Penalties for Hamilton and Alonso in Malaysia

[N4D13]

Both have got +20 seconds, so Alonso keeps sixth place, but Hamilton is demoted to eighth. Hamilton's penalty was for making more than one direction change when defending his place from Alonso, while Alonso was for hitting Lewis - obviously. :p

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/90614

[Brown, Jon Brow]

:rolleyes:

[Garry Walker]

What a joke. Just completely crazy. Stewards are imbeciles and I am being far too kind here.

[N4D13]

Does anybody remember Hamilton doing more than one change of direction during the race? I don't.

If he did a significant change of direction, then I suppose that the penalty is OK, but, quite frankly, I don't remember him doing so.

[ioan]

Rubbish, Alonso was the only one to blame in this case.
What were the stewards expecting Hamilton to do before a turn? Drive straight ahead?!

[ioan]

What a joke. Just completely crazy. Stewards are imbeciles and I am being far too kind here.

It's been this way for many years now. Scary is that we keep watching a sport ruled and enforced by imbeciles.

[Ranger]

Words fail me. :\

[ShiftingGears]

I think my IQ actually dropped reading that. So stupid.

[Daniel]

What a load of BS for both penalties. Alonso's hit was a racing incident and the stewards clearly watched some other race when it comes to the Hamilton incident.

[N4D13]

Autosport:


Hamilton got his penalty for his driving on the lap before he got hit by Alonso.
Hamilton said he was not shocked to have been hit with the penalty – which was for changing direction twice on the main straight.


I wouldn't like to sound like an outraged Lewis hater or anything, but if he did this, then the penalty is OK with me. It's rather harsh, though, but if FIA wants to tighten its driving standards, then this is the only way to do so.

[Don Capps]

It's been this way for many years now. Scary is that we keep watching a sport ruled and enforced by imbeciles.

And some of you wonder why many of those of us who followed racing for years upon years don't even bother with formula 1 any more? It is rotten to the core, being riddled with picayune rules and mismanaged by idiots and dolts whose greed is exceeded only by their incompetence. You are being had and being had big time.

[wedge]

Daft

Looked like Hamilton midly chopped Alonso.

[jens]

Words fail me. :\

Agreed. Like the penalty Hamilton was given in Fuji'08 for locking the brakes. Or Bourdais in the same race. This was pure racing incident.

[Mark]

Totally stupid. Hamilton did nothing wrong and Alonso was already punished anyway.

And I've had to redo the pickems!

[Daniel]

Totally stupid. Hamilton did nothing wrong and Alonso was already punished anyway.

And I've had to redo the pickems!
Why? Personally I think we should keep the results as they were.

[markabilly]

Alonso did not suffer at all with his penalty, so why even bother??

Hamilton did, but I did not see him do anything that has not been standard practice for years and years.

One move? well what is more than one move anyway? Does it mean you can not get back into the racing line?

How about just say NO move, NONE, or just dump the rule.

[ioan]

Autosport:
Hamilton got his penalty for his driving on the lap before he got hit by Alonso.
Hamilton said he was not shocked to have been hit with the penalty – which was for changing direction twice on the main straight.

Nowadays the lesser driver get's DRS to overtake and the one in front doesn't even have the right to defend his position welcome to the overtaking heaven!

[Daniel]

Nowadays the lesser driver get's DRS to overtake and the one in front doesn't even have the right to defend his position welcome to the overtaking heaven!

until they ban movements when overtaking

They'll have to engineer the cars to do this to overtake :D
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gtqTizFiWN0/TBuOVSCBo4I/AAAAAAAAB08/OBwGGD2zPqY/s1600/Mercedes-Benz+CLR+flip.jpg

[ioan]

How about just say NO move, NONE, or just dump the rule.

That is for the next evolution of the rules in WWF1!

[ioan]

until they ban movements when overtaking


Honestly, if it is one move or no move no difference.
With what we have it is enough for the driver behind to mimic moving left and than go right and bingo it's done, 'great' overtaking move with an extra 20kmh gifted by the rulers!

[Mark]

Why? Personally I think we should keep the results as they were.

The pickems reflect the official results. If we agree with them or not!

[Daniel]

The pickems reflect the official results. If we agree with them or not!

Bah

[Bagwan]

If Lewis has said he isn't surprised , then we , I think , can assume he saw the footage , and saw more than one move .
Because this is a time-added penalty , it may be that they could appeal . If they don't , it must have been pretty obvious .

Mind you , I haven't seen a replay , and I didn't notice the move(s) during the telecast .

Alonso mis-judged that one , but , at least he was trying hard to get by .
He screwed up , and paid dearly , needing to get a new wing .
Luckily , Lewis's tire wasn't cut .
Had Hamilton's tire gone down as a result , Fernando would have been solely at fault . For this reason , he deserved further penalty even though it didn't .

[fandango]

What bothers me about this is that there doesn't seem to be enough established penalties for infractions. I don't mean there should be more, but the code should be clear. If someone is caught speeding in the pitlane, or jumping the start, they get a drive-through penalty. We all get that, and if for example someone was disqualified for either of those things we'd see it as wrong, an over-reaction.

But there are still too many incidents where it seems the stewards are improvising, and this is another of those. If 20-second penalties were normal we wouldn't be surprised about what happened, but Hamilton wasn't impeded by Alonso clipping him, and Alonso already got his punishment by having to pit again. Hamilton weaved a lot more last year, and just got a meaningless warning.

If this is the stewards' logic, then why didn't they punish Petrov, for example? He caused a collision today, with the ground!

[N4D13]

But there are still too many incidents where it seems the stewards are improvising, and this is another of those. If 20-second penalties were normal we wouldn't be surprised about what happened, but Hamilton wasn't impeded by Alonso clipping him, and Alonso already got his punishment by having to pit again. Hamilton weaved a lot more last year, and just got a meaningless warning.
I believe that Alonso damaged the floor of Hamilton's car.

[Sonic]

Whaaaaaaat? Which bl***** ****ing t*** thought this one up.

Who was the former racer on the panel this weekend? Surely they are supposed to be the voice of reason????

[Hawkmoon]

Rubbish, Alonso was the only one to blame in this case.
What were the stewards expecting Hamilton to do before a turn? Drive straight ahead?!

Both penalties were rubbish but Alonso's more so. He made a simple error were as Hamilton made a deliberate move that contravened the rules. Having said that however, Hamilton's "second" move wasn't a huge weave like he did last year so I think the stewards were overly harsh.

Let's hope they show a little consistency from now on so the drivers know where they stand. I think a pig just flew past my window?!

[N. Jones]

Those are the rules. IF we don't like them then we should campaign to change them. Anything else is hot air.

[Sonic]

those are the rules. If we don't like them then we should campaign to change them. Anything else is hot air.

revolution!

[christophulus]

Nonsense. And how did they come up with the arbitrary number of 20 seconds? Why not 25s like they give if there's not enough time for a drive thru?

:down:

[ioan]

Nonsense. And how did they come up with the arbitrary number of 20 seconds? Why not 25s like they give if there's not enough time for a drive thru?

:down:

It has been changed for 2011.

[Rollo]

If Lewis has said he isn't surprised , then we , I think , can assume he saw the footage , and saw more than one move .
Because this is a time-added penalty , it may be that they could appeal . If they don't , it must have been pretty obvious .

Mind you , I haven't seen a replay , and I didn't notice the move(s) during the telecast .


These are the two incidents in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L61_AevsjMs
Lewis does move twice, but the video actually shows that he was trying to move out of the way of Alonso, so that Alonso wouldn't get a tow from the slipstream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4hT0SOqbCw
Obviously Alonso hit Hamilton but did it warrant a penalty? Hamilton continued whereas Alonso had to go to the pits for new front nose cone. Arguably that was its own penalty.

I have one final thing I want you to consider:

http://elifesize.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/526%20Chewbacca.jpg
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks?

[Somebody]

Because this is a time-added penalty , it may be that they could appeal . If they don't , it must have been pretty obvious .
They can't - in the rules, it's equivalent to a drive-through, which can't be appealed (well, they could, but it would inevitably be ruled inadmissible, which amounts to the same thing with wasted time & money)


Lewis does move twice, but the video actually shows that he was trying to move out of the way of Alonso, so that Alonso wouldn't get a tow from the slipstream.
So? The rule was tightened after last year specifically because of Hamilton weaving in front of someone to break a tow.

[Sonic]

I have one final thing I want you to consider:

http://elifesize.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/526%20Chewbacca.jpg
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks?

Dude. Love ur style. Or rather Matt and trey's, but same thing....

[TMorel]

Between Martin Whitmarsh and some of the folks here, it seems the only person that isn't overly upset is Lewis himself
"Do I class it as dangerous? No, but that's the rule. Twenty seconds is not such a bad penalty for it."

[Sonic]

Between Martin Whitmarsh and some of the folks here, it seems the only person that isn't overly upset is Lewis himself
"Do I class it as dangerous? No, but that's the rule. Twenty seconds is not such a bad penalty for it."

He may have been more miffed if he lost a podium as a result.

[gloomyDAY]

Alonso receives a penalty and nothing happens. Hamilton gets a penalty and loses a place.
Moral of the story? Black man gets shafted again. :p

Seriously, those were stupid penalties. They were racing!

[Daniel]

Alonso receives a penalty and nothing happens. Hamilton gets a penalty and loses a place.
Moral of the story? Black man gets shafted again. :p

Seriously, those were stupid penalties. They were racing!

There's a line which is used a couple of times in this video which I'd love to use :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WbE2wgWoTQ

I'd get banned though.

[airshifter]

Hamilton has got away in the past with warnings for the weaving issue, so IMO the penalty has to stick at some point. Alonso is the one that got screwed this time, as just having to stop to replace the nose was penalty enough. Though the time didn't cost him position it easily could have.

[Mia 01]

It was a strange situation. First Lewis weaves and then lifts off and shift down it seems.

Lewis wasn´t suprised over the penalty.

[ArrowsFA1]

The stewards have applied the rules. Alonso running into the back of Hamilton was "avoidable" and Hamilton appears to have moved more than once.

That said this again highlights that introducing rules to cover something may be well intended but they get in the way of racing. IMHO there are far to many rules governing what drivers can and cannot do.

Alonso didn't intend to hit the back of the McLaren. It was an accident that penalised him, and no-one else, more than enough.

As for the 'one move' rule, I've always been against it but it seems that, in the view of the FIA at least, the drivers need to be told how to drive. Isn't this supposed to be racing, and if it is then drivers are entitled to defend as much as they are to attack? Outsmarting each other is all part of the duel and positioning your car on the circuit is all part of that.

Deliberately forcing your opponent off the circuit, into a potentially dangerous situation, or brake testing them for example are all examples of poor driving that deserve to be punished and are self-evident.

For me the 'one move' rule is yet another example of something being put in place to create overtaking in cars that are almost impossible to overtake with otherwise, like the DRS.

[Daniel]

The stewards have applied the rules. Alonso running into the back of Hamilton was "avoidable" and Hamilton appears to have moved more than once.

That said this again highlights that introducing rules to cover something may be well intended but they get in the way of racing. IMHO there are far to many rules governing what drivers can and cannot do.

Alonso didn't intend to hit the back of the McLaren. It was an accident that penalised him, and no-one else, more than enough.

As for the 'one move' rule, I've always been against it but it seems that, in the view of the FIA at least, the drivers need to be told how to drive. Isn't this supposed to be racing, and if it is then drivers are entitled to defend as much as they are to attack? Outsmarting each other is all part of the duel and positioning your car on the circuit is all part of that.

Deliberately forcing your opponent off the circuit, into a potentially dangerous situation, or brake testing them for example are all examples of poor driving that deserve to be punished and are self-evident.

For me the 'one move' rule is yet another example of something being put in place to create overtaking in cars that are almost impossible to overtake with otherwise, like the DRS.

Couldn't agree more. Why should the car behind be able to move around all it wants and the car in front has to make one move and that's that?

[Dave B]

It was a strange situation. First Lewis weaves and then lifts off and shift down it seems.

It may "seem" that way to you, but the stewards would have reviewed Hamilton's telemetry and didn't make any suggestion that he lifted. This incident was 100% Alonso's fault, but IMO a racing incident which carried its own penalty.

[Mark]

Couldn't agree more. Why should the car behind be able to move around all it wants and the car in front has to make one move and that's that?

To make sure overtaking is not impossible.

[Bagwan]

These are the two incidents in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L61_AevsjMs
Lewis does move twice, but the video actually shows that he was trying to move out of the way of Alonso, so that Alonso wouldn't get a tow from the slipstream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4hT0SOqbCw
Obviously Alonso hit Hamilton but did it warrant a penalty? Hamilton continued whereas Alonso had to go to the pits for new front nose cone. Arguably that was its own penalty.

I have one final thing I want you to consider:

http://elifesize.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/526%20Chewbacca.jpg
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks?

Thanks for the vids .

On that first one with Hamilton , I noticed something after reading your post .
Hamilton may have woven around a little , but at no time was he defending a move by Alonso to pass , but , rather , as you say , to break the tow . Fernando followed him , and the move was to come at the end of the straight .
By then , Alonso's wing wasn't working , and he needed that tow .

The one-move rule is there to allow the driver behind to commit to a move once the driver in front has committed to a defense .

It's hard to know from just reading quotes , whether Hamilton was not surprised that he was penalized because he knew he had committed an offence , or whether he was surprised because he feels he always gets the stick when he goes into the steward's room .

But , he did move , albeit not too much , twice , to break the tow , which we have seen him do with much more gusto before .
And , we did see Alonso get along side of Hamilton at the end of the straight , so must presume he could have been there earlier , had the tow been perfect .

On the next lap , Fernando , who had been closing quickly on fresher tires , mis-judged the move inside , and touched Lewis .

Lewis kept roughly the same lap times going , so wasn't really hurt in the incident as far damage goes , while Alonso pitted for a new nose .



It's kind of 50/50 for me .

Neither incident really meritted sanction , but if one was to be penalized , then the tat for the tit would be the second sanction .

The drivers were together for those two laps and both technically committed offences .


And , Rollo , you then completely lost me with your Wookie reference .
I was with you up until then .

[Daniel]

And , Rollo , you then completely lost me with your Wookie reference .
I was with you up until then .

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ba_1180837359

[555-04Q2]

Pathetic :down:

[Rollo]

The one-move rule is there to allow the driver behind to commit to a move once the driver in front has committed to a defense.

"However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers such as premature changes of direction, more than one change of direction, deliberate crowding of cars towards the inside or the outside of the curve or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited and shall be penalised, according to the importance and repetition of the offences, by penalties ranging from a fine to the exclusion from the race. The repetition of dangerous driving, even involuntary, may result in the exclusion from the race."
- Chapter IV code of driving conduct on the circuits. Article 1 overtaking

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rule was intended to stop deliberate blocking by the car in front. I don't think you can honestly say that Hamilton intended to block Alonso. Whilst the stewards might be enforcing the rule to the letter, it doesn't make any sense in context with what the rule was intended to be for.

I think of Nigel Mansell, who was able to "sell" a swerve to the car in front and make them defend a wrong line; and he never had the benefit of KERS, DRS, or the "one swerve" rule.

When Mansell came up behind you, you may as well have just thrown the dice and guessed where he was going:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Z9JOof_kE&feature=related

[dom bom]

By the way, Kamui Kobayashi got 7th place thanks to the event.
In Melbolun, he lost 8th position because of rear wing regulatory violation.
Was it a divine act?

[Bagwan]

"However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers such as premature changes of direction, more than one change of direction, deliberate crowding of cars towards the inside or the outside of the curve or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited and shall be penalised, according to the importance and repetition of the offences, by penalties ranging from a fine to the exclusion from the race. The repetition of dangerous driving, even involuntary, may result in the exclusion from the race."
- Chapter IV code of driving conduct on the circuits. Article 1 overtaking

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rule was intended to stop deliberate blocking by the car in front. I don't think you can honestly say that Hamilton intended to block Alonso. Whilst the stewards might be enforcing the rule to the letter, it doesn't make any sense in context with what the rule was intended to be for.

I think of Nigel Mansell, who was able to "sell" a swerve to the car in front and make them defend a wrong line; and he never had the benefit of KERS, DRS, or the "one swerve" rule.

When Mansell came up behind you, you may as well have just thrown the dice and guessed where he was going:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Z9JOof_kE&feature=related

You're right , Rollo , but was Hamilton's swerve not hindering Alonso from getting a proper tow ?

I know it's a bit of a stretch , but not that far , and was , essentially , a premature change of direction .
The tow was a part of getting past .

[ioan]

As for the 'one move' rule, I've always been against it but it seems that, in the view of the FIA at least, the drivers need to be told how to drive. Isn't this supposed to be racing, and if it is then drivers are entitled to defend as much as they are to attack? Outsmarting each other is all part of the duel and positioning your car on the circuit is all part of that.

Giving an advantage to the car behind has been the name of the game for a few seasons now, like if it isn't enough that they get a tow down the straight.

[ioan]

To make sure overtaking is not impossible.

Overtaking wasn't impossible back in the day when these moronic rules weren't invented yet. But back then 50 overtaking moves per race wasn't the norm for a good show, and having a good fight for position was as good as the overtaking actually taking place. :\

[BDunnell]

Overtaking wasn't impossible back in the day when these moronic rules weren't invented yet. But back then 50 overtaking moves per race wasn't the norm for a good show, and having a good fight for position was as good as the overtaking actually taking place. :\

Back in which day, exactly?

[ioan]

Back in which day, exactly?

Just pick one up to 2002.

[BDunnell]

Just pick one up to 2002.

Why that year?

[ioan]

Why that year?

Because 2003 is when everyone started to become overly interested by creating artificial overtaking for the sake of the show.

[BDunnell]

Because 2003 is when everyone started to become overly interested by creating artificial overtaking for the sake of the show.

Why that year?

[ioan]

Why that year?

I guess you will have to ask the rule makers why they decided so, or maybe Bernie's income was dwindling, only they know the answer. I never felt the need for these stupid rules so I can not answer.

[BDunnell]

I guess you will have to ask the rule makers why they decided so, or maybe Bernie's income was dwindling, only they know the answer.

But why 2003? I still don't understand what happened then. And I also think you, as many do, are overestimating the amount of overtaking there was in days gone by. Not every race was like this — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8JhWyxekzQ (albeit this footage is heavily edited until it reaches the last lap). The difference then was that at least the possibility of passing wasn't actively prevented.

[ioan]

But why 2003? I still don't understand what happened then. And I also think you, as many do, are overestimating the amount of overtaking there was in days gone by. Not every race was like this — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8JhWyxekzQ (albeit this footage is heavily edited until it reaches the last lap). The difference then was that at least the possibility of passing wasn't actively prevented.

I have never said that there was more overtaking in days gone by, just that people were happy to see a battle no matter if the overtaking move was successful or not.
Racing is about racing not overtaking. And successful overtaking is not the only thing that makes racing interesting.
Good night (for the 3rd time) ;)

[BDunnell]

I have never said that there was more overtaking in days gone by, just that people were happy to see a battle no matter if the overtaking move was successful or not.
Racing is about racing not overtaking. And successful overtaking is not the only thing that makes racing interesting.

Yet again, I agree. But why did people become interested in the sport in days gone by? Certainly not because of strategy. If, later, they were interested because of technological development, at least it was varied and exciting, like the first introduction of wings, or the six-wheeled or fan cars. And I'd say again that the possibility of overtaking existed to a far greater degree 'then', to use a vague term, than it does now.

[Arjuna]

The stewards have applied the rules. Alonso running into the back of Hamilton was "avoidable" and Hamilton appears to have moved more than once.

That said this again highlights that introducing rules to cover something may be well intended but they get in the way of racing. IMHO there are far to many rules governing what drivers can and cannot do.

Alonso didn't intend to hit the back of the McLaren. It was an accident that penalised him, and no-one else, more than enough.

As for the 'one move' rule, I've always been against it but it seems that, in the view of the FIA at least, the drivers need to be told how to drive. Isn't this supposed to be racing, and if it is then drivers are entitled to defend as much as they are to attack? Outsmarting each other is all part of the duel and positioning your car on the circuit is all part of that.

Deliberately forcing your opponent off the circuit, into a potentially dangerous situation, or brake testing them for example are all examples of poor driving that deserve to be punished and are self-evident.

For me the 'one move' rule is yet another example of something being put in place to create overtaking in cars that are almost impossible to overtake with otherwise, like the DRS.

Well said.. penalizing both drivers are solutive decision. When a car behind can get close to a car in front, it means the one behind is faster and have ability to get pass the car in front. Each driver has their own right and in as much skill of defend they will try to retain their position. Yet, if their way of defend is concerned as making move to cause confusion driver behind, and driver behind is induced to lead to move that can give disadvantage to driver in front, both of them need to be told how to drive, by penalty.

I can understand it as incident in which drivers need to take and another drivers have to hold the line..

[555-04Q2]

But why 2003? I still don't understand what happened then. And I also think you, as many do, are overestimating the amount of overtaking there was in days gone by. Not every race was like this — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8JhWyxekzQ (albeit this footage is heavily edited until it reaches the last lap). The difference then was that at least the possibility of passing wasn't actively prevented.

There was more overtaking in days gone by. I remember them clearly, the days when a car could follow another through corners without wanting to carry on straight into the barriers. There was also more bumping of wheels etc without consequences. Racing incidents were just that, racing incidents, not a chance for a fat ar$ed race steward to penalise someone because an attempted overtaking move went wrong.

[I am evil Homer]

More back room bull**** in other words.

[steveaki13]

Just pick one up to 2002.


Why that year?


Because 2003 is when everyone started to become overly interested by creating artificial overtaking for the sake of the show.


But why 2003? I still don't understand what happened then. And I also think you, as many do, are overestimating the amount of overtaking there was in days gone by. Not every race was like this — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8JhWyxekzQ (albeit this footage is heavily edited until it reaches the last lap). The difference then was that at least the possibility of passing wasn't actively prevented.

Someone may have already added this so I am sorry in advance if they have, and I know its a bit late, but the reason 2003 was when they started the new Qualifying and the rest of these rules were bought in was because in 2002 there was a lot of mumbling in the press and maybe I guess some fans, that Ferrari's domination was so boring they should spice up the show.

Hence next year the rules changed and we have been going further and further down this road ever since.

[Mia 01]

How many reprimands have Hamlon got so far, two, three?

[555-04Q2]

How many reprimands have Hamlon got so far, two, three?

I think it is 5 :(

[Mia 01]

I think it is 5 :(

O dear, five, wasn´t it three who was the limit of the new rule?
Is a race ban coming up?

[Mia 01]

You can live in hope, but race bans are not good for the show.
Ofcourse it isn´t, but some drivers have to learn a lesson.

[Mia 01]

What kind of weak driver would learn a lesson from a race ban? Lewis certainly hasn't done anything ontrack to warrant a race ban apart from nudging a couple of drivers on corners with mis-timed overtakes. It happens in racing from time to time. Would you have wanted to see Vettel get a race ban for his crash into his teammate in Turkey last year? Or Webber for crashing into the back of Heikki and Lewis during 2010? Or Vettel crashing into Button in Spa last year too?? Do we need race bans for accidents really??? :confused:

If you say so, who am I to object. Kimi in Canada 08 on the other hand.

[Mia 01]

What kind of weak driver would learn a lesson from a race ban? Lewis certainly hasn't done anything ontrack to warrant a race ban apart from nudging a couple of drivers on corners with mis-timed overtakes. It happens in racing from time to time. Would you have wanted to see Vettel get a race ban for his crash into his teammate in Turkey last year? Or Webber for crashing into the back of Heikki and Lewis during 2010? Or Vettel crashing into Button in Spa last year too?? Do we need race bans for accidents really??? :confused:

apart form, I liked that

[Dave B]

O dear, five, wasn´t it three who was the limit of the new rule?
Is a race ban coming up?
No, the count reset from the introduction of that rule. Nice try, bringing up an old thread to slag off Lewis, but must try harder.

[Mia 01]

Mia, Canada '08 was brainfade on Hamilton's part but it was an accident pure and simple. Hamilton paid the price of losing valuable points at the time that nearly cost him the WDC. If you think he deliberately drove into the back of Kimi just to annoy you and to take a few points off his rivals, then I can't help you there. I'm getting abit sick of all this to be quite honest. :down:

Sorry. Canada 08, eager, the red mist on, but, a red sharp blinking light at the end of the pitlane and some cars waiting before you, you have to pull thrue at any costs.

[steveaki13]

A game of reopening an old thread again.

I don't think Lewis deserves a race ban. No driver deserves race bans for Accidents, for intentionally dangerous driviung yes for mistimings or accidents no.

Andrea De Cesaris or Takuma Sato wouldn't have raced half their races in race bans were in back then.

[Mia 01]

A game of reopening an old thread again.

I don't think Lewis deserves a race ban. No driver deserves race bans for Accidents, for intentionally dangerous driviung yes for mistimings or accidents no.

Andrea De Cesaris or Takuma Sato wouldn't have raced half their races in race bans were in back then.

It´s not old, it´s about hamlon, looking forward to this weekends race. Hope noone will get hurt.

[Mia 01]

No, the count reset from the introduction of that rule. Nice try, bringing up an old thread to slag off Lewis, but must try harder.

Hi there Davey, why are this old threads on this forum? As a fan of Jarno you must be glad.

[Mia 01]

One moore, but still ended up fourth, good worK Lewis.

[pino]

One moore, but still ended up fourth, good worK Lewis.

Stop bringing up old threads thank you !