Nash_mr2

cutting corners is cheating no matter how you look at it - he cut the corner - he cheated - if he had have stayed on the rumble strip it would have been ok, but to drive across the corner is a blatent unfair advantage gain - cheaters must be punished, regardless of which orifice the sun shines out of....

vinnyvangough

And overtaking under a yellow is cheating so we are back to how the results really should have been.
1st place Hamilton......

Porkie

iTrader: (1)

er did you even watch the race?

kimi crashed out

vinnyvangough

er yea.......
But he wouldnt be having the penalty if they treat it as each ruled the other out.

sbd16v

then maybe he should take a 10 place grid drop for overtaking in the yellow flag and not yeilding his place

Nash_mr2

In a news statement Lewis hamilton said that he was simply taking his dads advice in trying to cut corners...

dojj

iTrader: (3)

the stewarsd didn't question him about it so he's in the clear

and, reading in the papers today it seems that maclaren have no grounds for a formal appeal, nor have they lodged one (according to the sun)

Phil

iTrader: (1)

McLaren have confirmed they are going to appeal

http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,1895...122777,00.html

sbd16v

good source of info mate

miles better than the F1 website

dojj

iTrader: (3)

considering i have the paper in front of me and the website is blocked at work, it's the only source of info i've got, other than pf that is

vinnyvangough

But why aint they questioned him?
Surely overtaking under yellow flags is a severe health and safety issue and concern.





Oh i forgot.......




He's in a Ferrari, the FIA favoured car

Karting

Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations' makes no mention of whether an advantage had been gained and instead states that 'During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits'. The near-identical Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code adds that 'The racetrack alone shall be used by drivers during the race'.


In other words, Hamilton was purely and simply punished for leaving the racetrack when he cut the chicane.


Such a vague and all-encompassing stipulation in the rulebook gives the stewards considerable latitude. In effect, it allows them to punish any and every driver in the field on every occasion they leave the tarmac. However, given that Hamilton was far from being alone in leaving the race track on Sunday then their decision to focus exclusively on the McLaren driver's whereabouts is bound, once again, to prompt talk of bias and witch-hunts.


Were the stewards to have been inclined to maintain a consistent line then they would, for instance, have had to punish Kimi Raikkonen for leaving the racetrack at the Pouhon corner as he strived to retake the lead. Likewise, Nico Rosberg, with whom both Hamilton and Raikkonen nearly crashed before the Finn temporarily regained the lead of the race as he overtook both cars under a yellow flag, should, if the stewards' application of the rules was consistent, have suffered an identical punishment to Hamilton for sliding off the track and on to the grass.


Technically, as the team cannot dispute that Hamilton left the racetrack, the citation of Articles 30.3 (a) and chapter 4 Article 2 (g) leave McLaren with no room for manoeuvre or appeal.


However, their legal team is instead bound to focus upon the line in the stewards' ruling that reads 'Fact - Cut the chicane and gained an advantage'. In fact, the question of whether Hamilton gained an advantage remains a matter of dispute rather than 'fact' - the only 'fact' is that it is the stewards' opinion that Hamilton gained an advantage. By claiming otherwise, and seemingly basing their right to impose a penalty upon their claimed 'fact', the stewards may have made an error that will enable McLaren to contest their ruling.


For while McLaren cannot argue against the fact that Hamilton left the track, they can argue against the assertion that it is a fact he gained an advantage and the rights of the stewards to claim it is a fact and act accordingly. Were the stewards to be found wrong in doing so then the legitimacy - as well as the accuracy - of their ruling would then have to be called into fresh question.

Graham S1

From there...

Hmm.....

Bladerider

LOL

I cant believe there are now TWO threads all with the same arguments which are pointless !!

Lets just put a few of these to bed as Dojj, Nettleship, Nash and the Tifosi obviously need schooling on a few points.

You cant appeal a "Drive through penalty" as its precisely that - a "Drive Through" penalty - and as such means that if under normal racing conditions you get handed one you have no choice but to accept it and take it like a man. This type of penalty will be given AFTER the teams involved have been consulted and relevent arguments have been heard whilst the race is occuring. If a penalty has been given it will mean that the stewards feel its a blatant enough breach that its an open and shut case, eg a jump start that can be replayed on tv and is pretty black and white. If there is such ambiguity that a clear decision is not reachable without supporting technical data then a drive through penalty wont be given and it will become a post race investigation.

So in simple terms, a drive through penalty=you have definately breached the regs and you have to serve this within three laps else you are DQ'd. As I mentioned on the other thread you can thank a Mr M Shoemaker and his boss TinyTott for their delaying practice appeals that ended up with the drive through being given 3 laps from the end at which point Michael simply finished the race in the pit lane and still took the victory !! Now for those Tifosi of particularly slow wits (yes, I mean you Dojj ) this effectively means that a drive through that has been decided 5 laps from the end will already have taken place by race finish and as such as an event in the past it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to appeal until they make that Time Machine Mr Verne was so enthusiastic about !!!

This penalty wasnt a drive through penalty it was a 25second time penalty to SIMULATE a drive through penalty and as this happens after the race there are grounds to appeal it, because all facts obviously havent been examined. It is a quirk of the timing of this incident and you could even say its an advantage for McLaren that a bad judgement call occured after the race rather than during it when they wouldnt have had the chance for an appeal, but thats life.

All the other nonsense about cheating by running over kerbs and trying to single that out against Lewis or any other driver is purely that - NONSENSE !!!

If ANYONE on this forum could get within 5 seconds of the lap times these guys do in these cars it would be a miracle, the fact that we all sit back, with the benefit of action replay, munching our Pringles squabbling over whether Lewis lifted enough at 130mph+ in a car that accelerates at 2g is just rediculous. These guys are still humans, they still have the same reaction times as you or I its just that they are used to operating in a world where things are moving at the speeds they do rather than the speeds we do and as such it will still have taken a second or two for Lewis to think of what to do after taking avoiding action from a legitimate try at an overtake by which time he would already have been 1/4 of the way down the pit straight. I think we are all getting a little bit too focused on a sport measured in thousandths of a second and assuming that all the decisions taken happen in similarly brief periods, when Im afraid they dont !!!

The pro Ferrari stance of the FIA is pretty clear to anyone except those that do not wish to see, and I think its very brave of Nikki Lauda to speak up in this way when you consider he has far more to lose than gain with regards to his public perception and respect from many Tifosi. I suspect that even Stefano Dominecallis quick defense of Lewis is more to do with realising that perhaps this ones a bit too blatant from the FIA and they wish to distance themselves from the potential backlash.

I cant really see that theres much more to say. It will be talked to death, I would imagine the vast majority of people will back Lewis purely because its more obvious to non-technical people that its a bad decision rather than those looking through "knowledgeable eyes" and seeing a ferrari injustice and I would love to conclude with "It will get overturned once sense has prevailed at the FIA" but in truth I really dont know. It SHOULD be overruled, but Max an da crew dont seem to have logic, respect, trust, honesty, integrity, public interest, fairness or any other morally redeeming standard as a measure these days so I guess its just a lottery on how his "private session" went the night before, and if hes being "GutenMax" or "FuhrerMosely"

J.

Karting

The team (McLaren) released a statement "TODAY" confirming that it has now formally filed an appeal.

“Following our decision to register our intention to appeal the penalty handed out to Lewis Hamilton by the FIA stewards at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, we hereby confirm that we have now lodged notice of appeal,” said team CEO Martin Whitmarsh.

The case will be settled by the FIA's International Court of Appeal.

dojj

iTrader: (3)

while i thank you for taking the time and effort ot write it all up, i will convinitently ignore the other bits

because i'm in with max and his posse or henchmen

but i do undestand your concerns

Karting

McLaren boss Ron Dennis revealed after the race that the team had checked with FIA race director Charlie Whiting that Hamilton had conformed to the rules, which require any advantage gained by short-cutting the course to be promptly rectified.

“Inevitably, we wanted to know whether that was deemed to be a correction so we checked with Charlie," Dennis told Ted Kravitz.

"Of course Charlie can only give an opinion because he's not the stewards, but he gave the opinion that we had complied properly to the regulations.”

In a statement released on Tuesday, Whitmarsh said the team was in fact given two separate assurances that Hamilton had behaved correctly – and that, had it not been given the thumbs-up, it would have told its driver to let Raikkonen back through.

“From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was ‘okay’,” said Whitmarsh.

“If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis’s actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time.”

Jay,

iTrader: (4)

like ron dennis word is trust worthy lol, id like to see charlie whitting look on it

Karting

How do you know that Ron Dennis word is not trustworthy ? ,(I wouldn't believe what Max Mosley says.)
How do I know your word is trustworthy?? L.O.L.

Bladerider

LOL



J.

Jay,

iTrader: (4)

you dont but as like racw drivers are competetive so are team principles and nether have principles if it means wining a race

dojj

iTrader: (3)

the problem is, that's like asking your mate if the bank manager will lend you Ł300k, he can say what he thinks but you are asking the worng person

bottom line is that everyone has accepted that he got an advantage, they are now talking about the level of punishment being over and beyond what it should have been, as taken directly from a quote by the editor of autosport magazine in a radio interview this evening after taking a general concensus from several current f1 drivers

Phil

iTrader: (1)

I think McLaren have a good chance of winning the appeal if they can confirm they asked twice during the race if he needed to hand back his position and were told that the move was ok.

smity

The fact that mclaren hold the heat in the tyres much better than ferrari in the rain giving hammy more grip (hense why he caught him up so fast in the first place plus his excellent driving skill in the wet and why he was nearly 1 lap in front of everyone at silverstone) thats why he caught him up so fast after cutting the corner and why it was inevitable he was going to get passed him and why kimi stuffed it in the wall.

Some people are just so narrow minded it takes the piss!

smity

James allens GP verdict stolen from itv f1 interesting read

Just when you thought Formula 1 would be basking in the glory of one of the most thrilling climaxes to a grand prix in recent memory, a cloud of controversy hangs over the sport once again after Lewis Hamilton was stripped of his Belgian Grand Prix victory.

In the first of two parts to his post-race Spa verdict, ITV Sport commentator James Allen analyses in detail the controversial moment when Hamilton crossed the Bus Stop chicane, and explains what happened on the run to La Source and how this influenced the stewards' judgement.


An extraordinary grand prix with one of the most exciting finishes ever has been given a different complexion by the stewards’ decision to penalise Lewis Hamilton for taking an advantage from cutting a chicane.

There is not doubt that this is a very big call by the stewards and a lot of unbiased observers among the media and the public will find it hard to understand.

It takes a lot to unpick the results of a grand prix, especially one which would otherwise probably be long remembered as a classic and a great advert for the sport.


The controversial call

I’ve watched the incident many times now and Hamilton cuts the chicane because he was pushed out wide – quite fairly – by Kimi Raikkonen; his trajectory makes it hard for him to follow the Ferrari around the corner and, faced with going on the grass, he chose instead to cut the chicane.

It’s a deliberate act on his part, amazing speed of thought, but he clearly chooses the least worst option.

He is therefore in front coming out of the chicane, but crucially he is on a line he would not have been on had he taken the chicane normally.

Although he clearly hands back the lead to Kimi as they cross the start/finish line and the timing sheets show you that Kimi clearly crossed the line first, he is on him immediately afterwards.

And this is the nub of the stewards’ argument.

Raikkonen’s car did get fully in front of Hamilton’s – his speed across the start/finish line was 212km/h, compared to 206km/h for Hamilton – but Lewis immediately regains the momentum.

Kimi then does a kind of double block on him before Lewis sticks his car up the inside into La Source.

The speed differential

Lewis was much faster than Kimi at that point of the race because the McLaren keeps heat in its tyres better in those conditions, as we saw in Silverstone, especially on the harder compound.

So Kimi was finished anyway. Lewis had him; he was always going to get him before the finish.

The stewards clearly felt that he didn’t give back enough of the advantage he gained from cutting the chicane.

Watching it over and over again you can see what they mean; it’s a very delicately balanced call.

But you have to take account of the performance difference which existed between the two cars at that point anyway.

On a normal dry track, Lewis’s gesture of easing off by 6km/h would have put Kimi well ahead by La Source.

It’s just that the Ferrari was not able to take much advantage of Hamilton’s gesture, so it seemed an insufficient gesture.

McLaren checked at the time with race director Charlie Whiting that they had done the right thing, and according to the team he told them they had.

But the stewards disagreed. They felt he should have dropped in behind Kimi and had a go at him later.

He was much faster and would have got him down the straight after Eau Rouge anyway.

But he’s a racer and he went for it as soon as he thought he’d negated his unfair advantage from cutting the chicane.


Lewis's racer's instinct

The frustration for neutrals in the paddock – including many members of other teams, who are outraged by this decision, no doubt like many members of the public – is that this is racing after all.

Hamilton was impetuous to get on with it, as Damon Hill was in Adelaide in 1994 when Michael Schumacher hit the wall.

These are racers who seize the moment, which is why we love them.

It is that killer instinct which raises them above the rest of us normal people and makes us tune in to watch them in our millions.

But the stewards wanted a clearer sign that Hamilton recognised he had gained an unfair advantage.


The fall-out

A 25-second penalty drops him from first to third and cuts his championship lead to just two points with five races to go.

Many people will find this decision hard to justify and will inevitably question it in the light of Valencia, where Felipe Massa and Ferrari were convicted of unsafe release from the pit stop (an offence which normally attracts a drive-through penalty) and yet were merely fined while Massa kept the 10 points.

These are big calls, like a referee in soccer giving or not giving a penalty, which changes the result of a match.

But a referee has to make a decision on the spot. Here the stewards took a few hours to review all the evidence. And there are some unfortunate perceptions of F1 being aired as a result.

I hope that the outcome of this championship is clear enough either way that it does not hinge on this decision.

smity

someone answer me this.

Massa doesent get a drive through penalty for the incedent in the pits last race which normally would have been decided whilst the race was on and that being the normal penalty of a drive through and this would have given hammy the 10 points

At spa this weekend in GP2 the exact same thing happened in the pits to Brunno Senna (look it up on youtube) yet he got a drive through penalty stright away.

Now why did that not happen to massa? you can;t help but think its got something to do with the fact he drives a red car and it would of given the points to hammy.

i can't help but think if it had been the other way around kimi wouldn't have got done and thats the stewards inconsistant decisions (and the fact the chief stuard is max mosleys best mate and ferrari are max mosleys PR companys biggest clients) that make me feel he's being hard done by!

just look at how many times mclaren have been penalised since hammy came to the sport

Bladerider

In a totally neutral way I think its possible to examine why, not that I think its necessarily right mind !!

I think that Hamiltons meteoric rise, McLarens total professionalism and drive for performance and wins, and in particular Ron Dennis's loyalty to McLaren and the way he wants them to always have a result of some kind actually works against them. People love Ferrari because of passion, people like McLaren because of quality and the two things arent quite the same.

Add into the mix the first driver to have been pretty much groomed from the age of 12 by a big team and suddenly its upset the apple cart in a way that people invoilved with running the sport dont like. They presuambly feel that racing drivers should be a certain kind of person, Iguess with a few quid behind them to begin with as motorsport is such an expensive sport in any format, and Lewis doesnt quite conform to this stereotype.

As far as recent penalties goes you can see a clear bias against McLaren and For Ferari and as these have been the two top teams for the last 10years or so it means that this bias shows up more as its usually about more and more important things - such as this race win - and usually comes after other decisions that dont involve them that may have gone differently - such as Brunos drive through. This is what shows up the +1 to Ferrari and -1 to McLaren attitude, and whereas a gap of 1 might go unnoticed so much, a gap of 2 stands out !! (if you follow my logic )

I also think that on occasion you could liken some of the decisions to a football match. How many times do you watch a match and theres a bad tackle that just results in a free kick that really should have seen the offending player get booked. After all the fuss a few minutes later a more innocent challenge ends up with THAT player getting booked when the ref is trying to "make up" for the previous bad decision. Also you can sometimes get a match where there is bad feeling after a tackle and the challenges just get heavier and heavier and the ref ends up giving more and more cards or even reds in order to try to get control of the game again. I think there are instances of this in other sports and F1 is a prime example. Felippe gets a fine, Bruno gets a drive through, maybe the next one will get a drive through and a grid drop !!

Its the nature of these kinds of sport where the players are always "pushing the envelope" and in F1 that can mean technical infringements, poor decisions by teams - to release that fraction early from the pits, or to not tell their driver to lift more blatantly - and poor decisions by the drivers - how many times is David Coulthard going to try a move that isnt there on someone before he gets a major telling off ?? - because they are searching out that last tenth that could make the difference to their whole year of competition.

Its life, we should all just get on with our own, and in the meantime get Mosely and the boys sacked for a slightly less cliquey bunch who dont have shares in Ferrari, arent anti England, and are pro-racing rather than processions !!

J.

Graham S1

Removed until I have a proper source.

Nath

Some more interesting reading BUT I still doubt very much that the decision will get overturned. I think it was about 10 years ago that it last happened?

I guess we'll see ...

dojj

iTrader: (3)

but they were asking the wrong person, so it didn't matter what the guys answer was

imagine if your house has just been burgled and you went to ask the local hairdresser's onion on the matter, it don't really matter what they say because you need to be belling the feds to report it

m_nettleship

zzzzzz

smity

Asking the race director isn't really asking the wrong person as he is much higher up the FIA than the stewards just happens they get the inital decision.

dojj

iTrader: (3)

so why has everyone reported that the deciosn wasn't his to make then?

i do feel sorry for maclaren, i really do, but making school boy errors was last years excuse, so i wonder what they are going to trot out this year

Karting

(dojj)You are entitled to an opion, but you obviously don't know anything about motorsport.

Jay,

iTrader: (4)

but james allen doesnt know his dick from his elbow !

Graham S1

except it specifically states in the rulez that charlie whiting is responsible for rule clarification.

KW-rscos

Dojj, to put it politly you are a bit of a numpty really, Mclaren have lodged an appeal end of.

At the end of the day I personally feel that the penalty is unfair as he lifted off and like has already been said, he was close to kimi before the chicane and he was close when he overtook kimi. he simply out braked kimi into la source (sp). I do find it very contraversial though that martin whitmarsh the mclaren ceo asked race control twice if they were happy that lewis had slowed up sufficiently and twice they said yes, also intriguing is that ferrari say they had nothing to do with the complaint, so if race control was happy and ferrari did not make the complaint, then who did?

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=35906

check the link taken from pitpass.com to see what was said from the mclaren pitwall.

dojj

iTrader: (3)

i love the way peole answer a post about 5 hours after someoen else has already told you what was going on

yesterday i read it in the paper
the paper would have been printed before any other news stories broke yesterday
i am unable to click some of the links that tell you what's what in the world of f1
therefore, after reading the paper i gave my thoughts on it based on the information i had at hand at the time

if someone else has put up more info later on then fair enough but that doesn't change the fact that maclarena asked the worng guy if they had donet he right thing or not, and graham, clarification doesn't mean he's responsible for dishing out the punishments

so no for you, but several for mr kwrscos

and when has public onion ever changed the way penalties were overturned in f1? they may have lead to rule changes but not the overturning of already dished out sentances and fines

Graham S1

Errr yes it does. Charlie Whiting is the race director and is responsible for Rule Clarification. Hence they asked the right guy. Who else should they be asking?

danneth

graham your wasting your time mate

here go do this instead