kartracerboy - I'm too lazy to look up the post where you told me Masa was

[KartRacerBoy]

Oh, if you want decent F1 info, go to http://www.autosport.com

 

Any other source is half-baked in comparison.

[camber]

Oh, if you want decent F1 info, go to www.autosport.com

 

Any other source is half-baked in comparison.

 

 

Autosport, rarely wades into these matters immediately post race but it is very good.

[camber]

planet-f1 is a ludicrous F1 site.

 

He gained an advantage by immediately overtaking following a deliberate track excursion which saw him first overtake then immediately tuck behind the rightful leader and overtaking at the next corner. One action lead to another. Hamilton fanbois should really just realize that hamilton made a rush decision and instead should have waited till the top of Eau Rouge (or next corner) to overtake. Nobody would have even raised an eyebrow.

 

Nothing is biased in the planet-f1 article and they did a very good job of explaining the ruling.

 

What you don't understand, was that Kimi was having a very difficult time driving the Ferrari in the wet. The Ferrari this year, has been a difficult car to drive in the wet. While the Mclaren has been in a class of its own in the wet. Unfortunately, due to the circumstances, Kimi couldn't take full advantage of Lewis backing off because of the Ferrari's peformance deficit in the wet.

 

What's the approriate amount to back off, on a leading car, that is struggling to even stay on the track?

[camber]

Hamilton ambushed by F1 politics

 

 

 

http://multimedia.wheels.ca/images/84/e8/ea514b254d3eabd352d793f6c185.jpeg

FRANCOIS LENOIR/REUTERS

Lewis Hamilton, centre, celebrated his Belgian Grand Prix win, only to have it taken away by the stewards minutes later. Felipe Massa, left, and Nick Heidfeld, right, eventually each moved up a position.

 

http://www.wheels.ca/App_Themes/standard/images/icoFontLarge.gif http://www.wheels.ca/App_Themes/standard/images/icoFontMedium.gif http://www.wheels.ca/App_Themes/standard/images/icoFontSmall.gif Choose text size

Email This Article

View Printer Friendly Page

Email the Author

 

Digg this Article

Tag and save on del.icio.us

 

 

http://n.thestar.com/b/ss/torontowheels/1/H.5-pdv-2/s26399968263617?%5BAQB%5D&ndh=1&t=9/8/2008%209%3A30%3A22%202%20240&ns=torstar%20digital&pageName=/Home/Article/%20Hamilton%20ambushed%20by%20F1%20politics&g=http%3A//www.wheels.ca/article/338169&r=http%3A//www.thestar.com/&cc=CAD&ch=Home&c2=Hamilton%20ambushed%20by%20F1%20politics&h2=Home/Article&c3=338169&c4=Hamilton%20ambushed%20by%20F1%20politics/338169&c11=13&v11=13&c12=Less%20than%201%20day&v12=Less%20than%201%20day&c13=Repeat&v13=Repeat&s=1600x1200&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=1579&bh=1020&ct=lan&hp=N&%5BAQE%5D Norris McDonald

Motorsport Writer

Comments on this story http://www.wheels.ca/TopletsResources/UserRatingComments2/images/icoComment.gif (5)

 

Sep 08, 2008

I am not a big fan of either the McLaren F1 team or of driver Lewis Hamilton but they were both the victims of an ambush yesterday.

Hamilton won the Belgian Grand Prix fair and square and then later was penalized 25 seconds by the FIA stewards for cutting across a chicane with two laps remaining, thus – according to those stewards – gaining an unfair advantage.

This decision, which took away Hamilton's victory, was scandalous.

Did the stewards not notice that Hamilton was forced off the track and onto the chicane by Ferrari driver Kimi Raikkonen?

Did they not notice that Hamilton, when he found himself out in front of Raikkonen as a result of having to cut the corner, then dropped back behind Raikkonen – which is exactly what he was supposed to do, according to the rules?

He then legally re-passed Raikkonen at the next corner (with a move that I happen to think was absolutely brilliant) and went on to win the race. Ferrari driver Felipe Massa finished second and Nick Heidfeld was third in his BMW.

Raikkonen, who is the defending world champion, sure didn't look like it yesterday. He lost control of his car twice following his little dust-up with Hamilton and hit the wall head-on the second time, ending his race.

(Okay, so it was raining. Hamilton didn't spin and neither did Massa. But heavyweight champ Raikkonen sure did. What does that tell you?)

Anyway, the stewards announced shortly after the checkers were waved that they were investigating the Raikkonen-Hamilton-chicane incident. Only after the anthem-playing, the champagne-spraying and the post-race press conferences did they then announce the penalty, which dropped Hamilton to third and moved Massa and Heidfeld ahead to first and second, respectively.

McLaren announced last night that they will appeal the results to the FIA's International Court of Appeal. I suggest this will be a waste of time. Better they should go to the World Court and initiate a lawsuit.

What happened yesterday in Belgium stinks. It had – you can bet – very little to do with Hamilton cutting a chicane. It had, however, everything to do with the politics that are threatening to ruin Formula One.

When I said at the beginning of this piece that I am not a big fan of McLaren, it goes back to last season's industrial espionage scandal. They were fined $100 million and thrown out of the constructors championship after being caught with property stolen from Ferrari.

Although I thought the penalties might have been a bit over the top, I was – and remain – convinced that McLaren was guilty as charged.

When FIA president Max Mosley announced the sentences, he was unusually harsh in his condemnation of McLaren's behaviour and was particularly nasty when talking specifically about Mr. McLaren, Ron Dennis.

You got the feeling that those two guys absolutely hate each other. They might be in business together but there sure is no love lost.

Ever since – and this even precedes Mosley's invasion-of-privacy difficulties (okay, when he was secretly videotaped "cavorting" with prostitutes) – Hamilton and McLaren have been under almost constant scrutiny and been penalized numerous times – Japan and Brazil at the end of last season and Malaysia, France, Canada (deserved) and now Belgium so far in 2008 .

There is a pattern here and the pattern must be interrupted. McLaren and Hamilton are not always in the wrong, as yesterday's appalling decision seems to indicate.

There are those who will argue that it isn't Mosley handing down those penalties, that the stewards are the ones acting and that the stewards are independent.

Well, the stewards serve at the pleasure of the FIA and travel the world on the FIA's dime (and they're not staying at Motel 8, either) and one false move can mean the end of the gravy train. Like all other "employees" in the world, FIA stewards also know which side of the bread their butter is on and will act accordingly – don't ever kid yourself.

Nobody has to tell them who the enemy is. And it's glaringly apparent that they've gotten the message.

Bernie Ecclestone periodically muses that perhaps Formula One doesn't need the FIA any more, that it could strike out on its own and be just as healthy and wealthy.

Maybe it's time this happened – before the situation with McLaren gets any worse.

 

 

http://www.wheels.ca/article/338169

[camber]

Lauda: Hamilton decision was the 'worst judgment in the history of F1'

 

· Triple champion Niki Lauda says Hamilton did nothing wrong

· Lauda accuses stewards of influencing the championship

 

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Sport/Pix/pictures/2008/09/08/Lauda.jpg

 

Multiple champion Niki Lauda believes the FIA was wrong to strip Hamilton of his win. Photograph: Mark Thompson/Getty Images.

 

 

Niki Lauda has described the decision to strip Lewis Hamilton of his Belgian grand prix victory as "the worst judgment in the history of formula one".

The three-times world champion criticised the sport's governing body after race stewards penalised Hamilton for gaining an advantage when he cut a corner while battling with Kimi Raikkonen. Hamilton immediately let Raikkonen back past and then re-took the lead at the next corner, but two hours after the race was hit with a 25-second penalty. This dropped him to third overall, giving Felipe Massa, Hamilton's main title rival, the victory and moving the Ferrari driver just two points behind him in the drivers' title race.

"This is the worst judgment in the history of F1, the most perverted judgment I have ever seen," said Lauda, now a grand prix commentator. "It's absolutely unacceptable when three functionaries [stewards] influence the championship like this. Hamilton did nothing wrong. He was on the outside, he then let him [Raikkonen] by, which is the rule, and afterwards he passed him. Hamilton did the right thing in letting him by before again passing him."

Lauda praised Hamilton's performance in the grand prix and criticised that of his rival Raikkonen. "He [Hamilton] executed perfect car control when it was wet," said Lauda. "He did a perfect job, won the race, and you can only take your cap off to him and congratulate him. Kimi has not done a good job this season. In this race he did a perfect job, until the end when he threw it away."

Hamilton's McLaren team have until tomorrow afternoon to confirm whether they will carry out their intention to appeal the decision. There will be some debate over the matter, however, as the sport's rules say that a drive-through penalty - which in this case was converted into a 25-second penalty as it was applied after the race - is not susceptible to appeal.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/sep/08/formulaone.lewishamilton

[camber]

McLaren confirm they will appeal

 

Tuesday 9th September 2008

 

http://images.planetf1.com/08/09/240/Hamilton_1178088.jpg

 

 

 

McLaren have confirmed that they will appeal against the decision of the Belgian GP stewards to demote Lewis Hamilton from first to third by imposing a retrospective drive-through penalty against their driver.

 

In a statement released by the team on Tuesday afternoon, McLaren CEO Martin Whitmarsh said: "Following our decision to register our intention to appeal the penalty handed out to Lewis Hamilton by the FIA Stewards at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, we hereby confirm that we have now lodged notice of appeal. Lewis describes the incident as follows."

 

The statement then continues with the first words attributed to Hamilton since the stewards published their controversial ruling late on Sunday night.

 

"In the closing stages of the race I was catching Kimi consistently, lap by lap, and with three laps remaining I got close enough to attempt to overtake him on the entry to the last chicane. I managed to get slightly ahead of him in the braking area for the first apex of the chicane. He fought back approaching the second apex - but, in doing so, he left no room for me on the inside line. The only way for me to avoid a collision was therefore to cut inside the second apex," said Hamilton.

 

"I came out of the second apex in front of Kimi and so I momentarily lifted-off on the straight, to ensure that Kimi got back in front. The team also came on the radio and instructed me to allow Kimi to repass, which I had already done. As a result, Kimi crossed the start/finish line ahead of me and 6.7km/h quicker than me.

 

"After allowing Kimi to completely repass, I crossed from the left side of the track to the right side of the track, passing behind Kimi in the process. I then attacked Kimi on the inside of the first corner, and successfully outbraked him."

 

Whitmarsh also repeated the claim of Ron Dennis, made immediately after the race, that Hamilton's move past Raikkonen was deemed legal and fair by race director Charlie Whiting.

 

"From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was 'okay'," Whitmarsh explained.

 

"If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis's actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time."

 

One as yet-unanswered peculiarity in the brief press release issued by the stewards in which they announced their decision to punish Hamilton was the claim that they acted upon a 'report received by the race director' - namely, Whiting.

 

Whiting himself has yet to comment on the matter but could prove to be a key witness if McLaren's appeal is heard - something that remains in doubt despite the team's registering their notice of appeal.

 

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4122777,00.html

 

Wouldn't it be funny if the stewards get caught lying by the race director?

[KartRacerBoy]

Who would've believed someone was as smart as me? From http://www.autosport.com

 

Symonds: Spa penalty will stifle racing

 

By Jonathan Noble Wednesday, September 10th 2008, 17:48 GMT

 

 

Renault director of engineering Pat Symonds believes Lewis Hamilton was hard done with his Belgian Grand Prix penalty - and reckons the controversy will only harm attempts to make the sport more exciting.

 

Speaking on the official Renault podcast Formula One podcast in the wake of Hamilton being stripped of victory for gaining an advantage by cutting a chicane, the highly respected Symonds sees nothing wrong with the way that Hamilton let Raikkonen retake the lead as they battled at Spa-Francorchamps.

 

And although rubbishing accusations in the media and from fans that the penalty was evidence of a bias towards Ferrari by F1's chiefs, he thinks there are implications from the controversy that could result in drivers being less willing to take risks in the future.

 

"As it happened in real time, we were talking on the intercom and said: 'Wow that was definitely a situation where he has to give the place back,'" he said. "I guess we weren't that surprised when the stewards were found to be investigating it. Having looked at it again, I feel very, very sorry for Lewis. I think he has been very hard done

by.

 

"It raises lots of interesting questions, and I am not talking about 'Are the FIA on the side of Ferrari?' We have to believe that they are impartial, the sport would not exist if we didn't believe that. But I think it does call into question [the sport's] philosophy, because everyone is saying we need more overtaking in Formula One, we need more excitement, and we need more personalities.

 

"And yet it seems to me that everything that actually happens seems to be against that.

 

"Here we had a great race with people really challenging each other and for why? If it's taken away, then why take that risk?"

 

Symonds has looked at video replays of the incident since Sunday's race and now believes that Hamilton had complied with the rules and not gained an advantage by cutting the chicane.

 

"To me the facts are quite clear in retrospect. I have had a look at the videos, I've had a look at the published data which shows that Lewis was nearly 7 km/h slower than Raikkonen across the line, you can quite clearly see on the in-car camera that he lets him get completely in front, and in my view Raikkonen just braked very early.

 

"Lewis went inside him, and if you look at the in-car camera stuff, Lewis drove around the hairpin very easily. He didn't have a big slide, he didn't have to correct it, he hadn't gone in too deep and come out wide, it was a perfectly legitimate manouevre, and it wasn't that much later that Raikkonen went past him.

 

"This is racing, this is what we want."

 

And Symonds believes that more should be done to improve the speed by which decisions are made.

 

"I think motor racing should be like football, not like cricket," he said, with stewards taking two hours to decide on Hamilton's punishment on Sunday night. "Let's have action, let's know what is going on in real time, not wait for two days to find out the result."

[KartRacerBoy]

9/12/08 Autosport.com

 

Formula One drivers have been told that they should wait at least one corner before resuming a fight for position in the event of future chicane-cutting incidents.

 

In the wake of the Lewis Hamilton controversy from Belgium, F1 drivers sought clarification on what was and was not allowed during their regular Friday evening briefing with F1 race director Charlie Whiting.

 

Autosport.com understands the drivers were informed that in the event of a driver cutting a chicane and gaining a position, he not only had to give that place back but should also wait for another corner before he could attempt to retake it.

 

Waiting until after the following corner would ensure there were no questions of a driver having gained an advantage.

 

At Spa, Hamilton gave back the lead he gained from Raikkonen when he cut the final chicane, but then retook first position almost immediately under braking for La Source.

 

The race stewards deemed that Hamilton had gained an advantage in that move, so gave him with a 25-second penalty that stripped him of victory and moved him down to third. His McLaren team have appealed against that decision.

 

Red Bull Racing's Mark Webber welcomed the clarification on the situation, which should minimize the chances of repeat problems in Sunday's Italian Grand Prix.

 

"We are still trying to find a solution for the second chicane here, because we still think there is a way to roll through there," Webber told autosport.com. "But generally, it is pretty clear for people to probably not attack immediately again, which wasn't mega, mega clear in the past."

 

BTW, I'm rethinking my position on this. If Lewis had stayed glued to Kimi's gbox through the chicane, he would've been one car length back coming out of the chicane given the delay between the time Kimi got on the throttle and when Lewis could. If Massa is right that you not only had to let the car past if you passed by cutting the track and that you also had to give up any advantage gained, clearly Lewis didn't do that since he let Kimi go past and glued himself to the Ferrari's gbox. Then he darted out and passed Kimi immediately.

 

So IF the drivers' briefing included a statement (or the rules did) that you had to give up the position AND ANY ADVANTAGE GAINED (ie, distance gained), Lewis was wrong. If the rule doesn't say this or the briefing did not include such a statement, Lewis was screwed and the FIA's clarification should take effect at Monza. And Lewis should be given back the win.

[camber]

However, Lewis' car was much faster at that moment then Kimi. Who was barely keeping his car on the track. Given the conditions, a struggling Kimi and a much faster Hamilton. How much reasonable ground should a much faster car give up to a car that is struggling?

 

IMO, clarification just messes up the racing and in the past this is not how this rule worked.

 

Of course you could just put a bunch of armco back up, to stop from cars from cutting corners but people would cry about safety.

[KartRacerBoy]

You're right. The rule has basically been "let the guy pass" and renew racing, but no one has ever been clever enough to do so and immediately attack again like Lewis did. If the drivers were told "you need to give up the position and distance gained," however, Lewis conceivably broke the rule.

[f1anatic]

9/12/08 Autosport.com

 

 

 

BTW, I'm rethinking my position on this. If Lewis had stayed glued to Kimi's gbox through the chicane, he would've been one car length back coming out of the chicane given the delay between the time Kimi got on the throttle and when Lewis could. If Massa is right that you not only had to let the car past if you passed by cutting the track and that you also had to give up any advantage gained, clearly Lewis didn't do that since he let Kimi go past and glued himself to the Ferrari's gbox. Then he darted out and passed Kimi immediately.

 

So IF the drivers' briefing included a statement (or the rules did) that you had to give up the position AND ANY ADVANTAGE GAINED (ie, distance gained), Lewis was wrong. If the rule doesn't say this or the briefing did not include such a statement, Lewis was screwed and the FIA's clarification should take effect at Monza. And Lewis should be given back the win.

 

Unfortunately the rule clarification comes AFTER the incident. However, one must consider something else. Leave Massa out of this. he is biased...he benefited from the whole spiel. The rule clarification is welcome...but as it turns out, it was clear and obvious to F1 drivers what they have to do in such circumstances: gave back the advantage, wait at least one corner.

 

Coulthard on the controversy

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=David_Coulthard&id=43932

 

Having said that, I don’t think it’s part of some conspiracy against McLaren.

 

Of course Alonso is biased but makes a similar point

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43913

 

But most importantly, while agreeing that the punishment was hard, 3 other drivers felt Lewis gained an advantage (Rosberg, Vettel, Trulli)

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43902

[fweasel]

Even though Lewis technically gave up the position, I believe he still held an advantage of position, despite weather, or car setup performance. However, it appears the letter of the law at the time was, give up the position, and made no mention of advantage. I believe he did just that, and was unfairly penalized.

 

I also agree with the new (new to me anyway) clarification on the rule where the advantage should be given up, and I think the 1 turn option also helps establish a little more subjectivity to enforcing the rule.

[KartRacerBoy]

The turn clarification is nice but it's might be ridiculous in circumstances where there is a large distance between turns. But no rule is perfect and such a rule would at least give drivers a easier to understand rule.

[KartRacerBoy]

f1, exactly HOW and WHERE was the rule made clear and obvious. You keep saying that but I've seen zero to back it up. Your links merely prove that what Lewis did was a "grey area" manuver. Please give us something other than your extensive Ferrari "fanbois" as evidence, please.

 

In addition, while the stewards telling drivers at a briefing "this is how we interpret the rule on cutting a chicane" may have some weight on appeal, it is the LANGUAGE of the rule that should dictate the result. If the stewards take an inane stance on some rule that beggared belief, what team would stand by that interpretation? And even if the steward's stance was rational, it can still be wrong. But it should put a driver on notice that he was stretching the limits of the rules.

[fweasel]

just heard on F1 Debrief that one of the Stewards is a lawyer, with no real racing or technical experience. That explains a lot.

[KartRacerBoy]

Ouch!

 

Damn lawyers!

[KartRacerBoy]

Hamilton's appeal for the 25 second penalty is heard today.

[fweasel]

results on tuesday.

[KartRacerBoy]

Nothing yet on autosport.com

[fweasel]

From F1-Live.com:

 

The FIA's International Court of Appeal has decided to reject the McLaren team's appeal of its Belgian Grand Prix penalty, declaring it inadmissable.

 

The sanction given at Spa-Francorchamps was a drive-through penalty, which cannot be appealed. When such a decision is taken by the race stewards after the conclusion of a race, 25 seconds are added to the driver's total running time as a substitute.

 

The ICA considers that the 25-second penalty replaces the drive-through option, and therefore cannot be appealed as well..."

[KartRacerBoy]

FIA rejects McLaren's Spa appeal

 

By Pablo Elizalde and Jonathan Noble Tuesday, September 23rd 2008, 14:15 GMT

 

 

The FIA has rejected McLaren's appeal against the penalty imposed on Lewis Hamilton following the Belgian Grand Prix Spa-Francorchamps.

 

The decision means Hamilton remains just one point ahead of Ferrari rival Felipe Massa in the drivers' world championship with four races to go.

 

Hamilton would have received a drive-through for benefiting from cutting the Bus Stop chicane, but was given a 25-second penalty instead because the event was already over.

 

The penalty dropped Hamilton from first to third.

 

McLaren maintained Hamilton had not gained any advantage from jumping the chicane and decided to appeal the penalty.

 

The FIA said, however, that drive-through penalties could not be appealed.

 

"Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are 'not susceptible to appeal'," a statement from the FIA's Court of Appeal said on Tuesday.

 

"The competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes appealed the Steward's decision before the International Court of Appeal in a hearing in Paris on September 22nd.

 

"Having heard the explanations of the parties the Court has concluded that the appeal is inadmissible."

 

McLaren claimed in the court that a precedent to appeal Hamilton's 25-second penalty had been set at last year's Japanese Grand Prix, when Scuderia Toro Rosso were allowed to challenge a similar punishment handed down to Vitantonio Liuzzi for overtaking under yellow flags.

 

The FIA told McLaren, however, that there had been a mistake in Liuzzi's original penalty - and that he too should have been given a drive-through penalty. FIA race director Charlie Whiting claimed that the chief race steward at the time, Tony Scott-Andrews, had told him there had been an error.

 

However, McLaren produced a statement from Scott-Andrews in court countering the claims of the FIA.

 

In his statement, he set the record straight by stating: "I have seen the email and I'm extremely surprised by its content. In short, it is grossly inaccurate and misleading."

 

Although Whiting stood by his belief that Scott-Andrews had informed him he made an error, McLaren's lawyer Mark Phillips made sure that the court should be made aware of the implication.

 

Phillips labeled it as an 'unfortunate email' and pleaded with the judges: "to reflect when you come to consider your judgment the way in which certain members of the FIA conducted themselves. I won't say any more."

 

The above is from http://www.autosport.com.

 

It's "funny" that Toro Rosso could appeal such a penalty last year at the Japanese GP but McLaren can't appeal when Ferrari is the chief beneficiary.

 

Seriously, if the FIA wants to be a neutral governing body, they have to pay attention to their own rules on a consistent basis. They look the NASCAR of Europe. I would agree with their decision that this penalty wasn't appealable IF such a penalty hadn't been appealed b4. Perhaps the rules should be changed explicitly so a drive-through penalty in the last 2-3 laps can be imposed as a time penalty of some equivalent measure. After Michael Schumacher's "drive through" in the 1995 British GP (a complete farce but BRILLIANT reading of the rules by Benetton!), you woudl've thought they had this sort of thing figured out.

 

The stewards may be lawyers but apparently no one on the FIA is. Or at least not good ones! Max Mosley is obviously included!

[katalyst]

^ totally ridiculous. i cannot believe they claimed the appeal was inadmissable....why would they even go through the whole process in the first place then. FIA FTMFL ! !! ! they are ruining the sport ...

 

on a more positive note, singapore GP this weekend. some good videos here of rosberg in the simulator and also a 3D rendering with a walkthrough by webber.

 

http://www.itv-f1.com/VideoWorldwide.aspx