Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Pit Lane. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Hamilton demoted to 3rd
Topic Started: Sep 7 2008, 04:16 PM (5,642 Views)
PiquetFan
Member Avatar
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Norbert,Sep 8 2008
04:32 PM
What happens when you change the colour to #f4f4f4? Oh, right, you could leave hidden messages? Sounds like a way to insult people without other people noticing!

Norbert speechless - now I've seen everything <LOL>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nomad
Engineer
[ *  *  *  * ]
I am having a lot of trouble with this situation. Situation, not decision. I shall try to explain my thoughts. Please remember that I am an active Steward with a license high enough to allow me to be a Steward at a F1 event.

We Stewards do not consider ours a position of power, we think of ourselves as being in a position of great responsibility. That responsibility being that of enforcing the rules of the santioning body. We didn't write the rules and might clearly disagree with some of them. When an alleged violation is referred to us, we take our duty very seriously and attempt to obtain and review all evidence and information before we render our collective verdict. We vigorously discuss and argue all points of the situation and occasionally issue the decision that we cannot make a decision. There are some things that we are not allowed to consider such as who the driver, sponsor, or team is; and past behavior of the driver, etc. The sanctioning body might reverse us in an appeal hearing but they cannot tell us how to vote in our hearing.

While our decision may be quite unpopular as in this case, it is our job to make an impartial decision without regard to it's popular appeal. I appreciate that a large body of people feel it is appropriate to lodge a petition against the Stewards decision in this case but is this the way we really want to govern racing. I think that the vast majority of participants and fans will agree that we must have rules to govern our sport but do we wish to revert to the Roman Coliseum manner of life or death by a vote of the spectators? The current situation provides for redress of our errors (and we do occasionally make errors) through the appeal process. It is still possible for a Hamilton victory to be reinstated through this process but any changes should result from a careful analysis of the evidence and the process not because it is unpopular.

People are extremely upset now but how much worse would it be if the results were determined by popular vote.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
GordonB
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
RJHSaints,Sep 8 2008
02:19 PM
From my point of view, Hamilton did gain an advantage. You can see this on the on-board:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=70rXr2Mkq_M

He does not make a concious attempt to make the corner even though he could and he did not lift down the straight, it was Ferrari's greater top-speed that put Kimi in front. Hence, he actively attempted to gain an unfair advantage.

.. snip ...

Without the benefit of the telemetry, you just can't say whether Lewis "lifted" or not.

If the Ferrari got in front of the McLaren, then by the laws of physics (and the power of Greyskull) the McLaren must have travelled slower than the Ferrari for an appreciable distance and/or time.

I've seen arguments that this was "because he was on the wet side of the track" but this is really clutching at straws just to make the "facts" agree with the preconceived outcome.

As for the "he doesn't make a conscious attempt to make the corner" I've watched it a bunch of times and I would argue that he does - and there is in fact contact between the Ferrari and the McLaren before he thought better of it and consciously and markedly turned left to avoid that big green bump behind the kerb.

This is one of those arguments that just can't be won by either side. Lewis emerged from the chicane ahead, and passed behind Kimi on the straight. Supporters say "well that proves he didn't gain an advantage whether he lifted off or not, Kimi was past him". Antagonists will say "well even if he lifted off, he didn't lift *enough*.

It all boils down to: If he didn't give back "enough", then how much, exactly, is "enough". That certainly is not defined in the rules, and the argument can never end because it comes down to whatever bias the stewards decide to exert. How on earth is a driver supposed to know "how much" to give back during a race if this is the situation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyW76
Member Avatar
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
RJHSaints,Sep 8 2008
02:19 PM
From my point of view, Hamilton did gain an advantage. You can see this on the on-board:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=70rXr2Mkq_M

He does not make a concious attempt to make the corner even though he could and he did not lift down the straight, it was Ferrari's greater top-speed that put Kimi in front. Hence, he actively attempted to gain an unfair advantage.

However.....

Ferrari's main argument post-Valencia was that Massa should not be punished because nothing happened - Massa lifted and allowed Sutil through. The stewards fined them for this which I thought was the right decision. This being the case, the same logic should apply here. Raikkonen retired shortly after, hence Hamilton in effect gained no palpable advantage. To punish him with a time penalty whilst not punishing Massa is wrong. I think Hamilton should have been reprimanded and slapped with a fine, but not docked 25 seconds.

Massa drove a good race and now has a decent chance at winning the title. But if he does, people will always point to this race unless Massa wins it by more than 6 points. I don't want a Massa title to be remembered for that. Hopefully the FIA will overturn the decision and hand the victory back to Lewis.

May be that would have been the fair way to handle it, though I do fail to see how you can quantify how much you give back in that situation. Without knowing the exact gain from the corner cutting, how can Lewis possibly know how much to back off. Also, the Ferraris were struggling on the wet parts of the track and it is likely that raikkonen was struggling to get the power down on the S/F straight, meaning that Lewis still caught him easily despite backing off, which distorts how much advantage Lewis has given back. At the end of the day it is down to interpretation and opinion, in which case, the stewards should have let it go or imposed a penalty that would not have affected the results, because decisions based on personal opinion are a legal minefield.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Norbert
Member Avatar

Admin
Nomad,Sep 8 2008
03:36 PM
I am an active Steward with a license high enough to allow me to be a Steward at a F1 event.

Forgive me if I've missed it, but as a steward, how would you have ruled on said event?

For me, there was an advantage gained by taking the least disadvantageous route through the final corners, so while there was a loss on Hamilton's part, it wasn't as much of a loss as perhaps it should have been, so that was the gain, so to speak. I feel that he just about complied with the letter of the law, but the spirit of the sporting code was breached......
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
GordonB
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Norbert,Sep 8 2008
02:41 PM
Nomad,Sep 8 2008
03:36 PM
I am an active Steward with a license high enough to allow me to be a Steward at a F1 event.

Forgive me if I've missed it, but as a steward, how would you have ruled on said event?

For me, there was an advantage gained by taking the least disadvantageous route through the final corners, so while there was a loss on Hamilton's part, it wasn't as much of a loss as perhaps it should have been, so that was the gain, so to speak. I feel that he just about complied with the letter of the law, but the spirit of the sporting code was breached......

So in the light of the statement you just made - i.e. that Hamilton didn't breach the letter of the law - do you think that the stewards should hand down a race-result-changing punishment?

Don't you think that is against the spirit of Justice?

I that if Hamilton had been fined a large sum of money, or something like that, then I would be more inclined to accept your point of view as understandable (if not aligned with my own!)

However, I am left with the impression of the FIA idiot-machine in full flap, desperately trying to justify themselves after yet another completely incomprehensible (to the common-fan) decision.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Norbert
Member Avatar

Admin
I do see one issue. While I don't recall anyone ever getting a ruling overturned, if it happens, then we have a serious problem. Everyone will want the right to get decisions appealed against, which will make a mockery of the sport. I can't believe that in football we have teams getting red and yellow card rescinded after the match, and I don't believe that decisions made on race day should be overturned later. The circumstances of this one are slightly different due to it being a drivethrough assessed at a point where it wouldn't be possible to take it, but what next? Say someone gets a drivethrough at Monza. The rules say that there is no appeal, and it must be served in three laps. Will the team serve it, or argue that McLaren were able to appeal after the race, and that they should be allowed to do the same?

I don't think McLaren should be allowed to appeal because the penalty was officially issued as a drivethrough, which is unappealable, but assessed as 25 seconds because the penalty was undecided during the race. I feel they've slipped up by not simply stating that it's a 25 second penalty, or by not already stating that McLaren can't appeal. Could be opening the floodgates it they aren't careful.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PiquetFan
Member Avatar
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Nomad,Sep 8 2008
04:36 PM
While our decision may be quite unpopular as in this case, it is our job to make an impartial decision without regard to it's popular appeal. I appreciate that a large body of people feel it is appropriate to lodge a petition against the Stewards decision in this case but is this the way we really want to govern racing. I think that the vast majority of participants and fans will agree that we must have rules to govern our sport but do we wish to revert to the Roman Coliseum manner of life or death by a vote of the spectators? The current situation provides for redress of our errors (and we do occasionally make errors) through the appeal process. It is still possible for a Hamilton victory to be reinstated through this process but any changes should result from a careful analysis of the evidence and the process not because it is unpopular.

Interesting post, Nomad, and I'm sure that many of us do not appreciate how difficult the job of steward can be.

My issues with the decision that has been made is not that it is unpopular, and agree with you that this is not the way to govern motor racing. It seems to me that McLaren must be allowed to appeal the decision of the stewards in this case, and that the stewards be asked to justify their ruling to the FIA. A degree of transparency is also necessary to ensure that the image of the sport is not damaged.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Norbert
Member Avatar

Admin
GordonB,Sep 8 2008
03:46 PM
So in the light of the statement you just made - i.e. that Hamilton didn't breach the letter of the law - do you think that the stewards should hand down a race-result-changing punishment?

Don't you think that is against the spirit of Justice?

I that if Hamilton had been fined a large sum of money, or something like that, then I would be more inclined to accept your point of view as understandable (if not aligned with my own!)

However, I am left with the impression of the FIA idiot-machine in full flap, desperately trying to justify themselves after yet another completely incomprehensible (to the common-fan) decision.

Don't forget I said 'just about'. It is a debateable point as to whether or not he gave back the advantage he gained. In any case, if you think that breaking the spirit of the law but not the rules and reg is unpunishable, may I remind you that the 'illegal' floors on both the Ferrari and McLaren (and I think BMW and Williams) last year passed all the necessary FIA tests, but were still decreed 'not within the spirit of the rules' and were required to be modified, and the tests were then altered.

However, your impression of the FIA machine is about bloody right!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyW76
Member Avatar
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Norbert,Sep 8 2008
02:41 PM
Nomad,Sep 8 2008
03:36 PM
I am an active Steward with a license high enough to allow me to be a Steward at a F1 event.

Forgive me if I've missed it, but as a steward, how would you have ruled on said event?

For me, there was an advantage gained by taking the least disadvantageous route through the final corners, so while there was a loss on Hamilton's part, it wasn't as much of a loss as perhaps it should have been, so that was the gain, so to speak. I feel that he just about complied with the letter of the law, but the spirit of the sporting code was breached......

Ah, the "spirit of the rules". Now that is a funny one. The problem is that rules are open to interpretation and, as we know, one man's passion can be another man's poison. I'm sure hamilton isn't the first driver to have experienced this situation (as in the actual incident, not the penalty), but it seems to be the first obvious time that is has been so obviously punished in this way. Perviously, the stewards have accepted that just giving back the position was sufficient. It seems quiet a change in policy. I can not question their motivation for this decision because to do so would open a huge can of worms. I just feel that they have excerised poor judgement, bearing in mind the previously posted histories on each of the stewards, none of which have ever experienced motorsport from inside the cockpit. Which begs the question, how the hell can they see the incidents form a driver's perspective.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheCompleteGuitarist
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bear,Sep 8 2008
01:23 PM
People crucified Massa after the Brit race, but in Spa he was much better than Kimi or Lewis at keeping it on the track.

His mature and considered approach compares starkly with Macca/Lewis/Kimi.

Well he was tiptoing around on his own while Kimi and Lewis took the fight for the win. So yeah, he did a great job if you want to put it like that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Andy
Member Avatar

Moderator
AndyW76,Sep 8 2008
03:55 PM
Ah, the "spirit of the rules". Now that is a funny one. The problem is that rules are open to interpretation and, as we know, one man's passion can be another man's poison. I'm sure hamilton isn't the first driver to have experienced this situation (as in the actual incident, not the penalty), but it seems to be the first obvious time that is has been so obviously punished in this way. Perviously, the stewards have accepted that just giving back the position was sufficient. It seems quiet a change in policy. I can not question their motivation for this decision because to do so would open a huge can of worms. I just feel that they have excerised poor judgement, bearing in mind the previously posted histories on each of the stewards, none of which have ever experienced motorsport from inside the cockpit. Which begs the question, how the hell can they see the incidents form a driver's perspective.

The closest similar example I can think of is Suzuka 2005. There, Alonso overtook Christian Klien by cutting a chicane (presumably the Casio Triangle, although I can't remember for certain), gave the position back and then immediately re-passed. Later in the lap, however, he had to slow down and yield the position again, apparently because the stewards had warned Renault that he would get a drive-through penalty, because although he did give back the position, he didn't necessarily give back the advantage gained.

The Schumacher at Hungary 2006 example is another one where the ruling went a different way, but that was a driver defending a position rather than overtaking, so perhaps the interpretation of the rules can be excused for being slightly different. (Although to be fair I do believe Schumi should have been punished for that indiscretion).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheCompleteGuitarist
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Red Andy,Sep 8 2008
03:05 PM
The Schumacher at Hungary 2006 example is another one where the ruling went a different way, but that was a driver defending a position rather than overtaking, so perhaps the interpretation of the rules can be excused for being slightly different. (Although to be fair I do believe Schumi should have been punished for that indiscretion).

A similar thing happened with Rosberg and Button this year, Massa laps button, Rosberg sneaks through with him taking advantage of the window Button oens, about a lap later Rosberg was due to get lapped by another dirver but decided too miss a chicane to allow the driver passed thus not giving Button a chance to do what Rosberg had done to him.

Result, no penalty. Was an advantage gained? Probably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dazzerjp
Member Avatar
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Nomad,Sep 8 2008
11:36 PM
While our decision may be quite unpopular as in this case, it is our job to make an impartial decision without regard to it's popular appeal. I appreciate that a large body of people feel it is appropriate to lodge a petition against the Stewards decision in this case but is this the way we really want to govern racing. I think that the vast majority of participants and fans will agree that we must have rules to govern our sport but do we wish to revert to the Roman Coliseum manner of life or death by a vote of the spectators?

It not a question of mob rule versus the dictatorship of Max.


The example of the Coliseum doesn't stand up, expect maybe in the death of democracy and the rise of Caesar Max. The ulitimate decision was in the hands of the steward of the event. He was swayed by the crowd, and rightly so, but it was still he who decided.


The petition is an expression of freewill - the pinnacle of democracy.

Besides which, no toher form of motor sport is a politicised as F1, so comparisons to lower formula are fair in the core, but incorrect in the specific.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Monty
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
stradlin23,Sep 7 2008
07:06 PM
for the penalty
The Stewards
Elusive Jim
Bear
dc202 (those two don't even count tbh)

Against it
Me
Tau
Sys
Dazzer
Piquet
Gav
Gordon b
styeffo
morpun
dc19
the complete guitarist
goblin
the ENTIRE F1 MEDIA!!!! and almost eveyone on every other forum i've visted!

<roflmao> <roflmao> <roflmao> <roflmao>

like Morpun and SyS have said, i give up on f1 today but I also give up on some of it's fans, a terrible day for the sport and only been made worse by a few people

let the shambles roll on to Monza, the tainted and FAKE championship will go on

Typical s**t stirring from this bonehead who constantly critisizes f1 and says how bad it is yet when his hero is thawrted he throws the toys out the pram. Hamilton will get it taken away on appeal anyway.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic »
Add Reply