basic form, are not unique.

Oh, and ioan - can you honestly say that your opinions on this subject would be exactly the same had a Ferrari driver been penalised? I think we ought to know in the interests of fairness.

My opinion is that the stewards didn't act in the right way, and I can't judge it any more than this because I don't have the data. I refer you to my previous posts, starting with the very first page of this thread. You'll see that I never said that Hamilton was guilty and rightly punished!

So, what exactly should my opinion be if it was a Ferrari driver? :p :

You see, you are judging me without knowing the facts first! ;)

[N. Jones]

This thread could easily be closed if my question would or could be answered:

How far back should a car be after giving up a position gained by using a part of the ground that isn't considering the race track?

[tstran17_88]

It's a good thing something like this didn't happen in NASCAR. Jesse, Al and Barack would be screaming, "It's racism!" :p

[Bagwan]

This thread could easily be closed if my question would or could be answered:

How far back should a car be after giving up a position gained by using a part of the ground that isn't considering the race track?

Tough question to answer , Mr. Jones .
It must be deemed that the driver gains no advantage from the off-track move .
At different speeds this will always be different .
In this case , Hamilton has admitted that he had a tow in the slipstream , and the stewards perhaps saw this as less likely , had he stayed on track behind in the chicane .

It's got to be a judgement call in every case .

[Bagwan]

Ioan and Bagwan..are you guys willing to give your thoughts about Kimi's action at the start (1st corner)..see me earlier posts...and maybe explain me the difference between that action and lewis ??? Both went of the track...doing it themself..Not forced of (like been said for lewis)...and also kimi clearly gaining advantage...thx in advance !

I have been discussing whether or not Lewis gained advantage , not whether the stewards are consistant in penalties .

It is normal and a matter of course to complain to the stewards about such matters , and since the teams have not issued protest about that move at te first corner , we must surmise that what occurred was also normal and a matter of course .

[Bagwan]

:up: Someone had to say it!

I should be saying it to my pal , Mickey T , who dissed my opinion because it didn't sound credible beside Lauda's .
Lauda said that Lewis had no tow , and Lewis , himself said he did .

Who you gonna believe ? Me and Lewis , or old , mouldy Lauda ?

[Son of Gobber]

Wrong desicion. I would be happy for anyone to win the championship except hamilton because of the Alonso issue last season but the 25 sec penalty is ridiculous! evidence is shown that hamilton had no advantage! this is going to yet again fuel rumors of ferrari - FIA, Brothers in Arms. However i think that hamliton should not have said that raikkonen "pushed him" in the press conference because that for all to see, is untrue, RAIKKONEN HAD THE ****** RACING LINE AND WAS ALREADY HALFWAY THROUGH THE CORNER. I also think that hamilton needs to curb his attitude and composure asap to avoid stupid mistakes, bad track behaviour and comments if he is to become champ in any future years.

[Tonieke]

I have been discussing whether or not Lewis gained advantage , not whether the stewards are consistant in penalties .

It is normal and a matter of course to complain to the stewards about such matters , and since the teams have not issued protest about that move at te first corner , we must surmise that what occurred was also normal and a matter of course .

ever thought of goin into politics bagwan ? You would do great ! ;-)

[Tonieke]

also think that hamilton needs to curb his attitude and composure asap to avoid stupid mistakes, bad track behaviour and comments if he is to become champ in any future years.

Hamilton is a real racer who takes every oportunity to pass cars or at least make an attempt...sometimes it works..sometimes it doesn't...That's racing...But that's why I like him so much...Because he goes for it at every occasion...I don't see why you call that bad track behaviour....or how many cases you can show me where he really pushed of any other cars during his F1 career so far ? deliberately that is....

[HenryM]

Trulli Reckons Hamilton Deserved Penalty
9
09
2008

Toyota driver Jarno Trulli believes that the stewards were right to hand Lewis Hamilton a 25 second penalty at the end of the Belgian Grand Prix for gaining an illegal advantage after cutting the bus stop chicane.

The hot topic of F1 at the moment has been brought into the media spotlight as many reckon it was a bad choice to penalise the British driver, but Trulli reckons that other circumstances would have led him not to cut the corner or indeed encourage others to do the same.

“In my opinion Hamilton got an advantage by cutting the chicane,” Trulli told Gazzetta dello Sport. “Had he stayed on the road, he wouldn’t have had the speed to overtake the Ferrari.

“In the same way at Monza someone could cut the first chicane, catch a rival’s draft, and overtake him under braking at Roggia.

“When you attack on the outside, you do it at your own risk, because who’s on the inside has the right to do the corner. If there isn’t enough room, then you lift.

“Had there been a wall there, instead of the surfaced escape route, would Lewis have attacked anyway? Had there been gravel, he wouldn’t have had the chance to attack when rejoining the track because of dirty tyres.”

[Knock-on]

Tough question to answer , Mr. Jones .
It must be deemed that the driver gains no advantage from the off-track move .
At different speeds this will always be different .
In this case , Hamilton has admitted that he had a tow in the slipstream , and the stewards perhaps saw this as less likely , had he stayed on track behind in the chicane .

It's got to be a judgement call in every case .

I disagree.

Judgement is subjective isn't it.

Shouldn't race control have the final say?

Surely if race control confirm you are OK, then you are?

[driveace]

Oh and Jarno has an opinion too ! Is Jarno trulli Italian ? is Ferrari Italian? Lets all stick together.Just whereabouts was Jarno when this happened OR did he see it just the same as us all on film
Ralph says its wrong,Niki says its wrong,and they are not italian ,so therefore not biassed

[TMorel]

Saying all Italians stick together is as daft as saying all Brits are McLaren kissin Max hatin Lewis lovers.

Now, the other way of looking at it is two current drivers say boooo cheat and two ex drivers say support the innocent

[BDunnell]

My opinion is that the stewards didn't act in the right way, and I can't judge it any more than this because I don't have the data. I refer you to my previous posts, starting with the very first page of this thread. You'll see that I never said that Hamilton was guilty and rightly punished!

So, what exactly should my opinion be if it was a Ferrari driver? :p :

You see, you are judging me without knowing the facts first! ;)

Not at all — I was merely asking a question. However, I do take your point. :up:

[Knock-on]

Saying all Italians stick together is as daft as saying all Brits are McLaren kissin Max hatin Lewis lovers.

Now, the other way of looking at it is two current drivers say boooo cheat and two ex drivers say support the innocent


+1

I would be interested in understanding why he said this as a racing driver but he's entitled to his opinion as is NL, RS and Sterling Moss.

[COD]

Massa echoes what Trulli allready said. Don't you think these professional now a bit better than all the conspiracy theorists here???

Massa:

Incidents like this have often been discussed in the official driver briefings, when it has been made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained. If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it. That was my immediate opinion after seeing the replay.

[pino]

+1

I would be interested in understanding why he said this as a racing driver...

He said that because he's a racing driver :p :

[DexDexter]

Oh and Jarno has an opinion too ! Is Jarno trulli Italian ? is Ferrari Italian? Lets all stick together.Just whereabouts was Jarno when this happened OR did he see it just the same as us all on film
Ralph says its wrong,Niki says its wrong,and they are not italian ,so therefore not biassed


It's not only the Italians, it's us the Finns too. There was a poll in a popular Finnish tabloid and about 75% (11 000 answers) thought it was right to penalise Hamilton.

[mstillhere]

I don't know if you guys have heard the latest. According to Whitmarsh McLAren had asked the stewards TWICE if Lewis had passed Kimi correctly or not and they were told TWICE that yes, he had. Whitmarsh continues saying that if they had been told "no" they would have asked Lewis to let Kimi pass by. So, I don't know what to make of this. However, if that's true all those of you that accused Ferrari to have "links" with the FIA should apologize to Ferrari and to US (Ferrari fans). If true, of course.

[ioan]

Oh and Jarno has an opinion too ! Is Jarno trulli Italian ? is Ferrari Italian?

:laugh:
I just knew someone will say something like this!
Hamilton fanatics are way to predictable, just like him! :rotflmao:

[ioan]

I don't know if you guys have heard the latest. According to Whitmarsh McLAren had asked the stewards TWICE if Lewis had passed Kimi correctly or not and they were told TWICE that yes, he had. Whitmarsh continues saying that if they had been told "no" they would have asked Lewis to let Kimi pass by. So, I don't know what to make of this. However, if that's true all those of you that accused Ferrari to have "links" with the FIA should apologize to Ferrari and to US (Ferrari fans). If true, of course.

I'm willing to give Hamilton the benefit of doubt, but no way I would do the same with any of the McLaren bosses.
I saw last year that they will go very very low and deep trying to influence the public opinion by using false information. :down:

[yodasarmpit]

I don't know if you guys have heard the latest. According to Whitmarsh McLAren had asked the stewards TWICE if Lewis had passed Kimi correctly or not and they were told TWICE that yes, he had. Whitmarsh continues saying that if they had been told "no" they would have asked Lewis to let Kimi pass by. So, I don't know what to make of this. However, if that's true all those of you that accused Ferrari to have "links" with the FIA should apologize to Ferrari and to US (Ferrari fans). If true, of course.

The actual quote, as your paraphrase is very misleading.

Martin Whitmarsh added: "From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was 'okay'.

"If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis’s actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time."

[Tumbo]

Massa echoes what Trulli allready said. Don't you think these professional now a bit better than all the conspiracy theorists here???

Massa:

Incidents like this have often been discussed in the official driver briefings, when it has been made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained. If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it. That was my immediate opinion after seeing the replay.

With trulli it is a wildcard trying to link what he says to any Ferrari conspiracy, but looking at Massa he gets a win and cuts the championship lead to 2 points - as if he's not going to biased, in much the same way he was arguing that he should not have been penalised last race. I'd wait to hear the appeal (if we have one) too cute by half this whole incident and i would honestly love to see whether the same penalty had applied if the roles were reversed and Hamilton was overtaken by Kimi in the same manner than lewis crashed out

[Whyzars]

"If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis’s actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time."


Which is why there should've been no time penalty issued after the flag dropped.

Its not about Hamiton's guilt or innocence its the penalty that smells. In-Race penalties are only appropriate when there is an actual race underway.

:crazy:

[mstillhere]

The actual quote, as your paraphrase is very misleading.

If you find my sentence misleading go ahead but I can assure you it was NOT done on purpose. I am pretty honest when I say or write something. So, take it easy, buddy.

[wmcot]

Ralph says its wrong

If Ralf says the call was wrong, then it was probably right - we all remember how good Ralf's eyesight is!!!! :)

[wmcot]

In-Race penalties are only appropriate when there is an actual race underway.

:crazy:

Not saying that I agree with the LH situation, but in general if you limit penalties to being carried out during a race, then you're either going to have a last lap free-for-all (since you couldn't react to impose a penalty) or a penalty will have to carry over to the next race. In this case that would mean the stewards would have LH do a drive-thru during the first laps of the next race. That wouldn't go over too well, either.

[N. Jones]

Tough question to answer , Mr. Jones .
It must be deemed that the driver gains no advantage from the off-track move .
At different speeds this will always be different .
In this case , Hamilton has admitted that he had a tow in the slipstream , and the stewards perhaps saw this as less likely , had he stayed on track behind in the chicane .

It's got to be a judgement call in every case .

Yeah, plus Jarno made a good point - since he cut the chicane and the runoff was asphalt he was able to keep his speed, drop back and attack again.

[ShiftingGears]

:laugh:
I just knew someone will say something like this!
Hamilton fanatics are way to predictable, just like him! :rotflmao:

LOL

The irony!

[Rollo]

Oh and Jarno has an opinion too ! Is Jarno trulli Italian ? is Ferrari Italian? Lets all stick together.Just whereabouts was Jarno when this happened OR did he see it just the same as us all on film
Ralph says its wrong,Niki says its wrong,and they are not italian ,so therefore not biassed

Trulli himself might not be but the paper that he told is Italian:

Trulli told Gazzetta dello Sport.
Italian press like the English press is biased. British press in favour of Hamilton, and the Italian press in favour of Ferrari. It's a reasonable slant for them to take since they're in the business of selling newspapers.

It's probably impossible to find any unbiased or neutral reports, because virtually everyone has an agenda (and for newspapers, it's selling ad space).

[leopard]

LOL

The irony!

probably your right. ;)

[hmmm - donuts]

It seems that Charlie Whiting confirmed, possibly twice, that the way LH dropped back behind Kimi was OK. However, the race stewards took a diiferent view. Is there a case for teams checking with both the race director and the race stewards? Particularly as it appears that the stewards can override the race director's decision.

[wmcot]

It seems that Charlie Whiting confirmed, possibly twice, that the way LH dropped back behind Kimi was OK. However, the race stewards took a diiferent view. Is there a case for teams checking with both the race director and the race stewards? Particularly as it appears that the stewards can override the race director's decision.

I think it's another example of FIA management - never let your left hand know what the right hand is doing (wait...this is the wrong forum...never mind) :)

[wmcot]

I just finished watching the second half of the race again and I realized that if we're all playing the "IF" game, here's one for you - IF LH hadn't spun on lap 1 or 2, we wouldn't even have this thread right now...

But, since we do have this thread, I found it interesting that on the ITV feed, Mark Blundell was uncertain as to whether Lewis had gained an advantage at the famous chicane. If ITV has a doubt about Lewis, then the doubt MUST be taken seriously.

[ioan]

Up to now we have:
1. lots of raging McLaren and Hamilton fans complaining about the penalty.
2. a few fans that say it was right
3. a few that chose to sit on the fence (me included) as we don't have the relevant data needed to judge the situation.
4. Niki Lauda against the ruling.
5. Trulli and Massa who consider that the penalty was deserved, and I had the chance to hear Wurz during the live coverage saying that a drive through should be in the cards and that given that it was late it will probably be a 25 seconds penalty.

Interesting situation.

[Knock-on]

I just finished watching the second half of the race again and I realized that if we're all playing the "IF" game, here's one for you - IF LH hadn't spun on lap 1 or 2, we wouldn't even have this thread right now...

But, since we do have this thread, I found it interesting that on the ITV feed, Mark Blundell was uncertain as to whether Lewis had gained an advantage at the famous chicane. If ITV has a doubt about Lewis, then the doubt MUST be taken seriously.

There are always IF's

IF McLaren hadn't spoken with Race Control TWICE, we would be saying that IF they were unsure, they should have checked with Race Control to find out.

Of course, IF they had of checked twice, they SHOULD have rung up ITV to make sure ;)

[Tonieke]

Up to now we have:
1. lots of raging McLaren and Hamilton fans complaining about the penalty.
who says these are all McL and/or Hamilton fans ?


Up to now we have:
a few that chose to sit on the fence (me included) as we don't have the relevant data needed to judge the situation.

I don't agree there...u sitting on the fence that is..as U wanted a clear YES or NO from me if Massa was the deserved winner..right ? as long as you are not sure about the penalty yourself you can not demand from other to have a clear opinion either !



Up to now we have:
and I had the chance to hear Wurz during the live coverage saying that a drive through should be in the cards and that given that it was late it will probably be a 25 seconds penalty.

what channel was that ?

[AndyRAC]

The real problem is that the rules seem ambiguous, hence the lengthly arguments on here. Did he/didn't he gain an advantage? What is an advantage?
The rules should be black & white, and everybody knows what they are. If the Race Director thinks the info he's giving is correct yet later isn't - then there are issues.
Personally they should have given him a slap on the wrists with a fine, then sort it out starting next season so everybody knows were they stand.

[ioan]

I don't agree there...u sitting on the fence that is..as U wanted a clear YES or NO from me if Massa was the deserved winner..right ? as long as you are not sure about the penalty yourself you can not demand from other to have a clear opinion either !

That's because you were giving contradictory opinions based on the drivers involved, and I wanted to see how objective you can be. Not getting any objective (without BUT's and IF's) answers from you up to know I can say you are a biased Hamilton supporter.

And no, I'm not sure about the penalty, and even if I was sure that he was guilty I think that I would have preferred a 10 places grid demotion in Monza instead of taking away a race win he earned on track after all.

[ioan]

what channel was that ?

ORF1

[PolePosition_1]

The whole thing is that I agree that Lewis DID get an advantage out of what he did......

So did Massa, he left the pits into the path of Sutil, if he'd waited he would have lost 2 seconds. But he didn't gain a sporting advantage as it didn't change the results. Same as Hamilton, as Kimi went off anyway.

[jas123f1]

I think many of us was i directly after the race thinking that the decision stewards made was wrong, but when we have been looking on the pictures and video afterwards we have changes our mind.. however i did it..

[Tonieke]

That's because you were giving contradictory opinions based on the drivers involved, and I wanted to see how objective you can be. Not getting any objective (without BUT's and IF's) answers from you up to know I can say you are a biased Hamilton supporter.

And no, I'm not sure about the penalty, and even if I was sure that he was guilty I think that I would have preferred a 10 places grid demotion in Monza instead of taking away a race win he earned on track after all.

yep I am a fan of Lewis..but I also dare to admit when in my eyes he does things wrong..makes stupid mistakes or whatever....To me He's just a real racer..who goes for it all the time...I like a driver who wants to pass another driver on the outside...even if it not always turns out great..It's racers like lewis (and he's surely not the only one) who make watching F1 exciting..and when someone attacks him..makes fun of him and whatever..and I see it as wrong..i will defend him...But I will never ever show hatery towards any other driver like you often do...Taking every occasion to make fun of and/or make lewis look bad...why actualy is that ? where is this hatery coming from ? His attitude ? i can't believe that..as your signature shows you like Michael a lot..and you can not deny he was the perfect sample of the most friendly driver either...

anyway..I agree with you on the penalty....If it was a deserved one....But I still wonder why ferrari had the 3th option in valencia ? a fine...

[PolePosition_1]

This thread could easily be closed if my question would or could be answered:

How far back should a car be after giving up a position gained by using a part of the ground that isn't considering the race track?

Well, thats the thing, no one seems to know. All we know that in the past, letting the car past is enough, as guided by the FIA.

[Daniel]

So did Massa, he left the pits into the path of Sutil, if he'd waited he would have lost 2 seconds. But he didn't gain a sporting advantage as it didn't change the results. Same as Hamilton, as Kimi went off anyway.
I don't agree with that at all.

Just because Kimi went off doesn't mean that Hamilton didn't deserve to be penalised. These are two separate issues.

Of course Massa got a sporting advantage from releasing sooner rather than later. Just as Lewis had a sporting advantage from being on pole, having a car which handled better in the wet and better on the hard tyres. The question is whether the advantage was gained in a legal and safe manner. It is the opinion of the stewards that Massa's release was not entirely unsafe but did justify some small punishment and that Lewis didn't negate the advantage enough to escape punishment.

[Mickey T]

If you didn't bother reading the comment by Massa, then why bother posting about it?
What I liked in Massa's comments was the part about the drivers briefing and the description of what is expected form a driver in case he cuts a chicane and gains an unfair advantage from doing so.
This is the first time anyone was able to tell us what Hamilton should have done. And the answer from the Hammy fanatics is that Massa is biased, like if you aren't! :rolleyes:

roll your eyes all you like, but there is ample evidence here to show i'm not a hammy fan.

i think he's a conniving little manipulator, but that doesn't mean he hasn't been wronged here.

i did read the comment, which is why i posted. you just assumed that i didn't because you thought (i suppose) that it gave you a witty retort and meant you didn't have to answer the actual counter argument, just it's tone.

i would listen to it, but without placing any strength behind it. i would pay little attention to the opinion of M Schumacher for the same reason and, you may have noticed, i didn't give any particular credibility to R Schumacher's comment either, because he is in the pay of Mercedes-Benz.

lauda i give credence to, because he's won championships for both teams. i wouldn't mind hearing from, say, webber or rubens on the subject. or even brundle, because i never heard his opinion.

[Tonieke]

I don't agree with that at all.

Just because Kimi went off doesn't mean that Hamilton didn't deserve to be penalised. These are two separate issues.

Of course Massa got a sporting advantage from releasing sooner rather than later. Just as Lewis had a sporting advantage from being on pole, having a car which handled better in the wet and better on the hard tyres. The question is whether the advantage was gained in a legal and safe manner. It is the opinion of the stewards that Massa's release was not entirely unsafe but did justify some small punishment and that Lewis didn't negate the advantage enough to escape punishment.

by giving Massa a penalty Fia showed he made a mistake...a penalty is a penalty...and when giving out penalties in these cases at previous races there was either a drive through and or time penalty..why this time just a fine ?

[ioan]

So did Massa, he left the pits into the path of Sutil, if he'd waited he would have lost 2 seconds.

No offense, but before posting next time go and learn some proper English. If for you being alongside Sutil means "into the path of Sutil", than you've got a serious language or spatial problem.

And FYI it doesn't take 2 seconds for a car traveling at 80 kph to advance 5 meters. :rolleyes:

[ioan]

i would listen to it, but without placing any strength behind it. i would pay little attention to the opinion of M Schumacher for the same reason and, you may have noticed, i didn't give any particular credibility to R Schumacher's comment either, because he is in the pay of Mercedes-Benz.

lauda i give credence to, because he's won championships for both teams. i wouldn't mind hearing from, say, webber or rubens on the subject. or even brundle, because i never heard his opinion.

What about Trulli's and Wurz's opinions?
For me they are worth more than Lauda's (who didn't race a F1 car for 30 years and knows squat about using tarmac ran off areas), and none of them is on Ferrari's payroll.

[ioan]

by giving Massa a penalty Fia showed he made a mistake...a penalty is a penalty...and when giving out penalties in these cases at previous races there was either a drive through and or time penalty..why this time just a fine ?

The FIA didn't give Massa penalty!
Take an honest advice, stop talking about things you don't know, it will make your opinions look way better. Just because Knockie and PP1 do it it doesn't mean it's the way to go. ;)

[Tonieke]

The FIA didn't give Massa penalty!
Take an honest advice, stop talking about things you don't know, it will make your opinions look way better. Just because Knockie and PP1 do it it doesn't mean it's the way to go. ;)

Now you got me confused...If there was no penalty...what was the fine for than ?

[ioan]

Now you got me confused...If there was no penalty...what was the fine for than ?

The fine was for the team, not for the driver! Feeling any better now?! ;)

[cosmicpanda]

The FIA didn't give Massa penalty!
Take an honest advice, stop talking about things you don't know, it will make your opinions look way better. Just because Knockie and PP1 do it it doesn't mean it's the way to go. ;)

I think that saying that a fine is not a penalty is splitting hairs a bit finely.

[ioan]

I think that saying that a fine is not a penalty is splitting hairs a bit finely.

Check it out, the team got a fine, not the driver, because it was the teams job to release him at the right moment.

[cosmicpanda]

Check it out, the team got a fine, not the driver, because it was the teams job to release him at the right moment.

I did check it out, call me a numpty but I couldn't find anything on the FIA site.

However I did find this on pitpass, which contradicts you:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=35734

"Sure enough, shortly after the end of the race, having viewed video evidence and spoken to the driver and representatives of Ferrari, it was decided that the Brazilian had not gained any advantage from the incident, though he had breached Article 23.1 (i) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations, consequently he was fined 10,000 euros and officially reprimanded, but kept the win."

[Tonieke]

Check it out, the team got a fine, not the driver, because it was the teams job to release him at the right moment.

ok ok correction..THE TEAM ;-) got a penalty..and a penalty is a penalty..where other TEAMS in the past got a drive through and/or time penalty for the same..Ferrari only got a fine..Just like in the past never/ever a team and/or driver was penalised for exactly the same/or even worse action ala Hamilton...Why is that Ioan ? where is the logic ?

[Knock-on]

ok ok correction..THE TEAM ;-) got a penalty..and a penalty is a penalty..where other TEAMS in the past got a drive through and/or time penalty for the same..Ferrari only got a fine..Just like in the past never/ever a team and/or driver was penalised for exactly the same/or even worse action ala Hamilton...Why is that Ioan ? where is the logic ?

Nail - head - hit

:D

If they penalised Massa, they would have had to give some sort of time penalty so they couldn't.

[PolePosition_1]

No offense, but before posting next time go and learn some proper English. If for you being alongside Sutil means "into the path of Sutil", than you've got a serious language or spatial problem.

And FYI it doesn't take 2 seconds for a car traveling at 80 kph to advance 5 meters. :rolleyes:

Lol, no need to be so patronising. The F1 pitlanes are ordered so that its a single file formation out of the pits. By running alongside him its not meant to happen, if he'd taken the single file format he would have gone into the path of Sutil.

But to wait for a car to pass, it he would have had to wait, costing him time, therefore by being released he gained a time advantage. The reason why Dnaiel thinks Hamilton should have been penalised. I'm just pointing out Massa gained a time advantage by not waiting for Sutil to pass.

[Daniel]

But to wait for a car to pass, it he would have had to wait, costing him time, therefore by being released he gained a time advantage. The reason why Daniel thinks Hamilton should have been penalised. I'm just pointing out Massa gained a time advantage by not waiting for Sutil to pass.

By that token I think Lewis should get a drive through for having the advantage of starting on pole position on Sunday. Absolutely shocking behaviour! Gaining an advantage! How could he! :rolleyes:

[Bagwan]

Lol, no need to be so patronising. The F1 pitlanes are ordered so that its a single file formation out of the pits. By running alongside him its not meant to happen, if he'd taken the single file format he would have gone into the path of Sutil.

But to wait for a car to pass, it he would have had to wait, costing him time, therefore by being released he gained a time advantage. The reason why Dnaiel thinks Hamilton should have been penalised. I'm just pointing out Massa gained a time advantage by not waiting for Sutil to pass.

Felipe backed out when they reached the end of the lane , therefore negating any advantage gained by going along side .
Had his team released him after waiting for Sutil to go by , he would have been roughly in the same position , so your point is either moot or completely irrelevent .

[PolePosition_1]

I don't agree with that at all.

Just because Kimi went off doesn't mean that Hamilton didn't deserve to be penalised. These are two separate issues.

Of course Massa got a sporting advantage from releasing sooner rather than later. Just as Lewis had a sporting advantage from being on pole, having a car which handled better in the wet and better on the hard tyres. The question is whether the advantage was gained in a legal and safe manner. It is the opinion of the stewards that Massa's release was not entirely unsafe but did justify some small punishment and that Lewis didn't negate the advantage enough to escape punishment.

Lol, thats my point Daniel. The Stewarding is not consistant. In previous cases when the Stewards see unsafe release, they penalised with a 25s penalty. But with Massa, they saw it as unsafe, but decided against a penalty for Massa because in the eyes of the Stewards no sporting advantage was made as it didn't affect the race results. Well exactly the same for Hamilton, yet he had a full on punishment.

Ignore what we think of the situation, lets just go purely on how the Stewards see it, both were guilty, neither gained a sporting advantage, but one was let off and another penalised.

Surely you can see the inconsistancy?

[PolePosition_1]

by giving Massa a penalty Fia showed he made a mistake...a penalty is a penalty...and when giving out penalties in these cases at previous races there was either a drive through and or time penalty..why this time just a fine ?

Officially because he didn't gain a sporting advantage.

Though niether did Lewis :(

[Tonieke]

Felipe backed out when they reached the end of the lane , therefore negating any advantage gained by going along side .
Had his team released him after waiting for Sutil to go by , he would have been roughly in the same position , so your point is either moot or completely irrelevent .

this actualy has nothing to do with advantage or no advantage (because nowhere in the rulebook one can find anything about what exactly means an advantage )..Just like never ever before was an advantage or no advantage discussed in the hamilton case of last sunday..let alone a penalty was given..in the case of Valencia and Ferrari there have been precedents...and the penalty either was a drive through and or time penalty.....

[PolePosition_1]

Felipe backed out when they reached the end of the lane , therefore negating any advantage gained by going along side .
Had his team released him after waiting for Sutil to go by , he would have been roughly in the same position , so your point is either moot or completely irrelevent .

Not really, because in both cases no sporting advantage was gained. Yet both penalised totally different.

[PolePosition_1]

By that token I think Lewis should get a drive through for having the advantage of starting on pole position on Sunday. Absolutely shocking behaviour! Gaining an advantage! How could he! :rolleyes:

Well, gaining a sporting advantage within the rules is legal, gaining a sporting advantage by breaking the rules is slightly different.

[Daniel]

Lol, thats my point Daniel. The Stewarding is not consistant. In previous cases when the Stewards see unsafe release, they penalised with a 25s penalty. But with Massa, they saw it as unsafe, but decided against a penalty for Massa because in the eyes of the Stewards no sporting advantage was made as it didn't affect the race results. Well exactly the same for Hamilton, yet he had a full on punishment.

Ignore what we think of the situation, lets just go purely on how the Stewards see it, both were guilty, neither gained a sporting advantage, but one was let off and another penalised.

Surely you can see the inconsistancy?


For the last time.... NO!

There should be consistency between IDENTICAL offences. Yes. But we're talking different offences here. The offence Lewis commited has everything to do with gaining an unfair advantage over a competitor and Massa's or rather Ferrari's offence has nothing to do with gaining an advantage as such.

[Bagwan]

Not really, because in both cases no sporting advantage was gained. Yet both penalised totally different.

Massa's team was penalized for unsafe release . The stewards saw no advantage .
Hamilton was penalized because the did see advantage gained .

It was completely different , and so were the penalties .

[Bagwan]

Just found this :
Fernando in Spain to local media says in response to being asked about the incident , "In the end , what they say is always fair , whether you like it of not ."

That's another current driver agreeing that Lewis deserved what he got .

[PolePosition_1]

Massa's team was penalized for unsafe release . The stewards saw no advantage .
Hamilton was penalized because the did see advantage gained .

It was completely different , and so were the penalties .

In what way did Hamilton gain an advantage?

[PolePosition_1]

For the last time.... NO!

There should be consistency between IDENTICAL offences. Yes. But we're talking different offences here. The offence Lewis commited has everything to do with gaining an unfair advantage over a competitor and Massa's or rather Ferrari's offence has nothing to do with gaining an advantage as such.

Thats the thing. They're two seperate offences, which are penalised with exactly the same penalty. Yet different penalties applied in this case....

[Tonieke]

For the last time.... NO!

There should be consistency between IDENTICAL offences. Yes. But we're talking different offences here. The offence Lewis commited has everything to do with gaining an unfair advantage over a competitor and Massa's or rather Ferrari's offence has nothing to do with gaining an advantage as such.

There HAVE been precedents in the valencia/Ferrari case and each time the penalty was either drive through and or time penalty !!!!!!!!

In Hamilton's case this is the very first time a driver gets punished....and it's the very first time the term "advantage" is used...and like I said before...nowhere (at least I haven't found it or anyone else posted it) in the FIA rulesbook the word "advantage" is explained on what exactly they mean by it....

[Daniel]

Well, gaining a sporting advantage within the rules is legal, gaining a sporting advantage by breaking the rules is slightly different.

The fact of the matter is that the incident with Massa's car was to do with safety and Hamilton's offence was to do with gaining a sporting advantage by shortcutting the track.

[Knock-on]

There HAVE been precedents in the valencia/Ferrari case and each time the penalty was either drive through and or time penalty !!!!!!!!

In Hamilton's case this is the very first time I driver gets punished....and it's the very first time the term "advantage" is used...and like I said before...nowhere (at least I haven't found it or anyone else posted it) in the FIA rulesbook the word "advantage" is not explained on what exactly they mean by it....

This is why I started the Rules thread.

It is soooo difficult to understand exactly what is happening because the FIA make it purposly covert.

I would suggest that 90%+ of us understood that if you gain an advantage by cutting a corner, then you conceed the place.

We understood that to be the rules and when it happens, the commentators say it.

However, I can't find it written anywhere on the FIA site that this is part of the rules. In fact, i know quite a bit about the rules and regulations and know that it isn't there.

So, we have what the Stewards have claimed. He cut a chicane.

In this, they are 100% right as that is all that is in the rules.

They have ignored the rules that prohibit drivers forcing others off track or that he avoided an accident and just taken one specific incident into account.

If this is the case, it is proof positive that the infractions committed by Ferrari will be ignored as they have been and McLaren will be penalised on technicalities where nobody else is.

[ioan]

ok ok correction..THE TEAM ;-) got a penalty..and a penalty is a penalty..where other TEAMS in the past got a drive through and/or time penalty for the same..Ferrari only got a fine..Just like in the past never/ever a team and/or driver was penalised for exactly the same/or even worse action ala Hamilton...Why is that Ioan ? where is the logic ?

The stewards deemed that Massa didn't get any advantage from that "incident", and rightly so because he slotted in behind Sutil. Also he didn't impede Sutil in any way.

Given that it was the teams responsibility to release the car in a safe manner, they were punished! Is it so complicated?! I think not.

This season it happened another 3 times previously that cars were released alongside a car that was traveling on the pit lane. never was any penalty given to anyone!

When was it that in a similar case a penalty was handed to a driver? Just tell us and the case will be analyzed.

[Knock-on]

The stewards deemed that Lewis didn't get any advantage from that "incident", and rightly so because he slotted in behind Kimi. Also he didn't impede Kimi in any way.




:laugh:

Couldn't resist

[ioan]

I did check it out, call me a numpty but I couldn't find anything on the FIA site.

However I did find this on pitpass, which contradicts you:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=35734

"Sure enough, shortly after the end of the race, having viewed video evidence and spoken to the driver and representatives of Ferrari, it was decided that the Brazilian had not gained any advantage from the incident, though he had breached Article 23.1 (i) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations, consequently he was fined 10,000 euros and officially reprimanded, but kept the win."

Here, from a somewhat more reliable source (hope you agree):



Felipe Massa's Ferrari team have been reprimanded and fined by the European Grand Prix stewards, but the Brazilian driver has kept his victory at Valencia.

Massa's victory was in doubt after the stewards said they would investigate a pitlane incident after the race.

The Brazilian nearly crashed with Force India's Adrian Sutil when joining the pitlane following his pitstop and the stewards deemed his release had been dangerous.

As a result of the incident Ferrari have been reprimanded and Ferrari fined 10,000 Euro for the "unsafe release from pitstop, although no sporting advantage was obtained."

Link to article: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70038

[Tonieke]

This is why I started the Rules thread.

It is soooo difficult to understand exactly what is happening because the FIA make it purposly covert.

I would suggest that 90%+ of us understood that if you gain an advantage by cutting a corner, then you conceed the place.

We understood that to be the rules and when it happens, the commentators say it.

However, I can't find it written anywhere on the FIA site that this is part of the rules. In fact, i know quite a bit about the rules and regulations and know that it isn't there.

So, we have what the Stewards have claimed. He cut a chicane.

In this, they are 100% right as that is all that is in the rules.

They have ignored the rules that prohibit drivers forcing others off track or that he avoided an accident and just taken one specific incident into account.

If this is the case, it is proof positive that the infractions committed by Ferrari will be ignored as they have been and McLaren will be penalised on technicalities where nobody else is.

and even if it is in the rulesbook..For all these years it was tolerated --> fight for position..one driver cut the chicane..gives position back..case closed..It happens almost every race weekend and whatever series or championship....never someone whined about the fact this or that driver gained advantage...why now suddenly at Spa stewards look different at things ?

[ioan]

Lol, no need to be so patronising. The F1 pitlanes are ordered so that its a single file formation out of the pits. By running alongside him its not meant to happen, if he'd taken the single file format he would have gone into the path of Sutil.

He didn't go into the path of Sutil.
tell us where were you when the other 3 times this happened this season? Don't be shy! Were you calling for the driver's heads? I don't remember seeing you crying out about it! So don't be a hypocrite.



But to wait for a car to pass, it he would have had to wait, costing him time, therefore by being released he gained a time advantage. The reason why Dnaiel thinks Hamilton should have been penalised. I'm just pointing out Massa gained a time advantage by not waiting for Sutil to pass.

I'll only point out that Massa quit the pit lane area behind Sutil, so tell us where did he gain a time advantage. Don't duck it, answer this question. How did he gain time advantage if he joined the race track behind Sutil, isn't it what would have happened anyway?!

[ioan]

For the last time.... NO!

There should be consistency between IDENTICAL offences. Yes. But we're talking different offences here. The offence Lewis commited has everything to do with gaining an unfair advantage over a competitor and Massa's or rather Ferrari's offence has nothing to do with gaining an advantage as such.

Losing your time talking to a wall, Daniel?

[ioan]

Just found this :
Fernando in Spain to local media says in response to being asked about the incident , "In the end , what they say is always fair , whether you like it of not ."

That's another current driver agreeing that Lewis deserved what he got .

I bet Kovalainen would say the same thing, if he was allowed too, that is!

But hey, even if 19 drivers out of the 20 would say the same thing, the Lewy fanatics will only believe Lewy and his two fathers! ;)

[ioan]

In what way did Hamilton gain an advantage?

If, after 3 days and 32 pages of discussion you still didn't understand what was explained in 100's of different, by all kind of F1 related or unrelated people, than there is no use for me to say it another supplementary time.
Or to put it clearly, you can't make a wall understand you.

[ioan]

There HAVE been precedents in the valencia/Ferrari case and each time the penalty was either drive through and or time penalty !!!!!!!!

Post those precedents when 2 cars going side by side in the pit lane were given penalties and you'll get many more examples for when 2 cars went side by side on the pit lane and were not punished.

Just saying that there were such cases it won't make it true, give us examples.

[ArrowsFA1]

But hey, even if 19 drivers out of the 20 would say the same thing...
...the FIA's word is final.

Well...that is...depending on which FIA official is asked :p

[Tonieke]

The fact of the matter is that the incident with Massa's car was to do with safety and Hamilton's offence was to do with gaining a sporting advantage by shortcutting the track.

Just something I thought about...Massa was released to early..drove next to Sutil..so Fia says...Not allowed...penalty....even if it was just a fine....In Canada..i see Kimi ending up next to and on the left side of Robert when leaving the pit...so wasn't he also released to early? did he ever got a penalty ? Even if it was just a fine like in Valencia ?

[Tonieke]

Post those precedents when 2 cars going side by side in the pit lane were given penalties and you'll get many more examples for when 2 cars went side by side on the pit lane and were not punished.

Just saying that there were such cases it won't make it true, give us examples.

well that's what I am trying to explain here..where's the logic ? and I will try to find some samples where drivers got punished...

Schumacher a couple of years back is 1...and i know..it's not exactly the same..but it was also "just" a pitstop incident..and in this case not even any other team was involved..Hungary last year....Fernando....FIA decides to hand out a penalty...Why they not just gave the team a fine either ?

[ioan]

...the FIA's word is final.

Well...that is...depending on which FIA official is asked :p

Arrows, you watched F1 for so many years, you know it full well that it's up to the stewards to hand out a penalty, even the ones related to technical issues.

The FIA race and technical directors are there to insure the show goes on, not to decide what was wrong or right on the track. They only note what happens and if they consider it necessary they refer it to the stewards, but they do not have decision powers.

The stewards decide based on the evidence presented to them if there is a guilty entity and what the penalty will be.

It's been like this for so many years, and I think it will stay like this from now on too, simply because it's the right solution.

Also these stewards are independent of the FIA unlike the technical and race directors. So the people saying that it's the FIA's inconsistency are clearly talking rubbish.

[ioan]

well that's what I am trying to explain here..where's the logic ? and I will try to find some samples where drivers got punished...

Schumacher a couple of years back is 1...and i know..it's not exactly the same..but it was also "just" a pitstop incident..and in this case not even any other team was involved..Hungary last year....Fernando....FIA decides to hand out a penalty...Why they not just gave the team a fine either ?

What? Where did MS go down the pitlane alongside another car and there was a penalty?

Same question for the case in which you are talking about Alonso.

Year and race required, as I'd like to verify the facts.

[ioan]

Why they not just gave the team a fine either ?

Because if it depends on the team and not the driver they can't hand out a drive through to the driver, so they fine the team, or deduct a quantity of their championship points.

If it's the driver's fault, than he will get a drive through, a stop and go or a time penalty.

You really need to watch more F1 and try to understand what, when and why happens.

[Tonieke]

Also these stewards are independent of the FIA unlike the technical and race directors. So the people saying that it's the FIA's inconsistency are clearly talking rubbish.

than you should write autosport.com as they put in wrong in there headline

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70440

[ioan]

than you should write autosport.com as they put in wrong in there headline

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70440

I'll let you do that.
You can quote me on it however, if you want to.
They are appointed by the FIA to do this for the week end, but are not on contract with the FIA for it and they also can refuse doing it.

[Tonieke]

Because if it depends on the team and not the driver they can't hand out a drive through to the driver, so they fine the team, or deduct a quantity of their championship points.

If it's the driver's fault, than he will get a drive through, a stop and go or a time penalty.

You really need to watch more F1 and try to understand what, when and why happens.


I did say team no ? and I was just wondering why ferrari got a fine in valencia and why they did not got one in Canada....as it looks they also released Kimi to early..just like they did with massa in valencia..How else you explain Kimi ended up next to and on the left of Robert ?

[Tonieke]

I'll let you do that.
You can quote me on it however, if you want to.
They are appointed by the FIA to do this for the week end, but are not on contract with the FIA for it and they also can refuse doing it.

well they might be so called "independant" but in the end it is FIA who hands out there licenses to be a steward...

[ioan]

I did say team no ? and I was just wondering why ferrari got a fine in valencia and why they did not got one in Canada....as it looks they also released Kimi to early..just like they did with massa in valencia..How else you explain Kimi ended up next to and on the left of Robert ?

Because in Canada it was not dangerous at all given that the pit lane is 3 times larger?!

[ioan]

well they might be so called "independant" but in the end it is FIA who hands out there licenses to be a steward...

Well you and I as drivers also pay to the FIA and get some kind of membership in return, does this make us biased towards the FIA?

Hamilton himself get's his license to drive an F1 car directly from the FIA. So what?

[cosmicpanda]

Here, from a somewhat more reliable source (hope you agree):

"As a result of the incident Ferrari have been reprimanded and Ferrari fined 10,000 Euro for the "unsafe release from pitstop, although no sporting advantage was obtained."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70038

Ioan, in search of resolution to this dispute, I looked up the relevant regulations. Article 154 of the 2008 International Sporting Code says:

"A fine may be inflicted on any competitor, and also on any driver, assistant or passenger, who does not comply with the requirements of any Regulations or with any instruction of the officials of the meeting (see Article 132)."

Perhaps they mean 'competitor' to mean 'constructor', in the case of F1. As you can see, however, this does not exclude the possibility of Massa being fined (and possibly Ferrari paying the fine for him).

I wish we could see the original Steward's decision. It's starting to worry me now :D

[jas123f1]

I think it would be very difficult to FIA to changes the decision now - there are so much details which tells that stewards make (after on further consideration) a right thing when they gave Lewis 25 second penalty -- if English media then like it or not.

I'm sure it wasn't easy decision but they had not possible to let things like that go past, because you must decide with respect and with regarding to the rules. There is now other way - you can’t start to think what some other stewards made in some other cases there you don't have any accurate knowledge what really happened... i must say I'm a bit disappointed to Niki Lauda - i think he should know better.. than to making this bigger than they are – for me this is a storm in a teacup .. :)

[Tonieke]

Well you and I as drivers also pay to the FIA and get some kind of membership in return, does this make us biased towards the FIA?

Hamilton himself get's his license to drive an F1 car directly from the FIA. So what?

so what ? If FIA decides to take away anyones license..they no longer can race at events ruled by FIA..either can stewards...what does that mean ? They are the boss after all no ?

[Tonieke]

Because in Canada it was not dangerous at all given that the pit lane is 3 times larger?!

than why there is this white line ?

[ioan]

Ioan, in search of resolution to this dispute, I looked up the relevant regulations. Article 154 of the 2008 International Sporting Code says:

"A fine may be inflicted on any competitor, and also on any driver, assistant or passenger, who does not comply with the requirements of any Regulations or with any instruction of the officials of the meeting (see Article 132)."

Perhaps they mean 'competitor' to mean 'constructor', in the case of F1. As you can see, however, this does not exclude the possibility of Massa being fined (and possibly Ferrari paying the fine for him).

I wish we could see the original Steward's decision. It's starting to worry me now :D

Here you go! ;)
They say the competitor is named Ferrari Scuderia Marlboro.

http://www.fia.com/europegp/documents/EUR_08_Document_41.pdf

[ioan]

than why there is this white line ?

For delimitation of the pit box area?

[ioan]

so what ? If FIA decides to take away anyones license..they no longer can race at events ruled by FIA..either can stewards...what does that mean ? They are the boss after all no ?

Sure, but they can't do so without a serious reason. Exactly like how the police can't take away your driving license without a reason.

[Tonieke]

For delimitation of the pit box area?

so drivers can..when entering or leaving the pitlane..drive where ever they want..if it is...in your opinion just mend as a delimitation ?

[Tonieke]

Sure, but they can't do so without a serious reason. Exactly like how the police can't take away your driving license without a reason.

well ok..but they are the ones who decide the rules...so they are the ones you have to listen to..so stewards are not really that independant as you made it sound !

[ioan]

so drivers can..when entering or leaving the pitlane..drive where ever they want..if it is...in your opinion just mend as a delimitation ?

The way I see it: if a car drives in boxes side of the line and has an incident with one of the mechanics than it's the driver's fault, however if the incident takes place on the other side of the white strip than it's the mechanics fault.

I'm pretty sure that the cars have the right to drive on both sides of that white strip, otherwise I don't see how they could enter and exit their boxes and garages.

[cosmicpanda]

Here you go! ;)
They say the competitor is named Ferrari Scuderia Marlboro.

http://www.fia.com/europegp/documents/EUR_08_Document_41.pdf

All right Ioan, I conceed that you might just have something there when you say that they fined Ferrari.

[ioan]

well ok..but they are the ones who decide the rules...so they are the ones you have to listent to..so stewards are not really that independant as you made it sound !

I told you that the stewards can also refuse to do it, as they are people who have other jobs (engineer, doctor, lawyer and so on), their main occupation not being a race steward.

On the other hand if the FIA revokes a driver's license than it's game over for him, cause driving a race car is their profession.

[ioan]

All right Ioan, I conceed that you might just have something there when you say that they fined Ferrari.

No need for that, I'm happy enough with having a civilized discussion without any of the usual turn-offs.
You were totally entitled to your opinion based on the article you read on pitpass.com.

[Mickey T]

Because in Canada it was not dangerous at all given that the pit lane is 3 times larger?!

no, not dangerous at all.

no, three cars didn't crash into each other as a result of it, did they?

or was i dreaming?

you either have a law against releasing a car into the path of another car or you don't. you don't have liberal and less-liberal interpretations depending on the pitlane. there's one drive-thru lane and that's it.

if you extrapolate that, then ferrari attempted to gain an advantage by sending kimi out into kubica's path, kimi attempted to gain an advantage by refusing to yield when he was clearly out of position.

and, if they'd reached the red light (the cause of which has still yet to be explained by the race stewards or the FIA) one after the other instead of side-by-side, the dozers hamilton and rosberg would have had somewhere to go instead of having one of the most comical crashes in f1 history.

there is a difference between the massa and canadian incidents, i agree.

the difference is the massa one was a potentially dangerous situation with a lapped car, while the raikkonen one was an ultimately dangerous situation where they tried to eke an advantage for the race lead.

bugger all to do with the pit width, though.

[ioan]

no, not dangerous at all.

no, three cars didn't crash into each other as a result of it, did they?

As a result of it?! Or as a result of a certain driver not paying attention to where his car was going?

no, not dangerous at all.

no, three cars didn't crash into each other as a result of it, did they?

or was i dreaming?

Don't know about dreaming, but you were definitely asleep.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsXs5yWxyzo&feature=related

"I'm afraid that's all down to the two young guys, Hamilton & Rosberg, and their teams for not giving them a heads-up about the red light"

Martin Brundle, Canada, 2008

[Tonieke]

As a result of it?! Or as a result of a certain driver not paying attention to where his car was going?

Cars on the pit driving lane have right-of-way over cars in, and coming out of, the pit stall..

They don't talk anywhere about 2 or 3 pit driving lanes..Just one...so kimi should have backed of

in essence this is exactly the same situation as with Massa..I don't see much difference to be honnest...

[Tonieke]

Don't know about dreaming, but you were definitely asleep.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsXs5yWxyzo&feature=related

"I'm afraid that's all down to the two young guys, Hamilton & Rosberg, and their teams for not giving them a heads-up about the red light"

Martin Brundle, Canada, 2008

like I said "Cars on the pit driving lane have right-of-way over cars in, and coming out of, the pit stall"

if you look at the video..kimi even positions his car in front of robert at the exit of the pit lane....at the red light...just before Lewis hits him !

[ioan]

Cars on the pit driving lane have right-of-way over cars in, and coming out of, the pit stall..

They don't talk anywhere about 2 or 3 pit driving lanes..Just one...so kimi should have backed of

in essence this is exactly the same situation as with Massa..I don't see much difference to be honnest...

And I agree with you, there was no difference, and this makes the penalty in the later case a bit weird.

Have to go now. See you all.

[PolePosition_1]

He didn't go into the path of Sutil.
tell us where were you when the other 3 times this happened this season? Don't be shy! Were you calling for the driver's heads? I don't remember seeing you crying out about it! So don't be a hypocrite.



I'll only point out that Massa quit the pit lane area behind Sutil, so tell us where did he gain a time advantage. Don't duck it, answer this question. How did he gain time advantage if he joined the race track behind Sutil, isn't it what would have happened anyway?!

We're going around in circles Ioan, where were you when drivers cut chicanes and let cars past but didn't go back enough, and even overtook after getting slipsteam? I don't recall you going on about that. Presumably because its never been penalised in the past.

Well, slowing down right behind Sutil to waiting for him to pass is slightly quicker. But whether or not he gained a time advantage is not the case, its fact that both incidents are penalised with a 25s time penalty / drive through.

Both were found guilty of their individual incidents, neither gained a sporting advantage - and different penalties.

Are you actually claiming that the Stewards have been consistant?

[Daniel]

no, not dangerous at all.

no, three cars didn't crash into each other as a result of it, did they?

or was i dreaming?

you either have a law against releasing a car into the path of another car or you don't. you don't have liberal and less-liberal interpretations depending on the pitlane. there's one drive-thru lane and that's it.

if you extrapolate that, then ferrari attempted to gain an advantage by sending kimi out into kubica's path, kimi attempted to gain an advantage by refusing to yield when he was clearly out of position.

and, if they'd reached the red light (the cause of which has still yet to be explained by the race stewards or the FIA) one after the other instead of side-by-side, the dozers hamilton and rosberg would have had somewhere to go instead of having one of the most comical crashes in f1 history.

there is a difference between the massa and canadian incidents, i agree.

the difference is the massa one was a potentially dangerous situation with a lapped car, while the raikkonen one was an ultimately dangerous situation where they tried to eke an advantage for the race lead.

bugger all to do with the pit width, though.
I'm sorry but that's the biggest load of rubbish ever......

Why are people suddenly latching onto this "gaining an advantage" phrase?

Surely if we're to be anal (you are being INCREDIBLY anal about it!) then Lewis should get a penalty for qualifying first as this gave him an advantage in the race.

It's not the fact that an advantage is gained that makes something illegal..... it's HOW the advantage is gained. Did Kimi gain advantage by shortcutting the track? No. Was his car illegal in any way? No. In an ideal world the cars would slot in neatly behind each other but sending a car out but it's not that easy when your car is stationary and the other is doing 80kph down the pit lane. The cars didn't travel down the whole length of the pitlane and they didn't go past the occupied garages either. It wasn't like there were any near misses with other cars or people jumping out of the way or anything so I fail to see how it's dangerous. I was driving down a road today doing about the same speed right next to another car. Danger level? Very low....

I agree that if Kimi wasn't alongside it might not have happened but the only causes of the incident were Lewis and Nico making a silly mistake. It was the F1 equivalent to a fender bender and no one blames the guy stopped at the lights who they crash into....... well at least not in the real world :)

[Daniel]

like I said "Cars on the pit driving lane have right-of-way over cars in, and coming out of, the pit stall"

if you look at the video..kimi even positions his car in front of robert at the exit of the pit lane....at the red light...just before Lewis hits him !

You just made that up :) Why would a car doing 80kph need to have right of way over a car slowing down to enter a pitbox?

If you look at this clip you see ... Lewis .... in a kart clipping a kerb!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DDjRdi5zv-w

[Tonieke]

You just made that up :) Why would a car doing 80kph need to have right of way over a car slowing down to enter a pitbox?

If you look at this clip you see ... Lewis .... in a kart clipping a kerb!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DDjRdi5zv-w

than what's the reason Ferrari got a fine in valencia anyway ? if by some on here..cars are allowed to drive next to each other in the pits...see canada...cars that are on the pit driving lane have no right of way...etc...

[Tonieke]

Did Kimi gain advantage by shortcutting the track? No.

Kimi clearly gained advantages at the first corner goin of track...Even if it was on the outside..Not trying to break at all to make the corner in a proper way....Rules they showed me here not make a difference between in and/or outside of a corner !

[Tonieke]

it's HOW the advantage is gained. Did Kimi gain advantage by shortcutting the track?

God how many more times do I have to repeat myself..seems some are just blind for this...

YES...Kimi clearly gained advantages at la source corner...goin of track...Even if it was on the outside..Not trying to brake at all to make the corner in a proper way....if he would have..he would never been that fast goin down Eau Rouge and passing Massa a little later...

And Rules that have been shown to me on here not make a difference between in and/or outside of a corner !

[Bagwan]

God how many more times do I have to repeat myself..seems some are just blind for this...

YES...Kimi clearly gained advantages at la source corner...goin of track...Even if it was on the outside..Not trying to brake at all to make the corner in a proper way....if he would have..he would never been that fast goin down Eau Rouge and passing Massa a little later...

And Rules that have been shown to me on here not make a difference between in and/or outside of a corner !

You should call Ron , because , shouldn't he be protesting this ?

[mstillhere]

Oh...look....it's not the first time the Hamilton did it:
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=TDh1IyJaIFI&feature=related

[ArrowsFA1]

Pat Symonds's view is worth a read:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70457

Oh, and the Official F1 site's video (http://www.formula1.com/services/play_video.html) is pretty darn good too. It captures the excitement and drama of a superb race, as well as the damp squib ending that spoilt it all.

[Tonieke]

You should call Ron , because , shouldn't he be protesting this ?

thought it was the job of the stewards to notice this ? but than we all know how consequent they are when it comes to giving penalties !

[yodasarmpit]

Oh...look....it's not the first time the Hamilton did it:
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=TDh1IyJaIFI&feature=related

Are you referring to Hamilton correcting a slide after Massa bangs wheels with him? Or am I missing something?

[mstillhere]

Are you referring to Hamilton correcting a slide after Massa bangs wheels with him? Or am I missing something?

No, I am referring to Hamilton cheating. He passed Massa in the same way he passed Kimi: taking a short cut after he was passed at the start like in Spa.

[yodasarmpit]

No, I am referring to Hamilton cheating. He passed Massa in the same way he passed Kimi: taking a short cut after he was passed at the start like in Spa.

I'm glad you cleared that up, I can sleep safely at night knowing that we all interpret these situations differently.

[mstillhere]

I'm glad you cleared that up, I can sleep safely at night knowing that we all interpret these situations differently.

There was no doubt about it.

[Zico]

How can that be compared with Spa? and what was he supposed to do.. ?avoid cutting the corner after being hit by Massa.. most likely spin in the process.. get hit by Massa again and cause a mass pile up?

[Shifter]

Oh...look....it's not the first time the Hamilton did it:
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=TDh1IyJaIFI&feature=related


Difference is, he's much farther into the corner than Massa. Being 'driven off' by the lead driver is alot different than being hit in the left rear tire.

[mstillhere]

How can that be compared with Spa? and what was he supposed to do.. ?avoid cutting the corner after being hit by Massa.. most likely spin in the process.. get hit by Massa again and cause a mass pile up?

Well, since he passed Massa unfairly, it would have been nice if Lewis would have given Massa his spot back. After all, they are supposed to pass other cars on the track. And was not Lewis also penalized this year for passing Vettel (was it? I can't remember) illegally too and was punished? In other it seems that your "star" is developping a little habit. If he can't pass on the track he'll definetely try by taking short cuts. Of course, in your eyes it's fine. But not in mine. I would suggest him to cut it out. It's getting old.

[mstillhere]

Regardless of our feelings about the incident I am sure you'll enjoy this video. Despite our differences, we all have one thing in common: and that's our passion for speed. so, it's in exclusive. It's one of the best I have seen so far. Ejoy it:
http://www.quattroruote.it/news/articolo.cfm?codice=151465

[CNR]

lewis has not won a race for so long do you think all the talk about lewis geting sacked will show up like it did for massa at the start of the 2008 season.

for all you massa bashers

http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/2008/05/thumbs-down.jpg

[555-04Q2]

lewis has not won a race for so long do you think all the talk about lewis geting sacked will show up like it did for massa at the start of the 2008 season.

for all you massa bashers

http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/2008/05/thumbs-down.jpg

:up: Amen brother :up:

[wmcot]

Well, slowing down right behind Sutil to waiting for him to pass is slightly quicker. But whether or not he gained a time advantage is not the case, its fact that both incidents are penalised with a 25s time penalty / drive through.

Both were found guilty of their individual incidents, neither gained a sporting advantage - and different penalties.

Are you actually claiming that the Stewards have been consistant?

That's what I have been posting for several years! Stewards are different at each race. They are similar to jurors in a legal trial. That's why sometimes a murderer will get life in prison and sometimes he will get 5 years.

The FIA needs to have the same stewards at each race in order for all rulings to be consistent! Bernie could probably pay for a group of "professional traveling stewards" out of his loose pocket change if he wanted to, but controversy is good for the sport and fattening his wallet!

[hmmm - donuts]

My problem here is not so much whether or not Hamilton gained an advantage - I happen to believe that he did - it's whether he should have received a penalty. Precedent seems to suggest that cutting chicanes can be OK. Based on the fact that Schumacher wasn't penalised for this (where no attempt was made to cede the place gained)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM

...it would seem churlish to punish Hamilton for an action that was no where near as baltant, particularly after McClaren were told twice by a race official that they were within the rules.

As someone else pointed out on another thread, this is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, and it would seem reasonable to expect the officials to a) agree upon the rules, and b) apply those rules in a consistent manner. I would also expect the rules to be less vaguely framed, and less open to interpretation.

Regards

[Hawkmoon]

As someone else pointed out on another thread, this is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, and it would seem reasonable to expect the officials to a) agree upon the rules, and b) apply those rules in a consistent manner. I would also expect the rules to be less vaguely framed, and less open to interpretation.

This one wants clear rules that are applied consistently! By the FIA! :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh. ;)

[wmcot]

The more I think about it and watch the video, the more I find myself wondering how a car that has gone off track can rejoin and have more momentum than a car that stays on the racing surface.

The only reasons I can think of are:

1. The car going off track gained an advantage

2. The track is poorly designed so the run-off area gives better traction than the racing surface (in which case, the race should be held on the run-off instead of the track.)

3. The car remaining on the racing surface is a Honda (but then it wouldn't have been in front so that's impossible.)

[Tonieke]

My problem here is not so much whether or not Hamilton gained an advantage - I happen to believe that he did -

look at the..like he said..awesome video..mstillhere posted..one of the best onboards I have seen in years..

anyway...it also shows me Lewis was :

a) a lot faster as soon as it started to rain !

b) coming up to the chicane he was a lot faster than Kimi...and just before they go into the chicane he was right under Kimi's rear spoiler..

c) coming out of the chicane....he gave back position and was back under Kimi's rear spoiler (same situation as before the chicane )..but this time even goin slower than the Ferrari...seems the car data have been publised to other teams..so yes they showed prove of that....

I hope the statement of the stewards..on what there decission to give Lewis a penalty exactly is based on and what they understand by "advantage"....will be made public...So far the only thing I heard from one of them is that he now is welcome in every Italian restaurant..Not exactly the information people are waiting for to hear !

[AndyRAC]

Having seen in this weeks Motorsport News who the 3 Stewards are, it has to be said that one of them should be no were near a Stewards room. Sending a negative e-mail commenting on Sebastien Loeb's appearance, has me wondering what planet this person inhabits. The F1A should thank him for his efforts and put him out to grass - completely out of touch with the real world.

[PolePosition_1]

I'm sorry but that's the biggest load of rubbish ever......

Why are people suddenly latching onto this "gaining an advantage" phrase?


It's not the fact that an advantage is gained that makes something illegal..... it's HOW the advantage is gained.

Because according to the Stewards, if you didn't gain an advantage, you can break the rules and not get punished, as per Massa in Valencia.

Well for the Stewards, how a rule is broken is not the issue, its whether or not you gained an advantage. And in last two incidents, Ferrari were let off, and McLaren were not, despite both not gaining an advantage.

[Tonieke]

oh and when they cross the line...I want to know where the tow is ?

and if there was any..it was Kimi giving it to Lewis..as he was the one pulling to the left passing the finish line....

[wmcot]

Having seen in this weeks Motorsport News who the 3 Stewards are, it has to be said that one of them should be no were near a Stewards room. Sending a negative e-mail commenting on Sebastien Loeb's appearance, has me wondering what planet this person inhabits. The F1A should thank him for his efforts and put him out to grass - completely out of touch with the real world.

Once again - that's why F1 needs permanent, professional stewards that travel to all the races in order to give consistent rulings...

[wmcot]

The F1A should thank him for his efforts and put him out to grass

Actually, that would be put him out to tarmac since grass is rarely used anymore! :)

[PolePosition_1]

No, I am referring to Hamilton cheating. He passed Massa in the same way he passed Kimi: taking a short cut after he was passed at the start like in Spa.

Does that mean Schumacher cheated in Hungary 2006? Who done exactly the same, but unlike Hamilton who was forced to cut the chicane, he took the chicane to save his place without being forced onto it.

[ShiftingGears]

Once again - that's why F1 needs permanent, professional stewards that travel to all the races in order to give consistent rulings...

Preferably ones with a motorsport background relevant to the racing that they are making the decisions on.

[AndyRAC]

What exactly is an 'Advantage'??

As there are countless arguments on here - it would seem nobody knows!

Another instance of ambiguous rules. What a F1A inspired mess. Again!!

[PolePosition_1]

That's what I have been posting for several years! Stewards are different at each race. They are similar to jurors in a legal trial. That's why sometimes a murderer will get life in prison and sometimes he will get 5 years.

The FIA needs to have the same stewards at each race in order for all rulings to be consistent! Bernie could probably pay for a group of "professional traveling stewards" out of his loose pocket change if he wanted to, but controversy is good for the sport and fattening his wallet!


Yeah, well we had one permanent Steward in 2006 and 2007, which had the aim of improving consistancy, but this year for some reason it was reverted back to different stewards.

While on paper this means no biased stewards can be at every event, it means we lack consistancy. And even then, its the FIA (in particular Alan Donnelly) who chooses 2 of the 3, who has strong links with Ferrari, so biasism can still continue.

So in effect, we lack consistancy and still have a reason for fear of biased stewarding.

Personally, I think the fact that the FIA and Stewards both judged the Hamilton situation differently, just shows the framework of the rulebook is too open and flexible and can be interpretted in many different ways.

I think the rules have got to lose the flexibility and gain some non-negiotable circumstances. Sure racing is not black and white, but at least then it would be the same for everyone.

And then have 2 permanent stewards at each event, with racing experience, and ones that ALL teams approve of.

The argument that having a permanent steward in 2006&7 didn't work was because it wasn't done correctly, by just having one, he is easily out voted in most instances.

[AndyRAC]

I'd like to think there is no such thing as 'biased' stewarding. However, the F1A don't help themselves when coming to some decisions - the general public think that Sunday's decision was a 'carve up' - in favour of a certain team. Unless a really serious offense has taken place (whatever that is), a fine would surely have sufficed. Sometimes the greater good of the sport has to come first.

[leopard]

The weakness I see from permanent stewards they can have strong tendency to produce decision according to result give them more benefit than any other options. I'd rather to retain current system, none of stewards have their right of veto, all decisions are formulated and released based on the same responsibility among the stewards, probably it might need stronger perception on agreement that they need to supervise the race vigilantly. ;)

[ioan]

Does that mean Schumacher cheated in Hungary 2006? Who done exactly the same, but unlike Hamilton who was forced to cut the chicane, he took the chicane to save his place without being forced onto it.

Actually MS and PDLR had a contact that sent MS over the 2nd part of the chicane.

Care to show me where was there contact between LH and KR?

Also, what should have MS done, if it would have been an unfair move? Give up his position to a driver who never earned it?

Stop comparing apples and bananas, try oranges or tomatoes, they look more alike.

[ioan]

I'd like to think there is no such thing as 'biased' stewarding. However, the F1A don't help themselves when coming to some decisions - the general public think that Sunday's decision was a 'carve up' - in favour of a certain team. Unless a really serious offense has taken place (whatever that is), a fine would surely have sufficed. Sometimes the greater good of the sport has to come first.

I don't agree with the fine when this leaves unfair moves unpunished in a sport.
A sport should be fair first of all.
Giving hyper reach sport teams the chance to buy out their cheating would be a bad move.

Taking away a win after the checkered flag is the wrong punishment for not so clear infractions. The 10 places grid penalty would have been the fairer punishment, for such a late punishment, IMO.

[Daniel]

c) coming out of the chicane....he gave back position and was back under Kimi's rear spoiler (same situation as before the chicane )..but this time even goin slower than the Ferrari...seems the car data have been publised to other teams..so yes they showed prove of that....

Which is fine if you don't take into account the concertina effect which Mickey T feels is less relevant than occums shaver even though occums beard trimmer isn't an accepted motorsport rule.

[Daniel]

I'd like to think there is no such thing as 'biased' stewarding. However, the F1A don't help themselves when coming to some decisions - the general public think that Sunday's decision was a 'carve up' - in favour of a certain team. Unless a really serious offense has taken place (whatever that is), a fine would surely have sufficed. Sometimes the greater good of the sport has to come first.

Thing is you simply can't give a fine for an incident where someone is deemed to have unfairly gained a sporting advantage. As Ioan says it gives teams the opportunity to buy their way out.

[Mark]

The consetina effect does not apply as I understand it the speed was measured at the finish line for each car. Not at the same moment.

[Tonieke]

Which is fine if you don't take into account the concertina effect which Mickey T feels is less relevant than occums shaver even though occums beard trimmer isn't an accepted motorsport rule.

from what I read and learned about that "concertina effect" I have to say I makes not much sense to me either..this effect just is a theory that is based on ifs and whens....What I DO see is(there's enough footage to prove) a McL goin way faster than a Ferrari coming up to the chicane..and I see a McL goin slower than a Ferrari coming out of the chicane..those are facts...

[Tonieke]

and I also wonder why it takes FIA so long to come up with a public statement on what exaclty Lewis penalty is based on..especialy when there's so much controversy about it...and with yet another race coming up..nobody knowing what can and can't be donne or what should be donne in this or that situation..

[AndyRAC]

Thing is you simply can't give a fine for an incident where someone is deemed to have unfairly gained a sporting advantage. As Ioan says it gives teams the opportunity to buy their way out.

Fair point, however what is an advantage? What do the regulations state? Normally I wouldn't advocate a fine, but in this instance as the 'offence' wasn't totally black & white - and Charlie Whiting had advised McLaren what they should do - the 25 secs did seem harsh.
All this incident has done is open a can of worms - the F1A need to come out with definitive rules/regs/penalties next season, and maybe these 'grey' areas can be sorted out.

[Daniel]

The consetina effect does not apply as I understand it the speed was measured at the finish line for each car. Not at the same moment.
On the contrary it does apply. Hamilton had caught up to Kimi at a corner (under braking) right? Well people are basing their opinion of whether he gained an advantage on the fact that he was about the same distance from Kimi's car on the straight (under power) as he was coming into the corner.

[ioan]

from what I read and learned about that "concertina effect" I have to say I makes not much sense to me either..this effect just is a theory that is based on ifs and whens....

That effect is pretty much real and it's based on physics (you know the classes you always hated and never understood)! :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

Fair point, however what is an advantage? What do the regulations state? Normally I wouldn't advocate a fine, but in this instance as the 'offence' wasn't totally black & white - and Charlie Whiting had advised McLaren what they should do - the 25 secs did seem harsh.
All this incident has done is open a can of worms - the F1A need to come out with definitive rules/regs/penalties next season, and maybe these 'grey' areas can be sorted out.

I agree. But as prescribed in the rules 25 seconds is the penalty if it happens in the last 5 laps. A fine for a sporting offence is not on IMHO. In the case of a minor offence to do with safety I think a fine is sufficient but when someone has gained competitive advantage unfairly.

We need to bear in mind that the regulations are by no means an exhaustive list of offences and punishments. I read nowhere that a team is not allowed to pelt their opposition with watermelons but surely if this was to happen you'd expect them to be penalised in some way.If the regulations were exhaustive and specific we wouldn't need stewards at all. You would simply look up the offence and the penalty and enforce it. It's not that simple though. I think the rule should be that if you do something like this then you wait until AFTER the next corner to make another move and if it happens before a series of corners then you should clear the corners and then another corner before making a move.

[ioan]

... and Charlie Whiting had advised McLaren what they should do ...

Charlie didn't advise them anything, they asked if it's OK or not and his answer was "PROBABLY" it is OK.

When there is a probability involved you better not take it for a sure thing.

[PolePosition_1]

Actually MS and PDLR had a contact that sent MS over the 2nd part of the chicane.

Care to show me where was there contact between LH and KR?

Also, what should have MS done, if it would have been an unfair move? Give up his position to a driver who never earned it?

Stop comparing apples and bananas, try oranges or tomatoes, they look more alike.


I'm talking about the Heidfeld and MS incident. No contact.

[Daniel]

from what I read and learned about that "concertina effect" I have to say I makes not much sense to me either..this effect just is a theory that is based on ifs and whens....What I DO see is(there's enough footage to prove) a McL goin way faster than a Ferrari coming up to the chicane..and I see a McL goin slower than a Ferrari coming out of the chicane..those are facts...

Have you ever driven a car on the road? Have you never notice that even if you brake very late into a corner and catch up to the car in front the car in front will almost always pull away from you relative to where you were on entry into the corner? Basically Lewis would have still been turning and off the accelerator while Kimi's wheels were straight and he was on the fast pedal zooming away from Lewis. The concertina effect is very much real....

This should explain it for you also.
http://www.speedtv.com/forums/viewthread/297321/#4992731

Anyway I'm off to the hospital for a blood test. So we'll see whether I'm the one who's crazy or whether it's just the rest of you :p

[PolePosition_1]

from what I read and learned about that "concertina effect" I have to say I makes not much sense to me either..this effect just is a theory that is based on ifs and whens....What I DO see is(there's enough footage to prove) a McL goin way faster than a Ferrari coming up to the chicane..and I see a McL goin slower than a Ferrari coming out of the chicane..those are facts...

Yes, the IF's and BUT's is a good comment.

Mark Hughes has written an article which is closest to how I feel about the incident:-

Lewis Hamilton was pushed out across the Spa chicane escape road by Kimi Raikkonen, rejoined ahead, backed off to allow Kimi to repass as required by the rules, went round the back of him and overtook him again. It seemed very clear-cut.

But if you were a lawyer tasked with pushing Ferrari’s case, looking for any bit of legal daylight in which to create doubt, you would question whether Lewis would have been close enough to do that move if he'd not missed the chicane, regardless of the reason why he missed it.

It’s actually a ‘what if’ question to which there can be no answer.

To compare the two scenarios – what happened, with what would have happened had Hamilton not missed the chicane – is impossible.

At this stage of the race the McLaren had vastly more grip than the Ferrari because of the way the red car loses dry tyre temperature far more quickly and totally than the McLaren in wet conditions.

So, had Lewis tucked in behind the Ferrari through the chicane, he’d have accelerated out of there far faster because of his vastly superior traction.

He would have crossed the start/finish line going faster than the Ferrari and therefore have been perfectly placed to have made full use of his vastly superior braking grip to make an outbraking move into La Source.

As it was, he crossed the start/finish line alongside the Ferrari but travelling 6km/h slower, as he was in the process of allowing Kimi by.

Which of those two scenarios would have made for a more advantageous situation for Lewis – alongside but going slower or partly behind but going faster – is impossible to judge.

Exactly how much more tyre grip did he have? Which way would it have led Kimi to move? Impossible to determine.

Which leaves us with the question: If it’s impossible to judge (which it was) then why the hell make a judgement?




The political question

Regardless of what the reasoning was as to why the stewards tasked themselves with trying to judge an impossible question, getting involved was always going to result in a widespread perception of championship manipulation – which is disastrous for the credibility of the sport.

This was not an argument over seventh place between a Renault and a Toyota, but a magnificent sporting scrap between two of the three contenders for the world championship.

It was a stunningly tense and exciting duel between two of the best drivers in the world in the two best cars, fighting out the destiny of a race – and possibly a world title – into the last couple of laps on perhaps the sport’s greatest circuit.

As an advertisement for F1 – after the tainted 2007 season, after the deadly dull Valencia race just two weeks ago – it came at a perfect moment too.

Those last three laps were among the greatest sporting moments in the sport’s history.

And with a quick bit of bureaucratic interference, all that goodwill was wiped away, turned instead into ridicule and distrust from the public.

At best it has made F1 look stupid. At worst it has triggered suspicion in some, deepened it in others.

Two weeks earlier Ferrari’s Felipe Massa, the third title contender, was released in the pit lane in what was adjudged to be a dangerous manner.

Personally I was relieved when he was not given a drive-through penalty, because that would have been interfering with the outcome of the world championship at a crucial stage over an arcane point of interpretation.

Yes, the decision played into the hands of those who believe there is Ferrari favouritism.

But to have interfered in the outcome of a crucial race just to prove that suspicion unfounded would have been wrong.

Given that backdrop, the Spa incident absolutely invited the race stewards not to get involved when the tables were turned.

And they failed to take that opportunity, thereby fuelling the perception – accurate or not – of the championship being rigged in Ferrari’s favour.

At best, it was an incredibly stupid time to come down in favour of one title contender over another.

[PolePosition_1]

Charlie didn't advise them anything, they asked if it's OK or not and his answer was "PROBABLY" it is OK.

When there is a probability involved you better not take it for a sure thing.

I think the rule book is at fault. Fact that 2 FIA officials, including Charlie Whiting said it was ok, and Stewards not, just highlights its way too open to interpretation.

To be fair, when 2 FIA officials said they thought it was within the rules, you can't blame McLaren for thinking they were right.

[ShiftingGears]

Have you ever driven a car on the road? Have you never notice that even if you brake very late into a corner and catch up to the car in front the car in front will almost always pull away from you relative to where you were on entry into the corner? Basically Lewis would have still been turning and off the accelerator while Kimi's wheels were straight and he was on the fast pedal zooming away from Lewis. The concertina effect is very much real....

Even then, Kimi was accelerating faster than Lewis down the main straight. It was a split second decision on Lewis' part, and no racing driver would've stopped their car to take that chicane. In the past, conceding the entire position while not gaining momentum relative to the other car has always been enough to be considered as negating an advantage. It's a damn shame that the end of a brilliant race turned farcical due to a petty interpretation by the stewards.

[Tonieke]

That effect is pretty much real and it's based on physics (you know the classes you always hated and never understood)! :rolleyes:

and I am almost 100% sure..YOU..just like ME..hardly know what you are talking about when it goes about this so called effect...and the physics it's based on...

I only trust my eyes..and what I saw in the situation as it appeared..not what if Lewis staid behind Kimi and this "effect" eventualy could come in count...I saw a McL closing on a Ferrari very fast before the chicane..resulting in an attempt to pass...and I saw a McL goin slower than a ferrari on the straight after the chicane..still behind a Ferrari...but having..like before the chicane ..clearly more grip in the wet condition...resulting in yet again an attempt to outbrake the ferrari..this time succelfull..helped by the fact Kimi could have staid on the inside...defending his line like he did before the chicane..

[Knock-on]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70457

Just reposting this.

[AndyRAC]

Charlie didn't advise them anything, they asked if it's OK or not and his answer was "PROBABLY" it is OK.

When there is a probability involved you better not take it for a sure thing.

Which is another issue. Either he knows the rules and says 'YES' or 'NO'. If a F1A Race Director isn't sure, we are in trouble. I have seen reports were McLaren were supposed to have asked twice, probably to make sure. If you ask an official you would excpect them to know - and therefore trust what they say. Seems as if the F1A don't know what their right and left hands are doing. A shambles all round.
Can you imagine a cricket umpire when an appeal is lodged saying 'Probably' - either a batsmen is 'In' or 'Out'. Maybe a slightly OTT comparison, but just highlights how ridiculous the whole issue is. Surely an official knows the rules. Doesn't he??

[ioan]

and I am almost 100% sure..YOU..just like ME..hardly know what you are talking about when it goes about this so called effect...and the physics it's based on...

And I could hardly care about you not knowing squat about physics! :laugh:

As for me being in the same position with you in respect to physics! :rotflmao:

[Mickey T]

Actually MS and PDLR had a contact that sent MS over the 2nd part of the chicane.

Care to show me where was there contact between LH and KR?

Also, what should have MS done, if it would have been an unfair move? Give up his position to a driver who never earned it?

Stop comparing apples and bananas, try oranges or tomatoes, they look more alike.

yes, they had light contact. how was it an unfair move?

with more grip, pdlr outdrove MS and was completely up the inside of the ferrari and MS should have yielded. he didn't.

that he was forced off the road was his own fault and his own decision, just as hamilton's was, because the car on the inside of the corner, with track position, is in the right (but should allow the other car racing room). MS turned in when there was already a car on the apex, so MS didn't allow PDLR racing room and paid a price for it. simple.

if it's a leap year, ioan, do you take the blinkers off the the extra day?

[ioan]

Which is another issue. Either he knows the rules and says 'YES' or 'NO'. If a F1A Race Director isn't sure, we are in trouble. I have seen reports were McLaren were supposed to have asked twice, probably to make sure. If you ask an official you would excpect them to know - and therefore trust what they say. Seems as if the F1A don't know what their right and left hands are doing. A shambles all round.
Can you imagine a cricket umpire when an appeal is lodged saying 'Probably' - either a batsmen is 'In' or 'Out'. Maybe a slightly OTT comparison, but just highlights how ridiculous the whole issue is. Surely an official knows the rules. Doesn't he??

Charlie isn't the umpire, it's the stewards who are. It's a confusion many people make.

Charlie Whiting is the Race Director = he decides if it's safe to have a race, if ihe race should be delayed, if the SC should be sent on the track, if there is need for any kind of flags to be waved, if the race should be stopped and other technical problems about the race, but not the sporting aspects of it.

You aren't asking a mechanic his opinion about a legal case either, are you?

[Mickey T]

That effect is pretty much real and it's based on physics (you know the classes you always hated and never understood)! :rolleyes:

the concertina effect is real. i never said it wasn't.

i said it wasn't applicable in this circumstance for two reasons:

1. the mclaren, on hotter dry tyres in the wet than the ferrari, had demonstrably more mechanical grip, therefore had the ability to nullify that effect on the way out of the corner.

2. had the concertina effect played out as per the theory, they would have both crossed the start-finish line at the same speed. they didn't, because the data showed the mclaren to be travelling 6.7km/h slower than the ferrari at the start-finish line.

the actual reason kimi was overtaken was that he braked far, far earlier in the wet (not all his fault, the ferrari dumps tyre temperature in the wet far quicker than the mclaren) and hamilton didn't.

let's see, then. slower than his opponent on the straight by 6.7km/h,when he normally should have been travelling at or near the same speed. sorry. no advantage there.

certainly not when compared to the unpunished incidents pointed out in the past.

[Knock-on]

Charlie isn't the umpire, it's the stewards who are. It's a confusion many people make.

Charlie Whiting is the Race Director = he decides if it's safe to have a race, if ihe race should be delayed, if the SC should be sent on the track, if there is need for any kind of flags to be waved, if the race should be stopped and other technical problems about the race, but not the sporting aspects of it.

You aren't asking a mechanic his opinion about a legal case either, are you?

You seem to be a little confused about how a meeting operates.

The Director is responsible for running the race. He is the person in contact with both the Stewards and the teams and directs proceedings.

If there is an incident, which this was, the Race Director referres it to the Stewards for investigation. However, if the Stewards notice it, they refer it to the Race Director for investigation.

After everyone has been informed, including the Race Director and the Team, the Stewards investigate and all teams are informed of the investigation.

If the Race Director was said that everything was OK, then why wasn't he aware of the investigation?

McLaren followed the correct chain of communication.

[Tonieke]

And I could hardly care about you not knowing squat about physics! :laugh:

As for me being in the same position with you in respect to physics! :rotflmao:


ioan at his best....

[ArrowsFA1]

Charlie isn't the umpire, it's the stewards who are. It's a confusion many people make.
There's no confusion on that point. It's also clear that different FIA officials interpret FIA rules differently.

There appears to be this view that Charlie Whiting's view should be dismissed, and yet it is Charlie who the teams turn to for clarification on any number of issues during the course of the season, and individual races.

Why do they do that if his "opinion" carries no weight, or if he's the "wrong" person to speak to?

[AndyRAC]

Charlie isn't the umpire, it's the stewards who are. It's a confusion many people make.

Charlie Whiting is the Race Director = he decides if it's safe to have a race, if ihe race should be delayed, if the SC should be sent on the track, if there is need for any kind of flags to be waved, if the race should be stopped and other technical problems about the race, but not the sporting aspects of it.

You aren't asking a mechanic his opinion about a legal case either, are you?

I am well aware of who does what. An umpire answers to a Match Referee. As far as I know, the Race Director is in contact with the Race Stewards. Surely when McLaren asked him he would have checked with them?

[Tonieke]

and just for your information ioan..i never said either the effect wasn't real...

[ioan]

You seem to be a little confused about how a meeting operates.

The Director is responsible for running the race. He is the person in contact with both the Stewards and the teams and directs proceedings.

If there is an incident, which this was, the Race Director referres it to the Stewards for investigation. However, if the Stewards notice it, they refer it to the Race Director for investigation.

I think that you are a bit confused there, if you really believe that the stewards are there to refer things to the Race Director and also the other way around.

I believe that the stewards investigate whatever they notice as infringement and they also investigate what the Race Director might refer to them.
However they do not refer things for investigation to the Race Director, as well as the Race Director doesn't decided what are the penalties to be applied.

[ioan]

I am well aware of who does what. An umpire answers to a Match Referee. As far as I know, the Race Director is in contact with the Race Stewards. Surely when McLaren asked him he would have checked with them?

he might have checked, and the answer was: "probably". In my book "probably" means that it isn't sure and can therefor have a different outcome.

[ioan]

and just for your information ioan..i never said either the effect wasn't real...

Let's see!


from what I read and learned about that "concertina effect" I have to say I makes not much sense to me either..this effect just is a theory ...

What a nice place this forum is, you can find anything one posted in the past! :laugh:
You see? You said it's just a theory!
Now:

[quote="wikipedia.org"]In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts]

I can tell you that the concertina effect isn't a theory it is an existing and proven effect, you can check it out by watching races where they have tight and slow corners.

[ioan]

ioan at his best....

Well, I'm not going to sit and listen to so many funny things being written around here without having a bit of fun myself! :rotflmao:

[AndyRAC]

he might have checked, and the answer was: "probably". In my book "probably" means that it isn't sure and can therefor have a different outcome.

Well that's great. For such a media savvy, hi-tech, 'professional sport', we have officials who 'Probably' think they know the rules. At least I now know that the 16-19 times a year while watching a GP, the people in charge think they know what's happening. I can sleep easily at night. Blimey- I thought the WRC was bad.

[jimjan]

see my thread

Spa <--fan pressure :mad:

[ioan]

If the Race Director was said that everything was OK, then why wasn't he aware of the investigation?

Almost missed this part!

If the Race Director would have said that everything was OK, then I would say you are right.

However he said that [b]"PROBABLY"[/] it was OK.
I bet you know what "probably" means. Or maybe not!

[Tonieke]

I can tell you that the concertina effect isn't a theory it is an existing and proven effect, you can check it out by watching races where they have tight and slow corners.

only IF cars are traveling at +- the same speed I have learned here..was that the case ? can you therefore bring this effect in acount for this case and if yes..how you actualy gonne prove it this effect was in play ?

[Knock-on]

I think that you are a bit confused there, if you really believe that the stewards are there to refer things to the Race Director and also the other way around.

I believe that the stewards investigate whatever they notice as infringement and they also investigate what the Race Director might refer to them.
However they do not refer things for investigation to the Race Director, as well as the Race Director doesn't decided what are the penalties to be applied.


ioan

How many times have the rules relating to this been posted in the last few days.

Can I suggest you read them because you keep posting things that are blatently wrong and your opinion of how things work while criticising others for being wrong where they are indeed right.

For your benefit again.


"Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to the race director for investigation) which :
- necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41 ;
- constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code ;
- caused a false start by one or more cars ;
- caused a collision ;
- forced a driver off the track ;
- illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver ;
- illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.
Unless it was completely clear that a driver was in breach of any of the above, any incidents involving more than one car will normally be investigated after the race.
16.2 a) It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide, upon a report or a request by the race director, if a driver or drivers involved in an incident shall be penalised.
b) If an incident is under investigation by the stewards a message informing all teams which driver or drivers are involved will be displayed on the timing monitors.
Provided that such a message is displayed no later than five minutes after the race has finished the driver or drivers concerned may not leave the circuit without the consent of the stewards.
16.3 The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident :
a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping ;
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
c) a drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.
However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.
16.4 Should the stewards decide to impose either of the penalties under Article 16.3a) or b), the following procedure will be followed :
a) The stewards will give written notification of the penalty which has been imposed to the competitor concerned and will ensure that this information is also displayed on the timing monitors.
b) From the time the stewards’ decision is notified on the timing monitors the relevant driver may cover no more than three complete laps before entering the pit lane and, in the case of a penalty under Article 16.3b), proceeding to his garage where he shall remain for the period of the time penalty.
However, unless the driver was already in the pit entry for the purpose of serving his penalty, he may not carry out the penalty after the Safety Car has been deployed. Any laps carried out behind the Safety Car will be added to the three lap maximum.
Whilst a car is stationary in the pit lane as a result of incurring a time penalty it may not be worked on. However, if the engine stops it may be started after the time penalty period has elapsed.
2009 F1 Sporting Regulations 8 of 43 11th July 2008
c) When the time penalty period has elapsed the driver may rejoin the race.
d) Any breach or failure to comply with Articles 16.4b) or c) may result in the car being excluded.

The relevant points being:


"Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to the race director for investigation) which :

You wrote:


I think that you are a bit confused there, if you really believe that the stewards are there to refer things to the Race Director and also the other way around.

You are wrong. Sorry :)

The person that should know what’s going on is the race Director and as such, McLaren followed protocol.

[AndyRAC]

There must be a comedy sketch to be made out of this 'Probably' issue.

Judge: Are you Guilty of this Murder?
Defendant: Er, Probably!
Judge: Probably, what does this mean?
Defendant: Er, Probably! It means that - Probably!

[Knock-on]

Almost missed this part!

If the Race Director would have said that everything was OK, then I would say you are right.

However he said that [b]"PROBABLY"[/] it was OK.
I bet you know what "probably" means. Or maybe not!

Well, it's nice to see we are in agreement then :laugh:


Martin Whitmarsh added: "From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was 'okay'.


Specifically, it was "OKAY"

Now, I know he didn't say it was OK, but is OKAY sufficient ;)

http://www.mclaren.com/latestnews/mclaren-news.php?article=181

[Dave B]

and I also wonder why it takes FIA so long to come up with a public statement on what exaclty Lewis penalty is based on..especialy when there's so much controversy about it...and with yet another race coming up..nobody knowing what can and can't be donne or what should be donne in this or that situation..

Good point. If a driver faces a similar situation in Monza this weekend what are they supposed to do exactly?

This mess (including punishing Kovy for doing what DC alone has got away with half a dozen times this year) has created a situation where drivers - especially the 3 contesting the championship - are even less likely to attempt an overtaking move.

[AndyRAC]

Good point. If a driver faces a similar situation in Monza this weekend what are they supposed to do exactly?

This mess (including punishing Kovy for doing what DC alone has got away with half a dozen times this year) has created a situation where drivers - especially the 3 contesting the championship - are even less likely to attempt an overtaking move.

Good point - count to 5, check what's on the menu for tea, then carry on!

[ArrowsFA1]

The relevant points being...
Interesting stuff, this bit in particular - It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide, upon a report or a request by the race director, if a driver or drivers involved in an incident shall be penalised.

Does this mean that, having told McLaren that he thought the position had been given back in a manner that was 'okay', Charlie Whiting then issued a report or request to the stewards?