Just watched with number one son. We agreed that all the season's races should be held at Spa.
Apparently there is a stewards' enquiry in progress re Hamilton/Raikonnen at the chicane where Hamilton passed Kimi via the escape route, let him by then re-passed. Doubt it will change the result though.
Shame for Kimi who had done enough to deserve a better result. No doubt he'll get over it but the championship now looks like a Hamilton/Massa scrap.
|
You lucky UK people, with F1 going back to the no-interruptions BBC next year.
Moronic French TV went to adverts from lap 40 to lap 43, even though their commentators were screaming about Bourdais on the podium. Doh!
|
|
Stewards have given Hamilton a 25 second penalty. Not sure exactly why, but presumably to do with running wide then getting in front of Raikonnen briefly before letting him past. Hope Mclaren can appeal!
|
Great race, if they uphold the penalty taking the victory from Hamilton then it would be a travesty.
|
What a joke.
That's me finished with F1 and I suspect I won't be alone. The biased stewarding seems to get worse and worse.
|
Ferrari International Assistance rides to their rescue yet again.....
|
|
|
Cheddar If you tread this try and justify THIS piece of Ferrari bias.
This is Fraud.
|
|
I wonder what uncle Ron is saying.
|
As a massive Ferrari fan I have to say this seems harsh. Strange stewarding decisions have been very frequent recently, like fining Ferrari in Spain.
|
This is a complete joke and is destroying the sport.
Hamilton clearly allowed Raikonen to regain the advantage but he simply could not maintain it as he and the Ferrari are not as good in the wet/partial wet as Hamilton and his car.
I will watch bits of the Singapore race to view a night race but that is me finished with F1 now - there is no point watching it if they will not allow racing.
I bet ITV are laughing their socks off at the BBC paying a fortune to televise a sport that will have very few viewers in the UK after this.
|
|
An awful decision, Hamilton immediately gave up the place he gained after cutting the corner so gained no advantage. I was always sceptical about claims of bias towards Ferrari but I have now moved firmly into the conspiracy camp, particularly after the pocket money penalty The Red's recieved after a much more serious incident in the last GP.
|
|
See above, happened many times this year with ZERO action taken
|
|
Disgusting decision. As a lifelong F1 fan I am seriously disappointed. I hold no partisan view of the various teams but this is absolutely beyond the pale. It should be internally investigated. Something is rotten in the state of and so on.....
|
If this was Ferrari then they would have got away with it. Likewise if Mclaren had the pitlane mishap they'd have been penalised immediately.
Hamilton gave up is advantage. But was clearly quicker and passed the Ferrari. Then when the BMW nearly took out Hamilton, Raikonnen got back ahead only to be overtaken again. And then he crashed. So what advantage did Hamilton get over Raikonnen.
I hope they appeal and win in and the FIA bias ended.
|
I hope they appeal and win in and the FIA bias ended.
My goodness I've just seen a pig flying past the window!
Edited by b308 on 07/09/2008 at 19:28
|
|
I watched the race, but had to go out afterwards, so was blissfully unaware of the rumpus. I remember shouting at Hamilton to let the Ferrari through, which of course he did, so the penalty is unbelievable. What, exactly, was he supposed to do? This is so depressing...
|
As a lifelong F1 fan I was ready to give up before this race anyway, now I am sure.
At the start I paused it, as you do, to build up time in order to miss the adverts. But I then looked at the frozen picture of them on the grid a second before the green light.
What? 20 cars? Might as well be twenty banana`s on a tray really. I mean, they look the same until you get close up and then you can see slight differences, but if you peel back the skin its all banana, all the same.
All artificially limited to 19,000 revs.. All V8`s of course and development on the engines frozen.
No chance of a few apples and pears, or a 6 wheeler or something exciting.
No, all banana and I`m sick of it.
Perhaps its all heading towards the cult of personality? Maybe the red button on the TV remote will have a popular `gross show`big smotherish, use in the future.
You press the red button to give your favourite an extra 50BHP for 5 laps. The green button to dump a bucket of rattlesnakes over the marshals and the blue button to ejector seat the FIA into a pile of torn up tickets.
The clincher for new wave interest would be the yellow button which provide bananas and pull the chain via webcam at FIA HQ.
Wait a few years.. Who would have thought that people would be psychologically slaughtered on live TV and cars flung over goalposts with trebuchants?
You just have to move on with the times......
|
|
|
Cheddar If you tread this try and justify THIS piece of Ferrari bias. This is Fraud.
I watched it and it seems harsh to me I must say, I guess the ruling is on the basis that Hamilton would have been much further behind Raik at the next (1st) corner had he negotiated the chicane rather than cut it.
Nothing against Hamilton, he is Brit after all, though I dont hide the fact that I want to see Ferrari beat McLaren (the spying saga still leaves a bitter taste) though I would prefer it to be fair and square and would have quite fancied Massa to pull back 8 points with Raik now out of it and being obliged to support him.
Dont reckon anyone will feel good about this one, even Massa.
|
Hamilton had two options... take out the Ferrari or take the short cut. And if he had not taken the shortcut then it would have been the Ferrari that hit him.
I think if I was a devious Mclaren then since:
- Rumours abound that Raikonnen will be replaced by Alonso in a season or two
- The lead Massa now has over Raikonnen means he has to be supporting driver to Massa's title hopes
- The fact there was no advantage in then end, Raikonnen messed up and crashed
So... get Raikonnen to support the appeal and his chances of staying first Ferrari driver remain in place ;-)
|
|
|
|
You could see it on the faces of the presenters couldn`t you? Trying to be up-beat and positive at the end but knowing that another of Formula 1`s , vertically rising and falling custard pies was still up in the air.
Edited by oilrag on 07/09/2008 at 19:54
|
I'd love to hear the justification for that decision - I doubt Ferrari would have considered it justified had the shoe been on the other foot.
Well done FIA - how to spoil a good race - and I am no more pro-Hamilton than pro-Kimi, who is better than his results at the moment.
Edited by Manatee on 07/09/2008 at 20:30
|
Stewards should be taken out to the woodshed - I wonder how much Ferrari pays them in cash, one has to wonder?
If Hamilton wins the championship this year, it will be a true triumph for him against all the odds, including those off-track.
The FIA is now damaging the sport and if they are loosing viwers, they are failing their sponsers.
Whats the chances of a McLaren appearing next year with some sponsership by an anti-racism group? Higher than ever before id say.
Fact is, Hamilton could have had a spin and still won the race because Kimi cant get it together, so no advantage gained at all. He would have been first, or first regardless of his excursion.
|
"I wonder how much Ferrari pays them in cash, one has to wonder?"
One can wonder lots of things in life, but the above, without proof is fairly sad conspiracy theory material.
I'm amused by the number of posts and comments you hear after something like this along the lines of: "It's a shambles. I'm never going to watch a F1 race again. Ever." A few races later the same people are commenting on things again. Complain - fine, but at least stick to your principles.
What is wrong with a result being provisonal until everything has been looked at from race incidents to the weights of the cars?
|
|
But until an appeal the new result is Hamilton third. It is no longer provisional.
|
I was talking generally about any race.
But to be pedantic, I would argue until the appeal is heard the 'new' result (Hamilton 3rd) is still provisional.
|
....... I am no more pro-Hamilton than pro-Kimi who is better than his results at the moment.
To my mind the fact that you refer to Reikkenon by his first name and Hamilton by his surname indicates that you are pro-Reikkenon.
|
|
F1 really has become a joke.
Poor racing, poor circuits, poor decisions.
I am expecting the British GP & Spa to be ditched so some goverment abroad can throw $$$$s at Bernie.
Oh what joy watching a never changing string of cars wandering round a dock yard at Valencia. Now we need to get used to " Lets have a podium TV shot but do come back later and we can let you know the result."
The only salvation is to spray the track with water every 30 mins.
|
From Autosport.com , Ferrari did NOT complain to the stewards....(SD is Stefano Domenicali)
Q. Was the protest of which we've just seen the penalty, was the protest lodged by Ferrari?
SD: Absolutely not, absolutely not. We were summoned by the stewards at the end of the race.
Apparantly McLaren have data showing that Lewis was 6km/h slower than Kimi on the start finish line. The stewards though say that he was closer than he would have been had he not cut the corner. Still a harsh decision IMHO
|
THe new Valencia circuit showed money wins. Was meant to be a circuit where you could overtake - but you couldn't.
F1 in recent years became a spectator sport again. But the FIA and F1 itself might change that.
|
|
Does anyone on this site speak Italian and is therefore able to advise us what Italian web sites are saying about this decision?
|
|
Could try Google translator or Babel.
|
Gazzetta dello Sport (italy's premier sports paper)
The direction contest of Spa has established that the cut of chicane of English has given an advantage to the punished English pilot with 25 " and therefore third party. Happening of the ferrarista with second Heidfeld. The McLaren has already made resorted: ?Our data show that Lewis has raised the foot having made to pass Kimi?. The word passes to the court of appeal of the Fia
Mass on the podio of Spa: it was second, then the judges have assigned the Victoria to it
SPA (Belgium), 7 september 2008 - Clamorous ribaltone in the GP of Belgium. Lewis Hamilton, winner on the goal, has been penalized of 25 " and therefore the Victoria is of Felipe Mass and the Ferrari. The decision has been taken after the vision of the films of the overtaking of Hamilton to the damages of Kimi Raikkonen in the penultimate turn of the GP.
ADVANTAGE - Second the judges English in cutting the chicane that the rectilinear one of arrival precedes has drawn an advantage. It is true that it has given back the position to same Raikkonen on the rectilinear one, but has surpassed siccome it immediately to the detached one has drawn advantage from the position and therefore the penalty has been deserved. Practically for a regular attack it would have had to wait for an other curve at least, would not have had to attack quickly.
FOUGHT - in charge of the Sport Management of the Ferrari Stefano Domenicali it does not have intentional to comment the decision: ?We are content of this Victoria but we prefer to maintain the concentration high. Also this contest has demonstrated that this World-wide one will be fought till the end?. For the report penalty also to Glock Thymus for overtaking with yellow flags: the eighth relative place and punticino ends to Webber.
APPEAL - McLaren-Mercedes has decided to make appeal against the decision of the judges to penalize Hamilton. The stable anglo-German has addressed to the court of appeal of the FIA, than it will gather in the next weeks. ?We have studied all our data we on hand put and them of the commissioners of the FIA - it has made to know the McLaren -. The data show that after to have cut the chicane, Lewis have raised the foot, because it was slower than Kimi than 6 km/h. After to have yielded the head to Kimi, Lewis has riposizionato its machine on the right it has and it refrained chopped herbs in. Data these facts, we did not have other choice that to make appeal?.
HAMILTON - In the press conference post contest, before the verdict of the judges, Lewis Hamilton had spoken about the maneuver that it then has cost the penalization: ?I have left the first position It - English had said -, perhaps it has tried to send, and has cut for that one the chicane to me outside. I did not have space, I had to avoid to meet with he. They are put to me quickly behind, then I have made us to go ahead, I have not made no great error?.
gasport
Edited by Altea Ego on 07/09/2008 at 21:09
|
Ahh, well; if it refrained the chopped herbs, that proves it.
|
"and it refrained chopped herbs in"
That explains it!
It's not called Babelfish for nothing, is it? :-)
|
Italian web sites are saying more or less what their British counterparts are, which is not much.
I always switch between ITV and Rai while watching F1 and the Italian commentators mentioned something about Lewis cutting the chicane during the race. The decision to penalise Lewis was taken solely by the race stewards and not by the FIA.
|
The decision to penalise Lewis was taken solely by the race stewards and not by the FIA.
Not exactly true; at the beginning of the year, Max [Ron's best buddy] appointed a travelling "FIA representative" - one Alan Donnelly - to "guide" the various stewards at each circuit. [Themselves FIA appointees.]
He certainly earned his bonus this week. [The fact that he had alleged business connexions to Ferrari would have had no bearing whatsoever on his "advice."]
|
all speculation, of course. If there were any real racing to speak of, we would not be discussing trivial issues like this one.
|
|
I can and have just read the ITalian news site ansa.it. Not much more on there they are reporting what has happened. THey also say that McLaren can't appeal to the stewards (since it was a drive through penalty) but can appeal to the FIA which they have done.
|
THey also say that McLaren can't appeal to the stewards (since it was a drive through penalty) but can appeal to the FIA which they have done.
According to one f1 news site,
"There are some doubts about whether McLaren are allowed to appeal against a drive-through penalty, which means the Court of Appeal may first have to decide at its hearing whether or not the appeal is admissible."
In other words, like Brazil last year, McLaren will be wasting their time and money.
|
But surely they should have given a drive through penalty during the race. Afterwards (hence 25s?) it's not right... or was this planned because it is harder to appeal such a penalty. Charlie Whiteing was consulted during the race.
Had he come in for a drive through in the race, then he may have finished second. And Kimi may have still crashed.
Unfair even for someone that is not a Mclaren or even an F1 fan.
What I do not get is just before the incident Hamilton is right alongside Raikonnen. That is there is nothing between them. After the incident he backs off and is behind. So no benefit/advantage. Then he accelerates past a waeving Raikonnen.
Raikonnen was unable to control the car properly in the wet and proved this in the end. So Hamilton would have got ahead before the end of the race. FIA/stewards are not impartial here. Now I want Hamilton to win the title - I quite like the idea of Ferrari no 2 (Massa) winning.
Edited by rtj70 on 07/09/2008 at 22:39
|
What a total shambles.
Although i'm a Hamilton and McLaren fan, i think they were maybe a tad unwise not to ensure Raikkonen was still in front at the end of the straight...however... for Hamilton to have throttled off enough on a straight for the Ferrari to come past, that really ought to have been enough.
The main thing for me though, is that Hamilton continuing in front of Raikkonen made no difference at all to Raikkonen going off, he did it on his own at a time Hamilton was nowhere near him...furthermore by penalising Hamilton so much time, it has elevated two drivers up the order that were nowhere near those places.
What a travesty.
|
I agree Westpig... they could have played it a little safer but the advantage over a car that crashed due to driver error. I would have seen it different had Kimi finished (well maybe).
Lets hope Murray wins tonight for us Brits ;-)
|
"But surely they should have given a drive through penalty during the race. Afterwards (hence 25s?) it's not right... or was this planned because it is harder to appeal such a penalty."
"FIA Sporting Regs:
16.3 The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident :
a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping ;
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds
and then re-join the race.
c) a drop of ten grid positions at the driver?s next Event.
However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply [notifying on the timing monitors] and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned."
|
In the post race interview with ITV, Ron Dennis said they had cleared the Hamilton-Raikonnen incident immediately with Charley Whiting who had said it was fine, no problem. As soon as I heard that, I thought, here we go again. Exactly the same thing happened a few races ago.
|
Having watched it again, you could say that the incident caused Kimi to take a different line, and change his braking/accelerating strategies etc and thereby change the course (and the outcome) of the race. You could even argue that if it hadn't happened, Kimi might not have gone off, thereby losing championship points.
I strongly suspect the decision will get turned over on appeal, as overwhelmingly it is being viewed as a harsh decision. Not that the FIA usually takes much notice of what people are saying.
|
strongly suspect the decision will get turned over on appeal
The 1st appeal can only decide whether a "drive through" penalty can be appealed. It seems that there is no precedent for a "drive through" penalty to be subjected to appeal.
compare the "no penalty" given to Schumacher for a blatant cutting of the corner 2 years ago:
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A40703663
There is another one of Alonso escaping punishment:
youtube.com/watch?v=oRjAwFVR8po
You can find details of a petition here:
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A40702330
|
A pervesrse decision in my view. As rtj70 points out, whatever outcome from the chicane, KR had (or was given back by LH) the lead after the chicane. What was LH was supposed to do a the chicane I wonder - crash into KR? Surely going into run-off area, then conceding the place was logical & fair. Compound this with the fact that KR then regained the lead after the next corner (then promptly spun) & I can't really see how he was disadvantaged or how LH gained any.
Then comes the the rather arbitrary penalty itself - 25 seconds. Why 25 seconds? How much advantage did he gain & did that affect Massa (no) or NH (no). I wonder if Massa had been even further behind, the penalty would have reflected that too.
I don't know who the race officials were, but they should hold their heads in shame.
Whatever the eventual official result of this year's drivers' championship, the best driver will have been LH.
Edited by woodbines on 08/09/2008 at 00:27
|
25 seconds. Why 25 seconds?
"Drive-through penalty (Article 16.3(a)), since this is being applied at the end of the Race, 25 seconds will be added to the driver's elapsed race time."
The International Sporting Code which dictates the right to appeal across all FIA-sanctioned sporting events, states the following with regard to appeal of drive-through and stop-go penalties:
"Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes, together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal."
onboard footage here
youtube.com/watch?v=yKQbjYkN-Rc
Edited by jbif on 08/09/2008 at 00:46
|
I think this incident will perhaps have wider implications than may have been expected.
It is unusual for an driver to have quite such 'bad luck' with penalties - even if some have been justified, some have been marginal at best and coupled with seemingly harsh consequences compared to other drivers, the stewards/FIA may be opening themselves up to far more attention than they may like, certainly too much for it to just blow over.
Some of the judgements have created some discussion, but this one seems to be verging on outrage - alienating fans is a terrible mistake.
|
The Schu / De La Rosa incident does not compare in that Sch was infront going into the corner and in front coming out and the ruling is about gaining places. If Schu had been behind De La Rosa before the corner and had cut the chicane ending up in front then a penalty would have been due.
As I have said this seems harsh to me however the stewards ruling will surely be on the basis that Hamilton's actions caused Raik to change his line thus slowing Raik and that Hamilton would have been much further behind Raik at the next (1st) corner had he negotiated the chicane rather than cut it.
Also to be clear the subsequent spin into retirement by Raik is irrelevant, afterall if this had happened, say, on lap 30 and Hamilton had waited a couple of laps to take his stop-go, the penalty would not have been rescinded if Raik had retired in the meantime.
However as I say this seems a little harsh and certainly the application of the regulations needs to be more transparent.
|
The offence cited was against the following:
"g) The race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race."
Presumably nobody else was seen to use the run-off areas during the race?
|
Plenty did!
Going back to the original incident I wonder what would have happenned if Hamilton had kept going and not ceded the lead back to Kimi - if he had then built up a lead of over 25 secs over Massa (who was 15 secs behind him at the end) and Kimi had still gone off trying to keep up would they have still applied the 25secs or would they have just disqualified him?
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, I think!
|
It hangs on if he had an advantage. He was further behind him after he let him pass than he was at the bus stop when it all started (banging wheels)
Ergo he gave up the advantage and more. The stewards should be charged with bringing the sport into disrepute.
|
IMHO the reasoning behind this is purely commercial:
if only Hamilton can win with several races to go, people will stop watching.
any publicity is good publicity.
Nothing to do with sport.
|
Another slant on this did he/didn't he debacle, is to put any victory/podium displays on hold until a max. of 5 days after the race, so that any disgruntled parties can lodge appeals or complaints and hopefully get them sorted so the winner on the podium is actually the winner. As for the venue, it could be held at Maranello!
That should kill the F1 circus stone dead methinks.
|
It hangs on if he had an advantage. >>
I agree.
You present one interpretation though if you look at it again it is clear that if Hamilton had negotiated the chicane he would not have been close enough to pass before the next (1st) corner, perhaps his mistake was not to stay behind until after the next corner.
It seems to me to be a harsh penalty compared to the more serious "crime" of missing the red pit lane exit light and taking Raik out in Canada, then he was given a grid demotion for the next race. There is no point giving a time penalty to somone who has retired (as per Canada) in which respect I wonder how the stewards would have ruled yesterday had Hamilton spun out as Raik did, perhaps a grid demotion for Monza which would probably have been fairer anyway.
On the other hand if he had finished 25 secs or more ahead of Massa he still would have won and the grid demotion for Monza would have seemed harsh perhaps.
|
There is no way on earth that Lewis would have been that close to Kimi's gearbox had he followed him round the corner normally, the loss of downforce for one thing (even though was a relatively slow corner), but the fact that Kimi would be able to get on the power before Lewis would have left him further ahead. (Yo-yo effect, can be seen on virtually every corner on a GP circuit)
I still think it was harsh though.
|
The petition link has been removed from the BBC page I linked earlier.
Direct link to the petition here:
www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?belgp08
7500 signatures within 12 hours.
|
Just what are the stewards supposed to do?
They may well be clamping down in general on drivers cutting chicanes in general. The drivers only have themselves to blame...they attempt a high risk overtaking manouevre as it may pay off, with the only risk being to have to cut across a chicane.
In this instance, if Lewis had gone into the corner in a safe manner, then I very much doubt that he would have gained the lead quite so quickly. I.e., Although he let Kimi through, he then was much closer behind him than if he had gone through the chicane rather than over it.
One solution would be to put a tyre wall at such chicanes. Lewis would then perhaps not have attempted a high risk overtake.
Was it not only at the last race where Lewis was talking about 'percentages'. What happened to that philosophy.
Why do McLaren and Lewis continue to put themsleves in a compromising position?!?!?
|
Why do McLaren and Lewis continue to put themsleves in a compromising position?!?!?
So they should tell Hamilton to stop racing and if he comes up behind a red car to stay there and not overtake?
Hes a racer and thats what the incident was all about - he went off and when he came back on he slowed enough (or didn't accelerate hard dependent on your views) to let Kimi back in front - according to the rules thats all he needed to do.
Oh, and according to the Rule Book quoted on another forum the 25sec penalty is the only penalty they could give him if they felt he had broken this particular rule so close to the end of the race.
Looking on other forums it seems that even Ferrari fans are saying it was an unfair penalty for a racing incident.
Edited by b308 on 08/09/2008 at 12:27
|
Of course he would have been up his gearbox round that corner. Its a slow speed corner - slower in the rain - very slow - so downforce ( and hence spoiled air from the car in front) does not come into it -purely mechanical grip and driver skill.
Given that Raik took the line he wanted (forcing hamilton off - unless of course that wasnt the racing line he wanted and dangerously drove him off the track) then we have had Rak followed by ham up his gearbox into the straight.
what we did have was Hamilton slowing, raik accelerating so the tow got back to where they were. That in my book is MORE of an advantage to raik.
And what the hell is a kenyan doing being a steward at a F1 race? like to see his CV and experience that got him that role.
All in all this is a disgraceful and wrong verdict, brings the entire sport into disrepute and should leave the high ups in the FIA looking into their boots with abject shame. This - in effect - says "gentlemen - racing each other is now banned - thats official"
|
And what the hell is a kenyan doing being a steward at a F1 race?
it was alleged by the Radio5-live reporter this morning that the Kenyan steward does not speak English and needed a translator to help him understand the case presented by McLaren. [ If the translator produces gems like the "chop herbs" one in the Italian translator posted further up, McLaren are doomed, doomed, doomed. ]
|
Which reminds me that I really need to chop my Mum's herbs while the rain holds off for a while & before her lawn starts to resemble a pre-Raphaelite pasture. Anyway...
I've looked at the recording of the incident several times & can't budge from my conviction that LH did all that he humanly could to forego any advantage he is supposed to have gained from his chicane cutting. If you look, he starts from a position behind KR (after giving up the place) then darts by under braking.
The position at the previous corner is that LH is at least level (if not slightly in front) & only KR's maintenance of his 'racing line' forces LH off. It's also clear that LH has a superoirity in technique in those conditions & simply showed that by out-braking KR into the next corner - even after giving back the place. To say (as the stewards decision implies) he had even the slightest 'momentum' advantage when he's behind KR & going slower (he has to go slower to get behind from being in front, after all) shows a tenuous grasp of physics. Slip-streaming is not an issue either - going slow on a wet track between close-spaced corners gives no slip-streaming advantage. Slip-streaming in fact was a disadvantage - you're in dirty air when braking effect is most required & tyre grip is compromised by this & the wet track.
All in all, a distrastously inept performance by the authorities & one which will simply draw more & more credibility away from F1.
|
Am I the only one who thinks the Stewards are right?
Or just the only one willing to stick my head up?
The signs were there when Kovalainen (?) was given a drive through for an accident earlier in the race - how often do you see that! Get a few more time penalties and we will have less of the stupid accidents.
From the ITV footage (from the front) Lewis allows Kimi to cross the line first (ie front of car first) but appears to be alongside the Ferrari thoughout. He never moves across to behind Kimi from that point I believed he was at risk.
The Stewards are just applying the rules. About time they did - consistently.
Now to add to the what ifs - If Massa had stopped for intermediates with 2 laps to go he would have won anyway.
|
I was surprised by the penalty and I think McLaren have a good case for appeal. The reasoning of the stewards isn't given, but I suppose they think LH should have waited until after the hairpin before overtaking again. But why?
Perhaps the reasoning is that by cutting the chicane LH returned to the circuit with enough momentum to make the overtake easy. But he then lifted off, got a one-second tow from Raikkonen's slipstream and passed. Not even quite borderline. Unless they know something we don't, the stewards are wrong.
Miserable race for poor Raikkonen though, a sympathetic figure in my book.
Edited by Lud on 08/09/2008 at 14:21
|
> Or just the only one willing to stick my head up?
No its just that you are wrong
because
"the ITV footage (from the front) Lewis allows Kimi to cross the line first (ie front of car first) but appears to be alongside the Ferrari thoughout.
Is wrong. He was seen to be swopping from side to side BEHIND the ferrari. So he was never "alongside throughout" There was clear air between the two of them
The whole point is did hamilton gain an advantage he never gave back. The answer is no
|
I wouldnt disagree with the fact that he dropped in behind Kimi. I would argue that he was closer than he would have been had he followed Kimi round the corner as he would normally.
I think the stewards have a point BUT as I said I think it was overly harsh in the circumstances.
|
At last someone else on my wavelength
See post above of Another John H 0853 0f 8.9.
We cannot have Boy Wonder and Daddy, the stars of ITV F1 Sunday Road Show
with an unsurmountable amount of points that no other has a chance. God forbid.
dvd
|
as I said I think it was overly harsh in the circumstances.
PR - it seems Niki Lauda more than agrees with you:
"This is the worst judgement in the history of F1. The most perverted judgement I have ever seen. It's absolutely unacceptable when three functionaries influence the championship like this"
Niki Lauda. F1 World Champion. For Ferrari.
Niki Lauda, the Austrian former world champion, said Lewis had driven brilliantly and had not contravened the rules. In Lauda?s opinion, Lewis had beaten Raikkonen fair and square while the Finn, he said, had ?thrown the race away?.
Edited by jbif on 08/09/2008 at 15:25
|
From the ITV footage (from the front) Lewis allows Kimi to cross the line first (ie front of car first) but appears to be alongside the Ferrari thoughout. He never moves across to behind Kimi from that point I believed he was at risk
Perhaps you should look again - if you've recorded it. LH overtook KR after giving up the place from directly behind when KR broke for the (2nd) corner.
Edited by woodbines on 08/09/2008 at 16:14
|
|
The petition is up to 12,500 signatures. I hope the press is aware of it.
|
There is a uk audience of 3.5 million for an f1 race
when it gets close to that people will take notice
|
There is a uk audience of 3.5 million for an f1 race when it gets close to that people will take notice
And are they all McLaren supporters then?
>>Perhaps you should look again - if you've recorded it. LH overtook KR after giving up the place from directly behind when KR broke for the (2nd) corner.
I think the point may be that if Hamilton had negotiated the chicane he would not have been much further behind and would not have been close enough to pass before the next corner.
EDIT: What we need is the FIA/race stewards/Charlie Whiting (delete as applicable) to publish the charge against Hamilton and the reason for the penalty that was imposed rather than other possible penalties - so it is all out in the open.
Edited by cheddar on 08/09/2008 at 17:03
|
in reply to Altea Egowhen it gets close to that people will take notice
At least by bringing the petition to the attention of as many viewers as possible, it will give them a chance to decide whether to sign or not.
Please circulate the link in email to your contacts who may not be aware of the petition.
>>And are they all McLaren supporters then?
No. If you look at the petition signatures, there are people signing who claim to be from abroad and many Ferrari supporters are signing too.
Maybe someone will get Niki Lauda to sign the petition too!
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A40721852
"Utterly brilliant interview with Alan Jones - he cracks me up.
Something along the lines of:
"What are we going to have next? Lewis Hamilton getting penalised for .... " "
|
Steady on though chaps. Can't have the official umpires overruled by a vox pop clamour can we? Let the system take its course first at least. Then we can all have a nice time arguing about the outcome.
Why don't we sign a petition to give the footballer Gascoigne a knighthood for example? Tchah!
|
Why don't we sign a petition to give the footballer Gascoigne a knighthood for example? Tchah!
For services to the British Drinks industry?
Capital idea Lud
|
>>No. If you look at the petition signatures, there are people signing who claim to be from abroad and many Ferrari supporters are signing too. >>
And while not a McLaren fan I may well sign it too because it does seem harsh on face value though before I do I want to see details of the charge placed on Hamilton by the stewards, after all it may be completely just.
|
>>.... I want to see details of the charge placed on Hamilton by the stewards, after all it may be completely just.
Cheddar - Here it is:
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/27...l
"Charge sheet
Received by Lewis Hamilton at 5.35pm
Facts: Cut the chicane and gained an advantage.
Offence: Breach of Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L, chapter 4, article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.
Penalty: Drive-through penalty (Article 16.3 (a)), since this is being applied at the end of the race, 25 seconds will be added to the drivers? elapsed race time. "
Note that the FIA web page titled "Race facts" has not yet been updated to reflect the penalty!
www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressinformation/f1p...x
Lap 42: Hamilton gets a run on Räikkönen and draws alongside at the chicane. The Finn defends. Heidfeld, Coulthard, Rosberg and Nakajima are in for wets.
Lap 43: It's raining quite heavily. Hamilton takes the lead from Räikkönen at La Source. Both are on tiptoes and run wide later in the lap which allows Räikkönen back ahead. The Finn then spins and rejoins before crashing at Turn 13. Alonso pits for wets.
Lap 44: Hamilton wins by 14.4s from Massa, Heidfeld, Alonso, Vettel, Kubica, Bourdais and Glock. Kovalainen stops on the last lap.
Even the Spanish, French, Italian and German press agree this is a travesty.
www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A40726488
Edited by jbif on 08/09/2008 at 17:59
|
|
|
|
|
|
