Not true. They can give any penalty in the F1 Sporting Regulations (which, if the penalty is given after the race is over, is 25s or a 10 place grid drop) or they can give any penalty under the International Sporting Code, which covers pretty much any conceivable penalty.

It's that flexability that allowed them to fine Ferrari at Valencia.

So they could have reprimanded Hamilton, or given him a 5s penalty, or a 50s penalty, or a $100m fine!

He should have been hanged from his infamously big balls for a duration of 25 seconds.

So in many ways worse but with a lesser penalty?

Now I dont think massa should have been penalised but if Hamilton is for that then it's just a loaded dice...

Do the FIA use a magic 8 ball or somthing?

A magic 8 ball would give a far more impartial decision than the FIA seem to be able to give.

Er... Robert is taller
But yeah Nick is a midget.

No, anyone who believes the penalty was justified is not a daily Sun/Star/Mail reader.

Those who think actually, looking at precedent, (Alonso, Klien, 2005), it is obvious that he got a penalty for what he admitted doing, is pretty normal. Those who believe the penalty was some sort of conspiracy are either McLaren fan boys, Lewis fan boys, or conspiracy theorists who see conspiracy in everything.

Fact = Lewis said he had an advantage, therefore, he was punished. IMHO, he should have been DQ'd, but he was typically lucky to not see the DQ.

I hope his appeal results in a harsher penalty for wasting people's time.

Well if the shoe fits ....

that's not strictly true. the advantage actually in question is at the point he moves ahead at la source, where lewis claims the advantage from the chicane is already rescinded, and any other advantage over kimi relates to the size of his balls, or as he actually means and refers to, his feel for grip.

Alonso's penalty for that was nothing.

So, according to precedent, Hamilton's penalty should have been nothing.

No No...
Just you and your ingratiating,sycophantic associates



Jp

Oh, Please !

This is taking Hamilton bashing too far.

Anybody that seriously thinks Kimi crashed out because he was upset at having failed to drive Hamilton off the road really must be an idiot.

Kimi could just have easily have been handed a grid penalty for his double or triple swerve on the straight before he crashed.

These were all racing incidents, pure and simple.

Personally I don't think either deserved a penalty and I think the previous fine on Ferrari was fair : after all, Massa shouldn't be penalised : he only pulled out of the pit box when told to do so by the team.

When you think of what Senna and Schumacher have got away with over the years ( a lot of which I found excessive ), there is now far to much outside interference off the track in what is and should be a hard sport.

Which makes Lewis a very, very stupid person. If his 'feel for grip' is superior, there is no need to overtake in a suspicious manner that is known to have caused penalties earlier.

The same as Massa's previous penalty has been suggested in some places. A fine.

I think a visit from " stern lecture plumbing " and a rebuttal asking for clarification (such as is being demanded this weekend) was in order.

When Race Control gave the thumbs up and they radioed "push kimi" it was game on.

Thanks.

Now, look up some books that deal with "fair play", "a gentleman's sport" and "racing for dummies". If you still haven't found the truth you can always search for "the art of racing by Ayrton Senna". If that doesn't help, nothing will.

indeed. the gap was gaping though wasn't it. instinct i guess. if he was clever, his feel for grip would have ensured he pitted in china earlier, no matter what the team said. being stupid isn't against the rules though. if mclaren were thinking brighter along the same lines they'd have ensured he swapped with kimi again regardless of charlie. but then again, he did, didn't he, and it made sod all difference.

You want me to "look up some books" now do you?

Reading your posts gives me a notion that I've read more books than you've had hot dinners

Contradicting oneself twice within one sentence
Classic

Jp

So, the "art of racing by Ayrton Senna" didn't help. Hmm, too bad. I really thought it would.

BTW, there are better photos of Joni Mitchell than your avatar. Her skin in your avatar looks like a pig.

Where is the no penalty option?

Can't vote in this poll, sorry.

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?

His penalty should be 4 more points added to his total and keep the first trophy he earned...

The ones deserving penalties at Spa were the FIA for woolly rules and the stewards for woolly thinking...

Agreed

All falling on deaf ears. It will continue to be used as the precedent for awarding a penalty despite your best efforts.

Penalty = nothing. If he gained an advantage is was small. measures in tenths or even hundredths of a second, no more. The penalty in this case cannot fit the crime, just as a stop go would never have fitted Massa's Valencia crime.

So I voted '25 seconds' so that the results are skewed.

The right thing would have been to give him no penalty at all.

The most fair thing from your list would have been the 10 seconds or less option.

The only valid penalty according to rules was 25 seconds.


My point of view remains. Penalizing him was a ludicrous decision.

Nothing. Or a warning for "unsportsmanlike behavior", the warning should be the same for Kimi as he gained an advantage driving off Puhon.

30''

you don't earn trophies by cheating.
hamilton likes to pass cutting the chicanes.

"The art of racing by Ayrton Senna"

Including the chapter about deliberatly running your oppponent off the road - yes there is fair play - and a gentlemans sport ...

Maybe you should pick a better example.

And MS is just as tainted - twice as tainted actually

i wonder what race this guy was watching

I'm getting bored of thinking about this really (and besides, come Sunday we'll have a whole new controversy), but here's my assessment of the situation.

- Hamilton cut the corner and gained an advantage. Regardless of what follows, the stewards have the right to penalise that.
- Convention has it that if a driver cuts the corner and gains a place, he can avoid a penalty by relinquishing whatever advantage he gained.
- Hamilton made a good faith attempt to relinquish his advantage, and his team had good reason to believe he had yielded sufficiently to avoid penalty.
- The stewards disagreed, and believed that he hadn't quite done enough; so applied the appropriate penalty - 25sec added to the race time in lieu of a 10 sec stop/go penalty.

This is a simply a judgment call - the steward's judgment disagreed with the driver's (and with Charlie Whiting's) judgment. A more experienced driver might have held off a little longer to give the stewards no cause for doubt - but, as Hamilton attempted to relinquish his advantage, there's can't really be any question that he was trying to cheat or game the system; and any penalty really should be simply to adjust for the advantage gained rather than be excessively punitive.

It's rarely helpful to call on previous precedent in these situations, because every situation in F1 is unique; in any case stewards decisions are notoriously inconsistent, so we could find any number of different precedents. But nevertheless, we know that in the past, the stewards have instructed a driver to fall back and yield the place again some time after the incident - this option (which may have been fairer) was not available in these circumstances due to the continuing fight between Hamilton and Raikkonen, and of course Raikkonen's subsequent retirement. It seems harsh to unfairly penalise a driver because of the way the race unfolded around him.

I'd say that a 10 sec stop/go (or the 25 second equivalent) is just too blunt an instrument to wield in this situation. It's far too much time to compensate for any advantage gained, and it's far too harsh as a punitive measure. So I'd like to see a shorter penalty for this sort of situation, maybe something of the order of 10-15 seconds - a slap on the wrist, but not enough to completely destroy a race (except, of course, in some unusual conditions). Maybe a drive-through; or a 10sec stop-go in a 'penalty box' that doesn't have the length of the pitlane as an added penalty.

But then again, the need for a 'slap on the wrist' penalty doesn't seem to arise very often, so it may not be worth introducing such a penalty after just one incident.

They could have simply told McLaren to let Hamilton give the place back (again), during the race (like at Suzuka 2005), or not punished him at all (like at Hungary 2006).

Blah, blah, blah.

How's Alonzo these days?

Give him a fine that the team can pay not take his victory away. Then it would have been the same at Felipe Massa at the previous race.

Most likely gained from doing some offroading - trying to take advantage from driving somewhere other then the real track surface. And maybe McL should be investigated for running stronger tyres - Kimi gave LH's RR tyre a real whack - (avoidable accident? he didn't have to push the throttle that far) and it didn't go down.

Young Hamilton made a mistake, he immediately redressed that mistake, then got straight back to the task at hand.

He should not have been penalised...end of story