Vodafone McLaren Mercedes F1 Team driver Lewis Hamilton has lost his victory at the Spa-Francorchamps circuit. The Briton was given a drive-through penalty after the race ended, meaning 25 seconds were added to his time, and this as he cut the chicane during a battle with Kimi Raikkonen. This means that Felipe Massa has won the Belgian Grand Prix, ahead of Nick Heidfeld and Lewis Hamilton.
You can see why. Would you want to fall into their bad books ?myurr wrote:http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/n ... 2744.shtml
Interesting that Renault has felt the need to distance itself from Pat's comments. Kinda partly reinforces my earlier suggestion that the drivers feel under pressure to support the FIA's point of view.
Good post. I agree. Charlie tried to claim at Monza that the next corner rule was established and was challenged by Pat Symonds. He said that the second pass that Alonso was forced to allow came about because Alonso had given up his place and had retaken it before Charlie had chance to see it. Charlie insisted that Alonso should repeat the manoeuvre. In the ensuing conversation between Pat and Charlie, the suggestion was made that a driver should wait for a corner before taking a place back. It is worth pointing out that the the next corner rule is not because of slipstreaming, but to allow Race Control time to watch that the place has been given back.mcdenife wrote:Their opinions perhaps, what they state as fact, no. My response was to Ciro's quote from Alonso:Timbo wrote: OK, OK
Don't you think it is a bit pathetic to call the opinion of CURRENT F1 drivers (not limited to Alonso, Massa and Bourdais, you should add Trulli and Rosberg too) wrong?Or presume you are somehow better "informed" than Bourdais?
this was not stated as opinion but as fact and is wrong because the FIA did not change the "system". and from Massa:"The FIA decided to change (the system) after several big scandals during past seasonsThis is also wrong, the rules do not say he should be penalised if he does not wait another corner or indeed how long he should wait before attacking. You do not have to be aHe did not have the patience to wait for another corner and try again, and the rules say he should be penalised."
driver (current or otherwise) to be able to read the rules. Dont forget, there is a precedent to all this from Suzuka (2005 I think) when Alonso was advised by his team to give a position back a 2nd time when he was 7 secs up the road. Was it not this very same FIA that clarified later that this was unecessary?
I am not really a fan of any driver per se but if I had to pick one it would be Kimi. With regards to teams, I am a fan of any/all teams but Ferrari mainly because of FIA and these all too frequent shenanigans. My contention in all of this is that neither team (Ferrari or Mclaren) or driver (Kimi or LH) messed up in this but rather, the FIA. A question to everyone who watched that race live; how many thought there was or would be an issue until it was announced there was an investigation and how many thought there would or should be penalty?
With regards to whether or not I am better informed than Bourdais, from his comments he a) does not appear to have read the so-called "rule book", b)he is misinnformed if he cannot see what the "mess" is about because he cannot see a difference between what happened in Spa and Magny-Cours. The only driver to say something worthwhile on this is Kimi himself, noteworthy in the sense that he makes a distinction between rules and decisions. He is vague about specific rules but focuses more on decisions (perhaps tellingly).
Regardless, the point is that the FIA did not just award a retrospective penalty, they awarded a retrospective goal, to take Myurr's analogy one step further, and this "mess is about the fact that a penalty does not always result in a goal.
BBC wrote:The verdict is due to be released on Tuesday after the three judges have decided whether or not McLaren's plea is justified.
