| 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 (5,634 Views) | |
| dazzerjp | Sep 10 2008, 02:24 PM Post #331 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
at 0;27 seconds. you can see the kimi rear end jumps about a metre to the left http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TzKMyFCaZy0 |
![]() |
|
| Norbert | Sep 10 2008, 02:25 PM Post #332 |
![]() ![]()
|
Race control is not an official authority on such matters, and Ron stated as much in his post race interview. In any case, as I've said before, McLaren asked Charlie if he thought Lewis had given the place back, which he obvously had done. Ron only mentioned 'place', not 'advantage', which is a different kettle of fish. Yes, it's splitting hairs, but considering the alleged anti-McLaren bias in the officialdom, maybe they ought to have been a little wiser. And no, that doesn't mean I think the penalty entirely fits the crime.... |
![]() |
|
| u4coffee | Sep 10 2008, 02:32 PM Post #333 |
|
Just Married
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe Lewis didn't have faith in the gap remaining
|
![]() |
|
| Norbert | Sep 10 2008, 02:36 PM Post #334 |
![]() ![]()
|
I didn't think he ego was quite THAT big yet......
|
![]() |
|
| Cannonballer | Sep 10 2008, 03:24 PM Post #335 |
|
Refueller
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Analysis This link is a good overview for the whole thing - which I agree with. After reading this I beleive it was too close to call and therefore shoudnt have been called. |
![]() |
|
| John | Sep 10 2008, 03:30 PM Post #336 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
ITV
|
![]() |
|
| dazzerjp | Sep 10 2008, 03:33 PM Post #337 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A good article and a well-respected journo. It is refreshing to see progress of your posts, either which way the decision fell. The ruling is based on an negative unreal conditional. If Lewis hadnt cut the corner, he would of not passed Kim next corner. Rules need precedent, whic are real, not suppostion. The same ruling could be applied to the Massa incident, with the same result. After the Valencia race, I felt Massa deserved a penalty, but in light of the Spa incident, I dont think one could have been applied. |
![]() |
|
| Red Andy | Sep 10 2008, 03:36 PM Post #338 |
![]()
|
I don't agree with Hughes' premise that if Hamilton had followed Raikkonen through the chicane, his superior traction would have put him on Kimi's tail coming out of the corner. Hamilton braked extremely late for the chicane, he would have had to run wider than Kimi if he had chosen to take the corner properly, therefore he would not have been able to get on the power until later. Hence he wouldn't have been right under Kimi's rear wing, rather he would have been some way behind. As far as the political implications of the penalty go, though, Hughes has it absolutely right. Hamilton should have been punished with a post-race fine, like Massa was, rather than a sporting penalty which changed the outcome of the race, and could change the outcome of the championship. |
![]() |
|
| timmadigan | Sep 10 2008, 03:41 PM Post #339 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The situation as you laid it would be analogus of going to your MP, head of your party or even the PM and asking him/her if your action would be against the law. Even if they didn't think so, the judge could disagree and they are the ones who make that decision. You can claim that your got bad advice from your MP or the PM but it still stands that the judge (and jury) is/are decision maker, not your MP or the PM. The bad part of Ron's part is that he probably felt Lewis didn't do enough which is why he went to Charlie in the first place and wanted to see if someone would back him outside of McLaren to keep Lewis from giving up the spot again near the end of the race. People tend not to ask if they did something wrong unless they feel that they may have. But I just want to reiterate that this, once again, shows that the FIA's rules need to be more precise. The ambiguity of the rule means that F1's becoming like gymnastics, figure skating, boxing, etc.. in the Olympics - it's up to the judges to make a call and nobody knows why they did so. it can be clear - have to give it up through the next corner, X number of seconds, etc... |
![]() |
|
| Bear | Sep 10 2008, 04:05 PM Post #340 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Charlie apparently did NOT say the move was okay. He said " I think that's okay". Only think - not definite clear final decision. The Mark Hughes article is a farce. You can't judge?????????????? With all the telemetry and footage and stats from previous laps.... you can't judge? The guy has made himself look like a complete moron: where would we be in life if people didn't have to make/couldn't make judgements on things. |
![]() |
|
| dazzerjp | Sep 10 2008, 04:20 PM Post #341 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You cant judge a hypothetical situation. You can suppose, but not judge. Suppostion is not suffiecent for conviction. Baseics of rule making This is hughes's point. In contrast to Massa's fine Massa was found guilty of unsafe release. However, he was found to have not gained an advantage or crashed, so was only fined. So, the offence was punished with circumstanasal evidence affecting the punishment. Now Hammys. The offence was cutting the chicance as quoted in the report. However, the circumstances of the following events where ignored; Kimi retaking his position, the weather, the spped difference in laps times between the two cars and finally the fact that no advantage was gained due to the fact that Kimi didnt finish. So, 2 different ruling processes. Both decide an offence, but only Massas takes into account circumstanal evidence. |
![]() |
|
| Norbert | Sep 10 2008, 04:20 PM Post #342 |
![]() ![]()
|
The trouble is that the bloke is writing for ITV, who would reject the article if it didn't say that Lewis was entriely innocent, and the the whole world is against him.
|
![]() |
|
| TheCompleteGuitarist | Sep 10 2008, 04:36 PM Post #343 |
|
Driver
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's not true, as they went into the chicane, Lewis was ahead, Kimi had the inside line and cut right across Lewis thus taking back the postion, he had a right to do this but it wasn't without risk. However, if Kimi had wanted he could easily have left room for lewis and they would have come out side by side. As I see it, Lewis was ahead and had the braking to take the chicane without cutting the corner, but wasn't left enough room by Kimi, so avoided the accident. It wasn't as if he just did a straightline now is it. |
![]() |
|
| Bear | Sep 10 2008, 04:38 PM Post #344 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
With respect - it is not a hypothetical situation. We have video and data recordings of what happened and the stewards can clearly judge where Lewis would have been on the track if he had taken the corner properly. They have countless lap times to look at and they will know for sure if Lewis had an advantage or not. If you can't judge with all the evidence that's available, then you might as well throw out every law in the country and we'll all live in complete selfish anarchy as it is impossible to prove anything. |
![]() |
|
| dazzerjp | Sep 10 2008, 04:48 PM Post #345 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The judgement was based on a Lewis gaining advantage. The comparsion for the judgement was if Lewis had followed through the chichane, where would he have been. if... would. Suppostion. What evidence. Previous laps? Changing weather coniditons. Well, yes. Lewis was much faster than Kimi on that lap - a good 1.5 to 2 seconds. Add that factor to the equasion and Lewis would probably been ahead before the start/finish line. The stewards can not accuately judge where Lewis would have been. The could only guess, even with previous lap data. The only possible way to get near accurate results would be to reconstruct the events virtually. Even then, it supposition. The law courts of the UK will dismiss suppostion and circumstanial evidence as having no bearing, and ask for it to be struck from the record . The stewards of the FIA do not. They choose to use suppostion for Lewis and circumstanial for Massa in reaching judgements. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic » |





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






12:46 AM Jul 11