>>Cheddar - Here it is>>
Thanks jbif though I belive that they would have been required to file a more comprehensive explanation.
I the absence of which I stand by my previous assertion, that if Hamilton had followed Raik through the chicane - as opposed to making an unsuccessful pass that meant he had to cut the chicane - he would have been much further behind and would probably not have been close enough to pass before the next corner.
I am not saying that the penalty was not harsh though it may be just if this is the reason for it.
|
I the absence of which I stand by my previous assertion that if Hamilton had followed Raik through the chicane - as opposed to making an unsuccessful pass that meant he had to cut the chicane - he would have been much further behind and would probably not have been close enough to pass before the next corner.
I disagree vehemently with your assertion
|
If Hamilton had followed the Ferrari through the chicane, there is no reason to suppose he wouldn't have been close enough to pass. But he tried before the chicane, had to go off the circuit, gained an advantage thereby, rather reluctantly gave it back, then overtook into the hairpin at the end of the straight. All done in a continuous, very rapid flow, but looked quite pukka to me.
The circuit was already wet enough there to be giving Raikkonen real trouble. Not long after that Hamilton too began to have difficulty keeping the car on the circuit. You could see his pit all praying. Meanwhile the wet-tyre gamblers were storming up, just too late from their point of view. If the rain had come down a lap or two earlier there just might have been some real surprises.
Edited by Lud on 08/09/2008 at 18:27
|
|
|
>> would probably not have been close enough to pass before the next corner. I disagree vehemently with your assertion
Agreed AE, it was clear from the final two laps that LH was leap years ahead in car control than KR - and another thing, have any of you who are criticising LH's actions actually ever raced a car? I'd sugest that with two laps to go and the scent of victory you'd be hard pushed to react any differently in his position!
|
|
|
|
|
"I meant that if Hamilton had followed Raik through the chicane - as opposed to making an unsuccessful pass ..."
But he tried to pass and was alongside and then pushed off the track and had to use the run off. Only able to follow through if he had not tried to overtakein the first place - surely. So we're saying he should not have tried overtaking now?
Edited by rtj70 on 08/09/2008 at 18:56
|
>>What? 20 cars? Might as well be twenty banana`s on a tray really. <<
That's brilliant oilrag - although I do look at it a little differently to you - I still enjoy your humour. I think all the cars are very different but what does spoil the racing element is the restrictions they place such as the rev limiter to 19,000.
Anyway - does anyone know what odds the bookies are giving for Massa to win the title this year because the stewards are determined to make it happen.
My Monza prediction is:- Hamilton will win with Massa 30 seconds behind and Kimi 3 seconds behind Massa.
Hamilton will then be handed a 35 second penalty for not having enough red on his car.
My point being that F1 is becoming a complete waste of a Sunday afternoon because very little gets decided on the track.
The exciting bit that should be on prime time TV is the appeals and court battles where it is all really decided.
Personally I've had enough of it now - although I'm still annoyed enough to keep posting about it here - I certainly won't be watching it any more - just reading about the appeals process afterwards.
|
|
|
rtj, his overtaking mover was optimistic to say the least hence he missed the chicane, all Raik did was stick to his line.
Massa's take on it from Autosport, bear in mind that Massa and Hamilton are mates.
"Incidents like this have often been discussed in the official driver briefings when it has been made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained.
"If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it. That was my immediate opinion after seeing the replay. Maybe if Lewis had waited and tried to pass on the next straight, that would have been a different matter."
Reckon "and also any other eventual advantage gained" is perhaps the key point.
Edited by cheddar on 08/09/2008 at 19:43
|
Disagree cheddar. Kimi came across to push him off. He could not continue on his line or they would have collided. Breaking would not have helped.
But with 3 laps to go Hamilton was 2 seconds behind. Rain starts and is soon right behind. He was faster and when it got really wet it all became a little silly and perhaps wets were needed.
The fact is that on a fast track in the dry the Ferrari's are better. In the wet/cold on the harder tyre the Mclaren is better (probably the same underlying reason - they keep more heat in the tyre but wear them out quicker).
Edited by rtj70 on 08/09/2008 at 20:00
|
FIA = Ferrari In Authority
|
The petition to the FIA www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?belgp08
"Belgium Grand Prix - Lewis Hamilton was unfairly stripped of his win "
is gaining signatures at the rate of
1 every 5 seconds = 12 a minute = 720 every hour
|
Worth watching this frame-by-frame analysis of the Hamilton/Raikonnen overtake - Spa 08
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzKMyFCaZy0
|
Got a Ferrari?
Not quite good enough at driving?
Are the other boys faster than you in the wet?
Then you need:
Ferrari International Assistance (FIA)
This exclusive Ferrari only membership club has many benefits. Including:
- Anti overtaking assurance
Been overtaken? Feel a bit silly? Don?t worry, we?ll rule out the other party, even if it?s embarrassingly obvious that they?re faster than you
- Exclusive access to a secret ?second lane? in the pits
Just to make things a little bit easier we?ve arranged a private second lane , just for you
- Guaranteed world championship?
Had a crash? Need to win the world championship? Don?t worry just limp across the track and take off your nearest championship title contender ? we?ll do the rest
-A bit strapped? Need extra cash?
Simply get one of your team to tell someone else how you make your cars.
- Bits falling off your car? Looking a bit dangerous?
At Ferrari International Assistance we operate a ?blind eye? policy just for Ferrari drivers
- Been a bit silly? Taken off another driver whilst following the safety car?
It?s ok, as long as you didn?t hurt yourself. I mean, who are Force India anyway? And how dare they be in front of you
-A bit bored? Want some extra action?
With FIA plus you can take part in a number of additional membership activities
- Not sure when you might need us next?
Relax. Check out our track record. We?re confident that we?ll be able to make something up on the spot that will get you out of any pickle that you might find yourself in
Ferrari International Assistance
Making it up as we go along for over 100 years
|
Brilliant henry, just brilliant!
|
Brilliant henry just brilliant!
I am not the author. I "borrowed" it from another forum.
I had my keyboard lock out and had to reboot my PC so I missed the window to edit in my disclaimer.
I too thought it was brilliant.
|
Worth watching this frame-by-frame analysis of the Hamilton/Raikonnen overtake - Spa 08 www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzKMyFCaZy0
Very well done that and the conclusion is fair though it does not address the reason why the stewards penalised Hamilton.
I suspect it was because although he dropped behind Raik (just - at exactly 1'00" in the vid) he was closer that he would have been had he followed Raik through the chicane (concertina effect, leading car being able to put the power down first etc) hence was in a position to pass at the next corner, had he left his pass until after the next corner then all would have been well.
|
THere is a precendence for this incidence in Suzuka 2005.....
Let's look at the Alonso-Klein incident at Suzuka 2005. In that race Alonso cut a chicane while trying to pass Klein. As Hamilton did with Raikkonen, Alonso let Klein get back in front, only to overtake him again right away. However, a few laps later, Alonso was told by his crew that to avoid a penalty he had to let Klein pass him again, as Alonso had not fully given back the advantage gained by cutting the chicane.
|
>he was closer that he would have been had he followed Raik through the chicane (concertina effect, leading car being able to put the power down first etc) hence was in a position to pass at the next corner,
You keep saying that cheddar but it doesent make it any more right. Its still wrong.
At those speeds, in the wet the concertina effect - it simply does not apply. I think I'll take Nikkis Laudas verdict over yours if that ok. I prefer his CV.
|
At those speeds in the wet the concertina effect - it simply does not apply.
>>
No RF, it applies more in the wet RF in that even less power can be applied until the car is straight (and more this season with no TC) and a slow chicane is where that issue is most pronounced, a slow, sharp corner taking longer to straighten and low speed so grip not augmented by aero down force.
I am not saying that the penalty was not harsh, rather trying to establish the reason for it which IMO I think we have done.
|
NO its not its all about where the grip is in the wet. not normal racing lines most of the time.
youR IMO is stil in its red box with a prancing horse on it.
|
NO its not its all about where the grip is in the wet. not normal racing lines most of the time.
youR IMO is stil in its red box with a prancing horse on it.
you are forgetting that it was a very slow corner, they were both side by side at that time, both had slowed nearly to a crawl - all items conveniently forgotten by the stewards. what they have done is Kill overtaking or F1 as an exciting spectacle
Stil that would suit you wouldnt as long as Ferrari win every time. Ever thought about a job with the FIA? they would welcome you with open arms.
|
RF your vitriol is uncalled for.
I agree that the penalty was harsh, all I am doing is trying to understand the reason for it!!!
I am not forgetting it was a very slow corner, I mentioned that point, however you are forgetting/ignoring (delete as applicable) is that they would not have been side by side had Ham followed Raik through the chicane hence Raik would have been able to get the power down much sooner because Ham's car would have taken a lot longer to straighten out of this slow, sharp corner and at such low speeds grip is not augmented by aero.
Now *maybe* the Macca would have put the power down so much better in those conditions so Ham could have still out braked Raik into the next corner (Lauda's point) though that is purely speculation. Maybe if Ham taken the chicane correctly he would have spun it under power, maybe Raik would have wondered where Ham was and lost it while looking in the mirrors and taken them both out - the stewards would not be able to account for speculation.
|
and therefore with so many variables they did not have the information to make a judgement.
thank you for confirming that
|
|
Hamilton tried an overtake which, at that time, under those conditions, was never going to work. Raikkonen had track position and stuck to his guns. Hamilton had to either to hit Raikkonen or go off track. With the lack of grip at the time, it ?should? have been obvious to Hamilton that Raikkonen was going to use all of the track that he could.(I remember Montoya taking Coultard out a few years ago when Coultard tried to go round him on the outside when it was common knowledge at the time that the tyres Montoya was using went ?off? for a few laps and the Maclarens used to run wide.) Hamilton decided to go off track. His choice. He put himself in that position. If he had not tried the overtake he would have been further back, and would have had to follow Raikkonen through. It was obvious that he was going to pass Raikkonen sooner rather than later. His ?body? language should have been to let Raikkonen get far enough past him again to make it obvious that he had gained no advantage from going off track. He didn?t.
|
mjm, your comments sound like "fact" but they are just hypothetical - to put another view on it - Hamilton had been 2 seconds behind Kimi a lap ago and had closed that gap in the preceding half lap (watch the video), at that rate of closing it would be reasonable of Hamilton to think that he could outbrake Kimi on that corner... Kimi kept off the brakes until the last second (legally) bocking Hamilton... all fair and above board...
Now assume that Hamilton had instead followed Kimi through the bend with a view to passing him on the next bend - it was clear that he had the edge on traction and cornering from the previous half lap therefore it would also be reasonable to assume that he would have been right up the rear end of Kimis car exiting the corner... so the overtake on the next bend would have been a perfectly reasonable outcome if he had followed him rather than tried to overtake....
My interpretation of the evidence, of course, but just as valid as yours... though it seems that many ex F1 drivers feel the same way as me...
Edited by b308 on 09/09/2008 at 11:20
|
>>and therefore with so many variables they did not have the information to make a judgement.>>
RF perhaps you need to seperate what "actually happened", "should have happened" and the infinite number of what "may have happened".
On another point - if Button, Coulthard or perhaps Kova in the other Macca had been in 2nd and had inherited the win would there be the same clamour and vitriol, no, your judgement is being clouded by a *red* mist ;-)
|
nope
Button coulthard or kova didnt win. Hamilton did.
The whole point ched is that this - clearly flawed - result destroys the credibility of F1 as a competative sport.
(anyway Jenson has horrid face fuz, Coulthard is useless with a neck thats too big for him, and Kova is as reliable as a volkswagen (you think it should be perfect but it never quite is))
|
RF perhaps you need to seperate what "actually happened", "should have happened" and the infinite number of what "may have happened". (sic)
But what actually happened was that LH abided by the rule to the letter - he gave up his place. The 'rules' don't give any indication about how long the place has to be conceded, just that any advantage is given back. For the decision by the stewards to be speculative on how much further back LH might have been had he not cut the chicance is just that - speculation. There is every indication that KR could have been overtaken on the corner immediately after the contended corner & been in front - equally valid specualtion.
As it happened, KR re-took LH after the latter narrowly avoided the tail-ender at the next corner anyway - so no advantage to LH overall. It was only an issue it seems, because KR had his final spin while in the lead & so lost the race entirely independently of LH. At the point immediately before that it was status quo - RH in P1 & LH in P2.
Do anyone think this would have been investigated if KR hadn't spun-out & come out eventual winner instead?
|
|
Just out of interest, has it been established if Charlie Whiting did indeed tell Ron that they had given back the advantage? If he did, Whiting should be fined for bringing the sport into disrepute and the result looked at again.
|
The 'rules' don't give any indication about how long the place has to be conceded just that any advantage is given back. >>
As Massa has said, not exactly independent I know though a mate of Hamilton's, the drivers are told that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position AND also any other eventual advantage gained.
Hamilton reliquished though had he followed Raik through the chicane Raik would have been able to get the power down much sooner etc etc so Ham would not have been as close as he was just after relinqushing the lead.
I should like to reiterate that I find the punsihment harsh though I think it is important to understand *why* Hamilton was penalised, in that regard the FIA could do themselves a favour by publishing an explanation.
|
As Massa has said, not exactly independent I know though a mate of Hamilton's, the drivers are told that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position AND also any other eventual advantage gained.
What other "eventual advantage" was that then? Surely not KR - he crashed out all on his own. Massa? - he was over 30secs. behind at that point, so not him. 3rd place man? No this is becoming ridiculous.
Pro Ferrari/FIA-istas are backing themselves into a corner of Parc ferme on this.
|
Latest news is that McLaren may not bother to appeal to avoid getting distracted from what they feel may be a futile exercise.
In reply to PR:THere is a precendence for this incidence in Suzuka 2005.....However, a few laps later, Alonso was told by his crew that to avoid a penalty he had to let Klein pass him again, as Alonso had not fully given back the advantage gained by cutting the chicane.
I do not have all the facts to hand, but according to this thread, there is more to that story than first meets the eye:
forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?postid=3292954...4
" When they[the Stewartds] finally saw that he had given it back previously, just immediately attacked and overtaken again, they admitted their mistake and said that he did not need to give the place back - what he had done was fine. Unfortunately, by that point it was too late as Alonso had already let Klien re-pass.
So in that incident, the stewards ruled that once you have given the place back it is full on racing again. Just as Hamilton did here. "
I found the racing thrilling, but if McLaren and Lewis had stuck by their claim to play the percentage game, Lewis would have been told NOT to attempt to overtake Raikonnen because it was in Lewis's interest that Raikonnen won thereby prolonging the Ferrari internal battle for the championship. I made that comment to my friends as we were watching and said I was surprised Lewis was taking the risks in trying for 2 extra points over Raikonnen when he should have only been thinking about keeping Massa in 3rd place.
Very bad strategy on McLaren's part as usual.
p.s. I.M.O. Going by past posts, I think it is futile to try and change Cheddar's views on any matter on this forum. I cannot think of any instance where he has changed his mind to agree with any other point of view that was different to his original view. not being personal, just expressing my opinion.
Edited by jbif on 09/09/2008 at 13:31
|
Championships have been won or lost by 2 points.
The ideal scenario -if you were really playing poker -
Ham first
Raik Second
Massa third
Still keeps raik and massa battling, (raik wont go team driver after winning a gp )distracting the team and diverting resources, and your man Ham gets more points over massa.
|
Championships have been won or lost by 2 points.
Yes, I know. In 2007 Raikonnen won with 107 points to Hamilton's 106!
[Hamilton proved then that he was a racer rather than a percentage man when he went for maximum points in China and Brazil rather than aim for just the 2 or 3 points he needed to wrap up the championship].
2008 World Championship Points table after Belgium:
1st column if finish order = R H M [Rai,Ham,Mas]
2nd column if finish order was as race actually finished = H M Heid [Ham,Mas,Heid]
3rd column finish order after penalty applied = M Heid H [Mas, Heid, Ham]
Hamil 78 80 76
Massa 70 72 74
Raiko 68 58 58
p.s. re my comment Cheddar's views - he asked for information to help him decide, information has been provided which is same as has been seen by former champions Hill, Moss, Lauda, and other drivers [Ralf Schumacher too] who are convinced that the penalty was unfair and wrong.
|
Yes, I know. In 2007 Raikonnen won with 107 points to Hamilton's 106!
oops, I was wrong. It should be 110 points to 109 !
|
>>p.s. re my comment Cheddar's views - .......... HillMoss Lauda and other drivers [Ralf Schumacher too] who are convinced that the penalty was unfair and wrong.
Jarno Trulli, current driver and well respected says Hamilton gained an advantage.
www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70435
|
|
Sure he gained an advantage - by not being behind Kimi he rduced his chances of being taken out when he crashed into the wall. Obvious.
|
Hamilton reliquished though had he followed Raik through the chicane Raik would have been able to get the power down much sooner etc etc so Ham would not have been as close as he was just after relinqushing the lead.
Chedder, did you look at the previous half dozen corners? Hamilton's MM was by far the quicker and more controlable car in those conditions, in fact it is probable that Hamilton would have out dragged Raik down the straight - which he actually did do, so your arguement is very flawed!
|
b308,
It may have been reasonable to think that he could outbrake Kimi, but in the event he couldn't. The transgression(cutting the chicane) was therefore of his own making. As I said, Hamilton was "always" going to get past Raikkonen, the only question was where. My point was that Hamilton should have made it obvious that he knew that he had transgressed, and even more obviously repented for it by dropping back off Raikkonen's tail by a "sorry, Guv" margin. He would have overtaken him within a short space of time anyway.
|
>>What other "eventual advantage" was that then?>>
Woodbines, my next sentance answered that.
>>p.s. I.M.O. Going by past posts, I think it is futile to try and change Cheddar's views on any matter on this forum. >>
Unnecessary comment IMO jbif, come on now am I really supposed to agree with you just because you have a different view, am I? Tell you what how about you agree with me, eh? Oh not being personal.
And maybe you do .... because you are missing the fact that I have said that it was a harsh decision, I am just exploring why the stewards ruled as they did, I am not saying that they were totally right.
RF, 2 points? It was 6 point swing.
Edited by cheddar on 09/09/2008 at 13:53
|
|
I haven't seen anyone else change their opinions either!
|
I can't think of a more authoritative opinion than Niki Lauda, as he's won championships with both teams. [JYS has also had his say now - but with his and Max's history...]
Lauda's view of the matter is worth reading in full; he doesn't mince his words:-
www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43875
|
so, from the You Tube clip (which i think was excellent) and supported by Lauda's comments....no slip stream up the straight, well and truly behind (just) at one point up the preceding straight, out accelerated by the Ferrari off the last (contentious) corner due to being on the wrong line or throttling off enough to ensure the Ferrari pulled in front
how on earth can that be an advantage gained by Hamilton?
he out drove his rival, fairly and squarely in very difficult conditions, then some muppet made the wrong decision on either limited facts or limited knowledge of racing. It remains to be seen whether the FIA close ranks and shrug their shoulders or get off their back sides and put it right.
To me it's the same principle as Maradonna's cheating goal, in that something is very wrong, that needs putting right for the benefit of the sport as a whole.. and if not it will leave the sport unnecessarily tarnished... (not suggesting at all, any fault of Ferrari or Raikkonen).
I'd be saying this if it were a Ferrari driver hard done by. I love seeing a Brit win, but not by falsity or an officials incompetence.
|
from the You Tube clip (which i think was excellent) and supported by Lauda's comments ...
Yes, everyone [except Massa and Trulli * ] in F1 so far who has made their views known think Hamilton was unfairly penalised. Ferrari did not lodge a complaint. Raikonnen did not protest. Dominicali is claimed to have said "It was racing". Charlie Whiting, the race Director is claimed by Ron Dennis to have said there was nothing wrong with Hamilton's move. On blogs around the internet, Ferrari fans are expressing their support for Lewis.
* reminds me of the famous comment by Mandy-Rice-Davis
p.s. the petition has reached nearly 22000 signatures in 36 hours!
|
|
I wonder whether I.T.V will bring back professional wrestling, that wasn't fixed either.
|
I watch pro wrestling ( WWE ) and because you know its arranged, well planned etc, you enjoy it for the theatre rather than the ultimate result.
F1 is supposedly a sport however and as such, it is crucial to its credibility that it is seen as a level playing field. It came across from Ron that he was not at all suprised to have yet another penalty - why wouldnt you be suprised unless you were trying to incur them? Because you know someone is looking to give you one.
|
McLaren: FIA told us we were 'okay'
www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70443
"
"McLaren have revealed that they were told twice by FIA race officials during the Belgian Grand Prix that Lewis Hamilton had given back the race lead to Kimi Raikkonen in an 'okay' manner."
McLaren's F1 CEO Martin Whitmarsh claims that the team enquired twice with Race Control whether or not their driver had acted in a legitimate manner. "
|
McLaren?s Formula One chief executive, Martin Whitmarsh, said: ?From the pit wall, we asked race control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to re-pass. They confirmed twice that they believed the position had been given back in a manner that was 'OK?. If race control had expressed any concern regarding Lewis?s actions, we would have instructed him to allow Kimi to repass again.?
They are appealing in light of this.
|
"nearly 22000 signatures"
40,000 now...
|
Lauda said: "It's unbelievable how the best driver in yesterday's race makes no mistakes and only gets six points."
I agree. As for Max's history, I can't help but wonder (given his parentage and leisure pursuits) if there isn't a whiff of racism here. McLaren have certainly been on the receiving end since they employed Lewis!
Oh, and before the lawyers start sharpening their laptops, this is merely an observation, by a member of the public. :-)
|
. Mypoint was that Hamilton should have made it obvious that he knew that he had transgressed
He did that by backing off and letting Kimi through again - that put him in exactly the position he would have been if he hadn't tried to overtake him... I'm unclear on how much more he needed to do, follow him for the next lap, perhaps...
BTW reading on another news site it seems that the Race Controller told MM twice that what Lewis had done was enough... the plot thickens...
|
>> He did that by backing off and letting Kimi through again - that put him in exactly the position he would have been if he hadn't tried to overtake him...>>
That is the question, did backing off put him in exactly the position he would have been ...
In light of the fact that the drivers are told that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position AND also any other eventual advantage gained it seems that this is where the grey area exists.
It is this point that the FIA needs to clarify for the sake of the sport's credibility.
After all if Hamilton did restore all of Raik's advantage then his win should be upheld though if he did not then the penalty is perhaps fair.
And with regard to the penalty, a 10 grid slot demotion for the next race might seem fairer though it would not have done so if either Hamilton had won by 25 secs (so would have kept the victory despite a 25 sec penalty) or had spun out himself thus making a 25 sec penalty irrelevant).
|
|
|
|
|
