| 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: |
| Hamilton demoted to 3rd | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 7 2008, 04:16 PM (5,635 Views) | |
| TheCompleteGuitarist | Sep 9 2008, 11:13 PM Post #316 |
|
Driver
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Probably Joseph judging by his car driving, as Joseph was only used to riding donkeys. As for Lewis, hasn't he already been crucified (in the press)? The similarities are frightening. |
![]() |
|
| dazzerjp | Sep 10 2008, 04:41 AM Post #317 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, Alonso is definately a Judas. Rob, the fact that none of the Kimi incidents where investigated when in reality they where as law-breaking as Lewis's is the issue. The advantage Kimi gains from running widw pre=yellow flag can be clearly seen. It can be clearly agrued tfrom the on-bord that Kimi made no attempt to return to the track as quickly as possible, instead used the wider arc of the run off for increased traction. Speed isnt relative. Its fixed. Where is the telematry report on Kimi showing he clearly lifted. You will note that Lewis lifted much earlier for the right handed. The overtaking under yellow applies to ALL cars. So, you are not allowed to lap cars under yellows. @However it should be noted the FIA probably won't give a penalty to a car that retired. @ Yet it will give it to a driver involved in a incident with the reitred driver, even when the incident played no part in the retirement. |
![]() |
|
| dazzerjp | Sep 10 2008, 04:46 AM Post #318 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is a revealing video. I must say, for this forum oand others, the VAST majority of Ferrari supporters have regained a little respect in their admission of this glary error. |
![]() |
|
| Cannonballer | Sep 10 2008, 10:01 AM Post #319 |
|
Refueller
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Going to add my two pennys worth... Havign read all the posts, here's my thinking: The rule is cars must stay on the track. However, obviousyl sometimes cars will come off the track. Normally this is a disadvantange to the driver. In this case over a chicane it is beneficial. Dirvers never get penalised for just coming off the track - never. They get penalised when coming off the track gives them an advantage (not time wise - which maybe it should, but POSITION wise). ie If a place were gained or kept by coming off the course. So no point debating kimi coming off the track or other dirvers - waste of time. Stewards only care when a place was gained or kept. Now there is NO debate that Lewis gave back the gained place as after the chicance at some point Kimi was back ahead - FACT. The question is whether he gained a place in the next coner as a result of the on going incident - ie the giving back of the previous place. Unfortunately I don't see there is any debate that Lewis was in Kimi's slip stream as a result of cutting the chicane. IF he had brake before the chicane (when obvious he was going to come off the track) and gone in behine kimi around the chicane (room only fo rone car) he wouldnt have been in that same position. I know it's sh**t for the result, BUT art the end of the day it's Lewis's fault - he should have just waited - if he had done that all would have been fine. As a final point I used to be an MS fan - but at the time and now felt he should have been given a penalty in Hungary. Whehter the FIA is lenient on Ferrari is another debate. The question is were they fair on this point. |
![]() |
|
| AndyW76 | Sep 10 2008, 11:20 AM Post #320 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One point, Lewis's fault or not, McLaren asked for advice from race control (well within acceptible procedure in F1) and were informed that it was fine. Because of race control's answer, McLaren took no further action, so any grounds for a penalty was caused by an inaccurate answer from race control, and Lewis was penalied through no fault of his own. In any legal system, including the warped one of the FIA, any penalty would be unjust. |
![]() |
|
| Cannonballer | Sep 10 2008, 11:28 AM Post #321 |
|
Refueller
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I completely agree with you on this point. That is just more inconsistanct from the FIA. I don't see why race director and stewards are not part of the same panel. But this is really Mcalren "trying it on" asking this question. They should have satisfied themsleves it was definitely fine by asking Lewis to back off more. In sport you either do an action or you dont and that is the competitors decision. I know this is very emotive as it changed the result of a race. If this had happened mid race then no where near as many would be so pissed off about it. |
![]() |
|
| PiquetFan | Sep 10 2008, 11:37 AM Post #322 |
|
Driver
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The arguments about whether McLaren could or should have relied on Whiting's advice have been given a good airing elsewhere on the board, and there is considerable disagreement on the matter. In taking that advice McLaren knew that they were at risk - that the stewards may actually find against Whiting's spot ruling. I don't agree that Whiting's answer was 'inaccurate' as both he and McLaren knew that the stewards may have a different view on the situation. I also disagree that the penalty is unjust because McLaren chose to take the advice solicited. The decision to act on Whiting's advice was theirs and theirs alone. Just to re-iterate, my first reaction on hearing of the penalty was that it is unjust, because I believed that Hamilton had given the place back. After the discussions here I am a little more cautious in my condemnation of the findings of the stewards. I very much hope that the appeal is allowed, and that justice is seen to be done. |
![]() |
|
| Bear | Sep 10 2008, 12:01 PM Post #323 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The thing with race control is spurious. If the incident had taken place on the very last lap and Lewis had passed the start line before Kimi, there would have been no time to ask race control. The decision has to rest with the stewards - there is no way race control could have had time (with all that was going on) to look at the incident in detail. If Macca were in any doubt, they should have told Lewis to hang back for a couple of seconds. Their bad management is their bad management - it has nothing to do with race control who made a quick BUT NOT FINAL decision in limited time. The Macca claim is just ridiculous and puerile. Fair enough if they can prove that Lewis did not gain an advantage, then the penalty should be dropped. But going on about race control is just stupid. |
![]() |
|
| GordonB | Sep 10 2008, 12:48 PM Post #324 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree with nearly everything in your post, except for the one thing that you hold up as evidence of advantage gained. You say "I don't see there is any debate that Lewis was in Kimi's slip stream". Watch the video. To be in the slipstream Lewis would have to be directly behind Kimi. The only point at which he is directly behind is when he crosses from kimi's left to his right in the process of trying to "dive up the inside". There is no physical justification for saying that Lewis gained from Kimi's slipstream. He didn't. Fact. All of this just boils down to this statement: In the opinion of the stewards, Hamilton didn't give back enough of the advantage gained by cutting the end of the chicane. Since both the size of this "advantage" and the amount "given back" are un-knowable and completely within the realms of conjecture, then we are left with the situation that the stewards think he should be punished, and the majority of viewer's don't know what the F is going on. Because it is all conjecture, there is no way to "prove" innocence and therefore it is extremely unlikely that any appeal will be successful. |
![]() |
|
| Cannonballer | Sep 10 2008, 01:03 PM Post #325 |
|
Refueller
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OK let;s talk about this statement. "Watch the video. To be in the slipstream Lewis would have to be directly behind Kimi. The only point at which he is directly behind is when he crosses from kimi's left to his right in the process of trying to "dive up the inside"." I should have worded it slightly differently, along the lines of "Lewis got in Kimis's slip stream as a result of being along side him". He was only along side Kimi as a result of cutting the chicane. Getting from along side to being in slip stream is merely a case of turning the wheel. The point I was trying to (maybe badly) make was that Lewis wouldnt have been in this side by side, (and then behind) position if he had driven the chican nroamlly behind Kimi. This must be the point the stewards are working from - and makes snese to me. |
![]() |
|
| Cannonballer | Sep 10 2008, 01:51 PM Post #326 |
|
Refueller
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Right - have watched video again. There is no slipstreaming involved, so I am wrong to mention this. However I maintain that Lewis closer than he would have been based on being alongside, when if he had braked after the bothced overtake attempt at the chicane he would not have been. |
![]() |
|
| dazzerjp | Sep 10 2008, 02:07 PM Post #327 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
but, technlcally beofre entering te corner lewis was ahead, meaning that going into the corner both drivers should have allowed space for each others cars. This Kimi did not do. Watch the video, just beofre Lewis swerves left, you will note that Kimi does a sharp left into hamilton path. Very quick and in no way related to the racing line. |
![]() |
|
| Norbert | Sep 10 2008, 02:17 PM Post #328 |
![]() ![]()
|
If you watch the video you'll also see that Kimi gets nowhere near the kerb on the apex of the left turn until after Hamilton took the shortcut. Plus, there was plenty of room for Hamilton to take the corner had he backed off a fraction more. He'd already conceded the right turn to Kimi, as he was behind when they turned in. Perhaps he panicked into taking the run-off, but at the end of the day, a tiny lift would have given him plenty of space to take the racetrack through the chicane rather than the runoff. |
![]() |
|
| Bear | Sep 10 2008, 02:22 PM Post #329 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Amazing how we watch the same clips and we reach different conclusions. Perhaps, like beauty, the racing line is in the eye of the beholder. I, for one, totally agree with you. I think the corner could and should have been made ... think Lewis took the short cut as an option for speed not safety. But other people clearly see something totally different or at least have a totally different perception/interpretation. There's a gap here that can't be filled. People have faith in their own opinions. |
![]() |
|
| u4coffee | Sep 10 2008, 02:23 PM Post #330 |
|
Just Married
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Should the Stewards taken into consideration that Mclaren asked if Lewis had done enough and that later in the same lap Kimi got the lead back... All be it briefly due to spinning off after shortly after? |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






12:46 AM Jul 11