Printable View
I'd like to see that show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Can we have a segment where Eddie Irvine goes up to people with a microphone in hand and asks them that very difficult question What's your ****in' problem?" before he gives them a decent Belfast Kiss?
Of course no-one would care if it were down the field as it wouldn't change a result like this decision has. I believe that Hamilton was going to win whether he offended or not. Absent any technical data available to indicate otherwise he should've been given the benefit of the doubt. If a review later deems an offence had occurred then a penalty would be served at the next race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I don't know about anybody else but my issue is that an in-race penalty has been levied after the race is run and that the penalty then becomes a punishment because of that. A drive-through penalty given after the race is finished is far more severe than one given during a race. A drive-through penalty by its nature leaves the driver with an opportunity to lessen its impact. It is a more severe outcome after the race and becomes punitive in my opinion.
If there is any 'natural justice' in this process then Hamilton will be re-instated as the race winner and a few stewards will return their heads to their nether regions until the next time we need a "hot" thread.Quote:
Lewis may just be the most skilled driver out there and the fastest driver but if he doesn't pull his head out of his own arse and realise that he's special only in the eyes of himself, his dad and his legions of adoring fans then he's going to continue to get penalties like this which he doesn't need to be getting.
Hamilton was trying to pass a great driver in a great car, At worst this was a 'racing' racing incident. Rather than being condemned we should be applauding drivers who are willing and able to drive these cars aggressively AND safely.Quote:
Think about it...... if he'd not crashed into Kimi he'd have had lets say 6 points minimum? Magny Cours when he passed Vettel? Can't remember what position he was in but lets take 25 seconds off his time for the stop and go and he would have another 4 points and Spa he would have another 4 points as well. So that's 14 points that Lewis has lost out on for being a little bit loose in the brain department.
Tear them a new one when they do things that are dangerous but as long as the intent was correct then at most it was a technical error. Any penalty should be considerate of the honestly assessed benefit gained.
Ferrari were well beaten on the day and it might do their brand a great service if they gave the winners trophy to Lewis.
A symbolic gesture I know but a powerful one that would serve to remind everyone that this is a sport.
I'd watch it. :)Quote:
Tell you what if Massa or Kimi win the title over Lewis by anything less than 15 points they should offer the trophy to Lewis on one condition .... he go on the BBC 2 at about 8:55 on a Sunday night and say "I'm a clot and I ruined my championship and I've WON!"
Hey that could be a TV show *strokes chin* :cool:
I believe that Hamilton paid the price for youthful enthusiasm in 2007. If he does lose the championship by 15 points this year then it will simply be an indication that F1 is not quite ready to lose the tag 'circus'.
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
For me, it still goes back to a wet rack and how tough it is to drive in the wet. One takes a path and simply hopes they are not expecting too much from the tires and car, and it will hold the line. If the track were dry, I might have had a different opinion and say there was more justification for the steards opinion.
However, I watched my copy of the race, and listened to Lewis pop off and brag on about his superior car control in the wet and so on. SSOOOO if he be that good, then maybe he really has no excuse and should suffer accordingly. As they say, he made his bed so he should sleep in it.
Q. Was part of Spa that mentally you thought you had done enough to let him past you, but because the Ferrari had no grip it could not get past you?
LH: I don't think he had no grip. We had the same amount of grip.
Q. But he was braking much earlier than you?
LH: Well, that's his driving, that's all. That is how he drives. If you don't have the balls to brake late then that is your problem! At the end of the day, in those situations it is the driver who can feel the grip more and put the car more on the edge. And I know I am great in those conditions. I felt the grip more than him, I knew where to place my car and I did place it in different positions to him and I found the grip.
I suppose that is why LH ended up in the dirt and almost stuck right before Kimi spun again and gave up the lead for the last time....
FM: To be honest, I've given my ideas on this many times about what happened. What's happened is that he took an advantage by cutting the chicane. You can ask other drivers how many overtaking manoeuvres you see there: no overtaking. Going from the last corner to the first corner is such a small straight, so he took an advantage, that's clear, that's my opinion, so it doesn't change.
Q: (Dan Knutson - National Speed Sport News) Could I ask the other four drivers what they thought about that incident and Kimi, and as a follow-up, do you think you and other drivers might be afraid to fight for a position now that you might get a penalty?
GF: I have just seen pictures, so it is difficult for me to say whether what happened was right or not. For sure, maybe, he took a small advantage, that's why he had the possibility, as Felipe said, to overtake him again in braking for turn one. But obviously, a 25s penalty was quite a strong penalty. As for the second question: when we get in the car and we're fighting to overtake a car, we don't think about that. We just try to do our best. Obviously we know if we cut a chicane or we take an advantage we need to back off and give the position back.
SB: Yes, I think the rules are very clear. Maybe the penalty was a bit hard, but I think he's made the same mistake twice: he's done it in Magny-Cours and he's done it again in Spa. I don't really understand why there's been such a mess around it. There's a rule book and everybody has to obey the same thing. The penalty is really rough but in the end it's up to you to give the position back or not. Pretty straightforward.
NR: Yeah, I definitely agree, because he did get an advantage, because he wouldn't have been that close behind Kimi had he not cut the chicane. But then again, I also think the penalty was a bit harsh as that did not have such a big effect on the actual race result in the end.
JT: Well, I agree completely with my colleagues. The penalty was quite big but I'm not a steward and I cannot decide what kind of penalty should be given. But on the other hand, it was very clear that he got an advantage out of it, so that's where it is. The rules are very clear. If you cut the chicane and you get an advantage, you just have to drop back and give back the position and in Lewis's case he shouldn't have attacked straight away at the next corner; that was it. On the other hand, with this new chicane, there is a lot of run-off, it gives you more chance to attack because in the case of a mistake, you wouldn't end up in a wall or in the gravel. If it was the case of Lewis in Spa, he wouldn't have gone much further than that. We have more chances to overtake.
SB: I think it was very clear and I agree as well. You have to be responsible for what you decide to do, and in this particular case, if you do gain an advantage like I said, you just give it back and make sure that you don't expose yourself to penalties. I think it's the easiest way to handle it. In my previous experience, my previous life in the States, it was actually a common thing. The stewards would not take action if you gave the position back, so I think it's only fair.
NR: I agree and I don't think it's going to stop us from trying to attack, definitely.
I have to disagree with my man here - when its dry yes, no overtaking, but it wasnt dry, it was raining. When it rains every corner is an overtaking opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryM
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70480Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
DC has an interesting take on the issue (the emphasis is mine):
So perhaps Hamilton shouldn't have been in a position to be squeezed by the Ferrari in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by DC
What a load of rubbish. If you serve the penalty at the next race then you send the message that drivers can just do this thing and come up with a good pit strategy for the next race and get away with it. If you penalise a driver for the current race then you should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyzars
Ferrari were not beaten on the day. Ferrari played by the rules on that day and finished 2nd to a driver who was deemed to have gained an advantage by cuttin the chicane and they were then given the win. Ferrari or Massa giving back trophies would be hilariously silly.
If there is any natural justice eh? You totally miss the point that the article makes in regards to natural justice my friend. Natural justice doesn't take into account the rules and as they say rules are rules and must be adhered to.
Nobody likes an arrogant so and so.....Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
watch it Whyzars....views on things other than what certain people on here think are not tolerated...before you know....they will call on people to ignore you....or what you say or think is rubbish..a term I rather find disrespectfull.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel