Hamilton Stripped of Win - Official

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickey T

it seems that, if anything, there's more distance between the two cars at the start-finish line.

where's that advantage, then?

---

It's called the concertina effect.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I genuinely don't believe that there is any bias evident towards Ferrari at all. Do we always have to either be biased or accuse others of it in spite of a lack of evidence?

However, I get the feeling that some here would only be happy if Hamilton had allowed Raikkonen to remain ahead of him until the flag.

---

You may not Ben but plenty of others do.

Ralf is someone that may know better than us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

It's called the concertina effect.....

---

done much racing daniel?

more than, say, niki lauda?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

It's called the concertina effect.....

---

So, if he would have left more of a gap, he would have got more of an advantage?

:confused:

Your arguement makes no sense.

In France Lewis didn't give position back to Vettel and was penalized with a drive through (and we were discussing here whether it was right or wrong). Now he gives position back and gets even a harsher penalty... (well, a drive through certainly doesn't last for 25 secs) - already in this there is no logic.

Hamilton is the first driver ever to get penalized despite giving rival's position back. :p :

Rewatch the battle between Massa and Kubica at Fuji last year. Both drivers were forced to take a shortcut several times, but kept fighting and passing each other in almost every corner. There are a lot more cases like that - none of them have been penalized. This is what is especially unlogical in punishing Hamilton. Oh well...

And then we complain there is lack of overtaking in F1. Position defender is allowed to do anything (wave ahead and push the other car off the track), attacker however...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

So, if he would have left more of a gap, he would have got more of an advantage?

:confused:

Your arguement makes no sense.

---

Stop telling people what they're saying......

You know that's not what I'm saying at all. Stop trolling for a remark from me. I'm wise to you and the ways in which you work :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I genuinely don't believe that there is any bias evident towards Ferrari at all. Do we always have to either be biased or accuse others of it in spite of a lack of evidence?

However, I get the feeling that some here would only be happy if Hamilton had allowed Raikkonen to remain ahead of him until the flag.

---

Very true. We could rattle off countless arguments as to why the FIA are biased against/towards all of the teams if we wanted to. Hamilton getting picked up out of the kitty litter and put back on the track last year is clear evidence that the FIA are entirely biased towards McLaren :p

I've never seen bias at all either, just bad decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

You may not Ben but plenty of others do.

Ralf is someone that may know better than us?

---

If he is willing to provide some hard evidence of pro-Ferrari bias rather than a vague suggestion of it, then I will believe it. Until then, I won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Very true. We could rattle off countless arguments as to why the FIA are biased against/towards all of the teams if we wanted to. Hamilton getting picked up out of the kitty litter and put back on the track last year is clear evidence that the FIA are entirely biased towards McLaren :p

I've never seen bias at all either, just bad decisions.

---

Exactly. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

In France Lewis didn't give position back to Vettel and was penalized with a drive through (and we were discussing here whether it was right or wrong). Now he gives position back and gets even a harsher penalty... (well, a drive through certainly doesn't last for 25 secs) - already in this there is no logic.

Hamilton is the first driver ever to get penalized despite giving rival's position back. :p :

Rewatch the battle between Massa and Kubica at Fuji last year. Both drivers were forced to take a shortcut several times, but kept fighting and passing each other in almost every corner. There are a lot more cases like that - none of them have been penalized. This is what is especially unlogical in punishing Hamilton. Oh well...

And then we complain there is lack of overtaking in F1. Position defender is allowed to do anything (wave ahead and push the other car off the track), attacker however...

---

I can put it no better. Neither can I recall any precedents in other forms of motorsport. If you back off, you're generally OK. Not any more, it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

It's called the concertina effect.....

---

your concertina effect theory is more than negated by a number of things, daniel.

1. Occum's Razor. the assertion with the fewest possible assumptions is almost always the correct one. you are assuming you know everything and you are using a theory that, usually, only holds up in the dry. it is unwise.

2. it neglects to take into account that different drivers, different tyre pressures, different cars can find different levels of grip in slippery conditions. the evidence of the way hamilton closed the gap before the chicane confirms he had more damp grip.

3. Hamilton was 6km/h slower across the start-finish line and allowed Raikkonen all the way past, so he had sacrificed momentum.

4. he was never in the tow of the Ferrari for more than half a second.

5. had Hamilton taken the normal line, your theory surmises that he would have crossed the start-finish line carrying the same speed as Raikkonen, yes?

6. if yes, then Hamilton would have found it even easier to overtake the early-braking Finn. If your theory doesn't have Hamilton carrying the same speed across the line, please explain to me why not.

because concertina effect, in this scenario, is a nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hmmm - donuts

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/09/0...nery-at-monza/

Regards

---

That article is BS.
I don't believe that anyone could "dive down the inside of Michael Schumacher..."


:p :

As far as I know there is an appeal to the decision. the actual dual (if that is a correct term) was between hamilton and Kimi. as kimi was later out of the race the cut through the shikane makes no difference to him, despite hamilton dropping back. As for Massa, this manouvre did not really give Hamilton any advantage over Massa so penalising him with 25s is extremely excessive.

I think maclaren will have a strong case here to at least reduce the penaly by a few seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickey T

your concertina effect theory is more than negated by a number of things, daniel.

1. Occum's Razor. the assertion with the fewest possible assumptions is almost always the correct one. you are assuming you know everything and you are using a theory that, usually, only holds up in the dry. it is unwise.

2. it neglects to take into account that different drivers, different tyre pressures, different cars can find different levels of grip in slippery conditions. the evidence of the way hamilton closed the gap before the chicane confirms he had more damp grip.

3. Hamilton was 6km/h slower across the start-finish line and allowed Raikkonen all the way past, so he had sacrificed momentum.

4. he was never in the tow of the Ferrari for more than half a second.

5. had Hamilton taken the normal line, your theory surmises that he would have crossed the start-finish line carrying the same speed as Raikkonen, yes?

6. if yes, then Hamilton would have found it even easier to overtake the early-braking Finn. If your theory doesn't have Hamilton carrying the same speed across the line, please explain to me why not.

because concertina effect, in this scenario, is a nonsense.

---

All of which is negated by the coriolis effect.

1. Load of crap.

2. The stewards don't need to take this into effect. Drivers should be judged evenly. It doesn't matter what tyres one car has or whatever, the cars should be judged as equal as it's not for the stewards to quantify which car is faster through which corner and so on as this merely opens a whole can of worms.

3. Hamilton would most likely have been slower than this had he followed his crap line through the corner.

4. Still he got tow which he wouldn't have with how far he would have been behind had he taken his CRAP line through the corner.

5. Hamilton was never on a normal line. So this argument is also crap!

6. You've got a point actually! Perhaps the correct thing for Hamilton to do would have been to follow Kimi through the corner and draft him on the straight and use the fact that his car was obviously handling better and take him like that....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickey T

yeah, but you're comparing apples and oranges.

schumacher clearly breached the rules here (i'd love to see even tamburello and ioan argue that he didn't), gained an advantage by cutting the circuit and didn't get punished.

three quarters of observers on this forum believe hamilton didn't breach the rules and he got punished.

that's because hamilton slowed to allow kimi past - and by a full car length - before he attacked again.

it's the same sporting code we're talking about and the same rulebook by at least one of the same stewards.

my best guess, based on years of racing experience, would be that any telemetry would confirm the visuals, and would prove that kimi braked significantly earlier than hamilton.

did hamilton gain an advantage, that seems to be the only question. have a look at how close he was all the way along the increasingly wet back straight, then look at how close he was again at the start-finish line.

it seems that, if anything, there's more distance between the two cars at the start-finish line.

where's that advantage, then?

---

what would have happened if he hadn't decided to cut the chicane and do his best to stay on track (without taking Kimi out of course)? are you going to tell me that he would have managed to keep the car under control just right in Kimi's rear and overtake him on that short straight. He had plenty of space to do it during his first attempt and failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

In France Lewis didn't give position back to Vettel and was penalized with a drive through (and we were discussing here whether it was right or wrong). Now he gives position back and gets even a harsher penalty... (well, a drive through certainly doesn't last for 25 secs) - already in this there is no logic.

Hamilton is the first driver ever to get penalized despite giving rival's position back. :p :

Rewatch the battle between Massa and Kubica at Fuji last year. Both drivers were forced to take a shortcut several times, but kept fighting and passing each other in almost every corner. There are a lot more cases like that - none of them have been penalized. This is what is especially unlogical in punishing Hamilton. Oh well...

And then we complain there is lack of overtaking in F1. Position defender is allowed to do anything (wave ahead and push the other car off the track), attacker however...

---

The stewards are consistent when it comes to favouring Ferrari. This diabolical decision is more proof that FIA has it in for McLaren and Lewis. Kimi's pace was dropping, one minute Lewis was 1.59 seconds behind, the next he was up on his gearbox. Moved left and Kimi forced him off. Maybe the Stewards are all wearing those famous Ferrari rose colored glasses these days.

It's just funny to see how some connoisseurs on here contradict the way experienced drivers ala Lauda and RS think about the whole thing !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

It may be risky as there is the possibility the penalty could be increased, but they simply had to appeal.

---

The only occasion in which the penalty could be increased is when a car/driver/team is racing under appeal, thereby delaying the penalty imposed by the stewards.

Villenueve, Suzuka 1997 being the last I can think of when he was deemed to have not slowed for a yellow flag in qualifying but did not take his grid penalty. Williams later dropped the appeal after Suzuka, meaning that although he lost the points he scored in the race (4th, I think?) he did not carry a penalty over into the next GP, where it would have been doubled.

Before that, Michael Schumacher appealed his black flag exclusion at Silverstone in 1994 that earnt him a race suspension. This meant that he could race at the next GP, Germany, but he was later suspended for 2 GP's.

However, both of the above are completely different to appealing a penalty that has been imposed on a race result.

As far as I know, there is nothing to stop a team from appealing, except that since it was a drive-through penalty, there is normally no appeal for that.

Those wanting an appeal for a drive-through penalty should remember that such a thing is not normally allowed, and should the governing body allow such an appeal they are obviously favouring one team and driver.

Ah, there's the rub.

Those who think Mclaren should appeal against a decision for which there is normally no appeal now want the rules and regulations not to be enforced.

Hypocrites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

It's just funny to see how some connoisseurs on here contradict the way experienced drivers ala Lauda and RS think about the whole thing !

---

you are even funnier than that. I don't need anybody to tell me what to think. I have made up my mind the moment it happened. I don't need lauda or RS (who's the brother of an experienced driver) or the marshals to explain me what happened.

I have this nice habit of using my own brain. You should try it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eu

you are even funnier than that. I don't need anybody to tell me what to think. I have made up my mind the moment it happened. I don't need lauda or RS (who's the brother of an experienced driver) or the marshals to explain me what happened.

I have this nice habit of using my own brain. You should try it too.

---

no comment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

All of which is negated by the coriolis effect.

1. Load of crap.

---

occum's razor is a load of crap now? wow. big call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

2. The stewards don't need to take this into effect. Drivers should be judged evenly. It doesn't matter what tyres one car has or whatever, the cars should be judged as equal as it's not for the stewards to quantify which car is faster through which corner and so on as this merely opens a whole can of worms.

---

who's talking about stewards? i was suggesting these things might have been something for you to consider before you leapt to a conclusion that only stands up in the dry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

3. Hamilton would most likely have been slower than this had he followed his crap line through the corner.

---

possibly true, but (bear with me here while i explain some racecraft to you) it cuts both ways.

hamilton, because he was on the outside, took what is called a late apex into the right hander. given that, on the point where he was forced wide, his car was travelling with less lateral g, relative to raikkonen, had he found the space to lift, he was in a reasonable position to cut wide (again, relative to raikkonen), to take a straighter line (once again, relative to raikkonen) into the left hander.

that he didn't was testament to the aggression (which i don't mind) with which raikkonen defended his position.

Raikkonen, on the other hand, took a very tight, shallow line through the right hander because he defended his position and was forced by hamilton into an early apex. this is why he ran wide - wide enough to force hamilton off the road.

by doing this, raikkonen compromised his turn-in to the left hander, which also, inevitably, compromised his speed down the subsequent straight.

your argument on this, then, is self-defeating once you take into account its full implications, and not just he implications for hamilton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

4. Still he got tow which he wouldn't have with how far he would have been behind had he taken his CRAP line through the corner.

---

look at the footage. the only time he is directly behind raikkonen is when he is crossing over from the outside to the inside to overtake under brakes, and it's only for a split second.

that's not an advantage gained by crossing the chicane to avoid a collision, then slowing down to allow the other car through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

5. Hamilton was never on a normal line. So this argument is also crap!

---

Neither was Raikkonen, so your counter-argument is crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

6. You've got a point actually! Perhaps the correct thing for Hamilton to do would have been to follow Kimi through the corner and draft him on the straight and use the fact that his car was obviously handling better and take him like that....

---

perhaps the correct thing to do would have been to call it a racing incident and be done with it?

i'll ask the question, if hamilton had not been punished and the result had stood, how many ferrari backers here would have been at all upset?

the fact is lewis had a quicker car at the time, the mclaren is faster in those conditions because it retains the tyre temp, where as the ferrari doesnt.

so how they can judge how far he had to fall back...my bet until he was behind theother ferrari, then they would of all been happy!

possbly the worst thing they could of done after the best race in a few years! it had everything a good race needs...apart from a group of snotty little ferrari fans deciding something which is impossible to accurately calculate and ruining the race...possibly the season.

they certainly arent showing that ferrari dont own F1,

one word...disgusting! :mad:

Niki Laudas take on the incident..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/7604776.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

That article is BS.
I don't believe that anyone could "dive down the inside of Michael Schumacher..."


:p :

---

Try this then

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Charlie Whiting is the FIA Technical director. He is not a race steward.

---

Point us to where anyone said he was :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Those who think Mclaren should appeal against a decision for which there is normally no appeal now want the rules and regulations not to be enforced.

Hypocrites.

---

Those of us who think a team should be able to appeal this kind of decision are well aware that in normal circumstances it is not possible to appeal this particular kind of penalty.

Had the incident happened earlier Hamilton would have had to serve the penalty during the race, and we are well aware of what happens if a driver and team ignore such a penalty and the subsequent black flag.

If the FIA rule that the can be no appeal then that is the end of the matter, and I think it is quite likely that will be their decision.

FIA stewards are idiots paid by corrupt Ferrari"s boss Mr Montzemellllllooolololo
.... McLaren should call it a day and pull out of this circus and form a new championship with other teams.. this cannot go on like this.. seems like other teams except ferrari have to fight for a win in the courts than on track.
what the hell of F1 racing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickey T

your concertina effect theory is more than negated by a number of things, daniel.

1. Occum's Razor. the assertion with the fewest possible assumptions is almost always the correct one. you are assuming you know everything and you are using a theory that, usually, only holds up in the dry. it is unwise.

2. it neglects to take into account that different drivers, different tyre pressures, different cars can find different levels of grip in slippery conditions. the evidence of the way hamilton closed the gap before the chicane confirms he had more damp grip.

3. Hamilton was 6km/h slower across the start-finish line and allowed Raikkonen all the way past, so he had sacrificed momentum.

4. he was never in the tow of the Ferrari for more than half a second.

5. had Hamilton taken the normal line, your theory surmises that he would have crossed the start-finish line carrying the same speed as Raikkonen, yes?

6. if yes, then Hamilton would have found it even easier to overtake the early-braking Finn. If your theory doesn't have Hamilton carrying the same speed across the line, please explain to me why not.

because concertina effect, in this scenario, is a nonsense.

---

I think some people are missing the point that Kimi was leading the race and indeed made it to the chicane first, so it was up to Hamilton to 1. overtake Kimi without touching him, or 2. give up the corner so that they wouldn't crash. Kimi was in a position to put the car into the chicane anyway he chose (as the race leader), as he did in order to prevent Hamilton overtaking. If people can cut corners and use asphalt not included in the racetrack to get out of situations they themselves brought up and put themselves into a good situation for the next one, well then we are looking at a totally new ballgame. As Kimi commented on Finnish television, if there had been a wall instead of a shortcut, Hamilton would not have come through at all.

Hamilton's move at the chicane didn't come off , and therefore he was advantaged by the fact he didn't have to slow to stay behind the driver ahead .
Kimi asserted his lead into the corner and Lewis backed out , but to the side and off track , whilst Kimi negotiated the next corner .

Lewis had to back out of it to let Kimi by . That's the launch that Lewis got , and it resulted in Kimi having to defend the next corner much closer to the corner than should have been necessary .
Lauda is as capable of coming off half-cocked as anyone here , and maybe more so , as he's expected to come up with the authoritative opinion at the drop of a hat quite often .

Whether or not there was a drafting effect is rather irrelevent , given the lift was just before the braking zone .
Those 6kmph were just a lift before applying the brakes .

Clever move , but they protested , so clever got caught .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

The only occasion in which the penalty could be increased is when a car/driver/team is racing under appeal, thereby delaying the penalty imposed by the stewards.

Villenueve, Suzuka 1997 being the last I can think of when he was deemed to have not slowed for a yellow flag in qualifying but did not take his grid penalty. Williams later dropped the appeal after Suzuka, meaning that although he lost the points he scored in the race (4th, I think?) he did not carry a penalty over into the next GP, where it would have been doubled.

Before that, Michael Schumacher appealed his black flag exclusion at Silverstone in 1994 that earnt him a race suspension. This meant that he could race at the next GP, Germany, but he was later suspended for 2 GP's.

However, both of the above are completely different to appealing a penalty that has been imposed on a race result.

As far as I know, there is nothing to stop a team from appealing, except that since it was a drive-through penalty, there is normally no appeal for that.

Those wanting an appeal for a drive-through penalty should remember that such a thing is not normally allowed, and should the governing body allow such an appeal they are obviously favouring one team and driver.

Ah, there's the rub.

Those who think Mclaren should appeal against a decision for which there is normally no appeal now want the rules and regulations not to be enforced.

Hypocrites.

---

Personally, I could do without the high moral tone and then the blanket denunciation at the end of everybody who thinks differently to you, but never mind.

When you say 'Those wanting an appeal for a drive-through penalty should remember that such a thing is not normally allowed, and should the governing body allow such an appeal they are obviously favouring one team and driver', this would surely only be the case if it were to be a one-off. If the rules were then to be amended, it would not be a case of favouritism at all. F1's rule book cannot be set in stone for ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

If the FIA rule that the can be no appeal then that is the end of the matter, and I think it is quite likely that will be their decision.

---

I suspect you are correct... and if that indeed turns out to be the case... Im completely finished with any interest I had with F1.

Its a farce, I cant take it even semi-seriously any longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Hamilton's move at the chicane didn't come off , and therefore he was advantaged by the fact he didn't have to slow to stay behind the driver ahead .
Kimi asserted his lead into the corner and Lewis backed out , but to the side and off track , whilst Kimi negotiated the next corner .

Lewis had to back out of it to let Kimi by . That's the launch that Lewis got , and it resulted in Kimi having to defend the next corner much closer to the corner than should have been necessary .
Lauda is as capable of coming off half-cocked as anyone here , and maybe more so , as he's expected to come up with the authoritative opinion at the drop of a hat quite often .

Whether or not there was a drafting effect is rather irrelevent , given the lift was just before the braking zone .
Those 6kmph were just a lift before applying the brakes .

Clever move , but they protested , so clever got caught .

---

When would it have been correct for Hamilton to pass, then?

(I'm not just asking that of you, by the way.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

I think some people are missing the point that Kimi was leading the race and indeed made it to the chicane first, so it was up to Hamilton to 1. overtake Kimi without touching him, or 2. give up the corner so that they wouldn't crash. Kimi was in a position to put the car into the chicane anyway he chose (as the race leader), as he did in order to prevent Hamilton overtaking. If people can cut corners and use asphalt not included in the racetrack to get out of situations they themselves brought up and put themselves into a good situation for the next one, well then we are looking at a totally new ballgame. As Kimi commented on Finnish television, if there had been a wall instead of a shortcut, Hamilton would not have come through at all.

---

yes he would have hit the wall but then no-one would overtake into there if there was a wall and racing would not happen instead its been banned.

I have to admit that I am usually a Ferrari fan (but not a fanatic - my world won't end if LH wins the WDC!) Having said that, I would call the decision questionable, but I'm not willing to crucify anyone or jump on the conspiracy bandwagon until I hear the reasons that the stewards based their decisions on. They may have seen something that I didn't or, since they are human, perhaps it was just a "blown call." I'll wait to find out.

p.s. Can we add a "Not Sure Yet" to the poll?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Lauda is as capable of coming off half-cocked as anyone here , and maybe more so , as he's expected to come up with the authoritative opinion at the drop of a hat quite often .

Whether or not there was a drafting effect is rather irrelevent , given the lift was just before the braking zone .
Those 6kmph were just a lift before applying the brakes .

---

when lauda says there was no slipstreaming and that it was the worst call in F1 history, i'd lend him more credibility than i'd lend you.

well, unless you tell me how many F1 world championships you've won. In a ferrari.

the lift was just before the braking zone? what did you watch?

the lift was while he was on the escape road and just after he returned to the track proper.

or, in your world, do people brake at the start-finish line to negotiate La Source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwf1

yes he would have hit the wall but then no-one would overtake into there if there was a wall and racing would not happen instead its been banned.

---

So it's ok to use asphalt outside the circuit to your own advantage after an over-ambitious overtaking manouvre? Cutting the main chicane after the start/finish straight in Monza to overtake a car, then let the car just back ahead and slipstream it into the next corner is ok next weekend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

So it's ok to use asphalt outside the circuit to your own advantage after an over-ambitious overtaking manouvre? Cutting the main chicane after the start/finish straight in Monza to overtake a car, then let the car just back ahead and slipstream it into the next corner is ok next weekend?

---

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

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

Talking about walls. Well, if they existed, then indeed we would see serious lack of overtaking, because drivers don't dare to risk, when they have so little room for mistakes. Valencia in theory should have enabled overtaking opportunities, but we didn't see many (actually we saw just one proper pass).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

When would it have been correct for Hamilton to pass, then?

(I'm not just asking that of you, by the way.)

---

It's alright to ask , no offense .

Had Lewis let Kimi by earlier on the straight , he might have had a chance to defend . As it was the move at the chicane had a direct effect on the pass at La Source .

He should , therefore , have waited to get him , which he would , on the hill after Eau Rouge .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

So it's ok to use asphalt outside the circuit to your own advantage after an over-ambitious overtaking manouvre? Cutting the main chicane after the start/finish straight in Monza to overtake a car, then let the car just back ahead and slipstream it into the next corner is ok next weekend?

---

No but we're not on about monza. They are differnet chicanes. Also at monza you wouldn't have chance to do that as you have to slow down too much. Everyone going on about slip stream. You come out of that chicane at 80mph MAX! The air is pushing the car down too much to cause enough of a slip stream for that. If it would have been able to, then ANY car should close up out of a corner which they don't. Also cars would slip stream and close up to each other in the pit lane which they don't so FORGET THIS SLIP STREAM RUBBISH!!

One more post.
"Conspiracy" has been a keyword at times. And the question, whether it exists, persists.

What we have to keep in mind is that stewards, FIA, and actually all the people involved in F1 are not emotionless robots, but are normal human beings like all of us. All of them have their own preferences, opinions, also sympathies and antipathies. It's in human nature. I don't know, what was the mood of the decisionmakers or what were they thinking, when they decided on this penalty at that particular moment, but hopefully the appeal will clarify this.

I'm a bit afraid though that the appeal will take place one race before the end of the season and the result of the appeal will turn out to be such, which will be more beneficial for the championship excitement...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickey T

when lauda says there was no slipstreaming and that it was the worst call in F1 history, i'd lend him more credibility than i'd lend you.

well, unless you tell me how many F1 world championships you've won. In a ferrari.

the lift was just before the braking zone? what did you watch?

the lift was while he was on the escape road and just after he returned to the track proper.

or, in your world, do people brake at the start-finish line to negotiate La Source?

---

That's fine , Mickey T .
The lift was indeed after he came back on , past the start/finish line , when Lewis sat in kimi's air just long enough to catch a bit of tow .
The stewards see it as him being closer than he would have been , and certainly , your highness , you can see that the idea that he was farther advanced , earlier on the pit straight sits well with that view .

Indeed , arguing that Lewis lifted earlier on the straight doesn't fit with Lewis not being advantaged .

But , I feel he would have been seen to have been less so , had he lifted earlier to let Kimi by .
In my view , it was either that , or wait for the hill .