Belgian GP 2008

[JamesW]

Again, the rules are clear - go look up the section of the regulations and sporting code that the penalty references. You can only use the track for racing. You cannot use an off-track excursion to get in tow, get closer to, align yourself for overtaking. It's strictly forbidden.

Please quote this section of the rules. I was looking for the bit on dodgy overtaking, and couldn't find it. My fault I'm sure, but I would like to read the official interpretation. Also, how does this rule apply to Kimi driving on the tarmac run-off area for hundreds of metres without losing any pace? How about Massa overtaking Kubica on the grass in Japan last year? Note that I have no objection to these examples, and nor do I to Lewis today.

[coreybaxter]

This is a rediculous penalty simply because lewis gave the spot back jsut like the rules say he should do and kimi wrecked on his own so the argument is mute right at that!

[boci]

Massa's action in Valencia was nothing. Similar things happen all the time without anyone even noticing. In today's race too

GP2 race in Spa, same situation as massa and the offender got hit with a drive through penalty

[i70q7m7ghw]

He's one to think about, if Kimi had finished and won the race, would Hamilton have still be penalised? ... really think about it...

[modbaraban]

Massa's action in Valencia was nothing. Similar things happen all the time without anyone even noticing. In today's race too

GP2 race in Spa, same situation as massa and the offender got hit with a drive through penalty

Such things were never classified equally in F1 and in GP2 or A1. No surprise there. The whole row started with the 'under investigation' message on the TV screens. We wouldn't even remember the case otherwise.

[WhiteBlue]

The strange thing is that you do not find important things like cutting chicanes and how to give back the advantage in the rules. neither the sporting regulations nor the sporting code are specific about this. nevertheless it is clear by the current sporting practise that you have to give up a position if it was gained by leaving the track and cutting a corner. Hamilton was clearly ahead of Reikkonen after Bus Stop and then fell back behind Reikkonen's car which is evident by his change of position from left to right side passing the rear of Reikkonen's car. That means he waqs totally ahead and then totally behind, giving up the position. There was no partial overlap. the position was completely yielded. from this I can only conclude that the advantage was completely negated. the stewards ruling appears erroneous. Has anybody come across an explanation by Ferrari or by the stewards why Hamilton was penalised? Domenicali was talking rubbish in my view. I could not make sense of his comments on autosport.

[nae]

He's one to think about, if Kimi had finished and won the race, would Hamilton have still be penalised? ... really think about it...

if kimi had finished and not been penalised for his own infractions then ...


rolls dice and pulls random figures from the air

no

[The FOZ]

"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 and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned."

Interesting. Being an average fan of F1, I had no idea such a rule existed.

In my mind, the rules are too complicated and too numerous to know. It's very easy, now, to see how many people would be upset about what happened and judge it to be a pro-Ferrari move.

All the more cause to clarify and broadcast such things for the public.

[Project Four]

Massa's action in Valencia was nothing. Similar things happen all the time without anyone even noticing. In today's race too

GP2 race in Spa, same situation as massa and the offender got hit with a drive through penalty

Ditto Bruno Senna GP2 race Spa Saturday

[modbaraban]

[SZ]

You can only use the track for racing. You cannot use an off-track excursion to get in tow, get closer to, align yourself for overtaking. It's strictly forbidden.

You must be watching a different race ? He didn't cut the corner the get in the tow or align for overtaking, but used it to gain a place. This place was then given back twice to Kimi.

Same race. Watch LH's final pass carefully. It's in how he used his time off track.

I was fcking gutted - personally, I was hoping he'd pull it off. Cleanly. Clearly would have been the most exciting peak of an otherwise not-too-interesting telecast.

Please quote this section of the rules. I was looking for the bit on dodgy overtaking, and couldn't find it. My fault I'm sure, but I would like to read the official interpretation. Also, how does this rule apply to Kimi driving on the tarmac run-off area for hundreds of metres without losing any pace? How about Massa overtaking Kubica on the grass in Japan last year? Note that I have no objection to these examples, and nor do I to Lewis today.

Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations:
"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 bits this references are important, though you get where it's headed).

Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code:
"The race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race."

You cannot line up an overtaking manoeuvre with time off track. It's essentially summed up by modbaraban - he'd have been much slower had he stayed on track, essentially he'd have not been able to overtake KR where and how he did (this doesn't mean he wouldn't have shortly thereafter). Pointing out he gave the position back, presenting data output showing speed comparisons and that LH was/wasn't on throttle leading into it are pretty much useless in this context. And sure, McLaren would be completely within their rights to complain if they can point out - conclusively - how their race position was compromised as a result of KR's excursions if it can be demonstrated they were deliberate. Probably a good starting point for an appeal, but tread carefully - KR didn't overtake LH as a result.

Like I said in my initial post - it's marginal, and McLaren knew it - they'd have been far better off staying on the safe side. LH would have likely quickly flown past KR anyway. He+team took a gamble and risked blowing a deserved win; now we're here.

Interesting. Being an average fan of F1, I had no idea such a rule existed.

In my mind, the rules are too complicated and too numerous to know. It's very easy, now, to see how many people would be upset about what happened and judge it to be a pro-Ferrari move.

All the more cause to clarify and broadcast such things for the public.

You didn't know but Ron and co. do. All the more reason I'm gutted that they didn't play it safe and give it an extra corner. Would have been a glorious, celebrated win. Now - whether they get it back or not - it's not so clear.

As for a pro-Ferrari move... the bit under the penalties might well be called the "Schumacher clause".

[SZ]

another unbiased view

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20740.html

in responce to

'penatlies in order of severity'

looked quiet hard and cant see and 10K fine for the life of me

GP.com is far from unbiased. All you can draw out of that drivel is that if KR did overtake under yellows or use traction to a place advantage, then I hope he gets a 10 place penalty next round. But the article's neatly evaded what the penalty's about, and that's "did LH break the rules?" It's certainly not clear that he didn't.

Unsafe release from the pitstop doesn't constitute an incident able to be penalised under articles 16.2/3 (driving incidents).

[axle]

Does that mean Charlie reported them? After giving them the all clear?

[nae]

had the kerbs been a wall as in Monaco or Montreal then lewis would have been in the side of kimi , it wasn't he didn't

but he did avoid and accident

saying that had pouhon been the old gravel trap kimi would still be beached

[The FOZ]

Interesting. Being an average fan of F1, I had no idea such a rule existed.

In my mind, the rules are too complicated and too numerous to know. It's very easy, now, to see how many people would be upset about what happened and judge it to be a pro-Ferrari move.

All the more cause to clarify and broadcast such things for the public.

You didn't know but Ron and co. do. All the more reason I'm gutted that they didn't play it safe and give it an extra corner. Would have been a glorious, celebrated win. Now - whether they get it back or not - it's not so clear.

You have a very good point there. True, it would be nice if the fans had an idea of how the rules operated, but it is ESSENTIAL that the competing teams have the rules completely understood. This happened to Lewis earlier in the season, he made a bad pass and was dinged for it. So not only is Hamilton and Co not knowing the rules and their own infractions, but they're not learning from their mistakes.

This is an interesting situation. Ron has to support his driver - he told Lewis to keep going. But Lewis was there, in the moment, and should have made the right decision, irregardless of what he was being told.

But I guess it is the nature of competition that you try to get every advantage over your opponent.