Hamiltons penatly fair?

Comfortably Numb said:
Unfortunately people have short memories.

How many remember that Schumacher's first championship was only won after deliberately running into Hill ?:shake:
Click to expand...

Nothing new what about Ayrton Senna, he run prost of the road in the last race to win a championship, in Japan. Senna was driving a Mclearn at the time.
 
hamilton was given a penalty for getting an unfair advantage by short cutting the chicane.

so, before he crossed the chicane he was beside kimi
when he came out of the chicane he was behind kimi

if thats gaining an advantage then i'm confused
 
parish said:
/raises hand.

And do you also remember when he tried the same stunt with Villenueve a few years later? They took all his points away for the whole season - but then he wasn't on for winning the championship that year so it was a bit of a pointless ( :D ) gesture
Click to expand...

yes he was, but he had to finish ahead of jacques with jacques finishing less than about 3rd or 4th IRCC, michaels tyres were shot and JV came up to overtake him so schumacher drove into him, unfortunately for michael he punted himself out of the race and JV went on to finish 2nd i think. the FIA took his points away so whereas he would have finished second in the championship he finished last.


senna and prost had 2 championship deciding coming togethers at suzuka
 
badgerbaiter said:
hamilton was given a penalty for getting an unfair advantage by short cutting the chicane.

so, before he crossed the chicane he was beside kimi
when he came out of the chicane he was behind kimi

if thats gaining an advantage then i'm confused
Click to expand...

Bit like the runner who smoked some weed and was banned for taking performance enhancing drugs! :suspect: :lol:
 
russdaz said:
Nothing new what about Ayrton Senna, he run prost of the road in the last race to win a championship, in Japan. Senna was driving a Mclearn at the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I thought that Senna was eventually penalized and Prost awarded the championship - although it was a long time ago so I may not be remembering it correctly. I do remember it put McLaren in an odd position whereby did they lodge a complaint against one of their own drivers for running one of their drivers off the track :D
 
russdaz said:
Nothing new what about Ayrton Senna, he run prost of the road in the last race to win a championship, in Japan. Senna was driving a Mclearn at the time.
Click to expand...

Senna & Prost were both driving McLarens!

What seems very different these days is such blatant double standards involving the FIA & Ferrari.
 
Last edited:
im still amazed. Watched it several times now. have mclaren appealed yet?? they really should.
 
matty said:
im still amazed. Watched it several times now. have mclaren appealed yet?? they really should.
Click to expand...

Problem is the FIA almost never reverse a decision but often impose new penalties against those appealing!!

They really are a law unto themselves.:bang:
 
parish said:
Yes, but I thought that Senna was eventually penalized and Prost awarded the championship - although it was a long time ago so I may not be remembering it correctly. I do remember it put McLaren in an odd position whereby did they lodge a complaint against one of their own drivers for running one of their drivers off the track :D
Click to expand...

Cant remeber him being done, just had a google couldnt see anything, Ayrton did 2 years on the trot.
 
Prost won the title in 1989.

There was a collision with Prost and Senna at Suzuka track, the penultimate race in the season, which Senna needed to win to stand a chance of the title.
Senna attempted to overtake on the inside and Prost turned into the corner and cut him off, with the two McLarens finishing up with their wheels interlocked in the Suzuka chicane escape road. Senna then got a push-start from marshals, went into the pits to replace the nose cone of his car, and rejoined the race. He took the lead from Nannini and went on to win, only to be later disqualified by the FIA for cutting the chicane after the collision, and for crossing into the pit lane entry.
A large fine and temporary suspension of his License stopped him from challenging Prost for the championship.
 
Last edited:
OK, OK, I know...
I should have said that he ought to back up Hamilton...
As Bob says, I am at a certain age.. (Like most of my age, I fell asleep shortly before the end.....)
 
Ridiculus decision :(
Did he gain an advantage? In my eyes, Kimi gained the advantage, as Lewis was infront of him (by a nose) going into the chicane, and ended up behind him after!!
 
itv-f1.com said:
After consulting both McLaren and Ferrari in the hours following the race, stewards ruled that Hamilton had gained an advantage by short-cutting the circuit.

It is believed that although the British driver let Raikkonen back through to the lead of the race after rejoining the track, stewards still felt he had benefited from going off track as he repassed the Finn almost immediately.

McLaren has since said that its data showed that after lifting to let Raikkonen back through, Hamilton was 6km/h (4mph) slower than the Ferrari as they crossed the start/finish line.
Click to expand...


Oh dear, oh dear. :cuckoo:
 
It'll be interesting to see how the FIA wriggle out of this one.

I remember they once penalised Ferrari for having a problem with their bargeboards.
Ross Brawn actually appeared on the TV, holding the bargeboard & a small ruler, explaining that a piece which should measure 20mm was only 10mm.

After Ferrari went to tribunal, with their own "measuring equipment" they "proved" it actually measured just over 20mm!!!!

Friends in high places!
 
what a ridiculous decision...yes, Lewis did take a short-cut across the chicane - but that was because he had to go wide after Kimi, fairly, pushed him wide...what else was Lewis to do :shrug: Lewis then let Kimi back into the lead with data from McLaren showing that Lewis was 4mph slower than Kimi when they crossed the line - might not sound like much but it is in F1 terms!

ah well...after last weekends dodgy stewards decision hopefully something will get done.



....although I doubt it!
 
Absolute bloody travesty, Kimi pushed him out there anyway, not unfairly, just good hard driving, but he had no choice in cutting the chicane, he cannot have gained an advantage because he dived BEHIND kimi before over taking him again after the chicane, having let kimi take the place back - basically, he has been penalised for having better traction and grip on the very slippery surface. :bang:

I am rapidly losing any interest in this political, rat infested sport :bat:
 
Absolutely appalling. I've been a F1 fan for over 35 years and it's getting to the point where I'm rapidly losing interest. There would appear to be so much corruptionand ludicrous decision making involved nowadays that the F1A and stewards might just as well rename themselves the Labour Party.
 
Disgusting decision....

Mansell wouldn't have taken that lying down..he would have chinned the stewards.

Bring back Mansell

:thumbs:
 
Smiffy said:
Disgusting decision....

Mansell wouldn't have taken that lying down..he would have chinned the stewards.

Bring back Mansell

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Not possible I'm afraid, the FIA have banned moustaches on health and safety grounds and have you seen "Nige" without one? :lol:
 
Am i the only one that thinks that maybe Hamilton WAS in the wrong.

Ok he had to CUT the chicane, no doubt about that. But after that he seemed to stay very close to the racing line, and stayed hard on the throttle. This meant that Kimi had to go round Hamilton to a certain degree. The fact that Hamilton was still fast and close to the racing line meant that he then had an ideal position to out brake Kimi on the next corner.

Hamilton should have stayed behind Kimi for a bit longer after letting him pass (Hamilton has got the better car and would have past him anyway) OR made a more obvious movement to let Kimi past on the straight.
 
MG TF 135 said:
Am i the only one that thinks that maybe Hamilton WAS in the wrong.

Ok he had to CUT the chicane, no doubt about that. But after that he seemed to stay very close to the racing line, and stayed hard on the throttle. This meant that Kimi had to go round Hamilton to a certain degree. The fact that Hamilton was still fast and close to the racing line meant that he then had an ideal position to out brake Kimi on the next corner.

Hamilton should have stayed behind Kimi for a bit longer after letting him pass (Hamilton has got the better car and would have past him anyway) OR made a more obvious movement to let Kimi past on the straight.
Click to expand...

I reckon he should have pulled over to the side of the track, set up a picnic table, poured himself a cup of tea, made a couple of cucumber sandwiches and then chased after Kimi (but not before brushing any crumbs from the tablecloth).....

Because I bet that's what Kimi would have done if put in the same situation (although substitute Rollmops for cucumber sandwiches)...
:naughty::naughty::naughty:
 
MG TF 135 said:
Am i the only one that thinks that maybe Hamilton WAS in the wrong.

Ok he had to CUT the chicane, no doubt about that. But after that he seemed to stay very close to the racing line, and stayed hard on the throttle. This meant that Kimi had to go round Hamilton to a certain degree. The fact that Hamilton was still fast and close to the racing line meant that he then had an ideal position to out brake Kimi on the next corner.

Hamilton should have stayed behind Kimi for a bit longer after letting him pass (Hamilton has got the better car and would have past him anyway) OR made a more obvious movement to let Kimi past on the straight.
Click to expand...

So exactly how much advantage is he meant to give back, 2 lengths, 10 lengths, 2 corners, or maybe a whole lap? The point is its an aribitary ruling, so much so all it says is that t'he driver must only use the track' in the rules cited that he broke - in which case, any driver that goes off circuit and comes back on is technically speaking breaking that rule. However, the fact remains that HAmilton was alongside before kimi shoved him out there, and behind him 20 yrds later when he then went up the up otherside to overtake him again, I fail to see how exactly he gained an advantage. He may have done minimal amount to but never the less it was given and I suspect had KImi's car been more manageable in those conditions and got more grip/traction out of the chicane, not an eye would have been blinked:shrug:
 
I take it Kimi won't be repremanded for deliberately trying to clip Hamiltons back end on the way out of the corner at the end of the pit straight?? :annoyed:
 
From a BBC Sport F1 Writer (here come the accusations that the BBC are biased too!)

"In the circumstances, the smart thing for Hamilton to do would have been to follow the Ferrari through the subsequent La Source hairpin and use his speed advantage in the slippery conditions to pass Raikkonen at the end of the long straight up the hill to the Les Combes chicane.

Hamilton, though, is a born racer. That’s what makes him so exciting to watch. And the temptation to pass Raikkonen as soon as possible was too strong.

In passing Raikkonen where he did, he left the stewards room for doubt, room to make the decision to take away a win that was rightfully his.

They (race stewards) would have weighed up whether Hamilton was able to pass Raikkonen at La Source because he was faster, or because he had been able to slipstream the Ferrari after letting it past him. (Even Hamilton admitted that he had “waited until he came by and then got back in his slipstream”).

I just think that we are too quick to jump on the 'biased towards Ferrari' bandwagon. It is perfectly plausible that Hamilton and his team made a mistake that could/ should be punished.

Edit: I actually agree that it was harsh to take away the win. And that there is no clear information on how a driver should 'give way' when required. But Hamiltons actions were borderline and left room doubt and interpretation.
 
Last edited:
I think the answer is in Hamilton's quote. He got *BACK* into Kimi's slipstream, which is where he was before the chicane, although he was actually ahead (by a nose) actually in the chicane, before being forced off.
 
Hi,

having watched the replay online I am surprised that Hamilton HAD to cut the corner I think he could easily have slowed a bit more and still taken the corner, I don't think the appeal will do any good, right decision in my books, I know that won't be popular but by the time Hamilton jinked left he was less than half a car length behind Raikkonen and could have just slipped in behind him ( ooer missus) thus preventing the infringement.

Looked to me like Raikkonen had the correct line ( going by the well worn part of the track ) and Hamilton was trying to cut inside him to prevent Kimi from taking it and got it all wrong and came into it too fast, cutting the corner was his own fault and he should accept the consequences.

Mike.
 
Last edited:
mikeyb said:
cutting the corner was his own fault and he should accept the consequences.

Mike.
Click to expand...

He did accept it. That's why he slowed and let Kimi past.
Unfortunately it's only in Ferrari's copy of the rule book that you have to allow the other driver 4 laps and a chequered flag to compose himself before you can pass again.
 
spannerdude said:
He did accept it. That's why he slowed and let Kimi past.
Unfortunately it's only in Ferrari's copy of the rule book that you have to allow the other Team 4 laps, a chequered flag and a Championship to compose themselves before you can pass again.
Click to expand...


fixed ;)
 
Interesting quote from Niki Lauda who is a Ferrari Ambassador.....

Former world champion Niki Lauda has given his full backing to Lewis Hamilton over the Belgian Grand Prix chicane-cutting controversy - claiming the Briton did 'nothing wrong' with the way he drove.

Lauda believes the fact that Hamilton did hand the lead back to Raikkonen after the chicane incident meant he should have been in the clear.

"Hamilton did nothing wrong," said Lauda. "He was on the outside, and then let him (Raikkonen) by, which is the rule. Then afterwards he passed him. There was nothing wrong from Hamilton.

"There was nothing special in what happened. Hamilton did the right thing in letting him by, and then passed him. It was an absolutely perfect drive from Hamilton."
Click to expand...
 
spannerdude said:
Unfortunately it's only in Ferrari's copy of the rule book that you have to allow the other driver 4 laps and a chequered flag to compose himself before you can pass again.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Hi All,

Still getting over the disgrace of this. You have to also add in the fact that Raikkonen weaved after Louis let him back in the lead, which is an infringement of the rules!

This report sums up the situation:

http://www.grandprix.com/race/r798racereport.html

And Massa can get away with the same thing last year:

Massa Japanese GP 2007

Finally just a reminder to get signing this petition, you never know it may help:

http://www.petitiononline.com/belgp08/petition-sign.html

I am number 19,355.

Regards

Chris
 
MG TF 135 said:
From a BBC Sport F1 Writer (here come the accusations that the BBC are biased too!)

"In the circumstances, the smart thing for Hamilton to do would have been to follow the Ferrari through the subsequent La Source hairpin and use his speed advantage in the slippery conditions to pass Raikkonen at the end of the long straight up the hill to the Les Combes chicane.

Hamilton, though, is a born racer. That’s what makes him so exciting to watch. And the temptation to pass Raikkonen as soon as possible was too strong.

In passing Raikkonen where he did, he left the stewards room for doubt, room to make the decision to take away a win that was rightfully his.

They (race stewards) would have weighed up whether Hamilton was able to pass Raikkonen at La Source because he was faster, or because he had been able to slipstream the Ferrari after letting it past him. (Even Hamilton admitted that he had “waited until he came by and then got back in his slipstream”).

I just think that we are too quick to jump on the 'biased towards Ferrari' bandwagon. It is perfectly plausible that Hamilton and his team made a mistake that could/ should be punished.

Edit: I actually agree that it was harsh to take away the win. And that there is no clear information on how a driver should 'give way' when required. But Hamiltons actions were borderline and left room doubt and interpretation.
Click to expand...

Hamilton was alongside Kimi going into the chicane,although Kimi was on the inside, He wasn't on the racing line going into the bend as the position of Lewis prevented him from taking this. The regs. state that a driver shall not crowd another car on a curve. Kimi was crowding Lewis to a certain extent as they approached the second apex of the chicane. Lewis could have braked, not a wise move on a bend as any driver will tell you, also when Lewis backed out of the manouvre and cut across the escape road his front wheel was mid way between Kimi's wheels, If Kimi had squeezed Lewis anymore and had Lewis braked, then Kimi would have gone over Lewis' front wheel and a crash would have probably been the result. Lewis made the only logical move available to avoid an accident and cut onto the escape road. When rejoining the track Lewis was in front and immediately backed off allowing Kimi to regain his position. There is no reg. which states a driver cannot slipstream another car to overtake.
This whole thing was started by an illegal move by Kimi which is always overlooked because it's exciting racing. The stewards have spoilt what was an exciting battle with two drivers battling for position.
What does seem to have gone unpunished and not mentioned is the fact that Kimi before crashing overtook Lewis under yellow flags when they came upon Rosberg rejoining the track after spinning. As Kimi didn't finish the race, but should still have to receive a penalty, he should start 10 places back from his qualifying position this weekend.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Not possible I'm afraid, the FIA have banned moustaches on health and safety grounds and have you seen "Nige" without one? :lol:
Click to expand...

He hasnt had one for years :)

mansell1lg1.jpg
 
mikeyb said:
Hi,

having watched the replay online I am surprised that Hamilton HAD to cut the corner I think he could easily have slowed a bit more and still taken the corner, I don't think the appeal will do any good, right decision in my books, I know that won't be popular but by the time Hamilton jinked left he was less than half a car length behind Raikkonen and could have just slipped in behind him ( ooer missus) thus preventing the infringement.

Looked to me like Raikkonen had the correct line ( going by the well worn part of the track ) and Hamilton was trying to cut inside him to prevent Kimi from taking it and got it all wrong and came into it too fast, cutting the corner was his own fault and he should accept the consequences.

Mike.
Click to expand...

Sadly, your argument is tainted by a lack of understanding of the rules of F1. You are fully entitled to think Hamilton was at fault, but your reasons do not justify that belief. However you look at it, Raikkonen squeezed Hamilton off the track at the second apex.

Here is an extract on the rules of overtaking in Formula 1:

The FIA Formula One World Championship Sporting Regulations cover overtaking under "incidents":

"Incident means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to the race director for investigation) which:

- caused an avoidable collision;
- forced a driver off the track;
- illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver;
- illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.

The stewards may impose a 10 second time penalty on any driver involved in an Incident."

This quite clearly bans using physical contact to overtake and prohibits blocking a driver attempting to overtake. That second point applies directly to Raikkonen's actions through the corner in question. Taking the racing line is not a defence. The cars were side by side going into the corner (the first bend) and in fact Hamilton was arguably slightly ahead. Both cars applied brakes, and during the move around the second apex, Raikkonen clearly edged across Hamilton's line forcing him off the track in order to avoid a collision.
In doing so, he:

- forced a driver off the track (Hamilton)
- illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver (Hamilton was perfectly entitled to overtake on the inside since entering the corner the cars were level, or Hamilton was slightly ahead on the outside)
- illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking (Raikkonen could, and should have given Hamilton the space on the inside to turn the corner with him)...

Everything the happened after the initial incident is irrelevant to an extend as it was a result of illegal driving by Raikkonen. Even so, Hamilton applied the letter of the law in respect of surrendering the lead he had gained by using the escape lane in so far as his car moved from Raikkonen's left, across behind him (impossible to do unles you've allowed the car to get back in front of you) and over to his right where he (again legitemately) overtook Raikkonen on the inside to regain the lead. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to allow the car to get a certain distance ahead of you before you challenge again...

I'm not knocking Raikkonen's driving since it made for an extremely exciting finish to a tight race, but I absolutely do not condone the decision to penalise Hamilton. It's a rediculous decision which hopefully will not affect Hamilton winning the championship this year should he continue to drive as well as he has been.
 
Last edited:
neo2810 said:
Sadly, your argument is tainted by a lack of understanding of the rules of F1. You are fully entitled to think Hamilton was at fault, but your reasons do not justify that belief. However you look at it, Raikkonen squeezed Hamilton off the track at the second apex.

Here is an extract on the rules of overtaking in Formula 1:

The FIA Formula One World Championship Sporting Regulations cover overtaking under "incidents":

"Incident means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to the race director for investigation) which:

- caused an avoidable collision;
- forced a driver off the track;
- illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver;
- illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.

The stewards may impose a 10 second time penalty on any driver involved in an Incident."

This quite clearly bans using physical contact to overtake and prohibits blocking a driver attempting to overtake. That second point applies directly to Raikkonen's actions through the corner in question. Taking the racing line is not a defence. The cars were side by side going into the corner (the first bend) and in fact Hamilton was arguably slightly ahead. Both cars applied brakes, and during the move around the second apex, Raikkonen clearly edged across Hamilton's line forcing him off the track in order to avoid a collision.
In doing so, he:

- forced a driver off the track (Hamilton)
- illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver (Hamilton was perfectly entitled to overtake on the inside since entering the corner the cars were level, or Hamilton was slightly ahead on the outside)
- illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking (Raikkonen could, and should have given Hamilton the space on the inside to turn the corner with him)...

Everything the happened after the initial incident is irrelevant to an extend as it was a result of illegal driving by Raikkonen. Even so, Hamilton applied the letter of the law in respect of surrendering the lead he had gained by using the escape lane in so far as his car moved from Raikkonen's left, across behind him (impossible to do unles you've allowed the car to get back in front of you) and over to his right where he (again legitemately) overtook Raikkonen on the inside to regain the lead. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to allow the car to get a certain distance ahead of you before you challenge again...
I'm not knocking Raikkonen's driving since it made for an extremely exciting finish to a tight race, but I absolutely do not condone the decision to penalise Hamilton. It's a rediculous decision which hopefully will not affect Hamilton winning the championship this year should he continue to drive as well as he has been.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% on everything. There is a Massa comment about Hamilton on the itv-F1 website where he says in the drivers briefings they are instructed to give a place back fully if it is necessary to cut a corner on a chicane. To me, fully means allow the other car to get back in front completely not partially which is what Lewis did.
No one gets punished for pushing a car wide normally so long as it doesn't result in a collision puting someone out of the race, which is why Raikkonen wasn't penalised for it but why should Lewis then be penalised for being on the receiving end of the incident.
Jackie Stewart is now pushing for a premanent team of race stewards. At least that might give a bit more consistency, although they do have inconsistencies already on decisions made in various races over a race weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top