Printable View
Maybe that is the problem: what exactly is "enough"? Where is it defined? F1 drivers are such a competitive breed that they'll only do the bare minimum to comply with the letter of the rules, you can't reasonaly expect them to say "after you".Quote:
Originally Posted by HereIam
Maybe Lewis was greedy, maybe not. But unless you define exactly where the boundries are you can't arbitrarily punish drivers for breaking them.
A cock-up, but they can't rectify it. It's just not allowed. Doesn't make it right, but I'll eat my hat if the result is changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Let me clarify. I think they cocked up with regard to the communication with McLaren.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
IMHO McLaren should have been told "Do what you think is right and if it's all good then no problems and if not then you'll get a penalty". They could have then said to Lewis to drop back a bit more and we wouldn't have this unfortunate situation. Incidents like this should be investigated and the decisions should only be made after the investigations have been concluded. How Charlie could have investigated things between the time lewis went off and the time Lewis overtook Kimi I don't know......
Forgot to mention.... bad news :( My blood is red and I bleed lots when some woman sticks a needle in my arm :pQuote:
Originally Posted by pino
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
This is his car was soooo much better in the conditions that he could have given Kimi another second or so and he still would have won the race comfortably. No one can doubt Lewis' obvious skill when it comes to driving but his decision making skills leave a lot to be desired.
Let us also not forget that this is not Lewis' first indiscretion this year. He passed Vetel and outbraked himself and went over the chicane and not giving the place back and he's rammed Kimi from behind as well. I think someone with a record like this going out of their way to try to show good behaviour and give back the advantage and then some so as not to give the stewards any room to make the decision they did.
Exactly - if they're pushed for space, they will cut across the chicane and then negate that advantage. Why they made the inside of the chicane asphalt and then expect racing drivers not to use it in situations like that is beyond me. In all cases I've seen when watching F1, "negating an advantage" has meant "cleanly conceding the position (ie, the back of the other drivers car is in front of the front of your car) so that the other driver has the optimum line". And I hope the stewards see that the same way as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
But seeing as one of the stewards doesn't even have a background in F1, I am a bit skeptical that he will view that interpretation that way.
If I were in race control for that situation, I would give Hamilton a warning about how that rule can be interpreted. But nothing more.
Don't you think that's a bit hit and miss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
"Do what you think is right"?
They tried that and it didn't work.
Shouldn't the correct procedure in this situation be something like:
1. Car avoids a collission by cutting a chicane and finishes ahead of another car.
2. Car gives back position and continues racing.
3. Team confirm with Race Director that things are now OK.
What should not happen in my opinion is:
4. After confirming that everything is OK, race director initiates investigation into something he has confirmed during the race is OK.
5. Stewards alter outcome of a race retrospectivly.
6. Team appeal and FIA keep everyone in suspense.
I think this underlines a basic requirement for the FIA to have transparent rules and 3 stewards that travel with the circus.Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
I agree it was clumsy :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
As I said I don't feel it should be up to the race director to make a judgement immediately on the spot and say whether it is OK or not. There needs to be an investigation. If you were accused of murder you don't simply ask the office arresting you "am I ok?" and then go and use that in court as proof you didn't do it now do you?. I think McLaren should bear some of the responsibility for the clumsiness of things.
I think it was silly of McLaren to ask "Are we OK?". You should know if it's OK and if it's not or you think that there's a maybe involved you should seek make it obvious that you're relinquishing any advantage that you've gained. The onus is on the team to show they've done nothing wrong in a case like this. Up until the point where Lewis relinquished his place he had committed an offence which was punishable with a drive through penalty or a 25 second penalty if the drive through wasn't taken. I think we all agree on that? and we agree that if he negated the advantage he gained by the fact that he didn't need to brake as early into the chicane as well as the shortcut gained by it then we wouldn't be here. In this situation you should give back what is reasonable and then some and leave it till the corner after the one coming up to attack and no one can complain about it.
I think given Lewis' record this year he should have been going out of his way to make it look like he lost out of that manuever and overtaking Kimi at the end of the straight sure as hell didn't look like losing out to me :)
and that's exactly the point..Nowhere in the rulesbook is described what to do in cases like this...what a driver should do..what the steps are for a team to do..what exactly would eliminate the advantage gained etc... etc...so no penalty should be given either until there is a clear rule about it....Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Like I said before. The regulations aren't exhaustive and simply can't cater for each situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonieke