McLaren appeal to go ahead

[Knock-on]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70442

[F1boat]

Well, I am not surprised as mclaren really want their victory back. If only FIA can settle this before the Italian GP, it will be nice, but I doubt it.

[Knock-on]

Well, I am not surprised as mclaren really want their victory back. If only FIA can settle this before the Italian GP, it will be nice, but I doubt it.


I think we are all sick of this.

Lets hope this can be resolved expediently. I see no problem with having an appeal hearing at Monza on Thursday.

Because of the controversy of this decision, I believe the FIA have to answer this appeal or bring the sport into disrepute again as the perception around the sport is one of mistrust.

If they deny the appeal hearing, there will be uproar.

[Knock-on]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70443

This is getting more and more obscure.

With McLaren confirming TWICE with Race control that Lewis had complied with the regulations, their appeal looks stronger and stronger.

I cannot understand with this sort of evidence, why the Stewards penalised them.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70443

This is getting more and more obscure.

With McLaren confirming TWICE with Race control that Lewis had complied with the regulations, their appeal looks stronger and stronger.

I cannot understand with this sort of evidence, why the Stewards penalised them.

You still believe a word Whitmarsh says?

[elinagr]

FIA will never change the winner for 3rd time, hamilton gain advantage in that corner and this could not change

[elinagr]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70443

This is getting more and more obscure.

With McLaren confirming TWICE with Race control that Lewis had complied with the regulations, their appeal looks stronger and stronger.

I cannot understand with this sort of evidence, why the Stewards penalised them.


i wonder where are you from :D

[jens]

FIA will never change the winner for 3rd time,

I think back in 1976 something like that happened, when Hunt won the Spanish GP, got then disqualified and later the results were reinstated. Same case with Ferraris at Sepang in 1999. :p :

[gloomyDAY]

This should be more fun than an annual physical...

[elinagr]

give the win to bmw :D

[ioan]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70443

This is getting more and more obscure.

With McLaren confirming TWICE with Race control that Lewis had complied with the regulations, their appeal looks stronger and stronger.

I cannot understand with this sort of evidence, why the Stewards penalised them.

Because it's up to the stewards to decide, not to the race director.

[SGWilko]

i wonder where are you from :D

I can't speak for Knockie, but I've just come from the kitchen. Why do you ask?

[Knock-on]

You still believe a word Whitmarsh says?

OK, simple question.

You don't believe him and I don't have proof he is telling the truth so lets hypothosize.

IF he is telling the truth, what would be your opinion.

Mclaren believed they had done the right thing and had it confirmed twice that they had.

How would you feel if you were McLaren IF they had?

[mstillhere]

You still believe a word Whitmarsh says?

They both McLAren and the FIA should have records about their conversation

[wmcot]

I cannot understand with this sort of evidence, why the Stewards penalised them.

I just want to hear what the stewards based their decision on. It seems that the simplest way to solve this whole thing would be for them to issue a short statement clarifying their decision. Did they see something that wasn't obvious to the rest of us? Is there a rule interpretation we're not familiar with?

Personally, I don't care - keep the ruling or overturn it - just tell us what the reason is.

[PSfan]

So let me get this straight.. MacLeran Asked not only Charlie Whiting, but also Race control? If you ask me, that sounds like MacLeran doubted that Hamilton gave back enough... Considering how much quicker Hamilton appeared at the time He would have probably retaken the lead again faster then it would have taken to make the calls to Charlie and Race Control...

BTW here is the charlie whiting story:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis revealed that the team checked with Whiting after the move whether Hamilton had conformed to the regulations.

"Of course Charlie can only give an opinion because he is not the stewards, but he gave the opinion that we had probably complied. Charlie is of course a very important opinion to have," he added.

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080907180059.shtml
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Maybe when probably wasn't good enough they asked for a second opinion? Either way, giving back the lead isn't equal to negating the advantage... I hope the FIA treat this appeal like MacLeran are ignoring the stop and go and essentially black flag him (DQ)

[wmcot]

So let me get this straight.. MacLeran Asked not only Charlie Whiting, but also Race control? If you ask me, that sounds like MacLeran doubted that Hamilton gave back enough...


That puts an interesting spin (no pun intended) on the situation. I never looked at it that way...

[Tonieke]

That puts an interesting spin (no pun intended) on the situation. I never looked at it that way...


well with the "witch-hunt" goin on..I find it pretty normal they ask 2...3...4 times to be sure this or that situation was dealed with in a correct way..and still..even than they can not be sure..see endresult !

[CNR]

it will come down to if they can prove that if lewis had stayed on the race track that he would have hit kimi

cheaters never prosper

[Knock-on]

I think it's worth reiterating why McLaren are appealing this decision.


9th September 2008

Martin Whitmarsh said: "Following our decision to register our intention to appeal the penalty handed out to Lewis Hamilton by the FIA Stewards at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, we hereby confirm that we have now lodged notice of appeal. Lewis describes the incident as follows."

Lewis Hamilton said: "In the closing stages of the race I was catching Kimi consistently, lap by lap, and with three laps remaining I got close enough to attempt to overtake him on the entry to the last chicane. I managed to get slightly ahead of him in the braking area for the first apex of the chicane. He fought back approaching the second apex - but, in doing so, he left no room for me on the inside line. The only way for me to avoid a collision was therefore to cut inside the second apex.

"I came out of the second apex in front of Kimi and so I momentarily lifted-off on the straight, to ensure that Kimi got back in front. The team also came on the radio and instructed me to allow Kimi to repass, which I had already done. As a result, Kimi crossed the start/finish line ahead of me and 6.7km/h quicker than me.

"After allowing Kimi to completely repass, I crossed from the left side of the track to the right side of the track, passing behind Kimi in the process. I then attacked Kimi on the inside of the first corner, and successfully outbraked him."

Martin Whitmarsh added: "From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was 'okay'.

"If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis’s actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time."

This centers around the responsibility of race control for me. "Race Control" means the person / people incharge of the race to me.

In other words, they are the people that decide whether to investigate something?

If they say it's OK, surely you believe them and if the FIA agree that their appointed controllers have confirmed conformity, it should be accepted.

As such, I see a very good case for appeal in a normal court. However, this is the FIA....

[Knock-on]

I think it's worth reiterating why McLaren are appealing this decision.


9th September 2008

Martin Whitmarsh said: "Following our decision to register our intention to appeal the penalty handed out to Lewis Hamilton by the FIA Stewards at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, we hereby confirm that we have now lodged notice of appeal. Lewis describes the incident as follows."

Lewis Hamilton said: "In the closing stages of the race I was catching Kimi consistently, lap by lap, and with three laps remaining I got close enough to attempt to overtake him on the entry to the last chicane. I managed to get slightly ahead of him in the braking area for the first apex of the chicane. He fought back approaching the second apex - but, in doing so, he left no room for me on the inside line. The only way for me to avoid a collision was therefore to cut inside the second apex.

"I came out of the second apex in front of Kimi and so I momentarily lifted-off on the straight, to ensure that Kimi got back in front. The team also came on the radio and instructed me to allow Kimi to repass, which I had already done. As a result, Kimi crossed the start/finish line ahead of me and 6.7km/h quicker than me.

"After allowing Kimi to completely repass, I crossed from the left side of the track to the right side of the track, passing behind Kimi in the process. I then attacked Kimi on the inside of the first corner, and successfully outbraked him."

Martin Whitmarsh added: "From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was 'okay'.

"If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis’s actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time."

This centers around the responsibility of race control for me. "Race Control" means the person / people incharge of the race to me.

In other words, they are the people that decide whether to investigate something?

If they say it's OK, surely you believe them and if the FIA agree that their appointed controllers have confirmed conformity, it should be accepted.

As such, I see a very good case for appeal in a normal court. However, this is the FIA....

[Valve Bounce]

You still believe a word Whitmarsh says?

Maybe, maybe not!! But "I trust in ioan"

[ArrowsFA1]

You still believe a word Whitmarsh says?
It's easy for Race Control to confirm or deny what Whitmarsh said happened isn't it.

Central to the appeal is this: "If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis's actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time."

No such concern was expressed.

[Mark]

That is the critical point for me too. You can't have a situation where one official says it is ok then another says it is not and hands out a punishment. If the race officials did not know it was an offense then how are the team supposed to know. To my mind this means no penalty can be applied completely regardless of the offence.

[Valve Bounce]

That is the critical point for me too. You can't have a situation where one official says it is ok then another says it is not and hands out a punishment. If the race officials did not know it was an offense then how are the team supposed to know. To my mind this means no penalty can be applied completely regardless of the offence.

Mark!! we are talking about FIA stewards here!! :rolleyes:

[Knock-on]

Mark!! we are talking about FIA stewards here!! :rolleyes:


You know it :laugh:

Problem is, the FIA are either incompetent or biased.

You can't blame the teams if it's the first but what will they do if it is the 2nd.

There is enough evidence to warrent an investigation and I cannot see how the FIA can duck an appeal.

[Dave B]

A cyninc might suggest that the FIA will wait a few weeks to see how the championship develops before deciding whether or not to reinstate Hamilton's deserved win.

The FIA have made themselves look stupid, and the steward's crass and idiotic comments about how he is now welcome in any Italian restaurant (source (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=35912)) only serve to inflame the situation and raise questions about his objectivity.

[Tonieke]

A cyninc might suggest that the FIA will wait a few weeks to see how the championship develops before deciding whether or not to reinstate Hamilton's deserved win.

The FIA have made themselves look stupid, and the steward's crass and idiotic comments about how he is now welcome in any Italian restaurant (source (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=35912)) only serve to inflame the situation and raise questions about his objectivity.

LOL omg....If he does his job as a steward as professional as he gives interviews....well....ummmmmmmm....dunno...

[ShiftingGears]

A cyninc might suggest that the FIA will wait a few weeks to see how the championship develops before deciding whether or not to reinstate Hamilton's deserved win.

The FIA have made themselves look stupid, and the steward's crass and idiotic comments about how he is now welcome in any Italian restaurant (source (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=35912)) only serve to inflame the situation and raise questions about his objectivity.

If you think that was idiotic wait until you read his take on Sebastien Loeb having facial hair :p :

[Knock-on]

A cyninc might suggest that the FIA will wait a few weeks to see how the championship develops before deciding whether or not to reinstate Hamilton's deserved win.

The FIA have made themselves look stupid, and the steward's crass and idiotic comments about how he is now welcome in any Italian restaurant (source (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=35912)) only serve to inflame the situation and raise questions about his objectivity.

This man seems to be revelling in the scandle, doesn't he.

[PolePosition_1]

You still believe a word Whitmarsh says?

Well, he was there in contact with the FIA, so I'd take his word over a forumer on a message board.

Though, can anyone confirm is it the FIA that decide the verdict of an appeal.

If so, considering they confirmed it was perfectly legal, it should be pretty straightforward process of handing the win back?

[ArrowsFA1]

Because it's up to the stewards to decide, not to the race director.
Indeed, but shouldn't they at least have a similar understanding of the rules? They are FIA officials after all.

[Knock-on]

Indeed, but shouldn't they at least have a similar understanding of the rules? They are FIA officials after all.

You would have thought so but apparently not.

It's a sad day when the team and driver try to comply with the rules, the Race Director and senior FIA officials confirm that they are in the right yet some steward with a rule book stuck up his ass manages to find an excuse to take a richly deserved win away from the best driver on the day.

Expect to see a group of Lawyers running the show at Monza with teams appealing against each other and citing the strict letter, if not the spirit of the rules as justification for penalising their competitors.

[ioan]

Indeed, but shouldn't they at least have a similar understanding of the rules? They are FIA officials after all.

I rather believe that 3 people can give a better and more objective answer to the problem than 1 lonely person. Especially as they took their time to analyze the facts, unlike Charlie who had to give an answer out of the blue, and rightly he used the term "probably".
If not, what use to have stewards at a race.

Imagine that Charlie would be the one deciding everything, wow, I can imagine the amount of crying out loud around here, how he is Max's tool and how he is favoring one over the other and so on.

[Big Ben]

mclaren vs. common sense round n

[ioan]

mclaren vs. common sense round n

Very well put! :up: :)

OK, simple question.

You don't believe him and I don't have proof he is telling the truth so lets hypothosize.

IF he is telling the truth, what would be your opinion.

Mclaren believed they had done the right thing and had it confirmed twice that they had.

How would you feel if you were McLaren IF they had?

It wasn't confirmed by the race stewards. Only by the race director, who is Charlie Whiting.

Ron Dennis stated that -
“Inevitably, we wanted to know whether that was deemed to be a correction so we checked with [FIA race director] Charlie [Whiting]. "Of course Charlie can only give an opinion because he's not the stewards.”

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43849

It's not the FIA's problem or fault that Mclaren checked with the incorrect person.

Mclaren & Ron Dennis just need to accept that they fecked it up by not checking with the correct people.

That was a Mclaren's mistake. Actualy, it borders on incompetence. Mclaren need to learn from it.

That's how I think they should feel.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70435

"In my opinion Hamilton got an advantage by cutting the chicane," Trulli told Gazzetta dello Sport. "Had he stayed on the road, he wouldn't have had the speed to overtake the Ferrari"

[Tonieke]

It wasn't confirmed by the race stewards. Only by the race director, who is Charlie Whiting.

Ron Dennis stated that -
“Inevitably, we wanted to know whether that was deemed to be a correction so we checked with [FIA race director] Charlie [Whiting]. "Of course Charlie can only give an opinion because he's not the stewards.”

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43849

It's not the FIA's problem or fault that Mclaren checked with the incorrect person.

Mclaren & Ron Dennis just need to accept that they fecked it up by not checking with the correct people.

That was a Mclaren's mistake. Actualy, it borders on incompetence. Mclaren need to learn from it.

That's how I think they should feel.

Makes me wonder why it's called a race director if he has no or hardly any influence when it comes to giving penalties ?

[Bagwan]

Makes me wonder why it's called a race director if he has no or hardly any influence when it comes to giving penalties ?

Charlie receives the protest , and asks the stewards for a ruling .
He runs the race , and they deal with race issues .

[ArrowsFA1]

It's not the FIA's problem or fault that Mclaren checked with the incorrect person.

Mclaren & Ron Dennis just need to accept that they fecked it up by not checking with the correct people.

That was a Mclaren's mistake. Actualy, it borders on incompetence. Mclaren need to learn from it.
You raise an interesting point - "not checking with the correct people".

That raises two questions (one of which has been raised before). Firstly, are the stewards available to the teams during a race to clarify these kind of things? Secondly, whether they are or not, shouldn't the Race Director have the same, or at least a very similar, understanding of the FIA rules to the stewards?

Makes me wonder why it's called a race director if he has no or hardly any influence when it comes to giving penalties ?

Because he directs and controls the race solely in terms of organisation & safety. It's not his job to decide on penalties or influence them. Never has been.

Ron Dennis seemed to know that Charlie's was just an "opinion".

Which raises a more important question than why hasn't the Race Director got influence on penalties.

The real question should be....why ask him?

But then that would inevitably lead people to the conclusion that Mclaren made another right royal feck up, and some people can't bring themselves to ever admitting that anything is not Max Mosley's fault.

[Easy Drifter]

The teams have no way of contacting the stewards during a race. Everything goes through the race director.
These threads remind me of a WoO race. Round and round getting more and more obscured by a cloud of dust.

You raise an interesting point - "not checking with the correct people".

That raises two questions (one of which has been raised before). Firstly, are the stewards available to the teams during a race to clarify these kind of things? Secondly, whether they are or not, shouldn't the Race Director have the same, or at least a very similar, understanding of the FIA rules to the stewards?

Judging by Ron Dennis's quote "“First of all we don’t know what the investigation is about,” it would appear that the Stewards are not available.

Personally, I can understand why they are not. Not being badgered (or bullied) leaves them free to judge the facts. If they were available, chances are that the same people screaming about bias would claim it was unfair that the stewards were in contact with teams as this could cloud the outcome.

But, in any case, whether the Stewards are "available" or not doesn't mean that anybody else's opinion should be counted on.

The FIA Race Director has never had a role to play in giving out penalties. That has always been the job of the Stewards, as Ron confirmed -

"It is for the stewards to decide".

He may have a problem with their verdict, but he's been happy enough to sign up to the system since 1981.

[Tonieke]

Charlie receives the protest , and asks the stewards for a ruling .
He runs the race , and they deal with race issues .

Makes me wonder who protested as Ferrari denied they did...

[Dave B]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70435

"In my opinion Hamilton got an advantage by cutting the chicane," Trulli told Gazzetta dello Sport. "Had he stayed on the road, he wouldn't have had the speed to overtake the Ferrari"

An Italian driver is interviewed by an Italian newspaper, and we're supposed to be surprised he sided with Ferrari? :crazy:

Just out of interest....

Does anyone know if the FIA have deemed an appeal as applicable?

I know that Mclaren have confirmed that they are going ahead with their appeal.........

"Following our decision to register our intention to appeal the penalty handed out to Lewis Hamilton by the FIA Stewards at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, we hereby confirm that we have now lodged notice of appeal."

.....but will the appeal be heard?

Because unless the FIA show specific favouritism towards Mclaren & Hamilton, there shouldn't be an appeal granted against a drive-through penalty as previously it has been impossible to appeal such a penalty.

And nobody here wants any favouritism or bias, do they?

Nobody here want the rules to be ignored just to help one team and one driver, do they?

An Italian driver is interviewed by an Italian newspaper, and we're supposed to be surprised he sided with Ferrari? :crazy:

Oh, your'e right, of course. Silly me, thinking that an Italian might have the ability to not be prejudiced.

After all, only the gloriously sporting English are capable of objectivity, seeing how they are all bloody good chaps and decent to a fault.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Jardine

Except him, obviously.

[ArrowsFA1]

But, in any case, whether the Stewards are "available" or not doesn't mean that anybody else's opinion should be counted on.
Perhaps not, but McLaren obviously felt they had good reason to ask the question of an FIA official in this case. With only a couple of laps to go a lot was riding on the answer they were given. Had they been given a different answer they would have told Hamilton to allow Raikkonen through again and it is unlikely (although not certain) there would have been a penalty. The answer they were given meant they did not do that and Hamilton was penalised.

You say that McLaren "fecked it up by not checking with the correct people" and yet we assume "the correct people" (I take that to mean the stewards) are not available. How is that a McLaren mistake or incompetence?

[Dave B]

Oh, your'e right, of course. Silly me, thinking that an Italian might have the ability to not be prejudiced.

After all, only the gloriously sporting English are capable of objectivity, seeing how they are all bloody good chaps and decent to a fault.
To be fair, if it were an English driver being quoted in The Sun or a similar rag, I'd attach just the same weight to the comments - ie none whatsoever.

[ArrowsFA1]

Does anyone know if the FIA have deemed an appeal as applicable?
No news yet on whether the appeal is to be heard or not AFAIK, but allowing it to go ahead would not show favouritism as you suggest. Suggesting that it does rather prejudges the outcome of the appeal!

An appeal hearing would help clarify what is obviously a poorly worded rule.

Imagine if this scenario happened in the final race of the season with the WDC at stake, only this time it's Massa penalised and the penalty alters the outcome of the championship...

You say that McLaren "fecked it up by not checking with the correct people" and yet we assume "the correct people" (I take that to mean the stewards) are not available. How is that a McLaren mistake or incompetence?

FACT - Charlie Whiting is not a steward.

That makes him the wrong person to have asked. That makes it a mistake.

If the Stewards are unavailable (assuming that is the case) then it is utter incompetence to be asking somebody else their opinion and acting upon that opinion.

Irrespective of the availability of the Stewards, that is incompetence.

Imagine if this scenario happened in the final race of the season with the WDC at stake, only this time it's Massa penalised and the penalty alters the outcome of the championship...

Rules are rules. There is no appeal against a Drive-Through penalty.

No appeal means just that, regardless of the scenario or situation.

Some of us can accept that.

allowing it to go ahead would not show favouritism as you suggest.

Really, so it's perfectly fair to throw the regulations out of the window?

Great....bring on Monza. Mclaren won't get through the gates! Would that be fair?

[ArrowsFA1]

FACT - Charlie Whiting is not a steward.
Yes, yes, yes, we all know that :laugh: Perhaps it's best that he doesn't answer these kind of questions in the future eh :p

Rules are rules...Some of us can accept that.
Yes, rules are rules, but equally poor rules are poor rules and an appeal would help clarify this particular poorly worded rule for the future. That's how rules and regulations evolve, otherwise F1 would still be running under the regs drawn up for the first championship race in 1950.

Really, so it's perfectly fair to throw the regulations out of the window?
It is perfectly reasonable for a poor rule to be clarified and IMHO an appeal would allow that to happen. Don't assume the appeal would find in favour of Hamilton.

[ioan]

An Italian driver is interviewed by an Italian newspaper, and we're supposed to be surprised he sided with Ferrari? :crazy:

You're getting lower and lower.

[SkidCarrera]

Got a Ferrari? / Not quite good enough at driving? / Are other boys faster than you in the wet?

Then you need:-

FIA

Ferrari International Assistance

This exclusive Ferrari-only membership club has many benefits, including:-

Anti-overtaking assurance - Been overtaken? Feel a bit silly? Don’t worry, we’ll rule out the other party, even if it’s embarrassingly obvious that they’re faster than you.
Things a bit tight when leaving the pits? - Just to make things a little bit easier we’ve arranged a private second lane, just for you.
Had a crash? Need to win the world championship? - Don’t worry, just limp across the track and take off your nearest championship title contender – we’ll do the rest.
A bit strapped? Need extra cash? - simply get one of your team to tell someone else how you make your cars.
Bits falling off your car? Looking a bit dangerous? - At Ferrari International Assistance we operate a ‘blind eye’ policy just for Ferrari drivers.
Been a bit silly? Taken off another driver whilst following the safety car? - It’s ok, as long as you didn’t hurt yourself. I mean, who is Force India anyway? And how dare they be in front of you?
A bit bored? Want some extra action? - With FIA-plus you can take part in a number of extracurricular membership err... activities ;-)

Not sure when you might need us next? Relax. Check out our track record. We’re confident that we’ll be able to make something up on the spot that will get you out of any pickle that you might find yourself in!

Ferrari International Assistance - Making it up as we go along for over 50 years.

[ioan]

Got a Ferrari? / Not quite good enough at driving? / Are other boys faster than you in the wet?

Then you need:-

FIA

Ferrari International Assistance

This exclusive Ferrari-only membership club has many benefits, including:-

Anti-overtaking assurance - Been overtaken? Feel a bit silly? Don’t worry, we’ll rule out the other party, even if it’s embarrassingly obvious that they’re faster than you.
Things a bit tight when leaving the pits? - Just to make things a little bit easier we’ve arranged a private second lane, just for you.
Had a crash? Need to win the world championship? - Don’t worry, just limp across the track and take off your nearest championship title contender – we’ll do the rest.
A bit strapped? Need extra cash? - simply get one of your team to tell someone else how you make your cars.
Bits falling off your car? Looking a bit dangerous? - At Ferrari International Assistance we operate a ‘blind eye’ policy just for Ferrari drivers.
Been a bit silly? Taken off another driver whilst following the safety car? - It’s ok, as long as you didn’t hurt yourself. I mean, who is Force India anyway? And how dare they be in front of you?
A bit bored? Want some extra action? - With FIA-plus you can take part in a number of extracurricular membership err... activities ;-)

Not sure when you might need us next? Relax. Check out our track record. We’re confident that we’ll be able to make something up on the spot that will get you out of any pickle that you might find yourself in!

Ferrari International Assistance - Making it up as we go along for over 50 years.

:rolleyes:

[yodasarmpit]

Got a Ferrari? / Not quite good enough at driving? / Are other boys faster than you in the wet?

Then you need:-

FIA

Ferrari International Assistance

This exclusive Ferrari-only membership club has many benefits, including:-

Anti-overtaking assurance - Been overtaken? Feel a bit silly? Don’t worry, we’ll rule out the other party, even if it’s embarrassingly obvious that they’re faster than you.
Things a bit tight when leaving the pits? - Just to make things a little bit easier we’ve arranged a private second lane, just for you.
Had a crash? Need to win the world championship? - Don’t worry, just limp across the track and take off your nearest championship title contender – we’ll do the rest.
A bit strapped? Need extra cash? - simply get one of your team to tell someone else how you make your cars.
Bits falling off your car? Looking a bit dangerous? - At Ferrari International Assistance we operate a ‘blind eye’ policy just for Ferrari drivers.
Been a bit silly? Taken off another driver whilst following the safety car? - It’s ok, as long as you didn’t hurt yourself. I mean, who is Force India anyway? And how dare they be in front of you?
A bit bored? Want some extra action? - With FIA-plus you can take part in a number of extracurricular membership err... activities ;-)

Not sure when you might need us next? Relax. Check out our track record. We’re confident that we’ll be able to make something up on the spot that will get you out of any pickle that you might find yourself in!

Ferrari International Assistance - Making it up as we go along for over 50 years.

I don't actually believe there is any great conspiracy however this made me chuckle.

[wmcot]

Got a Ferrari? / Not quite good enough at driving? / Are other boys faster than you in the wet?

Then you need:-

FIA

Ferrari International Assistance

This exclusive Ferrari-only membership club has many benefits, including:-

Anti-overtaking assurance - Been overtaken? Feel a bit silly? Don’t worry, we’ll rule out the other party, even if it’s embarrassingly obvious that they’re faster than you.
Things a bit tight when leaving the pits? - Just to make things a little bit easier we’ve arranged a private second lane, just for you.
Had a crash? Need to win the world championship? - Don’t worry, just limp across the track and take off your nearest championship title contender – we’ll do the rest.
A bit strapped? Need extra cash? - simply get one of your team to tell someone else how you make your cars.
Bits falling off your car? Looking a bit dangerous? - At Ferrari International Assistance we operate a ‘blind eye’ policy just for Ferrari drivers.
Been a bit silly? Taken off another driver whilst following the safety car? - It’s ok, as long as you didn’t hurt yourself. I mean, who is Force India anyway? And how dare they be in front of you?
A bit bored? Want some extra action? - With FIA-plus you can take part in a number of extracurricular membership err... activities ;-)

Not sure when you might need us next? Relax. Check out our track record. We’re confident that we’ll be able to make something up on the spot that will get you out of any pickle that you might find yourself in!

Ferrari International Assistance - Making it up as we go along for over 50 years.

Heard it all before - one big conspiracy - and all world governments are controlled by the Italian Mafia, the Loch Ness Monster is really Italian, etc., etc...


(p.s. I DO understand binary and that little quote has been on the T-shirts of nerds for years, now.)

[Big Ben]

You raise an interesting point - "not checking with the correct people".

That raises two questions (one of which has been raised before). Firstly, are the stewards available to the teams during a race to clarify these kind of things? Secondly, whether they are or not, shouldn't the Race Director have the same, or at least a very similar, understanding of the FIA rules to the stewards?

interesting questions. I have one more. If McLaren knew Hamilton's move was quite dubious and that their car was going better at that point why didn't they do it the right way after all? I think that during those last laps Hamilton's would have other chances to overtake Kimi and all this scandal would have been avoided. Instead they do nothing and go on despite the fact that Hamilton's move didn't convince even them. So why didn't they do it right??? IMO Hamilton has an attitude problem that doesn't help him much. The fact that he thinks he's the smartest dude out there makes him say and do stupid things. The entire McLaren team seems to be pretty stupid since this guy came. A few years ago they wouldn't have allowed a driver to act like this one... like a stupid movie star.

[Knock-on]

Got a Ferrari? / Not quite good enough at driving? / Are other boys faster than you in the wet?

Then you need:-

FIA

Ferrari International Assistance

This exclusive Ferrari-only membership club has many benefits, including:-

Anti-overtaking assurance - Been overtaken? Feel a bit silly? Don’t worry, we’ll rule out the other party, even if it’s embarrassingly obvious that they’re faster than you.
Things a bit tight when leaving the pits? - Just to make things a little bit easier we’ve arranged a private second lane, just for you.
Had a crash? Need to win the world championship? - Don’t worry, just limp across the track and take off your nearest championship title contender – we’ll do the rest.
A bit strapped? Need extra cash? - simply get one of your team to tell someone else how you make your cars.
Bits falling off your car? Looking a bit dangerous? - At Ferrari International Assistance we operate a ‘blind eye’ policy just for Ferrari drivers.
Been a bit silly? Taken off another driver whilst following the safety car? - It’s ok, as long as you didn’t hurt yourself. I mean, who is Force India anyway? And how dare they be in front of you?
A bit bored? Want some extra action? - With FIA-plus you can take part in a number of extracurricular membership err... activities ;-)

Not sure when you might need us next? Relax. Check out our track record. We’re confident that we’ll be able to make something up on the spot that will get you out of any pickle that you might find yourself in!

Ferrari International Assistance - Making it up as we go along for over 50 years.

PML, made me snort my tea through my nose.

Going to print this off. :laugh:

[SGWilko]

Got a Ferrari? / Not quite good enough at driving? / Are other boys faster than you in the wet?

Then you need:-

FIA

Ferrari International Assistance

This exclusive Ferrari-only membership club has many benefits, including:-

Anti-overtaking assurance - Been overtaken? Feel a bit silly? Don’t worry, we’ll rule out the other party, even if it’s embarrassingly obvious that they’re faster than you.
Things a bit tight when leaving the pits? - Just to make things a little bit easier we’ve arranged a private second lane, just for you.
Had a crash? Need to win the world championship? - Don’t worry, just limp across the track and take off your nearest championship title contender – we’ll do the rest.
A bit strapped? Need extra cash? - simply get one of your team to tell someone else how you make your cars.
Bits falling off your car? Looking a bit dangerous? - At Ferrari International Assistance we operate a ‘blind eye’ policy just for Ferrari drivers.
Been a bit silly? Taken off another driver whilst following the safety car? - It’s ok, as long as you didn’t hurt yourself. I mean, who is Force India anyway? And how dare they be in front of you?
A bit bored? Want some extra action? - With FIA-plus you can take part in a number of extracurricular membership err... activities ;-)

Not sure when you might need us next? Relax. Check out our track record. We’re confident that we’ll be able to make something up on the spot that will get you out of any pickle that you might find yourself in!

Ferrari International Assistance - Making it up as we go along for over 50 years.

Before reading that, can I suggest you imagine Hugh Dennis as the voice over on this - in the style of 'are you paying too much for your car insurance'

Priceless, that gets my vote for post of the millenium! :D

[ArrowsFA1]

How long will it be before the FIA decide whether or not to allow the appeal to go ahead :confused:

[jimjan]

we need to find a way to do what the fia will listen to--economic boycott of some form?

how about some suggestions re how to put our real displeasure to work [financail loss]????

you ideas??
-not attend rest of races till points returned to hamiltion
-no merchandise purchased

other ideas?

[Knock-on]

How long will it be before the FIA decide whether or not to allow the appeal to go ahead :confused:

I'm with F1boat on this now.

There is a lot of uncertainty out there and the longer that prevails, the more it looks like bad management.

[Tonieke]

Got a Ferrari? / Not quite good enough at driving? / Are other boys faster than you in the wet?

Then you need:-

FIA

Ferrari International Assistance

This exclusive Ferrari-only membership club has many benefits, including:-

Anti-overtaking assurance - Been overtaken? Feel a bit silly? Don’t worry, we’ll rule out the other party, even if it’s embarrassingly obvious that they’re faster than you.
Things a bit tight when leaving the pits? - Just to make things a little bit easier we’ve arranged a private second lane, just for you.
Had a crash? Need to win the world championship? - Don’t worry, just limp across the track and take off your nearest championship title contender – we’ll do the rest.
A bit strapped? Need extra cash? - simply get one of your team to tell someone else how you make your cars.
Bits falling off your car? Looking a bit dangerous? - At Ferrari International Assistance we operate a ‘blind eye’ policy just for Ferrari drivers.
Been a bit silly? Taken off another driver whilst following the safety car? - It’s ok, as long as you didn’t hurt yourself. I mean, who is Force India anyway? And how dare they be in front of you?
A bit bored? Want some extra action? - With FIA-plus you can take part in a number of extracurricular membership err... activities ;-)

Not sure when you might need us next? Relax. Check out our track record. We’re confident that we’ll be able to make something up on the spot that will get you out of any pickle that you might find yourself in!

Ferrari International Assistance - Making it up as we go along for over 50 years.


LMAO

[Dave B]

You're getting lower and lower.
I take it you didn't read post #50?

Anyway, I'm putting your idiotic little trolling arse on my ignore list so I never have to read your inane drivel again. Feel free to report that as a personal attack, I no longer give a toss what you think.

[Knock-on]

I take it you didn't read post #50?

Anyway, I'm putting your idiotic little trolling arse on my ignore list so I never have to read your inane drivel again. Feel free to report that as a personal attack, I no longer give a toss what you think.


+1

Yep, I feel the same way.

As the Mods refuse to deal with his trolling, I am going to do the same.

If I never have to read one of his lies again, I'll be glad.

(ps, how do you do it?)

[SGWilko]

(ps, how do you do it?)

I should think a 12 bore maybe ought to do the trick - bit messy mind!

[ioan]

I take it you didn't read post #50?

Anyway, I'm putting your idiotic little trolling arse on my ignore list so I never have to read your inane drivel again.

What an eloquent and civilized style! Nothing less than what I was expecting from a biased poster who attacks others based on nationality! :rolleyes:

[Knock-on]

I should think a 12 bore maybe ought to do the trick - bit messy mind!

LMAO.

Do you know how much lead costs these days. Not worth it ;)

Nope, apparently you do it in user CP and can I say how pleasing it is to do.

All you see is that ioan has written something but it's not there. It's like the computer has a "rubbish filter" and has taken it all away :D

I don't give a s**t anymore. If he writes tosh, you lot have to read it and I don't.

I can heartily recommend it. It's liberating :D

Since you cannot stomach the thought of people having opposite views, why don't you join a Mclaren-only forum?

It is perfectly reasonable for a poor rule to be clarified and IMHO an appeal would allow that to happen. Don't assume the appeal would find in favour of Hamilton.

I won't assume that, don't worry.

Certainly it is reasonable for a poor rule to be clarified, but even if it is then that should not be back-dated.

A clarification in time for Monza I have no problem with, but the events at Spa took place before such a clarification and are therefore not entitled to be subject to any clarification.

The Ferrari floor ruling was not back-dated, for example, but the issue was clarified in time for Malaysia. The Renault Mass-Damper issue was clarified between France & Germany, but the clarification was not back-dated.

Yet apparently that constituted favouritism in the eyes of some.

Evidently some people are so hell-bent on complaining about the organising body that they don't remember that.

[Dave B]

Personaly I've got no problem with anybody having a differing opinion. My problem comes when people try to present that opinion as factual without any evidence, ignore repeated requests to cite sources, selectively quote, misquote and lie. I've decided that the way to deal with such people (so far just the one) is to put them on my ignore list.

Personaly I've got no problem with anybody having a differing opinion. My problem comes when people try to present that opinion as factual without any evidence, ignore repeated requests to cite sources, selectively quote, misquote and lie. I've decided that the way to deal with such people (so far just the one) is to put them on my ignore list.

Blimey mate, with that criteria you'd be on here by yourself!

The only thing I have a problem with is people being called "idiotic little trolling arse" by people who think they are morally superior.

But, thankfully, I don't believe in censorship, so I won't be using the "ignore" button and can enjoy your opinion, even if it is not one I agree with.

[Mickey T]

Had a crash? Need to win the world championship? - Don’t worry, just limp across the track and take off your nearest championship title contender – we’ll do the rest.


this bit was benetton.

but the rest is hilarious.

for me, i'm hoping and trusting that this was incompetence on behalf of the stewards and not something more sinister.

i really doubt anybody would have been too upset had no punishment been handed out, regardless of what side of the fence you sit on.

but it does cry out for professional, experience stewards (with contemporary racing experience) to preside over the most professional championship in the world, doesn't it?

at the very least, there needs to be crystal clear lines of communication opened up - by the stewards to the teams - to inform them that a redress hasn't been enough and that it needs to be done again and better, rather than let this ludicrous, completely avoidable situation burn on.

just what the sport needs, really. another avoidable scandal.

it's the mcdonalds of sports - filled with noisy kids and run by a clown.

don't even know if i can be bothered watching monza.

[pino]

I've decided to close an eye about all the (now deleted) stupidity/personal attacks/insults it's been posted here today, but next insult posted by anyone will be punished with 1 month ban !

[Mark]

As much as I like Dave he should get at least a warning.

There is a lot of uncertainty out there and the longer that prevails, the more it looks like bad management.

Really? To you maybe, yes.

To me it looks like the FIA are doing the right thing by not caving in to mob rule.

[truefan72]

Got a Ferrari? / Not quite good enough at driving? / Are other boys faster than you in the wet?

Then you need:-

FIA

Ferrari International Assistance

This exclusive Ferrari-only membership club has many benefits, including:-

Anti-overtaking assurance - Been overtaken? Feel a bit silly? Don’t worry, we’ll rule out the other party, even if it’s embarrassingly obvious that they’re faster than you.
Things a bit tight when leaving the pits? - Just to make things a little bit easier we’ve arranged a private second lane, just for you.
Had a crash? Need to win the world championship? - Don’t worry, just limp across the track and take off your nearest championship title contender – we’ll do the rest.
A bit strapped? Need extra cash? - simply get one of your team to tell someone else how you make your cars.
Bits falling off your car? Looking a bit dangerous? - At Ferrari International Assistance we operate a ‘blind eye’ policy just for Ferrari drivers.
Been a bit silly? Taken off another driver whilst following the safety car? - It’s ok, as long as you didn’t hurt yourself. I mean, who is Force India anyway? And how dare they be in front of you?
A bit bored? Want some extra action? - With FIA-plus you can take part in a number of extracurricular membership err... activities ;-)

Not sure when you might need us next? Relax. Check out our track record. We’re confident that we’ll be able to make something up on the spot that will get you out of any pickle that you might find yourself in!

Ferrari International Assistance - Making it up as we go along for over 50 years.

brilliantly funny!

[ArrowsFA1]

To me it looks like the FIA are doing the right thing by not caving in to mob rule.
But surely the FIA have had time to decide whether to hear the appeal or not by now? Prolonging that decision does not help matters.

I think an appeal is needed for a number of reasons:
1) To clarify Charlie Whiting's role - clearly he advises teams on many different issues and did so in this case. Given that he also suggested the stewards look at the incident, his advice to McLaren that the move was "ok" was inappropriate and certainly affected the outcome of the race.
2) To clarify exactly what is an "advantage" in these situations - there are clearly different interpretations.
3) To clarify how long a driver has to wait before being permitted to 'go racing' again - 2mtrs, the next corner, the next lap.

[Knock-on]

As much as I like Dave he should get at least a warning.

Well, seeing as the management see fit to discuss publicly who should get warnings and who shouldn't then I would like to add that I agree with every word that Dave wrote. As such, I'm happy to receive any punishment you believe he is due just for pointing out the bloody obvious :)

Sorry mate but thats how quite a few of us feel.

[Knock-on]

But surely the FIA have had time to decide whether to hear the appeal or not by now? Prolonging that decision does not help matters.

I think an appeal is needed for a number of reasons:
1) To clarify Charlie Whiting's role - clearly he advises teams on many different issues and did so in this case. Given that he also suggested the stewards look at the incident, his advice to McLaren that the move was "ok" was inappropriate and certainly affected the outcome of the race.
2) To clarify exactly what is an "advantage" in these situations - there are clearly different interpretations.
3) To clarify how long a driver has to wait before being permitted to 'go racing' again - 2mtrs, the next corner, the next lap.

Correct.

Some see it as Mob rule and some as Public Opinion but there does need to be some sort of explanation on this.

[ArrowsFA1]

A further point that may be worth making is that the layout of Monza (chicanes!) means there is a fair chance of something similar happening again this weekend.

How many times have we seen cars forced to take evading action at Variante Rettifilio on the first lap when everyone is bunched together, fighting for position? Should we expect penalties in those circumstances?

That is another reason why the FIA needs to act quickly and decisively.

[Knock-on]

There has to be consistency.

Lewis was massively faster than Kimi in those conditions.

There is a reasonable chance that if he had of followed him through the chicane on his gearbox, he would have been able to do him at the next corner anyway as Kimi was so much slower and braking so early.

In the dry, you wouldn't normally pass there but the grip Lewis was finding makes this a reasonable assumption.

This is demonstrated by him slowing down, letting Kimi pass and still being able to out-brake him and effect the pass.

So, any advantage is down to personal opinion.

With Kimi at the start of the race, by going offtrack and not braking he maintained his position. Had he braked and not gone off track, then he would have lost ground. He was advantaged by going off track and made no attempt to relinquish this advantage which resulted in him overtaking Massa a few corners later.

If he had of got a drive through or braked and kept on track, he would not have been is a position to overtake Massa and then benefit from the lead when Lewis had an issue on the next lap.

Either both get penalised for this or both don't.

The only difference between the 2 is that Kimi gained 2 places by not being penalised and Lewis gave the place back and then retook as he was so much faster.

The first incident affected the outcome of the GP and the 2nd would have had no difference whatsoever.

Personally, I think this is just a part of racing and neither driver should have been punished but the FIA interpret the two instances very differently. I'm sure that McLaren will ask why this is so?

[Dave B]

As much as I like Dave he should get at least a warning.
I consider myself warned, and apologise to anybody I offended. In seven years here it's the first time I can ever recall losing my rag in public. I stick by the spirit of what I posted but I accept that I didn't go about it in the most professional manner.

[Knock-on]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70499

FIA set date for appeal.

[ArrowsFA1]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70499

FIA set date for appeal.
Although it's not yet certain the appeal will be heard:

There remain some doubts about whether McLaren are actually allowed to appeal what was effectively a drive-through penalty, and the court will decide at the hearing whether the appeal is admissible or not.

[ArrowsFA1]

Formula One drivers have been told that they should wait at least one corner before resuming a fight for position in the event of future chicane-cutting incidents.

In the wake of the Lewis Hamilton controversy from Belgium, F1 drivers sought clarification on what was and was not allowed during their regular Friday evening briefing with F1 race director Charlie Whiting.

Autosport.com understands the drivers were informed that in the event of a driver cutting a chicane and gaining a position, he not only had to give that place back but should also wait for another corner before he could attempt to retake it.

Waiting until after the following corner would ensure there were no questions of a driver having gained an advantage.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70526

That done, I expect that McLaren's appeal will be denied and the penalty imposed on Hamilton will stand.

[wmcot]

Formula One drivers have been told that they should wait at least one corner before resuming a fight for position in the event of future chicane-cutting incidents.

In the wake of the Lewis Hamilton controversy from Belgium, F1 drivers sought clarification on what was and was not allowed during their regular Friday evening briefing with F1 race director Charlie Whiting.

Autosport.com understands the drivers were informed that in the event of a driver cutting a chicane and gaining a position, he not only had to give that place back but should also wait for another corner before he could attempt to retake it.

Waiting until after the following corner would ensure there were no questions of a driver having gained an advantage.


OK, who in the FIA is making sense? We'll have none of that!

[Triumph]

Hmm, very interesting. So was that bit about 'waiting another corner' in the rule book last week?

If not then it cannot be applied retrospectively.

[Knock-on]

Max has come out and said that having the appeal will be a waste of everyones time so the outcome is already decided.

[ArrowsFA1]

The hearing is today:


The first hurdle that McLaren will have to overcome in the hearing, however, is proving that the appeal is actually admissible.
There has been some debate about whether or not teams can actually appeal drive-through penalties - which was the original punishment Hamilton was handed down. It was turned into a 25-second penalty because it was served in the final five laps of the race.
Despite the hearing in Paris today, McLaren and Hamilton will have to wait until tomorrow to find out the judges' decision.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70765

[PolePosition_1]

My personal feelings is that he should be let off (though it will be better for the title if he isn't).

I can't really see how they're going to be able to get past the fact that your not allowed to appeal a 25s time penalty.

[CNR]

what a can of worms it would be if lewis gets the win back in the appeal
team and drivers that have lost over the years could all appeal there would be a few races changed.

[ioan]

Well, IMO the FIA let the appeal to go ahead just to prove that they have nothing against McLaren.
Than they will keep the penalty for Lewis and nothing will happen.
Case closed!

[Knock-on]

My personal feelings is that he should be let off (though it will be better for the title if he isn't).

I can't really see how they're going to be able to get past the fact that your not allowed to appeal a 25s time penalty.

This is an interesting point.

The reason you cannot appeal a Drive through is because it's served in the race and they don't want teams retrospectivly appealing results when they have actually served the penalty.

The 25 second thing is to stop people using the pit lane as a finish line as MS did thereby not serving a penalty.

However, if a team have not been informed of a penalty till after the race, can it really be called a drive through and therefore can it be appealed. Surely it becomes a time penalty.

[Knock-on]

It looks like the FIA are trying to avoid the appeal as it was a drive through but McLaren have a precedent from last year established.


It was highlighted that at last season's Japanese Grand Prix, an appeal was heard about whether or not Vitantonio Liuzzi should have been handed a 25-second time penalty for passing Adrian Sutil under yellow caution flags. That punished was in lieu of a drive-through penalty that is normally handed down for such offences.

Also, we have Charlies words off the transcript.


The court was also played a radio clip of the conversation between McLaren sporting director Dave Ryan and race director Charlie Whiting at the time of the incident, which cited a preliminary approval for Hamilton giving up on his advantage.

The radio transcript stated:

Ryan: 'Do you believe that was okay? He gave the position back.'

Whiting: 'I believe it was. Yes.'

Ryan: 'You believe it was okay.'

Whiting: 'I believe it was okay.'

Hamilton is set to take to the witness stand after lunch to provide his version of events.

[ArrowsFA1]

Discussions about whether McLaren's appeal into Lewis Hamilton's Belgian Grand Prix penalty is admissible have dominated early proceedings in the FIA International Court of Appeal hearing in Paris this morning.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70772

[ioan]

They could have also played Boogie Nights instead of Charlie's words, given that he isn't the one taking the decision about sporting infringements.

[PolePosition_1]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70772

Wow, fair play to them, they playing very clever:

Under FIA regulations, drive-through penalties are not subject to appeal. However, McLaren's barrister Mark Philips QC has argued that this case can be appealed because the discussion is about the 25-second time penalty only.

It was highlighted that at last season's Japanese Grand Prix, an appeal was heard about whether or not Vitantonio Liuzzi should have been handed a 25-second time penalty for passing Adrian Sutil under yellow caution flags. That punished was in lieu of a drive-through penalty that is normally handed down for such offences.

So because they didn't issue a drive through in the first place, they're fighting that it was not a drive through penalty, but purely a 25s post race penalty, in which case it is open to an appeal - have I understood it correctly?

And if Luzzi was granted an appeal, they will have to follow suit and accept an appeal?

[Knock-on]

Wow, fair play to them, they playing very clever:

Under FIA regulations, drive-through penalties are not subject to appeal. However, McLaren's barrister Mark Philips QC has argued that this case can be appealed because the discussion is about the 25-second time penalty only.

It was highlighted that at last season's Japanese Grand Prix, an appeal was heard about whether or not Vitantonio Liuzzi should have been handed a 25-second time penalty for passing Adrian Sutil under yellow caution flags. That punished was in lieu of a drive-through penalty that is normally handed down for such offences.

So because they didn't issue a drive through in the first place, they're fighting that it was not a drive through penalty, but purely a 25s post race penalty, in which case it is open to an appeal - have I understood it correctly?

And if Luzzi was granted an appeal, they will have to follow suit and accept an appeal?

That's the way I see it too.

It's all pretty immaterial as Max has said that McLaren are wasting their time by appealing but at least they have to justify it now.

I for one am getting sick and tired of championships being decided in court. The FIA really needs to get it's house in order as these sorts of decisions are damaging the sport.

[PolePosition_1]

That's the way I see it too.

It's all pretty immaterial as Max has said that McLaren are wasting their time by appealing but at least they have to justify it now.

I for one am getting sick and tired of championships being decided in court. The FIA really needs to get it's house in order as these sorts of decisions are damaging the sport.

Who is the appeal up against? I'm under the understanding its not up to Max if the appeal is accepted or not.

[Tonieke]

They could have also played Boogie Nights instead of Charlie's words, given that he isn't the one taking the decision about sporting infringements.

exactly another reason why this whole thing should be reviewed..and maybe this appeal can help in resolving certain shortcomings within the FIA organisation so things like in Spa won't happen again..i mean you find it normal a racedirector's opinion in cases like these are of no count at all ?

And some steward coming from...and with all respect...Kenia..who probably does this job only a couple of races a year..can decide what is good and what is wrong...and makes a decission that is totaly the opposite of what the racedirector told the team ?

[Bagwan]

exactly another reason why this whole thing should be reviewed..and maybe this appeal can help in resolving certain shortcomings within the FIA organisation so things like in Spa won't happen again..i mean you find it normal a racedirector's opinion in cases like these are of no count at all ?

And some steward coming from...and with all respect...Kenia..who probably does this job only a couple of races a year..can decide what is good and what is wrong...and makes a decission that is totaly the opposite of what the racedirector told the team ?

On your first point :
Could it be that Dennis knew Charlie wasn't the guy to ask ? He seemed to know afterwards , when asked .
Perhaps Ron will know to call the stewards for the opinion next time .
That's the other side of that coin .

On the second one :
Are you assuming that , because the steward might be from Kenya , that his knowledge of the rules is lesser ? That's what it sounds like .
Another way to view that is that there might be less chance of having a biassed steward , being that Kenya has no auto industry of which I've heard .
No Ferrari bias there , unless the steward drives one , which , I guess he could . I don't know .
It sure would make a good story for the tabloids , wouldn't it ?

[ArrowsFA1]

Could it be that Dennis knew Charlie wasn't the guy to ask ? He seemed to know afterwards , when asked .
Perhaps Ron will know to call the stewards for the opinion next time .
That's the other side of that coin .
Max said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70547) "I think there were two mistakes made there. One is that McLaren should not have asked Charlie. The second is that he should not have answered...the primary mistake in my view was the team's. The team should have decided on precedent, and from everything they know, what advice to give him (Hamilton)."

The problem with that is how would a team know which precedent to decide on? The FIA are hardly consistent when it comes to this kind of thing! Also, are the stewards available during the race to resolve these kind of incidents immediately, and if they were would it be practical for them to do so?

With regard to the stewards, I think the question that should be asked is 'what racing experience do they have to be able to judge racing incidents?'

[MrJan]

I'd have thought that consulting the race director was a fairly sensible thing to do............oh wait a minute...the FIA doesn't do sensible ;) :p :

[Tonieke]

On your first point :
Could it be that Dennis knew Charlie wasn't the guy to ask ? He seemed to know afterwards , when asked .
Perhaps Ron will know to call the stewards for the opinion next time .
That's the other side of that coin .

On the second one :
Are you assuming that , because the steward might be from Kenya , that his knowledge of the rules is lesser ? That's what it sounds like .
Another way to view that is that there might be less chance of having a biassed steward , being that Kenya has no auto industry of which I've heard .
No Ferrari bias there , unless the steward drives one , which , I guess he could . I don't know .
It sure would make a good story for the tabloids , wouldn't it ?

Problem 1 : are teams allowed or able to get in touch with the stewards during a race ?

and yes that's what I am assuming....I think a race steward should at least have some racing experience or be involved with the sport for a while...from the inside !

also do they have to take some sort of course and have to pass tests before they become a steward ?

[MrJan]

I'd imagine it very unlikely that stewards haven't been involved in motorsport for a long time at a decent level. Even if you just watch or marshall then you usually have some inkling about what's going on.

As for racing experience, not much point because even drivers have different opinions of what's going on. It'll never be a perfect world which should make a lot of people on forums very happy because it gives everyone more to argue about :p :

[ArrowsFA1]

As for racing experience, not much point because even drivers have different opinions of what's going on.
True, opinions are almost always going to differ. However, if the stewards did have (do have?) some racing experience it would give them some relevant insight. If they're simply administrators who have risen up the ranks of their own national motoring organisation then how well qualified are they to make these kind of calls?

[ioan]

Hammy:



"I just hope the judges see the truth. I am a racing driver, driven by excellence. It's what I do. It's what I enjoy doing. I am now just going to focus on my next race and hopefully winning there.



"Are you a racing driver? No!

"I have been a racing driver since I was eight years old and I know pretty much every single manoeuvre in the book, and that's why I'm the best at my job. We are talking about a skilled driver under intense pressure making a split-second decision which no-one, not unless they are in Formula One, can comprehend."


"It was long and intense," he explained. "I said what was on my mind because in that position you can be talked down to. But by no means am I an idiot. I had a right to my opinion."


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70786

:rolleyes:

[ioan]

True, opinions are almost always going to differ. However, if the stewards did have (do have?) some racing experience it would give them some relevant insight. If they're simply administrators who have risen up the ranks of their own national motoring organisation then how well qualified are they to make these kind of calls?

The stewards judgements are based on the rule book and not on how much racing one previously did in his life. That's the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. :rolleyes:

[raybak]

As far as I know, you can't contact the Stewards during an event. You have to go through either the race director, the Clerk of Course or the CRO.

Ray

[ShiftingGears]

The stewards judgements are based on the rule book and not on how much racing one previously did in his life.

They are based on interpretations of the rules in the rule book. So people with experience in that situation have a better grounding about what the 'gist' of the rules actually are, rather than Kenyan facial hair critics with a motorsport background unrelated to circuit racing.

[ArrowsFA1]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70786

:rolleyes:
And you roll your eyes at those comments because... :confused:

The stewards judgements are based on the rule book and not on how much racing one previously did in his life.
Yes, the stewards are there to apply the rules, but as I said if they did have (do have?) some racing experience it would give them some relevant insight into the incidents they are judging.

Are you suggesting that if you were handed a rulebook for any sport about which you know little or nothing, and were put in the situation where you had to make a ruling, you would feel happy doing that? More importantly, would those you were judging have respect for, and accept, whatever decision you made?

[PolePosition_1]

On your first point :
Could it be that Dennis knew Charlie wasn't the guy to ask ? He seemed to know afterwards , when asked .
Perhaps Ron will know to call the stewards for the opinion next time .
That's the other side of that coin .

On the second one :
Are you assuming that , because the steward might be from Kenya , that his knowledge of the rules is lesser ? That's what it sounds like .
Another way to view that is that there might be less chance of having a biassed steward , being that Kenya has no auto industry of which I've heard .
No Ferrari bias there , unless the steward drives one , which , I guess he could . I don't know .
It sure would make a good story for the tabloids , wouldn't it ?

On your first point, I didn't think the Stewards could be contacted during the race.

If they cannot, which is my understanding, and the rules being open to so much interpretation (as can be seen with race control saying it was fine twice and race stewards saying it wasn't, surely they need to be able to refer to someone during the race if an incident can be interpretted. If race control is the only people they can refer to, surely them saying it is ok should be taken into account. As Martin Whitmarsh stated, if race control had told them it wasn't, or even they weren't sure, they'd have let Kimi back past. Fact they told them twice it was fine, should be taken into account.

But what bothers me the most, is that no ultimate sporting advantage was gained, and the race before that in Valencia, they deemed Massa guilty, but let him off for not gaining a sporting advantage.

Plus we also have fact Alonso did exactly the same thing to Klien in Japan, and though he let him past after passing him from slipstream, he was later told he didn't have to do that.

On your second point, fact race steward from Kenya shouldn't really make any difference. Though some of his comments after I did find concerning, and his track record is not 100% trustworthy from what I've read, but I'll give him benefit of the doubt in this as I read some bad things from NOTW, not the most trustworthy paper itself.

[ArrowsFA1]

Interesting to read (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/motors/article-1059957/Hamilton-hearing-casts-doubt-fairness-FIA.html) that Tony Scott Andrews, the former permanent FIA Steward, was at the hearing yesterday. Even more interesting to see why:

Tony Scott Andrews, of Banbury, arrived halfway through McLaren's appeal hearing over a 25-second penalty at the Belgian Grand Prix, and said not a single word. He instead left his mark with a witness statement so incendiary that it cast doubt on the FIA's competence, or even fairness, as the sport's governors.

The tangled story starts with an email sent by the FIA's legal department last Friday to everyone involved in yesterday's meeting. It claimed Scott Andrews had admitted to making 'an inadvertent error' while acting as chief steward at the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix. Its relevance to McLaren's case is to do with precedent.

The team claimed they have the right to appeal Hamilton's demotion from first to third place - Ferrari's Felipe Massa was later awarded the race - based on the fact that Toro Rosso were allowed to challenge the same sanction imposed on their driver, Vitantonio Liuzzi, in Fuji 12 months ago. But the FIA, in their misleading email, stated that Liuzzi's punishment was levied under a different article of the rules, implying there the precedent does not hold. Their communication even apologised for 'any confusion that may have been caused' by the mistake.

McLaren then contacted Scott Andrews on Sunday for his thoughts on the comments attributed to him. In his statement, he set the record straight, saying: 'I have seen the email and I'm extremely surprised by its content. In short, it is grossly inaccurate and misleading.'

The FIA revealed their email was based on a phone conversation between Scott Andrews - a respected figure, who has since been relieved of his duties as a permanent steward - and Charlie Whiting, the ruling body's Formula One race director. Whiting was later asked by McLaren's lawyer, Mark Phillips QC, if he still believed the email reflected what he was told by Scott Andrews, or was it 'just your surmise?' Whiting said 'yes', it was just his impression.

Phillips called it an 'unfortunate email' and implored the FIA court of appeal of five lawyers 'to reflect when you come to consider your judgment the way in which certain members of the FIA conducted themselves. I won't say any more.'

[PolePosition_1]

The stewards judgements are based on the rule book and not on how much racing one previously did in his life. That's the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. :rolleyes:

But surely you can see a problem, when race control and the race stewards came to a totally different conclusion, using the same rulebook and the same incident. Its not objectivity at all, this incident just shows its totally subjective, making it impossible for the teams to know if they've acted within the rules or not.

I'm not aware they can contact race stewards mid race to check, their only official guide available to them is race control, who said twice it was fine. I think that should be taken into account.

[ioan]

And you roll your eyes at those comments because... :confused:

His quotes imply that only a top F1 driver could be able to judge what happened there.
As far as I know all the fellow drivers but Heikki, did say that the penalty was right. So why do they ask for judges to decide it for them in this case :?:

[SGWilko]

His quotes imply that only a top F1 driver could be able to judge what happened there.
As far as I know all the fellow drivers but Heikki, did say that the penalty was right. So why do they ask for judges to decide it for them in this case :?:

His quotes imply that he was the driver in that position, and explains perfectly well why he did what he did. Don't let your distaste for anything McLaren/Lewis cloud your judgement, will ya? ;)

[PolePosition_1]

His quotes imply that only a top F1 driver could be able to judge what happened there.
As far as I know all the fellow drivers but Heikki, did say that the penalty was right. So why do they ask for judges to decide it for them in this case :?:

I'm sure if all the drivers thought the Belgium verdict was right, they probably thought the exact situation with Alonso in Japan 2005, where Alonso was told he didn't have to let Klien past was wrong. Or when Schumacher was not punished for cutting the chicane saving his places against De La Rosa and Heidfeld was wrong too.

The argument is primarily over consistancy, and when we're talking about 6 points, its basically going to decide the title. And then the sporting advantage gain theory I've posted in previous posts.

I think nearly all the drivers also admitted it to being a harsh penalty.

[SGWilko]

Interesting to read (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/motors/article-1059957/Hamilton-hearing-casts-doubt-fairness-FIA.html) that Tony Scott Andrews, the former permanent FIA Steward, was at the hearing yesterday. Even more interesting to see why:

Without guidance on which way to turn the taps, and when the thing is full, I doubt the FIA's ability to reliably run a bath.

God help them all if they all end up in a brewery, I doubt they'd manage to organise the perverbial pi55 up.

TS-A's little snippet is a little chink of light on how messed up and inbred the FIA really is. I say it is rotten to the core, and we all know who is at the core, don't we?

[ArrowsFA1]

His quotes imply that only a top F1 driver could be able to judge what happened there.
As far as I know all the fellow drivers but Heikki, did say that the penalty was right.
I tend to rely on Autosport for my F1 news and according to them Massa (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70428) said Hamilton's move was "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". Trulli (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70435) said Hamilton "got an advantage by cutting the chicane". Alonso (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70469) said "Lewis had an advantage by doing that. If he did the chicane properly, he would never have crossed the line one metre behind Kimi."

So the consensus seems to be that Hamilton gained an advantage by cutting the chicane. However a few (Rosberg, Trulli, Fisichella) thought (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70473) the penalty was a bit harsh.

[ArrowsFA1]

TS-A's little snippet is a little chink of light on how messed up and inbred the FIA really is. I say it is rotten to the core, and we all know who is at the core, don't we?
If things happened as that report says then McLaren produced a precedent to show the appeal was admissable. In response the FIA then produce a "grossly inaccurate and misleading" email to discredit not only that precedent but one of their own officials :eek:

[Dave B]

Interesting to read (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/motors/article-1059957/Hamilton-hearing-casts-doubt-fairness-FIA.html) that Tony Scott Andrews, the former permanent FIA Steward, was at the hearing yesterday. Even more interesting to see why:
Wow. And we're expected to trust the FIA after reading that? Good lord.

[Mark]

Perhaps there should be a model such as in football (as recent events prove) that a referee makes a decision and that's final, even if it was proven later to be wrong. The point is that a decision needs to be made on the spot, not weeks later.

[AndyRAC]

Perhaps there should be a model such as in football (as recent events prove) that a referee makes a decision and that's final, even if it was proven later to be wrong. The point is that a decision needs to be made on the spot, not weeks later.

It's funny you've used that example because I was arguing the exact opposite yesterday on a BBC forum, ( 'the refs decision is final' is an outmoded idea) and actually used the McLaren example, appealing when they actually weren't allowed to. Similarly Watford should appeal, launch a petition, etc

[leopard]

Among drivers gave opinion about the incident, I think Massa's is the most reliable considering he was the closest driver when the accident occurred. We might not know Fisichella at that time whereabout?,

[PolePosition_1]

Among drivers gave opinion about the incident, I think Massa's is the most reliable considering he was the closest driver when the accident occurred. We might not know Fisichella at that time whereabout?,

Massa is also the one who benefits the most by the verdict of guilty.

[ArrowsFA1]

Ed Gorman's view (http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2008/09/sitting-in-cdg.html) is that the appeal by McLaren will be thrown out as inadmissable. With regard to Tony Scott Andrews he does ask "what on earth was the FIA up to?" but concludes that it "will be no more than a sideshow and will not affect the overall findings."

[Dave B]

Among drivers gave opinion about the incident, I think Massa's is the most reliable considering he was the closest driver when the accident occurred.
Massa was some 6 seconds behind Hamilton at the time, he would have had virtually no view of the indicent.

[Tonieke]

His quotes imply that only a top F1 driver could be able to judge what happened there.
As far as I know all the fellow drivers but Heikki, did say that the penalty was right. So why do they ask for judges to decide it for them in this case :?:


I look at it this way....If I was a current F1 driver...and when asked for my opinion...would I criticise decissions made by the governing body I race or ?....Might be a smart move not to..especialy also when not directly involved in the "incident" !

....maybe also why it's mostly ex-drivers who don't agree with the penalty as it was given ?

[Dave B]

Ed Gorman's view (http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2008/09/sitting-in-cdg.html) is that the appeal by McLaren will be thrown out as inadmissable. With regard to Tony Scott Andrews he does ask "what on earth was the FIA up to?" but concludes that it "will be no more than a sideshow and will not affect the overall findings."
Ed Gorman also gives lie to the myth that all British journalists are on Lewis' side - he is sticking to his view that Hamilton's driving looks "iffy from a rules standpoint".

[Knock-on]

Ed Gorman's view (http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2008/09/sitting-in-cdg.html) is that the appeal by McLaren will be thrown out as inadmissable. With regard to Tony Scott Andrews he does ask "what on earth was the FIA up to?" but concludes that it "will be no more than a sideshow and will not affect the overall findings."

I think the FIA is trying everything possible to deny the appeal being admissible.

As we can see, they have even resorted to grossly misquoting their own officials.

Max has already said that McLaren is wasting their time and this just goes to show how sincere he is for once.

[F1boat]

One of the things that I hate about the FIA is how slow they announce the results of their decisions. They postponed the decision fro Monday to Tuesday morning and now at least here it as afternoon and still nothing is announced.

[Mysterious Rock]

Taken from BBC website

Hamilton asserted his case powerfully in front of Tozzi, at one point stating: "Are you a racing driver? No!

"I have been a racing driver since I was eight years old and I know pretty much every single manoeuvre in the book, and that's why I'm the best at my job.

"We are talking about a skilled driver under intense pressure making a split-second decision which no-one, not unless they are in Formula One, can comprehend."

Tozzi told Hamilton to "stop personalising" the issue as he was under instruction from Ferrari, who "know as much about Formula One as you do".

Hamilton responded: "With respect, I doubt it."


Very cheeky Mr Hamilton, but funny none the less

[F1boat]

Lewis is as cheeky as Han Solo, but less charming :)

[ShiftingGears]

Ouch! Lewis was vicious. But he makes a good point, imo.

[Tonieke]

I thought this was a case between FIA and McL/Hamilton ? Can anybody explain me why there is a Ferrari lawyer involved cross-examinating him ?

[F1boat]

Why the **** FIA still hasn't released the decision? Boy, they are worse than the politicians in my country! As Darth Vader says, as clumsy as they are stupid.

[Knock-on]

I thought this was a case between FIA and McL/Hamilton ? Can anybody explain me why there is a Ferrari lawyer involved cross-examinating him ?

Sorry, I'm at a loss to explain that either.

Anyone got any idea?

[Dave B]

I thought this was a case between FIA and McL/Hamilton ? Can anybody explain me why there is a Ferrari lawyer involved cross-examinating him ?

Nothing surprises me any more.


Why the **** FIA still hasn't released the decision? Boy, they are worse than the politicians in my country! As Darth Vader says, as clumsy as they are stupid.

My understanding was that the verdict was due at midday UK time, ie now.

[pino]

Why the **** FIA still hasn't released the decision? Boy, they are worse than the politicians in my country! As Darth Vader says, as clumsy as they are stupid.

They are having a "Spaghetti Bolognese" pause now, be patient :p :

[Knock-on]

Nothing surprises me any more.



But I really fail to understand it this time.

There is no dispute between Ferrari and the FIA. The most Ferrari can offer is technical data on exit speeds from corners and braking zones for Kimi.

Why is the Ferrari Lawyer cross examining Hamilton?

[ArrowsFA1]

As an "interested party" I'd guess that Ferrari are entitled to present their version of events, and question Hamilton's...?

[Knock-on]

As an "interested party" I'd guess that Ferrari are entitled to present their version of events, and question Hamilton's...?

I can understand them being able to present evidence but surely it is the job of the FIA and the petitioner to question witnesses, not the witnesses themselves?

Otherwise it looks like McLaren and Hamilton are in the dock.

[F1boat]

They are having a "Spaghetti Bolognese" pause now, be patient :p :

if this is the case, I can understand them...

[PolePosition_1]

Taken from BBC website

Hamilton asserted his case powerfully in front of Tozzi, at one point stating: "Are you a racing driver? No!

"I have been a racing driver since I was eight years old and I know pretty much every single manoeuvre in the book, and that's why I'm the best at my job.

"We are talking about a skilled driver under intense pressure making a split-second decision which no-one, not unless they are in Formula One, can comprehend."

Tozzi told Hamilton to "stop personalising" the issue as he was under instruction from Ferrari, who "know as much about Formula One as you do".

Hamilton responded: "With respect, I doubt it."


Very cheeky Mr Hamilton, but funny none the less

This is a classic example of why I find Hamilton fascinating. He is so arrogant, I don't think I've seen a driver this openly arrogant in my time of watching F1. Its also why I find myself continously defending Hamilton despite me not liking the guy.

He's got character, he doesn't seem fazed, its not always a positive, but its always entertaining. And we need characters like him in F1.

Majority of us moan about drivers having no personality, and yet we moan when they show it. Whilst I don't like the guy, I'm glad he is in F1, he's huge entertainment both on track and off track.

[Dave B]

How credible a source is Motor 21?
http://www.motor21.com/noticia.asp?dt=315&nt=51522

Google translation:


(News - F1) nothing has happened. The decision by the International Automobile Federation leaves things unchanged, so Hamilton kept the third place in the Belgian GP.

[23/09/2008] Rod
The penalty for Hamilton has been ratified
The positions in the championship will remain as they are. And is that the resources and the relative media scandal that had caused himself and McLaren Lewis Hamilton appeared in court in person to explain what happened in the Grand Prix of Belgium, has not served at all.

The penalty of 25 seconds that night that was imposed on Sunday, has been ratified by the court and therefore in the annals of Formula 1, Hamilton will definitely ranked as the third in that race.

Sure this episode does not end here, and before the end of the championship we will hear talk about the Grand Prix of Belgium, especially if it succeeds in turning to Felipe Massa at the British classification. But this is Formula 1. Sometimes they give you, and you lose.

[F1boat]

I hope for more news.

[ioan]

I thought this was a case between FIA and McL/Hamilton ? Can anybody explain me why there is a Ferrari lawyer involved cross-examinating him ?

Maybe because he was gaining an unfair advantage on a Ferrari driver? :rolleyes:

[Tonieke]

Maybe because he was gaining an unfair advantage on a Ferrari driver? :rolleyes:

thought Ferrari never officialy protested about it ?

[Ranger]

Maybe because he was gaining an unfair advantage on a Ferrari driver? :rolleyes:

Tozzi would have been justified in just sticking to the rulebook. I don't really understand the point of an entire cross-examination of the driver, however. Personally I would've just roped in the two drivers and let them argue it with the stewards who put down the decision and Tony S-A. Would certainly cut a lot of FIA costs I'm sure.

One thing must be certain now. This is the most overblown driving offence in the history of F1.

[Dave B]

To me the most significant sentence in the Daily Mail article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/motors/article-1059957/Hamilton-hearing-casts-doubt-fairness-FIA.html) is:

Whiting, wilting under cross examination, then conceded there is 'no rule as such' which states that a driver must delay until the second corner.

It was clarified in the drivers' briefing at Monza, and now everybody knows the score. But you can not punish a driver when a rule isn't clear - indeed wasn't written anywhere.

[ioan]

To me the most significant sentence in the Daily Mail article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/motors/article-1059957/Hamilton-hearing-casts-doubt-fairness-FIA.html) is:

Whiting, wilting under cross examination, then conceded there is 'no rule as such' which states that a driver must delay until the second corner.

It was clarified in the drivers' briefing at Monza, and now everybody knows the score. But you can not punish a driver when a rule isn't clear - indeed wasn't written anywhere.

The rule was clear, you cut a chicane, you get a penalty, that they were lenient on some cases, it's true, but the rule was still there for everyone.

I always thought the penalty was the wrong one given the late attribution, it should have been a 10 place grid penalty for the next GP.

[ArrowsFA1]

One point...wouldn't Hamilton being questioned suggest McLaren's appeal has been found to be admissable, and that questioning was a part of the appeal itself?


The rule was clear, you cut a chicane, you get a penalty.
But if it were that clear then wouldn't many drivers at previous races been given a penalty as well?

[Knock-on]

To me the most significant sentence in the Daily Mail article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/motors/article-1059957/Hamilton-hearing-casts-doubt-fairness-FIA.html) is:

Whiting, wilting under cross examination, then conceded there is 'no rule as such' which states that a driver must delay until the second corner.

It was clarified in the drivers' briefing at Monza, and now everybody knows the score. But you can not punish a driver when a rule isn't clear - indeed wasn't written anywhere.

So, we know the following.

Hamilton cut the chicane to avoid a collisions.

He gained an advantage and let Kimi overtake and in doing so allowed Kimi a 6kph advantage over the start / finish line and a gap of 7 meters.

Lewis swapped sides and did Kimi on the brakes at the next corner.

While this was going on, McLaren checked and confirmed with Charlie that they had acted properly.

Charlie confirmed they had and then a few minutes later, referred it to the Stewards who then investigated.

McLaren appeal citing precedent set last year.

Charlie Whiting misleads the courts into believing the Chief Steward of the time had stated he was mistaken for allowing the appeal.

The Chief Steward refutes Charlie Whiting statement and offers a damming summary of Charlies actions to the court.

I used to have a lot of respect for Charlie but he has mislead, turned, twisted lied and covered up.

[Bagwan]

So , we know the following :

There are two distinctly different views on whether or not Lewis conceded the advantage gained by cutting the chicane .

Charlie spoke out of turn and without authority .

Ron asked the wrong guy .

Charlie , the wrong guy , seems to have tried to justify his actions with blaming someone else .

Maybe Charlie has lost some respect here , but it has nothing to do with whether or not Lewis conceded the advantage .

[F1boat]

It is now afternoon, still no decision.
The FIA is a big joke. Sometimes I wonder why I follow this sport.

[Dave B]

One point...wouldn't Hamilton being questioned suggest McLaren's appeal has been found to be admissable, and that questioning was a part of the appeal itself?
Apparently not so: it's all one process. Seems bizzarre but that's how the FIA work.

Just as a slightly cynical aside, could it be that the FIA are delaying their announcement until the British media at least are too busy covering Gordon Brown's speech to care about motorsport?

[schmenke]

...I always thought the penalty was the wrong one given the late attribution, it should have been a 10 place grid penalty for the next GP.

According to the Sporting Regulations the 25 second penalty applies in this case.

[AndyRAC]

Blimey, a can of worms has been opened apparently - maybe that's the reason for the delay. The 'appeal' has failed but now they are arguing over a different matter - Charlie is maybe trying to escape censure for telling McLaren what he had no business doing. You couldn't make it up,.....

[schmenke]

...Sometimes I wonder why I follow this sport.

I have found myself asking the same question lately :mark:

[ioan]

According to the Sporting Regulations the 25 second penalty applies in this case.

The sporting regulations stipulate a 25 seconds penalty or a 10 places grid penalty, if my memory serves me well.

[Dave B]

According to the Sporting Regulations the 25 second penalty applies in this case.

Indeed so (my highlighting):

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.

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/475632E46002BEDAC125744F004312F4/$FILE/F1.SPORTING.REGULATIONS.19-05-2008.pdf

[ioan]

It doesn't change the fact that they could have originally impose a drop of 10 grid positions for the next race, as stated in the above mentioned rules.
Than there wouldn't have been any change of the race winner and the penalty would have been one that they can be disputed in the court.

[Tonieke]

It doesn't change the fact that they could have originally impose a drop of 10 grid positions for the next race, as stated in the above mentioned rules.
Than there wouldn't have been any change of the race winner and the penalty would have been one that they can be disputed in the court.

Maybe they just wanted to be sure he lost points...if a drop of 10 grid places for Monza would have been aplied there might still have been a change for him to win...

[Dave B]

It doesn't change the fact that they could have originally impose a drop of 10 grid positions for the next race, as stated in the above mentioned rules.

Wrong. The rules clearly state that a penalty applied after the race has ended will be a 25-second time penalty.

[F1boat]

So we waited several weeks for something which should have been clear immeadiately after the race. This appeals suck even more that the complicated way in which FIA gives penalties.

So we waited several weeks for something which should have been clear immeadiately after the race. This appeals suck even more that the complicated way in which FIA gives penalties.

It was immediately clear just after the race.

It was immediately clear at the start of the season.

A team cannot appeal a drive-through penalty.

Mclaren should be grateful that the FIA let them waste everybody's time appealing something that could not be appealed.

To think that some people believe the FIA favour Ferrari! Personally, I'm sick of the FIA bending over backwards to appease a bunch of tw@ts from Woking who wouldn't know a fecking rule-book if it hit them square in the face.

[Dave B]

Amazing. No matter how incompetent the stewards, even if it were clear-cut that a driver had done no wrong; so long as the penalty is a drive-through then tough titties, you're stuck with it.

It's not about bias, it's about the utter stupidity of the FIA's rulebook.

Even Charlie Whiting admitted that at the time of Lewis cutting the chicane there was no hard and fast rule about how long a driver had to wait before attempting another move.

Had he received a different penalty he'd be able to appeal, but because it was a drive-through he's shafted. How exactly is that fair?

[ioan]

Wrong. The rules clearly state that a penalty applied after the race has ended will be a 25-second time penalty.

Not really, they say that it will be the case only if one of penalties a) or b) is decided in the last 5 laps.
Why not apply directly penalty c) ?

[Triumph]

Whichever way anyone wants to dress it, it's blatant cheating by the governing body on behalf of someone who is yet to be identified and for reasons yet to be discovered - although it does seem pretty obvious what the desired goal is.

[ArrowsFA1]

Had he received a different penalty he'd be able to appeal, but because it was a drive-through he's shafted. How exactly is that fair?
It also raises the question of why that particular penalty was chosen by the stewards, and why are the stewards able to pick from a list of penalties anyway?

[ioan]

It also raises the question of why that particular penalty was chosen by the stewards, and why are the stewards able to pick from a list of penalties anyway?

Because someone was lazy enough not to write a properly detailed rule book.

[ioan]

Amazing. No matter how incompetent the stewards, even if it were clear-cut that a driver had done no wrong; so long as the penalty is a drive-through then tough titties, you're stuck with it.

It's not about bias, it's about the utter stupidity of the FIA's rulebook.

Even Charlie Whiting admitted that at the time of Lewis cutting the chicane there was no hard and fast rule about how long a driver had to wait before attempting another move.

Had he received a different penalty he'd be able to appeal, but because it was a drive-through he's shafted. How exactly is that fair?

Agree that the rule book has to many holes.

[Tonieke]

Mclaren should be grateful that the FIA let them waste everybody's time appealing something that could not be appealed.

To think that some people believe the FIA favour Ferrari! Personally, I'm sick of the FIA bending over backwards to appease a bunch of tw@ts from Woking who wouldn't know a fecking rule-book if it hit them square in the face.

grateful ? why FIA NOT told them so right away ?

and how can you expect a team to know the rulebook if not even people within FIA know what it is all about ?

How exactly is that fair?

Why should the rules be fair to the competitors?

Rules are rules. Fair or not.


It also raises the question of why that particular penalty was chosen by the stewards, and why are the stewards able to pick from a list of penalties anyway?

Why not?

Mind you, had the FIA WMSC not been given the choice of a $100million fine last year, then they wouldn't have had the choice of penalties for the Spa incident, so perhaps you could be on to something.

Would you have preferred the alternative option than the $100million fine?

[pino]

Please let's continue this in here (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129623)

[ioan]

grateful ? why FIA NOT told them so right away ?

and how can you expect a team to know the rulebook if not even people within FIA know what it is all about ?

I bet there are many people within the FIA that don't know the F1 rule book by heart, because it isn't their business to judge F1 races.