Hamilton Stripped of Win - Official

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

From what Schmenke has shown the penalty applied is perfectly correct and suitable. I'm sure the stewards will show that Lewis gained and then there can be no more aguing :)

---

yep also look forward to see what evidence they come up with that justifies this penalty ! ;-)

Do not forget that the stewards have tv feeds from paytv (race cams)and a lot of other in car telemetry

kimi has a camera facing backwards remember the shots of the loose muffler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thunderbolt

Do not forget that the stewards have tv feeds from paytv (race cams)and a lot of other in car telemetry

kimi has a camera facing backwards remember the shots of the loose muffler.

---

ya also something I still wonder about why they not called him in...to have it removed from the car...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cosmicpanda

Without disagreeing with the general intent of your post, I was wondering about this paragraph.

My understanding of the 'concertina effect' is that it is the bunching of the field through slow corners, and the spreading out of the field on straights. It happens because when two cars travelling at a low speed are separated by, say, .3s, there is a much smaller distance between them than when they are both travelling at a high speed. Am I wrong? What were you talking about when you said:

"If the gap is zero (as it was with Lewis still alongside), the concertina effect occurs and there is no speed advantage relative to distance."

I would also like to know what you mean by "speed advantage relative to distance." It sounds like an intriguing concept that I haven't heard of before.

---

Well, what I basically was trying to get at was that I have never seen a driver follow another closely through a corner get any kind of 'run' on the driver they want to overtake (save for long straights like on Monza). When I drive simulators or listen to the pro's talk, they talk about dropping back to create a distance gap, and through the use of good timing go through a corner faster than the driver in front and use the speed advantage to overtake. There can be no speed advantage when a driver is following closely, because any speed advantage would result in contact between the two cars (nee Raikkonen rear-ending Lewis in La Source). When a driver cuts the corner for whatever reason, the 'speed/distance' effect is negated.

I'm disgusted by this decision. Sadly I wasn't all that suprised either... I wasn't suprised to see it taken to the stewards and I wasn't suprised that yet again they made a clearly wrong decision.

It's getting boring and frustrating and they'll lose both fans and sponsors if they're not careful. The FIA are making a joke out of the whole system and I'm sorry that Hamilton's been caught up in this yet again. He WAS at fault but he conceded as is in keeping with the rules.

I'm disgusted.

hamilton makes a foolish attempt to overtake when it was clear there wasn't enough room... cuts the chicane (according to some a move that disadvantages him :laugh: .. that's why he got in front of kimi! :laugh :) then slows down a bit, goes side by side with kimi... pretends to give the place back, kimi falls for it and goes to the left while "mister fair play" overtakes him again on the right... oh no no no... he didn't gain any advantage from cutting the chicane.. had he stayed behind Kimi he would have been able to drive around Kimi in circles anyway...

he tried to deceive everybody and got caught.

Thats how the rules are played to advantages though. Everyone does it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

2009 Formula One Sporting Regulations, section 16.3, 16.4:

"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. ..."

---

OK, lets start with the definition of “an incident”.

Quote:

---

16) INCIDENTS
16.1 "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.

---

Was a driver forced off track? Y/N

Was a driver prevented from a legitimate overtaking maneuver Y/N

Was a driver impeded during overtaking Y/N

Were 2 drivers involved Y/N

Quote:

---

c) Curves, as well as the approach and exit zones thereof, may be
negotiated by the drivers in any way they wish, within the limits
of the track. Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be
done either on the right or on the left.
However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers such as
premature changes of direction, more than one change of
direction, deliberate crowding of cars towards the inside or the
outside of the curve or any other abnormal change of direction,
are strictly prohibited and shall be penalised, according to the
importance and repetition of the offences, by penalties ranging
from a fi ne to the exclusion from the race. The repetition of
dangerous driving, even involuntary, may result in the exclusion
from the race.

---

I would say that turning into a driver on the inside of a corner when you know he is there thereby forcing him to either crash or go off track is strictly prohibited.

As such, Lewis shouldn’t have had to give the place up BUT HE DID and consequently, relinquished his advantage and momentum to the Ferrari.

He then proceeded to do what he had been threatening and passed him at the next corner by outbreaking Kimi.

So, I ask again. When it’s all stacking up against Kimi, what advantage did Lewis gain.

Momentum?

Last time I checked, slowing down to give the momentum to the car behind was to give up your speed advantage. Unless the rules of physics are re-written by the FIA, then a car needs to be going faster to overtake and therefore have greater momentum.

Or are they pi$$ed because Lewis was driving better in the conditions and outbroke Kimi.

How can outbreaking someone constitute having a speed advantage. Surely we are penalizing him because he was better on the brakes.

Kimi had no answer for Lewis. He was catching him hand over fist and would have nailed him at the chicane if Kimi hadn’t of forced him off track.

He let him past and then outbraked him.

Perhaps the FIA think he just shouldn’t overtake Kimi at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Was a driver forced off track? Y/N

Was a driver prevented from a legitimate overtaking maneuver Y/N

Was a driver impeded during overtaking Y/N

Were 2 drivers involved Y/N



I would say that turning into a driver on the inside of a corner when you know he is there thereby forcing him to either crash or go off track is strictly prohibited.

As such, Lewis shouldn’t have had to give the place up BUT HE DID and consequently, relinquished his advantage and momentum to the Ferrari.

He then proceeded to do what he had been threatening and passed him at the next corner by outbreaking Kimi.

So, I ask again. When it’s all stacking up against Kimi, what advantage did Lewis gain.

Momentum?

Last time I checked, slowing down to give the momentum to the car behind was to give up your speed advantage. Unless the rules of physics are re-written by the FIA, then a car needs to be going faster to overtake and therefore have greater momentum.

Or are they pi$$ed because Lewis was driving better in the conditions and outbroke Kimi.

How can outbreaking someone constitute having a speed advantage. Surely we are penalizing him because he was better on the brakes.

Kimi had no answer for Lewis. He was catching him hand over fist and would have nailed him at the chicane if Kimi hadn’t of forced him off track.

He let him past and then outbraked him.

Perhaps the FIA think he just shouldn’t overtake Kimi at all?

---

What a load of rubbish. Lewis wasn't forced off the road. he went for a gap where that closed up. Simple as that. If Lewis was forced off the track I'm sure he would have said so but he didn't.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yet again you seem to be on a completely different page.....

You shouldn't be comaring Lewis with Kimi because they drove a different line and Lewis cut the corner. You should compare where Lewis ended up compared to where Lewis should have been had he braked and taken the bad line through the corner rather than what he did which gave im good momentum and therefore good track position.

---

Almost every race has an incident where one car cuts a chicane, but nothing comes of it because the driver concedes the position gained, as Lewis did. How do we know the track position a driver would have been in if they had not cut the corner? We don't. But are you saying that every time a driver cuts a chicane then concedes their gained position they haven't gained a little bit of time?

How about at the first few laps of the race when drivers were using the run-off at La Source. They were gaining an advantage by not slowing sufficiently for the hairpin. Yet no one was punished for this. How is this consistent? Even if Lewis gained 0.5 of a second by cutting the chicane, Kimi and Massa would have gained more than this by using the run-off on the opening laps.

The only reason it would seem that Lewis has been punished this time is because he re-passed Kimi at La source. But was this due to what Lewis did at the chicane or because the McLaren is better on the hard tyre, better in the wet and because Lewis is good on the brakes in the wet?

I just think that this is incredibly embarrassing for the sport. Even if the stewards have followed the rules to the word (in which case they chose to ignore half the incidents in the race) the punishment does not fit the crime. How on earth is a 25 second fair? Was 25 seconds gained? Of course not. :down: