Hamilton

[Gower]

I am beginning to think that the Formula 1 establishment are in the pay of Ferrari. When they (Ferrari) cause chaos in the pits through dangerous tactics as in the last Grand Prix, not even a rap on the wrist. When Lewis Hamilton does his utmost to 'race' and instill some excitement into what can be a boring procession, they throw the book at him. I don't watch Formula 1 very often these days because of the the lack of overtaking but I think they've lost me altogether now after this last charade.

Gower :x

 

[andycktm]

Mr M. Schumacher and ferrari owned the series a few years ago.Maybe it still goes on?
Mind you he was the best driver ever

 

[Ironballs]

Schumacher did a lot worse and they let it slide. Mclaren seem to get a kicking just for turning up, if they want to lose the UK TV audiences then they should just carry on with this stupidity. Not only was Hamilton in front at the corner, but he gave the place back fearing the stewards and then Raikkonen fell off anyway half a lap later :x

 

[RogerM]

I really can't be bothered to watch F1 any more. Races should be won on the track unless there is a clear breach of rules, not by a bunch of "suits" getting together after the event and deciding what they want the result to be.

In this case, Hamilton was legitimately forced off the track on the inside of the corner by Raikonnen, who held the racing line, and Hamilton came out ahead. He unwound the position passing behind Raikonnen and then out braked him up the inside into the next corner to retake the lead.

To strip him of his win and hand it to Massa is monstrous. And as for putting Heidfeld ahead of him - Heidfeld hadn't even been close enough to set eyes on him all race. I bet he wonders why he bothers - apart from the pay packet of course. He was robbed.

 

[RATWOOD]

F1 stands for ferrari first :lol: :lol:

 

[Peter T]

I used to be a big F1 fan but not any more. The formula has made it boring and, as has already been very well put, the "suits" will always find a way for Ferrari to win.

I've been watching MotoGP for several seasons now. Very exciting racing, very friendly, and more overtaking in one lap than in a whole season of F1.

 

[Raggy]

Same as you Peter, I used to watch every race but now don't bother. I caught the last 7 or 8 laps yesterday and saw an amazing finish by Hamilton. I don't see why he should of been penalised as he went back after cutting the corner but still got in front by sheer skill and guts.

 

[StevieB]

Agreed, yes I think Hamilton deserves the win. However, his problem was not in giving the place back, it was in taking it straight back again down the straight with the use of the tow from the Ferrari. If he had let Raikkonen lead into the next corner at the bottom of the straight he would not have been penalised. Instead he let Raikkonen get in front then immediately used the tow to pull alongside again. To my mind this was simly inexperience and eagerness to atone for his first lap spin.

No way should he get the retrospective drive through for the place gain though.

Steve.

 

[RogerM]

Agreed, yes I think Hamilton deserves the win. However, his problem was not in giving the place back, it was in taking it straight back again down the straight with the use of the tow from the Ferrari. If he had let Raikkonen lead into the next corner at the bottom of the straight he would not have been penalised. Instead he let Raikkonen get in front then immediately used the tow to pull alongside again. To my mind this was simly inexperience and eagerness to atone for his first lap spin.

No way should he get the retrospective drive through for the place gain though.

Steve.

But they went in to the corner side by side, which is why Hamilton got pushed off. Any advantage he got from the tow was gained from being behind - not in front. He was already in the tow before they entered the corner, so he had merely unwound back to the position they were in before they entered it. Do they want him to unwind 10 laps to when he was trailing by 6 seconds? If it had been the other way round I suspect Ferrari would have got away with it.

 

[gatesmr2]

Ok i used to be a big F1 fan

Senna used to make it interesting. 8)
Now from what i've read yes Hamilton and the team where not sure so told him to let kimmi pass to be safe and make sure they where playing by the rules, even though Hamilton had no choice but to use the escape road hard but fair driving by both of them :?
They even checked with Charlie whiting for his opinion and where told they had done the right thing and should have no problem, this before the end of the race :?:
Ok after the so called officals decided that he gained an unfair advantage the team showed that in fact hamilton was going 6km less than Kimmi as the crossed the line.

Now i don't claim to know all the ins and outs of F1 but the older of you will remember the flak Senna got so this is not new to me.
Just seems that who ever is the flavour at the time will get the benefit (aka Prost :evil: )
If they are going to be fair and upfront why do they put a different set of rules for GP2 when it suits as a driver was let out of the pits in a very simular situation to Massa but was given a drive through if i remember right or even a stop and go one of the two at the same GP weekend, yet Hamilton gets a 25 second penalty when he at least tried to play by the rules.
And while i'm having a rant :twisted: maybe Massa could be said to have not been that bad with an early exit but what about Kimmi going before his green light and putting a team member in hospital using the same system as massa but ignoring the lights preferring to use his rear view mirror and guess :?:

Ok rant over lol

Martin

 

[Smudger]

It seems to me that the penalty is given for an offence which was not envisaged in the rules.
'Gaining an advantage' has been taken to mean, and I think was intended to mean, that the driver shortening the circuit comes back in front of a competitor. Hence the understanding that ceding the place gained makes everything OK. That was what McLaren (and apparently Charlie Whiting) took it to mean, it seems.
However, we now have a different definition of 'gaining an advantage' which is, in my recall, new. That the returning driver must nullify any momentum gained by their off-track maneuvre.
Whereas it is pretty clear whether or not a driver has ceded a place, how much momentum he has gained is not (in fact McLaren are basing their appeal on the fact that Hamilton was going more slowly than Raikkonen at the finish line speed trap, and therefore had not gained momentum.) Or is it the fact that he did not lose momentum, which he would have had there been a gravel trap?

It is, in my opinion, a good rule but a fairly silly interpretation. It's racing, after all, which is a grown-up sport for big boys and girls going as fast as they can.

The decision is not open to appeal, as far as I can interpret the rules. The regulation of a high-tech modern sport by a bunch of middle aged men in blazers should be. Can you imagine FIFA allowing local organisations to interpret rules as they see fit? I think not...

 

[andycktm]

The thing with F1 is it's turned into a show from a race.
They could make it competitive,but there is too much money involved now.
On motogp/bikes Scumacher rides race bikes and is only at club/amateur level.

 

[Noel]

It seems to me that the penalty is given for an offence which was not envisaged in the rules.
'Gaining an advantage' has been taken to mean, and I think was intended to mean, that the driver shortening the circuit comes back in front of a competitor. Hence the understanding that ceding the place gained makes everything OK. That was what McLaren (and apparently Charlie Whiting) took it to mean, it seems.
However, we now have a different definition of 'gaining an advantage' which is, in my recall, new. That the returning driver must nullify any momentum gained by their off-track maneuvre.
Whereas it is pretty clear whether or not a driver has ceded a place, how much momentum he has gained is not (in fact McLaren are basing their appeal on the fact that Hamilton was going more slowly than Raikkonen at the finish line speed trap, and therefore had not gained momentum.) Or is it the fact that he did not lose momentum, which he would have had there been a gravel trap?

It is, in my opinion, a good rule but a fairly silly interpretation. It's racing, after all, which is a grown-up sport for big boys and girls going as fast as they can.

The decision is not open to appeal, as far as I can interpret the rules. The regulation of a high-tech modern sport by a bunch of middle aged men in blazers should be. Can you imagine FIFA allowing local organisations to interpret rules as they see fit? I think not...

Of course the penalty is open to appeal (and payment of subsequent large fee) and Dennis will most likely do so through the auspices of the MSA. It's up to the FIA to decide at the hearing 1- if there are grounds for an appeal, 2- to judge on the stewards decision.
Perhaps Hamilton did gain an advantage by running across the chicane after trying to grab a piece of track where there was plainly only room for one car and upsetting Kimi's rhythm but it's a moot point. Would've been better if he had followed the Ferrari down the straight for a few hundred metres and than tried to pass.

Edit - McLaren will appeal.

 

[Smudger]

Whether or not an appeal will be allowed depends on what they are appealing against. It is not possible to appeal a stop-go penalty, which is what the blazers handed down. I'm not sure what else McLaren could appeal - other than the ability of the stewards.

 

[Smudger]

Would've been better if he had followed the Ferrari down the straight for a few hundred metres and than tried to pass.

That's what he did. The offence was gaining an advantage because missing the corner meant that he came on to the straight with greater momentum than if he had taken the chicane.

 

[gatesmr2]

Smudger

If McLaren telemetry is correct then he was in fact going slower than Kimmi as they past the start line, although this is there side i admit.
So if the offence is gaining an advantage then they can prove this was not the case. As he backed of and allowed any so called advantage to become null and void.

I can't see how they can not allow it to go to appeal if in fact McLarens figures are correct but i have to admit that is something i would have assumed would have been looked into before any punishment was handed down.
Maybe they missed it maybe they did not think it relevant i doubt we will ever find out everything unless they deem so fit as to make it public.


Martin

 

[Noel]

Would've been better if he had followed the Ferrari down the straight for a few hundred metres and than tried to pass.

That's what he did. The offence was gaining an advantage because missing the corner meant that he came on to the straight with greater momentum than if he had taken the chicane.

No, he briefly lifted, let Kimi past just before the line and then passed him. As I said Hamilton should have waited 'til far further down the straight (even into the next corner) Then there would've been less chance of the overtaking being seen as a consequence of cutting the chicane.
If Ron Dennis carries out his intention to appeal I'm sure he and his lawyers will find something in the Sporting Code to hang their hopes on.

 

[cant-weld-wood]

well if you don't know after last year you should have worked it out.
FIA stands for FERRARI INTERNATIONAL ASSITSANCE.
hamilton is quicker than them in the wet so thats who the look to when it all goes wrong for them.
just have to sit tight now as its only a two point lead now with 5 races to go.with any luck the appeal wil get over turned (fingers crossed).
i cant see how they can justify that cutting the corner won him the race
kimi spun off and hit the wall and hammilton was not near him then.

 

[Smudger]

Smudger

If McLaren telemetry is correct then he was in fact going slower than Kimmi as they past the start line, although this is there side i admit.
So if the offence is gaining an advantage then they can prove this was not the case. As he backed of and allowed any so called advantage to become null and void.

I can't see how they can not allow it to go to appeal if in fact McLarens figures are correct but i have to admit that is something i would have assumed would have been looked into before any punishment was handed down.
Maybe they missed it maybe they did not think it relevant i doubt we will ever find out everything unless they deem so fit as to make it public.


Martin

This is not McLaren telemetry, it is the FIA speed trap.
There is no appeal against a stop-go penalty.

 

[newt]

Perhaps the stewards should be ex F1 drivers, Ham had a very short time to make a decision, I think he tried to make sure he stayed within the rules.