McLaren lose Hamilton appeal

[PSfan]

4th FIA was sure looking after Ferrari's interest when they gave Kimi that stop and go for not having his tires on in time... I would bet the FIA where the only ones that noticed, and could have easily swept it under the rug if they are so set on a Ferrari champion.

The rules in that situation are crystal clear. Either the tyres were on in time or they weren't, and they weren't. Not quite the same as a regulation that is open to interpretation.

I was simply pointing out that if there was such a pro ferrari bias at the fia, they could have held off on the penalty until someone noticed or protested.

5th For those who think the penalty shouldn't have altered the results, what do you do when the race winners car fails inspection and is found underweight or outside the regs in area's that clearly give them an unfair advantage?

Again, you've said it yourself - "area's that clearly give them an unfair advantage". Where the rules are clear there is no room for debate, and there are some FIA regs that are clear. Equally there are many that are not.

I was commenting against those who oppose the 25 sec penalty in favour of a grid penalty for the following race. An infraction that might allow a car to win a race shouldn't result in an a win followed with a grid penalty irregardless of how clear the infraction is (oh and don't believe Hamiltons chicane cutting was any way unclear, whether he gave back the advantage is the murky area here)

How did they make it worse, or make something out of nothing

I said "Charlie Whiting reports incidents to the stewards" and you asked "you know this how" and I presented the facts. What a website makes of the facts is irrelevant. The fact remains that Charlie Whiting reported the incident to the stewards.

So yes, there was enough time from the incident to the time it was announced that it was under investigation for Charlie to write his report and bring it to the stewards because that is what happened.

How did they make it worse? maybe it was their positive spin on it:

************************************************** ********
The court heard the tape of Whiting saying that he believed the move was OK. What does not make sense is that given this attitude Whiting had no reason to write a report to the FIA Stewards, a necessary step in the awarding of penalties.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20791.html
************************************************** ********

As I have stated, I do not believe there was enough time between the incedent and and announcement it was under investigation for Charli to change his mind and "write" a report. After hutting around the web for a few hours, the closest I could find was a blogger that was at the hearing saying the after the call with MAcleran, that Charlie "informed" the stewards about the move.

So what doesn't make sense to grandprix.com, makes sense to me... Mac called Whiting for clarification, Charlie called the Stewards and gave them a heads up, Stwards call for an investigation of the incident where Charlie got a better view of the incident, and changed his opinion of it... a penalty is decided on, and Charlie writes up his report...

The Grandprix.com story makes out like Charlie was two faced, said one thing to MacLeran, hung up the phone and started writing up a report that MacLeran broke the rules... And I don't buy that...

[Tonieke]

I was simply pointing out that if there was such a pro ferrari bias at the fia, they could have held off on the penalty until someone noticed or protested.



I was commenting against those who oppose the 25 sec penalty in favour of a grid penalty for the following race. An infraction that might allow a car to win a race shouldn't result in an a win followed with a grid penalty irregardless of how clear the infraction is (oh and don't believe Hamiltons chicane cutting was any way unclear, whether he gave back the advantage is the murky area here)





How did they make it worse? maybe it was their positive spin on it:

************************************************** ********
The court heard the tape of Whiting saying that he believed the move was OK. What does not make sense is that given this attitude Whiting had no reason to write a report to the FIA Stewards, a necessary step in the awarding of penalties.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20791.html
************************************************** ********

As I have stated, I do not believe there was enough time between the incedent and and announcement it was under investigation for Charli to change his mind and "write" a report. After hutting around the web for a few hours, the closest I could find was a blogger that was at the hearing saying the after the call with MAcleran, that Charlie "informed" the stewards about the move.

So what doesn't make sense to grandprix.com, makes sense to me... Mac called Whiting for clarification, Charlie called the Stewards and gave them a heads up, Stwards call for an investigation of the incident where Charlie got a better view of the incident, and changed his opinion of it... a penalty is decided on, and Charlie writes up his report...

The Grandprix.com story makes out like Charlie was two faced, said one thing to MacLeran, hung up the phone and started writing up a report that MacLeran broke the rules... And I don't buy that...

than why he not told McL right away he thought it was NOT ok..or he was not sure about it...instead of the probably was ok ?

[ArrowsFA1]

The Grandprix.com story makes out like Charlie was two faced, said one thing to MacLeran, hung up the phone and started writing up a report that MacLeran broke the rules... And I don't buy that...

Surely you can understand why people question him saying "ok", and then saying to the stewards "you should look at this"?

We all know CW is not a steward and so he can only give his opinion, but even Max has said the Race Director "should not have answered" McLaren's question.

Perhaps now the teams will not seek out CW in these kind of situations in future, but given that he provides official "clarifications" on many other issues it's difficult to know what the teams should do. The rules are so vaguely worded, and penalties so inconsistent, that there should be an FIA official available and Charlie Whiting has been that man.

[PSfan]

than why he not told McL right away he thought it was NOT ok..or he was not sure about it...instead of the probably was ok ?

Perhaps at the time of the phone call he didn't have the benefit of a replay, perhaps he was givin a description of the events by MacLeran, and decided that it wasn't enough after seeing the replay a couple times...

Surely you can understand why people question him saying "ok", and then saying to the stewards "you should look at this"?

We all know CW is not a steward and so he can only give his opinion, but even Max has said the Race Director "should not have answered" McLaren's question.

Perhaps now the teams will not seek out CW in these kind of situations in future, but given that he provides official "clarifications" on many other issues it's difficult to know what the teams should do. The rules are so vaguely worded, and penalties so inconsistent, that there should be an FIA official available and Charlie Whiting has been that man.

But I don't agree with people questioning Charlie on this... Do know for a fact that Charlie isn't obligated to inform the stewards of any communication he has with the teams? We are assuming he told the stewards to look at the incident when he may have only told him the same thing he told MacLeran, that he believed they where ok. Everyone wants to put the blame of this on everyone but MacLeran, but ultimately if their was enough doubt to question Charlie about it, while Lewis was much faster then Kimi, why take a gamble on someone who doesn't have any say on the penalties anyways, just give back the posistion.