16860 replies to this topic

[ArtShelley]

It's not about me agreeing. It's about you finding anyone to agree with your examples. That's surely easy if, as you claim, it happens most of the time.
Since it's complete BS you might find it difficult though. Drivers / teams don't cede positions unless they absolutely have to. So I can fully understand why you're running away.

Let alone a driver/team ceding a position after receiving confirmation from the FIA that they didn't have to.

I can just imagine it:

McLaren: Lewis gave the position back. Is that enough?
Whiting: Yes I believe so.
McLaren: Can you confirm that.
Whiting: I confirm it.
McLaren: Oh forget we asked Charlie, we'll just give the position again just in case you're wrong.

[ArtShelley]

Just ask the question - do teams/drivers return a position if it has been earned by cutting a chicane or a corner (a) always, (b) in most cases, © in some cases, (d) rarely, (e) never.

Maybe other posters have views. Who knows?

McLaren/Lewis did return the position.

So shouldn't your question be - do teams/driver return a position and then wait for 2 corners before the rule came into force?

[ArtShelley]

Ones that i can remember are jenson giving position back to webber in valencia 09 but i'm pretty sure brawn gp asked charlie and then gave it back and webber in singapore in 09 but once again red bull asked then told webber to give the position back.

The only one i can think of where the driver gives the position back straight away is monza 08 massa gives a position back to rosberg and webber giving the position back to schumacher in canada 2011

But does every team cede the postition back if theres the slightest doubt no they don't.

Exactly. History is littered with examples of teams seeking clarification from the Race Director. It's littered with examples where the Race Director has actually sent a message directly to the teams instructing them exactly what they need to do - such as Alonso/Klein @ Suzuka 2005 or Alonso/Kubica @ Silverstone 2010.

Yet when it happens with McLaren/Lewis @ Spa 2008, suddenly it is McLaren's fault for seeking clarification from the Race Director.

Let's get it straight - Lewis gave the position back. However he did not wait after, but immediately tailed Kimi down the straight and passed him at the end of the straight into the following corner. Hence it became a subjective assessment whether he did enough under the unclear rule at the time, which is why McLaren sought clarification from the Race Director - the FIA - the rule maker.

So Lewis gave the position back. What he did not do is give the position back twice and wait an additional corner before attempting to pass again.

[ArtShelley]

Had to let this sink in, but now I think I might have made a basic mistake: could it be that the CW only refered the matter to the stewards after the race? I was under the impression it was already during the race, that's why I claimed to only talk about stuff that took place during the race.

IF, CW indeed only advised the stewards to investigate the case after the race, then my mistake, apologies.

However, amidst all that confusion, what I wanted to do is make a distinction between the decisions on race day and the the appeal process, which Slartibartfast refered to.

Sh*t, I fear nobody will be able to make sense of what I just wrote... Just take this confusing post as an admission that I might have made a mistake, nevermind the details!

Oh sheesh!

I apologise for my accusations. I'm simply lost for words as I honestly thought you were incapable. Well done!

[as65p]

Having just got back from an evening imbibing at the local licensed premises, I fear my faculties are a little dulled.

As far as I am concerned, there's no need for any apology (which is not to say that any apology is not accepted). Everything Aspy posted made sense to me. Well, it did before I went out for the evening, anyway. I assumed that "during the race" meant the stewards' investigation and "after the race" meant the rejected appeal hearing.

Thanks. Glad to hear that.

On the positive side, we will forever more know as65p as... Big Softy!

Yeah. I'm so screwed now...

[Manners]

I politely asked for a link to the first of these FACTS. Can you supply one?

Use your eyes dude. Lewis Hamilton's tyres are bald. Anyone with half an ounce of intelligence can see that. But somehow you're trying to prove that they aren't because you can't find offical word. Well guess what ? I can't find official word that Wayne Rooney was about to become a slaphead with a seven inch centre parting until he had his folicle surgery or whatever. But he was balding, we all knew that, we saw with our eyes. We didn't need an official FA press release to confirm which was staring infront of our eyes.

On a side note, it still bothers me to this day why McLaren kept Hamilton out on track at China despite being in such a promising position, able to wrap up the WDC yet losing seven seconds per lap with tyres that visibly had a worse profile than the Hamlet cigar man (the immortal Rab C Nesbitt).

[Peter Perfect]

...
On a side note, it still bothers me to this day why McLaren kept Hamilton out on track at China despite being in such a promising position, able to wrap up the WDC yet losing seven seconds per lap with tyres that visibly had a worse profile than the Hamlet cigar man (the immortal Rab C Nesbitt).
...

<pedantic> Well, Gregor Fisher. Rab C Nesbitt was a different character in Naked Video. </pedantic>

[flyer121]

Well you've clearly fecked that up majorly haven't you? You obviously don't remember the race, because then you would have realised that Kimi was well BEHIND Lewis when Kimi crashed out.

Go back and try watching the race again because all you are bringing to the table so far is both bias and utter ignorance.

I can now finally put a finger on what your problem is. You take everything literally and then start to split hairs.

Point is not if lew was on his tail at the exact moment but that the battle and chicane cutting may ve been a cause of kimi s crash.

[fieraku]

I can now finally put a finger on what your problem is. You take everything literally and then start to split hairs.

Point is not if lew was on his tail at the exact moment but that the battle and chicane cutting may ve been a cause of kimi s crash.

Of course it was,Ham was using his telekinetic superpowers.Cmon dude

[Nigol]

I can now finally put a finger on what your problem is. You take everything literally and then start to split hairs.

Point is not if lew was on his tail at the exact moment but that the battle and chicane cutting may ve been a cause of kimi s crash.

He lost control three corners earlier in front while HAM was mowing the lawn. So this can't be the reason, don't you think.

[VresiBerba]

It doesn't matter, but it WAS Nico. Yellow helmet, red camera:

Then I stand corrected. Well, not that it mattered... hrm...

There was an unwritten understanding that if you negated the advantage gained, then the incident could be overlooked.

NO! There was, what you call an 'unwritten understanding' that if you gave back the position, the incident could be overlooked. There was nothing about advantage in that 'understanding', nothing whatsoever.