here ya go...Quote:
Originally Posted by HereIam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYNAB6xIbx8
Printable View
here ya go...Quote:
Originally Posted by HereIam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYNAB6xIbx8
But, if there was a gravel trap, or rumble strips or a tree etc, then he would have been out :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonieke
isn't that the excuse used against Lewis :D
Ok someone's posted a video. Look at how many corners went past before Kimi overtook Massa. If Lewis had merely left his attacking one corner later I've no doubt he would have overtaken him. I certainly don't see how with the kerb, the grass and the obvious lack of traction (Kimi nearly loses it twice!) how he gained from that incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey T
Knockie. No one said Lewis got the penalty because if there'd been a tree or whatever there he would have retired.
There were plenty of other occasions when the car leading went off at a chicane and maintained position before then. The key thing is the word "leading", since it would be difficult to prove that a driver that was leading had gained an advantage since he already had the advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey T
If I recall, it was the fact that Michael cut the chicane on a couple of laps that was the most contentious issue, as in the thing he should have been punished for.
But, say for the sake of debate, if the stewards at the Hungaroring in 2006 made a mistake, as was the general feeling at the time (not mine) is it not correct for the FIA to have learnt from that mistake and to have acted accordingly at Spa 2008?
Or is that just unreasonable?
Very good point :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Maybe someone earlier was right.....and i don't get it..I really don't get it there's people out there that say what lewis did was worth a penalty..But what Kimi does isn't....Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
why did Lewis and Felipe made it true that corner in a proper way ?...Just like Lewis..Kimi overshot the corner...and instead of hitting the brakes...(as Lewis should have donne at the chicane ..right ?) he went of track..keeping the pace....ending up way closer behind Massa than when he would have braked..loosing speed..but taking the corner in a correct way !
well, MS never allowed PDLR (who had overtaken him using the inside line) track position in front after MS protected his position by cutting the chicane.
LH DID allow KR back in front (after using the escape road to avoid a collision), so Tamburello, your point seems invalid.
because we didn't penalise somebody for doing the wrong thing, now we shoud penalise somebody for trying to do the right thing?
if there is a point at all, it should be that the FIA needs to clarify:
a: exactly what, in future, will be deemed to be redressing such issues.
b: with whom, in such times as these, can a team manager talk to confirm such measures have been met.
c: what precedents should everybody follow? the unpunished actions of a multiple world champion and probably the greatest racing talent who ever lived or the punished actions of the rising star who allowed his opponent to drive back past him while he was returning to the track?
because, if you don't answer the last question (and the rules are still the same as the ones in place in the MS incident), then everybody on the grid will be lost in such circumstances and we'll have another reason to add (aero, engines etc) to explain F1's lack of overtaking.
c:
You sure Pedro was in front? Not according to Ron, he wouldn't have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey T
It seems that Ron Dennis felt on Sunday that Lewis was in front before the corner despite being on the outside -
"I think, first of all, Lewis was ahead at the chicane and he got pushed wide" http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43849
So why should Michael be different?
It would seem, therefore, that even the Mclaren boss would have to say that Michael at the Hungaroring was in front. He certainly was as they entered the breaking zone. He was not the one attempting a pass, that's for sure.
Seems that the FIA are not the only ones who can be tarnished with that brush, eh, Mr Dennis?
You said it, Michael was protecting his position. That means he already had an advantage, namely that he was leading. Please define how you gain an advantage when an advantage is what you already have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey T
Forgive me, but I'm not sure how you can protect a position but not be in front, so your claim doesn't appear valid itself.
Trying to do the right thing is not the same as doing the right thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey T
Had Lewis & Mclaren tried harder, and evidently because they asked the Race Director twice then they must have been in considerable doubt themselves as to if they had tried hard enough, then they wouldn't be in such a situation.
If there are similarities between the Schumi incident and the Lewis incident it is, in my opinion, that both seem fallible to the same failing.
Namely that there are times with both of these talented racers when they should have recognised that the racing had to stop and they should have recognised that more acknowledgement of another driver was required.
In my opinion, Lewis showed Schumi-like disregard for his fellow competitor at Spa. It's almost as if both Schumi & Lewis cannot recognise their own faults and don't see anything outside of their own bubble.
Which I don't think is a bad thing, per se, in a racing driver and despite his dreadful choice in teams and mentors, is the thing I do admire about Lewis.
But, in situations like Spa, it can also be his downfall. Just like, with Michael, it could be his.