Yet another pointless Ferrari vs McLaren FIA thread to be closed in the near future

So, you don't see that it wrong for the president of the FIA to admit that Ferrari are the most important tem in F1 and his relationship with Luca is very personal.

I suppose it's OK if you dont want impartiality.

Honestly Tamb, you cannot defent admitted bias, can you?

Please say you wont.

Where the feck has Mosley or anybody else at the FIA said that they are biased? Nowhere.

"Bias - a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation"

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:bias&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title



They have stated that Ferrari are the most important team in F1. Since the other teams all signed up to the FIA as soon as Ferrari left the GPWC group, that is merely a statement of fact.

So let me get this right, you now don't want the FIA not to admit facts?

Why shouldn't the President of the FIA have a 'personal relationship' with the head of Ferrari? It makes perfect sense to have a good relationship. Just because Ron Dennis is incapable of having a personal relationship doesn't mean that the rest of F1 has to adopt his social faults.

So, please, carry on believing what you want to believe, but at least answer why, if the FIA is so biased towards Ferrari, did it take 21 years for Ferrari to win a WDC?

If the FIA is biased, what took so long?

Honestly Tamb, you cannot defent admitted bias, can you?

“Firstly, because it holds a historically important position, as the team has been involved in Formula 1 since 1950. The second point has something to do with existential orientation; imagine there were only one British team and all other teams were Italian, that the commercial rights-holder was Italian, as was the FIA President, the race director and his assistant and the sport's commissioner. Wouldn't it be understandable that this team would be very careful? I use my neutrality with a huge amount of responsibility and stay in close contact with Ferrari to assure them that no British ‘mafia' or cartel tries to take advantage of them, but should we find it necessary to impose our technical or sporting regulations, then Ferrari is treated like any other team. Should we find irregularities on a Ferrari – like the moveable floor after the Australian Grand Prix – it is removed and banned.”

So where did you see bias in that?

If anything, it is Ferrari who should be worried about bias, given that the majority of the other teams are the same nationality as the FIA President, the race director, his assistant and the sports commisioner.

Perhaps, since your'e so keen on there not being any chance of bias, you should be demanding that Charlie Whiting is replaced by somebody from a country without links to an F1 team?

I can recommend a Kenyan.

2007 - Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari
2006 - Fernando Alonso, Renault
2005 - Fernando Alonso, Renault
2004 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2003 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2002 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2001 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2000 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
1999 - Mika Hakkinen, McLaren
1998 - Mika Hakkinen, McLaren
1997 - Jacques Villeneuve, Williams
1996 - Damon Hill, Williams
1995 - Michael Schumacher, Benetton
1994 - Michael Schumacher, Benetton
1993 - Alain Prost, Williams
1992 - Nigel Mansell, Williams
1991 - Ayrton Senna, McLaren
1990 - Ayrton Senna, McLaren
1989 - Alain Prost, McLaren
1988 - Ayrton Senna, McLaren
1987 - Nelson Piquet, Williams
1986 - Alain Prost, McLaren
1985 - Alain Prost, McLaren
1984 - Niki Lauda, McLaren
1983 - Nelson Piquet, Brabham
1982 - Keke Rosberg, Williams
1981 - Nelson Piquet, Brabham
1980 - Alan Jones, Williams
1979 - Jody Scheckter, Ferrari
1978 - Mario Andretti, Lotus
1977 - Niki Lauda, Ferrari
1976 - James Hunt, McLaren
1975 - Niki Lauda, Ferrari
1974 - Emerson Fittipaldi, McLaren
1973 - Jackie Stewart, Tyrrell
1972 - Emerson Fittipaldi, Lotus
1971 - Jackie Stewart, Tyrrell
1970 - Jochen Rindt, Lotus
1969 - Jackie Stewart, Matra
1968 - Graham Hill, Lotus
1967 - Denny Hulme, Brabham
1966 - Jack Brabham, Brabham
1965 - Jim Clark, Lotus
1964 - John Surtees, Ferrari
1963 - Jim Clark, Lotus
1962 - Graham Hill, BRM
1961 - Phil Hill, Ferrari
1960 - Jack Brabham, Cooper
1959 - Jack Brabham, Cooper
1958 - Mike Hawthorn, Ferrari
1957 - Juan Manuel Fangio, Maserati
1956 - Juan Manuel Fangio, Lancia/Ferrari
1955 - Juan Manuel Fangio, Mercedes
1954 - Juan Manuel Fangio, Mercedes/Maserati
1953 - Alberto Ascari, Ferrari
1952 - Alberto Ascari, Ferrari
1951 - Juan Manuel Fangio, Alfa Romeo
1950 - Giuseppe Farina, Alfa Romeo.

Hmmm....aren't the drivers in bold letters not in Ferrari's? Why, strike a light, they aren't!

So much for your claim of there being "one rule for them".

[Knock-on]

2007 - Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari
2006 - Fernando Alonso, Renault
2005 - Fernando Alonso, Renault
2004 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2003 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2002 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2001 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2000 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
1999 - Mika Hakkinen, McLaren
1998 - Mika Hakkinen, McLaren
1997 - Jacques Villeneuve, Williams
1996 - Damon Hill, Williams
1995 - Michael Schumacher, Benetton
1994 - Michael Schumacher, Benetton
1993 - Alain Prost, Williams


1993

Max took over the FIA during a period of McLaren dominance.

Do you dispute the long running battle between Ron and Max?

Slightly different story isn't it.

Your post confirms that Max's tenure as President of the FIA coincides with a downturn in McLarens fortunes and the most dominant period of Ferrari success in the history of Motorsport.

I really cannot see why you posted that as it confirms my arguement. After all, you can't argue against your own posts can you even if you can defend bias :laugh:

1993

Max took over the FIA during a period of McLaren dominance.

Do you dispute the long running battle between Ron and Max?

Slightly different story isn't it.

Your post confirms that Max's tenure as President of the FIA coincides with a downturn in McLarens fortunes and the most dominant period of Ferrari success in the history of Motorsport.

I really cannot see why you posted that as it confirms my arguement. After all, you can't argue against your own posts can you even if you can defend bias :laugh:

It merely confirms just how deluded you are.

So that's all Mosley's fault is it?

Nothing to do with Honda leaving at the end of 1992?
Nothing to do with Peugeot not being up to the job as engine suppliers in 1994?
Nothing to do with the 95 & 96 cars being very poor?
Nothing to do with the Schumi/Brawn/Byrne/Todt combination doing a fantastic job?

No, can't possibly be because somebody was doing a better job. After all, this is the faultless Mclaren we are talking about, the people who brought us the MP4/10.

But, if I can control my laughter, let's have a look......

Oh, here's something.....please explain how, with all the alleged bias against them, Mclaren won 2 titles from 1993 to 1999?

That's two more than Ferrari managed in the same period when, oh shucks, that man Mosley was in also in charge!

Surely that can't be right?

Oh, hold on, heres something else....Since, for example, Sauber didn't win any, does that mean the FIA & Mosley are even more biased against them?

Come to think of it, Sauber didn't win a GP until this June, so by your twisted logic they must be hated and despised down at the FIA, right?

So, enlighten us all....How come Mclaren won two titles to Ferrari's none in a period when the man you claim is biased towards Ferrari was in charge and you claim was operating a "one rule for them" policy?

[Daniel]

1993

Max took over the FIA during a period of McLaren dominance.

Do you dispute the long running battle between Ron and Max?

Slightly different story isn't it.

Your post confirms that Max's tenure as President of the FIA coincides with a downturn in McLarens fortunes and the most dominant period of Ferrari success in the history of Motorsport.

I really cannot see why you posted that as it confirms my arguement. After all, you can't argue against your own posts can you even if you can defend bias :laugh:

How can you say this with no evidence?

1993

Max took over the FIA during a period of McLaren dominance.

Yep, 1992 & 1993 really had seen Mclaren dominate, hadn't they?

I hate to break it to you, but those Canon sponsored cars weren't built in Woking.

Slightly different story isn't it.

Your post confirms that Max's tenure as President of the FIA coincides with a downturn in McLarens fortunes and the most dominant period of Ferrari success in the history of Motorsport.

By my reckoning , the score since 1993 is Ferrari 6, Others 9.

Ferrari have, therefore, lost in 60% of those years in which Max has been in charge of the FIA.

Interesting notion of "bias" you have there.

[Knock-on]

By my reckoning , the score since 1993 is Ferrari 6, Others 9.

Ferrari have, therefore, lost in 60% of those years in which Max has been in charge of the FIA.

Interesting notion of "bias" you have there.

Since 93 it is 5 / 9 but including 93 it would be 6. I don't really think you can claim 93 as included in this though.

Now, remember the accusation that Max helped fix the MS / Benneton championship in a Hotel? (Please don't make me dig that up as we both know what I'm on about)

Hey mate, you posted the stats. Don't blame me if you don't like them now.

So what was the results before Max took over and after?

(no, you don't like that one do you)

OK, what percentage of championships were won by Ferrari since Max took over, what by McLare, Honda, Williams, Toyota, BMW.

What you're telling me is Ferrari have won almost as much as everyone else put together?

Personally, I don't think that such a stupid set of facts proves anything but you seem to think they do.

I would rather deal with specific instances like the current Chicanegate but you are just looking to post silly stats and how they support your claims.

Anyway, this isn't the end of the world. As long as Cern have better control over process and quality than the FIA has, we should all be here tomorrow. :)

Since 93 it is 5 / 9 but including 93 it would be 6. I don't really think you can claim 93 as included in this though.

Now, remember the accusation that Max helped fix the MS / Benneton championship in a Hotel?

Eh?

Ok........Firstly, thanks for enlightening me that Ferrari won the WDC in 1993. According to your statisitical understanding, they must have!

I think I might open a belated bottle of champagne, although to be honest, given how the FIA apparently would have loved such a victory, I'm surprised it's been kept quiet so long.

Now, I believe the correct score, not including 1993, would be Ferrari 6 Others 8.

That still makes Ferrari as being behind. Not great for a team with a set of rules specifically for them.

I'm not sure what Benetton in 1994 has to do with evidence that the FIA favour Ferrari and are biased towards Mclaren. Didn't realise that Hill ever drove for Mclaren.

I hate to break it to you, but those Rothmans sponsored cars weren't built in Woking either.

They were W I L L I A M S

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WilliamsF1

So, other than making no sense, well done.

But any chance of actually enlightening us?

[janneppi]

Continued from another thread:

[Powered by Cosworth]

Ferrari won in 2000-2004 because they did a bloody good job and had a great team. Pretty much all the races bar a few have been won by Ferrari because they simply had a better team. During this time McLaren didn't win because some of the cars were utter crap.

Sure some races had controversial decisions by the FIA in Ferraris favour. But this doesn't get away from the fact that since 97-98 Ferrari have been a championship winning team. It's not like the FIA gave them a helping hand in the R+D of the car, and a bootload of cash to get good drivers.

And this year, the Massa pit thing was hardly anything to make a fuss of over the penalty. There was bucket loads of room and unless Massa was a complete idiot, there wouldn't have been a collision. If it happened further up the pitlane where its crowded and there's much less room I could understand.

As for Spa, any fool can see that Hamilton didn't back off as much as he should have, and gained an advantage of track position by cutting the chicane. Just like most other sports, the british public will fight and argue over careful decisions made by unbiased stewards and will never admit they did something wrong. I must say however the FIA should say for definate if something is 'OK' or not. It's not fair to tell your driver to battle on under the advice of the governing body, only to find out the governing body was wrong and you incur a bigger penalty because of it.

[samuratt]

lol

this is getting out of hands!!

Ferrari always had preferential treatment, we all know that. Yet again Hamilton gained advantage by cutting the chicane, so his speed on the next straight was better than Kimi, therfore an overtaking was more feasible.

In fact, PdlR, Mclaren test driver and a great profesional, said live during the broadcasting just after the incident took place that Hamilton's move was barely legal and that could be investigated.

Furthermore, FA on a similar moneouvre at Monza (last year I think) was told to give back his position again (though he had already given it back) just because of the same reason.

I can't remember were it was, but I have seen michael Schumacher cutting the chicanes to avoid being overtaken by PdlR.

So, let's see the pattern here:
Ferrari will always have preferential treatment? yes
Does the Hamilton incident has anything to do with Ferrari's preferential treatment? no
Was the punishment fair? in my honest opinion yes

just my two cents.

[ArrowsFA1]

...why, if the FIA is so biased towards Ferrari, did it take 21 years for Ferrari to win a WDC?
Well they don't want to make it look too obvious now do they :laugh: :laugh:

[pits4me]

How can you say this with no evidence?

A good portion of that $100 million fine says otherwise. Not questioning the ruling, but as close to a death sentence as one can get without actually hanging them from the rafters. The Renault-Ferrari compromise went away much differently.

[mstillhere]

“Firstly, because it holds a historically important position, as the team has been involved in Formula 1 since 1950. The second point has something to do with existential orientation; imagine there were only one British team and all other teams were Italian, that the commercial rights-holder was Italian, as was the FIA President, the race director and his assistant and the sport's commissioner. Wouldn't it be understandable that this team would be very careful? I use my neutrality with a huge amount of responsibility and stay in close contact with Ferrari to assure them that no British ‘mafia' or cartel tries to take advantage of them, but should we find it necessary to impose our technical or sporting regulations, then Ferrari is treated like any other team. Should we find irregularities on a Ferrari – like the moveable floor after the Australian Grand Prix – it is removed and banned.”

So where did you see bias in that?

If anything, it is Ferrari who should be worried about bias, given that the majority of the other teams are the same nationality as the FIA President, the race director, his assistant and the sports commisioner.

Perhaps, since your'e so keen on there not being any chance of bias, you should be demanding that Charlie Whiting is replaced by somebody from a country without links to an F1 team?

I can recommend a Kenyan.

And let's NOT forget that the latest rule changes introduced in F1 were introduced to prevent FERRARI from continuing winning the whole time. Without those changes F1 would the most boring sport (not for me).
So, if anyone got an advantage from those changes it was MCLAREN.
(I seem to recall that before those changes took place McLaren's cars could not finish a GP since due to the fragility of their engines)

[wedge]

Where the feck has Mosley or anybody else at the FIA said that they are biased? Nowhere.

"Bias - a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation"

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:bias&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title



They have stated that Ferrari are the most important team in F1. Since the other teams all signed up to the FIA as soon as Ferrari left the GPWC group, that is merely a statement of fact.

So let me get this right, you now don't want the FIA not to admit facts?

Why shouldn't the President of the FIA have a 'personal relationship' with the head of Ferrari? It makes perfect sense to have a good relationship. Just because Ron Dennis is incapable of having a personal relationship doesn't mean that the rest of F1 has to adopt his social faults.

So, please, carry on believing what you want to believe, but at least answer why, if the FIA is so biased towards Ferrari, did it take 21 years for Ferrari to win a WDC?

If the FIA is biased, what took so long?

I don't think its Ferrari bias per se.

At its most basic level its like working on a group project and favouring the guys you like.

It's well know Jean Todt and Max get get on.

Some of the drivers weren't particular happy with Schumi cosying up with Max Mosley.

On the other side of the coin in 1994 post Imola, Briatore wrote to the FIA criticising Mosley's plans to quickly implement safety within a short time frame. It's alleged that Mosley got his own back on Briatore by coming down hard on Benetton that year such as Schumacher's race bans after the Silverstone/black flag fiasco.

[ioan]

How can you say this with no evidence?

He never brings evidence to the discussions, only his trolling and biased view on things. And he gets mightily offended if you say this.

[wmcot]

Do you dispute the long running battle between Ron and Max?

Slightly different story isn't it.

Your post confirms that Max's tenure as President of the FIA coincides with a downturn in McLarens fortunes and the most dominant period of Ferrari success in the history of Motorsport.


You might be onto something - perhaps it was Max who delivered those 700 pages to Coughlin to get back at Ron...hmm...

[jens]

The route of this discussion seems to gradually bring us to the ultimate conclusion - all the previous World Titles have been fixed. :p :

[ArrowsFA1]

There are teams in F1 other than Ferrari and McLaren for goodness sake!!!

Williams haven't won much for a while...perhaps the FIA are biased against them. Force India have made good progress this year; does that mean the rules were introduced to help them? Renault won in 2005-6 so obviously the FIA favoured them, that is until they chose not too last year.

[F1boat]

I think that sometimes Ferrari gets better treatment, sometimes McLaren. I see no bias. In my opinion the changes after 2002 and 2004 ruined Ferrari's advantage and this is far worse than the scandal in Belgium. In my opinion McLaren were not punished severely enough last year and in my opinion they still benefit from that Ferrari' knowledge this year. So I really think that they should have been banned for these two years. But on the other hand it would have been bad for the show.
This year FIA also took some decisions which are bad for the show. My main problem is that these things are decided much too slow. In Valencia we had to wait almost two hours to learn whether Massa wins, or not. In Belgium we still don't know who won. After an accident happens, give the punishment immediately or do nothing. This wait is very annoying and makes the races pretty pointless.
But I can't see any bias. Only bad organization.

[Knock-on]

I think that sometimes Ferrari gets better treatment, sometimes McLaren. I see no bias. In my opinion the changes after 2002 and 2004 ruined Ferrari's advantage and this is far worse than the scandal in Belgium. In my opinion McLaren were not punished severely enough last year and in my opinion they still benefit from that Ferrari' knowledge this year. So I really think that they should have been banned for these two years. But on the other hand it would have been bad for the show.
This year FIA also took some decisions which are bad for the show. My main problem is that these things are decided much too slow. In Valencia we had to wait almost two hours to learn whether Massa wins, or not. In Belgium we still don't know who won. After an accident happens, give the punishment immediately or do nothing. This wait is very annoying and makes the races pretty pointless.
But I can't see any bias. Only bad organization.


You may be onto something here.

Although I disagree with your conclusions on Spygate, you have raised some interesting points.

It is my opinion that Max is more predisposed to come down hard on McLaren than Ferrari. There seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence but no proof.

Does this mean that the FIA favours Ferrari or is it just poor management as you suggest?

Not sure.

Looking at Chicanegate, the Stewards were correct in that Lewis cut the chicane. That is what they have ruled on and they imposed a penalty that was also correct.

(Bet there’s some selective quoting of that sentence ;) )

Now, does this show a predisposition to favour Ferrari or penalize McLaren?

Well, taken as a specific instance, then no, it doesn’t but used in context, it raises some fundamental issues.

The “understanding”, because it’s damn near impossible to get clarification out of the FIA, is that if you pass someone by going off track, you give the place back.

That happened and McLaren checked twice through the correct channels that they were OK.

That should have been the end of it but as we know it wasn’t.

The stewards seemed to have acted on something with no justification of precedent. In fact, it seems completely at odds with recognized process and procedure. It “appears” like rules are not being applied fairly and consistently.

This is why there is uproar.

People like Nicki Lauda and Pat Symmonds are respected within the sport and if they are saying this is wrong, then they really need to be listened to.

The FIA needs to manage this. If it is a decision that they agree with, they need to say why it stands, explain why this has been handled in a way that is different with past precedent and ensure everyone is clear on what is expected in the future because at the moment, there is not this clarity.

The fact we are in this mess is due to poor management and this can be rectified. If it isn’t then it will continue to damage the credibility of the FIA and further call into account their ability to govern the sport.

There must be consistency and Stewards need to be accountable for their decisions.

In this specific example, the Race Director should have referred it to the Stewards or the Stewards should have informed the Race Director of their intentions to investigate. That’s the rules.

Had that have been done, then McLaren could have let Kimi back past again (even though this is not a sanctioned penalty within the rules) or decided to do a drive through on their own volition.

The only problem is that the way the Stewards issued their judgment; it is quite likely that the time penalty would have stood. They made no allowance for any effort McLaren made to rectify the situation and merely stated the rules.

He cut the corner and as it was within 5 laps, a 25 second penalty is the punishment. That is the letter of the law and nothing McLaren could have done to amend was considered.

This situation is unprecedented.

[Daniel]

There are teams in F1 other than Ferrari and McLaren for goodness sake!!!

Williams haven't won much for a while...perhaps the FIA are biased against them. Force India have made good progress this year; does that mean the rules were introduced to help them? Renault won in 2005-6 so obviously the FIA favoured them, that is until they chose not too last year.

:up:

Couldn't agree more. Talk of bias is for people who just can't handle when a driver or team breaks a rule or simply can't get a car together to do well in a season.

[Dave B]

I'm more inclined to believe it was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy. But a bloody great big cock-up which needs overturning.

[Bagwan]

So , now you can do this , obviously .
All you drivers , feel free to drive straight through those chicanes so you can get the tow into the next corner .
As long as you let the other guy through for a moment , you can use that draft to get by , by doing this , whereas you might not get close enough if you follow them through .

That seems to be the general feeling here , although we might want to wait for the decision from the FIA .

[mstillhere]

So , now you can do this , obviously .
All you drivers , feel free to drive straight through those chicanes so you can get the tow into the next corner .
As long as you let the other guy through for a moment , you can use that draft to get by , by doing this , whereas you might not get close enough if you follow them through .

That seems to be the general feeling here , although we might want to wait for the decision from the FIA .

:)

[Tonieke]

So , now you can do this , obviously .
All you drivers , feel free to drive straight through those chicanes so you can get the tow into the next corner .
As long as you let the other guy through for a moment , you can use that draft to get by , by doing this , whereas you might not get close enough if you follow them through .

That seems to be the general feeling here , although we might want to wait for the decision from the FIA .

Bagwan please look again at this video and let me know where exactly Lewis used any draft ?

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

[Viktory]

Bagwan please look again at this video and let me know where exactly Lewis used any draft ?

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

If Lewis said himself that he got into the tow of Kimi why can't you guys accept he did?

[Daniel]

If Lewis said himself that he got into the tow of Kimi why can't you guys accept he did?
What would Lewis know? :confused:

[Tonieke]

If Lewis said himself that he got into the tow of Kimi why can't you guys accept he did?


that's not my question..just show me where he used a tow in that video please ? I rather prefer evidence proven by images..videos or whatever..than just by words...

Oh and since when you guys suddenly believe everything been said at McL ? ;-)

[ioan]

If Lewis said himself that he got into the tow of Kimi why can't you guys accept he did?

Lewis fans know better than Lewis himself, didn't you know that?! ;)

[ioan]

that's not my question..just show me where he used a tow in that video please ? I rather prefer evidence proven by images..videos or whatever..than just by words...

Oh and since when you guys suddenly believe everything been said at McL ? ;-)

We don't believe everything. We use our brains to filter through the comments, it's called thinking.

[ioan]

So , now you can do this , obviously .
All you drivers , feel free to drive straight through those chicanes so you can get the tow into the next corner .
As long as you let the other guy through for a moment , you can use that draft to get by , by doing this , whereas you might not get close enough if you follow them through .

That seems to be the general feeling here , although we might want to wait for the decision from the FIA .

Actually I think that what most people say around here is dependent upon the color of the car, and than they still dare to say that the FIA is biased! :D

[Tonieke]

Lewis fans know better than Lewis himself, didn't you know that?! ;)

nop...I am just a bit confused about what he said getting a tow...maybe he was wrong....as I can't really see it...But than I don't know much about motorsports..so that's why I ask if there's anyone on here who can show me on that video where he got that tow ? I bet you can tell me Ioan ?

[ArrowsFA1]

So , now you can do this , obviously .
All you drivers , feel free to drive straight through those chicanes so you can get the tow into the next corner .
If conditions remain as they are at the moment at Monza that is exactly what will be happening. I've already seen Bourdais, Barrichello and Trulli drive straight through chicanes during free practice.

What do we want the stewards to do if this happens on Sunday?

[Daniel]

If conditions remain as they are at the moment at Monza that is exactly what will be happening. I've already seen Bourdais, Barrichello and Trulli drive straight through chicanes during free practice

This is different to any other free practice how?

[ArrowsFA1]

This is different to any other free practice how?
I'm not saying it's different, although the damp/wet conditions make it more likely to happen. My question is what do we want the stewards to do if this happens on Sunday?

More to the point, how do teams and drivers know what is, or is not, acceptable in the eyes of the stewards?

[Daniel]

I'm not saying it's different, although the damp/wet conditions make it more likely to happen. My question is what do we want the stewards to do if this happens on Sunday?

More to the point, how do teams and drivers know what is, or is not, acceptable in the eyes of the stewards?

Like I said. If you ensure you've made a net loss out of going off at least until after the next corner then I don't think the stewards can take issue.

I want the stewards to penalise anyone who appears to gain an advantage which they don't immediately give back to the other driver straight away!

[ArrowsFA1]

Like I said. If you ensure you've made a net loss out of going off at least until after the next corner then I don't think the stewards can take issue.
I think perhaps "after the next corner" is as reasonable a definition as there can be, and for the purposes of clarity the FIA should confirm this before there is a chance of a similar incident happening again.

Apprently the drivers are due to meet with Charlie Whiting today, so hopefully something will be done then.

[Daniel]

I think perhaps "after the next corner" is as reasonable a definition as there can be, and for the purposes of clarity the FIA should confirm this before there is a chance of a similar incident happening again.

Apprently the drivers are due to meet with Charlie Whiting today, so hopefully something will be done then.
Perhaps.

The thing is with this particular instance the only time we can compare Lewis to Kimi is at the chicane and Lewis was close to Kimi but still behind. Then suddenly at the next corner Lewis is in front. Now of course Lewis had the better car for the conditions so that muddys things somewhat but he should have realised that he was not making it look like he was disadvantaged by his move by passing Kimi on the straight.

We could debate as to whether Lewis gained advantage in real terms till the cows come home but the fact of the matter is from the entry to the straight and the entry to the next corner Lewis had made a net gain and this to me is not acceptable given the fact that he took a shortcut. Lewis should have made some attempt to make it obvious that he lost out from the move and overtaking shortly after doesn't do that for me..

[ArrowsFA1]

It's alright folks. We can put this thread to bed now. Max has spoken (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70528).

"Any suggestion there is a bias for or against any team or driver is completely untrue, absolutely not. I think it's a reflection, and I'm sorry to say this, of the stupidity of the people who say it..."
Oh, and although he was in Peru for the Belgian GP his immediate reaction to events at Spa was "this is going to waste a great deal of everybody's time."

Everything's back to normal :p

[ioan]

I agree with what he said! :D

[wmcot]

If Lewis said himself that he got into the tow of Kimi why can't you guys accept he did?

Perhaps he was in the tow created by Kimi's balls???

[Tonieke]

Perhaps he was in the tow created by Kimi's balls???

well doesn't matter if the tow was created by the car or his balls..I am still waiting for you "experts" to show me on that video where exactly Lewis got a tow ? ;-)

well doesn't matter if the tow was created by the car or his balls..I am still waiting for you "experts" to show me on that video where exactly Lewis got a tow ? ;-)

We don't need to...he said it himself.

""Fortunately I got back in his slipstream"

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12433_4114566,00.html

[Tonieke]

We don't need to...he said it himself.

""Fortunately I got back in his slipstream"

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12433_4114566,00.html

well ya..ok...nice interview...But that doesn't answer my question..I don't know much about motorsports....and want to learn more about it...so can you show me where exactly on the straight he got the tow he is talking about ?

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=ywwgfgtx-yM

he also said he didn't do anything wrong in Spa and you did not believe him there either..so

[Bagwan]

well ya..ok...nice interview...But that doesn't answer my question..I don't know much about motorsports....and want to learn more about it...so can you show me where exactly on the straight he got the tow he is talking about ?

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=ywwgfgtx-yM

he also said he didn't do anything wrong in Spa and you did not believe him there either..so

I guess you had to be there .

He said "I got a tow" , and "I got in his slipstream..." .

To regain 6kmph , it obviously doesn't take too long with a windbreak .

That moment of tow was as he was behind Kimi . I'm sure you can find that in the video .

well ya..ok...nice interview...But that doesn't answer my question..I don't know much about motorsports....and want to learn more about it...so can you show me where exactly he got the tow he is talking about ?

You get a tow from being close behind another car. As soon as Hamilton hit the throttle 100%, he would get a tow, given that Kimi's car would create a wake and Lewis was no longer feathering out the power so was ready to get into the slipstream.

A lot of people think that a driver needs to be directly behind (as in front wing tucked into the same line as the rear wing of the car in front).

As an aerodynamicist (retired), and having spent much more time working in a wind-tunnel than is actually healthy, I can categorically state that this is not the case. The best place for a slipstream 'tow' is as most people think, directly behind, but even the most aerodynamic shape, and an open-wheel car is not that, forces the wake of air to make a 'hole' that is wider than that. Therefore, up until the point where a car begins to be level with the car in front, whereupon it is actually hitting a lot of sideways air, it can gain a tow.

[Knock-on]

It's alright folks. We can put this thread to bed now. Max has spoken (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70528).

Oh, and although he was in Peru for the Belgian GP his immediate reaction to events at Spa was "this is going to waste a great deal of everybody's time."

Everything's back to normal :p

So, a 3x WDC is an idiot now.

Nice to know that the FIA is impartial and the outcome of the appeal is already decided.

Perhaps he can tell us the outcome of the Championship and save everyones time as well.

[Daniel]

So, a 3x WDC is an idiot now.

Nice to know that the FIA is impartial and the outcome of the appeal is already decided.

Perhaps he can tell us the outcome of the Championship and save everyones time as well.
So now people have more common sense and better judgement because they've won a few titles? Does that mean that if Michael comes out and says the penalty is fine then it's fine on basis of rank? Oh wait.... I forgot that Michael is biased :) Gimme a break.

[BDunnell]

As I said before, there is no actual evidence of any bias on the part of the FIA. If someone is ever able to come forward with a document or a secret recording proving otherwise, then fine — I'll consider changing my view. Until then, it's nothing but a conspiracy theory. There is nothing untoward with anything Max has said about Ferrari and its place in the F1 pantheon. The remarks struck me as perfectly reasonable. Can we please, some time, move on from this?

[horse77]

My opinion is that when mcmerc had a rubbish car, when the engines kept blowing up - they didnt have any penalties ! As soon as they have a car that regulary beats ferrari, the best driver, and team - then the FIA have to MAKE SURE that the red team win - by demotion, penalties & so on. Check the history, it dont lie.

[ShiftingGears]

they didnt have any penalties !

10 place grid penalties.

[ArrowsFA1]

As I said before, there is no actual evidence of any bias on the part of the FIA.
Does a "grossly inaccurate and misleading" email (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/motors/article-1059957/Hamilton-hearing-casts-doubt-fairness-FIA.html), produced by the FIA to counter McLaren's efforts to present a precedent at the Spa appeal hearing count?

[Daniel]

Does a "grossly inaccurate and misleading" email (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/motors/article-1059957/Hamilton-hearing-casts-doubt-fairness-FIA.html), produced by the FIA to counter McLaren's efforts to present a precedent at the Spa appeal hearing count?

That's a load of crap. The incident should be judged on it's own. As many have pointed out a mistake in the past doesn't justify doing it wrong now.

McLaren should take their punishment on the chin, stfu, win the drivers title and look good for it too. But no they'll bitch, moan and whine their way through the rest of the season and probably lose the title yet again.

I'll quote from that link to show Hamilton as the arrogant little child he is. Yes I've done a little editing but I think it's appropriate :)


A highlight was Hamilton gobbing off as usual during and exchange with Ferrari's lawyer, Nigel Tozzi QC.

'Are you a racing driver?' he asked Tozzi when challenged over his view of the incident. 'I've been racing since I was eight and I know pretty much every single move in the book and that's why I am the best at my job.'

[Dave B]

That's a load of crap. The incident should be judged on it's own. As many have pointed out a mistake in the past doesn't justify doing it wrong now.
But the point is that there wasn't a mistake in the past, rather the FIA are attempting to smear Tony Scott-Andrews by claiming that he'd admitted making a mistake with the Liuzzi case when in fact he'd never said any such thing.

Does that not ring any alarm bells? :s

[Daniel]

But the point is that there wasn't a mistake in the past, rather the FIA are attempting to smear Tony Scott-Andrews by claiming that he'd admitted making a mistake with the Liuzzi case when in fact he'd never said any such thing.

Does that not ring any alarm bells? :s
Sorry I take that back then :)

[PolePosition_1]

That's a load of crap. The incident should be judged on it's own. As many have pointed out a mistake in the past doesn't justify doing it wrong now.



So to confirm, you think its ok to punish one driver for an incident, and not another for doing exactly the same incident?

[PolePosition_1]

McLaren should take their punishment on the chin, stfu, win the drivers title and look good for it too. But no they'll bitch, moan and whine their way through the rest of the season and probably lose the title yet again.



Well, McLaren have been penalised more than any other team this season. And some have been quite frankly totally wrong. The punishment of Alonso last year at Hungary, effectively costing Alonso the title, the contructors points removed from them.

The chicane cutting by Hamilton, where Schumacher did exactly the same, Hamilton got punished and they just said they respect the decision.

I think they know theres no point moaning and bitching about it, but there got to be a point when they have to appeal to get some kind of explanation. They seem to be "breaking these rules" and getting punished whereas other teams aren't getting punished.

I don't blame them for appealing, enough is enough, they need to get an understanding and get a clear cut answer, as the Stewards inconsistancies is costing them title after title.

[Daniel]

So to confirm, you think its ok to punish one driver for an incident, and not another for doing exactly the same incident?
That's not what I said...... so no you can't confirm it :)

[ioan]

I don't blame them for appealing, enough is enough, they need to get an understanding and get a clear cut answer, as the Stewards inconsistancies is costing them title after title.

Really?
Who's fault was that Lewy lost a 17 points advantage in 2 races? The stewards?! Don't think so. :rolleyes:

[Rollo]

Well in this case... 6 points. Being:

2 points which Massa gained as a result of being awarded the GP.
4 points effectively deducted from being dropped from a 10pt to a 6pt paying position.

Where do you get 17 points from? Please explain your workings and present them in front of the class :D
(set squares and compasses may be used, but standard formula sheets may not)

[ioan]

Well in this case... 6 points. Being:

2 points which Massa gained as a result of being awarded the GP.
4 points effectively deducted from being dropped from a 10pt to a 6pt paying position.

Where do you get 17 points from? Please explain your workings and present them in front of the class :D
(set squares and compasses may be used, but standard formula sheets may not)

:laugh:
I wasn't talking of this season! :p :
Last season McLaren and Lewy did lose the title on track, by Lewy's own doing (10 points lost in China and 8 in Brazil!). ;)