Hamilton Stripped of Win - Official

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

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

---

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

This should explain it for you also.
http://www.speedtv.com/forums/viewth...97321/#4992731

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




The political question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

---

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

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

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

Just reposting this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

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

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

---

You seem to be a little confused about how a meeting operates.

The Director is responsible for running the race. He is the person in contact with both the Stewards and the teams and directs proceedings.

If there is an incident, which this was, the Race Director referres it to the Stewards for investigation. However, if the Stewards notice it, they refer it to the Race Director for investigation.

After everyone has been informed, including the Race Director and the Team, the Stewards investigate and all teams are informed of the investigation.

If the Race Director was said that everything was OK, then why wasn't he aware of the investigation?

McLaren followed the correct chain of communication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

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

---

ioan at his best....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

---

There's no confusion on that point. It's also clear that different FIA officials interpret FIA rules differently.

There appears to be this view that Charlie Whiting's view should be dismissed, and yet it is Charlie who the teams turn to for clarification on any number of issues during the course of the season, and individual races.

Why do they do that if his "opinion" carries no weight, or if he's the "wrong" person to speak to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

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

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

---

I am well aware of who does what. An umpire answers to a Match Referee. As far as I know, the Race Director is in contact with the Race Stewards. Surely when McLaren asked him he would have checked with them?

and just for your information ioan..i never said either the effect wasn't real...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

You seem to be a little confused about how a meeting operates.

The Director is responsible for running the race. He is the person in contact with both the Stewards and the teams and directs proceedings.

If there is an incident, which this was, the Race Director referres it to the Stewards for investigation. However, if the Stewards notice it, they refer it to the Race Director for investigation.

---

I think that you are a bit confused there, if you really believe that the stewards are there to refer things to the Race Director and also the other way around.

I believe that the stewards investigate whatever they notice as infringement and they also investigate what the Race Director might refer to them.
However they do not refer things for investigation to the Race Director, as well as the Race Director doesn't decided what are the penalties to be applied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

I am well aware of who does what. An umpire answers to a Match Referee. As far as I know, the Race Director is in contact with the Race Stewards. Surely when McLaren asked him he would have checked with them?

---

he might have checked, and the answer was: "probably". In my book "probably" means that it isn't sure and can therefor have a different outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

and just for your information ioan..i never said either the effect wasn't real...

---

Let's see!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

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

---

What a nice place this forum is, you can find anything one posted in the past! :laugh:
You see? You said it's just a theory!
Now:

[quote="wikipedia.org"]In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts]

I can tell you that the concertina effect isn't a theory it is an existing and proven effect, you can check it out by watching races where they have tight and slow corners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

ioan at his best....

---

Well, I'm not going to sit and listen to so many funny things being written around here without having a bit of fun myself! :rotflmao:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

he might have checked, and the answer was: "probably". In my book "probably" means that it isn't sure and can therefor have a different outcome.

---

Well that's great. For such a media savvy, hi-tech, 'professional sport', we have officials who 'Probably' think they know the rules. At least I now know that the 16-19 times a year while watching a GP, the people in charge think they know what's happening. I can sleep easily at night. Blimey- I thought the WRC was bad.

see my thread

Spa <--fan pressure :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

If the Race Director was said that everything was OK, then why wasn't he aware of the investigation?

---

Almost missed this part!

If the Race Director would have said that everything was OK, then I would say you are right.

However he said that [b]"PROBABLY"[/] it was OK.
I bet you know what "probably" means. Or maybe not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I can tell you that the concertina effect isn't a theory it is an existing and proven effect, you can check it out by watching races where they have tight and slow corners.

---

only IF cars are traveling at +- the same speed I have learned here..was that the case ? can you therefore bring this effect in acount for this case and if yes..how you actualy gonne prove it this effect was in play ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I think that you are a bit confused there, if you really believe that the stewards are there to refer things to the Race Director and also the other way around.

I believe that the stewards investigate whatever they notice as infringement and they also investigate what the Race Director might refer to them.
However they do not refer things for investigation to the Race Director, as well as the Race Director doesn't decided what are the penalties to be applied.

---

ioan

How many times have the rules relating to this been posted in the last few days.

Can I suggest you read them because you keep posting things that are blatently wrong and your opinion of how things work while criticising others for being wrong where they are indeed right.

For your benefit again.

Quote:

---

"Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to the race director for investigation) which :
- necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41 ;
- constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code ;
- caused a false start by one or more cars ;
- caused a collision ;
- forced a driver off the track ;
- illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver ;
- illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.
Unless it was completely clear that a driver was in breach of any of the above, any incidents involving more than one car will normally be investigated after the race.
16.2 a) It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide, upon a report or a request by the race director, if a driver or drivers involved in an incident shall be penalised.
b) If an incident is under investigation by the stewards a message informing all teams which driver or drivers are involved will be displayed on the timing monitors.
Provided that such a message is displayed no later than five minutes after the race has finished the driver or drivers concerned may not leave the circuit without the consent of the stewards.
16.3 The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident :
a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping ;
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
c) a drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.
However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.
16.4 Should the stewards decide to impose either of the penalties under Article 16.3a) or b), the following procedure will be followed :
a) The stewards will give written notification of the penalty which has been imposed to the competitor concerned and will ensure that this information is also displayed on the timing monitors.
b) From the time the stewards’ decision is notified on the timing monitors the relevant driver may cover no more than three complete laps before entering the pit lane and, in the case of a penalty under Article 16.3b), proceeding to his garage where he shall remain for the period of the time penalty.
However, unless the driver was already in the pit entry for the purpose of serving his penalty, he may not carry out the penalty after the Safety Car has been deployed. Any laps carried out behind the Safety Car will be added to the three lap maximum.
Whilst a car is stationary in the pit lane as a result of incurring a time penalty it may not be worked on. However, if the engine stops it may be started after the time penalty period has elapsed.
2009 F1 Sporting Regulations 8 of 43 11th July 2008
c) When the time penalty period has elapsed the driver may rejoin the race.
d) Any breach or failure to comply with Articles 16.4b) or c) may result in the car being excluded.

---

The relevant points being:

Quote:

---

"Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to the race director for investigation) which :

---

You wrote:

Quote:

---

I think that you are a bit confused there, if you really believe that the stewards are there to refer things to the Race Director and also the other way around.

---

You are wrong. Sorry :)

The person that should know what’s going on is the race Director and as such, McLaren followed protocol.

There must be a comedy sketch to be made out of this 'Probably' issue.

Judge: Are you Guilty of this Murder?
Defendant: Er, Probably!
Judge: Probably, what does this mean?
Defendant: Er, Probably! It means that - Probably!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Almost missed this part!

If the Race Director would have said that everything was OK, then I would say you are right.

However he said that [b]"PROBABLY"[/] it was OK.
I bet you know what "probably" means. Or maybe not!

---

Well, it's nice to see we are in agreement then :laugh:

Quote:

---

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

---

Specifically, it was "OKAY"

Now, I know he didn't say it was OK, but is OKAY sufficient ;)

http://www.mclaren.com/latestnews/mc...hp?article=181

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

Good point. If a driver faces a similar situation in Monza this weekend what are they supposed to do exactly?

This mess (including punishing Kovy for doing what DC alone has got away with half a dozen times this year) has created a situation where drivers - especially the 3 contesting the championship - are even less likely to attempt an overtaking move.

---

Good point - count to 5, check what's on the menu for tea, then carry on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

The relevant points being...

---

Interesting stuff, this bit in particular - It shall be at the discretion of the stewards to decide, upon a report or a request by the race director, if a driver or drivers involved in an incident shall be penalised.

Does this mean that, having told McLaren that he thought the position had been given back in a manner that was 'okay', Charlie Whiting then issued a report or request to the stewards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

Ed Gorman, blogging for The Times, 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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

---

Sufficient grounds for an appeal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

Ed Gorman, blogging for The Times, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

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*

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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 :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.