McLaren lose Hamilton appeal

[bontebempo]

good! If they won would make more of a mockery of the sport.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7627941.stm

[AndyRAC]

That's a big surprise.............NOT!!

Really a waste of time, wasn't it? They were never likely to win.

[ArrowsFA1]

"Having heard the explanations of the parties the Court has concluded that the appeal is inadmissible."
McLaren claimed in the court that a precedent to appeal Hamilton's 25-second penalty had been set at last year's Japanese Grand Prix, when Scuderia Toro Rosso were allowed to challenge a similar punishment handed down to Vitantonio Liuzzi for overtaking under yellow flags.
The FIA told McLaren, however, that there had been a mistake in Liuzzi's original penalty - and that he too should have been given a drive-through penalty. FIA race director Charlie Whiting claimed that the chief race steward at the time, Tony Scott-Andrews, had told him there had been an error.
However, McLaren produced a statement from Scott-Andrews in court countering the claims of the FIA.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70792

[Roamy]

The problem with all of this crap is that it takes too long. The out come of any race should be decided within 7 days max and that ruling cast in concrete.

[71minus2]

They were never likely to win.

Not unless the car was a red one.

Overall i thinks its a fair decision as i said on the day it was close. Hopefully this will set a precedent and next year the decisions relating to corner cutting will be applied equally regardless of who are the official race stewards.

[Dave B]

Misleading thread title. They didn't lose, or win, the FIA decided that the appeal was inadmissable despite there being a precident.

Bravissimo!

La giustizia è fatta!

[bontebempo]

Misleading thread title. They didn't lose, or win, the FIA decided that the appeal was inadmissable despite there being a precident.

just going with the title the BBC chose. Contact them if you think its not good enough!

Is the font ok?

[555-04Q2]

No big surprise, but still bullsh!t IMO. Now if my man Massa manages to win this years WDC, will he be remembered as the guy who won cause of the Hamilton incident, or as the guy who fairly won the 2008 WDC cause of his ability.

[F1boat]

The problem with all of this crap is that it takes too long. The out come of any race should be decided within 7 days max and that ruling cast in concrete.

I agree 100%. That's why in my opinion such cases which are inadmissable should be rejected immediately.

[Dave B]

just going with the title the BBC chose. Contact them if you think its not good enough!

Is the font ok?

I've let them know ;)

Could you use Verdana next time though please? :p

[Dave B]

Full text of the FIA's verdict:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70793

[Triumph]

I'm not really surprised at the outcome.

I think the FIA make it up as they go along. There's no reason why the appeal should be inadmissable. That's just some nonsense they've thought up to keep their string-pullers happy.

It's all thinly-veiled corruption and I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.

Thankfully Lewis Hamilton is talented enough to win the championship despite all the cheating, so he's still in with a good chance.

It's all thinly-veiled corruption and I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.

Empty words. Just like "integrity" is to Ron Dennis.

If you believe that it's corruption, go and watch something else then.

Come to think of it, take the scruffy Woking team with you.

Oh, sorry, I forgot....they hadn't the balls to leave the FIA F1 World Championship had they?

[Dave B]

I don't understand this at all.

Had the incident happened a few laps earlier the stewards would have had the option of serving him with a ten-place penalty in Monza, which he would have been able to appeal.

But simply because it was so late in the race it attracted a time-penalty, which is deemed to be equivalent to a drive-though, he's not allowed to appeal.

The exact same transgression of the rules attracts a different penalty (and different appeals procedure) depending on when it occurs. How is that sane?

[bontebempo]

Full text of the FIA's verdict:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70793

god that is dull. Anyone who reads that has way too much time on their hands...

[Dave B]

god that is dull. Anyone who reads that has way too much time on their hands...
Or simply wishes to (attempt to) understand fully the reasoning behind the FIA's decision by reading their own report rather than the interpretaions of journalists - who as you know have a tendancy to get their headlines wrong! ;) Either way, I'm guilty!

[Triumph]

Empty words. Just like "integrity" is to Ron Dennis.

If you believe that it's corruption, go and watch something else then.

Come to think of it, take the scruffy Woking team with you.

Oh, sorry, I forgot....they hadn't the balls to leave the FIA F1 World Championship had they?

It's corruption, as clear as day.

I'll watch what I choose, thank you very much, so please keep your puerile attitude and unwanted advice to yourself. :rolleyes:

[ioan]

It's all thinly-veiled corruption and I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.

If you are so convinced about the corruption in this case than do something about it, there are so many courts out there that could overturn today's ruling if you can prove that the Court was corrupted.

[ioan]

I don't understand this at all.

Had the incident happened a few laps earlier the stewards would have had the option of serving him with a ten-place penalty in Monza, which he would have been able to appeal.

But simply because it was so late in the race it attracted a time-penalty, which is deemed to be equivalent to a drive-though, he's not allowed to appeal.

The exact same transgression of the rules attracts a different penalty (and different appeals procedure) depending on when it occurs. How is that sane?

I don't see it that way. The stewards were free to give him a 10 place grid penalty (choice c) ) even in the last 5 laps, and only in case they chose penalty a) or b) there had to be a 25 seconds added penalty.

Poor choice of penalty IMO.

[ioan]

god that is dull. Anyone who reads that has way too much time on their hands...

Done! :D

It's corruption, as clear as day.

Prove it.

Or, to put it another way, Put up or Shut Up.

[Triumph]

If you are so convinced about the corruption in this case than do something about it, there are so many courts out there that could overturn today's ruling if you can prove that the Court was corrupted.

If McLaren can't do anything about it the no one can. McLaren and Hamilton supporters will just have to put up with it and enjoy the racing as best they can.

I'm a Lewis Hamilton supporter first and foremost. I don't really mind what team he drives for as long as he is able to do well. I would be happy to see him in a Ferrari, which out of the contructors is my favourite team.

[Triumph]

Prove it.

Or, to put it another way, Put up or Shut Up.

As I said just now, please keep your unwanted advice to yourself.

[Dave B]

Interesting that when Toro Rosso protested a drive-through last year, they were allowed to appeal - indeed they went on to win.

The difference appears to be that in their case, nobody objected. Yesterday, Ferrari had 6 representatives at McLaren's hearing. The FIA decided that McLaren's appeal was inadmissable.

Call me cynical, but just remind me whose engines Toro Rosso use? :dozey:

[ioan]

Interesting that when Toro Rosso protested a drive-through last year, they were allowed to appeal - indeed they went on to win.

The difference appears to be that in their case, nobody objected. Yesterday, Ferrari had 6 representatives at McLaren's hearing. The FIA decided that McLaren's appeal was inadmissable.

Call me cynical, but just remind me whose engines Toro Rosso use? :dozey:

I think you are way to cynical. Do you believe that Ferrari is allowed to do all they want?
And even IF that was the case, would they also do it for STR?! Why?

[pino]

Once again, let's discuss this nicely...thank you !

[Knock-on]

Interesting that when Toro Rosso protested a drive-through last year, they were allowed to appeal - indeed they went on to win.

The difference appears to be that in their case, nobody objected. Yesterday, Ferrari had 6 representatives at McLaren's hearing. The FIA decided that McLaren's appeal was inadmissable.

Call me cynical, but just remind me whose engines Toro Rosso use? :dozey:

What will this refusal to grant the appeal do for F1.

Do you think it will enhance it or put one more nail in the sport.

What has come out of this is that Charlie Whiting has lost my respect. One person that I considered a credit to the FIA has shown himself to be a conniving liar.


I wonder what Ben says about corruption and bias in the FIA now?

[truefan72]

so once again they create this circus of an appeals process, have all the parties go through the expense and motions and then don't even rule on the incident but yet again simply state that the appeal is inadmissible, DESPITE the fact they heard all the evidence etc.

It is a cop out, a sham of a jurisprudence, a simple fiasco of a legislative body. I liken it to a a case where s/one has been wrongfully accused of a crime and then appealed the verdict, was allowed to present their compelling evidence proving their case and instead of the judge and jury ruling on the case after the appeals trial, they instead send the defendant back to jail because technically that case was not allowed to be appealed in the first place. What a joke, and what a cop out.

I am pretty much fed up with the FIA and the whole nonsense that goes on. I used to love this sport but under the current administration and "stewardship" my passion for this sport or allusions of fair and competitive racing are severely eroded.

It's time for a breakaway series.

[Triumph]

Once again, let's discuss this nicely...thank you !

Actually I think I may have been a bit less than nice with a couple of recent posts. Apologies to the other member if I offended him.

I still stand by my beliefs on this matter though. :)

[Dave B]

so once again they create this circus of an appeals process, have all the parties go through the expense and motions and then don't even rule on the incident but yet again simply state that the appeal is inadmissible, DESPITE the fact they heard all the evidence etc.

It is a cop out, a sham of a jurisprudence, a simple fiasco of a legislative body. I liken it to a a case where s/one has been wrongfully accused of a crime and then appealed the verdict, was allowed to present their compelling evidence proving their case and instead of the judge and jury ruling on the case after the appeals trial, they instead send the defendant back to jail because technically that case was not allowed to be appealed in the first place. What a joke, and what a cop out.

I am pretty much fed up with the FIA and the whole nonsense that goes on. I used to love this sport but under the current administration and "stewardship" my passion for this sport or allusions of fair and competitive racing are severely eroded.

I agree with every word.



It's time for a breakaway series.
Except these ones :p It would be infinetly more satisfying to win despite the FIA's stupidity and incompetence, and to beat Ferrari who whatever else you might think of them are an awesome competitor on the racetrack.

[Knock-on]

I agree with every word.


Except these ones :p It would be infinetly more satisfying to win despite the FIA's stupidity and incompetence, and to beat Ferrari who whatever else you might think of them are an awesome competitor on the racetrack.

I'm not so sure Dave.

Ferrari are not the baddies in this case but certainly benefit from FIA's bias.

Lets not forget that it was Renault and not McLaren that first coined the term Ferrari International Assistance.

How long will the other manufacturers put up with this when it starts happening to them?

F1 needs to clear itself from the FIA if the sport is to win back it's credibility.

[hmmm - donuts]

Reading the FIA statement it appears that it is an opinion or consideration that Lewis didn't cede the place gained sufficiently.

It seems to be stated as a fact that 'the race track alone shall be used by competitors during the race'...

'3. In its decision N° 49 (the “contested decision&#8221 ;) , taken on 7 September 2008, the Panel of Stewards considered that Mr Hamilton had not sufficiently ceded back the advantage he had gained by cutting the chicane, and had thus breached Article 30.3.a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations and article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code. On the basis of Article 16.3.a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations, the Panel imposed a drive-through penalty on Mr Hamilton. Article 30.3.a) of those regulations stipulates that “during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits”. Article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code states that “the race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race”. As the penalty was to be applied at the end of the race, the Panel of Stewards added 25 seconds to the driver's race time, in accordance with the provisions of Article 16.3, final paragraph.'

...Now that's been clarified, can we take it that any driver who wititingly or unwittingly goes off the track / uses the kerbs / etc is likely to incur a penalty? Or only if an advantage is gained? Let's face it - the rules say 'the race track alone' regardless of advantage gained.

Also, how come Ferrari appeared to attend as proscecution (they were permitted to question) rather than as witnesses? Surely, the appeal was against an FIA imposed penalty, not against Ferrari?

Regards

[ioan]

What has come out of this is that Charlie Whiting has lost my respect.

I bet he's very sad because of this right now! :rotflmao:

[Dave B]

Reading the FIA statement it appears that it is an opinion or consideration that Lewis didn't cede the place gained sufficiently.

That part of the verdict is only setting out the background to the appeal. As the FIA then went on to refuse leave to appeal we shall never know whether the stewards' decision would have been upheld or not. Had a different penalty been applied, even though the alleged offence would have been exactly the same, the appeal may have been admissable.

My head hurts trying to understand that.


Also, how come Ferrari appeared to attend as proscecution (they were permitted to question) rather than as witnesses? Surely, the appeal was against an FIA imposed penalty, not against Ferrari?

Regards
Good question. The words "kangaroo court" leap to mind, as does the Blackadder Goes Forth trial of the Flanders pigeon murderer. "Now before I sentence the deceased.. sorry, I mean defendent!"

[ioan]

F1 needs to clear itself from the FIA if the sport is to win back it's credibility.

There aren't so many McL fans outside of GB as you might believe!

[Tonieke]

Reading the FIA statement it appears that it is an opinion or consideration that Lewis didn't cede the place gained sufficiently.


I find it funny they first state "drew level with Mr Räikkönen's car on the approach to turn 19" so level... what place gained or lost ?

[F1boat]

There aren't so many McL fans outside of GB as you might believe!

:-)

[Tonieke]

There aren't so many McL fans outside of GB as you might believe!

looking forward to your back up of this statement ! ;-)

[yodasarmpit]

What I find annoying, is that we are in fact no further forward.

They simply managed to side step the issue, not even considering the fact that Hamilton may not have gained an advantage, but refusing to even hear the appeal.

This is the equivalent to sticking their fingers in their ears and singing la la la la until McLaren go away.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the Stewards decision, the appeal should have been heard so that the FIA would have the opportunity to justify their penalty decision.

F1 needs to clear itself from the FIA if the sport is to win back it's credibility.

They had the chance. The GPWC. It collapsed & every team signed up to the FIA again.

If you want to blame the FIA for the state of F1, you need to also blame the teams who tied their colours & money to the FIA F1 World Championship.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the Stewards decision, the appeal should have been heard so that the FIA would have the opportunity to justify their penalty decision.

The Penalty was a Drive-Through.

Should we stop every GP every time there is a drive-through penalty so we can hear the justification of it?

[ioan]

looking forward to your back up of this statement ! ;-)

Go read the last FIA questionnaire findings!

[ioan]

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the Stewards decision, the appeal should have been heard so that the FIA would have the opportunity to justify their penalty decision.

I think that people are over reacting.

The rules say that a drive through penalty cannot be appealed.

You can't go on breaking your own rules and expect to be repected by the competitors next time you have to make a judgement based on the rules.

The FIA chose the right thing to do, no matter how upset McL and Hammy fans are.

[Tonieke]

Go read the last FIA questionnaire findings!

nah....would rather like to hear from you what your statement was based on..saying there are hardly any McL fans outside the UK...

[jens]

If Massa had won at Monza and Hamilton had scored nothing (with this scenario FM would be leading 84-76), then I have a feeling McLaren would have won this appeal...

nah....would rather like to hear from you what your statement was based on..saying there are hardly any McL fans outside the UK...

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/640145998__26_09_2006_FIAAMDF1Survey2006.pdf

[Tonieke]

I think that people are over reacting.

The rules say that a drive through penalty cannot be appealed.

You can't go on breaking your own rules and expect to be repected by the competitors next time you have to make a judgement based on the rules.

The FIA chose the right thing to do, no matter how upset McL and Hammy fans are.

If it was that clear..why FIA let this go on for weeks ? why they not just told McL right away "NO appeal possible" ????

[the bro]

Bogus call, bogus appeal. But this is F1, expecting more would be naive.

My only hope is that the drivers will nullify the stupidity/bias of the officials, and that if Hamilton loses it is by more than 6 points.

If it was that clear..why FIA let this go on for weeks ? why they not just told McL right away "NO appeal possible" ????

They should have.

But, no doubt in order to bend-over backwards to appease those who believe everything is against Mclaren, the FIA went out of their way to show fairness.

Had the FIA followed the "No Appeal" rule, the very people complaining now would have been spouting the usual 'Ferrari International Assistance' clap-trap they do whenever they don't get the decision they want.

Today the FIA proved they are not biased.

[Tonieke]

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/640145998__26_09_2006_FIAAMDF1Survey2006.pdf

Big surprise....FIA stating Ferrari is the most popular team ! lol

[Tonieke]

They should have.

But, no doubt in order to bend-over backwards to appease those who believe everything is against Mclaren, the FIA went out of their way to show fairness.

Had the FIA followed the "No Appeal" rule, the very people complaining now would have been spouting the usual 'Ferrari International Assistance' clap-trap they do whenever they don't get the decision they want.

Today the FIA proved they are not biased.

and what exactly the decission is now based on ? still the same "No Appeal" rule not ?

[yodasarmpit]

The Penalty was a Drive-Through.

Should we stop every GP every time there is a drive-through penalty so we can hear the justification of it?
No, don't be stupid, I'm not saying a race should be stopped to hear an appeal.
However if a penalty has been applied post race, then no matter what, an appeal should be heard regardless of the penalty, that is just common sense, something I feel some of you do not possess.

If the penalty is imposed during the race then the teams should be able to appeal directly to the stewards during the race prior to the penalty being acted upon. However if there is insufficient time remaining then it should be a retrospective penalty (i.e. 25 seconds) which may be appealed.

Seriously it's not rocket science, however I imagine if Massa finds himself in a similar situation in the near future you may see things a little clearer.

[Dzeidzei]

looking forward to your back up of this statement ! ;-)

As much I hate to support ioan :) I have to throw in my 2 cents. I used to be a very fanatic McL fan. Seeing Mika win two wdc titels for them was great. Then I thought it all would continue with Kimi. We all know how McL was during Kimis time. I still supported the team.

The big change was last year. The fact that they used Ferrari data for design and racing purposes, the fact that RD knew and kept on lying. In my mind they lost every ounce of dignity they ever had. And most of all that is true for Dennis.

So I cannot be a McL fan anymore. Not even with Heikki racing for them. I realise the nationatistic feeling McL and Lewis must raise in the UK now, but that doesnt change the fact that McL are lucky even to be racing at all. I even understand how people feel that there´s a conspiracy against McL and especially Lewis. However, there is none.

And now people complain about the technicality of the verdict. It doesnt remove the fact that Lewis got the advantage cutting the shicane and never gave it back. I dont think that Lewis fans dont see the reality of the situation. I think they only refuse to agree on what happened.

And its old news anyway. Move on, Singapore is waiting.

[ioan]

nah....would rather like to hear from you what your statement was based on..saying there are hardly any McL fans outside the UK...

I based my opinion on the findings of that very FIA survey. And I didn't say there are hardly any McLaren fans outside of GB, just that there aren't as many as one might think based on this forum's composition. :rolleyes:

[ioan]

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/640145998__26_09_2006_FIAAMDF1Survey2006.pdf

Thanks mate! :)

[ioan]

Big surprise....FIA stating Ferrari is the most popular team ! lol

:rolleyes: You saying this! Big surprise, NOT! :rotflmao:

[ioan]

As much I hate to support ioan :) I have to throw in my 2 cents. I used to be a very fanatic McL fan. Seeing Mika win two wdc titels for them was great. Then I thought it all would continue with Kimi. We all know how McL was during Kimis time. I still supported the team.

The big change was last year. The fact that they used Ferrari data for design and racing purposes, the fact that RD knew and kept on lying. In my mind they lost every ounce of dignity they ever had. And most of all that is true for Dennis.

So I cannot be a McL fan anymore. Not even with Heikki racing for them. I realise the nationatistic feeling McL and Lewis must raise in the UK now, but that doesnt change the fact that McL are lucky even to be racing at all. I even understand how people feel that there´s a conspiracy against McL and especially Lewis. However, there is none.

And now people complain about the technicality of the verdict. It doesnt remove the fact that Lewis got the advantage cutting the shicane and never gave it back. I dont think that Lewis fans dont see the reality of the situation. I think they only refuse to agree on what happened.

And its old news anyway. Move on, Singapore is waiting.

:up: Very sound post, I have to acknowledge it, no matter how hard this is for me! ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

I think that people are over reacting.
I think there's an element of that, but given recent history it is not surprising.

There is no question that there is a perception that the FIA look for any opportunity to penalise McLaren. After all, the last thing Max would want is to see McLaren win a championship, any championship, this year.

What particularly stinks about this is Tony Scott-Andrews' role, and the "grossly inaccurate and misleading" email produced by the FIA to dismiss a precedent. Rather like the Brundle "witch-hunt" case, it seems the FIA is rather keen to airbrush that away as if it never happened.

[VkmSpouge]

No surprise that McLaren couldn't get the penalty over turned. Now can we get back on with racing?

No, don't be stupid, I'm not saying a race should be stopped to hear an appeal.
However if a penalty has been applied post race, then no matter what, an appeal should be heard regardless of the penalty, that is just common sense, something I feel some of you do not possess.

If the rule states "no appeal" that is the rule.

That is common sense.

But thanks for the personal attack.

[elinagr]

good result in my opinion. if they have accepted the winner to be changed for a third time, then i would think that a court is able to change a champion 10 years ago...

[Knock-on]

If the rule states "no appeal" that is the rule.

That is common sense.

But thanks for the personal attack.

Well, you have been posting a lot of inflammatory posts and OTT examples ;)

It does appear that a 25 sec penalty awarded subsequent to a race finishing is not regarded as a Drive Through penalty as established by the FIA last year.

However, it doesn't seem to suit the FIA this time so they discredit and lie about their former Chief Steward, mislead the court and ignore the precedent previously set.

Is it any wonder people are confused at best and suspicious of the FIA's impartiality?

[MrJan]

The big change was last year. The fact that they used Ferrari data for design and racing purposes, the fact that RD knew and kept on lying. In my mind they lost every ounce of dignity they ever had. And most of all that is true for Dennis.

So you pretty much don't watch F1 now then :p : I'm fairly sure that the majority of teams have some sort of data from the others because there will always be corruption and backstabbing when large sums of money are being thrown about.

It's right that the case was thrown out but I still think that the penalty itself was a little sneaky, something which I think the FIA realised which is why they all of a sudden 'clarified' the rules by bringing in this 'next corner' stuff. While I agree with the new rule I think that Hamilton was being punished for breaking it before it existed rather than what the stewards actually said. Yes there was some advantage in the move but if it had happened to a Renault or Toyota or RBR then I don't think we'd have seen a penalty and that is what I take issue with :)

[Knock-on]

So you pretty much don't watch F1 now then :p : I'm fairly sure that the majority of teams have some sort of data from the others because there will always be corruption and backstabbing when large sums of money are being thrown about.

It's right that the case was thrown out but I still think that the penalty itself was a little sneaky, something which I think the FIA realised which is why they all of a sudden 'clarified' the rules by bringing in this 'next corner' stuff. While I agree with the new rule I think that Hamilton was being punished for breaking it before it existed rather than what the stewards actually said. Yes there was some advantage in the move but if it had happened to a Renault or Toyota or RBR then I don't think we'd have seen a penalty and that is what I take issue with :)

There is a real problem here in that the FIA doesn't like making rules crystal clear so they can have some flexibility with them.

We know that Charlie Whiting lied when he "re-clasified" the rule as he admitted that no such rule exists.

The "Rules" are very clear. You go off track and the penalty is in the rules. There is none of this "ceed position" or "don't overtake for X number of corners".

These are interpretations or directives as to what you should do should you cut a corner or run off track.

Before this matter, the "understanding" was that if you make a position off track, you let the other person back past before trying again. However, that was never a Rule and now they punish someone that believed he was acting properly.

[yodasarmpit]

If the rule states "no appeal" that is the rule.

That is common sense.

But thanks for the personal attack.
Oh, don't worry I have plenty more personal attacks saved up for the idiots on the board.

The rule of not being able to appeal a decision is lacking in common sense, even you must agree to that, otherwise you fall into the category of people I will ignore for sheer stupidity.

[F1boat]

Master Yoda, the penalty is inadmissable. I can't see why the fact that it is given after the race should change that.

[Knock-on]

Oh, don't worry I have plenty more personal attacks saved up for the idiots on the board.

The rule of not being able to appeal a decision is lacking in common sense, even you must agree to that, otherwise you fall into the category of people I will ignore for sheer stupidity.

No, the sheer stupidity is having some decisions that can be appealed, some that can't and the ones that can, can be for some teams and then the precedent overturned for others.

You have to look at the logic behind why they can't appeal Drive Through penalties. It's simply because the Stewards make a decision after informing the teams giving them a chance to respond during the race. Once they have made their decision, then the penalty is served during the Race.

Penalties that can be appealed are ones made outside of the race and therefore can be investigated and appealed if necessary such as the Torro Rosso one last year.

The FIA had the opportunity to stand up and justify themselves but choose to use the rules against the spirit of their meaning and hide from their actions.

[chuck34]

I really don't understand this BS. "You have no grounds for an appeal, so be off with you"??? How about "We didn't break any rules, but were penalized anyway"??

What president does this set for the future? From now on if you go off the track either forced, or unforced, intentional, not intentional, gained places, or not, you must serve a drive through?

This has taken a turn for the sur-real.

[yodasarmpit]

Master Yoda, the penalty is inadmissable. I can't see why the fact that it is given after the race should change that.
I find it disturbing that a team, any team, is not allowed to field an opposition to a decision made.
I find it only fair that teams be allowed to appeal as errors in judgment do happen. I would feel the same way whichever team or driver was involved.

I wholeheartedly stand by my earlier statement.

"If a penalty has been applied post race, then no matter what, an appeal should be heard regardless of the penalty, that is just common sense.

If the penalty is imposed during the race then the teams should be able to appeal directly to the stewards during the race prior to the penalty being acted upon. However if there is insufficient time remaining then it should be a retrospective penalty (i.e. 25 seconds) which may be appealed."

[pino]

Oh, don't worry I have plenty more personal attacks saved up for the idiots on the board.



Keep them saved but far away from here, because next one will cost you a temporarly ban !

[Miatanut]

Misleading thread title. They didn't lose, or win, the FIA decided that the appeal was inadmissable despite there being a precident.
You must be a lawyer! :)

[yodasarmpit]

Keep them saved but far away from here, because next one will cost you a temporarly ban !

Don't worry, I fully understand, however sometimes it's difficult to remain moderate in some discussions. Although I should know better being a moderator on a slightly larger forum than this one, I may have issued a temp ban myself if faced with the same comments.

[THE_LIBERATOR]

My god it is time for a change at the top. It's getting beyond a joke & I'm losing the will to watch.

[ArrowsFA1]

My god it is time for a change at the top. It's getting beyond a joke & I'm losing the will to watch.
Can the FIA be charged with bringing the FIA into disrepute? :p

[F1boat]

No, it is inadmissable.

[THE_LIBERATOR]

Can the FIA be charged with bringing the FIA into disrepute? :p I think they should be, but then I also think McLaren & Ferrari should be too for the past few years.

[Rollo]

It's all thinly-veiled corruption and I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.

The Independant Court of Appeal is an independant body and as such, any decision which it makes is neutral. By very definition an independant arbiter is well... independant.

Basically the FIA under their own rules are standing in a point of total irresponsibility. They can take any decision and no-one can do jack crap about it.

That's no fault of the Independant Court of Appeal though.

[schmenke]

Where exactly in the regulations can this "no appeal" rule be found? I certainly don't see it :mark:

[truefan72]

Except these ones :p It would be infinetly more satisfying to win despite the FIA's stupidity and incompetence, and to beat Ferrari who whatever else you might think of them are an awesome competitor on the racetrack.

I see the sweet satisfaction in that approach.
Go ahead win the WDC and WCC and then leave after 2009. Form a true and transparent racing league with common sense rules and revenue sharing. Let Bernie stage is megabucks series with 12 cars ( 6 of which carrying Ferrari Engines) and watch Renault, McLaren, Williams, Toyota, and BMW exit F1 and form their own series. Add to that the return of Super Aguri, and 3-4 new teams ( probably a penske team and Andretti team if the price is right) and a good mix of tracks around the world, and I believe the fans, sponsors and world will be ready for it.

Things change over time and in the 21st Century the current incarnation of F1 and the FIA have ran their course. It isn't fun anymore, its bogged down in bureaucratic and legislative dullness. It is ran by power hungry, money grubbing executives, laced in secrecy, unbalanced revenue system, hostage tactics with tracks, ambiguous rules, favoritism, and most races are processional. If any driver(s) show some kind of gusto, they are immediately penalized for it. It's a neutered racing league that's ideally set up for only one team to succeed. So what's the point in staying.

I wouldn't mind those teams taking a 1-2 year break forming a decent league and then kicking things off proper. Worth the wait IMO. and those drivers can go race in other series for that 1-2 year gap, while testing etc and off we go!

[CNR]

:p : I'm fairly sure that the majority of teams have some sort of data from the others because there will always be corruption and backstabbing when large sums of money are being thrown about.

:)
if all the cars where painted white how many could tell what car it was.

[Mikeall]

Hope it sends a clear message to teams to let the stewards do their jobs and respect their judgements.

[truefan72]

F1/FIA are standing exactly where IndyCart were years ago. Arrogantly believing in the superiority of their series and dismissive about the viability of the IRL. Right or wrong how that split came about, the fact remained that Cart never took IRL serous until it was too late. And noe, years later the remnants of Cart are being absorbed into the IRL.

That's whats going to happen to F1 when a breakaway series is formed. with the loss of interest and waning popularity & sponsors, eventually they will fold as folks aren't into seeing a Ferrari coronation year after year, aided and assisted in every way. Eventually, sheepishly, Ferrari will apply for admission into the new Racing League. The new racing league will inherit the F1 name and the league will be reborn sans the nonsense.

[truefan72]

Hope it sends a clear message to teams to let the stewards do their jobs and respect their judgements.

that's a joke right?

are the stewards infallible?

just because they are refs, don't make them right.

Ask Reading and Liverpool this past weekend?

and in a strange irony, the FA ruled in much the same manner on the Reading case as the fIA did with Hamilton.

[CNR]

“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.
IT IS NOT THE DRIVING IT IS THE CODE HE BROKE
30.4 a) During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the
provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits.
b) Other than by driving on the track, Competitors are not permitted to attempt to alter the grip of any part of the track surface.

[wedge]

"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."

I've defended him many times but this has to the dumbest thing to ever come out of his mouth.

It's like Dexter pleading guilty to first degree murder and saying he's the best at slaughtering guys to death because he's worked in forensics!

To stand before judges, cross examination I don't think his saying those things did him any favours at playing the innocent victim he claimed he was. It created a perception whereby a judge would've thought Lewis was a spoilt brat who thinks he's above the law.

LH had every right to push the boundaries of what is or isn't acceptable on the race track but I think he could've said what he said without the heavily implied arrogance - perhaps? What do you think?

[mstillhere]

I've defended him many times but this has to the dumbest thing to ever come out of his mouth.

It's like Dexter pleading guilty to first degree murder and saying he's the best at slaughtering guys to death because he's worked in forensics!

To stand before judges, cross examination I don't think his saying those things did him any favours at playing the innocent victim he claimed he was. It created a perception whereby a judge would've thought Lewis was a spoilt brat who thinks he's above the law.

LH had every right to push the boundaries of what is or isn't acceptable on the race track but I think he could've said what he said without the heavily implied arrogance - perhaps? What do you think?

Some members on this board have recognized that LH is arrogant but justified it saying that arrogance is part of his persona, that it's ok. LH thinks that he is the only rooster around and and has athe audacity to label other drivers, Kimi namely, :"Not having balls" as a driver. Later on he retracted his comment but acccording to the timesonline script he did say that. The way he drove in Monza pissing quite few drivers off (including Webber and Glock - not to mention Alons) shows that he has no consideration about anyone but himself. And soon enough he'll realize that what goes around comes around. He is hot blooded and a professional cannot afford to be hot blooded. You, as aprofessional driver, need to keep cool.
On an other matter, I have not idea if Whitmarsh (??) told twice MclAren that LH's pass ok and how come it was not considered a valid argument. Does anybody know anything more about this? But going back to Lewis, somebody pomped him up a lot and as a consequence got a HUGE head. He needs to repair his image and become more humble.
One more thing. Those of you who still think that the FIA is biased against McLAren.....well your argument is getting old and stale. Stop saying that. You are starting sounding paranoid.

[ShiftingGears]

All round I think it was a mistake by the race stewards to:

1. Penalise a driver on a highly contentious issue, considering that they clarified the rule only after Hamilton was penalised for breaking it.

2. Decide to hand out the penalty by changing the outcome of a race hours after it was completed, rather than give a 10 place grid penalty for the next race.

All just petty really. I think it's a bit like stewards penalising subtle team orders, considering that team orders are banned.

[pino]

This thread is about FIA decision on McLaren appeal, not about Lewis's personality, so let's stick to the topic...thank you !

[leopard]

1. Perhaps stewards were around in forums looking for the most acceptable opinion to justify their penalty decision,

2. Stewards might not be really sure that 10 grid penalty would make a sense, He can easily catch the podium position up from 14th or worse, while the archival scored no point at all for the accident, although it might be purely diver talent unable to stand for such pressure.

;)

[ioan]

Yes there was some advantage in the move but if it had happened to a Renault or Toyota or RBR then I don't think we'd have seen a penalty and that is what I take issue with :)

That is no fact, only biased opinion. Quit playing the oppressed team card, there is no proof for it.

[ioan]

What president does this set for the future?

Well, it's a tough choice between McCain and Obama! :rotflmao:

[ioan]

My god it is time for a change at the top. It's getting beyond a joke & I'm losing the will to watch.

Bye bye! :p :

[ioan]

I see the sweet satisfaction in that approach.
Go ahead win the WDC and WCC and then leave after 2009. Form a true and transparent racing league with common sense rules and revenue sharing. Let Bernie stage is megabucks series with 12 cars ( 6 of which carrying Ferrari Engines) and watch Renault, McLaren, Williams, Toyota, and BMW exit F1 and form their own series. Add to that the return of Super Aguri, and 3-4 new teams ( probably a penske team and Andretti team if the price is right) and a good mix of tracks around the world, and I believe the fans, sponsors and world will be ready for it.

And all this while we have the biggest financial crisis since 1929?!
You should get reasonable! They didn't do it a few years ago when the economy was on a very steep upward route, and they will do it now :?:

[ioan]

I've defended him many times but this has to the dumbest thing to ever come out of his mouth.

It's like Dexter pleading guilty to first degree murder and saying he's the best at slaughtering guys to death because he's worked in forensics!

To stand before judges, cross examination I don't think his saying those things did him any favours at playing the innocent victim he claimed he was. It created a perception whereby a judge would've thought Lewis was a spoilt brat who thinks he's above the law.

LH had every right to push the boundaries of what is or isn't acceptable on the race track but I think he could've said what he said without the heavily implied arrogance - perhaps? What do you think?

Maybe his arrogance did bite him yesterday!
Even I wasn't expecting him to act like that in a court.

[Dave B]

Ioan, you can use the multiple quote button if it helps :)

[ioan]

Ioan, you can use the multiple quote button if it helps :)

Thanks Dave, I know how to use it, I even did it for a long period, but some time ago I decided that it takes too much of my time and now I do each of them as they come.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

[F1boat]

Hope it sends a clear message to teams to let the stewards do their jobs and respect their judgements.

I agree. We didn't need that appeal. Just because their decision is controversial doesn't mean that we should have waited weeks to learn the result of the Belgium GP. If in a game of soccer one of the players is unjustly send out with a red card, you still can't appeal. The referee might be punished and that's all.
About the current situation, it is obvius that it was a tough call - 50/50. Lewis did gain some advantage and the the stewards decided to punish him. Might have been very harsh, but on the other side I think that he is too aggressive and so IMO this is a healthy punishment.
And about the ridiculous idea that there is a conspiracy against the McLaren, I think that they are lying and cheating and still benefiting from what they stole last year so every punishment against them IMO is light. They should have been kicked out of the world championship for two years, as the original decision was.
If they are so unhappy in F1, they should go to NASCAR or something. It's not that certain members of the team haven't.
About the truefan's idea about a new series. I doubt that many will follow the cheaters. But if they do, it won't be the new IRL. The F1 remnant will be, as they will have Ferrari and possibly Williams - of the big 3 in history, two of them.
I know that I may sound harsh and I hope that I haven't offended anyone.

[CNR]

Ok Lets Just Say You Can Cheat To Win A Race

Is This Fair ?

[MrJan]

That is no fact, only biased opinion. Quit playing the oppressed team card, there is no proof for it.

Being that I don't support a team in F1 I hardly think that I'm biased for McLaren. In fact I've hated McLaren for years now because I don't like Ron Dennis. If I was forced to say which team I wanted to see do well then it would be BMW so why don't you quit thinking that everyone who likes Hamilton and is English will automatically be a McL lover.

I'm well aware that it's not fact but I never tried to say that it was, that's why I used the genius term "I don't think we'd have seen a penalty.

Not really much point in this post though because of course Ioan you know everything about everyone and won't pay any attention anyway, just keep slagging off McLaren :rolleyes: It's such a shame that we aren't able to actually have reasonable debate on this forum because everyone will defend their team to the hilt.

Let's reiterate though:
In my opinion (that's in bold so that you don't think it's fact :p : ) the teams that run further down the grid are more likely to be let off with an incident like this purely because there are less points at stake. If we'd seen Massa pull the same move then I think we would still have seen a penalty and we'd still have the same argument (curiously with everyone changing sides ;) ), but if it'd been Glock (or whoever) for 9th then it wouldn't have even shown on the radar.

You may disagree with that but let's try to avoid the whole team crap, it'd be lovely to see a post from you which isn't painted scarlet and is actually thought provoking :)

[ioan]

Being that I don't support a team in F1 I hardly think that I'm biased for McLaren. In fact I've hated McLaren for years now because I don't like Ron Dennis. If I was forced to say which team I wanted to see do well then it would be BMW so why don't you quit thinking that everyone who likes Hamilton and is English will automatically be a McL lover.

I'm well aware that it's not fact but I never tried to say that it was, that's why I used the genius term "I don't think we'd have seen a penalty.

Not really much point in this post though because of course Ioan you know everything about everyone and won't pay any attention anyway, just keep slagging off McLaren :rolleyes: It's such a shame that we aren't able to actually have reasonable debate on this forum because everyone will defend their team to the hilt.

Let's reiterate though:
In my opinion (that's in bold so that you don't think it's fact :p : ) the teams that run further down the grid are more likely to be let off with an incident like this purely because there are less points at stake. If we'd seen Massa pull the same move then I think we would still have seen a penalty and we'd still have the same argument (curiously with everyone changing sides ;) ), but if it'd been Glock (or whoever) for 9th then it wouldn't have even shown on the radar.

You may disagree with that but let's try to avoid the whole team crap, it'd be lovely to see a post from you which isn't painted scarlet and is actually thought provoking :)

:rolleyes:

So, put some proof on the table that if it was another car there wouldn't have been a penalty. Otherwise quit talking rubbish.

[ArrowsFA1]

So, put some proof on the table that if it was another car there wouldn't have been a penalty.
No one incident is exactly the same as another, but this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM) is as close as you'll get to a comparison with Spa. The driver who gained an advantage by cutting the chicane in this instance was not penalised.

[MrJan]

:rolleyes:

So, put some proof on the table that if it was another car there wouldn't have been a penalty. Otherwise quit talking rubbish.

:crazy: You make it very difficult to avoid personal attacks with posts like that

Why do I need to prove an opinion? Did you even read that post? When I think something it's just how I see things, I'm not saying that it is 100% fact that it would happen, just that IMO it would be different with teams from further down the grid.

If I said that I thought that Sex and the City was rubbish then I wouldn't need to show that it was. Likewise if I said that I didn't like tomatos then I wouldn't need to provide facts that prove that they are disgusting, BECAUSE IT'S AN OPINION.

Is there any way that I can make it more obvious that this is just my opinion of how things work? Shall I repeat it slowly just for you? IT'S......JUST......MY.......OPINION

[pino]

:rolleyes:

So, put some proof on the table that if it was another car there wouldn't have been a penalty. Otherwise quit talking rubbish.

ioan, just because you don't agree, you can't say it's rubbish, so please stop posting that !

[PolePosition_1]

I think the verdict is an absolute joke. It just makes a mockery of the Stewarding system. Basically, we have a situation where when Alonso does exactly the same a couple of years back, he gave the place back but was later told he did not have to do this. Hamilton does it, he does the same, and race control confirm it is ok on two occasions. And ends up getting penalised.

So two groups of people, race control and the stewards, using the same rulebook, and looking at the same incident, come to different conclusions. How is McLaren (or any other team) meant to know if they’re racing in the rules, when race control and the stewards can come to totally different conclusions. Then we have a case where its ok for some cars to break the rules as long as they didn’t gain a sporting advantage, but with others (i.e Hamilton), who gained no ultimate advantage, was still penalised.

And finally, we have a case where an appeal was made last year and accepted, but that didn’t set precedent, because the FIA claimed Tony Scott admitted to that being an error, he says he was mis-interrupted, and that it wasn’t an error. But yet they still decide it was an error, despite Tony Scott confirming it was not.

Surely this makes a joke of the enforcements placed in F1.

I’ve been reading the full judgement from the ICA, and I just get frustrated by their justification of it. For example he has been punished for breaking rule article 30.3.a) of those regulations stipulates that “during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits”. I’m sorry, but surely they should take into account this is racing, when you try to overtake there is a risk involved, you may well have to go off track. If done deliberate to gain an advantage fair enough, but this wasn’t done deliberate, it was avoiding action. So surely under this ruling, any drivers who make a mistake should be punished for breaking this rule?

One of the worst bits is ” FIA considers that the decision taken by the Stewards is not to be criticised”. I’m sorry, but as I’ve already pointed out, race control and the stewards came to different conclusions looking at the same rulebook and same incident. And they’re saying they shouldn’t have to justify their reasoning behind this.

In essence, McLaren have been penalised for not being able to mind read the stewards thoughts.

[Knock-on]

:crazy: You make it very difficult to avoid personal attacks with posts like that

Why do I need to prove an opinion? Did you even read that post? When I think something it's just how I see things, I'm not saying that it is 100% fact that it would happen, just that IMO it would be different with teams from further down the grid.

If I said that I thought that Sex and the City was rubbish then I wouldn't need to show that it was. Likewise if I said that I didn't like tomatos then I wouldn't need to provide facts that prove that they are disgusting, BECAUSE IT'S AN OPINION.

Is there any way that I can make it more obvious that this is just my opinion of how things work? Shall I repeat it slowly just for you? IT'S......JUST......MY.......OPINION


Jan

You are banging your head against a brick wall mate.

Trust me, your blood pressure will go down considerably by using the ignore member function.

Mine did :D

Personally, I think there is some merit to your opinion as there is more focus on the leaders. However, it doesn't seem to be all leaders and I find no justification in you opinion that Massa would have been similarly dealt with had it been him instead of Lewis.

[MrJan]

I think the verdict is an absolute joke. It just makes a mockery of the Stewarding system.

No the verdict was the correct one because you are not supposed to appeal against a drive through penalty. Unfortunately it means that we don't get to see a proper appeal against the actual penalty which would have been interesting given the flip flop in precedent.


Jan

You are banging your head against a brick wall mate.

Trust me, your blood pressure will go down considerably by using the ignore member function.

Mine did :D

No mate, I only use the ignore function in extreme times, like for some of the outwardly bigoted posters who despise the English.


However, it doesn't seem to be all leaders and I find no justification in you opinion that Massa would have been similarly dealt with had it been him instead of Lewis.

I think that he would have done because I believe that the penalty was more about creating a tense battle in the WDC which is good for TV. Hence if roles had been reversed (including championship points, i.e Lewis behind Massa) the decision would've been the same. I don't necessarily subscribe to the FIArrari conspriacy because A) I've run out of tin foil to make a hat and B) I think a lot of it was Schumacher based rather than Ferrari :)

[PolePosition_1]

No the verdict was the correct one because you are not supposed to appeal against a drive through penalty. Unfortunately it means that we don't get to see a proper appeal against the actual penalty which would have been interesting given the flip flop in precedent.





Aw I see, so STR are allowed to appeal, but McLaren are not?

[AndyRAC]

Aw I see, so STR are allowed to appeal, but McLaren are not?

They did, but they shouldn't have been allowed to. The F1A told Tony Scott-Andrews - (who was the Steward in charge) - that he did wrong. He implied that his words had been twisted.
All of this is confusing in light of an appeal being inadmissable. So why all the questioning, etc
As any appeal was inadmissable, surely the hearing should have been wound up in 2 minutes.

[MrJan]

Aw I see, so STR are allowed to appeal, but McLaren are not?

If the rules are that you cannot appeal against a drive through penalty then the McL decision is correct. I know that the STR verdict is wobbly but it is against the rules, regardless of what was decided. Bit of a balls up by everyone involved but this case has already resulted in the clarification of a grey area and I think will lay down a solid reference for the future.

I'm not saying that it's the correct way to go about things, just that this is the way it should be done and that the STR thing was a cock up :)

[Knock-on]

No the verdict was the correct one because you are not supposed to appeal against a drive through penalty. Unfortunately it means that we don't get to see a proper appeal against the actual penalty which would have been interesting given the flip flop in precedent.

Interesting point.

A drive through cannot be appealed but this was a time penalty in place of a drive through applied after the race.

A drive through, like a goal in Soccer, happens during the event so it would be impractical to appeal something that has happened.

A post race time penalty, although a substitute for a drive through, has no implication to the historical events of a Race and doesn't affect the physical outcome.

This is why I believe STR was allowed to appeal and the precedent was set.

For Charlie Whiting to lie to the court and claim that the Chief Steward admitted that the appeal should not have been heard when he did no such thing is very strange indeed. Don't you agree?


No mate, I only use the ignore function in extreme times, like for some of the outwardly bigoted posters who despise the English.

I get used to them. :D

Some members though just seem incapable of reasoned debate and resort to "Doing a Charlie" to reinforce their opinion ;)


I think that he would have done because I believe that the penalty was more about creating a tense battle in the WDC which is good for TV. Hence if roles had been reversed (including championship points, i.e Lewis behind Massa) the decision would've been the same. I don't necessarily subscribe to the FIArrari conspriacy because A) I've run out of tin foil to make a hat and B) I think a lot of it was Schumacher based rather than Ferrari :)

On this one we differ but that's fine. BTW, Sainsbury's have a 3 for 2 on Silver Foil at the moment. :up:

[ShiftingGears]

Aw I see, so STR are allowed to appeal, but McLaren are not?

I'd say that the FIA overlooked it because noone cared about an STR in the points considering all the other incidents in the grand prix, in the major positions.


Incompetance really.

[PolePosition_1]

They did, but they shouldn't have been allowed to. The F1A told Tony Scott-Andrews - (who was the Steward in charge) - that he did wrong. He implied that his words had been twisted.
All of this is confusing in light of an appeal being inadmissable. So why all the questioning, etc
As any appeal was inadmissable, surely the hearing should have been wound up in 2 minutes.


It doesn't change the fact that one appeal was held and another not. The FIA say it shouldn't have been allowed, but they let it run because no one complained. I'm sorry, but the rules should be enforced, if appeals aren't allowed, they are not allowed. You can't choose to not enforce a rule for STR and to enforce it for McLaren.

Plus Tony Scott stands by fact that he was not wrong to grant the appeal.

[Knock-on]

They did, but they shouldn't have been allowed to. The F1A told Tony Scott-Andrews - (who was the Steward in charge) - that he did wrong. He implied that his words had been twisted.
All of this is confusing in light of an appeal being inadmissable. So why all the questioning, etc
As any appeal was inadmissable, surely the hearing should have been wound up in 2 minutes.

Andy

The FIA didn't tell TSA that he did wrong. They claimed that TSA stated that the Appeal shouldn't have been heard and that it was his admission of error that ensured the precedent was not established.

TSA denies this to be the case an refutes the accusation that he got it wrong.

Obviously a professional Steward with a wealth of experience is inadmissible when he doesn't suit your purpose. ;)

[AndyRAC]

Andy

The FIA didn't tell TSA that he did wrong. They claimed that TSA stated that the Appeal shouldn't have been heard and that it was his admission of error that ensured the precedent was not established.

TSA denies this to be the case an refutes the accusation that he got it wrong.

Obviously a professional Steward with a wealth of experience is inadmissible when he doesn't suit your purpose. ;)

Cheers, thanks!

I had read everything yesterday and couldn't remember the exact details of who did/didn't do what. A complete shambles really, but not a surprise. They couldn't run a **** up in a brewery, let alone World Motorsport.

[MrJan]

Interesting point.

A drive through cannot be appealed but this was a time penalty in place of a drive through applied after the race.

A drive through, like a goal in Soccer, happens during the event so it would be impractical to appeal something that has happened.

A post race time penalty, although a substitute for a drive through, has no implication to the historical events of a Race and doesn't affect the physical outcome.

This is why I believe STR was allowed to appeal and the precedent was set.

But as the usual penalty is a drive through I was under the impression that the post race penalty will be treated the same. Probably another of those famous grey areas that no one notices until it's brought up.


For Charlie Whiting to lie to the court and claim that the Chief Steward admitted that the appeal should not have been heard when he did no such thing is very strange indeed. Don't you agree?

Without knowing exactly what went on it's difficult to comment. From what I've seen we are just down to one man's word against another and, regardless of what was actually said, the STR verdict was probably wrong which they now want to admit without losing too much face. Whether Whiting actually lied or not isn't clear as it seems to just be TSA saying "no I neva" and Whiting saying "did too" and waving a piece of paper (not that I've really read anything in depth or paid attention to the story properly so could have that completely wrong :) )


On this one we differ but that's fine. BTW, Sainsbury's have a 3 for 2 on Silver Foil at the moment. :up:

Sweet. New suit and top hat for me :D

[wedge]

This thread is about FIA decision on McLaren appeal, not about Lewis's personality, so let's stick to the topic...thank you !

But it may have swayed the judges decision.

The rules are vague and open to interpretation so it could have been a small but silly remark which suggests Lewis is above law and not the poor innocent victim his claims.

[Knock-on]

OK, to clarify, CW claimed that TSA admitted he was in wrong and submitted this to the court as justification for dismissing the appeal.

TSA submitted a statement to the court strongly refuting this and under cross examination, admitted that it was just his impression and TSA had not started it.

At the same time, CW confirmed that he had lied when he "reiterated" to the team about the requirement for drivers to wait till after the next corner before overtaking and that there was no such rule.

Furthermore, CW also admitted that it was him that referred the matter to the Stewards to investigate after verbally confirming to McLaren that they were OK.

If you want a link, I'll dig the court transcripts out.

[Knock-on]

But it may have swayed the judges decision.

The rules are vague and open to interpretation so it could have been a small but silly remark which suggests Lewis is above law and not the poor innocent victim his claims.

I see what you're saying. It does come across as arrogant but I get the feeling it is more frustration with this whole case.

Lewis is right in that he is a racing driver who was in the heat of battle and was responding as such to a Lawyer examining the event with the benefit of hindsight and days of preperation.

If I were him, I would feel like my nose was a bit put out of joint but I doubt this affected the case at all. In fact, I think we all knew that it was a fruitless exercise but one that I'm glad they brought if only to highlight, yet again, the problems there are in F1 and between individual teams and the FIA.

[Dzeidzei]

if all the cars where painted white how many could tell what car it was.

That would still be easy. The one braking 20m earlier and clearly having no balls would be Kimi. The one hitting peoples rear in the pitlane and cutting shicanes would be Lewis.

FA would be hard to tell apart, but if you get close enough you can hear a continuous whining in Spanish.

Im sure you can fill out the list for the rest...

[Knock-on]

That would still be easy. The one braking 20m earlier and clearly having no balls would be Kimi. The one hitting peoples rear in the pitlane and cutting shicanes would be Lewis.

FA would be hard to tell apart, but if you get close enough you can hear a continuous whining in Spanish.

Im sure you can fill out the list for the rest...

The driver spinning like a top is Massa.

The driver failing to improve would be Heikki.

The driver looking into the distance to try and find his partner would be Piquet.

And the drivers peddling like Fred Flintstone and getting nowhere are in the Honda.

[MrJan]

But it may have swayed the judges decision.

The rules are vague and open to interpretation so it could have been a small but silly remark which suggests Lewis is above law and not the poor innocent victim his claims.

This isn't some random jury, it's professional law men who should be capable of making a decision based on facts, not the way someone acts. A silly remark but I think that the outcome was pretty obvious from the moment that we heard that hearing was going ahead.


OK, to clarify, CW claimed that TSA admitted he was in wrong and submitted this to the court as justification for dismissing the appeal.

TSA submitted a statement to the court strongly refuting this and under cross examination, admitted that it was just his impression and TSA had not started it.

At the same time, CW confirmed that he had lied when he "reiterated" to the team about the requirement for drivers to wait till after the next corner before overtaking and that there was no such rule.

Furthermore, CW also admitted that it was him that referred the matter to the Stewards to investigate after verbally confirming to McLaren that they were OK.

If you want a link, I'll dig the court transcripts out.

None of which really has any bearing on whether the case was heard properly. Just because TSA doesn't think he was wrong doesn't mean that the law bods on the case won't interperet things the way that they did.

It is always possible for a judge to change a precedent if he explains it or decides that the case is actually being heard on a different point. If the STR penalty was given as a set time penalty and McL was given as a drive through then verdict is correct. It wasn't the point of the case to establish whether the drive through was the correct penalty, merely whether it is right to appeal against a drive through which the rules say it isn't. No doubt everything has been clarified now to try and prevent future balls ups.

Basically I don't think that this is the result of an anti McL FIA conspiracy, just them realising that they got it wrong the last time and need to sort it out now.

[MrJan]

The driver who just appears in a decent position from nowhere would be Kubica and the one getting crashed into, having engine failures and generally doing rubbish would be Webber :)

[ShiftingGears]

How about we ban chicanes for '09? :p : It'd make Monza interesting again.

No one incident is exactly the same as another, but this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM) is as close as you'll get to a comparison with Spa. The driver who gained an advantage by cutting the chicane in this instance was not penalised.

That is not as close as you can get for a comparison.

Alonso overtaking Klein in Suzuka 2005 was much more relevant.

[MrJan]

Alonso v Klien (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fxs_tCFeMo4)

Really should have sorted the issue back then as it was all a bit ridiculous.

[Tonieke]

That is not as close as you can get for a comparison.


close or not...if the rulebook was the same as it is now..and they aplied it by the letter..like they did in Spa...MS should have gotten a penalty 2 !

close or not...if the rulebook was the same as it is now..and they aplied it by the letter..like they did in Spa...MS should have gotten a penalty 2 !

Never said he shouldn't (although since he was already in front nobody has yet managed to explain how he could gain the advantage whilst already having the advantage).

Fact - Schumacher was leading De La Rosa, it was De La Rosa doing the overtaking.

Which is different from.......

FACT - Hamilton was doing the overtaking, it was Raikkonen doing the leading.

Therefore the example of Hungary 2006 is not "as close as you'll get to a comparison with Spa".

Besides which, claiming that the Stewards at the Hungaroring made a mistake/should have given a penalty doesn't affect the Spa situation.

Just because a Referee misses a foul doesn't mean he can't blow his whistle and award a free-kick the next time a foul occurs.

[Tonieke]

Never said he shouldn't (although since he was already in front nobody has yet managed to explain how he could gain the advantage whilst already having the advantage).

Fact - Schumacher was leading De La Rosa, it was De La Rosa doing the overtaking.

Which is different from.......

FACT - Hamilton was doing the overtaking, it was Raikkonen doing the leading.

Therefore the example of Hungary 2006 is not "as close as you'll get to a comparison with Spa".

Besides which, claiming that the Stewards at the Hungaroring made a mistake/should have given a penalty doesn't affect the Spa situation.

Just because a Referee misses a foul doesn't mean he can't blow his whistle and award a free-kick the next time a foul occurs.

thought this penalty was about gaining advantage goin off track ? something that also clearly happened with MS in 2006 ?

and I totaly agree with you on that last sentence..but than them referees shoulld blow there whistels every time a fault is commited..and that's by far not the case !

[Knock-on]

Never said he shouldn't (although since he was already in front nobody has yet managed to explain how he could gain the advantage whilst already having the advantage).

Fact - Schumacher was leading De La Rosa, it was De La Rosa doing the overtaking.

Which is different from.......

FACT - Hamilton was doing the overtaking, it was Raikkonen doing the leading.

Therefore the example of Hungary 2006 is not "as close as you'll get to a comparison with Spa".

Besides which, claiming that the Stewards at the Hungaroring made a mistake/should have given a penalty doesn't affect the Spa situation.

Just because a Referee misses a foul doesn't mean he can't blow his whistle and award a free-kick the next time a foul occurs.

Sorry Tamb but your arguement falls apart when FACTS are applied.

FACT: Lewis was alongside at the first corner
FACT: Lewis had the inside line for the next corner.

By your reasoning, he gained no advantage by cutting the chicane as he already had track position.

[MrJan]

Never said he shouldn't (although since he was already in front nobody has yet managed to explain how he could gain the advantage whilst already having the advantage).

Fact - Schumacher was leading De La Rosa, it was De La Rosa doing the overtaking.

Which is different from.......

FACT - Hamilton was doing the overtaking, it was Raikkonen doing the leading.

Therefore the example of Hungary 2006 is not "as close as you'll get to a comparison with Spa".

Doesn't matter who is leading because it's all about gaining an advantage. The point of the clip is that it shows a driver cutting the chicane and then not even bothering to concede the place yet not receiving a penalty.

If they had both attempted that corner then DLR would have taken the place or there would have been contact.

As for the referee thing that also doesn't make sense. The point is consistency so if a referee doesn't give a card for an offence then he can't give a card for a similar offence later without having questions asked.

[Garry Walker]

Disgraceful decision. This is not how I want Massa to win the title, it would be just as tainted as if either of the McLaren drivers had won last year. So, if he wins, it better be by more than 6 points.

I have to say, this time FIA really played one on McLaren, for whatever reason. I say that as a person who called for McLaren to be banned for 2 years last year, so I am very low on the list of McLaren-fanboys.

Why did it take FIA so long to clarify this issue, there have been earlier precedents that have gone unpunished, this really is a complete joke. Hell, there were cases like that in 1992 that went UNPUNISHED and FIA did nothing.

[ArrowsFA1]

Fact - Schumacher was leading De La Rosa, it was De La Rosa doing the overtaking.

Which is different from.......
As I said, no one incident is exactly the same as another.

Still, the issue is not who was leading but who cut a chicane and gained an advantage by doing so. Pedro had the inside line for the turn. The only way (aside from risking an accident) MS could maintain his lead was to cut the chicane, which he did. That is gaining an unfair advantage. Had there been a wall, not a chicane, MS would have been out of the race - an argument frequently used in the KR/LH incident.

Fact - In Hungary we had a driver cutting a chicane and gaining an advantage by doing so. That driver did not give the position back, nor was he penalised by the stewards during or after the race.

Fact - In Spa we had a driver cutting a chicane and gaining an advantage by doing so. That driver did give the position back, but was penalised by the stewards after the race.

[ArrowsFA1]

Besides which, claiming that the Stewards at the Hungaroring made a mistake/should have given a penalty doesn't affect the Spa situation.
It clearly does in the sense that the consistency with which decisions are made is an issue.

The FIA themselves were clearly at pains to show that the punishment imposed on Liuzzi at the 2007 Japanese GP shouldn't affect the Spa decision to the extent of producing a "grossly inaccurate and misleading" email which attempted to suggest a mistake had been made by the Permanent Steward in post at that time.

Precedent was central to the appeal hearing which is why Hungary and Japan (Liuzzi as well as Alonso) are significant.

[Knock-on]

Disgraceful decision. This is not how I want Massa to win the title, it would be just as tainted as if either of the McLaren drivers had won last year. So, if he wins, it better be by more than 6 points.

I have to say, this time FIA really played one on McLaren, for whatever reason. I say that as a person who called for McLaren to be banned for 2 years last year, so I am very low on the list of McLaren-fanboys.

Why did it take FIA so long to clarify this issue, there have been earlier precedents that have gone unpunished, this really is a complete joke. Hell, there were cases like that in 1992 that went UNPUNISHED and FIA did nothing.

:up:

[wedge]

Hell, there were cases like that in 1992 that went UNPUNISHED and FIA did nothing.

Can you remind me what you're referring to?

[Garry Walker]

Can you remind me what you're referring to?

Mansell cut the chicane at Hockhenheim and overtook Senna by getting close to him that way for a tow on the next straight.
Senna complained about it, but FIA said nothing.

[ioan]

Never said he shouldn't (although since he was already in front nobody has yet managed to explain how he could gain the advantage whilst already having the advantage).

Fact - Schumacher was leading De La Rosa, it was De La Rosa doing the overtaking.

Which is different from.......

FACT - Hamilton was doing the overtaking, it was Raikkonen doing the leading.

Therefore the example of Hungary 2006 is not "as close as you'll get to a comparison with Spa".

Besides which, claiming that the Stewards at the Hungaroring made a mistake/should have given a penalty doesn't affect the Spa situation.

You're losing your time mate! ;)



Just because a Referee misses a foul doesn't mean he can't blow his whistle and award a free-kick the next time a foul occurs.

What about the referee who accorded a goal although the ball never made it in but actually went by?! :laugh:
Still the result wasn't changed, only the referee was punished. :)

Sorry Tamb but your arguement falls apart when FACTS are applied.

FACT: Lewis was alongside at the first corner
FACT: Lewis had the inside line for the next corner.

By your reasoning, he gained no advantage by cutting the chicane as he already had track position.

Had he been leading for 25+ laps? No. Not even 25mm.

[MrJan]

Disgraceful decision. This is not how I want Massa to win the title, it would be just as tainted as if either of the McLaren drivers had won last year. So, if he wins, it better be by more than 6 points.

I have to say, this time FIA really played one on McLaren, for whatever reason. I say that as a person who called for McLaren to be banned for 2 years last year, so I am very low on the list of McLaren-fanboys.

:eek: What part of the decision do you not agree with Garry? Is it the penalty itself or the fact that they don't get a chance to appeal?


What about the referee who accorded a goal although the ball never made it in but actually went by?! :laugh:
Still the result wasn't changed, only the referee was punished. :)

That's another decision that is unfair :) Why should the ref be punished for a mistake by his assistant?

[MrJan]

Had he been leading for 25+ laps? No. Not even 25mm.

Distance of lead is irrelevant (although I don't think that Knockie is on the right track). The facts are that Lewis led into the chicane, had to either brake or cut across (almost every driver in the field would have taken the same decision). Same set up as Schumacher, apart from Lewis was gracious enough to let Kimi back passed before attacking rather than Michael who slowed but then(no doubt under orders from the pitlane) cut Pedro's nose off.

[Garry Walker]

:eek: What part of the decision do you not agree with Garry? Is it the penalty itself or the fact that they don't get a chance to appeal?

Both. The penalty was nonsense, the admissibility problem from Liuzzi precedent also says that they should have had the right to appeal. But mostly the penalty.

Don`t get me wrong, I really really don`t want Hamilton to win the title, because the constant stream of faeces leaving his mouth all the time has put me off his character so much, but I am a racing fan and have raced and to penalize him like that for such a situation is just completely farcical.

The idiotic stewards need to stop fellating themselves, they are ruining F1 with all these stupid penalties for nonsense issues.

As I said, no one incident is exactly the same as another.

No you didn't, but you claimed that it was the closest comparison when it is patently is not.

There is a difference between leading and overtaking.

Distance of lead is irrelevant

It is very relevant.

Hence why there was no punishment.

[wedge]

Don`t get me wrong, I really really don`t want Hamilton to win the title, because the constant stream of faeces leaving his mouth all the time has put me off his character so much, but I am a racing fan and have raced and to penalize him like that for such a situation is just completely farcical.

The idiotic stewards need to stop fellating themselves, they are ruining F1 with all these stupid penalties for nonsense issues.

ROFFLE!!!!

:rotflmao:

[ArrowsFA1]

No you didn't...
You must have missed it then. This is my original post:

No one incident is exactly the same as another, but this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM) is as close as you'll get to a comparison with Spa. The driver who gained an advantage by cutting the chicane in this instance was not penalised.

...you claimed that it was the closest comparison when it is patently is not.
Indeed I did, and that remains my opinion.

There is a difference between leading and overtaking.
Do the rules state that a driver can only be penalised for cutting a chicane and therefore gaining an advantage if that driver is 1) leading or 2) following?

[Robinho]

i'm increasingly confused!

i can see why there is a case to answer for Hamilton, as he did gain an advantage, and i can see that there is an arguement to say that although he attempted to give that advantage back he did not give it back enough. its very harsh to penalise this IMO, but i don't necessarily think the FIA were wrong to do this. if we're going to argue about the advantage thing there has to be a strict definition. using off track to gain a position or to retain a position i would consider to be gaining an advantage. gaining time, but not a position i would also say is an advantage - and in consistent conditions quite easy to prove if you look at sector times.

that said, i feel the punishment to be extremley harsh, given that i don't think the outcome of the race was really affected, judging by the melee of the next 2 laps and the distance LH won by. there surely could be an option for saying that LH was guilty, but that a sporting penalty was unwarranted and applied a fine?

i find the way the matter was referred to the stewards, by the man who said they were initially "ok", and subsequently seems to have lied about a previous stewards findings, to be quite unsatisfactory and i'm bemused by the charade of allowing an appeal to be heard in full, with McLaren, Ferrari and FIA evidence to establish grounds for an appeal and the appeal itself and then ruling inadmissable.

if it was inadmissable then why have we waited to get to this point, its cut and dried - there is no appeal. or there is an appeal and lets hear it, what a complete waste of everyones time.

so where does that leave us - i think LH was very harshly judged, but don't disagree with that, but i do disagree with the penalty, and the following debacle was completley unnecessary.

at least there is some clarification to the rule now, which we saw in Monza, but in the past when something has been missed and later clarified (flexible floors anyone?) the new clarification has not been applied retrospectively, where in this case LH could be argued to have been penalised for a rule clarification that wasn't in place at the time. i think the appeal quite possibly would have been upheld if it had been heard, and that would have been even more embarassing for the FIA than the situation we have now.

i only hope that whichever way the title falls that its by more than the 6 point swing from Spa and that the rest of the season can be decided on track, as IMO we've had a few decent races this year, that we probably won't remember come the end of the season if the title is seen by some to have decided in a Paris courtroom

[PolePosition_1]

Never said he shouldn't (although since he was already in front nobody has yet managed to explain how he could gain the advantage whilst already having the advantage).

Fact - Schumacher was leading De La Rosa, it was De La Rosa doing the overtaking.

Which is different from.......

FACT - Hamilton was doing the overtaking, it was Raikkonen doing the leading.

Therefore the example of Hungary 2006 is not "as close as you'll get to a comparison with Spa".

Besides which, claiming that the Stewards at the Hungaroring made a mistake/should have given a penalty doesn't affect the Spa situation.

Just because a Referee misses a foul doesn't mean he can't blow his whistle and award a free-kick the next time a foul occurs.

Ok, lets use Alonso Klien example. Alonso let Klien by after slip-streaming him by cutting the chicane. But was later told he didn't need to let him by again.

[MrJan]

It is very relevant.

Hence why there was no punishment.

So because someone leads a race for a bit they are allowed to cheat?!!!!! That's effectively what you are saying there. Hamilton penalised for cheating but Schumacher not 'because he was leading'.

You don't seriously believe that do you? :eek:

[Knock-on]

Had he been leading for 25+ laps? No. Not even 25mm.

Ahh, so to be leading, a driver needs to have some sort of predefined lead for it to be legitimate even though the rules state 1mm is enough across the finish line to win a race.

Forget the fact that I said he was alongside and had track position for the next corner ;)

You should apply to the FIA to write their rules ;)

[ioan]

...even though the rules state 1mm is enough across the finish line to win a race.

Really?

I'm curious how they do measure a difference of only 1 mm?
Given that at 240 kph the distance of 1mm is being done within 0.000015 seconds?!
You think 240 kph is too fast for a F1 car? No problem, even at 24 kph one would only need 0.00015 second to travel 1mm.

We all know that in F1 time measurements are done to a precision of "only" 0.001 seconds!

So how would they measure the difference of 1 mm? Certainly a finish photo wouldn't help either for such a small distance!

Practically you need a difference of at least 70 mm that is 7 centimeters for the timing system to pick it up at a speed of 240 kph or 3.5 centimeters at 120 kph.

[Tonieke]

Really?

I'm curious how they do measure a difference of only 1 mm?
Given that at 240 kph the distance of 1mm is being done within 0.000015 seconds?!
You think 240 kph is too fast for a F1 car? No problem, even at 24 kph one would only need 0.00015 second to travel 1mm.

We all know that in F1 time measurements are done to a precision of "only" 0.001 seconds!

So how would they measure the difference of 1 mm? Certainly a finish photo wouldn't help either for such a small distance!

Practically you need a difference of at least 70 mm that is 7 centimeters for the timing system to pick it up at a speed of 240 kph or 3.5 centimeters at 120 kph.


u seems to be good at this Ioan ;-) can you also calculate the exact advantage Lewis gained in Spa ?

[Bagwan]

u seems to be good at this Ioan ;-) can you also calculate the exact advantage Lewis gained in Spa ?

I can .
It was exactly too much .

[weeflyonthewall]

Empty words. Just like "integrity" is to Ron Dennis.

If you believe that it's corruption, go and watch something else then.

Come to think of it, take the scruffy Woking team with you.

Oh, sorry, I forgot....they hadn't the balls to leave the FIA F1 World Championship had they?

Should we expect anything less from a die-hard Ferrari fan? I just wish Mosley had permanent stewards that were more consistent race-to-race and incident-to-incident. Their non-call on Kimi at Monaco took the cake. As long as the rulings and non-rulings are in favor of Ferrari, you'd be happy. Right?

[Tonieke]

I can .
It was exactly too much .

well thx Bagwan....appreciate your effort to give me an answer...but I was actualy looking for a more precise one..what exactly "gaining an advantage" is based on..and how it is determined...After all these weeks it still is not 100% clear to me...

[MrJan]

well thx Bagwan....appreciate your effort to give me an answer...but I was actualy looking for a more precise one..what exactly "gaining an advantage" is based on..and how it is determined...After all these weeks it still is not 100% clear to me...

I don't think that it was clarified, which makes the whole thing even blurrier. It's pretty much based on assumption and they probably just felt it ws generally wrong.

Queue the conspiracy but we pretty much all know that they was an advantage from that move, even if it was negligable.

[Rollo]

I'm curious how they do measure a difference of only 1 mm?
We all know that in F1 time measurements are done to a precision of "only" 0.001 seconds!


F1 cars are fitted with transponders which are measured and fitted in accordance with FIA regulations (see 20.4 and the appendix to the Technical Regs).

Truth in point that even if you tried to stage a dead heat, the distance is still measurable. The 2002 US GP was won with a 0.011s gap and the 1986 Spanish GP where there wasn't deliberate staging had a gap of 0.014s

This almost is a literal case of splitting hairs.


So how would they measure the difference of 1 mm? Certainly a finish photo wouldn't help either for such a small distance!


Good luck in trying to stage it.

[CNR]

had he had to do a drive drive through he may well of lost more then 25 seconds

[PSfan]

Ok, been busy lately and forgot this decision was coming, I managed to read upto post 120, But I can't take no more...

1st MacLeran once again should consider themselves lucky, an official appeal would have likely ended with a harsher penalty. I still view the incident has Hamilton bettering his position by letting Kimi ahead a little more then him conceding his gains from the corner.

2nd The references to the Toro Rosso appeal. If I remember correctly, the penalty applied was based on heresay, the midland/force india/whatever name they wanted to call them driver claimed he was passed under yellows, the stewards took his word for it, when the Team Torro driver disagree'd and the was no evidence to show he had passed under yellow... well... but even then... Exception, not the rule.

3rd I still say the FIA should have treated this appeal like a refusal to pit for the stop and go... add a lap to the 25 sec penalty, I think thats what he deserve now!

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

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

[mstillhere]

Don't worry, I fully understand, however sometimes it's difficult to remain moderate in some discussions. Although I should know better being a moderator on a slightly larger forum than this one, I may have issued a temp ban myself if faced with the same comments.

Boy the ego!! I am starting understanding why you like LH so much.

[ioan]

u seems to be good at this Ioan ;-) can you also calculate the exact advantage Lewis gained in Spa ?

I'm not sure you'll be happy with the result! :D

[ioan]

F1 cars are fitted with transponders which are measured and fitted in accordance with FIA regulations (see 20.4 and the appendix to the Technical Regs).

Truth in point that even if you tried to stage a dead heat, the distance is still measurable. The 2002 US GP was won with a 0.011s gap and the 1986 Spanish GP where there wasn't deliberate staging had a gap of 0.014s

This almost is a literal case of splitting hairs.

Good luck in trying to stage it.


As I said, 1 mm even at a speed of only 24 km/h takes 0.00015 seconds, and the timing systems only work with time increments of 0.001 seconds!

So, good luck measuring 1mm! ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

4th FIA was sure looking after Ferrari's interest when they gave Kimi that stop and go for not having his tires on in time... I would bet the FIA where the only ones that noticed, and could have easily swept it under the rug if they are so set on a Ferrari champion.
The rules in that situation are crystal clear. Either the tyres were on in time or they weren't, and they weren't. Not quite the same as a regulation that is open to interpretation.

5th For those who think the penalty shouldn't have altered the results, what do you do when the race winners car fails inspection and is found underweight or outside the regs in area's that clearly give them an unfair advantage?
Again, you've said it yourself - "area's that clearly give them an unfair advantage". Where the rules are clear there is no room for debate, and there are some FIA regs that are clear. Equally there are many that are not.

[PolePosition_1]

Ok, been busy lately and forgot this decision was coming, I managed to read upto post 120, But I can't take no more...

1st MacLeran once again should consider themselves lucky, an official appeal would have likely ended with a harsher penalty. I still view the incident has Hamilton bettering his position by letting Kimi ahead a little more then him conceding his gains from the corner.

2nd The references to the Toro Rosso appeal. If I remember correctly, the penalty applied was based on heresay, the midland/force india/whatever name they wanted to call them driver claimed he was passed under yellows, the stewards took his word for it, when the Team Torro driver disagree'd and the was no evidence to show he had passed under yellow... well... but even then... Exception, not the rule.

3rd I still say the FIA should have treated this appeal like a refusal to pit for the stop and go... add a lap to the 25 sec penalty, I think thats what he deserve now!

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

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

If the race stewards and FIA were consistant with their enforcement of penalties. I would agree 100% with what you say. But thats where the problem lies. They're not.

For example, Belgium, Hamilton gained no ultimate sporting advantage. When Massa was found guilty of breaking a rule in Valencia, he wasn't punished because no sporting advantage.

Or Japan 2005 with Alonso and Klien, exactly the same situation as in Belgium, Alonso gave the place back, but was told after he done it that he did not have to give the place back.

[yodasarmpit]

Boy the ego!! I am starting understanding why you like LH so much.
Why thank you kind sir :)


If you read my statement again, you will see I was humbly conceding that I was incorrect to express myself in the way I did.

I stand by the sentiment of my posts, however I should have chosen my words a little better, and not reverted to a personal attack on another member.

[Dave B]

During the Five Live commentary on Friday Practice, Ian Phillips from Force India was saying that his team had shown Charlie Whiting evidence of "at least half the field" putting all four wheels off the track at Monza, gaining them small chunks of time. Whiting claimed to have been unaware of this. Amazing.

But then, along with some other teams, Philips sought clarification as to what the procedure should be if any drivers had to run right over the chicanes at Singapore this weekend - suggesting that perhaps they should have to bring the car to a stop before rejoining.

Whiting's answer, after he had slept on it, was that the stewards would judge each case on its merits.

So once again there's a grey area open to interpretation and human error. Well done Charlie. :rolleyes:

[Tonieke]

During the Five Live commentary on Friday Practice, Ian Phillips from Force India was saying that his team had shown Charlie Whiting evidence of "at least half the field" putting all four wheels off the track at Monza, gaining them small chunks of time. Whiting claimed to have been unaware of this. Amazing.

But then, along with some other teams, Philips sought clarification as to what the procedure should be if any drivers had to run right over the chicanes at Singapore this weekend - suggesting that perhaps they should have to bring the car to a stop before rejoining.

Whiting's answer, after he had slept on it, was that the stewards would judge each case on its merits.

So once again there's a grey area open to interpretation and human error. Well done Charlie. :rolleyes:

It must be really frustrating for teams to race in those conditions...The only thing FIA will adchieve with this is drivers no longer willing to take risks when overtaking...

Why is it so hard for the biggest motorsport organisation in the world to come up with a crystal clear rulebook for it's N° 1 championship F1 ? Rules that counts for everyone and where penalties are the same for everyone...

[PSfan]

During the Five Live commentary on Friday Practice, Ian Phillips from Force India was saying that his team had shown Charlie Whiting evidence of "at least half the field" putting all four wheels off the track at Monza, gaining them small chunks of time. Whiting claimed to have been unaware of this. Amazing.

I have 2 thoughts on this, 1st, did Mr. Philip bring forth any evidence that the cars in question that cut chicanes did indeed gain time, and did not relinquish said time? Did he bring a avarage lap time for each car, or their previous and post 5 laps to prove they did indeed gain? Unless he brings some compelling evidence that they did gain "small chunks of time" he's already wasting his time... 2nd Based on this Hamilton's penalty, we already know that Charlie isn't handing out the penalties, So why would he be paying attention to any one particular aspect of the race?



But then, along with some other teams, Philips sought clarification as to what the procedure should be if any drivers had to run right over the chicanes at Singapore this weekend - suggesting that perhaps they should have to bring the car to a stop before rejoining.

Whiting's answer, after he had slept on it, was that the stewards would judge each case on its merits.

So once again there's a grey area open to interpretation and human error. Well done Charlie. :rolleyes:

This is another huge waste of time as well... what did Philip expect, charlie to say yah STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD?!? I think Charlie might have a hand in making up the rules, but not enforcing them, but he is not gonna tell a team what they should and shouldn't do...

This isn't any grey area to me... a driver cuts a chicane, they let off a little so the lap times are close... if a driver cuts a chicane and passes another driver in the process... get behind the driver you passed at the chicane (Hamilton biggest mistake was he let Kimi pass for the position instead of giving him it...)

[ArrowsFA1]

Based on this Hamilton's penalty, we already know that Charlie isn't handing out the penalties, So why would he be paying attention to any one particular aspect of the race?
Simply because, as we saw at Spa, Charlie Whiting reports incidents to the stewards.

[Tonieke]

Simply because, as we saw at Spa, Charlie Whiting reports incidents to the stewards.

and I also thought he was the only person teams can direct to during racingweekends to pose these kinda questions anyway....not ?

the answer he gave Mr. Phillips is more like "go ahead..do what you think is best....stewards will decide during and after the race if it was correct or not...based on there own interpretations of each incident as there are no clear rules" sounds all very amateuristic to me...

[ioan]

During the Five Live commentary on Friday Practice, Ian Phillips from Force India was saying that his team had shown Charlie Whiting evidence of "at least half the field" putting all four wheels off the track at Monza, gaining them small chunks of time. Whiting claimed to have been unaware of this. Amazing.

But then, along with some other teams, Philips sought clarification as to what the procedure should be if any drivers had to run right over the chicanes at Singapore this weekend - suggesting that perhaps they should have to bring the car to a stop before rejoining.

Whiting's answer, after he had slept on it, was that the stewards would judge each case on its merits.

So once again there's a grey area open to interpretation and human error. Well done Charlie. :rolleyes:

I thought that the FIA made it clear BEFORE the Italian GP that if a driver cuts a chicane and thus gains an advantage (i.e. passes his closest rival) than he has to give back the position and wait untill the next turn before attacking again.

Now, saying that there were competitors cutting chicanes means nothing if he doesn't say if they gained an advantage and if they did or didn't give back the gained advantage.

I remember Massa giving back the position twice (to Rosberg and Heidfeld) after what looked nothing like chicane cutting (since when is passing over the curbs = chicane cutting?).

[ShiftingGears]

I remember Massa giving back the position twice (to Rosberg and Heidfeld) after what looked nothing like chicane cutting (since when is passing over the curbs = chicane cutting?).

That's a consequence of such petty penalties being handed out. They set bad precedents.

[PSfan]

Simply because, as we saw at Spa, Charlie Whiting reports incidents to the stewards.

Um, and you know this how? We know MacLeran asked him for clirification on the incident, but you know for sure Charlie was the one that brought it to the stewarts attention? There was alot of talk of a Ferrari protest, and even I could see the pass/repass was iffy at best, you can't give the Stewards enough credit to come up with this all on their own?


and I also thought he was the only person teams can direct to during racingweekends to pose these kinda questions anyway....not ?

the answer he gave Mr. Phillips is more like "go ahead..do what you think is best....stewards will decide during and after the race if it was correct or not...based on there own interpretations of each incident as there are no clear rules" sounds all very amateuristic to me...

I don't think this is the case, not sure how difficult it would be to find again, but I'm pretty sure I read that the MacLeran tried to reach the stewards but couldn't get a hold of them. So if team can't commuinicate directly with them then Mac wouldn't have tried...

[markabilly]

I just wish Mosley had permanent stewards that were more consistent race-to-race and incident-to-incident. Their non-call on Kimi at Monaco took the cake. As long as the rulings and non-rulings are in favor of Ferrari, you'd be happy. Right?


well thx Bagwan....appreciate your effort to give me an answer...but I was actualy looking for a more precise one..what exactly "gaining an advantage" is based on..and how it is determined...After all these weeks it still is not 100% clear to me...


I don't think that it was clarified, which makes the whole thing even blurrier. It's pretty much based on assumption and they probably just felt it ws generally wrong.

Queue the conspiracy but we pretty much all know that they was an advantage from that move, even if it was negligable.


Sounds like the stewards are lacking the very basic skills in these matters and need to be replaced by people who will really clarify racing rules and jurisdiction and make proper rulings........and we should by now KNOW exactly who those people are.....LAWYERS.

After all, who was doing most of the talking at this hearing? Lawyers...... :rolleyes:

Might as well let them do the driving as well. Look at last year, where the ultimate result of both the WCC and WDC was decided by lawyers arguing with other lawyers long after the car engines went cold....

[markabilly]

I think the verdict is an absolute joke. It just makes a mockery of the Stewarding system. Basically, we have a situation where when Alonso does exactly the same a couple of years back, he gave the place back but was later told he did not have to do this. Hamilton does it, he does the same, and race control confirm it is ok on two occasions. And ends up getting penalised.

So two groups of people, race control and the stewards, using the same rulebook, and looking at the same incident, come to different conclusions. How is McLaren (or any other team) meant to know if they’re racing in the rules, when race control and the stewards can come to totally different conclusions. Then we have a case where its ok for some cars to break the rules as long as they didn’t gain a sporting advantage, but with others (i.e Hamilton), who gained no ultimate advantage, was still penalised.

And finally, we have a case where an appeal was made last year and accepted, but that didn’t set precedent, because the FIA claimed Tony Scott admitted to that being an error, he says he was mis-interrupted, and that it wasn’t an error. But yet they still decide it was an error, despite Tony Scott confirming it was not.

Surely this makes a joke of the enforcements placed in F1.

I’ve been reading the full judgement from the ICA, and I just get frustrated by their justification of it. For example he has been punished for breaking rule article 30.3.a) of those regulations stipulates that “during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits”. I’m sorry, but surely they should take into account this is racing, when you try to overtake there is a risk involved, you may well have to go off track. If done deliberate to gain an advantage fair enough, but this wasn’t done deliberate, it was avoiding action. So surely under this ruling, any drivers who make a mistake should be punished for breaking this rule?

One of the worst bits is ” FIA considers that the decision taken by the Stewards is not to be criticised”. I’m sorry, but as I’ve already pointed out, race control and the stewards came to different conclusions looking at the same rulebook and same incident. And they’re saying they shouldn’t have to justify their reasoning behind this.

In essence, McLaren have been penalised for not being able to mind read the stewards thoughts.


No they are being punished because Lewis is NOT a lawyer and if Mac had their lawyer drivng instead, then he would have immediately recognized the risk of legality, applied immediate arbitration, then using the well known (among lawyers) indemnification applicability concept proceeded through the merger clause to remove jurisdiction and thereby quash consequential damages without negating entitlement.......but since Lewis failed to understand these fundemental concepts, then the result was subject to eminent domain rule with qualified immunity being applicable.

[ArrowsFA1]

Um, and you know this how? We know MacLeran asked him for clirification on the incident, but you know for sure Charlie was the one that brought it to the stewarts attention? There was alot of talk of a Ferrari protest, and even I could see the pass/repass was iffy at best, you can't give the Stewards enough credit to come up with this all on their own?
I refer you to this:

The court heard the tape of Whiting saying that he believed the move was OK. What does not make sense is that given this attitude Whiting had no reason to write a report to the FIA Stewards, a necessary step in the awarding of penalties. And yet he did.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20791.html

[PSfan]

I refer you to this:

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


Once again, thank grandprix.com for making something outa nothing at all... Think about it... was there enough time from the incident to the time it was announced that it was under investigation for Charlie to write his report and bring it to the stewards? So therefor a little creative writing by the ever so pro macleran lovin grandprix.com to make things look worse... The only way I can see this sort of thing working is if once the stewards decide to investigate something, Whiting would then advise them, and once a penalty is decided on, then a report would have to be written... my opinion thats the only way I see it working.

[ioan]

I refer you to this:

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

The stewards have the right to investigate incidents also when these are not referred to them by the race director.

[Knock-on]

Once again, thank grandprix.com for making something outa nothing at all... Think about it... was there enough time from the incident to the time it was announced that it was under investigation for Charlie to write his report and bring it to the stewards? So therefor a little creative writing by the ever so pro macleran lovin grandprix.com to make things look worse... The only way I can see this sort of thing working is if once the stewards decide to investigate something, Whiting would then advise them, and once a penalty is decided on, then a report would have to be written... my opinion thats the only way I see it working.

CW confirmed twice that the move looked OK and then refered the matter to the Stewards.

It's all in the appeal (that never was) transcript along with CW admitting that he lied about the "reclassification" of regulations that dont exist.

[ArrowsFA1]

Once again, thank grandprix.com for making something outa nothing at all... Think about it... was there enough time from the incident to the time it was announced that it was under investigation for Charlie to write his report and bring it to the stewards? So therefor a little creative writing by the ever so pro macleran lovin grandprix.com to make things look worse...
How did they make it worse, or make something out of nothing :confused:

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

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

[PSfan]

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tonieke]

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



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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ArrowsFA1]

The Grandprix.com story makes out like Charlie was two faced, said one thing to MacLeran, hung up the phone and started writing up a report that MacLeran broke the rules... And I don't buy that...
Surely you can understand why people question him saying "ok", and then saying to the stewards "you should look at this"?

We all know CW is not a steward and so he can only give his opinion, but even Max has said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70547) the Race Director "should not have answered" McLaren's question.

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

[PSfan]

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


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



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

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

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

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