Belgian GP 2008

[WhiteBlue]

Trulli is speculating as video analysis further up in this thread has shown. Had Hamilton lifted and followed Reikkonen around bus stop he could have raced him on the strait just the same. He had superior traction in the wet. when Kimi pushed him outside on the run to la source he used it to pass behind the Ferrari and gain the superior inside. there was no slipstreaming effect at all. Trulli's comparison with Monza is like comparing apples and bananas.

I agree that it is very difficult to distinguish between agressive racing and attempting to drive a competitor off. There will always be room for discussion. nevertheless the issue at hand is about definition of advantage by cutting a corner and how to give it back in a legal way. There have not been a lot of discussions about this in the past. it was usually accepted wisdom that you had to give the position back. it would benefit the sport if clear criteria would be used in the future. this is the reason why so many commentators are appalled by the decision of the stewards. it messes up an application of the rules which will not help the sport.

[WhiteBlue]

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 !

Think a bit before you accuse fellow forumers of talking rubbish and associate them with crackpots like the woman in the video! This isn't the way this board likes us to conduct discussions. You can attack my points. I would appreciate if you could refrain from such posts which I perceive as a personal attack.

The stewards advisor, the race director and the stewards have operated in a very questionable way. In the interest of fair motorsport they should answer the court of appeal and explain their actions. If this appeal is thrown out on a technicallity the perception would be desastrous.

[CZOLG]

My first post here.
Many people in the discussion seem to have a point, sometimes contradictory ones.
Thing is rules are not and never will be perfect.
This happens in football all the time, may bad decisions have been made in many games, obvious referee mistakes etc.
Yet people seem to respect them in a better way and not accuse FIA of helping any particular team or setting up the championship.
I do not understand while I have read so many violent accusations in this thread?

[Tehillim]

...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).

It's the way the rule has always previously been applied: if you gain a place by cutting the course, you must return it. There's nothing about 'lifting completely' in the rules. McLaren twice asked Charlie Whiting if it looked OK to him and he twice said yes; Hamilton had such an advantage over Raikkonen at that point that, had the FIA voiced any concerns, they were prepared to return the place and try again later.

We can't have race stewards deciding that a rule which has always been interpreted to mean one thing, suddenly means quite another. Hamilton was the deserving winner at Spa, the stewards decision is a travesty.

CZOLG: in football the rules are simpler and the referee has to apply them in the heat of the moment; the stewards reached this poor decision after the race, having had plenty of time to consult and cross-examine the evidence. Another thing must be said, football referees are qualified professionals, and at the international level they are picked from the best referees from around the world - perhaps F1 needs a system like this.

[geoffrey]

Firstly I would like to say the last 4 laps or so were brilliant, edge of seat stuff. Cool, more please
That decision though is beyond me. I have watched it over and over again, and here are my thoughts.

LH was ahead in that corner, KR has the line and puches LH off the track.
LH gains an advantage (better traction), but lifted off too let KR back in the lead.
LH does NOT slipstream KR, he hangs around to KR's right. Approching the hairpin Kimi jinks, and LH jinks in opposite direction.
KR then pulls over the left leaving the racing line to LH. IMO KR does this to get a better run on the inside of the corner (a switchback?) but LH blocks that inside line where kimi touches him and has to back off.
The lead then changes between the 2 over the next lap.

LH got past him because his car had better traction in those wet conditions with those tyres.

The lead changes as they almost pile into Rosberg anyway, so that advantage or overtake surely is void. It doesn't matter. It didn't affect the result (well it did, but off the track). KR got back past LH

If the decision stands, then the rules are clear. If you gain an advantage going off the track you are going to be penalised whether you give the place back or not.

Unbeliveable, This sucks! Qualifying now settles the race unless someone makes a mistake. I can imagine drivers are going to radio the pits 'can I overtake, is it allowed'

Someone mentioned that Maccas should not contest as it bad sportsmanship. Red cards and all that. Do the referees look at the TV footage after the game and say 'oh actually that was a goal, team A won'. Nah didn't think so

I have been a lurker here for a number of years but just had to get this off of my chest! Hello everyone!

Geoff

[myurr]

My first post here.
Many people in the discussion seem to have a point, sometimes contradictory ones.
Thing is rules are not and never will be perfect.
This happens in football all the time, may bad decisions have been made in many games, obvious referee mistakes etc.
Yet people seem to respect them in a better way and not accuse FIA of helping any particular team or setting up the championship.
I do not understand while I have read so many violent accusations in this thread?

Welcome to the board!

I don't think that many people who are grumpy are necessarily grumpy because the rules are difficult to apply. I think if this was a one off incident then people would be a little bit upset but would give the FIA the benefit of the doubt that it may have been a marginal call and they had to decide one way or the other.

The problem is that the FIA lost the benefit of the doubt many many years ago, and have been perceived to have been consistently biased in favour of one team at the expense of all others. From banning Renaults mass damper system, giving Ferrari the lightest possible penalties, coming down hard on every other team, etc. it more often than not seems to be Ferrari who benefit from each ruling.

See Massa at Valencia - in GP2 they have been consistent in giving away drive through penalties. The F1 rules say that for the offense Massa was eventually found guilty of, he should have had a drive through penalty. However they get let off.

In this case with Hamilton McLaren knew what the rules were and tried to comply - going as far as twice checking with the FIA whether they were in compliance, and twice being told they were.

It's the equivalent of a referee not giving a penalty during a football match and telling all the players that everything was okay, only to change their mind 3 hours later and retrospectively award a goal and change the result of the game.

In my mind, and coupled with all the other examples of bias, that makes a mockery of the idea that F1 is a fair sport.

Ps. And to all those pointing out that Alonso had to give the place back a second time when he pulled a move like Hamilton, Renault were told by the Race Director to do so. In this instance McLaren were expressly told that they didn't have to. Poles apart.

[CZOLG]

I don't think that many people who are grumpy are necessarily grumpy because the rules are difficult to apply. I think if this was a one off incident then people would be a little bit upset but would give the FIA the benefit of the doubt that it may have been a marginal call and they had to decide one way or the other.

The problem is that the FIA lost the benefit of the doubt many many years ago, and have been perceived to have been consistently biased in favour of one team at the expense of all others. From banning Renaults mass damper system, giving Ferrari the lightest possible penalties, coming down hard on every other team, etc. it more often than not seems to be Ferrari who benefit from each ruling.

See Massa at Valencia - in GP2 they have been consistent in giving away drive through penalties. The F1 rules say that for the offense Massa was eventually found guilty of, he should have had a drive through penalty. However they get let off.

In this case with Hamilton McLaren knew what the rules were and tried to comply - going as far as twice checking with the FIA whether they were in compliance, and twice being told they were.

It's the equivalent of a referee not giving a penalty during a football match and telling all the players that everything was okay, only to change their mind 3 hours later and retrospectively award a goal and change the result of the game.

In my mind, and coupled with all the other examples of bias, that makes a mockery of the idea that F1 is a fair sport.

Ps. And to all those pointing out that Alonso had to give the place back a second time when he pulled a move like Hamilton, Renault were told by the Race Director to do so. In this instance McLaren were expressly told that they didn't have to. Poles apart.

Fair point.
The rules are applied in a radically different way in F1. I also do not like the idea of giving the penalty after the race, and the reasoning is doubtful, depending how do you look at it.
The problem is, there is probably not much we can do at this point. There are people signing petitions, alright, but having gone through this topic, different explanations do have a fair point. SO it is a really hard call as to actually what action should have been taken.
Probably what we need is a clearer set of rules, but then again, situations not explicitly written in the Sporting Code will always happen anyway. NO matter how thick the rule book would be.
So in the end it is down to the Stewards, Race Director to make the call. Whether it will be popular with fans or not.

[mcdenife]

Ps. And to all those pointing out that Alonso had to give the place back a second time when he pulled a move like Hamilton, Renault were told by the Race Director to do so. In this instance McLaren were expressly told that they didn't have to. Poles apart.

In fact Renault were told afterwards by the FIA that they did not have to give the place back the second time. So the precedent in this case actually favours LH/Mclaren rather than the stewards ruling.

Regardless, you dont have to like LH to see that this was a crass ruling however you look at it (cut chicane or not - even if this was an issue surely you will take into account why or how he came to cut the chicane, no?) I agree with myurr's retrospective goal anology. This smells big time. If there was an issue, Ferrari would have protested immediately but rather and tellingly they have been forced to deny they protested this before/during or after the race even though they were the main beneficiaries. Their team boss has even conceded (almost shamefacedly) that this was somewhat harsh in the extreme. Some also pointed to Mclaren's so called past misdeeds as the reason for the focus on them or hash treatment...this seems like a disingenuous clutching at straws, to justify the ruling, to say the very least. The FIA is famous for dubious rulings going back many years and which almost always seems to benefit one team or disadvantage any team that happens to be the closest competitor of aforementioned one team (before you flame me, check it or research this its easy enough). However so far I think this one takes that biscuit and is by far the crassest, stupidest and most imcompetent in the history of any sport.

[bizadfar]

Trulli is speculating as video analysis further up in this thread has shown. Had Hamilton lifted and followed Reikkonen around bus stop he could have raced him on the strait just the same. He had superior traction in the wet. when Kimi pushed him outside on the run to la source he used it to pass behind the Ferrari and gain the superior inside. there was no slipstreaming effect at all. Trulli's comparison with Monza is like comparing apples and bananas.

wow... dreamer
There is one line, you ever heard the technique where in tight corners like that the driver infront will hesitate to accel, then plant it and get the instant advantage of being on the throttle earlier before the other guy could react.
Seriously, same position as if he had no cut the chicane? side by side at the s/f

[Tehillim]

In the dry Hamilton would struggle to follow Raikkonen closely, but the same cannot be assumed in the wet, especially so given the McLaren's far superior traction at that stage of the race.

There is also the question of whether Hamilton chose to take the shortcut or was forced to. He was presented with a rapidly diminishing gap, being forced onto the slippery curbs and, immediately before he changed course, the two cars touched. IMO he had good reason to cut the chicane, it was the safest option, he wasn't simply looking for an advantage.

[myurr]

wow... dreamer
There is one line, you ever heard the technique where in tight corners like that the driver infront will hesitate to accel, then plant it and get the instant advantage of being on the throttle earlier before the other guy could react.
Seriously, you are wack, same position as if he had no cut the chicane? side by side at the s/f

Some serisouly --- up dreamer people here. Probably never driven in their life or a bunch of fanboys either camp.

I'm not totally sure, not being an F1 driver myself, but in the wet it's been stated that there's more than one line and it's often grippier offline than on, as the water stands on the rubber rather than draining away or being pushed aside by the passing tyre.

Also in the conditions then the majority of the problem for the drivers wasn't standing water, it was retaining heat in the tyres. This is something that the McLaren has a supreme advantage. Indeed look at Hamiltons acceleration down the next straight - it's a given that there was a 6kmph speed difference between them as they crossed the line. Hamilton was able to more than make up that difference **and** then out brake the Ferrari by quite some margin. Plus Kimi was really struggling to get the power down immediately out of the corner.

So whilst Trulli has much greater insight than I do, he's never actually driven the McLaren or the Ferrari in those conditions. I also believe he was unable to get anywhere near Hamilton's pace in the wet at Silverstone, so maybe Lewis knows something he doesn't.

[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 !

Think a bit before you accuse fellow forumers of talking rubbish and associate them with crackpots like the woman in the video! This isn't the way this board likes us to conduct discussions. You can attack my points. I would appreciate if you could refrain from such posts which I perceive as a personal attack.

Hmmm. Please underline the bit where I attacked any of the posters?

PS: and I'll repeat boldly (in every sense of that word) with no sarcasm or anything so that everyone can get the point:

Calculated race rigging conspiracy theory IS RUBBISH and deserves nothing but being laughed at.

I hope I made myself clear enough this time.

[bizadfar]

wow... dreamer
There is one line, you ever heard the technique where in tight corners like that the driver infront will hesitate to accel, then plant it and get the instant advantage of being on the throttle earlier before the other guy could react.
Seriously, you are wack, same position as if he had no cut the chicane? side by side at the s/f

Some serisouly --- up dreamer people here. Probably never driven in their life or a bunch of fanboys either camp.

I'm not totally sure, not being an F1 driver myself, but in the wet it's been stated that there's more than one line and it's often grippier offline than on, as the water stands on the rubber rather than draining away or being pushed aside by the passing tyre.

Also in the conditions then the majority of the problem for the drivers wasn't standing water, it was retaining heat in the tyres. This is something that the McLaren has a supreme advantage. Indeed look at Hamiltons acceleration down the next straight - it's a given that there was a 6kmph speed difference between them as they crossed the line. Hamilton was able to more than make up that difference **and** then out brake the Ferrari by quite some margin. Plus Kimi was really struggling to get the power down immediately out of the corner.

So whilst Trulli has much greater insight than I do, he's never actually driven the McLaren or the Ferrari in those conditions. I also believe he was unable to get anywhere near Hamilton's pace in the wet at Silverstone, so maybe Lewis knows something he doesn't.

Agree the Mclaren retains and generates more heat in the tyres than the ferrari. But please show me more than one line in the last corner in the situation they were in. If Hamilton stayed nose to tail behind him I seriously doubt he would tighten up steering angle instead of using the full width of the exit. Maybe mid corner/entry different lines for that corner in normal situation (not that overtaking scene ofc)

[yzfr7]

Senna never broke rules.
Hamilton did in France, nor in Spa.

no no, he just happened to crash into Prost on two occasions where the the championship was decided.

Sorry going a few pages back. If you are talking about the final races of 89 and 90:

- Senna didn't crash into Prost in 89, he was in the inside line and kept it. Prost didn't give Senna any space and crashed into him. Prost admitted that in public years later. Senna was penalised by Balestre himself, not stewards nor anything. Balestre admitted that in public years later. Balestre said he wanted a "frenchman like him" to win the title.

- in 90, the mess was made in qualifying, when Balestre himself called and ordered to change the pole position from the clean side to the dirt side, after the qualifying was finished. Balestre admitted that years later. It ended the way it did.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, finally, one day without derogatory comments about members! I'm so proud of you, guys...

Please, continue to despise FIA, McLaren, Ferrari, Hamilton, stewards or whoever you wish to your heart's content, but not F1Technical. Remember: the other members weren't racing.

BTW, has anyone time for analysis of the sound of engines to deduce the rpm and acceleration during the "incident"? That would be hot news across "the Internets" and would fit nicely with the "tradition" of our site...