"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
I suppose they still made in error in not telling Lewis to let Kimi past immediately.
Of note, here's the offence:
Here is article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations:Breach of article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L chapter 4 article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.
Here is article 2 (g) of Appendix L chapter 4 of the International Sporting Code:During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the
provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits.
I don't see anything at all mentioned about the corner cutting.The race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the
race.
Here's the links for proof:
2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations
International Sporting Code
Belgium GP Stewards Decision
thats not even true for online racing wreckers
he could have lifted & let the lead car go thru its line without LH wrecking them both
& if he did stay on the track by lifting & slotting in behind the LEAD CAR , then he wouldnt have been in an attack position at the following corner
he backed off just enough to be on kimi's date at the next brake point
a deserved penalty for Lewis Hamilton
So, if 25 seconds is a deserved penalty for missing a section of the track, can someone tell me why Rosberg wasn't penalised? Or was it just because there was no perceived advantaged gained by Rosberg?
And going back to Valencia, why were Ferrari and Massa only fined for an unsafe release into the pit lane? That was clearly a breach of the rules as well. Why no 25 second penalty there?
I still say Lewis' win should have stood. The penalty should have been the same as that faced by Ferrari and Massa for the Valencia incident. A fine and a warning.
UCP's biggest Ford Sierra RS500 and BMW M3 E30 fan. My two favourite cars of all time.
The normal punishment for the "infringement" committed by Hamilton would have been a drive through. According to the rules when such an infringement takes place during the last five laps, a 25 second time penalty will be issued. (Apparently this was introduced when M. Schumacher once finished (and won) a race by doing his drive through during the final lap, taking the flag in the pitlane). So only during the 5 final laps the 25 seconds is the standard penalty. The case of Rosberg seems to be that he did not gain any direct advantage vis-a-vis somebody he was chasing. It was a stand-alone action. You see "missing" the chicane happening many times during races, and only rarely or not all will that be followed by a drive through.
Last edited by henk4; 09-09-2008 at 05:30 AM.
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
I think Massa might have faced a penalty in Valencia, if he hadn't given up on the pit lane. Also I don't think they were even close to crashing, Massa seemed to be well aware of Sutil coming from behind. There's no comparison there.
What the pit lane incident made me think though, is now that Ferrari has the light system operated by the crew member operating the fuel hose (if I remember correct) instead of a lollipop man, is there anyone observing the traffic on the pit lane, who can override the green light if necessary?
I actually think the penalty applied to Massa and Ferrari at Valencia was the correct one.
I think the same penalty should have applied to Lewis at Spa - a fine and warning.
Another option would have been for Charlie Whiting to advise McLaren that Lewis had to let Kimi back past properly after Eau Rouge and start again (as Alonso was required to do back in the 2005 Japanese Grand Prix).
What I do hope is that a. the rules regarding giving a place back after missing a chicane (ie: lifting and slotting in behind is not necessarily enough if you end up in the slipstream) and b. the rules regarding when a new attempt at overtaking is allowed are clarified.
Also, I'd prefer to see the rules applied more consistently. Controversy like this doesn't help F1's reputation.
From my point of view, I was looking forward to a Massa-Lewis showdown for the title with perhaps Kubica as a spoiler. My gut feeling is that Massa would win the title anyway (esp if Kimi helps him), and that is starting to look more certain now. Strangely, I don't see a McLaren driver winning the title in the near future.
UCP's biggest Ford Sierra RS500 and BMW M3 E30 fan. My two favourite cars of all time.
I have to disagree there. Tarmac run-off areas provide plenty of grip and running wide definitely gives you an advantage. People have said that Lewis could have backed off/braked to avoid leaving the circuit at the chicane. The exact same thing could be said for Raikkonen when he ran wide at La Source (twice) and at Pouhon. He could have backed off to make sure he stayed on the circuit but didn't, and he certainly didn't ease off on the straight to undo any advantage he gained by running wide.
Therein lies the problem with tarmac run-off areas. With gravel traps a driver would always do anything possible to avoid running wide as they invariably ruin your race. With tarmac run-offs drivers aren't really that bothered about running too wide because there's no major downside.
I think what MSN was referring to is the fact that the normal punishment for "unsafe release" is a 10 second stop-and-go penalty (a penalty which in practice would be more like a 35-second post race penalty). But the stewards were lenient and gave him just a monetary fine, which in the grand scheme of things meant absolutely nothing.
It's all a question of consistency. Being lenient and not applying a full penalty to someone one race (which I thought was the correct decision by the way), and then being harsh and applying the full letter of the law to another driver the next race simply will not do. It needs to be as consistent and level a playing field as possible.
They were extremely close to crashing. The point is that for safety reasons the pitlane needs to be strictly single file. If for example that had occured further back in the pitlane there could easily have been another team's pitcrew in front of Massa. He was released far to early and would likely not have been able to avoid hitting someone.Originally Posted by twinspark
It was definitely an unsafe release, but as I said earlier I think the stewards made the right choice in applying a light penalty.
uәʞoɹq spɹɐoqʎәʞ ʎɯ
I admit, I was a bit hasty saying he gained nothing. But I still can't consider it the same as cutting a chicane. Kimi didn't end up in front of Lewis either, thus there was no position to even consider giving back to him.
I totally agree with you on the tarmac run-off area issue, it should be clear that the fastest way around a curve is between the white lines. If they start giving penalties for running wide, especially in wet conditions, it just gets out of hand.
Looking at the onboard footage from Massa's car, I didn't see him making any quick corrections with steering, nor heavy braking. To me he just seemed to calmly slot next to Sutil. Sure, had they been further back on the pit lane, there might have been other teams' crew on his way and that might have gotten ugly. So I think it was right not to penalise Massa at all, but Ferrari for sending him off unsafely. I would have been happy with a tougher penalty than a fine and a warning, but I don't know if they're able to remove team points or something like that.
Either way, the reason I think these two situations shouldn't be compared, or called for equal penalties for all, is that one was an intentional battle on positions, the other a mistake by whoever released Massa from the pits, albeit it was potentially more dangerous. So I don't see why they should have similar penalties.
Well, the rules frankly aren't clear on this (see my post above), and I've heard people reference situations where a driver was told to cede the position (Alonso) and others where the driver was not forced to give back the position (Schumacher).
I disagree with your statement that the normal penalty for this infringement would be a 25 second penalty as it is usually just giving back the place.
Finally, isn't it strange that if the stewards had made their mind up fast enough before Kimi crashed and the race ended that in all likelihood (if things were fair) that the penalty on Lewis would have been just to let Kimi past?
Instead, the decision took too long (the fault of the stewards potentially) and Lewis received a penalty that was larger than the precedents have been set.
Then again, I don't see it written in the rules anywhere that if you go off the track and get an advantage you will not get a penalty if you let the person you passed infront again, so maybe this is all based on unwritten rules.
Anyways, does the fact that the stewards decision taking so long ended up costing Lewis the race bother anyone else? I mean, in other situations, the decision to let the person by is made very quickly after the event, this time it took ages.
Is my argument illogical or does it make a lot of sense?
Makes perfect sense.
I was also wondering if we are basing our assumptions on false, or not wholly true, reportings of segments of the rules.
Not to be a conspriracy theorist, but, what make of car did Schumacher drive for most of his F1 career?Originally Posted by Kitdy
"Kimi, can you improve on your [race] finish?"
"No. My Finnish is fine; I am from Finland. Do you have any water?"
Sorry, Jack. I know this is your job. But...
Originally Posted by F1.com - The Official Formula One Website
"Kimi, can you improve on your [race] finish?"
"No. My Finnish is fine; I am from Finland. Do you have any water?"
Having watched it I fully agree that Lewis cut the corner to gain an advantage or more correctly so as to lose less time than getting immediately back behind Kimi. That first corner he cut definitely gave him a advantage down the straight even after falling in behind Kimi. Perhaps even more so as he then got a fantatic draft that he never would have been able to get following Kimi around the track corners.
YouTube - Hamilton Raikkonen Spa 2008 onboard camera
YouTube - Lewis Hamilton Kimi Raikkonen Spa 2008 Battle Belgian controversy
Kimi did pretty much yield the position with a bad defensive move...
Hows this for an idea: The current system at the end of the race seems to be no performance penalty, or straight to a 25s penalty. Why not just break that down to smaller time penalties so its less controversy involved whenever one is handed out. Maybe Massa and Hamilton were more deserving of only 10s penalties, rather than getting off easy or getting the full 25s.
I am the Stig
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)