Hamilton stripped of win!
Posted by: Tony Lockhart on 07 September 2008
Posted on: 12 September 2008 by northpole
quote:The rules say he mustn't gain advantage which he quite clearly
That's an interesting point in a strictly legal beagle context whereby the incident is analysed in complete isolation from all other facts. And maybe that is how the rules are meant to be implemented. Terribly sad for the sport if this is the case.
Peter
Posted on: 12 September 2008 by spacey
basically it looks like ferrari and the FIA are best of friends. look at last years bollocks!
Posted on: 12 September 2008 by Gary S.
quote:Originally posted by rodwsmith:
As usual, Sniffpetrol seems to have summed up the episode with characteristic even-handedness. I particularly like the Monopoly reference.
Brilliant link, I've just nearly pissed myself reading some of the posts.
Gary
Posted on: 13 September 2008 by Steve S1
quote:Originally posted by r-tee:
basically it looks like ferrari and the FIA are best of friends. look at last years bollocks!
You noticed then. Nothing to do with who is driving for either of the teams. That relationship goes back years, Ferrari are synonymous with F1.
Steve
Posted on: 13 September 2008 by Duncan Fullerton
quote:Originally posted by BigH47:
Shows how much you were watching the race as people were going off on at least 4 other corners without any your symptoms, there were others that did have them though.
A euphamism BigH. What I was implying was that to fall off the track elsewhere would not have allowed him to be so close behind Raikonnen moments later.
Posted on: 13 September 2008 by Duncan Fullerton
quote:Originally posted by Frank Abela:
Of course, if Kimi didn't try to run him off the road you'd be partly right ...
Frank, I just don't see it like that. Racing line: outside, apex, outside. Raikonnen had the line. No room at the inn for Hamilton.
Posted on: 13 September 2008 by Duncan Fullerton
I see Hamilton qualified a lowly 15th today at Monza. The cynics would say that this was because he knew everyone would be watching him, he had to stay on the circuit and not take any shortcuts! 
Posted on: 14 September 2008 by BigH47
quote:What I was implying was that to fall off the track elsewhere would not have allowed him to be so close behind Raikonnen moments later.
Look how KR made up time going off(not when he crashed BTW).
Posted on: 15 September 2008 by Frank Abela
Duncan,
Point being that in the old days, if you were deemed ahead, you had the right of taking the racing line, but the rules were changed a couple of years ago and they now state that if a car is attempting a manouvre such that the front wheels are ahead of the rear of the car in front, then the car in front must yield enough space for the other car.
Everyone seems to forget this!
Point being that in the old days, if you were deemed ahead, you had the right of taking the racing line, but the rules were changed a couple of years ago and they now state that if a car is attempting a manouvre such that the front wheels are ahead of the rear of the car in front, then the car in front must yield enough space for the other car.
Everyone seems to forget this!
Posted on: 19 September 2008 by living in lancs yearning for yorks
It made me very cross to hear of the penalty imposed on Hamilton.
Ex-drivers seem fairly unanimous in saying it was a nonsense.
Current drivers (no doubt worried about offending FIA) mostly agreed that Hamilton was in the wrong but the punishment was unduly harsh. And despite being unanimouns in saying Hamilton was in the wrong, they asked for clarification of the rule at Monza. I'm sorry, I thought you all agreed it was obvious?
Mclaren checked with the race director at the time that Hamilton had done enough - he confirmed that in his opinion he had
One of the stewards has obtained large amounts of income form Ferrari
The FIA's representative "guided" the stewards in making their decision
Massa set off in pits dangerously at an earlier race, fined a few thousand Euro (less than the Ferrari weekend champagne budget no doubt)
In that same race KR set off with the hose attached, injures mechanic, no penalty imposed
At Canada (I think it was) KR also set off parallel to another in the pit (Kubica?) in the same way that Massa did later - no fine (although Hamilton rammed him from behind so a penalty would have been very harsh!)
At Spa, KR went off circuit several times near the end in the rain from which he gained considerable advantage (more grip off the circuit) - no penalty imposed on him
When at Ferrari, Schumacher deliberately rammed other drivers to win the world championship twice - once it worked (Hill), once it failed (Villenueve). No penalty. He also regularly swerved at other drivers off the start line for which he received no penalty
Which reminds me - KR swerved at Hamilton rather viciously just after the chicane in question, just before Hamilton outbraked him (look, no penalty) - KR braked so early hamilton may well have been able to follow KR through the chicane as everyone says he should and still overtake him at exactly the same point
Ferrari has on a couple of occasions in the last couple of years been found to be using illegal parts (barge boards and smooth wheel covers) - no penalty imposed, or the rules were changed to allow them
I understand that Alonso was told by his team a year or two ago that he needed to give the place back where he had gained advantage by cutting a chicane, giving the place back but then overtaking again "too quickly" thereafter. At the time the stewards said that it had been unnecessary for him to give the place back a second time
I have seen reference to a more recent similar incident in which Alsono was not penalised for doing the same thing - overtaking again almost immediately after
But the above doesn't count for anything, no, apparently it's because I'm biased
And yes I do hate Ferrari - but that's because they appear to me to cheat as much as possible and get away with it more than anyone else. What Mclaren got fined $100m for last year (having informaiton on another team's car) is something that most teams have done for years (I freely accept that doesn't make it right) but when Renault were found to have had information of Toyota's car (IIRC - not sure why they would have wanted it)
I saw a great qwuote from a barrister about an FIA hearing - he said it was the only tribunal he knew of where you could be found guilty of something you hadn't even been charged of
[Actually, the really stupid thing about the penalty was that Hamilton, in practical terms, gained no benefit at all from overtaking KR where he did - Hamilton + Mclaren were at that stage vastly superior to KR + Ferrari - Hamilton would have overtaken KR very quickly anyway had he waited another three corners]
Ex-drivers seem fairly unanimous in saying it was a nonsense.
Current drivers (no doubt worried about offending FIA) mostly agreed that Hamilton was in the wrong but the punishment was unduly harsh. And despite being unanimouns in saying Hamilton was in the wrong, they asked for clarification of the rule at Monza. I'm sorry, I thought you all agreed it was obvious?
Mclaren checked with the race director at the time that Hamilton had done enough - he confirmed that in his opinion he had
One of the stewards has obtained large amounts of income form Ferrari
The FIA's representative "guided" the stewards in making their decision
Massa set off in pits dangerously at an earlier race, fined a few thousand Euro (less than the Ferrari weekend champagne budget no doubt)
In that same race KR set off with the hose attached, injures mechanic, no penalty imposed
At Canada (I think it was) KR also set off parallel to another in the pit (Kubica?) in the same way that Massa did later - no fine (although Hamilton rammed him from behind so a penalty would have been very harsh!)
At Spa, KR went off circuit several times near the end in the rain from which he gained considerable advantage (more grip off the circuit) - no penalty imposed on him
When at Ferrari, Schumacher deliberately rammed other drivers to win the world championship twice - once it worked (Hill), once it failed (Villenueve). No penalty. He also regularly swerved at other drivers off the start line for which he received no penalty
Which reminds me - KR swerved at Hamilton rather viciously just after the chicane in question, just before Hamilton outbraked him (look, no penalty) - KR braked so early hamilton may well have been able to follow KR through the chicane as everyone says he should and still overtake him at exactly the same point
Ferrari has on a couple of occasions in the last couple of years been found to be using illegal parts (barge boards and smooth wheel covers) - no penalty imposed, or the rules were changed to allow them
I understand that Alonso was told by his team a year or two ago that he needed to give the place back where he had gained advantage by cutting a chicane, giving the place back but then overtaking again "too quickly" thereafter. At the time the stewards said that it had been unnecessary for him to give the place back a second time
I have seen reference to a more recent similar incident in which Alsono was not penalised for doing the same thing - overtaking again almost immediately after
But the above doesn't count for anything, no, apparently it's because I'm biased
And yes I do hate Ferrari - but that's because they appear to me to cheat as much as possible and get away with it more than anyone else. What Mclaren got fined $100m for last year (having informaiton on another team's car) is something that most teams have done for years (I freely accept that doesn't make it right) but when Renault were found to have had information of Toyota's car (IIRC - not sure why they would have wanted it)
I saw a great qwuote from a barrister about an FIA hearing - he said it was the only tribunal he knew of where you could be found guilty of something you hadn't even been charged of
[Actually, the really stupid thing about the penalty was that Hamilton, in practical terms, gained no benefit at all from overtaking KR where he did - Hamilton + Mclaren were at that stage vastly superior to KR + Ferrari - Hamilton would have overtaken KR very quickly anyway had he waited another three corners]
Posted on: 20 September 2008 by BigH47
LINYFY thankyou for that summary, I agree with you. What surprised me was that Lewis didn't get any thing thrown at him in Monza. He made a couple of "exciting" and "robust" overtakes, unlike MS didn't manage to actually push the other car off the road.
What really pisses me off is the apparent inconsistencies of the rulings made, if the FIA take their own pace car driver and start line/technical team with them why not take a permanent stewards team too(preferably one not paid by Modena).One of the reason I stopped watch PL football is the Prima Donna referees that have been created by their "professional" status,who still can't steward a game right.
What really pisses me off is the apparent inconsistencies of the rulings made, if the FIA take their own pace car driver and start line/technical team with them why not take a permanent stewards team too(preferably one not paid by Modena).One of the reason I stopped watch PL football is the Prima Donna referees that have been created by their "professional" status,who still can't steward a game right.
Posted on: 22 September 2008 by dn1
Just read on BBC sport - at the appeal Hamilton was cross-examined by Ferrari's (not the FIA's) QC.
Am I being naive? I thought he was appealing to the FIA about a penalty they imposed, and that at the time Ferrari stated that they had not made a complaint, it was the stewards investigating unprompted. So how come he has to justify himself to Ferrari, who stand to gain from his penalty, rather than purely to the FIA?
Kangaroo court seems a bit too mild....
Am I being naive? I thought he was appealing to the FIA about a penalty they imposed, and that at the time Ferrari stated that they had not made a complaint, it was the stewards investigating unprompted. So how come he has to justify himself to Ferrari, who stand to gain from his penalty, rather than purely to the FIA?
Kangaroo court seems a bit too mild....
Posted on: 22 September 2008 by dn1
The quote:
"Hamilton chose to attend today's hearing in person rather than submitting a written statement, and he delivered a combative performance under cross examination from Ferrari's QC Nigel Tozzi."
"Hamilton chose to attend today's hearing in person rather than submitting a written statement, and he delivered a combative performance under cross examination from Ferrari's QC Nigel Tozzi."
Posted on: 22 September 2008 by Steve S1
Makes you laugh, doesn't it?
Posted on: 22 September 2008 by Chillkram
quote:Originally posted by dn1:
Kangaroo court seems a bit too mild....
More like a prancing horse!
Posted on: 23 September 2008 by dn1
Posted on: 23 September 2008 by scottyhammer
the appeal unsurprisingly has been turned down.
shock horror !
shock horror !
Posted on: 23 September 2008 by dn1
On the bright side, because the appeal was ruled inadmissable, the FIA didn't get the chance to increase the penalty...
Posted on: 23 September 2008 by Happy Listener
Well now we know what the 'F' stands for in FIA.
Obviously the stewards hadn't been trained on the BTCC circuit.
Obviously the stewards hadn't been trained on the BTCC circuit.
Posted on: 23 September 2008 by northpole
What in the name of **** were Ferrari doing cross questioning Hamilton?? Surely a matter between FIA and McLaren??
Peter
Peter
Posted on: 24 September 2008 by scottyhammer
the whole matter just stinks !
Posted on: 24 September 2008 by BigH47
quote:Obviously the stewards hadn't been trained on the BTCC circuit.
What to ignore any bad driving (by the Vauxhall drivers in the last few rounds)?
Posted on: 24 September 2008 by BigH47
Artist impression of how next years F1 cars could look under the new regulations:-
I copied across from other F1 thread, just in case anyone is interested.
Wider simpler front wings,narrower simpler rear wings, removal of some of the detail aero parts and a return to racing slicks,should be good.
I copied across from other F1 thread, just in case anyone is interested.
Wider simpler front wings,narrower simpler rear wings, removal of some of the detail aero parts and a return to racing slicks,should be good.
Posted on: 24 September 2008 by Steve S1
Artist's impression of how Hamilton's car will look after latest FIA regulations.
Posted on: 24 September 2008 by anderson.council
quote:Originally posted by living in lancs yearning for yorks:
When at Ferrari, Schumacher deliberately rammed other drivers to win the world championship twice - once it worked (Hill), once it failed (Villenueve). No penalty. He also regularly swerved at other drivers off the start line for which he received no penalty
Not defending him at all but he was driving for Benneton for the Hill incident in 1994 (prompting one of the great F1 what ifs). For the Villeneuve incident he was effectively disqualified from the Drivers Championship that year - all points removed.
Cheers
Scott