Hamilton Stripped of Win - Official

[ioan]

to me the superior position is the one being on the ideal racing line...It was actualy Kimi making a block move..staying on the inside line..off the racing line....But also meaning he couldn't take the chicane in the ideal way..pushing the car besides him off the track...

but like you said..it's called racing and this should have been seen as just a racing incident...end of story !

Kimi had the ideal racing line. So he could block the $h!t out of Hamilton if he wanted to.
It was up to Hamilton not to get in a stupid situation, and I'm not sure he managed it right.

[pino]

Setting aside the rights and wrongs of this, what pisses me off as an F1 fan is that a great race has been ruined. Whether the decision is overturned or not the 2008 Belgian GP will be remembered for this and not for the dramatic and exciting last few laps.

Coming into work on Monday morning people are not talking about a great race at one of the great F1 venues, and they should be.


Totally agree with you, still I think FIA made the right decision :)

[ShiftingGears]

If he didn't lift, than he didn't give back the advantage he gained by cutting the chicane, and he is guilty.

If he lifted than he is unguilty.

But why does whether he lifted matter? The advantage he gained was that he passed Raikkonen, which was negated moments later. Regardless of whether he lifted or not.

Unless the stewards are trying to argue that:

If Hamilton braked as early into the chicane as Raikkonen did, and followed Raikkonen through the chicane on the racing line, he would not have been as close to Raikkonen before the braking zone to La Source as he would've if he did what he did - meaning Hamilton gained an unfair advantage.

Which would be a flawed argument. They would be forgetting about why grand prix drivers race, and instead, rely on armchair expertise rather than empathy for the sitation of the drivers in that situation. Seeing a win being taken from a driver because of a petty and contentious argument is disappointing and irritating, not least because it means I have to defend Hamilton :p :




ll have to make the telemetry data public for the appeal anyway.

I did not know this.

[Tonieke]

Kimi had the ideal racing line. So he could block the $h!t out of Hamilton if he wanted to.
It was up to Hamilton not to get in a stupid situation, and I'm not sure he managed it right.

yp he was and yep he could..But by doin so..staying on the inside (right side of the track) he left the ideal line..Lewis staid on the left...on the ideal racing line...in these conditions also meaning Lewis had an advantage in breaking..what explains why he got besides Kimi....

[cosmicpanda]

He meant to say that id there is enough distance between the 2 cars than the following car can, at least in theory, carry a higher speed through the corner and thus have an advantage down the straight.
However when the cars are following each other very very closely like it would have been if Hamilton would have decided not to cut the chicane, then the following car can't go faster than the car in front, not without running over it, and thus it won't have a speed advantage down the following straight.

It sounds, then, as though Hamilton shot himself in the foot anyway by braking too late in the first place.

Personally, I think that to stop these issues in future, the FIA should say that results cannot be changed after the race has finished, and that penalties given after the race should be limited to fines and/or grid position penalties for the next race.

[ioan]

But why does whether he lifted matter?

Because if he didn't lift it means that he clearly obtained an advantage by cutting the chicane, rather than going around it. Just take a look at the trajectories both cars had, and see which one was shorter.



I did not know this.

I doubt that they could support their point without making that.
If they win the appeal than other teams will have the right to ask to see the proof.

[ioan]

yp he was and yep he could..But by doin so..staying on the inside (right side of the track) he left the ideal line..Lewis staid on the left...on the ideal racing line...in these conditions also meaning Lewis had an advantage in breaking..what explains why he got besides Kimi....

No ofense but your post proves that you don't understand racing.
The car that has the apex on a corner has the racing line, not the other one.

[Tonieke]

Because if he didn't lift it means that he clearly obtained an advantage by cutting the chicane, rather than going around it. Just take a look at the trajectories both cars had, and see which one was shorter.



I doubt that they could support their point without making that.
If they win the appeal than other teams will have the right to ask to see the proof.

But seems Kimi's trajectoire was the faster one..otherwise explain why he could pass Lewis on the straight ? so again..what advantage ?

[ioan]

But seems Kimi's trajectoire was the faster one..otherwise explain why he could pass Lewis on the straight ? so again..what advantage ?

I give up on trying.

[SGWilko]

No ofense but your post proves that you don't understand racing.
The car that has the apex on a corner has the racing line, not the other one.

I think it shows you don't quite cut the mustard either...

Lewis, by taking the ouside (and I should imagine more grippy in greasy wet conditions) line, was setting himself up for the inside line at the next corner....

Sadly, he was driven off the road, and had to take avoiding action.

Then we have Kimi doing his best impression of driving home from a heavy session down the pub on the start/finnish straight.....

[Tonieke]

No ofense but your post proves that you don't understand racing.
The car that has the apex on a corner has the racing line, not the other one.

LOL..Oh ya I forgot you have years of racing experience..me sorry ! ;-)

anyway...The apex or clipping point is often used in motorsport, though other racing sports such as skiing and bicycling have similar concepts of an ideal line.

The apex is often but not always, the geometric center of the turn. Hitting the apex allows the vehicle to take the straightest line and maintain the highest speed through that specific corner. It is also the tightest part of a corner


was this the case Ioan ? the ideal way to approach this chicane was from the outside to the inside..not like Kimi did..from the inside to the outside..pushing of Lewis

[Mickey T]

No, the rule states that you can not gain an advantage.

And Hamilton would have never been so close to Kimi, had he not cut the chicane.

on the contrary.

given that kimi forced him off the road, if he hadn't cut the chicane, he'd have been a lot closer to him.

he'd have crashed into him.

i can't see your logic. he was actually alongside him. why do you think he wouldnt' have been so close especially given it was wet and hamilton clearly had more grip in the wet than kimi?

[ShiftingGears]

Because if he didn't lift it means that he clearly obtained an advantage by cutting the chicane, rather than going around it.

What gives? He gained an initial advantage from cutting the chicane, lifting off the throttle or not, but he negated that advantage, intentionally or not.

[ShiftingGears]

LOL..Oh ya I forgot you have years of racing experience..me sorry ! ;-)
was this the case Ioan ? the ideal way to approach this chicane was from the outside to the inside..not like Kimi did..from the inside to the outside..pushing of Lewis


Kimi was driving defensively, as he should've. Whats your point?

[Valve Bounce]

Totally agree with you, still I think FIA made the right decision :)

I'd rather run with ioan here, as he has given what I consider to be the most unbiased view of the whole episode here, and who has said that he would like to see the telemetry and any other evidence before passing judgment.

I didn't watch the race because I was at the footy yesterday where the Cats mauled the Saints, celebrated with Chandon afterwards and was too tired to stay up to watch the race. Today I went to Chadstone and bought myself my Father's Day present. ;)

[Tonieke]

Kimi was driving defensively, as he should've. Whats your point?


my point is..if Lewis would have defended his position as hard as Kimi did...they both would have been out of the race

[Mickey T]

They will have to make the telemetry data public for the appeal anyway.

i can safely predict that, unless there is some presidential intervention, any mclaren appeal will be unsuccessful.

the 25 second penalty is, technically, a belated drive-through penalty.

the F1 rules do not allow any recourse for appeal on a drive-through penalty.

of course, they could add some consistency and charge hamilton a few thousand quid, like they did with massa's potentially life-threatening valencia incident...

[ArrowsFA1]

Lewis, by taking the ouside (and I should imagine more grippy in greasy wet conditions) line, was setting himself up for the inside line at the next corner...
Approaching the chicane Kimi had been slower in the preceding corners. He held the defensive inside line so Lewis had two options: 1) stay behind and follow the Ferrari through or 2) take the outside line in the hope of making a pass. Watching the incident again Kimi does appear to brake earlier than Lewis expected so to an extent the choice was made for him.

The outside of the first part of the chicane became the inside for the second part, but Kimi was in defensive mode again and shut the door, as he was entitled to. The problem for Lewis was he was then left with two options: 1) cut the chicane or 2) risk a collision.

Having cut the chicane Hamilton & his team were aware he may have gained an advantage, so he let Kimi regain the position. A lot has been made of the slipstream, but Lewis was slower across the start/finish line than Kimi. The only advantage Lewis had was that he was better on the brakes than Kimi into La Source.

It seems that is what the stewards penalised him for.

[ioan]

The only advantage Lewis had was that he was better on the brakes than Kimi into La Source.

It seems that is what the stewards penalised him for.

I wouldn't go down that road without having the slightest information about what exactly Hamilton was doing. The stewards have that info, we don't.

Still I'm not happy with how things are handled at this moment.

[ArrowsFA1]

I wouldn't go down that road without having the slightest information about what exactly Hamilton was doing. The stewards have that info, we don't.
No, that's very true :up: It's all just my opinion from what I've seen on tv.

[dwboogityfan]

Ah the good old FIA do it again. It was bad enough Massa not getting any sort of penalty in Valencia - I notice when Bruno Senna did exactly the same thing in the GP2 race on Saturday he was penalised - but this is a ridiculous decision that has spoiled a fantastic race.
Hamilton and Raikkonen both drove brilliantly and I admire Kimi for trying everything to win, but Lewis was just better at the end fair and square. Yes he did cut the chicane (or was forced into cutting the chicane by Kimi) but he did clearly ease off and was able to let Kimi past before repassing him. It was great racing between two great drivers and doesn't deserve to end this way.
I also notice that the FIA have seemingly ignored Kimi passing Hamilton under waived yellow flags for the Rosberg incident...

[ioan]

I read the sporting regulations. Only the penalties are mentioned, in respect to the infractions that are detailed in the Code.

Anyone has access to this sporting Code?
What does it say about cutting the chicane?

I feel that they should make it clear what mean giving up the advantage that might have been gained in such situations. Like giving up the position and not attacking the car in front before the next corner, or something along these lines.

[ioan]

Ah the good old FIA do it again. It was bad enough Massa not getting any sort of penalty in Valencia - I notice when Bruno Senna did exactly the same thing in the GP2 race on Saturday he was penalised - but this is a ridiculous decision that has spoiled a fantastic race.

Could you give up on comparing apples with bannanas, and have some kind of intelligent discussion?

PS: FYI GP2 isn't a FIA sanctioned series, so don't compare it to F1, and leave the FIA out of it.

[I am evil Homer]

I read the sporting regulations. Only the penalties are mentioned, in respect to the infractions that are detailed in the Code.

Anyone has access to this sporting Code?
What does it say about cutting the chicane?

I feel that they should make it clear what mean giving up the advantage that might have been gained in such situations. Like giving up the position and not attacking the car in front before the next corner, or something along these lines.

Well this is the problem...right now this seems like an arbitrary penalty based on individual stewards assessment.

[ArrowsFA1]

I feel that they should make it clear what mean giving up the advantage that might have been gained in such situations. Like giving up the position and not attacking the car in front before the next corner, or something along these lines.
That's exactly the point some of us have been making about FIA regulations. They are worded so as to allow interpretation, and when different interpretations are made by different stewards at different races we get different decisions in similar circumstances. That undermines the credibility of what is supposed to be the pinacle of motorsport.

Following the retirement of the Permanent Steward, Tony-Scott Andrews, the FIA restructured the way the stewards operated at the beginning of this year:


Rather than having a permanent steward operating alongside two designated race stewards - one international and one from the national sporting authority - the FIA has decided to now use three nominated stewards at each event.
Furthermore, the three officials who are chosen for each event will be assisted by FIA president Max Mosley's official representative Alan Donnelly - who it is hoped will manage the decision-making process more efficiently than was seen at times last year.
And in a bid to ensure total impartiality of decisions, the appointed FIA stewards at each race will be chosen from nationalities that are totally neutral - so they are not the same as any of F1's competitors.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64826

[dwboogityfan]

ioan: "Could you give up on comparing apples with bannanas, and have some kind of intelligent discussion?

PS: FYI GP2 isn't a FIA sanctioned series, so don't compare it to F1, and leave the FIA out of it."


I actually think that a debate on the consistency of the sport's governing body is an intelligent discussion and an important discussion for the sporting aspect of our great sport. My main bone of contention is not Massa's lack of a penalty in Valencia but the fact that Lewis has been unfairly (and without knowledge of driving in such tricky conditions) penalised by a bunch of idiots who know nothing about the sport. The serious aspect of this discussion is that none of the three stewards making this decision have ever driven a racing car! How can they understand what is going on?
Also I think that not slowing down for yellow flags is far worse than what Lewis did. What would have happened if Kimi had piled into Rosberg's slow moving car simply because he did not slow down. We have seen in the past 5 place penalties given at the next race so I expect the FIA to do the same with Kimi seeing as though he couldn't be penalised this race. That will never happen though because he drives a Red car...

[Tonieke]

actualy if you look at this pic Lewis was a car ahead before goin into the chicane...so again what advantage he got for cutting the corner ?

http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/113066

[markabilly]

I think the last statement by Easy Drifter was excellent at discussing how the FIA could reach such a conclusion, and if the track were dry, I would probably agree with the FIA as I said before, but as I said before, the track was NOT DRY. Set aside all this talk at favoritism and such, just look at what happenned and one can see some justification for their decision, but given the track was wet, and that there was no permanent advantage gained (as Kimi clearly later got around him) and if Kimi had not spun, would have kept it****. Of course the second spin after the first, is what did in kimi right out of the race.

*****I assume he would have kept it, unless fault was also found with his driving as he was doing his own questionable stuff, resulting in Kimi being penalized.

[V12]

Regardless of whether Hamilton was dealt with harshly, or whether he deserved the penalty, this whole controversy is symptomatic of a greater problem existing with F1 circuits.

In the past, when a driver cut a corner like this, he'd get embedded in gravel or slide along the grass and into the wall, or best case scenario would have been held up and not have gained any advantage at all, whereas now more and more off-track excersions are rewarded (prior to a steward's penalty) rather than being penalised straight away.

Another thing, shortly after this both Kimi and Hamilton deliberately ran wide at a high speed corner to get the extra traction from the tarmac run-off area, very clever on both their parts, but call me old fashioned, if a driver leaves the track, he should face the consequences, and I don't mean an iffy, open-to-interpretation stewards decision.

[Tonieke]

what does this pics tells you ? one can clearly see Lewis was in front of Kimi goin into the chicane...

http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/113052

[Garry Walker]

what does this pics tells you ? one can clearly see Lewis was in front of Kimi goin into the chicane...

http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/113052

Irrelevant.



It is right that Hamilton is punished, he broke the rules, but to lose the win over this? Idiotic decision.

[Tonieke]

Irrelevant.



It is right that Hamilton is punished, he broke the rules, but to lose the win over this? Idiotic decision.

irrelevant ? well he got punished for taking advantage..this pic tells me he was in front of Kimi goin into the chicane and was behind him coming out of it..He actualy lost instead of gained advantage in all this...

[555-04Q2]

:s hock: I cant believe that 8 people on the poll believe the decision is acceptable :s hock:

[Garry Walker]

irrelevant ? well he got punished for taking advantage..this pic tells me he was in front of Kimi goin into the chicane and was behind him coming out of it..He actualy lost instead of gained advantage in all this...
This is childish logic.

At the middle of the chicane, he had the option - whether to brake and stay a little bit behind Kimi and go through the chicane properly (kimi had taken the room from him), or just cut the chicane and lose less time. He chose the latter one, but it gave him an unfair advantage. Onboard camera showed how easily he could have done the first thing, but he chose the latter to lose less time.

That said, it is a comedy to take the win from him over this.

[Tonieke]

This is childish logic.

At the middle of the chicane, he had the option - whether to brake and stay a little bit behind Kimi and go through the chicane properly (kimi had taken the room from him), or just cut the chicane and lose less time. He chose the latter one, but it gave him an unfair advantage. Onboard camera showed how easily he could have done the first thing, but he chose the latter to lose less time.

That said, it is a comedy to take the win from him over this.

why should it be Lewis giving in and not Kimi...again..Lewis (as the pic shows) was in front of Kimi goin into the chicane..why did kimi not backed off and let Lewis by ? on the defensive line Kimi was he never could make the corner in a proper way anyway...

[ShiftingGears]

why should it be Lewis giving in and not Kimi...again..Lewis (as the pic shows) was in front of Kimi goin into the chicane..why did kimi not backed off and let Lewis by ? on the defensive line Kimi was he never could make the corner in a proper way anyway...

Kimi had the racing line. Obviously.

[Daniel]

the video posted here from onboard..goin into the chicane...One can clearly see Lewis was way faster on the approach of it..Kimi saw Lewis was goin to make an attempt to pass him an staid on the right...Due to this blocking move of Kimi he couldn't make the first part of the chicane in a propre way..look at where his car is positioned coming out of the first part of the chicane..than look at the position of any car taking the chicane in a "normal" way..having Lewis besides him he just not left any room for Lewis leaving him no other choise than to cut of the chicane to avoid an accident...

also the other video...Like others said..You have to see the data...I persoanly am not an expert to tell from this video Lewis was goin at full speed or not...anyway..just like in so many incidents in the past...Lewis let Kimi pass by again...normal racing incident one would say..end of story...

face 3...Lewis being back in the position from before the chicane...behind Kimi...Kimi passing Lewis on the straight line meaning Lewis was slower...also meaning the cutting of the chicane didn't gave him any advantage...anyway Lewis was able again to break way later than Kimi..and moves back into 1st spot..although..and again..why is this never mentioned by the marchals for dangerous driving ?...Kimi tried to take him out by aiming for his right rear tire...

Kimi tried to take Lewis out? Huh? If there was contact it was very minor. As they say "rubbin' is racin'" but crashing into people on purpose recklessly and causing damage is dangerous and should be penalised. Kimi wasn't reckless....

You just don't get it. Lewis may have been slightly in front but this is a moot point considering he had to go off road. It's like the pass he got penalised for earlier this year. He passed the car and then went off the road. You can't simply pass a car and then fail to take a corner.

I do wonder if Lewis' bad record this year has something to do with the zero tolerance that the stewards have shown in this case. I do think that having the penalty applied after the race was the right thing to do in this case because Lewis and McLaren have the right to appeal and if the ruling is overturned then Lewis will have his race win back. If the drive through was done during the race there would be no way for them to get back the time Lewis would have lost.

[Daniel]

why should it be Lewis giving in and not Kimi...again..Lewis (as the pic shows) was in front of Kimi goin into the chicane..why did kimi not backed off and let Lewis by ? on the defensive line Kimi was he never could make the corner in a proper way anyway...

This is racing. These guys aren't driving on the road where it's nice to be courteous, this is a racing track and good manners and being courteous doesn't apply. Lewis has quite rightly done the same thing to other drivers and he would have done the same thing if he'd had the opportunity to.

[Tonieke]

Kimi tried to take Lewis out? Huh? If there was contact it was very minor. As they say "rubbin' is racin'" but crashing into people on purpose recklessly and causing damage is dangerous and should be penalised. Kimi wasn't reckless....

You just don't get it. Lewis may have been slightly in front but this is a moot point considering he had to go off road. It's like the pass he got penalised for earlier this year. He passed the car and then went off the road. You can't simply pass a car and then fail to take a corner.

I do wonder if Lewis' bad record this year has something to do with the zero tolerance that the stewards have shown in this case. I do think that having the penalty applied after the race was the right thing to do in this case because Lewis and McLaren have the right to appeal and if the ruling is overturned then Lewis will have his race win back. If the drive through was done during the race there would be no way for them to get back the time Lewis would have lost.

if you check the follow up of them pics one can clearly see Lewis could make the corner but got pushed off the track by Kimi...

[ioan]

Well this is the problem...right now this seems like an arbitrary penalty based on individual stewards assessment.

Don't jump to conclusions so easily.
Did you read the sporting code, I didn't cause I did not find it.
However the penalty is not arbitrary, it's the exact penalty that is prescribed in the sporting regulation, paragraph 16.3.

As for criticizing the stewards, I have no data to contradict them.

Still I don't like the way it was done. A 10 place grid penalty would have been a cleaner cut, if indeed he is guilty.

[Tonieke]

This is racing. These guys aren't driving on the road where it's nice to be courteous, this is a racing track and good manners and being courteous doesn't apply. Lewis has quite rightly done the same thing to other drivers and he would have done the same thing if he'd had the opportunity to.

well ya you say it right...This is racing...this is a racing accident like they happen in every race..in whatever category/series.....and as long as the driver who cut the corner let the other driver go by again..never was made a problem of it..Until yesterday !

[Daniel]

if you check the follow up of them pics one can clearly see Lewis could make the corner but got pushed off the track by Kimi...

Kimi had the racing line. Kimi didn't need to let Lewis in......

[Donney]

What a stupid decision!!!!

[ioan]

Also I think that not slowing down for yellow flags is far worse than what Lewis did. What would have happened if Kimi had piled into Rosberg's slow moving car simply because he did not slow down. We have seen in the past 5 place penalties given at the next race so I expect the FIA to do the same with Kimi seeing as though he couldn't be penalised this race. That will never happen though because he drives a Red car...

You have no proof whatsoever that Kimi didn't slow down, or that Lewis didn't slow down even more in the process thus making Kimi pass him.
There is no proof to your allegations.

[ioan]

Regardless of whether Hamilton was dealt with harshly, or whether he deserved the penalty, this whole controversy is symptomatic of a greater problem existing with F1 circuits.

In the past, when a driver cut a corner like this, he'd get embedded in gravel or slide along the grass and into the wall, or best case scenario would have been held up and not have gained any advantage at all, whereas now more and more off-track excersions are rewarded (prior to a steward's penalty) rather than being penalised straight away.

Another thing, shortly after this both Kimi and Hamilton deliberately ran wide at a high speed corner to get the extra traction from the tarmac run-off area, very clever on both their parts, but call me old fashioned, if a driver leaves the track, he should face the consequences, and I don't mean an iffy, open-to-interpretation stewards decision.

Good points. :up:

[Daniel]

well ya you say it right...This is racing...this is a racing accident like they happen in every race..in whatever category/series.....and as long as the driver who cut the corner let the other driver go by again..never was made a problem of it..Until yesterday !
The thing is in addition to position there's also this thing called "time".

On a proper track without these silly tarmac runoff areas Lewis would have broken his car or lost a lot of time. Perhaps the track is somewhat to blame but it seems that the stewards took issue with the fact that Lewis failed to make the corner and simply thought that giving the position back was sufficient when a driver who leaves the track due to his own actions should be penalised in regards to time and not just position. If Lewis had simply braked rather than doing what he did he would have had Kimi later anyway.....

[ArrowsFA1]

This may have already been said but...Given that the penalty imposed was a drive-thu penalty McLaren's appeal may be rejected before it is heard.

Hamilton was given a 25s time penalty because there was no time to serve a drive-thru. Normally, having served a drive-thru, a driver has no opportunity to appeal because the penalty is immediate and final.

[ioan]

what does this pics tells you ? one can clearly see Lewis was in front of Kimi goin into the chicane...

http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo.php/id/113052

Bollocks! The chicane is to their right and so Kimi is closer to it and thus in front of Hamilton.

Look at a picture taken .5 seconds later and you will see who was in front in that chicane.

Picking a picture at the only moment that advantages your POV is not enough to proof whatsoever f you ignore the rest of the process.

[Knock-on]

I just feel pretty depressed about all this.

There is a certain innevitability about it all. There is a obvious agenda at work and we all know it.

If anyone disputes this, before replying, can you provide a list of all incidents at Spa and tell me what the outcome by the stewards was?

We all know this is BS. I feel equally sorry for the Ferrari fans that are embarrassed by this as they have been equally let down. It must be horrible to know that you will win an undeserved championship in this manner.

It now looks like the FIA will refuse to hear the appeal and I have just re-read the sporting regulations concerning penalties and they have no justification for not hearing it.

However, if they do hear the appeal, they will have to reverse it or face international condemnation again. How much longer can this happen?

Hamilton could have made the corner but Kimi would have crashed into the side of him in the process. He had the inside line but Kimi was in no mood to compromise so Lewis avoided the accident.

Lewis came out ahead and lifted off so he was going SLOWER than Kimi who passed him.

Seeing as they were nose to gearbox before the corner, alongside in the corner and back to nose to gearbox after Lewis had lifted, I don't see what advantage he gained.

Can anyone tell me.

Perhaps he should have given him a 5 second head start? However, he would still have been penalised because it wasn't 10 seconds, or 20 or whatever Massa needed to get past.

For the people voting this was justified, please tell me what advantage Lewis gained?

[Tonieke]

The thing is in addition to position there's also this thing called "time".

On a proper track without these silly tarmac runoff areas Lewis would have broken his car or lost a lot of time. Perhaps the track is somewhat to blame but it seems that the stewards took issue with the fact that Lewis failed to make the corner and simply thought that giving the position back was sufficient when a driver who leaves the track due to his own actions should be penalised in regards to time and not just position. If Lewis had simply braked rather than doing what he did he would have had Kimi later anyway.....

ok..each his own opinion...But I am interested to hear your thoughts about this situation...at the next corner...Kimi also is clearly of track....on the green...and hits Lewis in the back...and as I mentioned earlier..to me with the intention to take Lewis out...Why the Stewards not made a point of that ?

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/8550/kimilewissk9.jpg

[ioan]

:s hock: I cant believe that 8 people on the poll believe the decision is acceptable :s hock:

I had the same reaction.
I believe that they think that the penalty is correct, which may be the right stance.
But still the way it is being dealt is the wrong one IMO.

[MrJan]

This is just about to become another Groundhog Thread isn't it? ;) :rolleyes:

[ioan]

if you check the follow up of them pics one can clearly see Lewis could make the corner but got pushed off the track by Kimi...

Do you try, a very little tiny bit at least, to be objective? I doubt it.

[ShiftingGears]

ok..each his own opinion...But I am interested to hear your thoughts about this situation...at the next corner...Kimi also is clearly of track....on the green...and hits Lewis in the back...and as I mentioned earlier..to me with the intention to take Lewis out...Why the Stewards not made a point of that ?

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/8550/kimilewissk9.jpg

Because its not against the regulations?...

[Tonieke]

Because its not against the regulations?...

so what Bourdais did at the start was also ok to you ? don't think he got a punishment either or ?

[Tonieke]

Do you try, a very little tiny bit at least, to be objective? I doubt it.

trying my very best Ioan...But the ones defending Kimi in this should be to..I mean..one the one hand Lewis should have hit the breakes and when one asks why Kimi not did so..it suddenly is racing and no prisoners are taken..I mean ?

[Daniel]

ok..each his own opinion...But I am interested to hear your thoughts about this situation...at the next corner...Kimi also is clearly of track....on the green...and hits Lewis in the back...and as I mentioned earlier..to me with the intention to take Lewis out...Why the Stewards not made a point of that ?

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/8550/kimilewissk9.jpg

Because there's nothing wrong with it. Cars are allowed to touch and as long as there is no clear malice or recklessness in the move then it's allowed. If you start talking about no contact between cars then you will totally kill racing off. Kimi was clearly hoping Lewis would drift out wide leaving a gap for him to come through. It didn't happen and Kimi backed out of it and possibly had a slight touch on the back of Lewis' car. Nothing to complain about there. I've yet to see any footage which shows the cars actually touching there.

[ShiftingGears]

so what Bourdais did at the start was also ok to you ? don't think he got a punishment either or ?

That was reckless.

Contact will be penalised if its reckless or malicious, and Raikkonen v Hamilton was neither. Therefore, no penalty.

[CNR]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article4700155.ece?openComment=true

McLaren may discover their appeal will be inadmissable



Hamilton certainly obeyed the letter of the law, but in his haste to attack did he not allow, as one observer put it in a heated paddock afterwards, “adrenalin to triumph over the rulebook?” The British ace allowed Raikkonen to pass him but almost instantaneously went back on the offensive in his McLaren Mercedes and it was debatable whether or not Raikkonen had fully recovered his position and his advantage before Hamilton made his next move.
The rules do not go into detail about how an advantage can be deemed to have been recovered or reestablished and the stewards are thus left to interpret what they see on the television footage, combined with the representations of the drivers and the teams. It is is perhaps this subjective element that leaves an uneasy feeling and it is not hard to sympathise with Hamilton and McLaren, who believed that they had not breached the racing code.
But, equally, anyone who saw the skirmish and the replays will have felt an instinctive moment of alarm at the way Hamilton drove, albeit in the heat of the moment. They might recognise, too, that the stewards had a difficult decision to make,

[Tonieke]

Because there's nothing wrong with it. Cars are allowed to touch and as long as there is no clear malice or recklessness in the move then it's allowed. If you start talking about no contact between cars then you will totally kill racing off. Kimi was clearly hoping Lewis would drift out wide leaving a gap for him to come through. It didn't happen and Kimi backed out of it and possibly had a slight touch on the back of Lewis' car. Nothing to complain about there. I've yet to see any footage which shows the cars actually touching there.

haha ok Daniel..let me see...Lewis clearly hoped Kimi would leave him space..But he didn't..so instead of hitting the breaks hard..eventualy causing a dangerous situation..he choose for the safest option..cutting the corner..letting Kimi pass again after that..Nothing to complain about here either or ?

[Daniel]

so what Bourdais did at the start was also ok to you ? don't think he got a punishment either or ?

If there was a penalty every time there was contact there would be no overtaking for fear of contact.This sort of thing always happens at the first turn....

[BDunnell]

This is just about to become another Groundhog Thread isn't it? ;) :rolleyes:

Could be! I also think that there isn't nearly enough pointless reference to Adelaide 1994 in the thread...

My view on the incident? Kimi did nothing wrong. Lewis did nothing wrong. It was great racing and brilliant to see drivers really having a go, whether at passing or defending, and doing so aggressively. The stewards have made a big mistake in applying a penalty.

British Touring Car racing is hardly known as a bastion of fair rules and high driving standards, but F1 could take a leaf out of its book in this instance. I can think of two recent incidents in the BTCC where someone has passed another driver 'illegally' but unavoidably, once under yellow flags and once by cutting a chicane. In both instances, the person who made the move backed off and let the other guy past again, and that was the end of the matter. It should be like that in F1. The penalties applied for cutting the Hockenheim chicanes were another case in point. It was very easy for drivers to be forced to cut across the chicanes.

[MrJan]

trying my very best Ioan...But the ones defending Kimi in this should be to..I mean..one the one hand Lewis should have hit the breakes and when one asks why Kimi not did so..it suddenly is racing and no prisoners are taken..I mean ?

Sadly youy are arguing the wrong point. Lewis was the one attacking and Kimi was in front so had the right to the racing line. LH realised that they couldn't both make the corner without touching so he had to either brake or cut the chicane. THe real question is if the time that he gave back to Kimi still meant that he had an advantage. It's fairly obvious that Lewis would probably have been about a car length back if they had come out of the corner properly so you could say that he did gain advantage.

The issue that I have with the decision is that it seems particularly harsh for a tiny gain in time. We;'ve often seen drivers skip across corners and gain a few tenths but not be penalised. Also if McLaren did in fact consult Charlie Whiting then it seems even more ridiculous.

In essence thought the FIA have just applied the law to the very letter, something that they rarely seem to do which is what makes it controversial.

[Daniel]

haha ok Daniel..let me see...Lewis clearly hoped Kimi would leave him space..But he didn't..so instead of hitting the breaks hard..eventualy causing a dangerous situation..he choose for the safest option..cutting the corner..letting Kimi pass again after that..Nothing to complain about here either or ?

Lewis clearly knew Kimi wouldn't give him the room. i'll be honest I've no problem with Lewis cutting the corner. It was the only sane thing to do. But he didn't give the position back cleanly and made a net gain out of it all. No driver should gain out of going off the track

[Tonieke]

If there was a penalty every time there was contact there would be no overtaking for fear of contact.This sort of thing always happens at the first turn....

ok imagine..last race..Lewis leads by 1 point in the championship.....he pushes of Massa in the first corner..that's ok 2 for you ? as to you...those things always seems to happen in the first corner ?

[Daniel]

ok imagine..last race..Lewis leads by 1 point in the championship.....he pushes of Massa in the first corner..that's ok 2 for you ? as to you...those things always seems to happen in the first corner ?

As long as he doesn't do it on purpose the objective person would say yes it's OK.

Why should someone fighting for the title have less rights than a backmarker?

[ShiftingGears]

ok imagine..last race..Lewis leads by 1 point in the championship.....he pushes of Massa in the first corner..that's ok 2 for you ? as to you...those things always seems to happen in the first corner ?

Clearly if it was reckless or malicious it would be penalised.

[wedge]

At the middle of the chicane, he had the option - whether to brake and stay a little bit behind Kimi and go through the chicane properly (kimi had taken the room from him), or just cut the chicane and lose less time. He chose the latter one, but it gave him an unfair advantage. Onboard camera showed how easily he could have done the first thing, but he chose the latter to lose less time.

Disagree with you there. At that point Kimi and Lewis were still wheel to wheel and had Lewis slowed down contact would've been inevitable - LH's RF/KR's RR - because Kimi quite rightly would not give Lewis an inch, just as he did to Massa earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpqlEg19NK0


You just don't get it. Lewis may have been slightly in front but this is a moot point considering he had to go off road. It's like the pass he got penalised for earlier this year. He passed the car and then went off the road. You can't simply pass a car and then fail to take a corner.

I do wonder if Lewis' bad record this year has something to do with the zero tolerance that the stewards have shown in this case. I do think that having the penalty applied after the race was the right thing to do in this case because Lewis and McLaren have the right to appeal and if the ruling is overturned then Lewis will have his race win back. If the drive through was done during the race there would be no way for them to get back the time Lewis would have lost.

IMHO you're comparing apples and oranges.

Based on onboard footage (shame the CCTV evidence wasn't made public?) Magny Cours Lewis took too much speed into the Nurburgring chicane whereas at Spa he was fighting for position in which Kimi gave nothing away, in the same way Lewis 'pushed' Piquet and Massa off the track at Hockenheim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joX_AatwoF8&feature=related

The problem with being pushed wide at a chicane is that you have little choice but to cut the second part of the corner.


In the past, when a driver cut a corner like this, he'd get embedded in gravel or slide along the grass and into the wall, or best case scenario would have been held up and not have gained any advantage at all, whereas now more and more off-track excersions are rewarded (prior to a steward's penalty) rather than being penalised straight away.

Blame that on the GPDA. Call them pussies or down to sporting ethics but they don't like it when smooth asphalt is ruined by gravel and assorted crap.

I think it was Kubica at last year's Malaysian GP where he had an off and proceed to clear out his sidepods on the racing line!


Another thing, shortly after this both Kimi and Hamilton deliberately ran wide at a high speed corner to get the extra traction from the tarmac run-off area, very clever on both their parts, but call me old fashioned, if a driver leaves the track, he should face the consequences, and I don't mean an iffy, open-to-interpretation stewards decision.

I remember Jason Plato did exactly the same thing a few years ago at Copse/Silverstone throughout the qualifying session and got away with it that time. I think BTCC have clamped down on it now.

[Tonieke]

He clearly said that if it was reckless or malicious it would be penalised.


and who's goin to decide if it was or not ?

To me Bourdais action was reckless...and could have turned out way worse if Trulli hitted Massa's car in the incident !

[Tonieke]

Sadly youy are arguing the wrong point. Lewis was the one attacking and Kimi was in front so had the right to the racing line. LH realised that they couldn't both make the corner without touching so he had to either brake or cut the chicane. THe real question is if the time that he gave back to Kimi still meant that he had an advantage. It's fairly obvious that Lewis would probably have been about a car length back if they had come out of the corner properly so you could say that he did gain advantage.

The issue that I have with the decision is that it seems particularly harsh for a tiny gain in time. We;'ve often seen drivers skip across corners and gain a few tenths but not be penalised. Also if McLaren did in fact consult Charlie Whiting then it seems even more ridiculous.

In essence thought the FIA have just applied the law to the very letter, something that they rarely seem to do which is what makes it controversial.

would probably have been you say ? is that enough evidence for you to punish somone in this matter ?

[ArrowsFA1]

...he didn't give the position back cleanly and made a net gain out of it all. No driver should gain out of going off the track
What's your definition of "give the position back cleanly"?

[ioan]

haha ok Daniel..let me see...Lewis clearly hoped Kimi would leave him space..But he didn't..so instead of hitting the breaks hard..eventualy causing a dangerous situation..he choose for the safest option..cutting the corner..letting Kimi pass again after that..Nothing to complain about here either or ?

Braking at a mere 100 kph in a F1 car isn't dangerous.

[Daniel]

IMHO you're comparing apples and oranges.

Based on onboard footage (shame the CCTV evidence wasn't made public?) Magny Cours Lewis took too much speed into the Nurburgring chicane whereas at Spa he was fighting for position in which Kimi gave nothing away, in the same way Lewis 'pushed' Piquet and Massa off the track at Hockenheim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joX_AatwoF8&feature=related

The problem with being pushed wide at a chicane is that you have little choice but to cut the second part of the corner.

Of course I'm not saying Lewis shouldn't have cut the chicane. It was the only sensible option. It's Lewis' driving after the cut that is being debated here.

[ShiftingGears]

What's your definition of "give the position back cleanly"?

Definitely not this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM

Incidentally, no penalty was handed out.

[BDunnell]

I remember Jason Plato did exactly the same thing a few years ago at Copse/Silverstone throughout the qualifying session and got away with it that time. I think BTCC have clamped down on it now.

Didn't it used to be the case that going over a white line just outside the outside kerbing at Paddock Hill Bend too many times at Brands Hatch was deemed worthy of a penalty?

[Tonieke]

Braking at a mere 100 kph in a F1 car isn't dangerous.

it was geting wet and they where still on slicks..so to me it would have been a dangerous move...but again...each his own opinion !

[Knock-on]

Definitely not this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM

Incidentally, no penalty was handed out.

And if I remember rightly, he did it 2 or 3 times.

For the people that think the FIA are fair to McLaren, can you tell me why Ferrari was not penalised for this and yet Lewis, who only crossed the chicane to avoid Kimi, backed off, gave about a clear cars length advantage to Kimi and then done him on braking, should be penalised.

If it were the other way around, how would you react?

[Bagwan]

Shifter has it right .
He said basically the same as I , way back in the early pages of this thread , but did a much better (or , at least longer winded) job of explaining it .

He should have left his passing for the hillside .

[Viktory]

Definitely not this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM

Incidentally, no penalty was handed out.

Forogt about this. There shouldn't have been a penalty, even though I can see why people are arguing for it.

[bontebempo]

its all VERY simple.

LH got a good exit out of cutting the chicane so yes, let Kimi go. But had the perfect run to overtake again. If he followed him on circuit Kimi would have got the power down before LH and got away a bit. Basically LH cheated.

And the fact he said 'thats what im talking about' after the 'win' means he should be disqualified from monza!

[ioan]

Definitely not this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM

Incidentally, no penalty was handed out.

So if PDLR has a go at you and touches your car in the process you will have to yield your position?
Can you show me where did PDLR get the position ? he managed to get up to MS height, but was on the wrong line for the next turn, so he ran into the Ferrari.
Pedro might consider himself lucky he didn't get a penalty for that barging! :D

[Daniel]

What's your definition of "give the position back cleanly"?


What's your definition of "give the position back cleanly"?

Depends who is asking.

If it's Knock On then I don't think a McLaren can ever give position back cleanly and the driver should be shot because I'm biased like that :)

For anyone else who wants to listen I'd say it depends on the situation. If Lewis had braked and followed Kimi through the corner he would have been significantly further behind than he ended up after he cut the chicane. But of course the difficulty is in quantifying that sort of thing. but Lewis wasn't going to be getting the power down nearly as well as Kimi considering the entry he would have had to the corner.

[wedge]

Didn't it used to be the case that going over a white line just outside the outside kerbing at Paddock Hill Bend too many times at Brands Hatch was deemed worthy of a penalty?

Good one!

The officials were saying they were going to come down hard on drivers crossing the white line. Nearly everyone was doing and the officials gave up!

[BDunnell]

Good one!

The officials were saying they were going to come down hard on drivers crossing the white line. Nearly everyone was doing and the officials gave up!

Rather like the marker posts on the chicanes at Donington and Knockhill!

But we digress...

[Knock-on]

Rather like the marker posts on the chicanes at Donington and Knockhill!

But we digress...

Or cresting at Knockhill by Railway :laugh:

Couple of years ago, the Marshalls were getting really pi$$ed with the Seats :D

No doubt about it, they were doing it on purpose. I could practically see them aiming at them as they were replaced.

Anyway, back to the disgraceful way that F1 is governed.

[Tonieke]

Depends who is asking.

If it's Knock On then I don't think a McLaren can ever give position back cleanly and the driver should be shot because I'm biased like that :)

For anyone else who wants to listen I'd say it depends on the situation. If Lewis had braked and followed Kimi through the corner he would have been significantly further behind than he ended up after he cut the chicane. But of course the difficulty is in quantifying that sort of thing. but Lewis wasn't going to be getting the power down nearly as well as Kimi considering the entry he would have had to the corner.

ok ok...But how can the stuwards justify there decision if it's only based on if's and when's ? when they say he took advantage ? what's it based on ?

and I still don't understand there's people on here saying he had a better momentum by cutting the chicane..when there's Kimi...coming from behind Lewis and passing him on the straight line ! But than I have been told I know nadah about motorsport ! *rolls eyes*

[Daniel]

ok ok...But how can the stuwards justify there decision if it's only based on if's and when's ? when they say he took advantage ? what's it based on ?

and I still don't understand there's people on here saying he had a better momentum by cutting the chicane..when there's Kimi...coming from behind Lewis and passing him on the straight line ! But than I have been told I know nadah about motorsport ! *rolls eyes*

Yes he let Kimi through. There's no doubt about that. But IF he had gone through the corner on the line he was on he would not have got the same amount of drive out of the corner. Unless you want to argue with the laws of physics you must surely agree with that.

[ioan]

ok ok...But how can the stuwards justify there decision if it's only based on if's and when's ? when they say he took advantage ? what's it based on ?

Based on the data submitted by the teams.
Or did you think that the stewards decided it by watching the same images that we saw?

[ArrowsFA1]

Yes he let Kimi through. There's no doubt about that. But IF he had gone through the corner on the line he was on he would not have got the same amount of drive out of the corner.
So if Lewis had more momentum by cutting the chicane, what happened to that momentum when he slowed to let Kimi back through?

[Tonieke]

Yes he let Kimi through. There's no doubt about that. But IF he had gone through the corner on the line he was on he would not have got the same amount of drive out of the corner. Unless you want to argue with the laws of physics you must surely agree with that.

how can you be so sure about that when one could clearly see for a couple of laps already Lewis had a way better grip on a track that was getting wet...Closing the gap in no time !

so my question still stands..what exactly is the stewards decission based on when they say he took advantage ?

[Daniel]

So if Lewis had more momentum by cutting the chicane, what happened to that momentum when he slowed to let Kimi back through?

Momentum isn't the issue. Track position is. If Lewis had gone through the corner there is no way he would have been that close to Kimi. Lewis' car may have been hooked up in those conditions but it wasn't that hooked up.

[Tonieke]

Based on the data submitted by the teams.
Or did you think that the stewards decided it by watching the same images that we saw?


well ya that's what I think...And I saw Kimi accelerating better out of the chicane than Lewis did....Passing him on the straight...they not even had to check data for that..if they already did !

[ArrowsFA1]

Momentum isn't the issue. Track position is.
Really? I thought Hamilton received a penalty because he "cut the chicane and gained an advantage" (link (http://www.autosport.com/gallery/photo-large.php/dir/2008bel4/image/l__o9t3970-3)). Why would that help? Because of the shortcut and better momentum.

Had he not slowed and given back the position then he would have gained an advantage.

[Valve Bounce]

I do think that having the penalty applied after the race was the right thing to do in this case because Lewis and McLaren have the right to appeal and if the ruling is overturned then Lewis will have his race win back. If the drive through was done during the race there would be no way for them to get back the time Lewis would have lost.

:up:

Very good point there!!

[Daniel]

well ya that's what I think...And I saw Kimi accelerating better out of the chicane than Lewis did....Passing him on the straight...they not even had to check data for that..if they already did !

Yet again you seem to be on a completely different page.....

You shouldn't be comaring Lewis with Kimi because they drove a different line and Lewis cut the corner. You should compare where Lewis ended up compared to where Lewis should have been had he braked and taken the bad line through the corner rather than what he did which gave im good momentum and therefore good track position.

[Tonieke]

Yet again you seem to be on a completely different page.....

You shouldn't be comaring Lewis with Kimi because they drove a different line and Lewis cut the corner. You should compare where Lewis ended up compared to where Lewis should have been had he braked and taken the bad line through the corner rather than what he did which gave im good momentum and therefore good track position.

who knows what would have happend if and when...Maybe Lewis would even came out better getting back behind Kimi instead of cutting the corner...seeing his car had a way better grip than Kimi's on a wetter track..But we will never know...

And I keep repeating myself..what's the decission of the stewards based on ? just these what and if's ?

[Daniel]

who knows what would have happend if and when...Maybe Lewis would even came out better getting back behind Kimi instead of cutting the corner...seeing his car had a way better grip than Kimi's on a wetter track..But we will never know...

And I keep repeating myself..what's the decission of the stewards based on ? just these what and if's ?

Thing is slightly better grip doesn't compensate for being on the totally wrong line.

Perhaps Lewis would have done that but there is no evidence to say so.

Thing is he didn't do it and he went of the track and when you go off the track you should be disadvantaged and not gain from it as Lewis did.

[schmenke]

Where does the 25 sec penalty come from? Who dreamt the penalty up? Why not a fine? Questions, questions?

2009 Formula One Sporting Regulations, section 16.3, 16.4:

"16.3 The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident:

a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping ;
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
c) a drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.

However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.

16.4 Should the stewards decide to impose either of the penalties under Article 16.3a) or b), the following procedure will be followed:

a) The stewards will give written notification of the penalty which has been imposed to the competitor concerned and will ensure that this information is also displayed on the timing monitors.
b) From the time the stewards’ decision is notified on the timing monitors the relevant driver may cover no more than three complete laps before entering the pit lane and, in the case of a penalty under Article 16.3b), proceeding to his garage where he shall remain for the period of the time penalty. ..."

[Daniel]

From what Schmenke has shown the penalty applied is perfectly correct and suitable. I'm sure the stewards will show that Lewis gained and then there can be no more aguing :)

[dwf1]

Big news. I've just watched the final few laps......Nick Heidfeld should win the Belgian GP. As lewis and Massa go on to the final lap, Massa obviously cuts the chicane (You can tell this from the line he takes in the background out of the final chicane!!) This means he got an advantage by cutting the chicane instead of hitting the wall even if it was a mistake. I mean if he had hit the wall or spun he could have been out so thats gaining an advantage is it not???

[Tonieke]

From what Schmenke has shown the penalty applied is perfectly correct and suitable. I'm sure the stewards will show that Lewis gained and then there can be no more aguing :)


yep also look forward to see what evidence they come up with that justifies this penalty ! ;-)

[CNR]

Do not forget that the stewards have tv feeds from paytv (race cams)and a lot of other in car telemetry

kimi has a camera facing backwards remember the shots of the loose muffler.

[Tonieke]

Do not forget that the stewards have tv feeds from paytv (race cams)and a lot of other in car telemetry

kimi has a camera facing backwards remember the shots of the loose muffler.

ya also something I still wonder about why they not called him in...to have it removed from the car...

[Shifter]

Without disagreeing with the general intent of your post, I was wondering about this paragraph.

My understanding of the 'concertina effect' is that it is the bunching of the field through slow corners, and the spreading out of the field on straights. It happens because when two cars travelling at a low speed are separated by, say, .3s, there is a much smaller distance between them than when they are both travelling at a high speed. Am I wrong? What were you talking about when you said:

"If the gap is zero (as it was with Lewis still alongside), the concertina effect occurs and there is no speed advantage relative to distance."

I would also like to know what you mean by "speed advantage relative to distance." It sounds like an intriguing concept that I haven't heard of before.

Well, what I basically was trying to get at was that I have never seen a driver follow another closely through a corner get any kind of 'run' on the driver they want to overtake (save for long straights like on Monza). When I drive simulators or listen to the pro's talk, they talk about dropping back to create a distance gap, and through the use of good timing go through a corner faster than the driver in front and use the speed advantage to overtake. There can be no speed advantage when a driver is following closely, because any speed advantage would result in contact between the two cars (nee Raikkonen rear-ending Lewis in La Source). When a driver cuts the corner for whatever reason, the 'speed/distance' effect is negated.

[slinkster]

I'm disgusted by this decision. Sadly I wasn't all that suprised either... I wasn't suprised to see it taken to the stewards and I wasn't suprised that yet again they made a clearly wrong decision.

It's getting boring and frustrating and they'll lose both fans and sponsors if they're not careful. The FIA are making a joke out of the whole system and I'm sorry that Hamilton's been caught up in this yet again. He WAS at fault but he conceded as is in keeping with the rules.

I'm disgusted.

[Big Ben]

hamilton makes a foolish attempt to overtake when it was clear there wasn't enough room... cuts the chicane (according to some a move that disadvantages him :laugh: .. that's why he got in front of kimi! :laugh :) then slows down a bit, goes side by side with kimi... pretends to give the place back, kimi falls for it and goes to the left while "mister fair play" overtakes him again on the right... oh no no no... he didn't gain any advantage from cutting the chicane.. had he stayed behind Kimi he would have been able to drive around Kimi in circles anyway...

he tried to deceive everybody and got caught.

[dwf1]

Thats how the rules are played to advantages though. Everyone does it

[Knock-on]

2009 Formula One Sporting Regulations, section 16.3, 16.4:

"16.3 The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident:

a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping ;
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
c) a drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.

However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.

16.4 Should the stewards decide to impose either of the penalties under Article 16.3a) or b), the following procedure will be followed:

a) The stewards will give written notification of the penalty which has been imposed to the competitor concerned and will ensure that this information is also displayed on the timing monitors.
b) From the time the stewards’ decision is notified on the timing monitors the relevant driver may cover no more than three complete laps before entering the pit lane and, in the case of a penalty under Article 16.3b), proceeding to his garage where he shall remain for the period of the time penalty. ..."

OK, lets start with the definition of “an incident”.


16) INCIDENTS
16.1 "Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to the race director for investigation) which :
- necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41 ;
- constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code ;
- caused a false start by one or more cars ;
- caused a collision ;
- forced a driver off the track ;
- illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver ;
- illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.
Unless it was completely clear that a driver was in breach of any of the above, any incidents involving more than one car will normally be investigated after the race.

Was a driver forced off track? Y/N

Was a driver prevented from a legitimate overtaking maneuver Y/N

Was a driver impeded during overtaking Y/N

Were 2 drivers involved Y/N


c) Curves, as well as the approach and exit zones thereof, may be
negotiated by the drivers in any way they wish, within the limits
of the track. Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be
done either on the right or on the left.
However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers such as
premature changes of direction, more than one change of
direction, deliberate crowding of cars towards the inside or the
outside of the curve or any other abnormal change of direction,
are strictly prohibited and shall be penalised, according to the
importance and repetition of the offences, by penalties ranging
from a fi ne to the exclusion from the race. The repetition of
dangerous driving, even involuntary, may result in the exclusion
from the race.

I would say that turning into a driver on the inside of a corner when you know he is there thereby forcing him to either crash or go off track is strictly prohibited.

As such, Lewis shouldn’t have had to give the place up BUT HE DID and consequently, relinquished his advantage and momentum to the Ferrari.

He then proceeded to do what he had been threatening and passed him at the next corner by outbreaking Kimi.

So, I ask again. When it’s all stacking up against Kimi, what advantage did Lewis gain.

Momentum?

Last time I checked, slowing down to give the momentum to the car behind was to give up your speed advantage. Unless the rules of physics are re-written by the FIA, then a car needs to be going faster to overtake and therefore have greater momentum.

Or are they pi$$ed because Lewis was driving better in the conditions and outbroke Kimi.

How can outbreaking someone constitute having a speed advantage. Surely we are penalizing him because he was better on the brakes.

Kimi had no answer for Lewis. He was catching him hand over fist and would have nailed him at the chicane if Kimi hadn’t of forced him off track.

He let him past and then outbraked him.

Perhaps the FIA think he just shouldn’t overtake Kimi at all?

[Daniel]

Was a driver forced off track? Y/N

Was a driver prevented from a legitimate overtaking maneuver Y/N

Was a driver impeded during overtaking Y/N

Were 2 drivers involved Y/N



I would say that turning into a driver on the inside of a corner when you know he is there thereby forcing him to either crash or go off track is strictly prohibited.

As such, Lewis shouldn’t have had to give the place up BUT HE DID and consequently, relinquished his advantage and momentum to the Ferrari.

He then proceeded to do what he had been threatening and passed him at the next corner by outbreaking Kimi.

So, I ask again. When it’s all stacking up against Kimi, what advantage did Lewis gain.

Momentum?

Last time I checked, slowing down to give the momentum to the car behind was to give up your speed advantage. Unless the rules of physics are re-written by the FIA, then a car needs to be going faster to overtake and therefore have greater momentum.

Or are they pi$$ed because Lewis was driving better in the conditions and outbroke Kimi.

How can outbreaking someone constitute having a speed advantage. Surely we are penalizing him because he was better on the brakes.

Kimi had no answer for Lewis. He was catching him hand over fist and would have nailed him at the chicane if Kimi hadn’t of forced him off track.

He let him past and then outbraked him.

Perhaps the FIA think he just shouldn’t overtake Kimi at all?

What a load of rubbish. Lewis wasn't forced off the road. he went for a gap where that closed up. Simple as that. If Lewis was forced off the track I'm sure he would have said so but he didn't.......

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Yet again you seem to be on a completely different page.....

You shouldn't be comaring Lewis with Kimi because they drove a different line and Lewis cut the corner. You should compare where Lewis ended up compared to where Lewis should have been had he braked and taken the bad line through the corner rather than what he did which gave im good momentum and therefore good track position.

Almost every race has an incident where one car cuts a chicane, but nothing comes of it because the driver concedes the position gained, as Lewis did. How do we know the track position a driver would have been in if they had not cut the corner? We don't. But are you saying that every time a driver cuts a chicane then concedes their gained position they haven't gained a little bit of time?

How about at the first few laps of the race when drivers were using the run-off at La Source. They were gaining an advantage by not slowing sufficiently for the hairpin. Yet no one was punished for this. How is this consistent? Even if Lewis gained 0.5 of a second by cutting the chicane, Kimi and Massa would have gained more than this by using the run-off on the opening laps.

The only reason it would seem that Lewis has been punished this time is because he re-passed Kimi at La source. But was this due to what Lewis did at the chicane or because the McLaren is better on the hard tyre, better in the wet and because Lewis is good on the brakes in the wet?

I just think that this is incredibly embarrassing for the sport. Even if the stewards have followed the rules to the word (in which case they chose to ignore half the incidents in the race) the punishment does not fit the crime. How on earth is a 25 second fair? Was 25 seconds gained? Of course not. :down:

[wedge]

What a load of rubbish. Lewis wasn't forced off the road. he went for a gap where that closed up. Simple as that. If Lewis was forced off the track I'm sure he would have said so but he didn't.......

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70405


Q. Talk us through that passing incident at the last chicane when you let Kimi past but then passed him again?

LH: Yeah, I mean to be honest he pushed me wide. I was a little bit ahead and I was on the outside of turn one. He could have been fair as I had no room. He pushed me to the point where I would either have been on the kerb and crashed into him or have to go on the escape route, so I went on the escape route. I understood I had to let him past, so I did. I got in his tow and he was ducking and diving left and right and I did the same and managed to get back to the inside of him. But then he hit me at the apex of the corner but I think I was pretty much gone from there which was good.

[Knock-on]

Big news. I've just watched the final few laps......Nick Heidfeld should win the Belgian GP. As lewis and Massa go on to the final lap, Massa obviously cuts the chicane (You can tell this from the line he takes in the background out of the final chicane!!) This means he got an advantage by cutting the chicane instead of hitting the wall even if it was a mistake. I mean if he had hit the wall or spun he could have been out so thats gaining an advantage is it not???

:laugh:

Do you think the FIA will consider it?

Does the Pope s**t in the woods ;)

[Tonieke]

What a load of rubbish. Lewis wasn't forced off the road. he went for a gap where that closed up. Simple as that. If Lewis was forced off the track I'm sure he would have said so but he didn't.......

he actualy did Daniel

***When the heavens opened, Kimi was a little cautious under braking and I was able to get really close. When I had a look around the outside at the chicane, we almost had an accident, and I needed to steer left to avoid him.***

[Daniel]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70405

OK I take that part back. Be that as it may Kimi is under no obligation to gift Lewis the place. The person passing has to make the pass stick and Lewis didn't.

Tonieke.... Lewis has to make the pass.....simple as that.

[555-04Q2]

14 people on the poll now say it is justified :s hock: Blood hell :(

Hamilton gained an advantage by cutting the chicane. He then followed the rules and rightly allowed Kimi to retake the position. He then legally overtakes Kimi at the next corner. I dont see what problem the stewards found.

Stupid penalty :down:

[N. Jones]

He went off. You can't just make a mistake, go off on the grass and then let the other car by when it suits you.

If Lewis has made the corner and slipstreamed Kimi and made the pass it would have been fine of course. But the thing is he didn't make the corner and he went off and gained a place and then gave it back at his leisure. If you go off there should be a disadvantage and you can't simply let the other car by when it's convenient for you and have a net gain out of the whole thing.

If you look at the incident again you'll see that Lewis made a gain out of the whole thing.

Now that I think of it this is Lewis' second offence for the same thing and although he let Kimi though he might as well not have considering how he did it and I'm actually thinking perhaps he does deserve it.

That is my question, Lewis was right on his wheel after relinquishing the lead. Is that legit or does he have to give the person a small lead before he attempts to retake the position.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

OK I take that part back. Be that as it may Kimi is under no obligation to gift Lewis the place. The person passing has to make the pass stick and Lewis didn't.

Tonieke.... Lewis has to make the pass.....simple as that.

Well he did, at the hairpin. But did he only manage to pass at the hairpin because he cut the chicane? Maybe, but did he go off at the chicane because of Kimi? Maybe.

Too many unanswerable questions and too many seconds penalties.

[Tonieke]

OK I take that part back. Be that as it may Kimi is under no obligation to gift Lewis the place. The person passing has to make the pass stick and Lewis didn't.

Tonieke.... Lewis has to make the pass.....simple as that.

I am no longer goin to discuss this..well just end with the words of Lauda..and I think he's in a way better position that any of us to give his thoughts about this "incident"

***But Lauda, the great Austrian driver, spoke on behalf of much of the wider international paddock population.

"This is the worst judgment in the history of F1," he slammed. "The most perverted judgment I have ever seen.

"It's absolutely unacceptable when three functionaries (the stewards) influence the championship like this," Lauda added***

[Bagwan]

OK, lets start with the definition of “an incident”.



Was a driver forced off track? Y/N

Was a driver prevented from a legitimate overtaking maneuver Y/N

Was a driver impeded during overtaking Y/N

Were 2 drivers involved Y/N



I would say that turning into a driver on the inside of a corner when you know he is there thereby forcing him to either crash or go off track is strictly prohibited.

As such, Lewis shouldn’t have had to give the place up BUT HE DID and consequently, relinquished his advantage and momentum to the Ferrari.

He then proceeded to do what he had been threatening and passed him at the next corner by outbreaking Kimi.

So, I ask again. When it’s all stacking up against Kimi, what advantage did Lewis gain.

Momentum?

Last time I checked, slowing down to give the momentum to the car behind was to give up your speed advantage. Unless the rules of physics are re-written by the FIA, then a car needs to be going faster to overtake and therefore have greater momentum.

Or are they pi$$ed because Lewis was driving better in the conditions and outbroke Kimi.

How can outbreaking someone constitute having a speed advantage. Surely we are penalizing him because he was better on the brakes.

Kimi had no answer for Lewis. He was catching him hand over fist and would have nailed him at the chicane if Kimi hadn’t of forced him off track.

He let him past and then outbraked him.

Perhaps the FIA think he just shouldn’t overtake Kimi at all?

Knock , Lewis or anyone else for that matter , needed to be even with Kimi to assert himself in that chicane . He was not , as , although having braked later , in a position to do so .
He only got a nose in , and as we've seen countless times , he had to make the move to avoid a collision .

You could either say Lewis didn't brake late enough , or that Kimi used his late enough to preclude the move , but , either way , he was unable to pull it off .
I would think that , had there been a wall there , Lewis might have reacted differently , and if we imagine there was , and him backing out slightly earlier , it becomes easy to see , with the short run to La Source , he would still have been trailing the Ferrari out of that hairpin .
He would not have , by virtue of having to follow the Ferrari through the corner , been able to apply the power as early as Kimi .

Simple physics , my friend .
Though he slowed to let the red car through , that dropped him perfectly in the slipstream , set for taking the inside for the hairpin .

If he had braked early , and taken a wider line , he might have been able to get him or at least be close enough to slipstream down the main straight , having negotiated a tighter line out of the second half of the chicane .

It is too bad , because Lewis drove a great race .

I would think a counter-protest would be in order , if McLaren believe that the whole issue was with what Kimi did at the chicane .
But Kimi isn't under investigation .

And , Lewis should have waited for the hill .

[schmenke]

The sport relies on stewards who have little or no experience in motor racing to pass judgement on racing incidents based on visual interpretations of video replays (do they have access to telemetry?).

Until this practice changes we will continue to have the outcome of races, indeed championships, decided in this manner.

[Whyzars]

Well, I hate to say this, but in order to make sure the champagne and trophies don't end up in the wrong hands at the end of a race, then they would almost have to postpone the celebrations 3 hours every race to make sure the cars adhere to the rules after every race before declaring winners.

I think it is reasonable to expect any decision that affects the outcome of a race to be made within 10 minutes of the chequered flag. Its not rocket science and quite incredible that there are not guidelines to that effect in place.

If the stewards can't make a decision based on immediately available evidence such as video footage then they should not levy a penalty that affects a race result.

I realise that gambling is not a primary consideration for F1 management but sport betting is a reality and the stewards should be aware that their decisions are under scrutiny because of it. I don't care if Lewis is penalised at the next race but I do care when the current race result appears to be arbitrarily altered.



Look at the bright side, how often does a result change after the podium celebration? when was the last time (Prior to this weekends race) that it happened? I prefer this to Nascars taking a way points and fining drivers/teams/crewchiefs for cars that won a race that was way outside the rules.

(They have taken away points in this instance, many many points.)

You are correct in saying that it doesn't happen in F1 very often which is why I am of the opinion that the stewards have made a balls up of this incident. They appear to have levied this penalty without really thinking it through.

There is a LOT of money being traded on F1 races and anyone who backed Lewis is probably justified in questioning the decision.



Originally I thought it didn't make sense to strip a driver of a win on what was arguably a close call, but the more I look at the replays, the less close it looks to me...


My personal belief is that the decision to award the race is made when the trophies are handed out and I honestly believe that taking back the trophy once its awarded is a shameful practice. I would also say that levying a penalty that only affects a points finisher is frankly ridiculous. :crazy:

It would be nice to think that any decision to change the result of a race is dealt with openly and expeditiously - I don't believe that either has occurred in this case yet. Just my opinion of course...

:)

[Daniel]

Well he did, at the hairpin. But did he only manage to pass at the hairpin because he cut the chicane? Maybe, but did he go off at the chicane because of Kimi? Maybe.

Too many unanswerable questions and too many seconds penalties.

Of course Kimi was very much part of the reason why he went off. But why should Kimi have yielded to a car that was not on the racing line and was not far enough in front to push Kimi wide? There have been a couple of times this year I'ev thought Lewis has been a bit ruthless with regards to the amount of space he's given other drivers but that's racing.....

[pits4me]

This certainly puts a damper on what I thought was a brilliant last lap given the conditions. Its begining to sound like Ferrari has the stewards in their pocket. FIA has it in for McLaren.

There were several cars taking excursions in that section. I guess stewards were oblivious to the conditions as well. This is a farse.

[ArrowsFA1]

And , Lewis should have waited for the hill .
But why? AFAIK there is no rule about how long a driver in Hamilton's situation has to wait before attempting a pass again. He allowed Kimi to recover the position as he is required to do and according to Charlie Whiting, an FIA official, that was fine.

The fact that Lewis was better on the brakes into La Source should not be a punishable offence IMHO.

Still, we will see 1) if the FIA allow an appeal to go ahead and 2) what the outcome of any appeal is.

[Tonieke]

I know I know..i said I would stop about it...But well...just watch this video from last season... Massa's pass at the end ? Did he get punished ? he not even gave back the position...


http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/10104/900/

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Of course Kimi was very much part of the reason why he went off. But why should Kimi have yielded to a car that was not on the racing line and was not far enough in front to push Kimi wide? There have been a couple of times this year I'ev thought Lewis has been a bit ruthless with regards to the amount of space he's given other drivers but that's racing.....

But 25 seconds????? Do you seriously think that is justified?

[Knock-on]

Of course Kimi was very much part of the reason why he went off. But why should Kimi have yielded to a car that was not on the racing line and was not far enough in front to push Kimi wide? There have been a couple of times this year I'ev thought Lewis has been a bit ruthless with regards to the amount of space he's given other drivers but that's racing.....

I actually agree with you.

The reason I posted the rules (which you are correct in saying that they are rubbish) is to prove the injustice of this all.

I like racing and have no problem with what Kimi done in closing the door. If they were wheel to wheel, then he would have to give him room but their wheels were interlocked instead.

Kimi closed the door and Lewis bailed to avoid an accident. Forget that if there was a barrier there, or a gravel trap or a inflaterable dildo then he wouldn't have gone for it because there wasn't. He had a punt, it didn't come off and good driving all round not to bend 2 cars.

Are we agreed at this point and disagree with the FIA rules?

So, Lewis bailed but made the pass.

If he hadn't given it back, he would have been bang to rights but HE DID.

When he let Kimi past, there was about a cars length between them until he outbraked into the next corner.

Can anyone tell me what advantage being in the slipstream has on Braking? None! Infact, the opposite. It cuts downforce in the dirty air and is one of the big problems in F1.

Come on Daniel. It's BS and you know it.

Look at the rules. There is nothing Lewis has done wrong and solid evidence against Kimi.

Now, I think they fought a great race and deserve applause for the spectacle they gave us. Not penalties and this cr4p.

[Knock-on]

I know I know..i said I would stop about it...But well...just watch this video from last season... Massa's pass at the end ? Did he get punished ? he not even gave back the position...


http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/10104/900/

Not really much to say. :(

We know it's a fit up but as per normal, there is nothing that can be done as it's a corrupt governing body that favours Ferrari and penalises McLaren for the smallest reason. In fact, they have gone past using reason and are making things up.

Anyone seen "Escape to Victory"

[Sleeper]

I dont know if this has already been posted but :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70rXr2Mkq_M

Here is proof that Hamilton did not slow down one bit after cutting that chicane. Just watch and listen, the evidence is clear.

Besides : The race stewards are able to view the telemetry after the race. It's not exactly hard to see if Hamilton did or did not lift his foot from the gas pedal now is it?
Now thats twisting the facts, did you actually listen to the engine note at all? Hamilton is clearly no where near full throtle coming out of that chicane, as can be heard from how slowly the revs are rising compared to normal, and for a couple dozen meters afterwards as well. You can also see just how crap that Ferrari is on the brakes.

Hamiltons a racer, by no means does he have to let his opponent get clean away, and as far as I know the rules only mention "gaining an advantage" which is quite obviously open to a wide variety of interpritations.

according to Charlie Whiting, an FIA official, that was fine.

Charlie Whiting is the FIA Technical director. He is not a race steward.

You might as well say that your granny said it was fine. It makes no effing difference.

But, once again, you look at everything except the actual fact.

Yesterday once again restored my faith in the FIA as the only people suitable to run Formula One. If it wasn't for them, the typical bully-boy deceit and dishonest non-integrity based tactics of Ron Dennis's team would whitewash everything just as they have done the reactionary English media.

Not really much to say. :(

We know it's a fit up but as per normal, there is nothing that can be done as it's a corrupt governing body that favours Ferrari and penalises McLaren for the smallest reason. In fact, they have gone past using reason and are making things up.

Anyone seen "Escape to Victory"

Fact is Mclaren, once again, were correctly punished.

[dwf1]

last time a result was changed was Brazil when Fisi won and Kimi was handed the trophy

[Viktory]

I know I know..i said I would stop about it...But well...just watch this video from last season... Massa's pass at the end ? Did he get punished ? he not even gave back the position...


http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/10104/900/

Kubica is coming back on to the track from just having been off it and forces massa to avoid him by cutting across. Not really a similar situation.

[schmenke]

But why? AFAIK there is no rule about how long a driver in Hamilton's situation has to wait before attempting a pass again. He allowed Kimi to recover the position as he is required to do ...

Relinquishing a position does not reverse the application of the regulation.

Hamilton could have relinquished positions until the cows came home. The penalty is still valid.

What is questionable is the consistency with which the regulation is applied.

[Knock-on]

Kubica is coming back on to the track from just having been off it and forces massa to avoid him by cutting across. Not really a similar situation.

I think you mean that 4 to 6 seconds, Massa goes off track to maintain a position and after 10 seconds pushes the BMW off the track but Robert maintains his position.

Then Massa gets past after Robert loses momentum by being pushed off track and at 25 seconds, Robert does exactly the same as Massa did by pushing him off.

At 30 seconds, Massa rejoins after retaking the position by going off track and keeps it.

Did Massa get the position by gaining an advantage off track? Pretty obvious really.

[Tonieke]

Kubica is coming back on to the track from just having been off it and forces massa to avoid him by cutting across. Not really a similar situation.


oooh ok LOL..Massa also could have backed of as been said Lewis should have donne not ?..and waited for the straight line to pass Kubica Not ? But nop he took big advantage getting way of the track keeping his momemtum..But ya it's a ferrari..it's not the same situation..I got it now !

[Viktory]

No point trying to discuss this.

[Daniel]

I think you mean that 4 to 6 seconds, Massa goes off track to maintain a position and after 10 seconds pushes the BMW off the track but Robert maintains his position.

Then Massa gets past after Robert loses momentum by being pushed off track and at 25 seconds, Robert does exactly the same as Massa did by pushing him off.

At 30 seconds, Massa rejoins after retaking the position by going off track and keeps it.

Did Massa get the position by gaining an advantage off track? Pretty obvious really.

Huh? Don't tell him what he's saying. He's saying that at the start of the video that Kubica has had an off and pushed Massa off. By your logic Kubica deserves the penalty. You can't have your cake and eat it mate. Don't tell people what they're saying. It's EXTREMELY rude.

[Viktory]

Huh? Don't tell him what he's saying. He's saying that at the start of the video that Kubica has had an off and pushed Massa off. By your logic Kubica deserves the penalty. You can't have your cake and eat it mate. Don't tell people what they're saying. It's EXTREMELY rude.

Thanks, that's what I meant.

[Roamy]

Huh? Don't tell him what he's saying. He's saying that at the start of the video that Kubica has had an off and pushed Massa off. By your logic Kubica deserves the penalty. You can't have your cake and eat it mate. Don't tell people what they're saying. It's EXTREMELY rude.

What good is it to have cake if you can't eat it?????

[Tonieke]

No point trying to discuss this.

Viktory..that last Massa pass is exactly the same situation as yesterday..kubica on the inside..to some that's the racingline so I have been told..so he can defend his position..massa tries to pass him on the outside but Kubica leaves him no room...So like some also told me on here that's whats racing is all about....he (Massa) should have backed off and waited for another opportunaty to make a pass..but nop..massa kept pushing goin way of track to keep his speed and make the pass ? taking a serious advantage by doin so...

[Knock-on]

Huh? Don't tell him what he's saying. He's saying that at the start of the video that Kubica has had an off and pushed Massa off. By your logic Kubica deserves the penalty. You can't have your cake and eat it mate. Don't tell people what they're saying. It's EXTREMELY rude.

If you haven't gathered by now Daniel, I don't give a flying feck what you think but please feel free to bestow such pearls of wisdom as you see fit.

:p

Now, back to subject.

Not only has a 3 time WDC said this is the worst decision in the history of F1 but now Schumacher comes out against it.


Sep.8 (GMM) Ralf Schumacher, a winner of six grands prix who left formula one at the end of last year, has sided with those who believe FIA officials were wrong to strip Lewis Hamilton of his Belgian grand prix victory. The German, whose elder brother Michael won five world championships with Ferrari, believes the Spa-Francorchamps episode is yet another piece of evidence that the Italian team is favoured by formula one's ruling body.

"Lewis deserved to win but it was taken away," Schumacher, who now races in the German touring car series DTM, wrote in the German newspaper Bild. "To me, it was fair overtaking," he added.

Ralf, 33, said the 2008 championship fight has entered a "crucial phase".

"In my experience, Ferrari has always had priority in formula one, which we have seen in many situations," he insisted.

In the German-speaking world, Schumacher is certainly not a lone voice, with the former triple world champion Niki Lauda on Monday dramatically denouncing the stewards' decision as the worst "in the history of F1".

Of course, it's only Ralf so what does he know ;)

[pino]

Of course, it's only Ralf so what does he know ;)

Right, is the opinion of the "real" Schumacher that counts :p :

[Viktory]

Viktory..that last Massa pass is exactly the same situation as yesterday..kubica on the inside..to some that's the racingline so I have been told..so he can defend his position..massa tries to pass him on the outside but Kubica leaves him no room...So like some also told me on here that's whats racing is all about....he (Massa) should have backed off and waited for another opportunaty to make a pass..but nop..massa kept pushing goin way of track to keep his speed and make the pass ? taking a serious advantage by doin so...

Yeah well. I have already stated that, after being reminded of the schumi pedro situation in hungary '06 that there shouldn't have been a penalty for Lewis.
Kubica gains the same amount of advantage when pushed off the track by Massa earlier in the lap (Kubica pushed Massa off the track at the end) thus they pretty much made a punishment meaningless as both would have recieved the same one.

[hmmm - donuts]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/09/06/beware-chicanery-at-monza/

Regards

[Mickey T]

Definitely not this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM

Incidentally, no penalty was handed out.

yeah, but you're comparing apples and oranges.

schumacher clearly breached the rules here (i'd love to see even tamburello and ioan argue that he didn't), gained an advantage by cutting the circuit and didn't get punished.

three quarters of observers on this forum believe hamilton didn't breach the rules and he got punished.

that's because hamilton slowed to allow kimi past - and by a full car length - before he attacked again.

it's the same sporting code we're talking about and the same rulebook by at least one of the same stewards.

my best guess, based on years of racing experience, would be that any telemetry would confirm the visuals, and would prove that kimi braked significantly earlier than hamilton.

did hamilton gain an advantage, that seems to be the only question. have a look at how close he was all the way along the increasingly wet back straight, then look at how close he was again at the start-finish line.

it seems that, if anything, there's more distance between the two cars at the start-finish line.

where's that advantage, then?

[Tonieke]

Yeah well. I have already stated that, after being reminded of the schumi pedro situation in hungary '06 that there shouldn't have been a penalty for Lewis.
Kubica gains the same amount of advantage when pushed off the track by Massa earlier in the lap (Kubica pushed Massa off the track at the end) thus they pretty much made a punishment meaningless as both would have recieved the same one.

meaningless ? well if they also where given a 25 sec penalty or a drive true....would that not have influenced the race ?

[Knock-on]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/09/06/beware-chicanery-at-monza/

Regards


The problem is that when Ferrari do it, then the rules are changed to accomodate them.

When McLaren do it, they cede the position back just in case and still get penalised.

:laugh:

[Shifter]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/09/06/beware-chicanery-at-monza/

Regards

Nice find!!

Here's hoping that speed bumps (a la Monaco) are installed on every chicane and we'll let the bumps sort all this out for us. Although I can just hear the GPDA howling in horror at the thought.

Had this been a street circuit with no runoff room we would be saying Hamilton got too aggressive and smacked the barrier trying to overtake Raikkonen.

[BDunnell]

I genuinely don't believe that there is any bias evident towards Ferrari at all. Do we always have to either be biased or accuse others of it in spite of a lack of evidence?

However, I get the feeling that some here would only be happy if Hamilton had allowed Raikkonen to remain ahead of him until the flag.

[Daniel]

it seems that, if anything, there's more distance between the two cars at the start-finish line.

where's that advantage, then?

It's called the concertina effect.....

[Knock-on]

I genuinely don't believe that there is any bias evident towards Ferrari at all. Do we always have to either be biased or accuse others of it in spite of a lack of evidence?

However, I get the feeling that some here would only be happy if Hamilton had allowed Raikkonen to remain ahead of him until the flag.

You may not Ben but plenty of others do.

Ralf is someone that may know better than us?

[Mickey T]

It's called the concertina effect.....

done much racing daniel?

more than, say, niki lauda?

[Knock-on]

It's called the concertina effect.....

So, if he would have left more of a gap, he would have got more of an advantage?

:confused:

Your arguement makes no sense.

[jens]

In France Lewis didn't give position back to Vettel and was penalized with a drive through (and we were discussing here whether it was right or wrong). Now he gives position back and gets even a harsher penalty... (well, a drive through certainly doesn't last for 25 secs) - already in this there is no logic.

Hamilton is the first driver ever to get penalized despite giving rival's position back. :p :

Rewatch the battle between Massa and Kubica at Fuji last year. Both drivers were forced to take a shortcut several times, but kept fighting and passing each other in almost every corner. There are a lot more cases like that - none of them have been penalized. This is what is especially unlogical in punishing Hamilton. Oh well...

And then we complain there is lack of overtaking in F1. Position defender is allowed to do anything (wave ahead and push the other car off the track), attacker however...

[Daniel]

So, if he would have left more of a gap, he would have got more of an advantage?

:confused:

Your arguement makes no sense.
Stop telling people what they're saying......

You know that's not what I'm saying at all. Stop trolling for a remark from me. I'm wise to you and the ways in which you work :)

[Daniel]

I genuinely don't believe that there is any bias evident towards Ferrari at all. Do we always have to either be biased or accuse others of it in spite of a lack of evidence?

However, I get the feeling that some here would only be happy if Hamilton had allowed Raikkonen to remain ahead of him until the flag.

Very true. We could rattle off countless arguments as to why the FIA are biased against/towards all of the teams if we wanted to. Hamilton getting picked up out of the kitty litter and put back on the track last year is clear evidence that the FIA are entirely biased towards McLaren :p

I've never seen bias at all either, just bad decisions.

[BDunnell]

You may not Ben but plenty of others do.

Ralf is someone that may know better than us?

If he is willing to provide some hard evidence of pro-Ferrari bias rather than a vague suggestion of it, then I will believe it. Until then, I won't.

[BDunnell]

Very true. We could rattle off countless arguments as to why the FIA are biased against/towards all of the teams if we wanted to. Hamilton getting picked up out of the kitty litter and put back on the track last year is clear evidence that the FIA are entirely biased towards McLaren :p

I've never seen bias at all either, just bad decisions.

Exactly. :up:

[BDunnell]

In France Lewis didn't give position back to Vettel and was penalized with a drive through (and we were discussing here whether it was right or wrong). Now he gives position back and gets even a harsher penalty... (well, a drive through certainly doesn't last for 25 secs) - already in this there is no logic.

Hamilton is the first driver ever to get penalized despite giving rival's position back. :p :

Rewatch the battle between Massa and Kubica at Fuji last year. Both drivers were forced to take a shortcut several times, but kept fighting and passing each other in almost every corner. There are a lot more cases like that - none of them have been penalized. This is what is especially unlogical in punishing Hamilton. Oh well...

And then we complain there is lack of overtaking in F1. Position defender is allowed to do anything (wave ahead and push the other car off the track), attacker however...

I can put it no better. Neither can I recall any precedents in other forms of motorsport. If you back off, you're generally OK. Not any more, it seems.

[Mickey T]

It's called the concertina effect.....

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.

[schmenke]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/09/06/beware-chicanery-at-monza/

Regards

That article is BS.
I don't believe that anyone could "dive down the inside of Michael Schumacher..."


:p :

[aghosh1]

As far as I know there is an appeal to the decision. the actual dual (if that is a correct term) was between hamilton and Kimi. as kimi was later out of the race the cut through the shikane makes no difference to him, despite hamilton dropping back. As for Massa, this manouvre did not really give Hamilton any advantage over Massa so penalising him with 25s is extremely excessive.

I think maclaren will have a strong case here to at least reduce the penaly by a few seconds.

[Daniel]

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.

All of which is negated by the coriolis effect.

1. Load of crap.

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.

3. Hamilton would most likely have been slower than this had he followed his crap line through the corner.

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.

5. Hamilton was never on a normal line. So this argument is also crap!

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....

[Big Ben]

yeah, but you're comparing apples and oranges.

schumacher clearly breached the rules here (i'd love to see even tamburello and ioan argue that he didn't), gained an advantage by cutting the circuit and didn't get punished.

three quarters of observers on this forum believe hamilton didn't breach the rules and he got punished.

that's because hamilton slowed to allow kimi past - and by a full car length - before he attacked again.

it's the same sporting code we're talking about and the same rulebook by at least one of the same stewards.

my best guess, based on years of racing experience, would be that any telemetry would confirm the visuals, and would prove that kimi braked significantly earlier than hamilton.

did hamilton gain an advantage, that seems to be the only question. have a look at how close he was all the way along the increasingly wet back straight, then look at how close he was again at the start-finish line.

it seems that, if anything, there's more distance between the two cars at the start-finish line.

where's that advantage, then?


what would have happened if he hadn't decided to cut the chicane and do his best to stay on track (without taking Kimi out of course)? are you going to tell me that he would have managed to keep the car under control just right in Kimi's rear and overtake him on that short straight. He had plenty of space to do it during his first attempt and failed.

[weeflyonthewall]

In France Lewis didn't give position back to Vettel and was penalized with a drive through (and we were discussing here whether it was right or wrong). Now he gives position back and gets even a harsher penalty... (well, a drive through certainly doesn't last for 25 secs) - already in this there is no logic.

Hamilton is the first driver ever to get penalized despite giving rival's position back. :p :

Rewatch the battle between Massa and Kubica at Fuji last year. Both drivers were forced to take a shortcut several times, but kept fighting and passing each other in almost every corner. There are a lot more cases like that - none of them have been penalized. This is what is especially unlogical in punishing Hamilton. Oh well...

And then we complain there is lack of overtaking in F1. Position defender is allowed to do anything (wave ahead and push the other car off the track), attacker however...

The stewards are consistent when it comes to favouring Ferrari. This diabolical decision is more proof that FIA has it in for McLaren and Lewis. Kimi's pace was dropping, one minute Lewis was 1.59 seconds behind, the next he was up on his gearbox. Moved left and Kimi forced him off. Maybe the Stewards are all wearing those famous Ferrari rose colored glasses these days.

[Tonieke]

It's just funny to see how some connoisseurs on here contradict the way experienced drivers ala Lauda and RS think about the whole thing !

It may be risky as there is the possibility the penalty could be increased, but they simply had to appeal.

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.

[Big Ben]

It's just funny to see how some connoisseurs on here contradict the way experienced drivers ala Lauda and RS think about the whole thing !

you are even funnier than that. I don't need anybody to tell me what to think. I have made up my mind the moment it happened. I don't need lauda or RS (who's the brother of an experienced driver) or the marshals to explain me what happened.

I have this nice habit of using my own brain. You should try it too.

[Tonieke]

you are even funnier than that. I don't need anybody to tell me what to think. I have made up my mind the moment it happened. I don't need lauda or RS (who's the brother of an experienced driver) or the marshals to explain me what happened.

I have this nice habit of using my own brain. You should try it too.

no comment

[Mickey T]

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.


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.


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.


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.


5. Hamilton was never on a normal line. So this argument is also crap!


Neither was Raikkonen, so your counter-argument is crap.

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?

[Mike_Drummer]

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:

[Zico]

Niki Laudas take on the incident..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/7604776.stm

[hmmm - donuts]

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

[ArrowsFA1]

Charlie Whiting is the FIA Technical director. He is not a race steward.
Point us to where anyone said he was :rolleyes:

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.

[rohanweb]

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?

[DexDexter]

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.

[Bagwan]

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 .

[BDunnell]

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.

[Zico]

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.

[BDunnell]

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 .

When would it have been correct for Hamilton to pass, then?

(I'm not just asking that of you, by the way.)

[dwf1]

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.

yes he would have hit the wall but then no-one would overtake into there if there was a wall and racing would not happen instead its been banned.

[wmcot]

I have to admit that I am usually a Ferrari fan (but not a fanatic - my world won't end if LH wins the WDC!) Having said that, I would call the decision questionable, but I'm not willing to crucify anyone or jump on the conspiracy bandwagon until I hear the reasons that the stewards based their decisions on. They may have seen something that I didn't or, since they are human, perhaps it was just a "blown call." I'll wait to find out.

p.s. Can we add a "Not Sure Yet" to the poll?

[Mickey T]

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 .



when lauda says there was no slipstreaming and that it was the worst call in F1 history, i'd lend him more credibility than i'd lend you.

well, unless you tell me how many F1 world championships you've won. In a ferrari.

the lift was just before the braking zone? what did you watch?

the lift was while he was on the escape road and just after he returned to the track proper.

or, in your world, do people brake at the start-finish line to negotiate La Source?

[DexDexter]

yes he would have hit the wall but then no-one would overtake into there if there was a wall and racing would not happen instead its been banned.

So it's ok to use asphalt outside the circuit to your own advantage after an over-ambitious overtaking manouvre? Cutting the main chicane after the start/finish straight in Monza to overtake a car, then let the car just back ahead and slipstream it into the next corner is ok next weekend?

[jens]

So it's ok to use asphalt outside the circuit to your own advantage after an over-ambitious overtaking manouvre? Cutting the main chicane after the start/finish straight in Monza to overtake a car, then let the car just back ahead and slipstream it into the next corner is ok next weekend?

It wasn't an overambitious overtaking move, because Räikkönen braked so early that Hamilton had not other option than to take alongside him. Secondly he stayed on the circuit, with overambitious move he should have flown off.

You mentioned Monza. Well, I'm not sure, but I think it has been done several times in the past that after cutting the first chicane rival driver will be passed in the next chicane? Or not? Chicane shortcuts are quite normal there especially on the opening laps. Don't remember anyone getting penalized though.

Talking about walls. Well, if they existed, then indeed we would see serious lack of overtaking, because drivers don't dare to risk, when they have so little room for mistakes. Valencia in theory should have enabled overtaking opportunities, but we didn't see many (actually we saw just one proper pass).

[Bagwan]

When would it have been correct for Hamilton to pass, then?

(I'm not just asking that of you, by the way.)

It's alright to ask , no offense .

Had Lewis let Kimi by earlier on the straight , he might have had a chance to defend . As it was the move at the chicane had a direct effect on the pass at La Source .

He should , therefore , have waited to get him , which he would , on the hill after Eau Rouge .

[dwf1]

So it's ok to use asphalt outside the circuit to your own advantage after an over-ambitious overtaking manouvre? Cutting the main chicane after the start/finish straight in Monza to overtake a car, then let the car just back ahead and slipstream it into the next corner is ok next weekend?

No but we're not on about monza. They are differnet chicanes. Also at monza you wouldn't have chance to do that as you have to slow down too much. Everyone going on about slip stream. You come out of that chicane at 80mph MAX! The air is pushing the car down too much to cause enough of a slip stream for that. If it would have been able to, then ANY car should close up out of a corner which they don't. Also cars would slip stream and close up to each other in the pit lane which they don't so FORGET THIS SLIP STREAM RUBBISH!!

[jens]

One more post.
"Conspiracy" has been a keyword at times. And the question, whether it exists, persists.

What we have to keep in mind is that stewards, FIA, and actually all the people involved in F1 are not emotionless robots, but are normal human beings like all of us. All of them have their own preferences, opinions, also sympathies and antipathies. It's in human nature. I don't know, what was the mood of the decisionmakers or what were they thinking, when they decided on this penalty at that particular moment, but hopefully the appeal will clarify this.

I'm a bit afraid though that the appeal will take place one race before the end of the season and the result of the appeal will turn out to be such, which will be more beneficial for the championship excitement...

[Bagwan]

when lauda says there was no slipstreaming and that it was the worst call in F1 history, i'd lend him more credibility than i'd lend you.

well, unless you tell me how many F1 world championships you've won. In a ferrari.

the lift was just before the braking zone? what did you watch?

the lift was while he was on the escape road and just after he returned to the track proper.

or, in your world, do people brake at the start-finish line to negotiate La Source?

That's fine , Mickey T .
The lift was indeed after he came back on , past the start/finish line , when Lewis sat in kimi's air just long enough to catch a bit of tow .
The stewards see it as him being closer than he would have been , and certainly , your highness , you can see that the idea that he was farther advanced , earlier on the pit straight sits well with that view .

Indeed , arguing that Lewis lifted earlier on the straight doesn't fit with Lewis not being advantaged .

But , I feel he would have been seen to have been less so , had he lifted earlier to let Kimi by .
In my view , it was either that , or wait for the hill .

[jens]

I've to make one more post. :D

Here seems to be some talk whether Lewis was advantaged or not.
Well, Kimi was advantaged, because he was ahead. A driver ahead is in a more advantageous situation, don't you think so? As long as he stays there, he has an advantage. Kimi had all the cards to keep the lead, he should have taken the inside line into La Source and braked a bit more accordingly (it means later). Instead of this he entered the corner very cautiously and threw his advantage away. I maintain the opinion it was a poor defense by Kimi rather than an "inevitable pass" by Lewis due to his propitious track position.

[AndyRAC]

One more post.
"Conspiracy" has been a keyword at times. And the question, whether it exists, persists.

What we have to keep in mind is that stewards, FIA, and actually all the people involved in F1 are not emotionless robots, but are normal human beings like all of us. All of them have their own preferences, opinions, also sympathies and antipathies. It's in human nature. I don't know, what was the mood of the decisionmakers or what were they thinking, when they decided on this penalty at that particular moment, but hopefully the appeal will clarify this.

I'm a bit afraid though that the appeal will take place one race before the end of the season and the result of the appeal will turn out to be such, which will be more beneficial for the championship excitement...

As long as we don't have a 'Champion for ?? days' - a la Markku Alen 1986, when Italian scrutineers threw the French Peugeot's out of San Remo - letting the Lancia's win. Later overturned.

[Whyzars]

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.



With all due respect I believe the stewards missed the opportunity to issue a drive through penalty when the chequered flag came down and the racing finished.

A drive through penalty is only relevant when a race is actually underway. To issue a drive through penalty after a race has finished is utterly ridiculous as it only truly penalises a points finisher.

In my opinion the stewards made a very, very bad call.

[tinchote]

With all due respect I believe the stewards missed the opportunity to issue a drive through penalty when the chequered flag came down and the racing finished.

A drive through penalty is only relevant when a race is actually underway. To issue a drive through penalty after a race has finished is utterly ridiculous as it only truly penalises a points finisher.

In my opinion the stewards made a very, very bad call.

So you are claiming that you can brake the rules during the last two laps, and because there is no time for a drive-through penalty, nothing shoudl happen? :eek:


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.

Funny, many of us have been thinking that since LH's "lift" a year ago :s

[tinchote]

I forgot to add, for those calling on Lauda's "authority", that this is the guy who (besides winning many many years ago when several forumers were not born) spun the Jaguar on the pitlane when he was set to "show the guys how it's done". And he didn't make wonders as a team-manager, either :mark:

[Viktory]

With all due respect I believe the stewards missed the opportunity to issue a drive through penalty when the chequered flag came down and the racing finished.

A drive through penalty is only relevant when a race is actually underway. To issue a drive through penalty after a race has finished is utterly ridiculous as it only truly penalises a points finisher.

In my opinion the stewards made a very, very bad call.

but what if the driver commits an offence during the last three laps? He could be able to go to the finish without even serving his penalty or, like Michael did at Silverstone (can't remember the year) and win the race by crossing the finish line in the pit (if that was what happened)

[tinchote]

schumacher clearly breached the rules here (i'd love to see even tamburello and ioan argue that he didn't), gained an advantage by cutting the circuit and didn't get punished.


In my view, the reason why MS was not punished is seen in the picture. De La Rosa is away of the racing line, leaving no room for MS. The question in yesterday's case is whether LH did not make the corner by lack of room or excess of speed.

[Valve Bounce]

Personally, I reckon that we can discuss this until we are all blue in the face and be none the wiser until the appeal is heard and the evidence released.

Niki Lauda backs Hamilton's win and claims he did nothing wrong.

However, I am uneasy that McLaren claim Lewis slowed down by 6 kph. (only).

[Rollo]

Yesterday once again restored my faith in the FIA as the only people suitable to run Formula One. If it wasn't for them, the typical bully-boy deceit and dishonest non-integrity based tactics of Ron Dennis's team would whitewash everything just as they have done the reactionary English media.

http://www.gazzetta.it/Motori/Formula1/Primo_Piano/2008/09/08/stampainglese.shtml

I refer you to the racial case of Pot vs Kettle giving people the right to make hypocritical statements without fear of retribution. It began as a civil rights case, as Kettle alleged that Pot "did not let Kettle work at his [Pot's] store solely for the colour of kitchenware".
As a result of this landmark case, people are allowed to make utterly ironic and hypocritical statements without fear of a tarnished reputation.

Italian newspapers apply as much spin as English ones. Prost suddenly became a hero in 1990 when he drove for La Scuderia as did Mansell (he was even called Il Leone by the Italian press).

Newspapers are there to sell... newspapers. :eek: If they can pander to the inherant jingoism and xenophobia of their readership in pursuit of ¥€$ then they will. There's nothing remarkable about that at all.

[Cozzie]

WHAT A DISGRACE!

I have been away all weekend therefore I tried to avoid finding out the results of the Belgian GP which I successfully did until I watched it this morning.

First I must say if this was the best race of the season it is saying something about the excitement of modern F1 as all but the last two laps were a complete snooze.

However, the final two laps were very eventful. Hamilton crossed the line first. Hard luck for Kimi. Fair enough. Race won.

It is only now that I have discovered Hamilton has been stripped of the race win in what is clearly a corrupt strategy of ensuring that the fight for the World Championship goes down to the final race.

I have not followed F1 as closely this year as I have taken the role as an impartial fan after last years shenanigans.

Now I will no longer follow F1 in 2008. What a load of bollocks!

In an attempt to increase the number of viewers watching the final few races of the season I am sure they have lost many.

Thank god the Sprint Cup Chase begins this week!

[cosmicpanda]

Massa offers a good opinion:

'"What Lewis did is the sort of thing that can happen," admits the Brazilian, "but I think he was maybe a bit too optimistic in thinking he could just hand back the position, albeit only partially to Kimi and then immediately try and pass him again.

"Incidents like this have often been discussed in the official driver briefings when it has been made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained. If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it. That was my immediate opinion after seeing the replay. Maybe if Lewis had waited and tried to pass on the next straight, that would have been a different matter."'

[Whyzars]

So you are claiming that you can brake the rules during the last two laps, and because there is no time for a drive-through penalty, nothing shoudl happen? :eek:


No not at all. The stewards took too much time to make a decision in my opinion and missed their opportunity to issue a drive through penalty. Fair enough issue a penalty but its too late to issue a drive through penalty when the flag has dropped. By not dispensing their form of justice until after the race they removed any opportunity for the penalised driver to react and minimise the impact of the judgement.

Obviously you can't have drivers flouting the rules at the end of a race for the sake of a victory. Under these circumstances penalise, suspend or fine the drivers till they bleed but retroactively altering race results is probably not the way to go.

At worst this incident was a 10 place penalty at the next grid and could've been handled quite adequately by issuing that judgement. We must keep in mind that the race result would've been the same even if the 'offence' had not occurred.

If they believe that it needed an extra harsh penalty then make it 10 places at the next two grids. This is how I believe serious offences should be dealt with and especially for offences committed towards the end of races. When a penalty is issued it must be consistent with the offence, and, with the complexity of modern F1, this may require investigations which can't be completed on race day. Arbitrarily altering race results open's the door to suspicion and nothing will kill a sport faster than the public losing confidence in the integrity of its racing.

I do not believe that the penalty that has been handed down was balanced as it unfairly penalised a point scoring driver. This may not have been the intention but I think that it is the result as a lower placed would not have felt the same sting. In the case of Lewis Hamilton it was a doubly harsh punishment in that it also took a race win away from a young driver.

Just my opinion... :)

[Valve Bounce]

Well, it buggered my pickems :(

[Roamy]

Lewis knows what he did. But the result is very good for Lewis. The iceman got pissed and ended with no points while lewis just went back a few. had lewis waited a couple of corners he would have been fine.

[leopard]

Massa offers a good opinion:

'"What Lewis did is the sort of thing that can happen," admits the Brazilian, "but I think he was maybe a bit too optimistic in thinking he could just hand back the position, albeit only partially to Kimi and then immediately try and pass him again.

"Incidents like this have often been discussed in the official driver briefings when it has been made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained. If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it. That was my immediate opinion after seeing the replay. Maybe if Lewis had waited and tried to pass on the next straight, that would have been a different matter."'

Constructive opinion ...

[Rollo]

Massa's opinion is entirely understandable. He benefits if the result stands and as he not actually part of the process or the "incident", he has no responsibility.
From his perspective he is 8 points the richer, so hardly an "unbiased" view.

[ShiftingGears]

But he couldn'tve taken the chicane correctly - there was no room.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

The "old guys in suits decide the results, instead of the competitors" argument is flat out ridiculous and childish. It happens in every sport time to time, F1 fans have been spoilt in that regard. That cannot be an excuse for letting someone get away with breaking the rules.

You can argue whether Lewis really broke the rules, but that's another argument.

[mstillhere]

Massa's opinion is entirely understandable. He benefits if the result stands and as he not actually part of the process or the "incident", he has no responsibility.
From his perspective he is 8 points the richer, so hardly an "unbiased" view.

I wonder why are you saying that what Massa just stated is a biased opinion? Did you read what he said? What he's saying is stating FACTS not opinion (Would like to read the memo about the pilot's meeting when they actually duscussed this issue? I'll see what I can do). And I am sick and tired having to deal with MclLaen and McLAren fans thinking that you are above any rules whatsever. You guys have some nerve in having to justify murder if you have to as long as that "crime" is committed by McLaren. Are you seeing how ridiculous you are having to CONTINOUSLY defend McLaren every other day? And when you have nothing to support your arguments, rather than sticking to the subject you start going back to 1,000 years ago, mentioning who knows who thinking that actually your example is identical to what happened in Belgium. Are you kidding me? NO INCIDENT IS IDENTICAL!!! Give it up. Don't you find odd having to do that ALL THE TIME?. Would not be time for you to AT LEAST ONCE to accept what well qualified stewards decide to do? Do YOU know the rules? Do you? Even James Allen could find one thing to say against Ferrari. Imagine: JAMES ALLEN!!! I am ashamed for you.

[cosmicpanda]

But he couldn'tve taken the chicane correctly - there was no room.

He could've followed Kimi and taken it correctly.

[ShiftingGears]

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.


Out of interest, do you actually know what culminated in Hamilton being on this "crap" line through the corner?

[ShiftingGears]

He could've followed Kimi and taken it correctly.

There was not enough room, it was a split second decision, and no racing driver making a split second decision will park the car simply so they can go through the corner without ploughing into the other cars sidepod, when they can cut across the chicane and then concede their position, to make it fair.

[ArrowsFA1]

Had Lewis let Kimi by earlier on the straight , he might have had a chance to defend . As it was the move at the chicane had a direct effect on the pass at La Source .

He should , therefore , have waited to get him , which he would , on the hill after Eau Rouge .
Perhaps that's what Kimi expected him to do, which might explain why he didn't really defend at La Source allowing Hamilton to make a great move on the brakes.

I do think that Kimi's poor defence at La Source, and Hamilton's ability on the brakes, contributed to there being a penalty awarded against Hamilton. Had the McLaren not got through at the hairpin then there may have been no penalty at all IMHO.

[DexDexter]

It wasn't an overambitious overtaking move, because Räikkönen braked so early that Hamilton had not other option than to take alongside him. Secondly he stayed on the circuit, with overambitious move he should have flown off.

You mentioned Monza. Well, I'm not sure, but I think it has been done several times in the past that after cutting the first chicane rival driver will be passed in the next chicane? Or not? Chicane shortcuts are quite normal there especially on the opening laps. Don't remember anyone getting penalized though.

Talking about walls. Well, if they existed, then indeed we would see serious lack of overtaking, because drivers don't dare to risk, when they have so little room for mistakes. Valencia in theory should have enabled overtaking opportunities, but we didn't see many (actually we saw just one proper pass).

Hamilton did not stay on the circuit, he took a shortcut through asphalt that was not included int the racetrack, so the move was overambitious. My point again, can you use parts not included in the racetrack to your advantage when trying to pass people? Obviously it was a split second call but still Hamilton should have slowed down a lot more when letting Kimi pass.

[ShiftingGears]

In my view, the reason why MS was not punished is seen in the picture. De La Rosa is away of the racing line, leaving no room for MS. The question in yesterday's case is whether LH did not make the corner by lack of room or excess of speed.

But Hamilton clearly conceded the position negating the advantage he made by cutting the corner, Schumacher did not.

[ArrowsFA1]

...Hamilton should have slowed down a lot more when letting Kimi pass.
Why? AFAIK there is nothing in the regs to specify how much a driver has to slow down by, just as there is nothing to say when he is allowed to challenge for position again.

Hamilton cut the chicane, got ahead of Kimi as a result, and immediately allowed the Ferrari to regain the position as he was required to do. That's it.

[Rollo]

I wonder why are you saying that what Massa just stated is a biased opinion? Did you read what he said? What he's saying is stating FACTS not opinion

I did... he said this:

That was my immediate opinion after seeing the replay.

IMMA CHARGIN MAH LAZER!

[DexDexter]

Why? AFAIK there is nothing in the regs to specify how much a driver has to slow down by, just as there is nothing to say when he is allowed to challenge for position again.

Hamilton cut the chicane, got ahead of Kimi as a result, and immediately allowed the Ferrari to regain the position as he was required to do. That's it.

I'm sure there is a regulation about closed circuits and how in a race the winner is the one who completes the designated circuit fastest? Hamilton went off the designated circuit in a place where it's quicker to go straight through off the circuit than take the chicane and after that he didn't back off enough to negate the time-gain he got in relation to Räikkönen from short-cutting the chicane. Letting Kimi pass wasn't enough because had Hamilton made it through the chicane behind Kimi, he wouldn't have been so close behind at the start/finish line. The regulations are vague, that's probably one of the reasons that caused the incident, also circuit design should not allow people to take short cuts in high, or even moderate speeds.

[Tonieke]

Hamilton did not stay on the circuit, he took a shortcut through asphalt that was not included int the racetrack, so the move was overambitious. My point again, can you use parts not included in the racetrack to your advantage when trying to pass people? Obviously it was a split second call but still Hamilton should have slowed down a lot more when letting Kimi pass.

well yes..why no punishment for all the drivers goin of the track at the start - first corner?..gaining advantage by doin so..keeping up speed..instead of hitting the breaks and following the racetrack...Fe like Kimi..if he would have hit the breaks like Lewis should have donne according to some on here..he would never been so close behind Massa..Or if there would have been a concrete wall he would have been out of the race....that's what I learned here over the past couple of days right ?


For those who wanne see what I mean

http://media.vrtnieuws.net/2008/09/141648050ONL0908077000154_wmvhi.wmv

[CNR]

http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/lewispaper_wideweb__470x416,2.jpg
www.f1-live.com/f1/img/regulations/2008sport_en.pdf



30.3 a) During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the
provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits.
b) Other than by driving on the track, Competitors are not permitted to attempt to alter the grip of any
part of the track surface.

[Tonieke]

http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/lewispaper_wideweb__470x416,2.jpg
www.f1-live.com/f1/img/regulations/2008sport_en.pdf


well ya..but what about my above post than ? and all them drivers not using the track either at the first corner..and also gaining advantage from it..like Kimi fe ? Can anyone tell me why none there got a penalty ?

[CNR]

well ya..but what about my above post than ? and all them drivers not using the track either at the first corner..and also gaining advantage from it..like Kimi fe ? Can anyone tell me why none there got a penalty ?

30) GENERAL SAFETY


30.1 Official instructions will be given to drivers by means of the signals laid out in the Code. Competitors must
not use flags similar to these.
30.2 Drivers are strictly forbidden to drive their car in the opposite direction to the race unless this is absolutely
necessary in order to move the car from a dangerous position.
30.3 a) During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the
provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits.
b) Other than by driving on the track, Competitors are not permitted to attempt to alter the grip of any
part of the track surface.
30.4 If a car stops on the track it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly as possible so that its
presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other competitors. If any mechanical assistance results in
the car rejoining the stewards may drop the driver such number of grid positions as they consider
appropriate if the incident occurs during a practice session or exclude him from the race (other than under
Article 30.9(d).
30.5 A driver who abandons a car must leave it in neutral or with the clutch disengaged and with the steering
wheel in place.
30.6 The organiser must make at least two fire extinguishers of 5kg capacity available to each competitor and
ensure that they work properly.
30.7 Save as specifically authorised by the Code or these Sporting Regulations, no one except the driver may
touch a stopped car unless it is in the paddock, the team’s designated garage area, the pit lane or on the
starting grid.
30.8 At no time may a car be reversed in the pit lane under its own power.
30.9 During the period commencing 15 minutes prior to and ending 5 minutes after every practice session and
the period between the commencement of the formation lap which immediately precedes the race and the
time when the last car enters the parc fermé, no one is allowed on the track, the pit entry or the pit exit with
the exception of :
a) marshals or other authorised personnel in the execution of their duty ;
b) drivers when driving or on foot, having first received permission to do so from a marshal ;
c) team personnel when either pushing a car or clearing equipment from the grid after all cars able to do
so have left the grid on the formation lap ;
d) team personnel when assisting marshals to remove a car from the grid after the start of the race.
30.10 During a race, the engine may only be started with the starter except in the pit lane or the team’s
designated garage area where the use of an external starting device is allowed.
30.11 Drivers taking part in practice and the race must always wear the clothes, helmets and head and neck
supports specified in the Code.
30.12 A speed limit of 60km/h will be imposed in the pit lane during all free practice sessions, this will be raised to
80km/h for the remainder of the Event. However, this limit may be amended by the Permanent Bureau of
the Formula One Commission following a recommendation from the FIA F1 safety delegate.

[Tonieke]

30) GENERAL SAFETY

where does that answer my question ? it just shows what they did was wrong...like showing in the video....and as the FIA likes to follow the rules by the letter these days..Them drivers should have gotten a drive true to !

[PolePosition_1]

Perhaps that's what Kimi expected him to do, which might explain why he didn't really defend at La Source allowing Hamilton to make a great move on the brakes.

I do think that Kimi's poor defence at La Source, and Hamilton's ability on the brakes, contributed to there being a penalty awarded against Hamilton. Had the McLaren not got through at the hairpin then there may have been no penalty at all IMHO.


I wouldn't really say that Kimi defended badly, just got outsmarted. He let Lewis take the inside line to get him back on the exit but Lewis saw this coming and acted accordingly.

But I must be honest, whereas I can see the Stewards reason behind their decision.

I've not once seen a penalty given for this kind of move. Alonso done exactly the same in Japan against (Klien or Heidfeld forgot not) and it was fine.

McLaren cannot be expected to know how far to drop back when in the past, what Hamilton did was fine, only now have they decided to say its not enough to simply let the car past, which was seen as fine before.

Once against, McLaren lose out to the inconsistancies of the Stewards and FIA and Ferrari benefit.

Tellingly for me, last 2 races, Massa and Hamilton have been found guilty of breaking the rules. Both were guilty (in the eyes of Stewards). Both did not gain a sporting advantage. One was let off and team given €10,000 fine, other a 25 second time penalty.

And the standard penalty from previous cases of unsafe release has been a 25s time penalty (Ralf Schumacher Imola 2005).

We can argue whether they deserved to be punished, but lets leave that out, and in the eyes of the Stewards both were guilty. And thats the defence in penalties.....

[CNR]

http://i38.tinypic.com/4zz22t.jpg
where does that answer my question ? it just shows what they did was wrong...like showing in the video....and as the FIA likes to follow the rules by the letter these days..Them drivers should have gotten a drive true to !

you watch it again you will see thet it was to avide an accident
if he had stade on the track he would have hit the car in front.

lewis was not forced to take the short cut


Other than by driving on the track, Competitors are not permitted to attempt to alter the grip of any part of the track surface.

[PolePosition_1]

In my view, the reason why MS was not punished is seen in the picture. De La Rosa is away of the racing line, leaving no room for MS. The question in yesterday's case is whether LH did not make the corner by lack of room or excess of speed.

How about when Heidfled got up the inside of Schumacher, Schumacher cut the chicane and saved a place by doing that.

The Stewards said no punishment because he didn't gain a position. But then in France this year, Hamilton arguably saved a position by cutting the chicane, and got penalised.

[Ranger]

I've not once seen a penalty given for this kind of move. Alonso done exactly the same in Japan against (Klien or Heidfeld forgot not) and it was fine.
It was Klien. It was 'fine' because Alonso had to lose another 5-10 seconds to let Klien re-pass him again, despite already conceding to Klien after cutting the chicane.

He was penalised for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdy6qzI2-A4

[Tonieke]

you watch it again you will see thet it was to avide an accident
if he had stade on the track he would have hit the car in front.

lewis was not forced to take the short cut

lol ok...so if Lewis kept his line there would not have been a crash ? or like some say here..he should have hit the breakes to avoid a crash..Where is Kimi avoiding a crash at the first corner anyway ?

[jas123f1]

The question was:
Is it allowed to pas race leader like Hamilton did or is it not allowed?

And when we are looking on the pictures and the video we can clearly see that obviously it’s not allowed – that means: if Lewis had been on the track it had been impossible for him getting past Kimi as he did.. so what are stewards supposed to do? They must punish the driver who is breaking the rules – that easy it is. If they don’t do it – were we are going then??

My opinion is that they made right decision – and I’m sure they did know what the media should say about it afterwards. Especially the English … a Courageous decision in my mind.. :)

[DexDexter]

lol ok...so if Lewis kept his line there would not have been a crash ? or like some say here..he should have hit the breakes to avoid a crash..Where is Kimi avoiding a crash at the first corner anyway ?

Ok, tell me how it is possible that a car that goes off the circuit is only 6km slower on the next straight (and right behind) a car that goes around the circuit correctly? Fair? No advantage? How can going off the circuit result in an overtaking manouvre in the next corner? That shouldn't be possible. Anyway it's up to the stewards to tell the drivers what they can do before these things happen, but they just aren't very good, are they?

[Tonieke]

Ok, tell me how it is possible that a car that goes off the circuit is only 6km slower on the next straight (and right behind) a car that goes around the circuit correctly? Fair? No advantage? How can going off the circuit result in an overtaking manouvre in the next corner? That shouldn't be possible. Anyway it's up to the stewards to tell the drivers what they can do before these things happen, but they just aren't very good, are they?


my point is..them stewards gave Lewis a penalty..for the reasons you mentioned above..taking advantage for goin of the track..Kimi does the same in the first corner..goin of the track...Keeping a better momentum and passing Massa soon after..why he not got a drive true ? Would love to hear thoughts about this ?

[AndyRAC]

If he did gain an advantage - in the best interests of the sport maybe they should have given him a fine. Then starting next season make the rules on what you can/can't do and what you should do if you do cut a chicane. As far as McLaren/Hamilton were concerned, Lewis moved over and let Kimi through as they thought you are supposed to do. Only to find this wasn't enough. Whether right or wrong, the sport is made to look increasingly ridiculous and more WWE by the day.

[cosmicpanda]

my point is..them stewards gave Lewis a penalty..for the reasons you mentioned above..taking advantage for goin of the track..Kimi does the same in the first corner..goin of the track...Keeping a better momentum and passing Massa soon after..why he not got a drive true ? Would love to hear thoughts about this ?

It's "drive through", not "drive true," although that is no doubt a useful sentiment.

You might also ask why Kimi was not penalised for staying on the runoff at Pouhon, getting better grip from the abrasive tarmac and overtaking Rosberg and Lewis.

Perhaps the FIA does not penalise these because in both cases rather than cutting the corner Kimi instead went around the outside of the corner?

[Tonieke]

It's "drive through", not "drive true," although that is no doubt a useful sentiment.

You might also ask why Kimi was not penalised for staying on the runoff at Pouhon, getting better grip from the abrasive tarmac and overtaking Rosberg and Lewis.

Perhaps the FIA does not penalise these because in both cases rather than cutting the corner Kimi instead went around the outside of the corner?

oops ok sorry..My English is not always that perfect ! ;-)

well the rules showed me today not say that :

***30.3 a) During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the
provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits.
b) Other than by driving on the track, Competitors are not permitted to attempt to alter the grip of any
part of the track surface***

[leopard]

Perhaps the case of Kimi passing Massa is not considered as competitor. No sooner has Massa noticed it was his teammate overtaking him, when he gave the line to Kimi. There is not any further incident prompted by this maneuver. Such practice defines all times to observe provision of the code and deemed behaviorally legal, in conformity with the rules. :)

[Tonieke]

Perhaps the case of Kimi passing Massa is not considered as competitor. No sooner has Massa noticed it was his teammate overtaking him, when he gave the line to Kimi. There is not any further incident prompted by this maneuver. Such practice defines all times to observe provision of the code and deemed behaviorally legal, in conformity with the rules. :)


it's not about the actual pass..it is about the rule that someone showed me today..

***Other than by driving on the track, Competitors are not permitted to attempt to alter the grip of any part of the track surface *

a rule Kimi (and a bunch of others) clearly broke there...and why he not got a penalty for that ? Anyone can clearify this for me ?

[DexDexter]

it's not about the actual pass..it is about the rule that someone showed me today..

***Other than by driving on the track, Competitors are not permitted to attempt to alter the grip of any part of the track surface *

a rule Kimi (and a bunch of others) clearly broke there...and why he not got a penalty for that ? Anyone can clearify this for me ?

Drivers have always used the outside line after the first corner in Spa and for some reason the FIA has always allowed it to happen.

[Tonieke]

Drivers have always used the outside line after the first corner in Spa and for some reason the FIA has always allowed it to happen.

drivers also have always cut of chicanes.....and when giving back position..Fia always allowed it to happen....till last sunday !

[Big Ben]

But Hamilton clearly conceded the position negating the advantage he made by cutting the corner, Schumacher did not.

that's why he got penalized and we keep discussing the matter here... because he clearly conceded the position! :laugh:

[Knock-on]

drivers also have always cut of chicanes.....and when giving back position..Fia always allowed it to happen....till last sunday !

This is the rub.

Drivers cut chicanes and go off all the time.

Sometimes they give the place back as stipulated by the FIA and they are not further penalised.

Sometimes they don't give the place back and are penalised with a stop go or if it's within 5 laps of the end of the race, they get a 25 sec post race penalty.

Sometimes they don't give it back and are let off.

Never, NEVER have they given it back and then been punished for adhearing to the FIA regulations as confirmed by Charlie Whiting.

I have not seen any comment supporting this decision from anyone other than Ferrari but we know that a multiple WDC and ex-Ferrari driver has slammed this decision as the worst in F1's history (and that isn't easy).

We are going to see many more people doing the same.

At the end of the day, if you think this is fair then nothing will change your mind because you are biased against McLaren. It's a farce.

Still no point debating it because this isn't a discussion on what is right and fair but about fans that want their team to win by fair means or foul.

[Daniel]

At the end of the day, if you think this is fair then nothing will change your mind because you are biased against McLaren. It's a farce.

Still no point debating it because this isn't a discussion on what is right and fair but about fans that want their team to win by fair means or foul.

Stop telling people what they are thinking and saying!!!!!! It's RUDE and you keep on doing it. People have come out and said why they think Lewis was penalised and that they agree with it and you should accept that this is their opinion. Just as I accept that people feel he shouldn't have been penalised. If you can't keep to the discussion you simply resort to calling people biased and so on and on. It's not cool and you just make yourself look silly. You've had your say numerous times and we all know what you think so unless you have something new and useful to add to the discussion.....

[ShiftingGears]

Drivers have always used the outside line after the first corner in Spa and for some reason the FIA has always allowed it to happen.

If by always you mean last year, then yes. Spa didn't have runoff area on the exit of La Source until 2007.

[Tonieke]

Stop telling people what they are thinking and saying!!!!!! It's RUDE and you keep on doing it. People have come out and said why they think Lewis was penalised and that they agree with it and you should accept that this is their opinion. Just as I accept that people feel he shouldn't have been penalised. If you can't keep to the discussion you simply resort to calling people biased and so on and on. It's not cool and you just make yourself look silly. You've had your say numerous times and we all know what you think so unless you have something new and useful to add to the discussion.....

well I added something new and so far none of the people that where pro Lewis penalty gave me there thoughts about this case..other than telling me Fia allows drivers to leave the track on one part of the track and punish drivers when they do it on other parts....

[Daniel]

well I added something new and so far none of the people that where pro Lewis penalty gave me there thoughts about this case..other than telling me Fia allows drivers to leave the track on one part of the track and punish drivers when they do it on other parts....

You talk about altering the grip of the track. I don't quite get your point. Do remember that a lot of us are work so can't reply straigt away :)

[cosmicpanda]

well I added something new and so far none of the people that where pro Lewis penalty gave me there thoughts about this case..other than telling me Fia allows drivers to leave the track on one part of the track and punish drivers when they do it on other parts....

I think that leaving the track is a slightly different thing to leaving the track AND gaining an advantage. What penalties are stipulated for just leaving the track, never mind gaining advantage?

Perhaps, since cutting a chicane is a faster way of getting through the corner, they considered Lewis to be getting an advantage there. It seems that the FIA does not consider it advantageous to use the runoff at the outsides of corners like La Source and Pouhon.

[Daniel]

I think that leaving the track is a slightly different thing to leaving the track AND gaining an advantage. What penalties are stipulated for just leaving the track, never mind gaining advantage?

Perhaps, since cutting a chicane is a faster way of getting through the corner, they considered Lewis to be getting an advantage there. It seems that the FIA does not consider it advantageous to use the runoff at the outsides of corners like La Source and Pouhon.

You've hit the nail right on the head.

[Tonieke]

I think that leaving the track is a slightly different thing to leaving the track AND gaining an advantage. What penalties are stipulated for just leaving the track, never mind gaining advantage?

Perhaps, since cutting a chicane is a faster way of getting through the corner, they considered Lewis to be getting an advantage there. It seems that the FIA does not consider it advantageous to use the runoff at the outsides of corners like La Source and Pouhon.

Have we been watching the same first corner there ? I can't believe you are saying Kimi NOT took any advantage of using the runoff...He got a way better momentum by doin so than Massa..overtaking him soon after..No advantage ? come onnnnnnnnnnnn ;-)

[Daniel]

Have we been watching the same first corner there ? I can't believe you are saying Kimi NOT took any advantage of using the runoff...He got a way better momentum by doin so than Massa..overtaking him soon after..No advantage ? come onnnnnnnnnnnn ;-)

If this were the case would McLaren not be bringing this to the stewards attention? :)

[Tonieke]

If this were the case would McLaren not be bringing this to the stewards attention? :)

Is it the task of a team to do so ? did anyone brought the Lewis incident to the Stewards attention ?..at least ferrari denied they "officialy" complained about it...

[Bagwan]

Perhaps that's what Kimi expected him to do, which might explain why he didn't really defend at La Source allowing Hamilton to make a great move on the brakes.

I do think that Kimi's poor defence at La Source, and Hamilton's ability on the brakes, contributed to there being a penalty awarded against Hamilton. Had the McLaren not got through at the hairpin then there may have been no penalty at all IMHO.

Nail hit squarely on the head , Arrows , my friend .