What a load of bull.. (belgium GP)

[Saracen]

It's all been more than a bit boring since the Mansell/Senna days... which is why I no longer watch F1 and go for BTCC instead.

Yup, agree completely, Nick. BTCC, or any number of other race types, including many of the single car types, like Fiesta racing, or whatever. And, of course, some of the bike racing is fantastic.

Those races that I get enjoyment from are those where, essentially, it's a bunch of blokes (or women) on broadly equivalent equipment, where it's about what the drivers/riders actually do on the day. It's about split-second racing decisions, it's about instinct and experience, it's about a driver outperforming, out-racing, another driver. It's not about who spends the most money, who's got the best technology or whose pic crew screws up. It's not even about who has the best computer fuel-usage model on their laptops or whose boffins can design the best fuel stop strategy. All that, as far as I'm concerned, is boring. It may be tremendously clever, and it may be the pinnacle of technology, but what I want to see is jockeying for position, for sheer driving skill, for split-second precision in driving/riding making the difference. I want to see who can beat who, not who's got the better machine, or who can follow who for long enough to nip past when the other makes a minor mistake, because that's about the only chance they have of getting past.

And if drivers don't dare make overtaking manoeuvres like this for fear of having the race taken away from them by a bunch of jumped up stewards second-guessing them, then it turns what had already been degraded into probably the dreariest form of motor racing currently available into a sport marginally less interesting that watching paint dry.

[MaddAussie]

It's all been more than a bit boring since the Mansell/Senna days... which is why I no longer watch F1 and go for BTCC instead.

+1

Missed the race as I was picking my rig up from a mates in London

I've watched the videos on YouTube and to be honest it does look as if Kimi was a) out of shape and a little off line on the entrance to the chicane and b) broke very early and Lewis did well to avoid having contact. The ruling I think was very harsh BUT Lewis didn't really help himself by not making it obvious that he had yielded the place.

[staffsMike]

Lol do you think Kimi overtook him on his own merits? .. Remember this is F1

Kimi got the lead due to Hamiltons mistake.

Hamilton got it back because Kimi's car sucked in the wet.

Lewis gave it back.

Lewis took the lead because again, Kimi's car or Kimi himself can't handle the new cars in the wet.

The only decent overtaking happened with Heiki at the back because his car was so much better and there is no spectacle in that.

I'll tell you what I like, the GP legends is it.. GP masters. With Mansell and such like.. that is fun

[iranu]

What I think is telling is the fact that Ferrari did not make an official complaint and were more than happy with the move even though it was going to cost Raikkonen points (and lessen the impact of a win over Massa). You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was the faintest chance of Ferrari gaining an advantage that way then they would have taken it. So why did they not complain?

[this_is_gav]

But it WAS the act of cutting the corner that the stewards penalised him for, because in their opinion, he gained an advantage.

No, they penalised him for the advantage he gained through cutting the corner (worded differently, but puts a different spin on it).

Had he braked in the chicane (there was enough space, and even if there wasn't he could have run off the track only to come back on, as most others did in the race) to avoid Kimi (check the onboard, he didn't even attempt to slow down as the gap diminished, he just lifted off once he'd cleared the actual braking zone), then he'd have been much further back than he was by cutting the corner. That is the advantage he has been penalised for gaining through going outside of the confines of the race track.

I've watched the videos on YouTube and to be honest it does look as if Kimi was a) out of shape and a little off line on the entrance to the chicane and b) broke very early and Lewis did well to avoid having contact. The ruling I think was very harsh BUT Lewis didn't really help himself by not making it obvious that he had yielded the place.

It's not the move into the chicane that he's being punished for. He did nothing wrong. It's the move into turn 1 that he pulled off by not relinquishing the advantage he gained through cutting the chicane.

What I think is telling is the fact that Ferrari did not make an official complaint and were more than happy with the move even though it was going to cost Raikkonen points (and lessen the impact of a win over Massa). You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was the faintest chance of Ferrari gaining an advantage that way then they would have taken it. So why did they not complain?

I don't think it's particularly telling. They would have known there was no chance of a penalty being applied during the race, so they probably wanted to wait until after the race to review it.

[Mossy]

Simple FACT is if it was Ferrari they would of got No penalty they have done this to SPICE things up. Look at the incident in the last one were Farrari and Pit lane when it was done all you heard was definate penalty dangerous in pit lane etc etc

Just wrong even at the time they said he should not have a problem as he did give the place back, anyway typical. Makes me want to give up watching it tbh I only found out this morning logging on here lol..

[this_is_gav]

Simple FACT is if it was Ferrari they would of got No penalty they have done this to SPICE things up. Look at the incident in the last one were Farrari and Pit lane when it was done all you heard was definate penalty dangerous in pit lane etc etc

It's a bit hard to claim it as fact, but I doubt it. It's blatant.

Regarding Valencia, I've argued that even the fine was harsh on Massa. It wasn't an unsafe release. He was in the last pit stall and the only thing they could possibly have hit was a safety car or the wall, and that would have required one of the 2 driving into the other. It's nothing like Senna's release at Spa or Chandok's in Valencia where they were half-way up the pitlane with mechanics, officials and media exposed to the cars, which were literally inches apart. That wasn't the case for Massa. Similar to Hockenheim, where neither Alonso or Vettel were penalised. Side-by-side in the pit lane is fine - there is no specific rule saying you cant do it - it's when it becomes too close between the cars and unprotected personnel are put in danger that officials start looking into it.

I've explained several times already in this thread as to why he's not been penalised for not giving the place back. It's the time he gained which he otherwise would have lost which is the problem.

I hope the appeal isn't affected by the hoards of British media kicking up a fuss. David Croft's interview on 5 Live last night was an absolute disgrace. That man cannot be allowed to commentate on the BBC coverage last night. Anyone who's been watching GP2 this season will verify that.

[sleepyhead]

As a sporting spectacle, it was very saddening to hear what has happened to Hamilton. I was actually rooting for Kimi to win to make it a 3 horse race in the drivers championship As a viewer I didn't see anything wrong with what Hamilton did BUT I did feel it was almighty cheeky; I thought the come uppence was when Hamilton flew off the track further down the track, giving the lead back to Kimi (only to watch Kimi fly off the track and hit the wall).
It was a really good end to the race which is now bogged down with this penalisation.

I do believe Massa didn't deserve to be handed the race win. Kimi should have won but bad luck/poor judgement meant instead of collection some points, he ended up in the wall.

[Mossy]

I say you know your stuff GAV but I ahve just started to watch F1 from the good old days when there was less of this tripe involved were it was a proper RACE as we called it then. From watching all last season and this though from my point of view Ferrari always seem to be let off and have nothing against them in a race decisions always seem to go their way and even Safty cars I know they cant help that but IMO decisions and Safety cars cost Hamilton last time and seem to be going that way this year it as if they have somehting against him. Maybe its just luck but you have to admit Ferrari seem to have all the Luck at the moment.

[Saracen]

No, they penalised him for the advantage he gained through cutting the corner (worded differently, but puts a different spin on it).

What did I say? I mean, you quoted it.

What Hamilton did was cut the chicane. The reason the stewards penalised him is because, in their view, he gained an advantage. He wouldn't have gained an advantage if he hadn't done what he did to gain it.

So I'll repeat it.

But it WAS the act of cutting the corner that the stewards penalised him for, because in their opinion, he gained an advantage.

The rest of what you said isn't the logic of the stewards, but your interpretation of it. And, in large part, it's a judgement call as to when he should have braked. I've still got the recording, and have watched it over and again. No way could Hamilton have continued on the track, because Kimi barely left enough room for a pushbike, let alone an F1 car. At the point Hamilton went off, there were maybe a few inches between Kimi and the edge of the track. That's not a criticism of Kimi - they were racing.

Lewis clearly had by far the faster car at that point, He'd closed Kimi down by the best part of a second lap over the previous few laps, helped by the tyres and by the fact that it was by then a very wet track. They were both having grip problems, as clearly evidenced by what nearly happened to Lewis and did happen to Kimi a few corners later. And on the approach to the chicane, Lewis was in front, by almost a car length. His back tyre was in front of Kimi's front tyre. Kimi braked late and, from what I could see, locked up in the process. Lewis was doing everything he could to get past, and had, but then you've got the line through the chicane and Kimi was on the inside. But nonetheless, Lewis was in front and Kimi wouldn't yield the line. Nor would I expect him to. Lewis also braked harder than Kimi going into the chicane, but as they went through the chicane, they were side by side, front wheels level. And Kimi left Lewis nowhere to go. So they're turning, going through a chicane, at high speed and it's chucking down rain and they're on dry tyres. Given that if Lewis were to brake hard enough to yield track position at that stage, it's entirely unpredictable what would have happened, but the evident grip problems they were having makes it at least a good chance he'd have slid, and if he had, he'd have clobbered Kimi and probably put them both out.

So he took the short route, then immediately yielded track position back to Kimi, dodged behind him from one side to the other and got him at the next corner.

According to the press reports, Lewis was going slower when he went back onto the track than Kimi was, so it's hard to see how he can have gained any advantage that he can have been aware of, and they were both racing. That is, after all, what it's all supposed to be about. At the point where they're side-by-side in the chicane, Lewis had little choice but to go where he did given the line Kimi took. Prior to going into the chicane, Lewis was in front.

But, as I said in my original post, I don't really care who did what. My point was what this decision says about the stewards and the way they see racing.

If Lewis had got out in front of Kimi by cutting the corner and hadn't yielded, then I can fully see penalising him as justified. And, clearly, racing has to have rules because if it were a free-for-all, it would be carnage out there. But it is, after all, a race and you have a dozen and a half of the world's most competitive individuals all seeking to outdo the other in an environment where fractions of a second can make all the difference.

The inference of the steward's decision is that despite Lewis yielding position, they're punishing him for an "advantage" that, if it actually exists, is barely noticeable and probably only demonstrable by comparing on-board telemetry which, of course, neither driver has access to or could possibly review in the handful of seconds the incident took. The whole thing, in fact, is a glowing testament to the skills of both drivers that they can race that close, at those speeds and let alone in those conditions, without a major incident.

So if there's no realistic way the driver can assess the extent of the advantage, and Lewis yielded track position after the corner, the inference is that because of rules that require telemetry to decide upon, the driver is expected to avoid getting intro a situation that might yield a virtually unquantifiable advantage.

Racing needs rules, but it needs them to be interpreted in the context of a race. That's my objection. Even if the stewards are right about there being an advantage, the only thing I can see that Lewis could have done to avoid the situation was to not challenge approaching and through the corner. And remember, he was nearly a full car length in front of Kimi on the way up to the corner.

So if the stewards are going to be so ridiculously hidebound about how they interpret the rules and the margins by which they determine "advantage", and then are going to apply such a penalty that it so dramatically affects the race result as to give victory to someone who didn't have a hope in hell of achieving it on the track, and quite possibly also changing the outcome of the whole year's Championship, then they're hidebound, jobsworth idiots and are largely responsible for creating and reinforcing the mindset that has ruined F1. It's no longer going to be about racing, or skill, but about avoiding race-altering or championship-altering penalties. What driver in his right mind will risk losing the race, or maybe the championship, because of so ludicrously over-rigid application of rules?

And that is what's got me so annoyed. It isn't this decision, or whether it was right or not, or that it cost Hamilton the race or even, if it works out that way that it cost him the championship. It's about a mindset that totally ruins the whole race atmosphere, because it becomes all mind pernickety, trivial adherence to the millimetre of the rules, not about racing, or about intent of the driver.

And the FIA are hardly seen as even-handed, are they? After all, their precious rules allowed Schumacher to win the 1998 British GP by serving his 10-second stop and go in the pit lane on the final, winning lap. Yet they let him keep the win. If that isn't a travesty, I don't know what is.

[Saracen]

....

It's not the move into the chicane that he's being punished for. He did nothing wrong. It's the move into turn 1 that he pulled off by not relinquishing the advantage he gained through cutting the chicane.
....

No, it isn't. It was the move on the chicane. The later corner might have been where the advantage they say he gained paid off, but the rule infringement he was punished for was the move in the chicane .... cutting the corner and gaining an advantage by doing it.

[this_is_gav]

No, it isn't. It was the move on the chicane. The later corner might have been where the advantage they say he gained paid off, but the rule infringement he was punished for was the move in the chicane .... cutting the corner and gaining an advantage by doing it.

He wasn't penalised for the move in the chicane. He was penalised for the cutting and the advantage he gained from it. Had he just tucked in behind Kimi through turn 1 rather than attempting a move, he'd have been fine. But he actively sought to profit between turns 19 and 1 through by making no or little attempt to stay within the confines of the track.

I highly recommend watching the onboard footage, as it's rather damning.

So he took the short route, then immediately yielded track position back to Kimi, dodged behind him from one side to the other and got him at the next corner.

That's the problem. He just carried on as if he'd done nothing wrong. Had he attempted to make the chicane (even going off road and then rejoining the track when he could if necessary), he'd have been much, much further back than he was by just missing out the corner completely.

I quoted you earlier so as to make clear who's opinion I was talking about, and that paragraph was the most relevant. It wasn't a direct argument of that paragraph.

[Saracen]

He wasn't penalised for the move in the chicane. He was penalised for the cutting and the advantage he gained from it. Had he just tucked in behind Kimi through turn 1 rather than attempting a move, he'd have been fine. But he actively sought to profit between turns 19 and 1 through by making no or little attempt to stay within the confines of the track.

..... in your opinion. But that isn't what the stewards said. The offence for which he was penalised was cutting the corner at 20 and gaining an advantage by it. The act of his that cause the trouble was cutting the chicane, and the reason he was penalised was because they reckon he gained an advantage from it.

But that's not my gripe, and not the theme of my first post. My gripe is what the way this has been interpreted does for F1. In my opinion, it ruins it, amnd it's merely one more example of the mindset of the authorities.

[this_is_gav]

..... in your opinion. But that isn't what the stewards said. The offence for which he was penalised was cutting the corner at 20 and gaining an advantage by it. The act of his that cause the trouble was cutting the chicane, and the reason he was penalised was because they reckon he gained an advantage from it.

That was his offence, yes (you can't exactly penalise someone for overtaking...). He was half a car length behind Kimi before either started braking for turn 1. Do you think that Hamilton didn't gain an advantage though leaving the confines of the race track?

[Stewart]

The FIAerrari team get a few more points in the bag this way, so I doubt the appeal will change anything.

[Saracen]

That was his offence, yes (you can't exactly penalise someone for overtaking...). He was half a car length behind Kimi before either started braking for turn 1. Do you think that Hamilton didn't gain an advantage though leaving the confines of the race track?

I haven't expressed an opinion on that. But compared to what - crashing into Kimi and taking them both out? If, as Hamilton said, he had a choice of going off-track or hitting Kimi, what else was he supposed to do? Having been forced off, he came back on, and let Kimi back past. According to McLaren, he was going slower than Kimi when he came back on, and according to Lewis, he did not apply full throttle until Kimi was past him.

The problem, Gav, is the nature of the incident compared to the effect of the penalty. Did Lewis gain an advantage? I don't know, but for the sake of argument, let's assume he did. The rules says that if you gain an advantage, you get penalised. But the point is, rules are supposed to be applied with the exercise of judgement, and for the penalty to be consistent with the "offence". If you're going to apply the absolute letter of the law when it comes to "advantage", then you could argue that if a driver gained a nanosecond over what would have happened, or to be more precise, over what you predict or model would have happened, then he gets penalised. Because, after all, a nanosecond of advantage is still an advantage, isn't it?

Did Lewis gain an advantage? Maybe. Could he have calculated that in his head, in the few seconds this all took, and then precisely calibrated exactly how much to slow down by when he let Kimi past to precisely readjust to that "advantage"? Not a hope in hell.

Did that "advantage" affect the race result? Doubtful, given the extent to which Hamilton had an edge over Raikonnen by then. But did it give Lewis an sort of advantage over Massa or Heidfeld? Of course not, because short of crashing out or breaking down, neither, stood a hope of catching either Raikonnen or Hamilton. Yet both gain as a result of this.

Moreover, I wonder how Raikonnen feels? After all, it puts him even worse off in relation to his position re: Massa and Ferrari's championship effort. Massa has gained significantly because of something that had no effect on him, and Raikonnen, as the putative "victim" of the advantage, suffered even more than he did by crashing out.

Whether Lewis gained an advantage or not is not, in my opinion, what matters. It's the reaction of stewards and the extent of the effect of their penalty. It might be what determines who gets the overall World Championship. And that, in my view, is an absolutely fatuous situation over an incident like this which was, after all, a racing incident with two highly charged experts both fighting, and that's what racing is supposed to be.

Even if the stewards have applied the letter of the law, then this penalty applied in this way has an effect of a magnitude that is totally inconsistent with the nature of the incident, and that is what has finally driven me away from F1 .... probably for good. I want racing where it's the skill of the drivers that determines winners, not second-guessing by the stewards. I don't care if Hamilton gained an advantage or not, because it's the nature of the decision and the effect it has that is so wrong.