The F1 Thread 2008 Season

Brad said:
When the other car is going faster than you because you let them through, slipstream matters feck all. And you can blink faster than he was actually in it. I
Click to expand...

The thing that gets me is that there are posters on here talking about Lewis gaining advantage because after he rejoined after the chicaine he was in Raikonnen's slipstream. Where? I've watched it but can't see any slipstream! I dare someone to point out where Hamilton was gaining advantage because of slipstream. There was none!

Nikki Lauda (3 x World Champion) comes up with the same point that there no slipstream involved when they rejoined and conversely had Hamilton just followed Raikonnen through the Chicaine, he would have overtaken Raikonnen on the straight in front of the the pits!

Nikki Lauda - Audio
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/7604776.stm
 
I don't want to start an argument with you here but to me he is within Raikkonen's slipstream area (maybe not for long but every millisecond counts in F1). Look at this video in an earlier post: https://www.redcafe.net/5106352-post623.html At 1.08 in.

As far as my knowledge goes though you don't have to be directly right in behind to get this effect. The Ferrari is still affecting the on-coming air around him there. You can't really judge from there that he closes in and what not, you would have to look at technical data, which they should have had access to. Anyway if there is its minimal and I still pretty much stand by what I said before:

ZIDANE said:
I don't think the argument is about him being in front or not. Its about gaining an advantage, Hamilton had the chance to have a run at him into the first corner by slowing down just enough to get right behind him and then pouncing. This is where I assume the stewards have seen the advantage.

Although its cheeky, I would call it racing at its finest.
Click to expand...
 
ZIDANE said:
I don't want to start an argument with you here but to me he is within Raikkonen's slipstream area (maybe not for long but every millisecond counts in F1). Look at this video in an earlier post: https://www.redcafe.net/5106352-post623.html At 1.08 in.

As far as my knowledge goes though you don't have to be directly right in behind to get this effect. The Ferrari is still affecting the on-coming air around him there. You can't really judge from there that he closes in and what not, you would have to look at technical data, which they should have had access to. Anyway if there is its minimal and I still pretty much stand by what I said before:
Click to expand...

Just thought ill bring in an x F1 driver Niki Lauda to see what he had to say regarding yesturdays incident , FIA , Ferrari and slipstreaming this guy speaks the truth he has been there done that and got more than the T-shirt.

Everything was explained perfectly: Lewis had an advantage, but then he let him go by, then he simply out-braked him into the corner.


"There was no slipstreaming involved, nothing.


"Just think about it: If Lewis had stayed behind Kimi through the chicane, he would have passed him in front of the pits, because Lewis and the McLaren, at that time in the race in the wet, were so much quicker.


"So I do not understand this decision, and it's really bad for the sport because people watching will not watch any more because of this stupid decision."


The Austrian legend said that Hamilton's penalty made him start to believe suggestions that the authorities favoured Ferrari.


"In the past, there have always been rumours and stories - and I've always been completely against them because they've never been proven - that Ferrari, because of its past and history, was always against McLaren with the stewards and the FIA, who if there was a decision, were in favour of Ferrari," said Lauda.


"I've always said this is bulls**t, that this is a sport and you have to be neutral, but the decision yesterday makes me believe that everyone is watching Ferrari in a positive way and McLaren in a very negative way.


"What developed yesterday is the biggest mess the sport has ever done."


Lauda reckons that the events of Spa underline the need for permanent race stewards who attend every GP.


"I think the first thing that should happen is to try to train stewards of the meeting to understand the sport and the issues that drivers need to know," he said.


"If you change them all the time, then new people are coming in who don't seem to have a clue."


He believes the stewards misinterpreted Hamilton's actions and thought he had placed his McLaren advantageously when letting Raikkonen back through.


"They understood the rules, but they thought that the slipstream was the advantage and that Lewis did not lift enough," said Lauda.


"This is completely wrong: there was no slipstream involved.


"He tried to pass on the left but Kimi moved over, then he passed on the right because he braked later - without any slipstream.


"It's unbelievable how the best driver in yesterday's race makes no mistakes and only gets six points."

If we had a vote here tomorrow with a mix of Ferrari fans and Mclaren I know that this decision would and should be over turned but because of 3 Ferrari officials oops I mean FIA officials the best race for many a year was ruined thanks guys.
 
That is a good video. It shows it was a racing incident, and Hamilton gained no advantage and avoided a crash with the Ferrari. Then he let him back in front of him as soon as it was possible.
 
Brilliant!

Pretty much sums up my line. Perhaps if InstantKarma or Zidane can use the same technology to explain how they think Hamilton got an advantage?

Tx
 
tintedsepia said:
Brilliant!

Pretty much sums up my line. Perhaps if InstantKarma or Zidane can use the same technology to explain how they think Hamilton got an advantage?

Tx
Click to expand...

When the great Niki Lauda comes out so strongly on the issue who really cares what anyone else thinks?

I am not a former multiple world champion, and I am sure no one else is in this thread. Got to go with Niki Lauda's opinion on this one.
 
Keane16 said:
Superb clip.

Forget about the stewards.

Click to expand...


Keane16

Absolutely astonishing clip. Clearly shows how much trouble Raikonnen was in when it started raining. He's fighting that car whereas Hamilton is having no problems with his car. Also shows that Hamilton allowed Raikonnen to overtake. How he was clearly behind Raikonnen, but used the car advantage to outbreak into the turn.

Love to see other drivers talking about slipstream. My bet is that it is a non-entity in this entire manoevre (well, maybe at the very beginning, before the chicaine!)

Great Clip Keane16! Presumably McLaren will be hoping to use it as evidence.

My predictions:-

1. No doubt the authorities will contrive to claim that no evidence can be used in a drive-by penalty.
2. No doubt McLaren will claim that it is NOT a drive-by penalty it is a penalty of seconds applied posthumously and therefore should be allowed.
3. yada yada

We'll see how this goes.



Tx
 
Keane16 said:
Superb clip.

Forget about the stewards.

Click to expand...


Incredible footage at 3:28, Raikkonen is struggling badly and breaks far earlier than you'd expect, incredible reactions from Hamilton. Clips like that show just how skillful a driver has to be at that speed. Raikkonen looked a mug initially crashing into the wall later on, but you can see the trouble he was having in the wet, even when simply straight lining down the track. Given what happened at Silverstone its a miracle Massa didn't end his race in similar manner!

What the clip also highlights, which we already knew to be fair, is that Raikkonen was gaining distance on Hamilton down the straight all the time until he once again had to break extremely early, allowing Hamilton to pass in a fairly straightforward manner
 
tintedsepia said:
Brilliant!

Pretty much sums up my line. Perhaps if InstantKarma or Zidane can use the same technology to explain how they think Hamilton got an advantage?

Tx
Click to expand...

I clearly never said Hamilton gained an advantage read my post, particularly the bold bits.

ZIDANE said:
I don't want to start an argument with you here but to me he is within Raikkonen's slipstream area (maybe not for long but every millisecond counts in F1). Look at this video in an earlier post: https://www.redcafe.net/5106352-post623.html At 1.08 in.

As far as my knowledge goes though you don't have to be directly right in behind to get this effect. The Ferrari is still affecting the on-coming air around him there. You can't really judge from there that he closes in and what not, you would have to look at technical data, which they should have had access to. Anyway if there is its minimal and I still pretty much stand by what I said before:
Click to expand...

If slip-stream is not in effect unless you are directly right behind then fair enough, I did say as far as my knowledge goes. I would have thought the air around the Ferrari would have been disturbed but then that may be classed as dirty air, I don't know.

But that doesn't matter all that much as I did say if there was any it would have been minimal. Yes that is the same meaning as negligible, as the video says.

negligible: so small as to be meaningless; insignificant; "the effect was negligible"

If I thought he had gained an advantage like that then I wouldn't have called it racing.
 
Keane16 said:
Superb clip.

Forget about the stewards.

Click to expand...


I wish there was an option to watch race action like this sometimes.

Its amazing seeing how quick they are actually going and their reaction times.
 
And you can clearly see Raikkonen ahead of Hamilton down the straight, which throws a spanner in the argument by some in this thread that said he only allowed him to pull alongside.
 
ZIDANE said:
I clearly never said Hamilton gained an advantage read my post, particularly the bold bits.



If slip-stream is not in effect unless you are directly right behind then fair enough, I did say as far as my knowledge goes. I would have thought the air around the Ferrari would have been disturbed but then that may be classed as dirty air, I don't know.

But that doesn't matter all that much as I did say if there was any it would have been minimal. Yes that is the same meaning as negligible, as the video says.

negligible: so small as to be meaningless; insignificant; "the effect was negligible"

If I thought he had gained an advantage like that then I wouldn't have called it racing.
Click to expand...

Okay. You're right. Sorry Zidane. I misquoted you!

Tx
 
Lauda, a champion with Ferrari refuses to race in rain claiming conditions are poor. Hunt finishes 3rd in the race and wins the championship by 1 point. Ferrari are devastated that their entire year's work, investment and effort has been in vain, blame Lauda internally for chickening out when others raced and finished safely. Their relationship with Lauda soon becomes untenable and he is replaced.

After a couple of unremarkable seasons with some shite team Lauda retires and decides to run his own airline business. Business goes bust and Lauda is desperate for money. McClaren gamble on him, he wins another championship, earns back money and is forever indebted to Mclaren.

-------------------

Lauda may be a world champion but is no more qualified to provide an unbiased opinion on Ferrari than Fernando Alonso (another world champion) is to provide an unbiased opinion on McClaren.
 
It's quite logical that when it starts to rain the first driver is slower than the one right behind him.

The first driver has to be careful because he doesn't know where it's going to be slippery. The second driver can follow and go faster because he sees if and where the first car is getting into trouble.

If Hamilton was really that much better in the rain he would have left Raikkonen behind after the pass. And you can see clearly how Raikkonen is following Hamilton when they go off together in the double left hander and in the end it's the Williams car that makes Raikkonen go off the track and into the wall.
 
CrazyBelgian said:
It's quite logical that when it starts to rain the first driver is slower than the one right behind him.

The first driver has to be careful because he doesn't know where it's going to be slippery. The second driver can follow and go faster because he sees if and where the first car is getting into trouble.

If Hamilton was really that much better in the rain he would have left Raikkonen behind after the pass. And you can see clearly how Raikkonen is following Hamilton when they go off together in the double left hander and in the end it's the Williams car that makes Raikkonen go off the track and into the wall.
Click to expand...

Spot on...some of the commentators who have been racing and following racing for years said the same thing. Its difficult to be the lead car in slippery conditions.
 
Instant Karma said:
Spot on...some of the commentators who have been racing and following racing for years said the same thing. Its difficult to be the lead car in slippery conditions.
Click to expand...

Come on you guys you are pulling at straws. Even though what your saying is correct Lewis would of overtaken Kimi sooner rather than later. He and a Mclaren are better combination than any Ferrari driver and his Ferrari in the wet, its been proven this year already and yes before you say it, he kind of left Massa for dead when both were in the rain, yes I know he wasnt Kimi but he had already fallen off by then.

Also Instant regarding your other point about Nikki Lauda and his relationship with Ferrari if his relationship was so bad why did they appoint him has a consultant for the team a few years after he won the world championship with Mclaren , cant of been that bad afterall.

Also another famous driver by the name of Jacky has echoed Laudas words.

Please no more conspiracy theories.

Lewis was robbed end of.

And Mclaren have launched there appeal and rightly so. Hope the court room are more educated then the three clowns who saw it so differently to the rest of us.
 
I think the McLaren adapts better to those circumstances. They warm the tire up a lot quicker at the moment which Ferrari say is the reason behind some of their poor qualifying performances.

Also as soon as the Ferrari went into the pits and onto the harder compound tyres Hamilton started to eat out of his time, whereas he couldn't do the same when they were on the softer tyres.

Still not sure about their engine reliability either.
 
I don't follow f1 but why is that every time I read about a F1 controversy Hamilton is involved? Is it media hype or is he genuinely a cheat?
 
No he isn't a cheat, none of the drivers are really. Some may bend the rules slightly from time to time but that comes from their will to win. F1 has had a lot of controversy, especially in recent times with McLaren & Ferrari being the top 2 if you like and always challenging each other for the drivers and team titles.

Hamilton is English, young, and the upcoming outstanding talent in F1 - the media's darling. At the moment he is the number 1 driver at McLaren and the only challenger whilst both Ferrari drivers are challenging for the title, so he is more likely to be surrounded in controversy for this reason.
 
Well - someone earlier in the thread commented that had it been Michael Schumacher in a Ferrari and it would have been allowed. Here's the proof:-

Pedro de la Rosa vs Schumacher - Hungary 2006



Funnily enough - Schumacher did NOT let the other driver through, and was NOT penalised for gaining any advantage.

Decide for yourself what you believe!

Tx
 
Just put this part in the youtube brackets mate: -5UnPeyzcHM

Schumi was already ahead :confused: Bent stewards :confused:

Used to despise Schumi at times. Miss him though. He was class.
 
Thanks Zidane. Rectified that. Here's another one. Alonso overtaking Klien in Suzuka 2005

To cut this short I'm posting from an article:

Alonso overtakes by cutting the chicaine:

"Like Lewis, Fernando addressed the situation and allowed Klien back through before reclaiming the position, only to let him through a second time to be safe, when he was in fact seven seconds further down the road, as that was what was indicated by Charlie Whiting. (see youtube footage). However, Renault was later informed that the second pass was not legally necessary."

http://f1.automoto365.com/news/cont...9&year=2008&nextMode=GpNewsForm&news_id=32884

Here's the clip (got the hang of this now - i think)

 
tintedsepia said:
Thanks Zidane. Rectified that. Here's another one. Alonso overtaking Klien in Suzuka 2005

To cut this short I'm posting from an article:

Alonso overtakes by cutting the chicaine:

"Like Lewis, Fernando addressed the situation and allowed Klien back through before reclaiming the position, only to let him through a second time to be safe, when he was in fact seven seconds further down the road, as that was what was indicated by Charlie Whiting. (see youtube footage). However, Renault was later informed that the second pass was not legally necessary."

http://f1.automoto365.com/news/cont...9&year=2008&nextMode=GpNewsForm&news_id=32884

Here's the clip (got the hang of this now - i think)

Click to expand...


According to McClarens version of events, Whiting confirmed at the time Hamilton had done everything necessary to avoid penalty. You'd have thought F1 could conspire to have the guy teams turn to for immediate racing advice concur with the stewards, but apparently not

I read somewhere that for a season, F1 had a chief steward who went to every race. This compared to the situation now and previous where each race is governed by a different set of stewards. That was the season Schumacher was penalised at Monaco for blocking Alonso on his final flying lap of qualifying, and sent to the back of the grid. This obviously would not do, and his position was soon vacant and never replaced
 
tintedsepia said:
Well - someone earlier in the thread commented that had it been Michael Schumacher in a Ferrari and it would have been allowed. Here's the proof:-

Pedro de la Rosa vs Schumacher - Hungary 2006

*youtube movie*

Funnily enough - Schumacher did NOT let the other driver through, and was NOT penalised for gaining any advantage.

Decide for yourself what you believe!

Tx
Click to expand...

It's De La Rosa who makes the attempt, Schumacher was in front the whole time and took the shortcut.

On sunday it was Lewis who made the overtaking attempt and took the shortcut.

Totally different situations.

Regarding the two "experts":

1. Niki Lauda: He has made pro-mercedes comments eversince his son got a seat in their DTM team. But it makes no difference Lauda talks shit all the time. I remember him saying "even an ape can drive in F1 these days". A couple of months later he went to drive in a jaguar F1 and went off the track in his first lap...

2. Jackie Stewart is the most biased ex-Formula 1 driver ever.

Still I just think the Raikkonen-Hamilton incident was pure racing and I don't want the FIA to intervene in that kind of situations.

SAred said:
Come on you guys you are pulling at straws. Even though what your saying is correct Lewis would of overtaken Kimi sooner rather than later. He and a Mclaren are better combination than any Ferrari driver and his Ferrari in the wet, its been proven this year already and yes before you say it, he kind of left Massa for dead when both were in the rain, yes I know he wasnt Kimi but he had already fallen off by then.
Click to expand...

Yes Lewis is the rainmaster, that's why he spun in La Source in the beginning of the race and then went off a couple of times in the last few laps. :boring:

Just look at the onboard footage. You can clearly see Raikkonen going very slowly, discovering where the wet spots are. Hamilton just follows the line Raikkonen takes and can go a lot faster because he knows where the risky bits are.

Then after Hamilton overtakes Raikkonen you can clearly see Hamilton slowing down, looking for the tricky parts and you can see Raikkonen following right behind him, trying to take the same racing line (clearly demonstrated by both of them going off in the double lefthander).

Like I said, if Hamilton was so much better in the wet, why didn't he pull a gap of 10 seconds to Raikkonen after he overtook him in La Source?

I understand you guys supporting Hamilton, I would support a Belgian if he made it into F1 but still you got to stay realistic. Hamilton is a superb driver but he isn't the god you make him. He can be the best driver in history but he has to mature and gain experience first.
 
CrazyBelgian said:
It's De La Rosa who makes the attempt, Schumacher was in front the whole time and took the shortcut.

On sunday it was Lewis who made the overtaking attempt and took the shortcut.

Totally different situations.
Click to expand...

Of course they're different situations. The point here is that:-

1. did schumacher gain a competitive advantage by cutting the chicaine?
IMHO yes as by cutting the chicaine he was able to stay in front which would not have been possible had he stayed on the track.

2. did schumacher yield his driving position to De La Rosa after cutting the chicaine? No!

3. was he penalised? no!


on sunday

1. did hamilton gain a competitive advantage by cutting the chicaine?
IMHO yes as immediately after the chicaine he was in front which was not possible had he stayed on the track!

2. did hamilton therefore yield his driving position after cutting the chicaine? Yes

3. was he penalised? yes

ok. so which one should be given a 25 second drive-thru penalty?

this is nothing to do with anybody thinking any racer is God - hamilton's only in his 2nd year so he's clearly not even the finished article, let alone god.

More to do with the 'The Gods' applying the laws consistently. Even looking back they didn't penalise either schumacher or alonso.

On consistency, in saturday's race Glock was given the same penalty for overtaking under a yellow flag.

1. Is this dangerous? Yes.

2. Was the punishment given out fairly? Yes - this is the normal penalty given out for this offence.

At the last race (before Spa) Massa comes out of the pit lane without due regard and almost causes an accident.

1. Is this dangerous? Yes.

2. Was the punishment given out fairly? No - the normal penalty is a 25 second drive through penalty as has been evidenced time and again. In fact agreed that it was dangerous, found Massa guilty, but stopped short of giving him the usual penalty. In a GP2 race another driver was given a 25second penalty for exactly the same offence by FIA race stewards.

Tx
 
CrazyBelgian said:
It's De La Rosa who makes the attempt, Schumacher was in front the whole time and took the shortcut.

On sunday it was Lewis who made the overtaking attempt and took the shortcut.

Totally different situations.

Regarding the two "experts":

1. Niki Lauda: He has made pro-mercedes comments eversince his son got a seat in their DTM team. But it makes no difference Lauda talks shit all the time. I remember him saying "even an ape can drive in F1 these days". A couple of months later he went to drive in a jaguar F1 and went off the track in his first lap...

2. Jackie Stewart is the most biased ex-Formula 1 driver ever.

Still I just think the Raikkonen-Hamilton incident was pure racing and I don't want the FIA to intervene in that kind of situations.



Yes Lewis is the rainmaster, that's why he spun in La Source in the beginning of the race and then went off a couple of times in the last few laps. :boring:

Just look at the onboard footage. You can clearly see Raikkonen going very slowly, discovering where the wet spots are. Hamilton just follows the line Raikkonen takes and can go a lot faster because he knows where the risky bits are.

Then after Hamilton overtakes Raikkonen you can clearly see Hamilton slowing down, looking for the tricky parts and you can see Raikkonen following right behind him, trying to take the same racing line (clearly demonstrated by both of them going off in the double lefthander).

Like I said, if Hamilton was so much better in the wet, why didn't he pull a gap of 10 seconds to Raikkonen after he overtook him in La Source?

I understand you guys supporting Hamilton, I would support a Belgian if he made it into F1 but still you got to stay realistic. Hamilton is a superb driver but he isn't the god you make him. He can be the best driver in history but he has to mature and gain experience first.
Click to expand...

I dont make out that Lewis to be a God that was Eric Cantona ;). But the fact is that every one shall agree that has a package Lewis and Mclaren are a better combination then any other combination in the wet - Silverstone comes to mind , was it 4 times or 5 times that Massa spun and Kimi fell of again.

Just one honest answer do you think that it was fair that he was demoted?

Also regarding Jacky , Nikki they have been there done that so surely has a driver there views must carry some weight.
 
SAred said:
I dont make out that Lewis to be a God that was Eric Cantona ;). But the fact is that every one shall agree that has a package Lewis and Mclaren are a better combination then any other combination in the wet - Silverstone comes to mind , was it 4 times or 5 times that Massa spun and Kimi fell of again.

Just one honest answer do you think that it was fair that he was demoted?

Also regarding Jacky , Nikki they have been there done that so surely has a driver there views must carry some weight.
Click to expand...

Nah I don't agree, Hamilton was below average in the rain in Spa and although he was very good in Silverstone he could cruise to victory because of the advantage Mclaren had back then. He should do something like Schumacher in Barcelona 1996 before I think of him like a rainmaster.

No I don't think it was fair he was demoted. Like I said, it seemed a racing incident. What I'm saying is that Hamilton was stupid to attempt a move there. He should have waited and all of this would have never happened.

You know just as well as I do that those great drivers from the past have their personal agendas in the present.

Massa and Trulli said that the punishment was correct btw.
 
Either way one looks at it FIA have made a serious blunder and here is hoping that the truth shall set them free when this gets put up in the court room. Otherwise this a serious black mark on Forumla 1 - we really dont need any more after the last few seasons.
 
CrazyBelgian said:
Yes Lewis is the rainmaster, that's why he spun in La Source in the beginning of the race and then went off a couple of times in the last few laps. :boring:

Just look at the onboard footage. You can clearly see Raikkonen going very slowly, discovering where the wet spots are. Hamilton just follows the line Raikkonen takes and can go a lot faster because he knows where the risky bits are.

Then after Hamilton overtakes Raikkonen you can clearly see Hamilton slowing down, looking for the tricky parts and you can see Raikkonen following right behind him, trying to take the same racing line (clearly demonstrated by both of them going off in the double lefthander).

Like I said, if Hamilton was so much better in the wet, why didn't he pull a gap of 10 seconds to Raikkonen after he overtook him in La Source?

I understand you guys supporting Hamilton, I would support a Belgian if he made it into F1 but still you got to stay realistic. Hamilton is a superb driver but he isn't the god you make him. He can be the best driver in history but he has to mature and gain experience first.
Click to expand...

Well Crazy, I think we can all agree Schumacher (the cheating German ****) was a master in the rain. But it didn't stop him smashing into the back of Coulthard in the rain of Belgium in 98. Even the best drivers make mistakes in the wet conditions

Hamilton ate up about 3 seconds on a few corners against Raikkonen prior to their last corner clash, as the weather continued to deteriorate. If its that easy for the car behind to go faster, why didn't Raikkonen immediately get all over the back of Hamilton and retake the lead? It took the involvement of another car equally struggling to stay on the road, and soon after Raikkonen benefitted, he ran off the track and dumped it in the wall

For evidence of Hamiltons abilities in the wet, I reference you to his victories in Monaco and Silverstone this season. There's no tougher race that Monaco in the wet, and at Silverstone Massa and Raikkonen were doing their Bambi on ice impressions

Hamilton is clearly a very good driver in the wet, one of if not the best in the field today. You look a tad foolish trying to argue against it frankly
 
Massa was far from the worst driver at Silverstone yet that's exactly what he looked like when the rain fell. It was almost embarrassing.

It's not that Lewis is the rainmaster (he's been off aswell) but that the Ferarri cars seem (at least to me) to struggle far more than other cars in the rain particularly the McClarens. I doubt Lewis would do any better if he was in a Ferrari.

And Lewis isn't a god, he's a ruthless and sometimes reckless driver, which is why he is so exciting for the sport.
 
dumbo said:
Massa was far from the worst driver at Silverstone yet that's exactly what he looked like when the rain fell. It was almost embarrassing.

It's not that Lewis is the rainmaster (he's been off aswell) but that the Ferarri cars seem (at least to me) to struggle far more than other cars in the rain particularly the McClarens.
Click to expand...

absolutely true
 
There’s only big story after the Belgian Grand Prix – and sadly it’s not the incredibly dramatic race with its sensational climax, but the stewards’ decision to strip Lewis Hamilton of victory and the controversy it has provoked.

In his latest feature for itv.com/f1, Mark Hughes addresses the question of whether Hamilton gained an unfair advantage with a detailed analysis of the incident at the Bus Stop chicane; and then considers the repercussions for Formula 1’s credibility given the highly charged political backdrop to the decision.


The sporting question

Lewis Hamilton was pushed out across the Spa chicane escape road by Kimi Raikkonen, rejoined ahead, backed off to allow Kimi to repass as required by the rules, went round the back of him and overtook him again. It seemed very clear-cut.

But if you were a lawyer tasked with pushing Ferrari’s case, looking for any bit of legal daylight in which to create doubt, you would question whether Lewis would have been close enough to do that move if he'd not missed the chicane, regardless of the reason why he missed it.

It’s actually a ‘what if’ question to which there can be no answer.

To compare the two scenarios – what happened, with what would have happened had Hamilton not missed the chicane – is impossible.

At this stage of the race the McLaren had vastly more grip than the Ferrari because of the way the red car loses dry tyre temperature far more quickly and totally than the McLaren in wet conditions.

So, had Lewis tucked in behind the Ferrari through the chicane, he’d have accelerated out of there far faster because of his vastly superior traction.

He would have crossed the start/finish line going faster than the Ferrari and therefore have been perfectly placed to have made full use of his vastly superior braking grip to make an outbraking move into La Source.

As it was, he crossed the start/finish line alongside the Ferrari but travelling 6km/h slower, as he was in the process of allowing Kimi by.

Which of those two scenarios would have made for a more advantageous situation for Lewis – alongside but going slower or partly behind but going faster – is impossible to judge.

Exactly how much more tyre grip did he have? Which way would it have led Kimi to move? Impossible to determine.

Which leaves us with the question: If it’s impossible to judge (which it was) then why the hell make a judgement

This was taken of th ITV F1 site - some more vald points and if this appeal is turned down FIA are going to have to work hard to get the trust of the public back.
 
Lewis Hamilton’s demotion in the Belgian Grand Prix could set a negative precedent for Formula 1 and result in drivers willing to take fewer risks in wheel-to-wheel battles.

That is the view of Renault’s engineering chief Pat Symonds who reckons Hamilton was “very hard done by” after stewards stripped him of race victory for cutting a chicane while battling with Ferrari’s Kimi Raikkonen.

The controversial verdict created widespread controversy and prompted renewed suggestions from fans and sections of the British press that the sport’s governing body is biased in favour of Ferrari.

And while Symonds told Renault’s latest podcast that he was convinced the sport was run fairly, he believes the real problem with the verdict could be that it further dilutes the racing.

“It [the verdict] raises lots of interesting questions and I’m not talking about ‘are the FIA are on the side of Ferrari?’” he told the podcast.





“We have to believe that they are impartial, the sport would not exist if we didn’t believe that.

“But I think it does call into question philosophy because everyone is saying we need more overtaking in Formula 1, we need more excitement, we need personalities and yet it seems to me that everything that actually happens seems to be against that.

“Here we had a great race, people really challenging each other and for why?

“If it [race victory] is taken away, then why take that risk?”

After looking at the incident again since the closing laps at Spa on Sunday, Symonds said he felt sympathy for Hamilton after he lost a stunning race victory.

“As it happened in real time, we were talking on the intercom and said ‘wow that was definitely a situation where he has to give the place back’,” he said.

“I guess that we weren’t that surprised when the stewards were found to be investigating it.

“But having looked at it again, of course in real time you don’t see that much of it you are concentrating on your job rather than watching race, I feel very, very sorry for Lewis.

“I think he has been very hard done by.”

Symonds believe that replays and data showed that Hamilton had clearly given the position back to Raikkonen on rejoining the track, and that his subsequent move at La Source was a fair pass.

“To me the facts are quite clear in retrospect,” he said.

“I’ve had a look at the videos, I’ve had a look at the published data which shows that Lewis was nearly 7 km/h slower than Raikkonen across the line.

“You can quite clearly see in the in-car camera that he let him get completely in front and in my view Raikkonen just braked very early.


“Lewis went inside him and, if you look at the in-car camera stuff, Lewis drove round the hairpin very easily, he didn’t have a big slide, he didn’t have to correct it, he hadn’t gone in too deep and gone out wide.


“To me it was to me a perfectly legitimate manoeuvre and it wasn't that much later that Raikkonen went past him.


"This is racing, this is what we want."


Some of the criticism over the decision centred on the fact the stewards verdict came two hours after the end of the race and Symonds' believes decision making should be more immediate so fans know what is going on.

“I think motor racing should be like football, not like cricket,” he said.

“Let's have action, let's know what is going on in real time, not wait for two days to find out the result."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.