So say other drivers...... From Planet F1 Although Lewis Hamilton's rivals reckon the McLaren driver's Belgian GP was harsh, some still feel the rules are the rules. Hamilton was stripped of his victory in last Sunday's Belgian GP after he was deemed to have gained an advantage by cutting a chicane. In his battle with Kimi Raikkonen for the lead, Hamilton cut a chicane putting him in front of Raikkonen on the track. However, the McLaren driver yielded the position only to pass Raikkonen at the very next corner. As a result the race stewards ruled that he had gained a speed advantage by cutting the chicane and subsequently slapped him with a 25-second retrospective drive-through penalty. The stewards' ruling has caused a great deal of uproar with McLaren lodging an appeal with the FIA. And even Hamilton's reckon it was harsh call, although they do believe the rules are the rules. "I think it is very clear, the rules are clear," said Toro Rosso's Sebastien Bourdais. "Maybe the penalty is very hard but he has made the same mistake twice, he did in Magny-Cours and he did it in Spa. "I don't really understand why there is such a mess around it, there is a rule book and everyone has to obey the same thing. The penalty is rough but it is up to you to give the position back." This is a sentiment echoed by Toyota's Jarno Trulli. "I agree the penalty was quite big but I am not a steward. But it is also clear he got an advantage," he said. "The rules are very clear, if you cut the chicane you get the advantage you have to drop it and lose advantage, in Lewis' case he should not attack in the first corner that is it. "This last chicane, they have a lot of run off area they give you more chance to attack because in case of mistake you won't end up in wall or gravel. We have more chance to overtake." Williams driver Nico Rosberg added: "He did have an advantage because he would not so close if he had not cut the chicane but the penalty was a bit harsh as it did not have a big result in the end result. But it won't stop us from trying to attack definitely."
The rules are a joke, and made up as they go along and applied when Max/Bernie deem fit. Max tell us why you were talking German, whilst getting whipped, is it in the rules are rules bollox.
You keep acting this way Steve I won't give you a bottle opener with that case of Bitberger Bier! Then you'll be sorry!
It's interesting that every current F1 driver who talks about the matter agrees with the penalty, whereas those mainly steering their armchairs nowadays do their very best to appear in the headlines with condemning it - maybe that's their primary intention, appearing in the headlines... and EVERY video or article claiming to announce the one and only true analysis persistently ignores the singlemost important thing, the fact that no move of Hamilton had been possible if the off-limits area in the chicane had been a solid wall. I can't wait for Monza, the whole talk and whining is getting annoying.
Oh ok, I'm absolutely top-hole, Jim, yippiedeedoo. I'll just have to sit this one out on the touchline with the half-time oranges and the fat wheezy boys with a note from matron.
Steve, did Lewis gain an advantage from cutting the chicane? Yes or No ? Whats the penalty for cutting a chicane and gaining an advantage? Lewis knows, he was given one at Magny-Cours this year ! So the are stewards being consistent, not making the rules up as "they go along".
The stewards said they had the choice of imposing a time penalty at Spa or a 10 grid spot penalty at Monza. IMO they should have chosen the latter. It was bad enough they changed the result after the fact when they didn't need to, but they also gave 1st place to a driver who was never in a position to win. If Kimi was still running in 2nd at the end of the race it would have been fine with me to give him the win but that wasn't the case. Nothing against Massa, it just isn't an appropriate penalty.
Regards Lewis cutting the chicane: Answer: yes Question: Did he give the place back, YES!!, he weaved behind Kimi struggling for grip his car was better in the wet and IMO he is a better driver in the wet, it was a foregone conclusion he would pass him, unlike MS did with Pedro. Are the stewards being consistant , A BIG FAT NO! NO ONE! will convince me or put together a reasonable argument, why this judment was made, no one. Question: Why did Bruno Senna get a penalty for exactly the same offence Massa made that cost him the race, Massa got a slap on wrist fine. ....you get the picture.. The rule book is a joke.
My Question was not, "did lewis cut the chicane", it was, "did lewis gain an advantage from cutting the chicane". The fact is, if lewis had not cut the chicane, he would not have been right up on Kimi's gear box for the hairpin to have a go at him ! He gained an advantage, its clear in the rules that its not allowed, the pen might be harsh, but its consistent with whats been happing this season regarding advantages due to chicane cutting! Regarding Bruno Senna - He races in GP2 not F1, go read the rule books, there different, and penalty's given are different too!
His car didn't have better grip, he had more grip because he was on the inside. In the rain you never drive on the racing line because it becomes to slick. So you need to look for grip which means you are off the racing line. Kimi came off the corner on the racing line and thats why you see his car wobble once he puts the power down. Whereas Hamilton had the advantage because he was on the inside and had better grip. Another thing to consider of Hamilton gaining an advantage when he cut the chicane.
I'll say it again, The penalty given to Hami was excessive and in the end, Hami would have won the race anyway. And I am not a Hami fan. It's not surprising that the current F1 drivers have expressed agreement with the rules. Afterall, who want s the wrath of the FIA stewards on them at a later date. Although, some stated that the penalty was too harsh. Do you guys really think that McLaren and Ferrari are treated equally by the FIA?
Kimi was penalized on the grid for his tires not being on within some small # of minutes prior to the start at a race this year. Nit picky id say. Where is the bias? Against Glock at SPA or Heikki they also got penalties. Seems if you break the rules and they catch you you get a penalty. Seems the actual drivers understand this. Not much else to say as the actual PLAYERS get it.
+1 Well said sir, and I verify that you don't like Hamilton, so it is really nice to read a sensible unbiased view.
Next the stewarts will have access to this: http://www.airiq.com/airiqnewweb2/portal.cfm?chapterID=11 Then when there is an infraction they can disable the car by remote control. That would be the ultimate kick in the face for F1.
At present the Mclaren car has better Grip in the wet, it's a well known fact!!. And don't even question Lewis's skill in the wet. He switched left to right behind Kimi's car, before overtaking, he had more grip
While watching the race I did not see anything wrong as it was just racing but after hearing other's view's which led me to 'open the great chasm' that is my mind, I can see where there could have been or was an advantage for Lewis. Really it come's down to the FIA having too many 'grey area's' within the rule's which lead's to too many interpretation's. Does that make any sense??
Yes, that does make sense and I agree that they should clean up the rules and possibly monitor enfocement closely. Lots of postings here about incidents that were NOT penalized. No system is perfect and there is always room for improvement. That would help F1 along with just a bit more passing
Yes it does. I suspect the majority of posters believed that the rules required the position to be given back and that would be the end of the story. Only later did it emerge that there might be some other 'advantage' gained that has to be taken into consideration. I hope we get a full explanation from the stewards so we are fully aware of the reason for their decision (which is one reason an appeal might be helpful) and, like you, I think there is too much uncertainty and a lack of consistency.
So it is your position that McLaren and Ferrari are treated equally by the FIA? Do we need to count the number of ticky-tack penalties that each team has incurred this season for you to realize that there is a serious bias going on with the FIA? Tell me that you are not that naive... I am a diehard F-Car fan and even I can recognize this bias.
Ask Trulli, Bourdaise, Rosberg etc. They seem to understand the simple concept outlined by me. Kimi was hit with a penalty on something as obscure as timing of tires on the car, on the grid. Seems the rules are being applied. Nit picky but in the rules. The stewards initiated the last action against LH without protest by anyone, and thats bias? RD put himself on report with Charlie Whiting id say and I posted that article elsewhere. Whiting's role in Hamilton investigation thrust into the spotlight Thursday 11th September 2008 Charlie Whiting's role in the stewards' investigation of Lewis Hamilton's move past Kimi Raikkonen during the Belgian GP has been thrust back into the spotlight amid reports that the Race Director advised the stewards to study Hamilton's driving despite previously advising McLaren he had driven within the rules. In their press release that announced their intention to appeal Hamilton's demotion from first to third, McLaren stressed that they had twice received assurances from race control that Hamilton's manoeuvre was 'okay'. Speaking immediately after the race, team boss Ron Dennis specifically named Whiting as providing those assurances. Yet while Whiting's approval of Hamilton's move may prove integral to McLaren's defence if their appeal is heard, fresh reports claim that Whiting was also pivotal in the stewards deciding to launch their investigation. In his blog, The Times F1 correspondent Ed Gorman claims that I have established that, despite having appeared to convey to McLaren that Lewis had done nothing wrong, Whiting himself then played a key role in instigating the formal investigation of the incident by the stewards. 'After every race it is normal procedure, apparently, for the stewards to enquire of the race director if there is anything that should be looked at. Whiting is thought to have said to them that, although he had been in touch with McLaren about the exchange between Lewis and Kimi on lap 42, the stewards may still want to have a look at it themselves.' It remains unclear - and apparently unknown - whether Whiting specifically advised the three stewards that he had assured the McLaren pitwall that he felt Hamilton's move was legitimate. At the very least, the confusion over Whiting's role in the process adds to the sense of unease that the stewards' decision was essentially subjective and Hamilton was punished on account of their own opinion in the absence of any hard evidence. McLaren's press release stressed that Hamilton had slowed by 6kph along the straight to allow Raikkonen to re-pass - a fact that they seemingly believe was ignored or not taken into account by the stewards. The apparent ambiguity of Whiting's position - and his subsequent failure to provide any clarity as to how and why the stewards launched their investigation - has also had the unfortunate, but inevitable, side-affect of allowing conspiracy theories to flourish. In his own blog on the investigation, ITV reporter Ted Kravitz has questioned whether there may have been a sinister influence that caused the three stewards to probe Hamilton's actions. 'But if Charlie thought what Lewis did was okay at the time, why was the incident put under investigation at all?' he asks pointedly. 'Did Whiting change his mind? Did the stewards instigate the investigation? (They are allowed to do this, by the way.) Or did someone else in the FIA advise Whiting to have another look at the incident in detail?' So many loaded questions and, as yet, so few answers.
I aswell have been witness to what I would deem as bias but honestly how can ANY of us make such a conclusion when even the FIA/race steward's cannot make one? The only thing the FIA has accomplished successfully is to turn the sport into a farce and the true fan's against themselve's and their other mate's.
You need to ask the drivers if they are that naive as well. Clearly they are not. They understand, cut chicane get penalty. Clear enough? They seem to see the penalty as harsh and CLEARLY understand why it was levied, but what do they know!
