McLarens Mistakes

[Knock-on]

http://motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=308936&FS=F1

While I don't agree with the authors interpretations of the situation, he is right in that McLaren need to have a mistake free end to this years campaign.

Last year, the Drivers Championship was theirs for the taking but they threw it away in the last few races.

How much of that was down to Spygate and how much was down to driver inexperience we will never know but it handed the title to Kimi on a plate.

Lewis should have been going for his second WDC now but is in danger of coming 2nd again.

McLaren need to clear their minds, put FIA issues behind them and get on with doing the very best they can to win both titles.

Failure again will be too bitter a pill to take.

[F1boat]

I agree 100% with the author, good article. Still, with rain predicted in the next few races, the championship is Hamilton's to lose.

[PolePosition_1]

I couldn't disagree anymore with the article, I'm suprised to see such a biased article on what I see a respectful site such as motorsport.com.

"McLaren's Lewis Hamilton finds himself on the bad end of a decision to cut a chicane in Belgium". I'm sorry, but in F1 you try to overtake cars, its part of the sport, if a driver deliberately doesn't give you enough room, you're forced to cut the chicane, you have no choice whatsoever. So to say he made a decision is slightly niave and one sided.

"team sought the opinion of race director Charlie Whiting about Hamilton's ctions before the end of the race indicated they sensed they were in the wrong". Here, again totally one sided and niave, we all know there is absolute no consistancy in the rules and how they're enforced. As can be seen with Massa being found guilty of unsafe pit release, when its happened plenty of times this year unpunished, or Japan 2005, Hungary 2006, France 2008, all highlighting inconsistancies in how cutting chicanes are handled. I don't think them asking Whiting proves they knew they were wrong, simply that they acknowledge its a grey area and with past form, rather be safe than sorry. Its all nice and well saying they shouldn't have asked Charlie, but to my knowledge the Stewards cannot be contacted mid race, so a very unfair analysis. Taking into account Race Control is an official body, with any respectable framework of rules, you'd think an authoritative figure looking at the same incident via the same rulebook, would come to the same conclusion. Fact they didn't, just highlights once more why McLaren asked Charlie in the first place.

In summary, the article is utter one sided rubbish.

[Knock-on]

I couldn't disagree anymore with the article, I'm suprised to see such a biased article on what I see a respectful site such as motorsport.com.

"McLaren's Lewis Hamilton finds himself on the bad end of a decision to cut a chicane in Belgium". I'm sorry, but in F1 you try to overtake cars, its part of the sport, if a driver deliberately doesn't give you enough room, you're forced to cut the chicane, you have no choice whatsoever. So to say he made a decision is slightly niave and one sided.

"team sought the opinion of race director Charlie Whiting about Hamilton's ctions before the end of the race indicated they sensed they were in the wrong". Here, again totally one sided and niave, we all know there is absolute no consistancy in the rules and how they're enforced. As can be seen with Massa being found guilty of unsafe pit release, when its happened plenty of times this year unpunished, or Japan 2005, Hungary 2006, France 2008, all highlighting inconsistancies in how cutting chicanes are handled. I don't think them asking Whiting proves they knew they were wrong, simply that they acknowledge its a grey area and with past form, rather be safe than sorry. Its all nice and well saying they shouldn't have asked Charlie, but to my knowledge the Stewards cannot be contacted mid race, so a very unfair analysis. Taking into account Race Control is an official body, with any respectable framework of rules, you'd think an authoritative figure looking at the same incident via the same rulebook, would come to the same conclusion. Fact they didn't, just highlights once more why McLaren asked Charlie in the first place.

In summary, the article is utter one sided rubbish.

I agree the article is very slanted and selective in the information it chooses to use but it highlights I believe the way the FIA views the situation.

They can justify on technicalities their views and judgements even though they are usually contrary to established precedent, practice and the spirit of the law.

That is what I think McLaren need to take into account for the last few races. They know they are fighting Ferrari and the FIA for the championship so have to be seen as whiter than white.

If that means giving up a place when forced off track, slowing, letting someone past, doing a voluntary drive through, checking with Charlie, then the Stewards, Max and the Pope then so be it.

[ioan]

Very good article, good to see some objective journo out there.

I see people are already criticizing it cause it doesn't suit their POV.

[Knock-on]

I suppose the other side of the arguement is summed up with this article, also from Motorsport.com

http://motorsport.com/magazine/feature.asp?C=WriteLine&D=2008-09-08


Ferrari International Assistance?
2008-09-08
Josee Poirier

I don't know if you are like me, but sometimes I wonder if the FIA has a team running in the F1 World Championship. Because we saw again today that, like Renault once called them, that they are Ferrari International Assistance.

We had a wonderful race, alot more eventful than last year and the last 2 laps were simply breath taking. We had hoped for a wet race, we were finally getting it! A cool and fair fight between Hamilton and Raikkonen took place.

The Ferrari driver had been doing a brilliant drive since he had taken the lead from Hamilton at the beginning of the race. There are two laps to go, Hamilton had been getting close and the fights begin. At the same time, the rain kicks in, just to add more exictement for the end of the race. During their fight, Hamilton cuts through a chicane and ends up in front of Kimi but realizes immediately that he can't stay there and so he lets the Ferrari driver through before going back into the fight again. It goes on like this up until Raikkonen touches the wall. Hamilton's race not over yet. He has to reach the start/finish line under the rain with tires for dry weather. He does it and wins the race.

And what do we learn two hours later? The McLaren driver is given a 25 seconds penalty for what happened at the chicane and ends up in 3rd place. Massa is declared the winnder. But why, what's the point of this penalty? I don't know for you, but for me I just don't get it.

Aren't you tired of the FIA deciding the result of a race? I think it's a total lack of respect by the FIA. Why pay to go see races if the FIA will decide the result anyway? How can you not think that the FIA is somehow helping Ferrari? Or at least taking decisions to play with the end result of the championship?

[PolePosition_1]

Very good article, good to see some objective journo out there.

I see people are already criticizing it cause it doesn't suit their POV.

Well, if thats your view of an objective article, I'll be sure to remember your interpretation of the word objective next time I see you using that.

How anyone, even a Ferrari fan can call that objective I don't know. Its 100% based on the authors opinion, as I've shown by straight away being able to dismantle the article into opinion rather than fact.

I can acknowledge the article posted by Knock On disagreeing with the penalty is not objective.

[Knock-on]

As I have ioan on my ignore list, I can't see his posts unless someone quotes them but seeing as PP has, I am sure ioan will agree that the 2nd article posted is equally as objective and not criticise it because it doesn't suit his POV :D

Anyway, back on topic.

I think the penalty needed to be appealed but that now needs a line drawn under it. For McLaren to win, they need to win above and beyond what might usually be expected and not make any more mistakes. Well, not mistakes per se but anything that can be interpreted as one.

[leopard]

I couldn't disagree anymore with the article, I'm suprised to see such a biased article on what I see a respectful site such as motorsport.com.

In summary, the article is utter one sided rubbish.
The article are logically acceptable, while Massa of ferrari is menacing them, mistake at its smallest intolerable.

Are you in the right sense when posting this? ;)

[PolePosition_1]

The article are logically acceptable, while Massa of ferrari is menacing them, mistake at its smallest intolerable.

Are you in the right sense when posting this? ;)

I must be honest, I don't understand that post at all. Can you clarify what you mean?

[PSfan]

As I have ioan on my ignore list, I can't see his posts unless someone quotes them but seeing as PP has, I am sure ioan will agree that the 2nd article posted is equally as objective and not criticise it because it doesn't suit his POV :D

??? Did you bother to take an objective read on that 2nd article? When an author of a story opens with a very biased statement "Ferrari International Assistance?" you know its gonna be suspect... if an author writes: "But why, what's the point of this penalty? I don't know for you, but for me I just don't get it. " then it sounds like they don't have anything to really add to the subject. and the best clue that this is a fine piece of journolism is when they can't be bothered to run it threw a spell check: "winnder" ???

I also disagree with the stories last statement... `1st and formost, I agree Hamilton deserved a penalty. 2nd if the stewards didn't apply a penalty then they are affecting the championship there as well. Also if the author of the story only cares about the result, why watch the race?


Anyway, back on topic.

I think the penalty needed to be appealed but that now needs a line drawn under it. For McLaren to win, they need to win above and beyond what might usually be expected and not make any more mistakes. Well, not mistakes per se but anything that can be interpreted as one.

Well getting to the first article, I agree with most of it except that MacLeran has to avoid making mistakesto win the championships (of course all teams try to avoid making mistakes...) I think they are in the championship hunt because Ferrari made to many mistakes, and that Hamilton needs them to make a few more, and maybe Kimi refussing to play a supporting role. The Speedtv guys have mentioned they believe Kimi has "stolen" points from Massa from at least one race, so that is enough for Lewis to have kept the lead in the championship. I also think for Lewis to stay sharp it might be best for him to be be a couple points behind come the last couple of races, so he's fighting to win it, instead of trying to keep it.