Hamilton's Spa penalty - fair?/ Massa Handed Win..Merged

[markpde]

Originally Posted by Racer 35

I think a lot were listening, and understand that you give the position back.

But just how do you define "any other eventual advantage gained" ?? That's just about as open a statement as can be imagined, and impossible to police.

Fair enough - that's what needs clarification. I'd love to hear your old pal Frank Gardner's verdict on this business!

But here's Mark Webber's:

"I think it is quite straightforward. All you have to do is make sure it goes back to position at the next corner.
"It is like here at Monza. If I miss the first chicane and let the guy back through, jump back on his tail and do him at the second chicane, then I would never have done that if I hadn't jumped the first chicane.
"That is something I should be penalised for - and it is exactly what Lewis did."

"All you have to do is make sure it goes back to position at the next corner."

Maybe that's as clear as it's ever going to get.

[strider]

Originally Posted by Joe Taylor

What is included as a corner though? If someone cuts the Rettifilo, can they overtake at the Roggia having gone round Curva Grande?

That specific situation is covered by Mark Webber here. Unless it's wet, they will be flat through the Curva Grande so that would all be part of the build up of speed approaching the Variante Roggia.

[markpde]

Max Mosely: ""My immediate reaction was this is going to waste a great deal of everybody's time. Which is true, it's what always happens. A tiny incident and it takes up hours of your time."

Time better spent doing what, Max?

If his time is too precious to help resolve such issues, he shouldn't be in the job.

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Strangely Massa was the only driver to have heard that, none of the others have mentioned it.

You aren't implying it may, quite coincidentally no doubt, have been a Ferrari PR-person that happened to remind Massa of this, are you?

[mac]

It seems like pretty much all of the drivers have quite a clear understanding on the circumstances and the penalty - and the vast majority seem to agree with it.

The only drivers that I have heard say otherwise are Lewis and Coulthard, who hasn't either agreed or disagreed, but has stated that he understands the rationale behind the penalty.

So if all the other drivers are in agreement, understand the penalty and understand the concept of gaining an advantage by cutting a corner, I really don't understand the contretempt about the situation, and the lack of similar understanding in here - apart from the fact it was "the golden boy" racing a car from "the evil empire".

[Alwaysfirst]

A lot of the drivers have been talking about slipstreaming & such like...I'm with Niki Lauda on this one. There wasn't enough slipstreaming happening to have gained an advantage as Lewis tried to pass on the right first & then went straight over to the left where Kimi was simply outbraked. I'd rather believe the words of a 3 times world champion than Jarno Trulli.

I will also be further disgusted by this decision if the McLaren appeal is either judged to be inadmissable or is judged on the basis of yesterdays FIA rule clarification. There hadn't been that clarification at Spa & therefore it shouldn't affect any decision made...not to mention that a lot of the things that people have commented that Lewis did wrong don't seem to be in the rules anyway.

[mac]

Originally Posted by Alwaysfirst

A lot of the drivers have been talking about slipstreaming & such like...I'm with Niki Lauda on this one. There wasn't enough slipstreaming happening to have gained an advantage as Lewis tried to pass on the right first & then went straight over to the left where Kimi was simply outbraked. I'd rather believe the words of a 3 times world champion than Jarno Trulli.

Of course you would.

When was the last time Niki Lauda drove a current Formula One car in race conditions?

When was the last time he experienced the effects of slipstreaming in a modern day F1 car?

What about the same questions for Jarno Trulli? Oh, that's right - last weekend! And every second weekend for the last decade or so.

Why would you pay any attention to the people that sit in these cars every weekend, sit through every driver's briefing of the season, and presumably, as it affects them, have a quite thorough understanding of today's rules?

Why would you pay any attention to them, especially when their opinion doesn't concur with yours.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by mac

Of course you would.

When was the last time Niki Lauda drove a current Formula One car in race conditions?

When was the last time he experienced the effects of slipstreaming in a modern day F1 car?

Good point but when was the last time any of us did?

Originally Posted by mac

What about the same questions for Jarno Trulli? Oh, that's right - last weekend! And every second weekend for the last decade or so.

Why would you pay any attention to the people that sit in these cars every weekend, sit through every driver's briefing of the season, and presumably, as it affects them, have a quite thorough understanding of today's rules?

Why would you pay any attention to them, especially when their opinion doesn't concur with yours.

Well that's that then!

Along with many there is still the subjectiveness associated with "restoring the position" etc. Where would you draw the line? It is an absurdity of massive proportions simply because it depends upon perceptions. It may be that Lewis only had to move back to halfway along the Ferrari because that's where he was when the incident occurred. Or you might want to take it back to half way around the lap when they were farther apart. Where is that line drawn?

Then I suspect some people have ignored the input from race control which allegedly advised McLaren that all was well. Did that happen before or after the next corner?

Having said that and although it has no direct bearing upon the issue to hand, one questions why the FIA has now issued a clarification of the rule. clearly there was no definitive interpretation.

For my part and on a purely sporting basis I can't see what Hamilton did that was wrong after restoring the positions. This just serves to show that you can regulate the sport out of existence.

[mac]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Good point but when was the last time any of us did?

That's got nothing to do with it. I was referring to Alwaysfirst's comment that he would rather listen to a 3x WDC than Jarno Trulli - despite the fact that Jarno drives these cars, feels the effects of their slipstreaming, sits through drivers' briefings and presumably understands the rules he races under, and Niki hasn't driven a Formula One car competitively for three decades.

Seems foolish to completely disregard the massive majority of opinion of the current crop of drivers.

[Inigo Montoya]

If you look at my avatar, you'll see what colour of car I support. And maybe I don't have a clue, since there are so many drivers out there now saying it was wrong of Hamilton to pass him right on the next corner. But I can't help thinking that these kinds of rulings will make drivers think twice before going wheel to wheel with someone. If things continue to be so, as Peter puts it, overregulated, then we risk never seeing Dijon 79 again. How many sanctions do you think the FIA would come up if that happened in this day and age?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by mac

Seems foolish to completely disregard the massive majority of opinion of the current crop of drivers.

Mac that seems to be your assumption, yet you don't appear to consider the question of what would be the point where you achieve the necessary restoration of the positions, which is also what the drivers are suggesting. Do you acknowledge that it is at the very least difficult to do what they say?

Inigo. That is the very real danger of this. If you do fall foul of it you will be penalized so either don't try or if you do then get the foot planted so the penalty has a minimal effect on the result.

[Alwaysfirst]

Yes. Why would I listen to a driver who has as many WDCs as the ENTIRE current field combined...who has driven for both of the teams involved...who ISN'T British-so that excuse can't be used...who has managed a F1 team & so knows the insides & the outs of the rules & politics of the sport better than almost any of us can wish to...who has taken on the role of an informed spectator & so sees what the fans see, rather than what most of the current crop of drivers are commenting on having seen only once or twice, many of them by their own admission...who seems to have noticed rather more than the rest of the little world called F1 that the vast majority of people are rather more than disgusted by the events of last weekend, if not the crime then certainly the punishment...who has as much experience of slipstreaming as anybody out there...who, just as I & many others did, happened to notice that Hamilton spent less than a tenth of a second in Raikkonen's slipstream, even if he was gaining a benefit from it (watch the clip again yourself if you've managed to forget this so quickly)...who noticed as I & many others did that Raikkonen went uninvestigated for driving into the back of Hamilton's car, which could have caused a puncture or a high-speed blow-out which happen to be rather dangerous...who has raced at Spa...who has competed in 171 grand prix, winning 25 of them over a driver who has won once....

Hmmmm....why would I consider his opinion to be a good & relavent one. I have a sneaky feeling that it maybe that I'm agreeing with him for a few more reasons than the fact that he simply happens to agree with me...& the 60000 other fans that have signed that petition & the millions more, yes, even some of them who support Ferrari & Raikkonen in Finland & Italy who think that the stewards who have absolutly no racing experience made completly the wrong decision...even after McLaren had checked TWICE with the FIA at the track that Hamilton's move was fine & had been told that it was. Maybe I've chosen to agree with Lauda for more reasons than mere tittle-tattle & nasty feelings towards Ferrari, who I might add I would have been very happy to see win IF it had been Raikkonen winning rather than Massa, who had been much slower all weekend. Maybe I do actually consider what I'm going to write on here, & the reasons I feel that way, before I do so.

[mac]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Do you acknowledge that it is at the very least difficult to do what they say?

Difficult to do what? Restore the position and wait an extra corner before launching a passing attack?

Doesn't seem too difficult to me.

As Webber said, (paraphrasing) you need to at least respect the "advantage" for one corner. It's a bit rich to jump the chicane, get a lot closer (even though he momentarily gave the position back), then throw one up the inside on the very next corner.

That seems to be the opinion of the majority of the drivers. And they all don't seem to think it would be too difficult.

[Alwaysfirst]

That's all very well...but that clarification is for this weekend. It hadn't been clarified last weekend & there was nothing in the rulebook about how far you have to drop back or for how long. Fair enough if it happens again this weekend...but we're talking about last weekend.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by mac

Difficult to do what? Restore the position and wait an extra corner before launching a passing attack?

You have as AF says conveniently ignored the position as at last weekend and as stated by the drivers. Have it your own way.

[Racer 35]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

If things continue to be so, as Peter puts it, overregulated, then we risk never seeing Dijon 79 again. How many sanctions do you think the FIA would come up if that happened in this day and age?

Arnoux and Villeneuve would probably have been banned if they tried that stuff today. Ho hum. For thos that would like to see it again, here's a link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kcdiRHSjVo

If you look at the bit from 1:05 onwards you see 2 cars battling.........
one gets all for wheels off the track in avoiding a crash with a Ferrari, which then gets back ahead of the Renault. At the next corner the Renault gets back down the inside of the Ferrari and re-passes.
Souns familiar doesn't it.
One major difference though, is that the stewards let it stand, and we can now remember Dijon '79 for a great driving battle, and not a courtroom drama instigated by muppets dressed as stewards.

[paulzinho]

I think there is a difference between going off track and completely cutting a corner... Put the gravel traps back and I'm pretty sure we'd see more serious efforts at avoiding this corner cutting that seems all too common these days. The drivers have this option all too easily if they make a mistake and they don't seem to suffer the consequences of their mistakes... might make them a bit more conservative on the brakes... which might lengthen braking distances and actually lead to more overtaking.

[Peter Mallett]

Don't forget though, it was for second place.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by mac

It seems like pretty much all of the drivers have quite a clear understanding on the circumstances and the penalty - and the vast majority seem to agree with it.

You must be joking. Not one driver has referred to the fact that Raikkonen went past Hamilton afterwards and Bourdais mixed up his left and right.

[Marbot]

I fail to see how anyone can have an understanding of the situation on Thursday if they only received clarification on Friday.Or have I missed something?

[Alwaysfirst]

Nope....

[Osella]

apologies if this has been covered in pages 52-61 and I missed it; what if the at the next corner, the driver who has been allowed back past is eye-wateringly slow? Either deliberately (gamesmanship) or because it's the best they can do under the circumstances? Or, they're being comprehensively outdriven and it's getting to them?

[JamesH]

And what would have happened if there had been a third car which didn't cut the chicane and caught both front cars? LH would have to slow right down because not allowed to overtake, and the third car could then overtake both cars.....LH effectively not able to run at race pace because he is preventing from overtaking the car in front. I know it didn't happen that way, but it could in the future.

[jonboy1066]

Originally Posted by Osella

apologies if this has been covered in pages 52-61 and I missed it; what if the at the next corner, the driver who has been allowed back past is eye-wateringly slow? Either deliberately (gamesmanship) or because it's the best they can do under the circumstances? Or, they're being comprehensively outdriven and it's getting to them?

Then we have the proof that the FIA have (Once again) made a knee jerk reaction, generalising on an ambiguous rule which covers circumstances for one part of one track during one set of circumstances that may never happen again anyway and made (once again) a mockery of themselves

[Peter Mallett]

With respect to our posters and indeed the FIA, I really suspect this is not the product of a knee jerk reaction, just a literal interpretation of the rule. For me there is a disconnect between reality and what actually happened.

Whatever, they have opened an enormous can of worms and as long as the next transgressor is is not driving an Italian red car they may get away with it.

I stress again that I agree Lewis transgressed. But if he did what he was supposed to do to restore the wrong, then I really am still struggling with the decision. And apparently so are many others.