OK, wiseguy, YOU show me where Trulli uses the word "penalty".

He talks about gaining an advantage. That's not the point. And that's not what Scuderia_Steve claims he said. Scuderia_Steve claims Trulli believes the penalty was due to an advantage. And indeed Trulli might.

But that is NOT what he is reported as saying. The report solely refers to an advantage.

Which is interesting. Perhaps the Italian newspaper missed out a comment such as "...and it happens all the time and everyone knows you just give up the place".

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70443


it's a shame more then before...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70435

same old story: italian driver, perennial "young promise", perennial "when will we see him at Ferrari's wheel?", speaking with an italian rag...what do you expect him to say?

I don't think any driver in the grid will say "the punishment is OK" because they all know that that punishment can be used against them in any moment. Saying that Hamilton gained adventage and had there been a wall he should have slowed down behind Kimi's rear wing is the most aproppiate thing to say for a driver. Trulli said what a certain part of forumers here think: that Hamilton had to give more room to Kimi in the straight before starting his overtaking maneouvre again. How much room? I'd dare to say that room enough to lose adventage of being in the precedent car's slipstream.

That doesn't imply Hamilton cheated or was an unfair sportman. Just only that he was too anxious for the win that he didn't calculate the consequences of his action or if was acting properly in that straight.

I think that in future races Hamilton will be wiser and experienced about things like cutting chicanes or being in the slipstream of another driver. I think it's not about only give up the place, but give up the unfair adventage.

the issue is only hamilton was penalized, so many others drivers cut chicane or gained an advantage but ONLY hamilton was penalized... shame shame shame!

So more room than Alonso was required (once it was clarified) to give Klien. It should be the same rule for all, IMO.

Given that there's been so much discussion whether Hamilton contravened the regulation around gaining an unfair advantage, I went to check on the wording of the regulation - only to discover that it doesn't exist. Chapter 16 regarding incidents and driver penalties does not mention cutting corners or unfair advantage, much less ceding the position. But everyone knows the rule has been in place for years...can anyone point me in the direction of where it comes from?

my god! just think how far back alonso would have to go at monza! he'd have to let about four following cars through!

i think the idea is that while it is not an Incident (and listed) it remains an incident, which is also covered in that rule. Such incidents do not need defining, because then they couldn't be made up. This one was for taking a short cut. The first corner on sunday should be fun.

It is derived from the rule in the section on General Safety. I think (off the top of my head, on blackberry) that's rule 30. The specific one (again, OTTOMH) is 30.3(a) - which simply says the drivers can only use the track.

Obviously that rule is broken without penalty more often than it is broken with penalty, which is why you have to look at past practice to try and establish which breaches attract a penalty and which don't.

Past practice (IMO) makes it pretty clear that "unfair advantage" and "fully giving up all your advantage" are not tests that have ever been applied in practice. It has always been (IMO) "gain a place, give it up, race immediately back on".

vettel was on slicks, alonso inters wasnt it?

kimi pushed lewis off the track because he could, if theres a wall or gravel, the car will either neatly bounce back into kimi, or the driver would just go to the edge and kimi could drive into him

I think so.
The last corner was in very bad conditions, that's why Kimi struggled to do it as everybody else around there, except Lewis who decided to jump it that lap.

And if there was a gravel trap, Lewis would have waited a bit more to accelarate to avoid crashing with Kimi and then gently follow Kimi around the chicane while losing at least half second.
When you decide to attack on the outside you'd better put your car side by side inside the corner, at least, or be prepared to yield.



The only written rule is that you must only use the track at all times. The stewards are free to impose (or not) the penalty they consider. The criteria they use seems to be not very clear, at least for the public. We've been discussing it a bit here:

http://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?threadid=103732

Has the date for the Appeals Hearing been set or not yet?

It's not set yet.

Planet F1 have reported that it will likely happen between Monza and Singapore but there are no quotes to back that up and it's Planet F1, so make of it what you will ...

If Massa wins at Monza with Hamilton 2nd, which is far from unlikely, they would be equal in points facing the court of appeal... yikes..

A clear discrepancy here:

Massa: "Incidents like this have often been discussed in the official driver briefings when it has been made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained.''

Hamilton: ''Normally in the drivers' briefing we don't talk about that sort of thing. And do we all agree on things? It never happens. We always have our own opinions, but they have their own right to have their own opinion about what happened.''

---------

I'd be surprised if Hamilton is right. How can a Grand Prix Drivers Association not talk about this sort of thing ?! It's what these drivers' briefing are primarily there for...

GPDA is not drivers' briefings.

Drivers' briefings are, IIRC, conducted by Whiting. Given he okayed the move, I'd be surprised if Massa's version was correct.

The Grand Prix Drivers Association is NOT the driver briefing. And anyway, lewis is not a member of the GPDA as we know from the various bash-threads that appeared when we all found this out.

Whiting can ok the move and be consistent with Massa's version.

Either Whiting is saying:

"the move is ok, I believe any advantage gain was negated" - consistent with Massa

or

"the move is ok simply because the position was given back" - most people want to believe this version. If the rule is this clear then why would McLaren check in the first place?

Hamilton's talking about discussing the steward's ruling.

Once bitten, twice shy. They didn't ask in France, paid a heavy price and were (rightly) roundly criticised for not playing it safe and getting clarification.

Try this for size

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM

Was there a penalty? NO

The final part of the report as below! (from F1 grandprix.com)

.......Michael was willing to do a lot to keep the McLaren behind him. De la Rosa was so much faster than the Ferrari that he came close to passing the Ferrari several times but could not make it stick. On lap 64 he did it but Michael went across the chicane and took back the place when he ought by rights to have lifted off and given the position to de la Rosa.

"He jumped over the chicane, backed off, and then when I went into Turn 8 on the inside, thinking he was letting me go past," said Pedro. "And he suddenly accelerated and we clashed wheels. I didn't understand."

A couple of laps later Pedro finished the job and sped away while Heidfeld came up to fight with Michael.

It did not last long. Heidfeld is no weed and when Michael tried to hold him back, Nick kept coming. Michael ran into the back of the BMW and damaged his suspension.

"Of course I'm disappointed," Michael said. "We had a great opportunity but we did not take it."

Michael's demise promoted Barrichello to fourth, Coulthard to fifth, Ralf Schumacher to sixth and Robert Kubica to seventh - a great debut for the Polish driver, who had had a couple of spins along the way.

The last point went to Massa, who had had a terrible afternoon always seemingly on the wrong tyres until the final laps when he set a string of fastest laps.

Yet the story was not quite over. As Button celebrated the removal of a great weight from his shoulders, down in the scrutineering bay they were finding that Kubica's BMW was two kilograms short of the weight limit - because his tyres had been worn down so much. There was little hesitation. Kubica was out and those behind were promoted. Michael was suddenly eighth and in the points.

And yet the Ferrari driver had not been punished for not allowing de la Rosa to re-pass him after the incident at the chicane.

Surely the Race Director ought to have reported that one to the Stewards as well.

Michael got away with it and perhaps that one point will make a big difference in a few weeks from now. Perhaps not.

That may not seem fair but there was one other point that no-one seemed to notice. What in the world was a seven-time World Champion doing fighting like that when he could have gone home with five points if he had simply allowed de la Rosa and Heidfeld to go ahead.


Cheers,

De la Rosa talked about Hungary 2006 some times. He told that, after the race, he asked Whiting if Schumacher's maneouvre was right. Whiting replied that first maneouvre was right, but second maneouvre wasn't right, but at that time, De la Rosa had overtook Schumacher, so there was no real need to punish Schumacher. Then De la Rosa asked: "How many times a driver can jump a chicane before he's punished". Whiting replied in a ironic mode: "I don't know". Meaning "It's depends on who's the driver".

Ferrari, and specially Schumacher, was clearly favoured in Hungary 2006. But that's not the point.

The point here should be: "How many times Hamilton was favoured by the FIA in his first year as a rookie?".

Let's think:

-Monaco. FIA starts an investigation against McLaren and Fernando Alonso because the complaints of Hamilton, thinking that he could win the race if there were not team orders.

-Nurburgring: Hamilton is helped by a crane when the rest of drivers who were out of the race weren't helped by the same crane.

-Hungary: Hamilton, after disobeying team orders to let Alonso pass him in order to give both drivers equal treatment, complains to the FIA that his team-mate impeded him to have a go for his hot lap. Hamilton had one, Alonso had one when he was about to have his second hot lap, as scheduled prior to the qualifying. Alonso was acussed by Hamilton of cheating along with McLaren team, and found guilty by the stewards of impeding Hamilton to complete his hot lap. Alonso was demoted to 5th place in the grid and portrayed as a cheater.

-Japan: Hamilton, under safety car, doesn't follow the rules of a SC and makes breaktesting all the time, provoking some crashes behind him. No punishment is found against his behaviour.

So, now, when suddenly stewards consider that Hamilton is not better than any other drivers or has not to be favoured by the FIA, British press considers it as an outrage. Come on!

He was a star in his first year as a rooke. Let's show go on. "The rookie beating a 2WDC team mate". It was good. The new Ayrton Senna, the MegaDriver, the Sensational British. But Hamilton is not that good.

He had a mistake and that's all. For those ones who think that Spa was the most unbelieveable penalty in F1, let's remember to them the crane in Nurburgring, the investigation in Monaco or the way Alonso was thrown to hell by his own McLaren team for "impeding" his team-mate to have his second hot-lap.

Come on...

How are you coming up with the idea that Lewis was let of by the stewards for something that Alonso did?

As for the rest, I assure you, you can find similar instances amongst other drivers,

Hamilton was the only driver that kept his wits about him. The others switched their cars off and got out.
Alonso broke the rules of the sport, Hamilton broke an inter-team agreement.
A lie. He didn't nothing wrong, a driver lost concentration and drove into Mark Webber.

Oh, yeah...

i doubt he would of lost half a second tbh, he probably would of had far better traction than kimi, or equal, and as the rain would slow them down, the yo-yo/concertina effect distance would be less. and he would have the tow the full length of the pitlane straight. its pretty much impossible to quantify what he should of handed back :/

I remember saying that when Montoya got his stop go, that prevented him and the Williams from being able to win the WDC (which might of in the end happened) - I blamed Montoya for being too impatient. He did though push Ruben's Ferrari off the track - Rubens crashed out after Montoya hit him. Montoya got a stop and go, and then had to go I think and change his tyres - his race was ruined. That's from memory so it might not be 100% reliable.

Many were upset back then, that Montoya got a stop and go, in what was a racing incident.

How things have changed - people support Ham getting a penalty, when he never touched Kimi ... and he Kimi back past him.

Its the new F1 for sure. Those who don't understand racers, who hate overtaking, think punishing Ham is quite correct. Racers are used to things changing - and they grab an advantage in a split second. Racers don't operate on consideration - its reflex they operate on ... I guess nowadays, that era is truly gone. Spa was the day when the racers died.

Originally posted by Nadsat
-Hungary: Hamilton, after disobeying team orders to let Alonso pass him in order to give both drivers equal treatment, complains to the FIA that his team-mate impeded him to have a go for his hot lap. Hamilton had one, Alonso had one when he was about to have his second hot lap, as scheduled prior to the qualifying. Alonso was acussed by Hamilton of cheating along with McLaren team, and found guilty by the stewards of impeding Hamilton to complete his hot lap. Alonso was demoted to 5th place in the grid and portrayed as a cheater.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alonso broke the rules of the sport, Hamilton broke an inter-team agreement.



--------->Could you elaborate about the rules of the sport? Where is it written that pitting for some time is breaking some rules? At Hungary, Alonso pit before the 'incident' and was hold for more that 45 seconds in the pit lane by the McLaren mechanics. In his second pit, he was hold again. Did Alonso break any pit rule by hearing the countdown until he was free to race again? Did Alonso break any rule by discussing why McLaren was giving him old tyres to make his hot lap? Was Alonso able to know how much time he had before impeding Hamilton to have his hot lap? Did Alonso had a super-mega-watch which gave him information about how much tenths of a second he needed to impede Hamilton's hot lap? Did Alonso's trainer was in the radio team talking in private with Alonso?

What rules Alonso broke in Hungary?

good stuff. frankly tho, i don't think you'll see a let up in lewis. he is a racer and knows no other way. he might think so, but i don't see him thinking more this season, he's still gut instinct. well most of the year anyway, at the start, when he was trying to think more, it wasn't working for him.

he'll be involved in many many more incidents. he takes each race for what it is, and the championship remains secondary, as much as he wants it. its good to see. same goes for kimi i think.

however we might miss much of that, as the change in regs could easily lead to mclaren domination a la 98 for an extended period, or rather ferrari's first half of the decade.

same one as monza the previous year, only the updated version, where holding up a competitor in quali deliberately is illegal. and before you say it, yes, the pitlane is the track, and it wasn't a team order for him to remain there, but quite the opposite in fact, so there is no excuse of that kind. he wasn't chatting about tyres, but even if he was it wouldn't make any difference, same goes for if he had been in monza.

OK. Then explain to me the actual facts. Did Alonso have a calculator on his car giving him info about how many mins and seconds remained?

Did Alonso had a perfect info from his therapist?

Come with actual facts. When someone can explain all those facts with common sense, I'll give it up and I'll say Alonso was cheating. In the meanwhile, I don't think so.

He broke the rules of deliberately impeding another competitor. It was investigated and he was found guilty. Alonso sat in the pits when the lollipop was raised to deliberately baulk Hamilton.

No one has the actual facts other than Alonso, McLaren and the stewards of the meeting. They deemed the evidence enough to penalize Alonso. So you not thinking so is based on wishful thinking and nothing else.

this has already been covered elsewhere. i'm not going to provide a link as you were involved in it anyway several times i'm sure. but short answer, he knew the session was ending, he knew they timed it to trip the line in dying seconds and he knew how long roughly lewis' pitstop would last. he very nearly got it very wrong and only the team telling him to speed up got him his last lap. its not difficult to understand. if you can't guess when ten seconds is up, with some accuracy give or take a second or two even, i feel very sorry for you. but that's all i'm saying on it here, the thread is long enough and divergent enough as it is

Erm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srZsbnGxu1A


If he didn't do anything wrong then why did the FiA say that if anyone behaves like that again they'll be penalized?
He got away with it, that was the story of last year.

FIA(t) runs F1. It should be obvious to all but the blinkered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbuK9H9wF1c&feature=related

Why wasn't Kimi given a penalty for gaining an advantage by driving off track on the high grip runoff at Pouhon. He should receive a 10 grid penalty at Monza. Lewis also went off track but immediately made every effort to get back on track, Kimi on the other hand made absolutely no effort to get back on track and gained about six car lengths on Lewis.

Why no penalty or investigation?

Because FIA(t) is unduly influenced by one of the wealthiest banking families in the world: the Agnellis.

What is wrong with 2007 WCC?

-KB

All that money didn't stop the FIA from penalizing Kimi with a drive through in Monaco.

but the correct penalty would have seen Kimi start from pit lane

oh cut the sanctimonius crap mp

you dont understand "racers" any more than anyone else.

I can want to see overtaking and yet also accept that lewis took advantage of the concreted run off to his advantage. I can also read that more and more of the analyses are accepting that lewis did not give back his advantage completely. the only area now not accepted is whether teh penalty fitted the crime. no one can find a driver(probably at least a few fellow "racers" like you amongst them) who appears to support lewis as of the moment

gee guess they also dont understand what f1 should be about.

the penalty is way to harsh, and the "advantage" is conjecture

lewis was right on his tail into braking zone
nearly runs into him, side by side, nose ahead into the chicane
falls slightly behind kimi, but still overlapping
bit further behind but still overlapping when he turns to cut the chicane to avoid acciedent as kimi forces him off the road
know, quantifiable time/distances
FIA stewards went with well what if he gave up on his overtake when it still looked on, slotted behind kimi and followed him through.

ok on a dry track u could look at other cars and probably get a pretty good ballpark figure. but it was wet, on dry tyres, so how do you figure out a sensible figure for that? and how do you know uve given x time back, until you reach a split time, requiring you to not gain time, or lose time cos you dont want to disadvantage yourself for a entire sector. ofcourse if your going by sectors then lewis is probably stuffed, cos he was gaining rapidly on kimi in the last sector.

all you can say is he "needed" to backoff more than he did, to more than a essentially undefinable amount, weve had figures from .3 to 1.5seconds banded about on here, and spin/crash.

and the stewards chose to ignore kimi getting ahead later, gaining atleast 4seconds or more on lewis, on the same lap as the incident. or that race control said it was ok twice. and McLaren where willing to give kimi the place back (which happened anyways). lets say he gained .4ths from his cut (he was .1 behind at the line?), .5 has been quoted by someone on here as a dry figure for the normal gap. if you look at the vid he loses atleast 4 seconds with his williams off compaired to kimi. thats only 10x+ what he gained during the cut if you take my figures.

IMO they've not used any sensible discretion, not followed what had happened in the past, not used easily/quick quantifable measures, not acted quickly enough during the race to raise the issue so we could have ignored kimi forced him into a offtrack or likely crash, ignored kimi hit him twice. ignored ontrack correction, ignored chance correction that had loanshark rate interest. ignored kimi didnt finish and was slower (not a major point) they also provided the media and fans with hardly any information aswell. what they did do is go for the most painful penalty they could which will likely be argued in the appeal you cant change it.

thats why alota race fans are angry at the stewards/FIA. and other reasons ive missed.

Please explain how this incident prevented Montoya and Williams from winning the WDC

maybe lewis might reconsider joining the gpda and try and effect change if he feels so hard done by.

nothing worse than someone happy to criticise but not prepared themselves to make any effort to improve things.