Hamilton Stripped of Win - Official

[Knock-on]

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?

Never let the rules get in the way of issueing a penalty against McLaren :D

[Dave B]

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?

Ed Gorman, blogging for The Times (http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2008/09/a-little-diggin.html), believes so.


What is more, I have established that, despite having appeared to convey to McLaren that Lewis had done nothing wrong, Whiting himself then played a key role in instigating the formal investigation of the incident by the stewards.

After every race it is normal procedure, apparently, for the stewards to enquire of the race director if there is anything that should be looked at. Whiting is thought to have said to them that, although he had been in touch with McLaren about the exchange between Lewis and Kimi on lap 42, the stewards may still want to have a look at it themselves.

[Daniel]

Ed Gorman, blogging for The Times (http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2008/09/a-little-diggin.html), believes so.


What is more, I have established that, despite having appeared to convey to McLaren that Lewis had done nothing wrong, Whiting himself then played a key role in instigating the formal investigation of the incident by the stewards.

After every race it is normal procedure, apparently, for the stewards to enquire of the race director if there is anything that should be looked at. Whiting is thought to have said to them that, although he had been in touch with McLaren about the exchange between Lewis and Kimi on lap 42, the stewards may still want to have a look at it themselves.

Cockup? Yes? Bias? I don't think so.....

[ArrowsFA1]

Cockup? Yes? Bias? I don't think so.....
Sufficient grounds for an appeal?

[Knock-on]

Ed Gorman, blogging for The Times (http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2008/09/a-little-diggin.html), believes so.


What is more, I have established that, despite having appeared to convey to McLaren that Lewis had done nothing wrong, Whiting himself then played a key role in instigating the formal investigation of the incident by the stewards.

After every race it is normal procedure, apparently, for the stewards to enquire of the race director if there is anything that should be looked at. Whiting is thought to have said to them that, although he had been in touch with McLaren about the exchange between Lewis and Kimi on lap 42, the stewards may still want to have a look at it themselves.


:confused:

So, after saying it was OK, he then starts off a process that results in them getting a penalty of 25 seconds.

I was just coming round to F1boats opinion that they were just incompetent and guilty of crap management but if this is true, then it seems like they have been sabotaged.

[Daniel]

Sufficient grounds for an appeal?
Perhaps yes :)

I think the penalty is fair. I think that the process that went towards the penalty is a bit clumsy. I do however think that if the advantage is not properly relinquished immediately that there should be a penalty as has happened. IMHO Lewis sort of negated his advantage. I think the onus should be on the driver and team to clearly negate any advantage they may be seen to gain and perhaps put themselves in a slightly worse position than they were in before the incident so as to make it clear that no advantage has been gained. Lewis cutting the chicane then giving place back and then overtaking all within the distance from one corner to another didn't satisfy me and obviously didn't satisfy the stewards.

If the penalty is lifted I'll disagree but I don't think it would be an outrageously bad decision which is indicitive of bias....

[Daniel]

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.

I think that's a fair point.

Driving like this should be punished but DC has done that a few times this season already and nothing was done about it. Clear indication of a bias towards RBR and/or DC? ;) *taps nose knowingly*

[HereIam]

let's go back to topic... Hamilton clearly paid for his inexperience... too greedy. didn't back off enough and got punished. Maybe next time he will do things differently... he could have passed Kimi several times in the remainder of the race, such was his superiority with cold tyres... come on, Lewis, a real champion can use his head in any circumstance...

[pino]

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

I would say both :p :

[Knock-on]

Cockup? Yes? Bias? I don't think so.....

OK, lets run with this then and give the FIA the benefit of the doubt.

If it is a cock-up then they have the opportunity to rectify it and reinstate the correct race positions.

Lets just see what they do and judge them on their actions.

[Dave B]

Hamilton [...] didn't back off enough and got punished.
Maybe that is the problem: what exactly is "enough"? Where is it defined? F1 drivers are such a competitive breed that they'll only do the bare minimum to comply with the letter of the rules, you can't reasonaly expect them to say "after you".

Maybe Lewis was greedy, maybe not. But unless you define exactly where the boundries are you can't arbitrarily punish drivers for breaking them.

[AndyRAC]

OK, lets run with this then and give the FIA the benefit of the doubt.

If it is a cock-up then they have the opportunity to rectify it and reinstate the correct race positions.

Lets just see what they do and judge them on their actions.

A cock-up, but they can't rectify it. It's just not allowed. Doesn't make it right, but I'll eat my hat if the result is changed.

[Daniel]

OK, lets run with this then and give the FIA the benefit of the doubt.

If it is a cock-up then they have the opportunity to rectify it and reinstate the correct race positions.

Lets just see what they do and judge them on their actions.

Let me clarify. I think they cocked up with regard to the communication with McLaren.

IMHO McLaren should have been told "Do what you think is right and if it's all good then no problems and if not then you'll get a penalty". They could have then said to Lewis to drop back a bit more and we wouldn't have this unfortunate situation. Incidents like this should be investigated and the decisions should only be made after the investigations have been concluded. How Charlie could have investigated things between the time lewis went off and the time Lewis overtook Kimi I don't know......

[Daniel]

I would say both :p :

Forgot to mention.... bad news :( My blood is red and I bleed lots when some woman sticks a needle in my arm :p


Maybe that is the problem: what exactly is "enough"? Where is it defined? F1 drivers are such a competitive breed that they'll only do the bare minimum to comply with the letter of the rules, you can't reasonaly expect them to say "after you".

Maybe Lewis was greedy, maybe not. But unless you define exactly where the boundries are you can't arbitrarily punish drivers for breaking them.


This is his car was soooo much better in the conditions that he could have given Kimi another second or so and he still would have won the race comfortably. No one can doubt Lewis' obvious skill when it comes to driving but his decision making skills leave a lot to be desired.

Let us also not forget that this is not Lewis' first indiscretion this year. He passed Vetel and outbraked himself and went over the chicane and not giving the place back and he's rammed Kimi from behind as well. I think someone with a record like this going out of their way to try to show good behaviour and give back the advantage and then some so as not to give the stewards any room to make the decision they did.

[ShiftingGears]

Maybe that is the problem: what exactly is "enough"? Where is it defined? F1 drivers are such a competitive breed that they'll only do the bare minimum to comply with the letter of the rules, you can't reasonaly expect them to say "after you".

Maybe Lewis was greedy, maybe not. But unless you define exactly where the boundries are you can't arbitrarily punish drivers for breaking them.

Exactly - if they're pushed for space, they will cut across the chicane and then negate that advantage. Why they made the inside of the chicane asphalt and then expect racing drivers not to use it in situations like that is beyond me. In all cases I've seen when watching F1, "negating an advantage" has meant "cleanly conceding the position (ie, the back of the other drivers car is in front of the front of your car) so that the other driver has the optimum line". And I hope the stewards see that the same way as well.

But seeing as one of the stewards doesn't even have a background in F1, I am a bit skeptical that he will view that interpretation that way.

If I were in race control for that situation, I would give Hamilton a warning about how that rule can be interpreted. But nothing more.

[Knock-on]

Let me clarify. I think they cocked up with regard to the communication with McLaren.

IMHO McLaren should have been told "Do what you think is right and if it's all good then no problems and if not then you'll get a penalty". They could have then said to Lewis to drop back a bit more and we wouldn't have this unfortunate situation. Incidents like this should be investigated and the decisions should only be made after the investigations have been concluded. How Charlie could have investigated things between the time lewis went off and the time Lewis overtook Kimi I don't know......

Don't you think that's a bit hit and miss.

"Do what you think is right"?

They tried that and it didn't work.

Shouldn't the correct procedure in this situation be something like:

1. Car avoids a collission by cutting a chicane and finishes ahead of another car.

2. Car gives back position and continues racing.

3. Team confirm with Race Director that things are now OK.

What should not happen in my opinion is:

4. After confirming that everything is OK, race director initiates investigation into something he has confirmed during the race is OK.

5. Stewards alter outcome of a race retrospectivly.

6. Team appeal and FIA keep everyone in suspense.

[Knock-on]

Exactly - if they're pushed for space, they will cut across the chicane and then negate that advantage. Why they made the inside of the chicane asphalt and then expect racing drivers not to use it in situations like that is beyond me. In all cases I've seen when watching F1, "negating an advantage" has meant "cleanly conceding the position (ie, the back of the other drivers car is in front of the front of your car) so that the other driver has the optimum line". And I hope the stewards see that the same way as well.

But seeing as one of the stewards doesn't even have a background in F1, I am a bit skeptical that he will view that interpretation that way.

If I were in race control for that situation, I would give Hamilton a warning about how that rule can be interpreted. But nothing more.

I think this underlines a basic requirement for the FIA to have transparent rules and 3 stewards that travel with the circus.

[Daniel]

Don't you think that's a bit hit and miss.

"Do what you think is right"?

They tried that and it didn't work.

Shouldn't the correct procedure in this situation be something like:

1. Car avoids a collission by cutting a chicane and finishes ahead of another car.

2. Car gives back position and continues racing.

3. Team confirm with Race Director that things are now OK.

What should not happen in my opinion is:

4. After confirming that everything is OK, race director initiates investigation into something he has confirmed during the race is OK.

5. Stewards alter outcome of a race retrospectivly.

6. Team appeal and FIA keep everyone in suspense.

I agree it was clumsy :)

As I said I don't feel it should be up to the race director to make a judgement immediately on the spot and say whether it is OK or not. There needs to be an investigation. If you were accused of murder you don't simply ask the office arresting you "am I ok?" and then go and use that in court as proof you didn't do it now do you?. I think McLaren should bear some of the responsibility for the clumsiness of things.

I think it was silly of McLaren to ask "Are we OK?". You should know if it's OK and if it's not or you think that there's a maybe involved you should seek make it obvious that you're relinquishing any advantage that you've gained. The onus is on the team to show they've done nothing wrong in a case like this. Up until the point where Lewis relinquished his place he had committed an offence which was punishable with a drive through penalty or a 25 second penalty if the drive through wasn't taken. I think we all agree on that? and we agree that if he negated the advantage he gained by the fact that he didn't need to brake as early into the chicane as well as the shortcut gained by it then we wouldn't be here. In this situation you should give back what is reasonable and then some and leave it till the corner after the one coming up to attack and no one can complain about it.

I think given Lewis' record this year he should have been going out of his way to make it look like he lost out of that manuever and overtaking Kimi at the end of the straight sure as hell didn't look like losing out to me :)

[Tonieke]

I agree it was clumsy :)
I think it was silly of McLaren to ask "Are we OK?". You should know if it's OK and if it's not or you think that there's a maybe involved you should seek make it obvious that you're relinquishing any advantage that you've gained. The onus is on the team to show they've done nothing wrong in a case like this. Up until the point where Lewis relinquished his place he had committed an offence which was punishable with a drive through penalty or a 25 second penalty if the drive through wasn't taken. I think we all agree on that? and we agree that if he negated the advantage he gained by the fact that he didn't need to brake as early into the chicane as well as the shortcut gained by it then we wouldn't be here. In this situation you should give back what is reasonable and then some and leave it till the corner after the one coming up to attack and no one can complain about it.


and that's exactly the point..Nowhere in the rulesbook is described what to do in cases like this...what a driver should do..what the steps are for a team to do..what exactly would eliminate the advantage gained etc... etc...so no penalty should be given either until there is a clear rule about it....

[Daniel]

and that's exactly the point..Nowhere in the rulesbook is described what to do in cases like this...what a driver should do..what the steps are for a team to do..what exactly would eliminate the advantage gained etc... etc...so no penalty should be given either until there is a clear rule about it....

Like I said before. The regulations aren't exhaustive and simply can't cater for each situation.

[cosmicpanda]

The onus is on the team to show they've done nothing wrong in a case like this.

Is that not a little bit like saying "Guilty until proven innocent?"

[Daniel]

Is that not a little bit like saying "Guilty until proven innocent?"
Nope. Hamilton was clearly guilty of the infrigement. Up until the point where Kimi passed him it was clearly that he had gained a position non? So the onus was on him to make it obvious that he had lot out of the whole maneuver.

[HereIam]

Maybe that is the problem: what exactly is "enough"? Where is it defined? F1 drivers are such a competitive breed that they'll only do the bare minimum to comply with the letter of the rules, you can't reasonaly expect them to say "after you".

Maybe Lewis was greedy, maybe not. But unless you define exactly where the boundries are you can't arbitrarily punish drivers for breaking them.

well, Lewis backed off by 6 km/h to allow Kimi to re-pass him and then glued himself to his gearbox so he could overtake him immediately. To me, this is not backing off enough. It all comes down to experience, in my opinion. I don't see a Prost, for example, making this kind of mistakes. I know they are all racers, but this episode shows me how immature Lewis still is. And Ron should have known better...

[Knock-on]

Like I said before. The regulations aren't exhaustive and simply can't cater for each situation.

Come on Danny. We all know what a driver should do when he overtakes by cutting a chicane.

He gives it back then tries to do it correctly.

Nobodies ever been penalised before for complying with this process and when they have even been told that it's OK by the Race Director, what more can they do?

When you get drivers like Schumacher maintaining his position several times by cutting corners and not being penalised, you have to ask questions.

You are right though. It is a cock-up and one they need to rectify.

[Tonieke]

Like I said before. The regulations aren't exhaustive and simply can't cater for each situation.

than how can a driver give back advantage if nobody can say what it exactly means ?...and where does it say in situations like this a driver should wait at least one corner to make another attempt to pass the other driver involved ? Like some say lewis should have donne ?

[Knock-on]

than how can a driver give back advantage if nobody can say what it exactly means ?...and where does it say in situations like this a driver should wait at least one corner to make another attempt to pass the other driver involved ? Like some say lewis should have donne ?

It does not but then again it doesn't say that a driver should give the place back.

The rules state exactly what the Stewards has indicated. That he cut the corner and was penalised 25 seconds. There is no other evidence mentioned by the Stewards to indicate that he gave the position back, was forced off track contrary to the regulations or that the Race Director said they were OK once they had given the place back and subsequently, when nothing could be done about it, started the investigation off.

Sounds like a 1970 police fit-up guv but the police managed to sort their house up by exhaustive anti-corruption investigations.

[cosmicpanda]

Nope. Hamilton was clearly guilty of the infrigement. Up until the point where Kimi passed him it was clearly that he had gained a position non? So the onus was on him to make it obvious that he had lot out of the whole maneuver.

OK, perhaps now, that the matter has gone to the Court of Appeal, the burden of proof is on McLaren, because they are challenging the decision.

I would think that before the original decision, though, it was up to the Stewards to explain why they thought Hamilton, despite backing off, merited a penalty.

[Tonieke]

well, Lewis backed up by 6 km/h to allow Kimi to re-pass him and then glued himself to his gearbox so he could overtake him immediately. To me, this is not backing off enough. It all comes down to experience, in my opinion. I don't see a Prost, for example, making this kind of mistakes. I know they are all racers, but this episode shows me how immature Lewis still is. And Ron should have known better...

U should review the video...than you would see it was actualy Kimi moving over to Lewis line..so if there was already a drag it was caused by Kimi...why he not staid on the inside line defending his position like he did before the chicane ?Big mistake from kimi I think...

[Knock-on]

OK, perhaps now, that the matter has gone to the Court of Appeal, the burden of proof is on McLaren, because they are challenging the decision.

I would think that before the original decision, though, it was up to the Stewards to explain why they thought Hamilton, despite backing off, merited a penalty.

Sorry, perhaps I missed this.

Has the right to appeal been given by the FIA or are they still keeping stum?

[Tonieke]

well, Lewis backed off by 6 km/h to allow Kimi to re-pass him and then glued himself to his gearbox so he could overtake him immediately. To me, this is not backing off enough. It all comes down to experience, in my opinion. I don't see a Prost, for example, making this kind of mistakes. I know they are all racers, but this episode shows me how immature Lewis still is. And Ron should have known better...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXVT4CO6ALM

ok lets watch this video together..at 15 sec..no drag..at 20 sec no drag..but by than Kimi moves over to Lewis line..on 21 secs lewis dives to the inside..in a split of a sec...where exactly did he "glued" himself to kimi's gearbox ?

[ArrowsFA1]

To me, this is not backing off enough...
So what, in your opinion, would have been "backing off enough?

[cosmicpanda]

Sorry, perhaps I missed this.

Has the right to appeal been given by the FIA or are they still keeping stum?

Perhaps I should say, now that McLaren has lodged notice of appeal with the FIA.

[Mickey T]

wonder what today's stewards would have made of this, then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzCqY8Wg5So

[HereIam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXVT4CO6ALM

ok lets watch this video together..at 15 sec..no drag..at 20 sec no drag..but by than Kimi moves over to Lewis line..on 21 secs lewis dives to the inside..in a split of a sec...where exactly did he "glued" himself to kimi's gearbox ?

on the short straight after he let Kimi through... admittedly for a split second, but he didn't allow enough space between himself and Kimi. He came out from behind him too soon, in my opinion.

Anyway, the fact that Ron asked Charlie twice if it was ok tells you that even RD thought it was dodgy...

Lewis didn't have to overtake Kimi at all. He would have lost two points to Kimi, but gained one over Massa, his direct rival. I'm afraid LH might be a very fast and talented driver, but he is still too 'green' to win a championship. He needs to use his head instead of his balls...

[HereIam]

So what, in your opinion, would have been "backing off enough?

a couple of meters...

[Knock-on]

wonder what today's stewards would have made of this, then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzCqY8Wg5So

Do you know what?

That was superb!!

2 drivers giving it all but fairly. Nobody pushing the other off and letting their skill decide the result.

This is what F1 should be. With drivers like Lewis, Alonso, Massa, Kimi, Kube etc, it could so easily be again.

There is a cancer in F1 and until it's removed, we will never get the sport we deserve.

[Tonieke]

on the short straight after he let Kimi through... admittedly for a split second, but he didn't allow enough space between himself and Kimi. He came out from behind him too soon, in my opinion.

Anyway, the fact that Ron asked Charlie twice if it was ok tells you that even RD thought it was dodgy...

Lewis didn't have to overtake Kimi at all. He would have lost two points to Kimi, but gained one over Massa, his direct rival. I'm afraid LH might be a very fast and talented driver, but he is still too 'green' to win a championship. He needs to use his head instead of his balls...

he came out just like before the chicane...when kimi was breaking way earlier than Lewis again..Not because Lewis took advantage of a drag or anything else.....vid clearly shows...

and about your second part ? we are talking about racing here don't we ? If every racer would think that way races would become very boring to watch..don't you think ?

[HereIam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzCqY8Wg5So

yes, funnily enough, I didn't see any chicane cutting there... :-)

[Tonieke]

yes, funnily enough, I didn't see any chicane cutting there... :-)

I hope you saw Kimi goin off track at the first corner gaining advantage ? :-))

[HereIam]

he came out just like before the chicane...when kimi was breaking way earlier than Lewis again..Not because Lewis took advantage of a drag or anything else.....vid clearly shows...


if he braked and slowed down behind Kimi instead of cutting the chicane, Lewis would have been a lot more behind Kimi than that... by cutting the chicane and then positioning himself so close to Kimi, he gained an unfair advantage in my opinion. But I'm sure you disagree... :-)




and about your second part ? we are talking about racing here don't we ? If every racer would think that way races would become very boring to watch..don't you think ?

no, not when you are just about to win the championship... at this rate, he will become another Sterling Moss...

[Tonieke]

if he braked and slowed down behind Kimi instead of cutting the chicane, Lewis would have been a lot more behind Kimi than that... by cutting the chicane and then positioning himself so close to Kimi, he gained an unfair advantage in my opinion. But I'm sure you disagree

Not really..I can follow you there..but when the same situation happens in a race and one gets a penalty and the other not...

If Kimi braked harder at the first corner to make it properly...he would never been so close behind Massa to overtake him soon after..so he gained advantage to from leaving the track...correct me if I am wrong ?

[Daniel]

than how can a driver give back advantage if nobody can say what it exactly means ?...and where does it say in situations like this a driver should wait at least one corner to make another attempt to pass the other driver involved ? Like some say lewis should have donne ?


I hereby give notice that I am ignoring your posts from this moment onwards. You don't get it..... you... just.... don't.... get it.

[Daniel]

Do you know what?

That was superb!!

2 drivers giving it all but fairly. Nobody pushing the other off and letting their skill decide the result.

This is what F1 should be. With drivers like Lewis, Alonso, Massa, Kimi, Kube etc, it could so easily be again.

There is a cancer in F1 and until it's removed, we will never get the sport we deserve.

The problem with F1 is the cars. Too much aero grip and not enough mechanical grip. Slicks next year won't sort this either IMHO.

[Tonieke]

I hereby give notice that I am ignoring your posts from this moment onwards. You don't get it..... you... just.... don't.... get it.

awwwwwwwwwwwwwww...hides in a corner and starts crying ! *rolling eyes*

[Tonieke]

I hereby give notice that I am ignoring your posts from this moment onwards. You don't get it..... you... just.... don't.... get it.

you know what the difference is between you and me..you have your view on things..and I have mine...does that mean I have to ingore someone ? don't see why...it's a bit childish actualy !

[HereIam]

I hope you saw Kimi goin off track at the first corner gaining advantage ? :-))

can't answer that... don't remember the incident, honest!

you know what the difference is between you and me..you have your view on things..and I have mine...does that mean I have to ingore someone ? don't see why...it's a bit childish actualy !

Amen, brother!










*Other than that, I don't agree with a word you say!

[HereIam]

Not really..I can follow you there..but when the same situation happens in a race and one gets a penalty and the other not...

If Kimi braked harder at the first corner to make it properly...he would never been so close behind Massa to overtake him soon after..so he gained advantage to from leaving the track...correct me if I am wrong ?

I managed to re-watch the incident... I think you got a point there... :-)

[Bagwan]

Lewis , in his own words , "had a look" , at the chicane , and it didn't come off . Kimi defended , as was his perogative .
Had Lewis braked any later , it was likely that he wouldn't have made it . He is a pretty good judge of such things , and doesn't generally have a reputation of flying off everywhere as his driving is often described as smooth .
If we see that as likely , then we might be able to say with confidence , that Kimi had his line , and braking , just right , as , in the entry of the chicane Lewis couldn't get his nose in far enough on his "look" in , to obtain the dominant position for the next apex .
Lewis backed out , going off track , left , while Kimi took the corner .

At this point Lewis was compromized by the excursion , and the onus was on the driver to show clearly to have negated any advantage that going outside the racing surface had gained him .


We have a judgement call here .
Once Hamilton made the decision to have a look , he sealed his fate .
He might easily have been able to get him on the pit straight , had he followed him through , as some have suggested . Maybe he should have .

Had he braked slightly earlier , on the line he took , a move to regain the same position out was less likely , since Kimi timed it well , and was there to compromise an "outside in" move with his positioning .
The opposite "inside out" move was there , I think , but alas , the early brakes weren't .

Kimi's slighly erratic behavior at the end of the pit straight made me think about what he , perhaps was thinking at the time .
Something like "Hey . He can't do that !" comes to mind .
After all , Kimi does know how to defend , and that was not how to defend .

[ArrowsFA1]

After all , Kimi does know how to defend...
Not sure about that - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KW2BixHl5oU ;)

[Tonieke]

I managed to re-watch the incident... I think you got a point there... :-)

;-) thx...not easy to find people on here that are pro the Lewis penalty but refuse to recognise what Kimi did there was just the same !

[JSH]

Not sure if this has been posted already but the TopGear website has some interesting videos.. This is one of them...

http://sundayafternoonclub.blogs.topgear.com/2008/09/09/belgian-gp-big-schu/

Shows a certain Ferrari from a previous season jumping a chicane and getting an advantage... an advantage that was not relinquished....

[Mickey T]

well, it has been posted before, but daniel, tamburello and ioan think it's a completely different situation with no relevance to this scenario.

but none of them have offered an explanation as to why that might be.

[inimitablestoo]

Gotta love the irony... Autosport's front cover inevitably features the pass and a (very balanced, despite the headline) feature on it inside... and also has its Italian GP preview, illustrated by a picture of last year's start - with Lewis Hamilton being forced onto the run-off at that first corner...

Oh yes, and expect that first corner at Monza to be even more of a cause celebre than usual this year...

[HereIam]

;-) thx...not easy to find people on here that are pro the Lewis penalty but refuse to recognise what Kimi did there was just the same !

yes, although cutting a chicane might seem a bit more serious than going off the circuit...

[Mickey T]

well, it has been posted before, but daniel, tamburello and ioan think it's a completely different situation with no relevance to this scenario.

but none of them have offered an explanation as to why that might be.

[Tonieke]

yes, although cutting a chicane might seem a bit more serious than going off the circuit...


well the rules been shown here about it make no difference...

[Tonieke]

hereiam..these are the rules I mend...

***30.3 a) During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the
provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits.
b) Other than by driving on the track, Competitors are not permitted to attempt to alter the grip of any part of the track surface***

[HereIam]

well the rules been shown here about it make no difference...

do you know where I can see this incident? I'm not sure if we are talking about the same one...

[Daniel]

well, it has been posted before, but daniel, tamburello and ioan think it's a completely different situation with no relevance to this scenario.

but none of them have offered an explanation as to why that might be.

Can someone post a video? I'd like to see it an offer an opinion.

[Tonieke]

do you know where I can see this incident? I'm not sure if we are talking about the same one...

here ya go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYNAB6xIbx8

[Knock-on]

here ya go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYNAB6xIbx8But, if there was a gravel trap, or rumble strips or a tree etc, then he would have been out :laugh:

isn't that the excuse used against Lewis :D

[Daniel]

well, it has been posted before, but daniel, tamburello and ioan think it's a completely different situation with no relevance to this scenario.

but none of them have offered an explanation as to why that might be.

Ok someone's posted a video. Look at how many corners went past before Kimi overtook Massa. If Lewis had merely left his attacking one corner later I've no doubt he would have overtaken him. I certainly don't see how with the kerb, the grass and the obvious lack of traction (Kimi nearly loses it twice!) how he gained from that incident.

Knockie. No one said Lewis got the penalty because if there'd been a tree or whatever there he would have retired.

well, it has been posted before, but daniel, tamburello and ioan think it's a completely different situation with no relevance to this scenario.

but none of them have offered an explanation as to why that might be.

There were plenty of other occasions when the car leading went off at a chicane and maintained position before then. The key thing is the word "leading", since it would be difficult to prove that a driver that was leading had gained an advantage since he already had the advantage.

If I recall, it was the fact that Michael cut the chicane on a couple of laps that was the most contentious issue, as in the thing he should have been punished for.

But, say for the sake of debate, if the stewards at the Hungaroring in 2006 made a mistake, as was the general feeling at the time (not mine) is it not correct for the FIA to have learnt from that mistake and to have acted accordingly at Spa 2008?

Or is that just unreasonable?

[Daniel]

But, say for the sake of debate, if the stewards at the Hungaroring in 2006 made a mistake, as was the general feeling at the time (not mine) is it not correct for the FIA to have learnt from that mistake and to have acted accordingly at Spa 2008?

Or is that just unreasonable?

Very good point :up:

[Tonieke]

Ok someone's posted a video. Look at how many corners went past before Kimi overtook Massa. If Lewis had merely left his attacking one corner later I've no doubt he would have overtaken him. I certainly don't see how with the kerb, the grass and the obvious lack of traction (Kimi nearly loses it twice!) how he gained from that incident.

Knockie. No one said Lewis got the penalty because if there'd been a tree or whatever there he would have retired.

Maybe someone earlier was right.....and i don't get it..I really don't get it there's people out there that say what lewis did was worth a penalty..But what Kimi does isn't....

why did Lewis and Felipe made it true that corner in a proper way ?...Just like Lewis..Kimi overshot the corner...and instead of hitting the brakes...(as Lewis should have donne at the chicane ..right ?) he went of track..keeping the pace....ending up way closer behind Massa than when he would have braked..loosing speed..but taking the corner in a correct way !

[Mickey T]

well, MS never allowed PDLR (who had overtaken him using the inside line) track position in front after MS protected his position by cutting the chicane.

LH DID allow KR back in front (after using the escape road to avoid a collision), so Tamburello, your point seems invalid.

because we didn't penalise somebody for doing the wrong thing, now we shoud penalise somebody for trying to do the right thing?

if there is a point at all, it should be that the FIA needs to clarify:

a: exactly what, in future, will be deemed to be redressing such issues.

b: with whom, in such times as these, can a team manager talk to confirm such measures have been met.

c: what precedents should everybody follow? the unpunished actions of a multiple world champion and probably the greatest racing talent who ever lived or the punished actions of the rising star who allowed his opponent to drive back past him while he was returning to the track?

because, if you don't answer the last question (and the rules are still the same as the ones in place in the MS incident), then everybody on the grid will be lost in such circumstances and we'll have another reason to add (aero, engines etc) to explain F1's lack of overtaking.


c:

well, MS never allowed PDLR (who had overtaken him using the inside line) track position in front after MS protected his position by cutting the chicane.

You sure Pedro was in front? Not according to Ron, he wouldn't have been.

It seems that Ron Dennis felt on Sunday that Lewis was in front before the corner despite being on the outside -

"I think, first of all, Lewis was ahead at the chicane and he got pushed wide" http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43849

So why should Michael be different?

It would seem, therefore, that even the Mclaren boss would have to say that Michael at the Hungaroring was in front. He certainly was as they entered the breaking zone. He was not the one attempting a pass, that's for sure.

Seems that the FIA are not the only ones who can be tarnished with that brush, eh, Mr Dennis?

well, MS never allowed PDLR (who had overtaken him using the inside line) track position in front after MS protected his position by cutting the chicane.

You said it, Michael was protecting his position. That means he already had an advantage, namely that he was leading. Please define how you gain an advantage when an advantage is what you already have?

Forgive me, but I'm not sure how you can protect a position but not be in front, so your claim doesn't appear valid itself.

because we didn't penalise somebody for doing the wrong thing, now we shoud penalise somebody for trying to do the right thing?

Trying to do the right thing is not the same as doing the right thing.

Had Lewis & Mclaren tried harder, and evidently because they asked the Race Director twice then they must have been in considerable doubt themselves as to if they had tried hard enough, then they wouldn't be in such a situation.

If there are similarities between the Schumi incident and the Lewis incident it is, in my opinion, that both seem fallible to the same failing.

Namely that there are times with both of these talented racers when they should have recognised that the racing had to stop and they should have recognised that more acknowledgement of another driver was required.

In my opinion, Lewis showed Schumi-like disregard for his fellow competitor at Spa. It's almost as if both Schumi & Lewis cannot recognise their own faults and don't see anything outside of their own bubble.

Which I don't think is a bad thing, per se, in a racing driver and despite his dreadful choice in teams and mentors, is the thing I do admire about Lewis.

But, in situations like Spa, it can also be his downfall. Just like, with Michael, it could be his.

[Zico]

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.

Whats unfair about it? He got ahead of Massa under braking before being walloped and thus forced to go over the chicane.

His "habit" is that he is probably the best 'braker' currently in F1. Its true what you say about perspectives though, it would be pretty funny to manipulate footage of unidentified incidents frame by frame and swop the Ferraris & Macs over and listen to everyones biased opinion change when they were told that the cars/drivers were switched. :D

[Viktory]

It is interesting to see that Massa, Trulli, Alonso, Heidfeld, Bourdais, Rosberg and Fisichella all think the penalty is deserved (some say it is harsh though). I think they have very valid opinions on this matter, but I guess that depends if you are a biased McLaren/Hamilton supporter or not.
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080911191346.shtml

[Tonieke]

You sure Pedro was in front? Not according to Ron, he wouldn't have been.

It seems that Ron Dennis felt on Sunday that Lewis was in front before the corner despite being on the outside -

"I think, first of all, Lewis was ahead at the chicane and he got pushed wide" http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43849

So why should Michael be different?

It would seem, therefore, that even the Mclaren boss would have to say that Michael at the Hungaroring was in front. He certainly was as they entered the breaking zone. He was not the one attempting a pass, that's for sure.

Seems that the FIA are not the only ones who can be tarnished with that brush, eh, Mr Dennis?

yes he was in front..I already posted evidence of that on here tamburello...but here it is again...

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/popup.asp?N=185&I=f1/2008/bel/f1-2008-bel-xp-0830.jpg&FS=F1&SN=1_81.240.168.144:39843&S=F1

[Viktory]

yes he was in front..I already posted evidence of that on here tamburello...but here it is again...

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/popup.asp?N=185&I=f1/2008/bel/f1-2008-bel-xp-0830.jpg&FS=F1&SN=1_81.240.168.144:39843&S=F1

is that so?

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/f1/2008/bel/f1-2008-bel-xp-0807.jpg

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/f1/2008/bel/f1-2008-bel-xp-0808.jpg

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/f1/2008/bel/f1-2008-bel-xp-0810.jpg

the only picture where he is in front is the last one...

yes he was in front..I already posted evidence of that on here tamburello...but here it is again...

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/popup.asp?N=185&I=f1/2008/bel/f1-2008-bel-xp-0830.jpg&FS=F1&SN=1_81.240.168.144:39843&S=F1

So therefore, working on that basis, so was Michael.

Difference is that Lewis hadn't been defending his position when he went over the chicane. Lewis hadn't been in front until he fecked his braking up, he was trying to gain an advantage whereas Michael had...for the best part of 25 laps, not 25mm anyway, already had the lead.

Anyone want to explain how somebody leading and therefore in possesion of the "advantage" can then gain the "advantage"?

How can you gain that which you already have?

[Tonieke]

is that so?

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/f1/2008/bel/f1-2008-bel-xp-0807.jpg

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/f1/2008/bel/f1-2008-bel-xp-0808.jpg

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/f1/2008/bel/f1-2008-bel-xp-0810.jpg

the only picture where he is in front is the last one...


you should read :

I was refering to this --> *It seems that Ron Dennis felt on Sunday that Lewis was in front before the corner despite being on the outside *


are you saying the pic i showed doesn't show Lewis as being in front ?

is that so?

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/f1/2008/bel/f1-2008-bel-xp-0807.jpg

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/f1/2008/bel/f1-2008-bel-xp-0808.jpg

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/f1/2008/bel/f1-2008-bel-xp-0810.jpg

the only picture where he is in front is the last one...

Thanks for that. That certainly does put a different perspective on it.

[Tonieke]

Thanks for that. That certainly does put a different perspective on it.

not at all..as Ron said before the corner..The pic i showed was before the corner...these aren't

[Tonieke]

So therefore, working on that basis, so was Michael.

Difference is that Lewis hadn't been defending his position when he went over the chicane. Lewis hadn't been in front until he fecked his braking up, he was trying to gain an advantage whereas Michael had...for the best part of 25 laps, not 25mm anyway, already had the lead.

Anyone want to explain how somebody leading and therefore in possesion of the "advantage" can then gain the "advantage"?

How can you gain that which you already have?

wait wait wait..are you saying now a car in the lead is allowed to overshoot a chicane while the car trying to pass is not ?

In Ms case..true...he was maybe in front..the nose of his car maybe...but by cutting the chicane he was a wayyy more ahead than before the chicane..so no advantage ?

not at all..as Ron said before the corner..The pic i showed was before the corner...these aren't

Yes, and "before" the corner Michael was in front at the Hungaroring.

But, like I said, the difference is that Michael had been in front for several laps and was therefore leading.

Michael was still leading when he cut the chicane.

He therefore held the advantage before and during the Hungaroring chicane.

So, I ask again, any chance of anyone explaining how you can gain what you already have?

wait wait wait..are you saying now a car in the lead is allowed to overshoot a chicane while the car trying to pass is not ?

In Ms case..true...he was maybe in front..the nose of his car maybe...but by cutting the chicane he was a wayyy more ahead than before the chicane..so no advantage ?

That's how it has always been non-enforced in the past, if I recall correctly.

I don't recall anybody being told to forfeit a place he had never lost, but I do know of plenty of occasions when a driver has had to give a place back he had gained.

[Tonieke]

Yes, and "before" the corner Michael was in front at the Hungaroring.

But, like I said, the difference is that Michael had been in front for several laps and was therefore leading.

Michael was still leading when he cut the chicane.

He therefore held the advantage before and during the Hungaroring chicane.

So, I ask again, any chance of anyone explaining how you can gain what you already have?

so the way you explain it...gaining advantage only is based on the position you are in ? as one can clearly see MS leads was bigger after he cut the chicane than it was goin in the chicane..But that doesn't count as advantage ?

so the way you explain it...gaining advantage only is based on the position you are in ?

By George, he's got it!

[Tonieke]

By George, he's got it!

than why the heck are we discussing Lewis penalty ?..as Kimi was in the lead before the chicane and still was after the chicane..if distance gained doesn't count for you...

[Robinho]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7611152.stm

a very good summary of the situation here - i think i'm leaning towards the side that i can see an arguement for Lewis being found to have gained (a very slight) advantage, but that the punishment in no way befits the crime in this case.

the incident is so marginal we can all argue all day whether the advantage gained was given back, given back enough, or not goven back for long enough, but the strength of the punishment, for me, is the bigger issue - despite a potential advantage being retained or gained or whatever, there seems to be little disagreement that Hamilton would and should have won the race given the conditions at the end of the race (no sleight on Kimi or Massa, purely a product of McLarens keeping heat in Tyres better), regardless of the incident and therefore the penalty is particularly harsh, but by the letter of the FIA's (rather silly) laws, the 25 second penalty was the least harsh available to the stewards

[Daniel]

By George, he's got it!
Tamburello. You're better off ignoring him :) I've ignored him and I'm feeling better already! No need for those silly blood tests :)

[Daniel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7611152.stm

a very good summary of the situation here - i think i'm leaning towards the side that i can see an arguement for Lewis being found to have gained (a very slight) advantage, but that the punishment in no way befits the crime in this case.

the incident is so marginal we can all argue all day whether the advantage gained was given back, given back enough, or not goven back for long enough, but the strength of the punishment, for me, is the bigger issue - despite a potential advantage being retained or gained or whatever, there seems to be little disagreement that Hamilton would and should have won the race given the conditions at the end of the race (no sleight on Kimi or Massa, purely a product of McLarens keeping heat in Tyres better), regardless of the incident and therefore the penalty is particularly harsh, but by the letter of the FIA's (rather silly) laws, the 25 second penalty was the least harsh available to the stewards

What an excellent piece :up:

The thing is the punishment MUST always outweigh the possible gain. If it doesn't then people will just offend and if they get let off they've gained and if they get penalised they're back where they started. Yes Lewis would have got past had things gone as we expect but there should be a penalty for this sort of thing and if you can gain a place from it then you should lose at least 2 places for doing it so a message is sent that it won't be tolerated.

As my friend Sebastien Bourdais and myself have mentioned, Lewis has previous for this so surely given his history then I think a fairly harsh penalty is right.

People are only kicking up a fuss about this because it has offended their sense of natural justice as the article says. If this were happening to someone further down the field no one would care. In fact if it was that Alonso whose fans are such horrible horrible people then all these people who have such a strong sense of justice would be poo-pooing Fernando for unsportsmanlike behaviour and cheating and so on and taking delight in that dirty cheating Spaniard getting what was coming to him.

Lewis may just be the most skilled driver out there and the fastest driver but if he doesn't pull his head out of his own arse and realise that he's special only in the eyes of himself, his dad and his legions of adoring fans then he's going to continue to get penalties like this which he doesn't need to be getting. Think about it...... if he'd not crashed into Kimi he'd have had lets say 6 points minimum? Magny Cours when he passed Vettel? Can't remember what position he was in but lets take 25 seconds off his time for the stop and go and he would have another 4 points and Spa he would have another 4 points as well. So that's 14 points that Lewis has lost out on for being a little bit loose in the brain department.

Tell you what if Massa or Kimi win the title over Lewis by anything less than 15 points they should offer the trophy to Lewis on one condition .... he go on the BBC 2 at about 8:55 on a Sunday night and say "I'm a clot and I ruined my championship and I've WON!"

Hey that could be a TV show *strokes chin* :cool:

[Tonieke]

What an excellent piece :up:

The thing is the punishment MUST always outweigh the possible gain. If it doesn't then people will just offend and if they get let off they've gained and if they get penalised they're back where they started. Yes Lewis would have got past had things gone as we expect but there should be a penalty for this sort of thing and if you can gain a place from it then you should lose at least 2 places for doing it so a message is sent that it won't be tolerated.

As my friend Sebastien Bourdais and myself have mentioned, Lewis has previous for this so surely given his history then I think a fairly harsh penalty is right.

People are only kicking up a fuss about this because it has offended their sense of natural justice as the article says. If this were happening to someone further down the field no one would care. In fact if it was that Alonso whose fans are such horrible horrible people then all these people who have such a strong sense of justice would be poo-pooing Fernando for unsportsmanlike behaviour and cheating and so on and taking delight in that dirty cheating Spaniard getting what was coming to him.

Lewis may just be the most skilled driver out there and the fastest driver but if he doesn't pull his head out of his own arse and realise that he's special only in the eyes of himself, his dad and his legions of adoring fans then he's going to continue to get penalties like this which he doesn't need to be getting. Think about it...... if he'd not crashed into Kimi he'd have had lets say 6 points minimum? Magny Cours when he passed Vettel? Can't remember what position he was in but lets take 25 seconds off his time for the stop and go and he would have another 4 points and Spa he would have another 4 points as well. So that's 14 points that Lewis has lost out on for being a little bit loose in the brain department.

Tell you what if Massa or Kimi win the title over Lewis by anything less than 15 points they should offer the trophy to Lewis on one condition .... he go on the BBC 2 at about 8:55 on a Sunday night and say "I'm a clot and I ruined my championship and I've WON!"

Hey that could be a TV show *strokes chin* :cool:

I am a fan of lewis but at least I have respect for all other drivers and don't insult them !

[MrJan]

Are you lot still arguing about this? :p :

[wedge]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7611152.stm

a very good summary of the situation here - i think i'm leaning towards the side that i can see an arguement for Lewis being found to have gained (a very slight) advantage, but that the punishment in no way befits the crime in this case.

the incident is so marginal we can all argue all day whether the advantage gained was given back, given back enough, or not goven back for long enough, but the strength of the punishment, for me, is the bigger issue - despite a potential advantage being retained or gained or whatever, there seems to be little disagreement that Hamilton would and should have won the race given the conditions at the end of the race (no sleight on Kimi or Massa, purely a product of McLarens keeping heat in Tyres better), regardless of the incident and therefore the penalty is particularly harsh, but by the letter of the FIA's (rather silly) laws, the 25 second penalty was the least harsh available to the stewards

Reading the quotes from today's press conference did make me change my mind for a moment but re-watching the replays I still think Lewis was pushed wide and no option but to cut the second part of the chicane else there would've been contact.

What Lewis is guilty of is 'improperly' conceding his position. Maybe the stewards/Charly Whiting are partly to blame because they should've addressed this issue properly in the driver briefings or its going out of the other ear when you're in the heat of the battle.

[Rollo]

Tell you what if Massa or Kimi win the title over Lewis by anything less than 15 points they should offer the trophy to Lewis on one condition .... he go on the BBC 2 at about 8:55 on a Sunday night and say "I'm a clot and I ruined my championship and I've WON!"

Hey that could be a TV show *strokes chin* :cool:

I'd like to see that show.

Can we have a segment where Eddie Irvine goes up to people with a microphone in hand and asks them that very difficult question What's your ****in' problem?" before he gives them a decent Belfast Kiss?

[Whyzars]

People are only kicking up a fuss about this because it has offended their sense of natural justice as the article says. If this were happening to someone further down the field no one would care. In fact if it was that Alonso whose fans are such horrible horrible people then all these people who have such a strong sense of justice would be poo-pooing Fernando for unsportsmanlike behaviour and cheating and so on and taking delight in that dirty cheating Spaniard getting what was coming to him.


Of course no-one would care if it were down the field as it wouldn't change a result like this decision has. I believe that Hamilton was going to win whether he offended or not. Absent any technical data available to indicate otherwise he should've been given the benefit of the doubt. If a review later deems an offence had occurred then a penalty would be served at the next race.

I don't know about anybody else but my issue is that an in-race penalty has been levied after the race is run and that the penalty then becomes a punishment because of that. A drive-through penalty given after the race is finished is far more severe than one given during a race. A drive-through penalty by its nature leaves the driver with an opportunity to lessen its impact. It is a more severe outcome after the race and becomes punitive in my opinion.



Lewis may just be the most skilled driver out there and the fastest driver but if he doesn't pull his head out of his own arse and realise that he's special only in the eyes of himself, his dad and his legions of adoring fans then he's going to continue to get penalties like this which he doesn't need to be getting.

If there is any 'natural justice' in this process then Hamilton will be re-instated as the race winner and a few stewards will return their heads to their nether regions until the next time we need a "hot" thread.




Think about it...... if he'd not crashed into Kimi he'd have had lets say 6 points minimum? Magny Cours when he passed Vettel? Can't remember what position he was in but lets take 25 seconds off his time for the stop and go and he would have another 4 points and Spa he would have another 4 points as well. So that's 14 points that Lewis has lost out on for being a little bit loose in the brain department.

Hamilton was trying to pass a great driver in a great car, At worst this was a 'racing' racing incident. Rather than being condemned we should be applauding drivers who are willing and able to drive these cars aggressively AND safely.

Tear them a new one when they do things that are dangerous but as long as the intent was correct then at most it was a technical error. Any penalty should be considerate of the honestly assessed benefit gained.

Ferrari were well beaten on the day and it might do their brand a great service if they gave the winners trophy to Lewis.

A symbolic gesture I know but a powerful one that would serve to remind everyone that this is a sport.




Tell you what if Massa or Kimi win the title over Lewis by anything less than 15 points they should offer the trophy to Lewis on one condition .... he go on the BBC 2 at about 8:55 on a Sunday night and say "I'm a clot and I ruined my championship and I've WON!"

Hey that could be a TV show *strokes chin* :cool:

I'd watch it. :)


I believe that Hamilton paid the price for youthful enthusiasm in 2007. If he does lose the championship by 15 points this year then it will simply be an indication that F1 is not quite ready to lose the tag 'circus'.

:)

[markabilly]

Reading the quotes from today's press conference did make me change my mind for a moment but re-watching the replays I still think Lewis was pushed wide and no option but to cut the second part of the chicane else there would've been contact.

What Lewis is guilty of is 'improperly' conceding his position. Maybe the stewards/Charly Whiting are partly to blame because they should've addressed this issue properly in the driver briefings or its going out of the other ear when you're in the heat of the battle.


For me, it still goes back to a wet rack and how tough it is to drive in the wet. One takes a path and simply hopes they are not expecting too much from the tires and car, and it will hold the line. If the track were dry, I might have had a different opinion and say there was more justification for the steards opinion.

However, I watched my copy of the race, and listened to Lewis pop off and brag on about his superior car control in the wet and so on. SSOOOO if he be that good, then maybe he really has no excuse and should suffer accordingly. As they say, he made his bed so he should sleep in it.

[markabilly]

Q. Was part of Spa that mentally you thought you had done enough to let him past you, but because the Ferrari had no grip it could not get past you?
LH: I don't think he had no grip. We had the same amount of grip.
Q. But he was braking much earlier than you?
LH: Well, that's his driving, that's all. That is how he drives. If you don't have the balls to brake late then that is your problem! At the end of the day, in those situations it is the driver who can feel the grip more and put the car more on the edge. And I know I am great in those conditions. I felt the grip more than him, I knew where to place my car and I did place it in different positions to him and I found the grip.


I suppose that is why LH ended up in the dirt and almost stuck right before Kimi spun again and gave up the lead for the last time....

[HenryM]

FM: To be honest, I've given my ideas on this many times about what happened. What's happened is that he took an advantage by cutting the chicane. You can ask other drivers how many overtaking manoeuvres you see there: no overtaking. Going from the last corner to the first corner is such a small straight, so he took an advantage, that's clear, that's my opinion, so it doesn't change.

Q: (Dan Knutson - National Speed Sport News) Could I ask the other four drivers what they thought about that incident and Kimi, and as a follow-up, do you think you and other drivers might be afraid to fight for a position now that you might get a penalty?

GF: I have just seen pictures, so it is difficult for me to say whether what happened was right or not. For sure, maybe, he took a small advantage, that's why he had the possibility, as Felipe said, to overtake him again in braking for turn one. But obviously, a 25s penalty was quite a strong penalty. As for the second question: when we get in the car and we're fighting to overtake a car, we don't think about that. We just try to do our best. Obviously we know if we cut a chicane or we take an advantage we need to back off and give the position back.

SB: Yes, I think the rules are very clear. Maybe the penalty was a bit hard, but I think he's made the same mistake twice: he's done it in Magny-Cours and he's done it again in Spa. I don't really understand why there's been such a mess around it. There's a rule book and everybody has to obey the same thing. The penalty is really rough but in the end it's up to you to give the position back or not. Pretty straightforward.

NR: Yeah, I definitely agree, because he did get an advantage, because he wouldn't have been that close behind Kimi had he not cut the chicane. But then again, I also think the penalty was a bit harsh as that did not have such a big effect on the actual race result in the end.

JT: Well, I agree completely with my colleagues. The penalty was quite big but I'm not a steward and I cannot decide what kind of penalty should be given. But on the other hand, it was very clear that he got an advantage out of it, so that's where it is. The rules are very clear. If you cut the chicane and you get an advantage, you just have to drop back and give back the position and in Lewis's case he shouldn't have attacked straight away at the next corner; that was it. On the other hand, with this new chicane, there is a lot of run-off, it gives you more chance to attack because in the case of a mistake, you wouldn't end up in a wall or in the gravel. If it was the case of Lewis in Spa, he wouldn't have gone much further than that. We have more chances to overtake.

SB: I think it was very clear and I agree as well. You have to be responsible for what you decide to do, and in this particular case, if you do gain an advantage like I said, you just give it back and make sure that you don't expose yourself to penalties. I think it's the easiest way to handle it. In my previous experience, my previous life in the States, it was actually a common thing. The stewards would not take action if you gave the position back, so I think it's only fair.

NR: I agree and I don't think it's going to stop us from trying to attack, definitely.

[555-04Q2]

You can ask other drivers how many overtaking manoeuvres you see there: no overtaking.

I have to disagree with my man here - when its dry yes, no overtaking, but it wasnt dry, it was raining. When it rains every corner is an overtaking opportunity.

[Hawkmoon]

Reading the quotes from today's press conference did make me change my mind for a moment but re-watching the replays I still think Lewis was pushed wide and no option but to cut the second part of the chicane else there would've been contact.

What Lewis is guilty of is 'improperly' conceding his position. Maybe the stewards/Charly Whiting are partly to blame because they should've addressed this issue properly in the driver briefings or its going out of the other ear when you're in the heat of the battle.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70480

DC has an interesting take on the issue (the emphasis is mine):



At the end of the day this is a sport. There are a set of rules and regulations, and the race track is defined by the white lines. In Monaco you don't cut corners, you hit barriers.

You can argue it was not Monaco, but the driver would have respected the corner if there was a barrier there. Lewis knew there was no barrier so he cut the corner.

He did not need to go across there particularly, he did because he tried to go side-by-side with Raikkonen and Kimi squashed him in that position. From a driving point of view you have to look at the white lines as barriers.


So perhaps Hamilton shouldn't have been in a position to be squeezed by the Ferrari in the first place.

[Daniel]

Of course no-one would care if it were down the field as it wouldn't change a result like this decision has. I believe that Hamilton was going to win whether he offended or not. Absent any technical data available to indicate otherwise he should've been given the benefit of the doubt. If a review later deems an offence had occurred then a penalty would be served at the next race.

I don't know about anybody else but my issue is that an in-race penalty has been levied after the race is run and that the penalty then becomes a punishment because of that. A drive-through penalty given after the race is finished is far more severe than one given during a race. A drive-through penalty by its nature leaves the driver with an opportunity to lessen its impact. It is a more severe outcome after the race and becomes punitive in my opinion.




If there is any 'natural justice' in this process then Hamilton will be re-instated as the race winner and a few stewards will return their heads to their nether regions until the next time we need a "hot" thread.




Hamilton was trying to pass a great driver in a great car, At worst this was a 'racing' racing incident. Rather than being condemned we should be applauding drivers who are willing and able to drive these cars aggressively AND safely.

Tear them a new one when they do things that are dangerous but as long as the intent was correct then at most it was a technical error. Any penalty should be considerate of the honestly assessed benefit gained.

Ferrari were well beaten on the day and it might do their brand a great service if they gave the winners trophy to Lewis.

A symbolic gesture I know but a powerful one that would serve to remind everyone that this is a sport.




I'd watch it. :)


I believe that Hamilton paid the price for youthful enthusiasm in 2007. If he does lose the championship by 15 points this year then it will simply be an indication that F1 is not quite ready to lose the tag 'circus'.

:)

What a load of rubbish. If you serve the penalty at the next race then you send the message that drivers can just do this thing and come up with a good pit strategy for the next race and get away with it. If you penalise a driver for the current race then you should.

Ferrari were not beaten on the day. Ferrari played by the rules on that day and finished 2nd to a driver who was deemed to have gained an advantage by cuttin the chicane and they were then given the win. Ferrari or Massa giving back trophies would be hilariously silly.

If there is any natural justice eh? You totally miss the point that the article makes in regards to natural justice my friend. Natural justice doesn't take into account the rules and as they say rules are rules and must be adhered to.

[Daniel]

Q. Was part of Spa that mentally you thought you had done enough to let him past you, but because the Ferrari had no grip it could not get past you?
LH: I don't think he had no grip. We had the same amount of grip.
Q. But he was braking much earlier than you?
LH: Well, that's his driving, that's all. That is how he drives. If you don't have the balls to brake late then that is your problem! At the end of the day, in those situations it is the driver who can feel the grip more and put the car more on the edge. And I know I am great in those conditions. I felt the grip more than him, I knew where to place my car and I did place it in different positions to him and I found the grip.


I suppose that is why LH ended up in the dirt and almost stuck right before Kimi spun again and gave up the lead for the last time....

Nobody likes an arrogant so and so.....

[Tonieke]

What a load of rubbish. If you serve the penalty at the next race then you send the message that drivers can just do this thing and come up with a good pit strategy for the next race and get away with it. If you penalise a driver for the current race then you should.

Ferrari were not beaten on the day. Ferrari played by the rules on that day and finished 2nd to a driver who was deemed to have gained an advantage by cuttin the chicane and they were then given the win. Ferrari or Massa giving back trophies would be hilariously silly.

If there is any natural justice eh? You totally miss the point that the article makes in regards to natural justice my friend. Natural justice doesn't take into account the rules and as they say rules are rules and must be adhered to.

watch it Whyzars....views on things other than what certain people on here think are not tolerated...before you know....they will call on people to ignore you....or what you say or think is rubbish..a term I rather find disrespectfull.....

[ArrowsFA1]

Nobody likes an arrogant so and so.....
Fact is Lewis is great in those conditions. He is also great on the brakes - late breaking and maintaining control under heavy breaking.

[wmcot]

Fact is Lewis is great in those conditions. He is also great on the brakes - late breaking and maintaining control under heavy breaking.

Agreed, but I don't like hearing how great he is from HIM!!!!


(But IF he is so great, why wouldn't he have time to tuck in behind Kimi through the chicane and make a better move later? Answer - his GREAT choice was to cut the chicane because it was easier!)

[Tonieke]

Fact is Lewis is great in those conditions. He is also great on the brakes - late breaking and maintaining control under heavy breaking.

true.. + I never got it how people can have an opinion about someone..not knowing them personaly...I am involved in the modeling world...and believe me there's a big difference between the pics you see in magazines and the person/model in normal life..just to give a sample...

Maybe lewis is arrogant..maybe he isn't..i would only be able to tell if I had to do with him personaly and on a regular base...andddddd I am a fan of him because of what he does on the racertracks....Not so much for what he says...

[wmcot]

...andddddd I am a fan of him because of what he does on the racertracks....Not so much for what he says...

Does the same go for Alonso?

[PolePosition_1]

You said it, Michael was protecting his position. That means he already had an advantage, namely that he was leading. Please define how you gain an advantage when an advantage is what you already have?

Forgive me, but I'm not sure how you can protect a position but not be in front, so your claim doesn't appear valid itself.

If thats your point of view, was it wrong to penalise Hamilton in France 2008 for cutting a chicane. He was more than infront of the Torro Rosso at the time, but they penalised him on condition they thought he saved a place by doing so.

[Tonieke]

Agreed, but I don't like hearing how great he is from HIM!!!!


(But IF he is so great, why wouldn't he have time to tuck in behind Kimi through the chicane and make a better move later? Answer - his GREAT choice was to cut the chicane because it was easier!)

I wonder why people have so much of a problem with that ? if he says about himself he's great and he shows it on the racetrack...what's wrong with that ? I would maybe agree with you if he said it and never finished in the points..and even than...I wouldn't care anyway....each one has his own personality....

+ I always heard a "champion" has to be some kind of an "asshole" anyway ! in any sports !

[Tonieke]

Does the same go for Alonso?

yep why not ? I have much respect for every racedriver for what he does on the racetrack....

[wmcot]

yep why not ? I have much respect for every racedriver for what they do on the racetrack....

Good, It's nice to find someone who is consistent in their opinions.

(p.s. How about Ide?) ;)

[ShiftingGears]

+ I always heard a "champion" has to be some kind of an "asshole" anyway ! in any sports !

I take it you don't know who the 2007 World drivers champion is ;)

[Daniel]

Fact is Lewis is great in those conditions. He is also great on the brakes - late breaking and maintaining control under heavy breaking.

It's the way you say it though :)

[wmcot]

It's the way you say it though :)

Actually,, it's more the way Lewis says it!

[Tonieke]

Good, It's nice to find someone who is consistent in their opinions.

(p.s. How about Ide?) ;)

well it doesn't mean i always agree with the actions they do...even if it's Lewis...But it has to be something really really really bad before a driver would loose my respect !

um...what you mean by that p.s. ? *scratching head*

[Tonieke]

I take it you don't know who the 2007 World drivers champion is ;)

u mean this one ? ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scoDILMYeQ8

[wmcot]

well it doesn't mean i always agree with the actions they do...even if it's Lewis...But it has to be something really really really bad before a driver would loose my respect !

um...what you mean by that p.s. ? *scratching head*

Just a bit of light-heartedness (after all, it's 2:00a.m. here).

[Daniel]

Agreed, but I don't like hearing how great he is from HIM!!!!

Exactly!

I mainly follow the WRC and to me the picture of perfection is Sebastien Loeb. God like driving skills yet he always shows respect for other drivers and lets his driving do the talking for him rather than his big mouth. You're about 100 times more likely to hear his opponents praising him than you are to see him giving himself a pat on the back for being so great and Sebastien Loeb IS good enough to get away with being a little arrogant. I also think Hamilton's arrogance shows through in the way he drives and this is why he gets penalised. Not some Max-Ron vendetta but an extremely talented young man's disregard for the rules and his fellow competitor. I'll even go as far to say that Michael for his unsportsmanlike behaviour at various times through his career comes across as a nicer and more genuine person than Lewis.

Perhaps it's down to the fact that he was brought up from a very young age to be an F1 driver and he was never going to be a pastry chef, a policeman or a teacher. Perhaps daddy and Ron instilled a sense of self belief that was perhaps just a little too strong. He just seems to be this unwavering belief that what he does it always right or if it's wrong that it's not worthy of penalty. Perhaps that's got nothing to do with it but I just don't like the way he's acted since about half way through last season. It's sad because I really quite liked him when he first came along last year......

[HereIam]

Maybe someone earlier was right.....and i don't get it..I really don't get it there's people out there that say what lewis did was worth a penalty..But what Kimi does isn't....

why did Lewis and Felipe made it true that corner in a proper way ?...Just like Lewis..Kimi overshot the corner...and instead of hitting the brakes...(as Lewis should have donne at the chicane ..right ?) he went of track..keeping the pace....ending up way closer behind Massa than when he would have braked..loosing speed..but taking the corner in a correct way !

mmmm.... you have a point in a way, but I think Kimi was too far behind Massa to believe he gained an advantage by going off the track a mile before he overtook him...

[Daniel]

Actually,, it's more the way Lewis says it!
That's what I was saying :p

[Tonieke]

mmmm.... you have a point in a way, but I think Kimi was too far behind Massa to believe he gained an advantage by going off the track a mile before he overtook him...

ok....what I mean is..if he hit the brakes..to make it properly true the first corner..he would have lost way more speed..and so..he wouldn't been so close behind massa as he was now...and it would have taken him way longer than a mile to make the pass..not ?

[HereIam]

So perhaps Hamilton shouldn't have been in a position to be squeezed by the Ferrari in the first place.

ah, yes, I've never seen Lewis driving others off the track...

[Tonieke]

I take it you don't know who the 2007 World drivers champion is ;)

or even worse..this one ! hehe ;-))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMBP1T_jw5w

[PolePosition_1]

Agreed, but I don't like hearing how great he is from HIM!!!!


(But IF he is so great, why wouldn't he have time to tuck in behind Kimi through the chicane and make a better move later? Answer - his GREAT choice was to cut the chicane because it was easier!)

Haha, I'm not a Lewis fan, but I love to see a driver so outspoken.

We moan F1 is so professional and PR related, but I think its good that a driver breaks that mould. Its entertaining :)

[HereIam]

ok....what I mean is..if he hit the brakes..to make it properly true the first corner..he would have lost way more speed..and so..he wouldn't been so close behind massa as he was now...and it would have taken him way longer than a mile to make the pass..not ?

yes, maybe, but the difference is that, by going off, Kimi didn't overtake Massa straightaway... he passed him a mile after that just because he was way faster than Felipe... I don't see how you can be penalised because you lose ground by going off and, if you hadn't, you would have lost a bit more... Kimi was really quite a long way behind Massa after going off... this is really taking it to an extreme. But as I said before, I can see your point...

[Tonieke]

yes, maybe, but the difference is that, by going off, Kimi didn't overtake Massa straightaway... he passed him a mile after that just because he was way faster than Felipe... I don't see how you can be penalised because you lose ground by going off and, if you hadn't, you would have lost a bit more... Kimi was really quite a long way behind Massa after going off... this is really taking it to an extreme. But as I said before, I can see your point...

ya let's keep it there.... ;-)

[ShiftingGears]

or even worse..this one ! hehe ;-))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMBP1T_jw5w

Are you kidding?

If the mother wasnt so desperate to get an autograph then she wouldn'tve bowled her child over. If the worst dirt you can dig is Kimi pushing someone who was in his personal space, then I don't see how it justifies him as an arsehole. Sorry.

[Tonieke]

Are you kidding?

If the mother wasnt so desperate to get an autograph then she wouldn'tve bowled her child over. If the worst dirt you can dig is Kimi pushing someone who was in his personal space, then I don't see how it justifies him as an arsehole. Sorry.

lol..well dunno..I personaly would have checked with that kid...as I was directly or inderectly involved in the incident...But instead he just moved on !

[Daniel]

Are you kidding?

If the mother wasnt so desperate to get an autograph then she wouldn'tve bowled her child over. If the worst dirt you can dig is Kimi pushing someone who was in his personal space, then I don't see how it justifies him as an arsehole. Sorry.

I don't get the whole autograph thing. I've got a t-shirt which I got autographed by all the WRC works drivers in 2001, 4 20x30@ photos of mine which I got autographed by driver and co-driver and a poster autographed by Chris Atkinson just so I could have a chat to him.

I have no interest in having the same poster or photo that thousands of other people have had autographed.

[Tonieke]

Are you kidding?

If the mother wasnt so desperate to get an autograph then she wouldn'tve bowled her child over. If the worst dirt you can dig is Kimi pushing someone who was in his personal space, then I don't see how it justifies him as an arsehole. Sorry.

lol It actualy was more mend as a joke yes....as a reaction to your reply on my "each champion has to be a bit of an asshole"

But as you seems to take it serious.....i will give you a serious answer..Maybe He could have turned back and check with the kid as he was direct or indirectly involved with the accident no ?...But instead he just moved on !

[DexDexter]

Are you kidding?

If the mother wasnt so desperate to get an autograph then she wouldn'tve bowled her child over. If the worst dirt you can dig is Kimi pushing someone who was in his personal space, then I don't see how it justifies him as an arsehole. Sorry.

You hit the nail on the the head. But hey if you really want to cause trouble, try kissing Kimi (or any Finn) on the cheek like in southern europe, then you're in real trouble.

[555-04Q2]

I take it you don't know who the 2007 World drivers champion is ;)

An alcholic? A marshal shover? Media abuser? A real stand up guy then :p :

You asked for it ;)

[ioan]

wonder what today's stewards would have made of this, then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzCqY8Wg5So

Was there anyone cutting a chicane in that video? I certainly didn't see any. So why is this relevant to what we are debating here?

[Knock-on]

An alcholic? A marshal shover? Media abuser? A real stand up guy then :p :

You asked for it ;)

I like Kimi. He's got a bit of attitude and I like that.

Can't stand the boring drivers that just trot out the corporate line.

[Tonieke]

Was there anyone cutting a chicane in that video? I certainly didn't see any. So why is this relevant to what we are debating here?


at 1:16 maybe ?

[ioan]

well, it has been posted before, but daniel, tamburello and ioan think it's a completely different situation with no relevance to this scenario.

but none of them have offered an explanation as to why that might be.

I did explain it, go check it out. :rolleyes:

[ioan]

at 1:16 maybe ?

There is no chicane cutting there.

[555-04Q2]

I like Kimi. He's got a bit of attitude and I like that.

:D And here I was thinking you were a straight arrow :D

[Tonieke]

There is no chicane cutting there.

Oh ok..thought at 1.15 and 1.16 I saw Arnoux cutting a corner there.....Looking at the position of the curbs..But maybe I am wrong again !

[Knock-on]

:D And here I was thinking you were a straight arrow :D

All I want is racing.

I don't give a fig if Ferrari win as long as it was a fair fight with hopefully good racing.

I do like drivers with attitude though as they make it more personal.

JPM, JV, our Nige, Kimi and Lewis all have a bit of attitude which spices things up a bit.

[Dave B]

Ian Phillips (Force India) is saying on FIve Live that in the team managers' meeting at Monza Charlie Whiting reminded the teams that if you gain an advantage you should wait until at least the next corner until you overtake.

Trouble is, none of the team mangers have any recollection of such a ruling and it certainly doesn't appear in the sporting code.

This is the problem: not so much whether Lewis or Kimi did anything wrong but the total fogginess of a rulebook which leaves so much open to interpretation.

[555-04Q2]

All I want is racing.

I don't give a fig if Ferrari win as long as it was a fair fight with hopefully good racing.

I do like drivers with attitude though as they make it more personal.

JPM, JV, our Nige, Kimi and Lewis all have a bit of attitude which spices things up a bit.

:erm: I was talking about your liking the lad. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, straight arrow :p :

[Knock-on]

This is the problem: not so much whether Lewis or Kimi did anything wrong but the total fogginess of a rulebook which leaves so much open to interpretation.


Conspiracy theorists might think it is purposely left foggy ;)

[555-04Q2]

open to interpretation.

Should have read, "open to manipulation" :)

[Daniel]

All I want is racing.

I don't give a fig if Ferrari win as long as it was a fair fight with hopefully good racing.

I do like drivers with attitude though as they make it more personal.

JPM, JV, our Nige, Kimi and Lewis all have a bit of attitude which spices things up a bit.

You forget JPYM as well. The y stands for "you ****ing broke my head!" :p

[Dave B]

The old BTCC rulebook started off with the line "If it doesn't say you can, you can't."

Saved a lot of bother, that did.

[555-04Q2]

You forget JPYM as well. The y stands for "you ****ing broke my head!" :p

That was a classic Montoya moment :laugh: :up: :laugh:

[Daniel]

Ian Phillips (Force India) is saying on FIve Live that in the team managers' meeting at Monza Charlie Whiting reminded the teams that if you gain an advantage you should wait until at least the next corner until you overtake.

Trouble is, none of the team mangers have any recollection of such a ruling and it certainly doesn't appear in the sporting code.

This is the problem: not so much whether Lewis or Kimi did anything wrong but the total fogginess of a rulebook which leaves so much open to interpretation.

The problem again comes down to the fact that a rulebook can't be all inclusive. Every single time I've seen this sort of thing happen the driver has always given the place back and not attacked for a corner or two, they've been penalised for not giving the place back at all or they've sort of given the place back as Lewis did and they got penalised. I can't actually recall when I last saw someone do what Lewis did. Can anyone tell me when the last time someone gained and advantage, gave the place back and then overtook all within the time from one corner to another?

[Dave B]

The problem again comes down to the fact that a rulebook can't be all inclusive.
Entirely possible, but then how can you possibly impose a punishment for something not covered by the rules? All you can do is issue a clarification so that going forward everybody knows where they stand. This is what should have been done in Belgium: clarify exactly what the procedure is for relinquishing any advantage.

[Knock-on]

Entirely possible, but then how can you possibly impose a punishment for something not covered by the rules? All you can do is issue a clarification so that going forward everybody knows where they stand. This is what should have been done in Belgium: clarify exactly what the procedure is for relinquishing any advantage.

That's it in a nutshell.

There is nothing in the rules about giving back any advantage. However, the understanding is that if you gain a place or maintain a place by going off track, you relinquish it or get a drive through.

Now, Charlie has "reiterated" than any advantage needs to be given back and no overtake until after the next corner. Problem is, nobody can remember him saying that before :D

[Daniel]

Entirely possible, but then how can you possibly impose a punishment for something not covered by the rules? All you can do is issue a clarification so that going forward everybody knows where they stand. This is what should have been done in Belgium: clarify exactly what the procedure is for relinquishing any advantage.

Well like I said it has AFAIK never happened before. Thing is there is a rule against gaining an advantage though ;)

I think the driver and team should take some responsibility for not being a bit more sensible with things......

[Knock-on]

Well like I said it has AFAIK never happened before. Thing is there is a rule against gaining an advantage though ;)

I think the driver and team should take some responsibility for not being a bit more sensible with things......

Really? There's a rule that covers gaining an advantage?

Can you show it please.

[Daniel]

Really? There's a rule that covers gaining an advantage?

Can you show it please.
Is there not? My bad if so!

As Dave says though "If it doesn't say you can, you can't" should be the way it operates.

[wedge]

The problem again comes down to the fact that a rulebook can't be all inclusive. Every single time I've seen this sort of thing happen the driver has always given the place back and not attacked for a corner or two, they've been penalised for not giving the place back at all or they've sort of given the place back as Lewis did and they got penalised. I can't actually recall when I last saw someone do what Lewis did. Can anyone tell me when the last time someone gained and advantage, gave the place back and then overtook all within the time from one corner to another?

I'm pretty sure there were similar incidents at Monza's first chicance, concede position and then attack at the second chicane.

Can't come up with examples though, too busy to research youtube!

[Knock-on]

Is there not? My bad if so!

As Dave says though "If it doesn't say you can, you can't" should be the way it operates.


Should is a bit different to "is".

That's the problem. Too many nudges and winks on how the rules are interpreted.

So, today it has been said that if you overtake and give the place back, you don't overtake until after the next corner.

Again, this ISN'T in the rules and you can still be penalised if you follow this advice from Charlie as McLaren were.

[Daniel]

Should is a bit different to "is".

That's the problem. Too many nudges and winks on how the rules are interpreted.

So, today it has been said that if you overtake and give the place back, you don't overtake until after the next corner.

Again, this ISN'T in the rules and you can still be penalised if you follow this advice from Charlie as McLaren were.

As has been pointed out Charlie isn't responsible for these sort of things during the race.

[wedge]

As has been pointed out Charlie isn't responsible for these sort of things during the race.

To an extent he does.

He does the driver briefing.


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70480

"But, you can do two things in life – you can dwell on the past or you can try and get clarification on things and move forward. That is the way I live my life.

"In the drivers' briefing tomorrow we will try and get clarification about the conditions we are racing under and we will move forward. And when some fans go, some fans come. That is the natural evolution of life."

[Tonieke]

Should is a bit different to "is".

That's the problem. Too many nudges and winks on how the rules are interpreted.

So, today it has been said that if you overtake and give the place back, you don't overtake until after the next corner.

Again, this ISN'T in the rules and you can still be penalised if you follow this advice from Charlie as McLaren were.

almost everyone..from drivers..teams..to fans gave there view on things...but FIA itself..while they should have been the first to come out with a clear statement..first on what the penalty was based on..and secondly on what exactly should be donne from now on if something similar....and yes they should have donne it this week knowing Monza was next...They failed in doin so...

[HereIam]

as I said before, the fact that Ron asked Charlie twice if Lewis's pass was ok shows you that even RD knew it was well dodgy... if in doubt, don't do it!

[Knock-on]

As has been pointed out Charlie isn't responsible for these sort of things during the race.

Sorry, but to a degree he is.

He's the one the teams turn to and is involved in referring incidents to the Stewards.

In this situation, he confirmed that McLaren were OK and then referred it to the Stewards to investigate.

Can you not see why McLaren are aggrieved.

[cosmicpanda]

I'm pretty sure there were similar incidents at Monza's first chicance, concede position and then attack at the second chicane.

Can't come up with examples though, too busy to research youtube!

The second chicane, although in practice it is the next corner, is of course after the Curva Grande.

[Daniel]

To an extent he does.

He does the driver briefing.

They do the driver briefing while they're racing these days? :confused:

[Knock-on]

as I said before, the fact that Ron asked Charlie twice if Lewis's pass was ok shows you that even RD knew it was well dodgy... if in doubt, don't do it!

Well dodgy? :laugh:

He spoke with the Race Director to confirm that he concurred that they had given the place back correctly. He said "probably" so they rechecked and then he confirmed that it was OK.

Otherwise, as Ron pointed out, they would have let Kimi past again and then retaken him.

The idiots in this are the Stewards for a diabolical penalty and CW for confirming this was OK and then changing his mind after the race and referring it to the Stewards.

[Daniel]

Sorry, but to a degree he is.

He's the one the teams turn to and is involved in referring incidents to the Stewards.

In this situation, he confirmed that McLaren were OK and then referred it to the Stewards to investigate.

Can you not see why McLaren are aggrieved.

He said they were probably OK. In the time it would have taken McLaren to contact Charlie and for him to say it's probabl OK Lewis would have been well around the next corner and to a certain extent the offence was already committed and couldn't be taken back.

I've said time and time again I can understand why McLaren feel hard done by but I still think an offence was committed.........

[Daniel]

Well dodgy? :laugh:

He spoke with the Race Director to confirm that he concurred that they had given the place back correctly. He said "probably" so they rechecked and then he confirmed that it was OK.

Otherwise, as Ron pointed out, they would have let Kimi past again and then retaken him.

The idiots in this are the Stewards for a diabolical penalty and CW for confirming this was OK and then changing his mind after the race and referring it to the Stewards.

I say again that McLaren were wrong to contact Charlie on this. He is not responsible for the judgement. I think in this sort of case where a driver cuts a corner the onus is on him to clearly show that he's not gained an advantage out of it. It really is that simple.

If thats your point of view, was it wrong to penalise Hamilton in France 2008 for cutting a chicane. He was more than infront of the Torro Rosso at the time, but they penalised him on condition they thought he saved a place by doing so.

Hamitlon was not "leading" at Magny Cours in the same sense as Schumi had been "leading" at the Hungaroring. Hamilton was not clearly in front....his car may have been ahead but it had only been there for about 1 second so would have been considered to have been overtaking. Michael had been in front for a good 20+ laps.

There is a difference.

The idiots in this are the Stewards for a diabolical penalty and CW for confirming this was OK and then changing his mind after the race and referring it to the Stewards.

The idiots are also on the Mclaren pit-wall.

If they had any doubt, and there is evidently a lot of doubt as to what is fair and what is not, then they should have drilled it into the head of their star player and themselves that they make damn sure that they didn't even need to ask the question to the Race Director.

They are idiots for asking the Race Director when he doesn't, and never has, been responsible for penalties.

They are idiots for risking a penalty, especially if your theory of the FIA seeking any way to punish them is to hold any water. Why push your luck if the powers that be will clobber you for every infraction?

Sometimes, Knockie, it would help you to see that the team you so evidently love are their own worst enemies.

I had numerous seasons watching the Scuderia implode, explode and generally fall flat on their face due to their own, only to obvious, failings.

[Knock-on]

I say again that McLaren were wrong to contact Charlie on this. He is not responsible for the judgement. I think in this sort of case where a driver cuts a corner the onus is on him to clearly show that he's not gained an advantage out of it. It really is that simple.

How many times Daniel.

It's not what you think they should do and your opinion but what the rules say, what protocol states and what precedent is in place.

All of which McLaren followed.

If the Stewards were to investigate straight away, then McLaren would have been told of it and could have done a drive through or let Kimi pass. At that point, they could have discussed it with the Stewards but that procedure, which is in the regulations wasn't followed so they accepted the Race Directors word that they were OK. Not probably OK but OK.

It was after the race that Charlie referred it to the Stewards.

Those are the facts. Can we stick to them and not opinion and what you think should have happened.

It was after the race that Charlie referred it to the Stewards..

Do you have a link for that?

[Knock-on]

The idiots are also on the Mclaren pit-wall.

If they had any doubt, and there is evidently a lot of doubt as to what is fair and what is not, then they should have drilled it into the head of their star player and themselves that they make damn sure that they didn't even need to ask the question to the Race Director.

They are idiots for asking the Race Director when he doesn't, and never has, been responsible for penalties.

They are idiots for risking a penalty, especially if your theory of the FIA seeking any way to punish them is to hold any water. Why push your luck if the powers that be will clobber you for every infraction?

Sometimes, Knockie, it would help you to see that the team you so evidently love are their own worst enemies.

I had numerous seasons watching the Scuderia implode, explode and generally fall flat on their face due to their own, only to obvious, failings.

First, I don't Love McLaren. I support them along with Williams and Honda.

I greatly admire Lewis's ability behind the wheel and have been privileged to to see him coming up through the formulas.

However, Love, and in particular blind Love is reserved for the Tifosi :)

Historically, teams have always directed communication with the Race Director. If there is an incident, the Race Director forwards it to the Stewards to investigate and it comes up on the monitors. At this stage the Team talks with the Stewards.

This was the same when you were working for Renault as it is today. McLaren were following the procedure that everyone's followed for years.

I can see with hindsight that it would have been better to wait until after the next corner to overtake Kimi because it was never an issue of whether he was going to get past. He could have done it anytime but he's a racer and took the first opportunity and complied with the standard procedure after gaining an advantage.

I can see with hindsight that they shouldn't believe a word Charlie Whiting says as he says one thing and does another.

But hindsight is a wonderful thing that isn't available in the middle of a race. We had a superb battle and yet again, it's been ruined by the FIA's incompetence.

Lets see how the appeal goes.

[Daniel]

How many times Daniel.

It's not what you think they should do and your opinion but what the rules say, what protocol states and what precedent is in place.

All of which McLaren followed.

If the Stewards were to investigate straight away, then McLaren would have been told of it and could have done a drive through or let Kimi pass. At that point, they could have discussed it with the Stewards but that procedure, which is in the regulations wasn't followed so they accepted the Race Directors word that they were OK. Not probably OK but OK.

It was after the race that Charlie referred it to the Stewards.

Those are the facts. Can we stick to them and not opinion and what you think should have happened.

*sigh*

yeah guys can we stick to knock on's version of the truth and his assumptions rather than what we see as the facts and what we see as logical? :p

From what I can remember the issue of Lewis cutting the chicane was shown as being investigated by the stewards BEFORE the end of the race. So please can we stick to the facts old bean?

Like I said the race director is not responsible for the judgement so why ask him? When this sort of thing happens the drivers needs to concede the advantage quickly so as to avoid being penalised and not when the team has done the wrong thing and gone chatting to the person who isn't even in charge of making the decision to see if it's OK.

Historically, teams have always directed communication with the Race Director. If there is an incident, the Race Director forwards it to the Stewards to investigate and it comes up on the monitors. At this stage the Team talks with the Stewards.

This was the same when you were working for Renault as it is today. McLaren were following the procedure that everyone's followed for years.

The teams have not always directed communication with the Race Director with regards to incidents that the Stewards look into.

The Stewards are well above the Race Director when it comes to deciding if they are going to investigate an incident and do not need the Race Director to forward it to them. They can decide to investigate if the matter is referred or not.

In laymans terms, the Stewards are the referee, the Race Director merely a Linesman.

[Daniel]

The teams have not always directed communication with the Race Director with regards to incidents that the Stewards look into.

The Stewards are well above the Race Director when it comes to deciding if they are going to investigate an incident and do not need the Race Director to forward it to them. They can decide to investigate if the matter is referred or not.

In laymans terms, the Stewards are the referee, the Race Director merely a Linesman.
I'll have none of that! Stick to the facts as he presents them please!!!!!

[Knock-on]

The teams have not always directed communication with the Race Director with regards to incidents that the Stewards look into.

The Stewards are well above the Race Director when it comes to deciding if they are going to investigate an incident and do not need the Race Director to forward it to them. They can decide to investigate if the matter is referred or not.

In laymans terms, the Stewards are the referee, the Race Director merely a Linesman.

Actually, the Director referrs or the Stewards inform the director that they will investigare.

Usually, it is the former.

[Daniel]

Actually, the Director referrs or the Stewards inform the director that they will investigare.

Usually, it is the former.

Have you any evidence that the stewards didn't refer the matter to Charlie? Because I remember that it was shown that Lewis was being investigated during the race.....

It was after the race that Charlie referred it to the Stewards.

Those are the facts. Can we stick to them and not opinion and what you think should have happened.


Do you have a link for that?

I found the official release....

"To: The team manager, Vodafone McLaren Mercedes

The stewards, having received a report from the Race Director and having met with the drivers and team managers involved, have considered the following matter, determine a breach of the regulations has been committed by the competitor and impose the penalty referred to."

That doesn't say that Whiting "referred" it to the Stewards, merely that he gave them "a report".

A report is often requested. If the official release stated it was "reported by Charlie Whiting", then what you claim is true.

But it doesn't, so what you claim isn't fact at all.

[Knock-on]

*sigh*

yeah guys can we stick to knock on's version of the truth and his assumptions rather than what we see as the facts and what we see as logical? :p

From what I can remember the issue of Lewis cutting the chicane was shown as being investigated by the stewards BEFORE the end of the race. So please can we stick to the facts old bean?

Like I said the race director is not responsible for the judgement so why ask him? When this sort of thing happens the drivers needs to concede the advantage quickly so as to avoid being penalised and not when the team has done the wrong thing and gone chatting to the person who isn't even in charge of making the decision to see if it's OK.

Daniel, if you disagree with the facts, they can easily be referenced.

As for whether this was referred before the end of the race, I don't remember seeing it.

However, I also cannot remember where I saw that Charlie referred it after the race. It will come up in the appeal though.

Did it come up on screen before the end of the race as if it was being investigated, it should do.

Actually, the Director referrs or the Stewards inform the director that they will investigare.

Usually, it is the former.

Which they did.

[Daniel]

Daniel, if you disagree with the facts, they can easily be referenced.

As for whether this was referred before the end of the race, I don't remember seeing it.

However, I also cannot remember where I saw that Charlie referred it after the race. It will come up in the appeal though.

Did it come up on screen before the end of the race as if it was being investigated, it should do.

From what I can remember it did. Sadly the Sky+ recording screwed up :p

I'll be honest and say I'm not 100 sure but neither are you so no one has the facts now do they? :p

[Knock-on]

I found the official release....

"To: The team manager, Vodafone McLaren Mercedes

The stewards, having received a report from the Race Director and having met with the drivers and team managers involved, have considered the following matter, determine a breach of the regulations has been committed by the competitor and impose the penalty referred to."

That doesn't say that Whiting "referred" it to the Stewards, merely that he gave them "a report".

A report is often requested. If the official release stated it was "reported by Charlie Whiting", then what you claim is true.

But it doesn't, so what you claim isn't fact at all.

A race report is always submitted.

I will have a little dig around and try and find where it was that said CW referred it.

However, I also cannot remember where I saw that Charlie referred it after the race. It will come up in the appeal though.

You mean you hope it does?

Until it does, sorry, but it isn't as factual as you claim.

There is this report from the Guardian - "The race director, Charlie Whiting, had reported Hamilton to the three stewards employed by the FIA", (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/sep/08/lewishamilton.formulaone?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront) but since it isn't citing an official FIA release as its source, it doesn't make it a fact.

After all, Mosley has already showed that Newspapers don't always use reliable sources, would you not agree?

[Knock-on]

You mean you hope it does?

Until it does, sorry, but it isn't as factual as you claim.

There is this report from the Guardian - "The race director, Charlie Whiting, had reported Hamilton to the three stewards employed by the FIA", (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/sep/08/lewishamilton.formulaone?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront) but since it isn't citing an official FIA release as its source, it doesn't make it a fact.

After all, Mosley has already showed that Newspapers don't always use reliable sources, would you not agree?


Well, seeing as the FIA have been like a closed shop regarding all this, then you will never accept anything.

So, whatever you want to believe is up to you.

[Viktory]

The Swedish commentators said the incident between Lewis and Kimi would be investigated after the race, before the race was finished. I am also quite sure I saw one of those on-screen information things.

[HereIam]

Right, let me see... why do I ask the race director - who is not in charge of the decisions - if my driver has given up the position correctly (not once, but twice)? And why do I believe him if I know that it's not up to him to say that? And why, if I want my driver to win the championship, don't I tell him to calm down and not to take any risks just to pass Kimi at all cost (espcially when his direct contender is miles behind him)? And why do I feel aggrieved afterwards? And why am I so stupid?

[Knock-on]

Right, let me see... why do I ask the race director - who is not in charge of the decisions - if my driver has given up the position correctly (not once, but twice)? And why do I believe him if I know that it's not up to him to say that? And why, if I want my driver to win the championship, don't I tell him to calm down and not to take any risks just to pass Kimi at all cost (espcially when his direct contender is miles behind him)? And why do I feel aggrieved afterwards? And why am I so stupid?

I think you may have missed the idea of what racing is all about :D

Anyone that didn't enjoy that scap is no racing fan.

We're tired of seeing safe processions where nobody risks a pass. I applaud Lewis for what he did. It was great racing and that's what the rules should be there to promote.

For those of you obsessed with justifying the stewards and applauding their anal application of the rules, would you also be happy if they applied the rules against Kimi for his off track antics on lap 1 or his forcing Lewis off track?

No, I thought not.

[HereIam]

I think you may have missed the idea of what racing is all about :D

Anyone that didn't enjoy that scap is no racing fan.

We're tired of seeing safe processions where nobody risks a pass. I applaud Lewis for what he did. It was great racing and that's what the rules should be there to promote.

For those of you obsessed with justifying the stewards and applauding their anal application of the rules, would you also be happy if they applied the rules against Kimi for his off track antics on lap 1 or his forcing Lewis off track?

No, I thought not.

I enjoyed the scrap very much, but Lewis will never be a world champion if he doesn't start using his brain... and BTW, Lewis never forced anybody off track? :rolleyes:

[Whyzars]

What a load of rubbish. If you serve the penalty at the next race then you send the message that drivers can just do this thing and come up with a good pit strategy for the next race and get away with it. If you penalise a driver for the current race then you should.

Its not rubbish.

There comes a point when in-race penalties are not sufficient and may be unintentionally influenced by hindisight ie. would the stewards decision have been different if Hamilton had won by 26 seconds? No matter which way you look at it, in-race penalties after the chequered flag expose the stewards to accusations of race fixing or team bias and I don't think that the facility can be left as it is.

There are millions being wagered on every race and that money is traded in good faith. The terms of the sports betting market will read something like 'payouts will be based on the official FIA result'. When a decision is made that directly affects the result of a race, and it becomes protracted legally, it could mean that those millions are tied up in limbo until the FIA result is confirmed. This is a ridiculous situation and one that will only change through recognising the sport's shortcomings and fixing them.

If too many decisions like this occur then we could see a situation where betting markets stop recognising the FIA result and settle in favour of a driver or team that is contrary to the FIA view of its own competition. Would we then have a betting market endorsed drivers champion and an FIA endorsed drivers champion?



Ferrari were not beaten on the day. Ferrari played by the rules on that day and finished 2nd to a driver who was deemed to have gained an advantage by cuttin the chicane and they were then given the win. Ferrari or Massa giving back trophies would be hilariously silly.

Ferrari WERE beaten on the day as the only driver that had any legitimate claim on the race was Raikonnen and he kissed a wall.

I think that Massa swapping trophies with Hamilton would be a very sporting gesture and far from silly as you put it. Massa and Hamilton are hopefully destined to be one of those great rivalries that we see in F1 from time to time. With all the other non-racing BS that goes on it would be good to see something positive in amongst the dross. As a citizen of a great cricketing nation I'm sure you can appreciate that. ;)



If there is any natural justice eh? You totally miss the point that the article makes in regards to natural justice my friend. Natural justice doesn't take into account the rules and as they say rules are rules and must be adhered to.

Huh? Natural justice is sans rules or other influences. That's what makes it natural.

[mstillhere]

I enjoyed the scrap very much, but Lewis will never be a world champion if he doesn't start using his brain... and BTW, Lewis never forced anybody off track? :rolleyes:

Don't waste your time with that. This thread is not about logic and rules it's about winning. So any mean to achieve that is justified. I kind of like that, if it were to go both ways. But it does not. It only goes one way. In McLarea and Hamilton's favor and therefore unacceptable. So is the arguing end in sight? Not even close.

[Whyzars]

watch it Whyzars....views on things other than what certain people on here think are not tolerated...before you know....they will call on people to ignore you....or what you say or think is rubbish..a term I rather find disrespectfull.....

Whyzars by name, Whyzars by nature so I'm really not too worried.

I don't think the few times that I've posted over the years have caused too much grief to anyone. If people choose to ignore me then that is a pity because they miss out on my unique insight. :)

[ioan]

There comes a point when in-race penalties are not sufficient and may be unintentionally influenced by hindisight ie. would the stewards decision have been different if Hamilton had won by 26 seconds?

I don't think so, the stewards imposed the penalty that is prescribed in the sporting regulations.

If Hamilton would have won by 25.1 seconds than he would have still been the winner of the race after the 25 seconds penalty was given.

[mstillhere]

Here is what a group of HIGHLY specialized and F1 experts said about the Spa incident. Of course McLaren and Ferrari fans (and everybody else of course) can say whatever they want but we all have to have the honesty and modesty to admit our limitations and to give credit to what the professionals who live - not just talk - F1 every day have to say:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7611152.stm
Read it. You might learn something.

[mstillhere]

Right, let me see... why do I ask the race director - who is not in charge of the decisions - if my driver has given up the position correctly (not once, but twice)? And why do I believe him if I know that it's not up to him to say that? And why, if I want my driver to win the championship, don't I tell him to calm down and not to take any risks just to pass Kimi at all cost (espcially when his direct contender is miles behind him)? And why do I feel aggrieved afterwards? And why am I so stupid?

I am very stupid too. I guess it's contagious :) :)

[Whyzars]

I don't think so, the stewards imposed the penalty that is prescribed in the sporting regulations.

If Hamilton would have won by 25.1 seconds than he would have still been the winner of the race after the 25 seconds penalty was given.


Exactly right, or they might also have said to themselves "What's the point." and be done with it, maybe even try to find Hamilton guilty of a slightly different offence that would provide a penalty at the next race.

The stewards imposed a penalty that had an effect on the result whilst presumably being aware of the impact of imposing it. It is a very difficult position to put the stewards in and must be addressed at some point. I think the only reason it hasn't come to light prior to this incident is that normally the leading cars are separated by greater distances at the end of a race and are trying to preserve engines and maintain their car etc..

I think I've seen a third of a race go by at times before stewards hand down a decision on drive-through's and stop-go's and that is just too long in my opinion - especially when we consider that the relevance of the penalty changes the greater the time away from the incident ie. If someone jumps the start and they are served a stop-go on the 10th lap that is a far different impact then if it was served on the 4th lap.

In my opinion, if steward's can't make a decision within 10 minutes of an incident then any penalty they hand down should probably be served at the next race.

[markabilly]

Here is what a group of HIGHLY specialized and F1 experts said about the Spa incident. Of course McLaren and Ferrari fans (and everybody else of course) can say whatever they want but we all have to have the honesty and modesty to admit our limitations and to give credit to what the professionals who live - not just talk - F1 every day have to say:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7611152.stm
Read it. You might learn something.



"they don't have the balls either, that's their problem,"

[markabilly]

From Webber: "
"You don't get penalised for overtaking people. Lewis did not get penalised for the move itself. He got penalised for taking an advantage from the previous corner." http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70490

From hamilton:
"Webber don't have the balls, that his problem"

[cosmicpanda]

From what I can remember the issue of Lewis cutting the chicane was shown as being investigated by the stewards BEFORE the end of the race. So please can we stick to the facts old bean?

I remember seeing the notice for the investigation on my TV screen just before I turned off my TV, which was after the podium ceremony.

[pino]

Here is what a group of HIGHLY specialized and F1 experts said about the Spa incident. Of course McLaren and Ferrari fans (and everybody else of course) can say whatever they want but we all have to have the honesty and modesty to admit our limitations and to give credit to what the professionals who live - not just talk - F1 every day have to say:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7611152.stm
Read it. You might learn something.

Not a surprise for me, anyone with a little racing-experience can see that what Lewis did was wrong and deserved a penalty :p :

[Daniel]

yeah not a surprise for me either

[wmcot]

For those of you obsessed with justifying the stewards and applauding their anal application of the rules, would you also be happy if they applied the rules against Kimi for his off track antics on lap 1 or his forcing Lewis off track?

No, I thought not.

Sure. Give Kimi a 25 second penalty, too! :)

[Tonieke]

Not a surprise for me, anyone with a little racing-experience can see that what Lewis did was wrong and deserved a penalty :p :


well it still is the very first time in a situation like this..they use "gained an advantage" as a way to give someone a penalty...while there's still nowhere described what exactly "an advantge" means...I keep finding it weird a penalty is based on something that's not clearly described in a rulesbook !

anyway..now they say..the driver cutting a chicane has to give back position and has to wait at least one corner before he can make another pass attempt correct ? so let's go back to Spa..same situation..but a 3th car involved (let's call him Robert for the occasion)...a car....that's also goin way faster than the leadcar and is close behind the 2 fighting for position...so what Lewis should have donne is...give back his position and not make a move on Kimi at La Source...in order to take away the advantage he gained correct ?

Now because of Kimi being slower than lewis and lewis being forced to stay behind the ferrari..and keeping in mind Robert is also goin a lot faster than Kimi..he gets behind lewis and makes a pass on him and eventualy also on the leadcar at la Source...Now I don't know..but would that not mean the rule FIA imposed on lewis disadvantage him towards Robert as he was not allowed to defend his position...because not allowed to pass Kimi himself ?

this is not easy to explain I know..But I hope you somehow get the point on what I am trying to show here ?

[wmcot]

I think that Massa swapping trophies with Hamilton would be a very sporting gesture and far from silly as you put it.

Because you know, if the situation was reversed, Ron would run right over and hand deliver the trophy to Ferrari! :)

[ArrowsFA1]

Because you know, if the situation was reversed, Ron would run right over and hand deliver the trophy to Ferrari! :)
Anyone remember this:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030419/sp1.jpg

[wmcot]

Anyone remember this:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030419/sp1.jpg

Sure, but Ron was "only" giving it to Fisi in a Jordan. Imagine if he had to give it to MS and Ferrari! :)

[ioan]

anyway..now they say..the driver cutting a chicane has to give back position and has to wait at least one corner before he can make another pass attempt correct ? so let's go back to Spa..same situation..but a 3th car involved (let's call him Robert for the occasion)...a car....that's also goin way faster than the leadcar and is close behind the 2 fighting for position...so what Lewis should have donne is...give back his position and not make a move on Kimi at La Source...in order to take away the advantage he gained correct ?

Now because of Kimi being slower than lewis and lewis being forced to stay behind the ferrari..and keeping in mind Robert is also goin a lot faster than Kimi..he gets behind lewis and makes a pass on him and eventualy also on the leadcar at la Source...Now I don't know..but would that not mean the rule FIA imposed on lewis disadvantage him towards Robert as he was not allowed to defend his position...because not allowed to pass Kimi himself ?

No, because defending your position doesn't mean you have to overtake the car in front! You can simply take the inside line and cut off the following car.
A good race driver has to know how to defend by going the slowest possible, see Alonso in Imola 2005. ;)

[markabilly]

Anyone remember this:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030419/sp1.jpg



I did not know Ron ever had so much hair

(and the reason Kimi is smiling is because at Mac the drivers do not get to keep the trophies, they go into the Mac official trophy case, [unless LH now gets to keep his after crying about it last year,] so he was thinking, I am not giving away my trophy......)

[Tonieke]

No, because defending your position doesn't mean you have to overtake the car in front! You can simply take the inside line and cut off the following car.
A good race driver has to know how to defend by going the slowest possible, see Alonso in Imola 2005. ;)


you mean take the inside like Kimi should have donne at la Source ? ;-)

and that's not realy the situation I was trying to explain..I said what If Robert was also a lot faster than the leading car..that fast he would be able to pass both the leading car and the car who is supposed to stay behind the leading car due to the new ruling ?

[Tonieke]

I did not know Ron ever had so much hair

(and the reason Kimi is smiling is because at Mac the drivers do not get to keep the trophies, they go into the Mac official trophy case, [unless LH now gets to keep his after crying about it last year,] so he was thinking, I am not giving away my trophy......)


exactly....it was not Kimi But Ron giving it away..like been said from the start...

[BDunnell]

Well, having just seen the Alonso/Klien 'incident' at Suzuka in 2005 being replayed on ITV, there is no doubt that there is a deep inconsistency in the Spa decision. OK, the matter has been 'clarified' for Monza, but does anyone seriously believe that we won't see the same thing happening again? If you do, I'd think again.

[Bagwan]

you mean take the inside like Kimi should have donne at la Source ? ;-)

and that's not realy the situation I was trying to explain..I said what If Robert was also a lot faster than the leading car..that fast he would be able to pass both the leading car and the car who is supposed to stay behind the leading car due to the new ruling ?

I like the way your head works .
It's a good example to cite .

In my opinion , Lewis , in that scenario , would be obligated to stay behind Kimi , as he would still have to show he was not advantaged by the chicane cut .
If your Robert had stayed on track during the episode , it is possible he would have also been given the position , as Lewis would also have the advantage over him as well .
This , indeed where it would get sticky .
If Robert had gone the same route as Lewis , he would not be allowed to pass either , in the same way Lewis was not allowed to do so .

[Mickey T]

Yes, and "before" the corner Michael was in front at the Hungaroring.

But, like I said, the difference is that Michael had been in front for several laps and was therefore leading.

Michael was still leading when he cut the chicane.

He therefore held the advantage before and during the Hungaroring chicane.

So, I ask again, any chance of anyone explaining how you can gain what you already have?


so, if i have your theory correct, then the race leader (or positional leader in a dice) can simply ignore all corners and drive a straight line behind the kerbs because he gains no positional advantage?

what a lot of rot. he gains an obvious advantage by retaining a position he would otherwise have lost.

he was leading before the chicane and would have lost that lead had he not cut the chicane.

to everybody else watching F1, that is gaining an advantage.

the leader doesn't have to drive the racetrack like everybody else? please...

[Daniel]

I did not know Ron ever had so much hair

(and the reason Kimi is smiling is because at Mac the drivers do not get to keep the trophies, they go into the Mac official trophy case, [unless LH now gets to keep his after crying about it last year,] so he was thinking, I am not giving away my trophy......)

:rotflmao:

The ITV coverage was hilarious. The first 10 or 15 minutes was devoted to showing Lewis gaining and advantage and showing current drivers agreeing that an offence was commited and then they have their armchair men disagreeing with it all :rotflmao: Got to see the event on a proper sized TV for the first time since I saw it on Saturday and it really is clear that Lewis gained an advantage and there is no way the penalty will be reversed. Is there somewhere I can make a bet on the penalty not being reversed because I want to make some serious money :laugh:

[BDunnell]

:rotflmao:

The ITV coverage was hilarious. The first 10 or 15 minutes was devoted to showing Lewis gaining and advantage and showing current drivers agreeing that an offence was commited and then they have their armchair men disagreeing with it all :rotflmao: Got to see the event on a proper sized TV for the first time since I saw it on Saturday and it really is clear that Lewis gained an advantage and there is no way the penalty will be reversed. Is there somewhere I can make a bet on the penalty not being reversed because I want to make some serious money :laugh:

On the contrary, to me it made it even more clear that the penalty was unfair and deeply inconsistent.

[Daniel]

On the contrary, to me it made it even more clear that the penalty was unfair and deeply inconsistent.
Perhaps the penalty was a bit heavy handed as I said but at the end of the day rules is rules and if you don't like the rules go and play in your sandpit on your own and you're guaranteed to win every time :)

Even Ron said that Charlie wasn't the man who was making the decisions so Ron should have put his thinking cap on and told Lewis to do something about the advantage he might have been perceived to have gained and make it soooo obvious that there was no advantage gained that the stewards couldn't penalise him. He would have won the race or at least got 2nd.....

[BDunnell]

Perhaps the penalty was a bit heavy handed as I said but at the end of the day rules is rules and if you don't like the rules go and play in your sandpit on your own and you're guaranteed to win every time :)

Even Ron said that Charlie wasn't the man who was making the decisions so Ron should have put his thinking cap on and told Lewis to do something about the advantage he might have been perceived to have gained and make it soooo obvious that there was no advantage gained that the stewards couldn't penalise him. He would have won the race or at least got 2nd.....

But the fact that there were precedents to doing exactly what Hamilton did and not being punished — even you must agree that the similarity with the Alonso/Klien one shown on ITV was striking — is an equally powerful argument in the other direction.

[markabilly]

But the fact that there were precedents to doing exactly what Hamilton did and not being punished — even you must agree that the similarity with the Alonso/Klien one shown on ITV was striking — is an equally powerful argument in the other direction.


Weel if this was any driver and the track conditions were wet, I would agree, even initially did so agree as to LH.

But then I listened to his post race interview, and then the later comments about his superior braking and kimi's lack of balls, so applying the LH own standard to his own driving, then you can not say there is anyone else or another incident that you can compare Hamilton to, as clearly his driving talent is beyond being comparable to any other driver. Just so much better.

At least that is the gospel according to Saint Hamster.

So based on that, then the penalty should stand (and Easy Drifter has so carefully pointed out the justification). Besides just cause many people get away with murder, does not justify one person going forth and doing some killing on somebody else......

[Daniel]

But the fact that there were precedents to doing exactly what Hamilton did and not being punished — even you must agree that the similarity with the Alonso/Klien one shown on ITV was striking — is an equally powerful argument in the other direction.

I'm sorry but they didn't show all that much of the Alonso Klien incident. I sky+'ed qualifying so I'll watch it again though :)

[BDunnell]

I'm sorry but they didn't show all that much of the Alonso Klien incident. I sky+'ed qualifying so I'll watch it again though :)

I thought they showed all of it. Anyway, do watch it again. The one difference, of course, was the track conditions (I'm sure my grammar is wrong there.)

[SGWilko]

(I'm sure my grammar is wrong there.)

What about gandpa, is he wrong also? ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

At least that is the gospel according to Saint Hamster.
No, that's the Gospel according to those who look for any opportunity to pick at, criticise and bash one of the best young talents to come into F1 for many years. It's a very thick book, which has a number of contributors, and it's very repetitive.

Still, for a throwaway airport paperback it's quite entertaining :p :

[mstillhere]

More from the English media referring to the LH case:
"Were the stewards right in investigating Hamilton’s move? Absolutely. Most of the drivers agree that he gained an advantage by taking the escape road rather than fully negotiating the corner. Hamilton is a bit too fast and talkative to garner much support from his envious rivals, although they mostly thought the penalty was harsh."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article4738521.ece

So, here you ahev an other article published by the TIMES. And after reading this srticle, it looks like that the majority of F1 specialists (except for Lauda but including James Allen - go figure) agrees in admitting Hamilton's wrongdoing. They feel the punishment was too harsh but that's a different story. The "only" ones who stubburnely negate the evidence are the McLAren's fans. That say it all, really.

[markabilly]

I thought they showed all of it. Anyway, do watch it again. The one difference, of course, was the track conditions (I'm sure my grammar is wrong there.)


Upon that I would agree, for all but the master since his balls are very large, so it is not necessary to be making allowances for wet conditions on track or off...... so there. But there are times when wet is more fun.....

No, that's the Gospel according to those who look for any opportunity to pick at, criticise and bash one of the best young talents to come into F1 for many years. It's a very thick book, which has a number of contributors, and it's very repetitive.

Still, for a throwaway airport paperback it's quite entertaining :p :

If it ain't fun, it ain't worth doing (unless the pay is much deniro dollars, the kool aid good, and you get get your chicks for free)

"and it's very repetitive" Well, Sorry dude, Really. I am doing the best I can, but sometimes the Hamster does get a little bit repetitive. I promise to work harder and listen closer. I do. Every year I am getting stronger and stronger. I'll just do the best job I can.......you work on your approach and you work on yourself. I'm comfortable where I am.......so I can't really complain. It's just part of the way it goes. It's just one of those days, I'm taking it on the chin, keep your head high and keep pushing.......... :arrows:

Besides it ain't costing nothing, but i wish I was getting money for nothing and my chicks for free :love:

[Whyzars]

Perhaps the penalty was a bit heavy handed as I said but at the end of the day rules is rules and if you don't like the rules go and play in your sandpit on your own and you're guaranteed to win every time :)

Even Ron said that Charlie wasn't the man who was making the decisions so Ron should have put his thinking cap on and told Lewis to do something about the advantage he might have been perceived to have gained and make it soooo obvious that there was no advantage gained that the stewards couldn't penalise him. He would have won the race or at least got 2nd.....

Are you suggesting that Ron make a timely decision during a race whilst there is no apparent onus on the stewards to do the same? Even if that thought crossed Ron's mind who was Lewis going to yield to? Kimi was already packing his bags for Monza a short time after the incident.

If Lewis drove slower when it started raining couldn't that be considered an attempt to yield to an absent driver? ;)

I don't believe that the stewards HAD to make a decision ie. They could've simply ignored Lewis' indiscretion and got on with the after-race party.

[wmcot]

OK, I just watched the intro to qualifying at Monza and heard what has to be the stupidest quote on this whole situation. Steve Rider was summing up all the interviews and said that the decision was, "quite possibly correct, but was it for the good of the sport?"

Can you imagine a situation in ANY sport where the correct decision is made by the officials, but the decision to carry out the rules/penalty are not taken "for the good of the sport?" Imagine in baseball, for example, if a long ball is hit out of the park but passes just outside the foul marking pole, but the officials declare it a home run "for the good of the sport."

So now, our governing rules must be politically correct?

Of course it was on the ITV coverage who will soon be changing their name to the ILL (I Love Lewis) network! ;)

[Tonieke]

OK, I just watched the intro to qualifying at Monza and heard what has to be the stupidest quote on this whole situation. Steve Rider was summing up all the interviews and said that the decision was, "quite possibly correct, but was it for the good of the sport?"

Can you imagine a situation in ANY sport where the correct decision is made by the officials, but the decision to carry out the rules/penalty are not taken "for the good of the sport?" Imagine in baseball, for example, if a long ball is hit out of the park but passes just outside the foul marking pole, but the officials declare it a home run "for the good of the sport."

So now, our governing rules must be politically correct?

Of course it was on the ITV coverage who will soon be changing their name to the ILL (I Love Lewis) network! ;)

well i don't think there are that many sports out there where the ruling is this inconsequent..

Just Spa alone...Bourdais running in the back of trulli..Not even investigated...KR leaving treack in the first corner...either he gained advantage or not...never investigated....situation with Rosberg getting back on track...very dangerous move of rosberg..and he should at least gotten a warning for it...even in these wet conditions...Did Kimi overtook under yellow yes or no ? was there actualy a yellow flag yes or no ?....situation..never investigated...

[Whyzars]

OK, I just watched the intro to qualifying at Monza and heard what has to be the stupidest quote on this whole situation. Steve Rider was summing up all the interviews and said that the decision was, "quite possibly correct, but was it for the good of the sport?"


I think I agree with Rider.

The verdict is probably correct but the decision to penalise the behaviour probably isn't - considering the inflexibility and impact of the sentencing protocols surrounding this incident.

The stewards didn't have to penalise the indiscretion and probably wouldn't if the had their time over - especially if it means that they might lose their gig. :)



Can you imagine a situation in ANY sport where the correct decision is made by the officials, but the decision to carry out the rules/penalty are not taken "for the good of the sport?" Imagine in baseball, for example, if a long ball is hit out of the park but passes just outside the foul marking pole, but the officials declare it a home run "for the good of the sport."


I think the difference is that baseball doesn't require a team of engineer's to decide whether it had the potential to actually be a "foul" ball, a team of lawyer's to argue whether "foul or not" is the right question to be asking and a giggle of passionate fans to peck over every piece of data so's to argue the point long after the actual ball has decayed to its base parts and the bat that hit it has been turned to dust by termites.

If Baseball was this complicated they'd never get to the second innings.

:)

[Tonieke]

anyone just saw the porsche supercup race at Monza ? Just wondering if they race under the same FIA "track behaviour" regulations as F1 does ? i mean..well if you saw the race you know what I mean... *scratching head* lol

[AndyRAC]

anyone just saw the porsche supercup race at Monza ? Just wondering if they race under the same FIA "track behaviour" regulations as F1 does ? i mean..well if you saw the race you know what I mean... *scratching head* lol

Yes, but maybe there are different FIA rules, depending on the series/Championship.......

[yodasarmpit]

I'm glad they have clarified the rule, it will be easier to determine for future races.

[Daniel]

I think I agree with Rider.

The verdict is probably correct but the decision to penalise the behaviour probably isn't - considering the inflexibility and impact of the sentencing protocols surrounding this incident.

The stewards didn't have to penalise the indiscretion and probably wouldn't if the had their time over - especially if it means that they might lose their gig. :)

I bet they'd do the same thing again and again and again and again :)

[BDunnell]

I'm glad they have clarified the rule, it will be easier to determine for future races.

Alas, all it has achieved is Massa being unfairly penalised for a perfectly good pass on Rosberg. I know it didn't matter in the end points-wise, but even so, it was absurd to ask him to give the place up.

[yodasarmpit]

Actually I have to agree, I feel Massa was unfairly penalized for the move on Rosberg.

[markabilly]

OK, I just watched the intro to qualifying at Monza and heard what has to be the stupidest quote on this whole situation. Steve Rider was summing up all the interviews and said that the decision was, "quite possibly correct, but was it for the good of the sport?"



! ;)

Yes it was for good of sport.
Right or wrong does not matter, but the fact that it happenned caused many people to watch the Monza race, got a petition going of some sixt thousand fans to righ the injustice and so on and so....

Face it, if not for such stuff, F1 would shrink big time, because 90% of the race involving track action has been very boring the last few years and just ain't enough to keep the average fan interested.

[Daniel]

Yes it was for good of sport.
Right or wrong does not matter, but the fact that it happenned caused many people to watch the Monza race, got a petition going of some sixt thousand fans to righ the injustice and so on and so....

Face it, if not for such stuff, F1 would shrink big time, because 90% of the race involving track action has been very boring the last few years and just ain't enough to keep the average fan interested.

Rubbish. We should show people that it's OK to cheat and as long as it's for the good of the sport you'll get away with it.

You're a drug cheat and you're not competing for the yellow jersey in the Tour de France? You're banned!

You're a drug cheat and you are competing for the yellow jersey in the Tour de France? Come right in! We couldn't lose you! We can tolerate people thinking we allow people to cheat as long as you're up at the pointy end of the field :up:

That's the sort of attitude people are asking for from the stewards.

[Dave B]

OK, I just watched the intro to qualifying at Monza and heard what has to be the stupidest quote on this whole situation. Steve Rider was summing up all the interviews and said that the decision was, "quite possibly correct, but was it for the good of the sport?"
I must admit that was a stupid thing for him to say. The rights and wrongs of the penalty have been debated to death, but if a penalty is justified then it shouldn't matter one iota whether it is unpopular.

[markabilly]

Rubbish. We should show people that it's OK to cheat and as long as it's for the good of the sport you'll get away with it.

You're a drug cheat and you're not competing for the yellow jersey in the Tour de France? You're banned!

You're a drug cheat and you are competing for the yellow jersey in the Tour de France? Come right in! We couldn't lose you! We can tolerate people thinking we allow people to cheat as long as you're up at the pointy end of the field :up:

That's the sort of attitude people are asking for from the stewards.


No i think you missed my point of irony. It is the controversy that has become "good for the sport" because of the publicity and interest generated. Sad thing to say, but in the absence of all the fussing of last year as well as this year's Spa, not so many people would be paying attention......

Now as to what that particular commentor subjectively meant was probably this particular penalty is not good for the sport, especially when your hero is the one that suffers, and upon that, well you are correct as said above, popularity should not be the determining factor

[Daniel]

I must admit that was a stupid thing for him to say. The rights and wrongs of the penalty have been debated to death, but if a penalty is justified then it shouldn't matter one iota whether it is unpopular.

:up: Although I suspect I disagree with you in regards to whether the penalty is justified but at least we agree that rules is rules.

[Mickey T]

Alas, all it has achieved is Massa being unfairly penalised for a perfectly good pass on Rosberg. I know it didn't matter in the end points-wise, but even so, it was absurd to ask him to give the place up.

well, as i've pointed out in another thread, having all four wheels on the inside of the "face" of the kerb is, in the eyes of just about every race steward on earth, viewed as short-cutting the circuit.

and, in light of recent events, moves have been made to clarify what needs to be done in what situations.

the one that i was confused about was massa straight-lining the same chicane when defending from hamilton with no questions asked.

[BDunnell]

well, as i've pointed out in another thread, having all four wheels on the inside of the "face" of the kerb is, in the eyes of just about every race steward on earth, viewed as short-cutting the circuit.

I think there's a big difference between taking a lot of kerb and short-cutting a chicane.

[Mickey T]

in almost every drivers' briefing i've been in - and i've been a works driver - that's how it's been (and continues to be) defined.

and, especially on circuits with tight but furniture-free chicanes, the stewards always stress they will be watching for anybody who does it.

[aryan]

Alas, all it has achieved is Massa being unfairly penalised for a perfectly good pass on Rosberg. I know it didn't matter in the end points-wise, but even so, it was absurd to ask him to give the place up.

Why do you think it didn't matter points wise. The incident cost him at least 3-4 seconds (he had already moved away from Rosberg). If you look at the end result, I reckon 4th place was absolutely his, barring that incident. That's worth 2 points in my book, 2 very important championship points.

[ioan]

If it wasn't for him having to hand back the place and lose 4 seconds he would have been in front of the pack after his stop instead of being behind it.
But that's life, there is a rule and it should be respected even if it was on the very limit of stretching it.

I was very glad to see Massa push like that and makng passes in the wet, on top contenders (2x Rosberg and 1x Heidfeld, 1x Webber) not bad for someone considered to be a "bad" driver in the wet! :D

[Daniel]

If it wasn't for him having to hand back the place and lose 4 seconds he would have been in front of the pack after his stop instead of being behind it.
But that's life, there is a rule and it should be respected even if it was on the very limit of stretching it.

Yeah that's life. But at least Massa has the good grace to take it like a man and deal with it.

[wmcot]

Rubbish. We should show people that it's OK to cheat and as long as it's for the good of the sport you'll get away with it.

You're a drug cheat and you're not competing for the yellow jersey in the Tour de France? You're banned!

You're a drug cheat and you are competing for the yellow jersey in the Tour de France? Come right in! We couldn't lose you! We can tolerate people thinking we allow people to cheat as long as you're up at the pointy end of the field :up:

That's the sort of attitude people are asking for from the stewards.

I agree! So let's line every track with armco. You can place it at the point where going over a kerb becomes cutting a chicane and you won't need stewards to make judgements on this point! The human portion will be taken out of whether the driver cut the chicane - the armco will decide. (But then we'll have the stewards deciding if so-and-so forced so-and-so into the armco so there it goes again...)

[wmcot]

Here's a thought. If this thread ever finishes, we can take all the posts and add them to the Stepneygate posts, bind them in a book, sell it and split the earnings among all the forum members! All we need is a title. I'm suggesting "F1 - IF"

PM me when my check is ready! :)

[SGWilko]

Here's a thought. If this thread ever finishes, we can take all the posts and add them to the Stepneygate posts, bind them in a book, sell it and split the earnings among all the forum members! All we need is a title. I'm suggesting "F1 - IF"

PM me when my check is ready! :)

I think - 'chinless wonders talk cohones all day long' is a much more fitting title.

Honestly, this place is getting worse for crap than a bus stop outside a council estate. Does no-one ever engage their brains before typing any more?

:down:

[PolePosition_1]

I must admit that was a stupid thing for him to say. The rights and wrongs of the penalty have been debated to death, but if a penalty is justified then it shouldn't matter one iota whether it is unpopular.

In theory I agree with you, but in reality I don't. If the Stewards aren't going to consistantly penalise drivers on issues, or even find them guilty and still let them off for not gaining a sporting advantage, surely not gaining a sporting advantage should be let off at all cases?

Not just when its a red car involved.

And then we have past history showing the FIA and Stewards notion of everything has to be 100% certain and proven before they find someone guilty.

While I can see why some people think he gained a slight advantage (which was ultimately none considering Kimi crashed), its not a fact, its a pure guess. And the Stewards shouldn't be making such decisions on guesses. Decisions which will ultimately affect the title.

[Daniel]

In theory I agree with you, but in reality I don't. If the Stewards aren't going to consistantly penalise drivers on issues, or even find them guilty and still let them off for not gaining a sporting advantage, surely not gaining a sporting advantage should be let off at all cases?

Not just when its a red car involved.

And then we have past history showing the FIA and Stewards notion of everything has to be 100% certain and proven before they find someone guilty.

While I can see why some people think he gained a slight advantage (which was ultimately none considering Kimi crashed), its not a fact, its a pure guess. And the Stewards shouldn't be making such decisions on guesses. Decisions which will ultimately affect the title.
To be honest anyone who disagrees with what Dave said in that post should be banned.

If someone does something wrong they should be penalised regardless of where they are in the title race. It's a pity when it affects the title race but rules is rules. I see no room on this forum for people who have a favourite driver and want them to get special treatment.

[PolePosition_1]

To be honest anyone who disagrees with what Dave said in that post should be banned.

If someone does something wrong they should be penalised regardless of where they are in the title race. It's a pity when it affects the title race but rules is rules. I see no room on this forum for people who have a favourite driver and want them to get special treatment.

Well, as I pointed out, in theory I agree with it.

But in reality you have to look at the facts. Unsafe pit releases, Ferrari was punished. If they class that as unsafe, then countless of other pit releases have been unsafe this season and gone unpunished.

Why is it fair that Ferrari get penalised and the others don't? They all broke the rules, yet only Ferrari got punished.

So yeah, I believe if you break the rules, you should be punished no matter what, but its got to be consistant, you can't choose to randomly punish rule breaking, its got to be continous.