thought it was the job of the stewards to notice this ? but than we all know how consequent they are when it comes to giving penalties !Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Printable View
thought it was the job of the stewards to notice this ? but than we all know how consequent they are when it comes to giving penalties !Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Are you referring to Hamilton correcting a slide after Massa bangs wheels with him? Or am I missing something?Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
No, I am referring to Hamilton cheating. He passed Massa in the same way he passed Kimi: taking a short cut after he was passed at the start like in Spa.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
I'm glad you cleared that up, I can sleep safely at night knowing that we all interpret these situations differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
There was no doubt about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodasarmpit
How can that be compared with Spa? and what was he supposed to do.. ?avoid cutting the corner after being hit by Massa.. most likely spin in the process.. get hit by Massa again and cause a mass pile up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
Difference is, he's much farther into the corner than Massa. Being 'driven off' by the lead driver is alot different than being hit in the left rear tire.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zico
Regardless of our feelings about the incident I am sure you'll enjoy this video. Despite our differences, we all have one thing in common: and that's our passion for speed. so, it's in exclusive. It's one of the best I have seen so far. Ejoy it:
http://www.quattroruote.it/news/arti...?codice=151465
lewis has not won a race for so long do you think all the talk about lewis geting sacked will show up like it did for massa at the start of the 2008 season.
for all you massa bashers
http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/200...humbs-down.jpg
:up: Amen brother :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbolt
That's what I have been posting for several years! Stewards are different at each race. They are similar to jurors in a legal trial. That's why sometimes a murderer will get life in prison and sometimes he will get 5 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
The FIA needs to have the same stewards at each race in order for all rulings to be consistent! Bernie could probably pay for a group of "professional traveling stewards" out of his loose pocket change if he wanted to, but controversy is good for the sport and fattening his wallet!
My problem here is not so much whether or not Hamilton gained an advantage - I happen to believe that he did - it's whether he should have received a penalty. Precedent seems to suggest that cutting chicanes can be OK. Based on the fact that Schumacher wasn't penalised for this (where no attempt was made to cede the place gained)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM
...it would seem churlish to punish Hamilton for an action that was no where near as baltant, particularly after McClaren were told twice by a race official that they were within the rules.
As someone else pointed out on another thread, this is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, and it would seem reasonable to expect the officials to a) agree upon the rules, and b) apply those rules in a consistent manner. I would also expect the rules to be less vaguely framed, and less open to interpretation.
Regards
This one wants clear rules that are applied consistently! By the FIA! :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmm - donuts
Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh. ;)
The more I think about it and watch the video, the more I find myself wondering how a car that has gone off track can rejoin and have more momentum than a car that stays on the racing surface.
The only reasons I can think of are:
1. The car going off track gained an advantage
2. The track is poorly designed so the run-off area gives better traction than the racing surface (in which case, the race should be held on the run-off instead of the track.)
3. The car remaining on the racing surface is a Honda (but then it wouldn't have been in front so that's impossible.)
look at the..like he said..awesome video..mstillhere posted..one of the best onboards I have seen in years..Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmm - donuts
anyway...it also shows me Lewis was :
a) a lot faster as soon as it started to rain !
b) coming up to the chicane he was a lot faster than Kimi...and just before they go into the chicane he was right under Kimi's rear spoiler..
c) coming out of the chicane....he gave back position and was back under Kimi's rear spoiler (same situation as before the chicane )..but this time even goin slower than the Ferrari...seems the car data have been publised to other teams..so yes they showed prove of that....
I hope the statement of the stewards..on what there decission to give Lewis a penalty exactly is based on and what they understand by "advantage"....will be made public...So far the only thing I heard from one of them is that he now is welcome in every Italian restaurant..Not exactly the information people are waiting for to hear !
Having seen in this weeks Motorsport News who the 3 Stewards are, it has to be said that one of them should be no were near a Stewards room. Sending a negative e-mail commenting on Sebastien Loeb's appearance, has me wondering what planet this person inhabits. The F1A should thank him for his efforts and put him out to grass - completely out of touch with the real world.
Because according to the Stewards, if you didn't gain an advantage, you can break the rules and not get punished, as per Massa in Valencia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Well for the Stewards, how a rule is broken is not the issue, its whether or not you gained an advantage. And in last two incidents, Ferrari were let off, and McLaren were not, despite both not gaining an advantage.
oh and when they cross the line...I want to know where the tow is ?
and if there was any..it was Kimi giving it to Lewis..as he was the one pulling to the left passing the finish line....
Once again - that's why F1 needs permanent, professional stewards that travel to all the races in order to give consistent rulings...Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
Actually, that would be put him out to tarmac since grass is rarely used anymore! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
Does that mean Schumacher cheated in Hungary 2006? Who done exactly the same, but unlike Hamilton who was forced to cut the chicane, he took the chicane to save his place without being forced onto it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
Preferably ones with a motorsport background relevant to the racing that they are making the decisions on.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
What exactly is an 'Advantage'??
As there are countless arguments on here - it would seem nobody knows!
Another instance of ambiguous rules. What a F1A inspired mess. Again!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
Yeah, well we had one permanent Steward in 2006 and 2007, which had the aim of improving consistancy, but this year for some reason it was reverted back to different stewards.
While on paper this means no biased stewards can be at every event, it means we lack consistancy. And even then, its the FIA (in particular Alan Donnelly) who chooses 2 of the 3, who has strong links with Ferrari, so biasism can still continue.
So in effect, we lack consistancy and still have a reason for fear of biased stewarding.
Personally, I think the fact that the FIA and Stewards both judged the Hamilton situation differently, just shows the framework of the rulebook is too open and flexible and can be interpretted in many different ways.
I think the rules have got to lose the flexibility and gain some non-negiotable circumstances. Sure racing is not black and white, but at least then it would be the same for everyone.
And then have 2 permanent stewards at each event, with racing experience, and ones that ALL teams approve of.
The argument that having a permanent steward in 2006&7 didn't work was because it wasn't done correctly, by just having one, he is easily out voted in most instances.
I'd like to think there is no such thing as 'biased' stewarding. However, the F1A don't help themselves when coming to some decisions - the general public think that Sunday's decision was a 'carve up' - in favour of a certain team. Unless a really serious offense has taken place (whatever that is), a fine would surely have sufficed. Sometimes the greater good of the sport has to come first.
The weakness I see from permanent stewards they can have strong tendency to produce decision according to result give them more benefit than any other options. I'd rather to retain current system, none of stewards have their right of veto, all decisions are formulated and released based on the same responsibility among the stewards, probably it might need stronger perception on agreement that they need to supervise the race vigilantly. ;)
Actually MS and PDLR had a contact that sent MS over the 2nd part of the chicane.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
Care to show me where was there contact between LH and KR?
Also, what should have MS done, if it would have been an unfair move? Give up his position to a driver who never earned it?
Stop comparing apples and bananas, try oranges or tomatoes, they look more alike.
I don't agree with the fine when this leaves unfair moves unpunished in a sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
A sport should be fair first of all.
Giving hyper reach sport teams the chance to buy out their cheating would be a bad move.
Taking away a win after the checkered flag is the wrong punishment for not so clear infractions. The 10 places grid penalty would have been the fairer punishment, for such a late punishment, IMO.
Which is fine if you don't take into account the concertina effect which Mickey T feels is less relevant than occums shaver even though occums beard trimmer isn't an accepted motorsport rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonieke
Thing is you simply can't give a fine for an incident where someone is deemed to have unfairly gained a sporting advantage. As Ioan says it gives teams the opportunity to buy their way out.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
The consetina effect does not apply as I understand it the speed was measured at the finish line for each car. Not at the same moment.
from what I read and learned about that "concertina effect" I have to say I makes not much sense to me either..this effect just is a theory that is based on ifs and whens....What I DO see is(there's enough footage to prove) a McL goin way faster than a Ferrari coming up to the chicane..and I see a McL goin slower than a Ferrari coming out of the chicane..those are facts...Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
and I also wonder why it takes FIA so long to come up with a public statement on what exaclty Lewis penalty is based on..especialy when there's so much controversy about it...and with yet another race coming up..nobody knowing what can and can't be donne or what should be donne in this or that situation..
Fair point, however what is an advantage? What do the regulations state? Normally I wouldn't advocate a fine, but in this instance as the 'offence' wasn't totally black & white - and Charlie Whiting had advised McLaren what they should do - the 25 secs did seem harsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
All this incident has done is open a can of worms - the F1A need to come out with definitive rules/regs/penalties next season, and maybe these 'grey' areas can be sorted out.
On the contrary it does apply. Hamilton had caught up to Kimi at a corner (under braking) right? Well people are basing their opinion of whether he gained an advantage on the fact that he was about the same distance from Kimi's car on the straight (under power) as he was coming into the corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
That effect is pretty much real and it's based on physics (you know the classes you always hated and never understood)! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonieke
I agree. But as prescribed in the rules 25 seconds is the penalty if it happens in the last 5 laps. A fine for a sporting offence is not on IMHO. In the case of a minor offence to do with safety I think a fine is sufficient but when someone has gained competitive advantage unfairly.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
We need to bear in mind that the regulations are by no means an exhaustive list of offences and punishments. I read nowhere that a team is not allowed to pelt their opposition with watermelons but surely if this was to happen you'd expect them to be penalised in some way.If the regulations were exhaustive and specific we wouldn't need stewards at all. You would simply look up the offence and the penalty and enforce it. It's not that simple though. I think the rule should be that if you do something like this then you wait until AFTER the next corner to make another move and if it happens before a series of corners then you should clear the corners and then another corner before making a move.
Charlie didn't advise them anything, they asked if it's OK or not and his answer was "PROBABLY" it is OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
When there is a probability involved you better not take it for a sure thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I'm talking about the Heidfeld and MS incident. No contact.