No-one was saying that Lewis had more speed than Kimi as they crossed the line. What is being said is that he had more speed than he woudl have had if he'd gone round the corner correctly

According to Mario Theissen it was Nick Heidfeld who took the inspired decision to change to wets. Kubica was free to do the same (even before Heidfeld!) but he did not have that idea:

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news...909001506.shtml :

Theissen also hailed Heidfeld's race, particularly the decision to switch to wets.

"It tells you something about racecraft and about racing experience to judge a situation like this within a few seconds," Theissen said.

Yeah this is really interesting because Alex will have been in the driver briefings as a standby driver for Honda, so will know exactly what is expected of them. Alex is also one of the few drivers to defend Hamilton after his problems in the Montreal red-light district - pointing out that leaving the pitlane is not just a matter of flipping gear levers and watching a red light but a whole host of other activities which can very easily overload a driver as it has done there two years in a row now.

Having said that, there is still this 'momentum' question which is irritating me, because in order to let Kimi by he must have lost at least some of the extra momentum he would have gained had he floored it on the grippy run-off. Clearly not enough for the stewards but certainly enough for the majority of commentators and other experts in the field. Even Wurz isn't certain but at least appreciates that it is up to the stewards.

No, it was a totally different punishment in Senna's case. Disqualification.

If he had gone around the corner 'correctly' KR would have ploughed into the side of him and they would both probably have been out denying us the exciting end to the race.

I would much rather see good racing than spend days analising the rule book. Surely logic has to come into it, given the conditions and the speed at which decisions had to be made - for the sake of good racing. Looking at the on-board I thought both drivers were exceptional.

And what level of post-race scrutiny would be required to enforce that ruling? It's neither practical nor desirable to have such incidents desired by quasi-judicial process. IMO the FIA has to ask itself two questions:

(1) Did Hamilton have reasonable cause to take to the chicane? [Answer: yes, there was contact at the point he decided to take the escape route.]
(2) Did Hamilton relinquish the position gained by cutting the course? [Answer: yes.]

Ferrari have cleverly skewed the argument, insisting that Hamilton didn't repay the level of advantage gained sufficiently, requiring a new level of post-race analysis that opens the door to almost every race result being appealed, e.g. whenever a car leaves the course during the GP, the team will have to calculate the potential advantage and ask their driver to slow by that amount or risk a post-race inquiry!

What really got me, about that, was that Senna was actually pushed through the chicane run-off by the marshals. How could he have not cut the chicane? He would have to have driven the wrong way down the chicane run-off, and then turned back around to take it normally. As Mansell found out a month earlier, this would also have resulted in disqualification. This circumstance, I think, makes it clear that FISA were just trying to use whichever punishment they could stick on Senna to be sure he didn't win the race. Whether that was to favour Prost or just to ensure some kind of 'natural justice', that you couldn't take out your title rival in a questionable manoeuvre, and then go on to win the race.

But I personally dont think its good racing if you get an advantage by going off the track. That applies to anyone and any of the recent incdents whether penalised or not. If you can just shoot off the track whenever it seems convenient, thats not skillful racing IMHO. In this case Hamilton did hava a choice, he could have braked.

Exactly and he chose tarmac instead of grass as he didn't want to loose momentum

Spot on Orin. The only thing I'd add is that, regardless of what is practical or desirable, the approach you have described is the approach that has been taken in the past. Deviating from it now, with no prior warning that the rule has changed and with the race director okaying the move at the time, is unfair.

Exactly. I could understand if they had made a spur of the moment decision, Ferrari's position is credible, but it requires a new reading of the rules; but they gave themselves 3 hours to think over everything, take advice, etc. and still came this decision? Incredible, let's look at one of the delegates, Surinder Thatthi:-

http://www.autosport.com/news/grapevine.php/id/67205

Is this the kind of 'rocket scientist' that we want given stewardship of a GP?

Oh yeah, they took advice, mainly from Mr Donnelly ...

That's probably the reason why most drivers in similar situations let the other guy take his position back and get a few car lengths in front and only then start to race him again.

As I already said, Lewis once again pushed the rule to the max and this time it backfired. His loss, effectively 6 points, was far more than this marginal offense deserved, but then again he himself chose to cut it so fine. I'm sure had there been at least one car length between him and Kimi at any point after he straightlined the chicane, there would have been no penalty.

It's very harsh, unfair even, but he definitely called for it with his marginal obedience to the rule. They have to draw the line somewhere and apparently decided that Lewis had overstepped it.

Just like Kimi did on lap 2.

Ouch...

Now Jarno Trulli will make it on to a few peoples ignore list, I guess...

I think Hamilton probably did gain an advantage. So I don't think Jarno is wrong. The problem is the rules have never been applied on the basis of "gaining an advantage" before.

But, but, but........ Jarno is biased he's Italian you know, it's all one big Italo FIAt conspiracy

both massa and trulli have chimed in now with an opinion that an illegal advantage was carried by lewis.

trulli gives a good comparison to how you could also exploit similar advantage at monza.

kimi should do the the same thing to lewis in the next race, and lets see if the hamilton fans come to his defence

I suppose that's a little better than having 'has beens' like Niki Lauda and 'never were's like Eddie Irvine coming out in Hamiltons defence.

It never fails to amaze me how a driver can go from hero to zero (and vice versa) depending upon whether their view accords with ones own.

Indeed, and then let's see how the stewards react to a possible infraction by a Ferrari at Monza...

He avoided spinning Hamilton, a bit different situation

Hamilton could have backed of, but he didn't want to loose that much, so he steered away using tarmac. Harsh penalty, but not totally unjustified like Alonso @ Monza

Maybe. See my post #813, from memory I don't recall an earlier case were a driver gave his place back so closely/reluctantly, I'm struggling for the correct term. Maybe 2 metres more behind KR would have saved his day...

I agree he cut it fine, and given the amount Raikkonen was struggling it was probably unnecessary, but how about giving the benefit of doubt to the attacker? F1 is at its best when it is exciting, I don't want to see drivers holding back because of the fear that the officials may freely reinterpret the rules; Hamilton held to the letter of the law as it had previously been applied, that should suffice.

Most of all it should be seen that Raikkonen gave as good as he got, it was a thrilling contest - rare nowadays - of the type which should be encouraged. As I said in my initial post-race comments, Hamilton didn't need to fight for the win, keeping Massa behind him was all that was important (in fact, it was arguably beneficial for Raikkonen to win!), the sensible - boring - thing to do would have been to reduce revs after the last stop and coast home, on tiptoes once the rain started. That wouldn't have made for an interesting race. Instead he chased a doubtful win and, when it rained, pushed even harder! Spa was pure theatre, the reason, I believe, why most fans watch F1. The decision to punish it was counter-productive in every way.

Can't really argue with any of that. It sure was the most shameful outcome possible to a very exciting final laps.

Then again, the race remains the race and Lewis crossed the line first. That's offered as a small consolation for Lewis fans if they re-watch it in years to come, I can tell that it works from my experience of re-watching Suzuka '89...

;)

Well it's not spoilt the race for me as I view it as an absolute classic.

I'm just appalled that the FIA gets itself into these situations so regularly. There was an article in the Guardian today which said F1 ought to have professional adjudicators as other sports do: people which are held to account for their decisions and paid to show even-handedness. Instead we get partisan and intellectually-challenged fools like Hoosein and Thatthi making the decisions. Really, the sport is run on a cocktail of greed, incompetence and sycophancy.

Yeah, like football cos there is never any controversy there!

An instant classic, I hope Tilke was watching.

There's controversy in all sports, but F1 is the World Cup of motorsport, and while I can remember referees making tough decisions for better or worse in a World Cup, I can't remember an instance of them applying the rules in new ways as the moment requires.

shhhhh, don't say that.... Hermann would be salivating at the prospect to turn Eau Rouge into a chicane, Les Combes into a tight 90 degree passing zone....etc. The man apparently has no respect for historic's.

So then Lewis Hamilton came off the hook lightly, by comparison.

Then again, ensign14, as I explained, Senna did not only cut the chicane but also he crashed into Prost before that (or rather Prost into him, depending on the perspective you take).
So instead of 25 secs or whatever was the equivalent punishment back then, Balestre had Senna disqualified altogether.
As Senna had his Balestre, so Hamilton (and Ron Dennis) have their Mosley.

The end result was the same, now and then: racing was the loser.




Absolutely correct, Risil, to this day I find this ruling Senna/Suzuka 1989 extremely unfair.
That's why I find voices like now "The worst decision in the history of motor racing",
"It will damage the image of F1" and so on a little bit over the top, to say the least.
There have always been disputable rulings, there have always been scandals.

Senna was indeed within the rules, even being pushed back by the marshals, as long as he had kept his engine running, was absolutely correct by the rules back then. Even Schumacher did that much later, at the Nurburgring in 2001 (?)....and did not get punished.

And, as said above if he ran into Prost or Prost into him is disputable. Both could have avoided the accident.

That's for sure, as65p, watching Suzuka '89 is watching racing racing at its finest, especially the last few storming laps of Senna. Absolutely blistering!

And so will Spa 2008 remain a gem for all the years to come!

I don't know about unfair. Before anyone says this is OT, exactly the same principle is at stake here: whether it is right to sacrifice the correct interpretation of the rules, for the right result, or 'greater good'. FISA's stated reason for punishing Senna was utterly ridiculous, but IMO it had a solid moral grounding - Senna didn't have the speed to make a clean pass; the two collided simply because over the two years, race-by-race, neither could beat the other. It was somehow fitting of their relationship, that they should both have ended their partnership having driven into one another, titles remaining frustratingly one apiece.

Also, IIRC Senna didn't keep his engine running, he was push-started by the marshals from a dangerous position, as his car came to rest still on the racetrack. Why it should make a difference to the outcome your race, where your stalled car ends up, is beyond me, but I guess it's just a curious relic of the rules from a time when the individual result was perhaps not very important. Just like chicanes are a curious relic from a time when drivers were expected to keep on the track.

Just a quick observation...

I seem to recall a big hoo-har over Heikki letting Hamilton through in Germany and how it was proof that McLaren was a 1 car team. Didn't Hamilton come out behind Heikki at Spa and get held up for a few laps until Heikki came in for his pitstop?

Views, comments?

Presumably they thought they might not get away with it a "second" time....although I think if they'de done it (at Spa) it would have been obvious, whereas at Germany it was quite acceptable imho.

Surely as the season end gets closer it'd be easier to "get away with it" given that it's easier to justify?

That's a fair point, but for some reason I did not see the Hockenheim move as unfair....I mean, Kova (even as nice guy as I think he is) has been sooo much slower than Lewis in some races, including Hock, and it would be hard to conclude (and certainly hard to prove) that Lewis only got passed him due to team orders.

I tend to think the ban on team orders is bollocks anyway though. It is up to the team what they think is best for them strategically, and, as you say, team orders are regarded as legitimate towards the end of the season anyway, and I don't see how a rule can sensibly apply one end of the season and not at the other.