Hamilton Stripped of Win - Official

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.