Hamilton Stripped of Win - Official

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