Belgian GP 2008

[timbo]

As it was shown there's no rulling that driver may get an excuse after cutting track, I belive that "let other driver pass" is sort of unspoken rule. It works so if off-track excursion happens accidentally driver is not blamed for it. Now as it is "unspoken" rule it is solely on the side of stewards to decide if "let other driver pass" move was adequate. So it has to be CLEARLY dempnstrated. Hamilton should've waited until after La Source.

[WhiteBlue]

The stewards reason for the penalty is not convincing and is inconsistent with the practise in F1. To the day it has been the established practise to negate an advantage by letting the other driver catch up. Hamilton has even let Reikkonen past completely. So he has given him more than one car length although they were overlapping when Reikkonen squeezed him off the track.

The stewards decision reflect in no way that Hamilton did not go off track deliberately but was forced off track to avoid a collision. The role of Charlie Whiting is also questionable. McLaren say they were in contact with him and were prepared to let Hamilton fall back a second time if he had had a problem with the manoever. Charlie oked it but later reported it to the stewards according to Ferrari. The man certainly has to explain something.

It is good that McLaren have officially lodged an appeal and I think that the appeal must be heard by the court. If the penalty stands it opens the door to willy nilly interpretation of long standing practise in race jurisdiction. The case must be heared last not least because no sensible explanation of the verdict has been given. There are just too many claudy aspects, like the role of Whiting.

[axle]

Agreed - having a review may at least bring about change to the way stewarding is done and the laws they abide by....even if they refuse to change the virdict.

Another championship tainted me thinks.

[coreybaxter]

I find it odd that Mclaren have stated in their official appeals qoutes that the race stewards confirmed two times that the hamilton vs kimi situation was dealt with in that lewis let kimi back by....my question is what is the point of having both the race control and stewards??? I understand the race control is for things on the track such as yellow and blue flags ect. so why have the stewards there if race control are the ones who determine on track procedures??? Are the stewards there just to hand down penalties and to be entertaines for the weekend?

[donskar]

So much insanity. So little time before the boss walks by.

Whilst to you it is clear that Lewis blatantly and deliberately broke the rules and should be punished, the rest of the world cannot see any infraction or need for punishment.

Just a bit over the top -- not that MANY of the posts here haven't been!

Yes, FIA is inconsistent. Do we want the rules to be totally rigid and all human interpretation to be removed? I think not. (And think it would be impossible to achieve in any event.)

A few quick thoughts:

LH broke the rules. The fact that others have broken them is irrelevant.
LH got caught and a penalty levied.
He has the right to appeal and he/his tema have done so.

On Senna: Those of us who go back a few years will remember he was a great driver and adored by many. And hated by more than a few.

[Ciro Pabón]

...Hamilton has even let Reikkonen past completely...

That's not the rule. The rule says you should not "gain advantage". Hamilton himself said after the race that he did not wanted Kimi to fly away (or something like that, I already quoted him) so he did not lift completely. I think that's the reason for the penalty: he gained an advantage. So, that's the reason the stewards have (plus the telemetry, I imagine).

My opinion, agreeing with donskar, Conceptual and many other old timers around here: Hamilton half-arsed attempt was contrary to the spirit of the rule. Besides, his sportmanship is not the best. I remember when people were good losers, once upon a time.

The rule I want implemented is that anyone that complains in public about race decisions should receive some penalty. A soccer player that complains about referee decisions receives a red card. The reason? To instill sportmanship into players. There is a clear path for appeals and it's not the press.

A note from your friend: any thread related to this incident will be merged with this thread you're reading. If you want to link us to a petition about this issue, there is a second thread here. I think we don't need a dozen threads about this race.

Finally, pleeze, members that insult other members? We don't do that. I have edited two dozen posts by now. I edited something like four posts, total, in my entire career as moderator until this race. Could you, please, refrain from insulting people that disagrees with you?

[mx_tifoso]

Once again Ciro shines some light upon the situation. Thank you. And it only adds upon what Felipe Massa said in the quote, if you refer back to my previous post.

[Rob W]

And exactly who benefits from this controversial decision? The puppet master, Bernie....

I'd normally agree but this event has incited an overwhelmingly negative news articles about it. Very few look at it from a technical infringement point of view and largely condemn it. This is the sort of thing that could just as easily turn people off watching and, probably more importantly, discourage many sponsors from becoming involved.

R

[WhiteBlue]

...Hamilton has even let Reikkonen past completely...

That's not the rule. The rule says you should not "gain advantage". Hamilton himself said after the race that he did not wanted Kimi to fly away (or something like that, I already quoted him) so he did not lift completely. I think that's the reason for the penalty: he gained an advantage. So, that's the reason the stewards have (plus the telemetry, I imagine)...

with all due respect I think you are in error here. The advantage of a racing driver is his track position and momentum compared to his respective opponent.

I have already in detail analysed the track position which Hamilton gave back in a convincing way. This leaves momentum as a possible aspect of an advantage. There was no convincing speed differential in Reikkonen's favour when he squeezed Hamilton off track. Hamilton may even have been slightly faster due to later braking. The advantage Reikkonen had was in the racing line that enabled him to denie Hamilton to negotiate bus stop side by side. that advantage in my view was gained in an unsporting way. he should have left enough room for Hamilton to make the corner.

In my view Reikkonen was responsible for the seemingly easy pass that Hamilton put on him. Kimi tried to push Hamilton to the left on the start/fish strait to set him up for an unfavourable racing line around la source. he did not calculate that Hamilton would slow down so much that he could pass him round the rear to the inside. It simply was a fantastic piece of racing by Hamilton.

I'm really pissed off by the manipulations from the stewards. the longer this farce continues the more I am getting convinced that this wasn't just ineptitude but calculated race rigging.

Nobody can accuse me as a McLaren fan. In fact I do not like the team. In this case the injustice is so obvious that I have overcome my antipathy for the team to add my voice to the public demand for the appeal court to crush this scandalous ruling of the stewards.

[Rob W]

The stewards reason for the penalty is not convincing and is inconsistent with the practise in F1....

...Charlie oked it but later reported it to the stewards according to Ferrari. The man certainly has to explain something....

Both good points. People want consistency and not random punishment of events which happen 20 or more times in every F1 race.

Likewise, should a team be able to rely fully on the advice of the race director on things which could eventuate in sanctions? I mean really, in what other sport do you see people getting advice from an official and proceeding on that advice, only to be told later someone else changed his decision? None. Is he the race director or not?

R

[WhiteBlue]

for me this is smelly. Ferrari say they did not protest and the stewards investigated due to Whiting reporting the incident. there are several questions.

Is race control reporting such incidents routinely to the stewards or are they only reported when race control feels a penalty may be appropriate?

Have the stewards started that investigation basically on their own initiative?

What role did the stewards advisor Alan Donnelly play in that investigation?

He is supposed to advised the stewards to help with consistency of the decision making. It appears that his effort has produced just the opposite outcome. the decision is inconsistent and nobody known any more what is required when you miss a corner.

[donskar]

the longer this farce continues the more I am getting convinced that this wasn't just ineptitude but calculated race rigging.

WhieBlue, this is a bit too much. "Calculated race rigging"? Take a deep breath and count to 10.

for me this is smelly. Ferrari say they did not protest and the stewards investigated due to Whiting reporting the incident. there are several questions.

"Is race control reporting such incidents routinely to the stewards or are they only reported when race control feels a penalty may be appropriate?"

Doesn't either scenario make sense?

"Have the stewards started that investigation basically on their own initiative?"

Are they not allowed to do so? In fact, shouldn't that be their responsibility?

"What role did the stewards advisor Alan Donnelly play in that investigation?"

As an "advisor" should he not have advised them?

He is supposed to advised the stewards to help with consistency of the decision making. It appears that his effort has produced just the opposite outcome. the decision is inconsistent and nobody known any more what is required when you miss a corner

.

Good point, but I think we have all agreed that inconsistency is part and parcel of the FIA way. On the other hand, we will NEVER have total consistency on many aspects of the rules. As an example, WhiteBlue, would you want to be responsible for defining the difference between aggressive driving (which we'll all applaud) as opposed to overly-aggressive driving (which I hope we'll all deplore)? Is it possible to always define the difference between a "racing incident" and dangerous/illegal driving? Here comes the boss.

[casper]

Race Control told Maclaren twice that they were okay as far as Lewis giving back the lead to Kimi was concerned. It is not Mclaren's fault that their chassis setup is great in the rain and that Ferrari's is lousy - this is undisputable, remember Japan, Australia, Monaco, GB GPs , Its obvious that Kimi cannot handle his car very well in that drizzle so he has to brake early than usual as he approached La Source. Maclaren is technically superior so Lewis was able to brake late, despite running in the dirty right side of the track, so was able to overtake.

This is pure racing if you ask me.

[mx_tifoso]

A quote from Jarno Trulli, another professional race driver:

In my opinion Hamilton got an advantage by cutting the chicane," Trulli told Gazzetta dello Sport. "Had he stayed on the road, he wouldn't have had the speed to overtake the Ferrari.

"In the same way at Monza someone could cut the first chicane, catch a rival's draft, and overtake him under braking at Roggia.

"When you attack on the outside, you do it at your own risk, because who's on the inside has the right to do the corner. If there isn't enough room, then you lift.

"Had there been a wall there, instead of the surfaced escape route, would Lewis have attacked anyway? Had there been gravel, he wouldn't have had the chance to attack when rejoining the track because of dirty tyres."

The full article can be found here; Autosport- Trulli: Hamilton gained an advantage

edit:
Pictures from Raikkonen's car after the race...

[modbaraban]

Anyone seen Michael Schumacher during the race? No?

A-ha!!! That's coz he was busy rigging the race!

PS: While you are talking rubbish here, a much bigger conspiracy is going on. Now it's happening now !