Quote from Squelch :

I've read back and don't see anyone defending Hamilton over that incident. He took a chance that Massa was going to stay wide, and could have backed out of it. I'll repeat my conclusion for fear of being tarred with the "all you Hamilton guys" brush.

Hamilton deserved that penalty - "having an avoidable accident"

However. It does seem unanimous that Massa did take a strange line, did turn in much earlier. If any defence can be offered to Hamilton is this.

Any driver seeing the situation unfold as it it did in front of them, could have been mistaken that Massa was going to stay wide. Webber took a late apex, and that gap was always going to close. What driver in their right mind would enter the corner at that angle, that speed, and with limited steering lock to attempt a pass on someone making a late apex? If Massa had been alongside Webber, Webber would have been obliged to stay wide - as many other drivers did throughout the race - but he was quite some way back. It simply boils down to this. Massa either made a very stupid move to overtake Webber and would probably have hit him anyway, or he ran into Hamilton while Lewis had got alongside.

Massa was the cause of that whole incident, and Hamilton could have avoided it, but decided to try and take advantage of it, and got the penalty where Massa got off scot free.

Now that's something written with thought. I agree with you about 90% of that. I still disagree with you about Massa's probability to hit Webber but that's only a minor detail in this whole mess and since we don't have any numbers about their speeds we can't calculate whether Massa would've hit Webber or not and thus find an answer that's absolutely correct.

Quote from Mustafur :

So you miss the entire part that created that situation, nice.

If he didn't hit hamilton he would of probably span Webber around.

You wanted an answer and I gave you footage with the best angle that had the information you wanted. I'm not saying I didn't see any other footage I just decided to give you that one because of the angle.

Any explanation? Of course not. You don't even try to prove me wrong just state something you've already decided and stick to it. I'm always open for debate but you guys really need to do something else than post a footage and then say ''it happened exactly as I say''. It clearly didn't since Hamilton's move was ruled worthy of a penalty.

Quote from Mustafur :

Can you explain how Massa would of not hit Webber if Hamilton wasn't there?
Massa turned on Hamilton to try defend the position.

Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8dG9ID4ba0

You can see that there was room from Massa's point of view. Webber had also passed the apex and was thus accelerating. Without Hamilton Massa could've turned much more inside and would've not been pushed into Webber. Their driving lines would've collided later if they had driven at the exact same speed through the corner. With Webber accelerating at the later point Webber could've already gotten away enough. You also have brakes in F1 cars that the drivers use frequently to slow themselves to avoid collisions. (apart from Hamilton) The faster you go the more a same time difference between drivers is in meters.

I admit that part of Massa's turn may have been due to Hamilton's pressure but he did start to turn in when Hamilton's front wing was at the same level as Massa's rear tires which is completely acceptable. Hamilton pushed himself into a position that could only result in collision with Massa. Hamilton was lucky that he didn't destroy his front wing.

Could someone who's on Hamilton's side please explain how Hamilton would've not collided with Massa if Massa had driven behind Webber since Hamilton would've turned in pretty much like Massa did now. If you are correct that Massa would've hit Webber that also means that Hamilton would've hit Massa or Webber which makes his move a fail no matter what happens. (unless Massa just turns away and gives up which Hamilton naturally assumes he's going to do. Right?)

Last edited by Juzaa, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 07:08.

Quote from Intrepid :

He can't be that stupid, he still finished 6th and Massa finished in the wall. And if Lewis is stupid then what does that say about all the drivers behind him in the championship standings.

You don't need intelligence to be fast driver. Basically all you need to be fast is instinct, training and some natural talent. Driver's speed doesn't tell about his intelligence. The amount of crashes might have something to do with lack of intelligence but most likely just bad decisions that have to be made in extremely short time. What tells of Hamilton's idiocy is his comments about how he's the best, all others are stupid and it's never his fault. Also throwing the black card even as a joke tells me that we're talking about a real idiot. He miraculously survives because Mclaren seems to have some control over him and they make him apologize about the worst comments.

Don't start telling me that driver's need to understand their cars etc. since they don't, only few do and understanding what part does what isn't intelligence. The most idiotic person I ever met was a car mechanic (can also be translated to maniac) who had absolutely no grasp of reality and could only understand cars.

With Massa you can't just look at where he turned since you're taking him out of the situation that he was in. Tell me Intrepid - since you're a ''racer'' -what do you do when you're in the middle clearly way ahead the one behind you (who's inside) and the one outside is turning in where is the ''normal racing line'' do you do as Hamilton would've done and crashed, blaming the the other guy turned in on you as a purpose (never thinking about that maybe the one in front was allowed to turn and had to turn because of the turn) or do you turn in trying not to hit the driver who's outside since the driver behind you can clearly see the situation, both of your cars and knows that there's no way 3 drivers can fit in that corner.

Or if you were in Hamilton's place and you knew that the corner has barely enough room for 2 people would you still push for a closing gap instead of braking and changing your driving line to make sure that if the other 2 hit each others' you'll get a better chance to pass them in the next few corners?

All you are doing is throwing wild accusations in attempt to defend Hamilton but I fail to see your point in that. Also when arguing about a subject trying to (instead of talking about the subject and defending your point of view) undermine your opposers usually means that you know you're wrong and try to destroy your opposers' credibility. I wonder what that tells about you and your view of the situation.

And JCTK; does ending up to talk with the stewards 5 times out of 6 races classify as repeated? It means he's done something wrong when he ends up there. He also was weaving in order to defend his position in Malaysia 2010 and 2011 which is quite repeated too in my books.

Last edited by Juzaa, Fri 3 Jun 2011, 05:53.

You seem to believe Hamilton is god who can do anything since you're telling me that he'd get past people who are and were the entire race faster than he was. Button isn't the best racer in pushing all out of the tires. His excellence comes in when you need to preserve the tires and drive good laps. He also has a habit of making the right decisions when choosing tactics. His tactic for Monaco would've been perfect without the red flag.

You also underestimate the tires' effect on braking distances. It's not just that you have to brake earlier because you don't have enough grip but you have to brake even earlier because your tires don't have enough grip to go through the corner with the same speed as before. Williams is bad at braking but their car's effect in braking distances compared to Mclaren is way way less than tyres'.


I believe that Massa wouldn't have hit Webber and that is based on the fact that Massa barely hit Webber when he was pushed. Webber was accelerating and would've moved out of the way before Massa's line would have encountered Webber's. Of this you may differ since it's not absolute truth. It's just how I see it and most likely how the judges saw it too. But claiming that worn tires don't affect braking distances is complete bull****.

Quote from pearcy_2k7 :

Why do you keep saying he wasn't close enough? He WAS close enough as he proved with schumacher, If you have to have a full overlap on a car before you can overtake it there would be a hell of alot less overtaking and zero at monaco and the gentlemans agreements tends to be you have to have your front wheel infront of the rear wheel of the car your trying to overtake. Your main argument before was that F1 experts all backed you up and they know more than us yet most have come out and said looking back with more evidence the penalties were harsh but now you ignore their opinion.


His driving style and his mind go hand in hand, he makes mistakes like every other driver maybe a few more but thats because he's balls out all the time, which is exciting to watch and works most of the time, his achievements prove it.

Do you know why he was close enough with Schumacher? Because Schumacher had WORN TIRES! Schumacher went to pits at the same lap he was overtaken due to his tires being in so bad condition. Hamilton was able to brake later with better tires which helped him to get side by side when Schumacher turned. With Maldonado they both had new tires and same braking distance and when Maldonado turned he was more in front and had the right to turn.

I only see Massa commenting that the damage caused by Hamilton pushing him into Webber made the cur undriveable and lead to Hamilton getting inside him in the tunnel. Where does it say Hamilton did something wrong in the tunnel? He did push Massa into Webber that is a fact so I don't see why you were making a fuss about his comments when he only states the truth.

Oh yeah. Button didn't win this race because of red flag. Without the red flag he'd have won the race so how did he **** up?

Quote from pearcy_2k7 :

Yes he does make more mistakes than most drivers because of his driving style. but i can't say i've seen him doing anything dangerous, schuey pushing barichello into the pitwall was dangerous, he races close but also fair imo and thats not to say he hasn't made mistakes but if it's clear cut he usually admits it's his fault and tbh most of the drivers on the grid won't admit they're in the wrong on a 50/50 incident, look at massa, he was blaming hamilton for him crashing out of the tunnel when hamilton wasn't anywhere near him, don't see you bringing that up though.

Whatever you think, his driving style obviously works and it's exciting to watch. You think hammy would have started cruising behind alonso and vettel 10 laps till the end waiting for a miracle and the race to fall at his feet like button did? He doesn't need a sudden downpour or a different stratergy to overtake people, with him its purely speed and skill.

Every time you cause a collision it's dangerous. Look at what happened to Petrov in last race. He hurt his leg in a collision that didn't look bad at all. When you're racing 200 km/h and hit other driver there's always a chance that something goes wrong. I admit that Schumi's incident with barrichello was dangerous and shouldn't have been done but we're not talking about Schumacher here.

You also seemed to forget that in order to overtake you must be a lot faster than the other one when racing in Monaco. They all had new tires and were about as fast with them. How can you overtake if you can't get close enough? You're right that Hamilton probably would've tried something very stupid and risked his points if he was in Buttons shoes but he wasn't. Why? because Button drove better this weekend. Don't forget that Hamilton's passes succeeded against way slower opponents than himself. Comparing Schumacher with Mercedes against Vettel or Alonso is just insane.

About his driving style. Of course he's fast. It's not his driving style that puts him into trouble it's his mind. He does mistakes, pushes himself into corners, waves around the straight trying to prevent other passing. Those aren't things that make him faster. They are things keeping Hamilton from gaining the necessary points to win more championships. He needs to learn how to control his temper like Schumacher did when he was at his best. Winning one race isn't that important. Getting good points from all races to win the championship is.

I haven't seen Massa's comments about the tunnel so can't say anything about that. Maybe you could provide me a link?

Quote from Intrepid :

Didn't wanna hav to say this coz I'll get slated so I know what's coming but Juzaa ... I've raced Hamilton and I never had a problem with him. Never put me on the grass because I knew when to concede a corner. He raced the same then as he does now. I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt. So being on the recieving end of an aggressive Hamilton pass myself, I can safely say you're talking baloney unless you've experienced a Hamilton pass yourself (I suspect you haven't)

Even Brundle has come out and said he thought the penalties were harsh.

I'm not saying he's a total maniac all the time or anything like that. I'm saying that he does mistakes more often that most other professional drivers and refuses to take blame because of his ego. He has not made a mistake against you. So what? If he had treated everyone poorly and caused crashes all the time he wouldn't be in F1 right now. And why should I have raced against him when I can see errors he has done from my couch. If he had come and said even 50% of the time he does mistakes that ''My fault, sorry'' I wouldn't have cared less if he had crashed Massa and Maldonado. Since everyone makes mistakes. It's human. He causes dangerous positions too much and doesn't learn from them. 5 warnings in last 6 races. The warnings don't come without reason. 99% of the time.

I used to respect Hamilton as a fast driver but all his comments, the way he acts, how he blames others and doesn't respect other drivers just pisses me off. He needs to grow up.

Quote from Intrepid :

In fairness to Hamilton he did actually prove that you could be overtaken cleanly at Monaco when Schumacher passed him at the hairpin. Hamilton does concede corners when someone is clearly on his inside, unlike other drivers, so it's not often that the shoe is on the other foot.

You missed my previous post? I think it rather proved that he would act exactly like Massa or Maldonado if he was in their place. Clearly is such a wrong term to use since he wasn't clearly inside. He was barely inside and went for closing gaps. How many times have you seen Hamilton push someone to grass? I've seen him do that few times. Do you think that's fair since the other driver is clearly there and Hamilton just turns in and pushes them away from the track?

Quote from pearcy_2k7 :

Where's Juzaa?

I did make a comment about not writing here again. Found something that you might find interesting though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... RgTEk&feature=related

This is what Hamilton had to say:

"I took the corner normally and Felipe came back very aggressively and hit me. I think that was pretty much as deliberate as can be."

This is about the same as what hamilton did with Maldonado. Came too fast from the inside while the other took the corner ''normally''. In both situations the one in outside turned in normally and crashed. If Hamilton had said that ''that was a racing incident'' or something else I might feel that it's just his way to race. Apparently he just feels he has other rules than everyone else.

When you're racing you don't watch for other drivers unless they've earned it by coming side by side with you. You can translate this Senna's message that if you stop fighting for your position you're no racing driver. If you leave room for everyone you're not racing anymore. Overtakes must be earned, not given as a present.

I feel that Hamilton's crashes in Monaco (except Petrov) was caused by Hamilton's poorly estimated situation. With Massa Hamilton saw Webber, knew that Massa had to turn in to keep from hitting and still pushed himself there and cut the corner way too much. With Maldonado when he saw that he couldn't overtake he just pushed forward. I also feel that Hamilton's right in this ''example of mine'' but supposedly you all feel Massa did everything right. Assuming you're not just Hamilton fans and we only have a disagreement about how the rules should be followed. Right?

I suppose I don't need to remind you about Hamilton's ''tricks'' with Petrov in Malaysia 2010 or his crash with Räikkönen in Canada 2008 to prove that he's done many mistakes and yet refused to take blame of most of them.

Quote from Töki (HUN) :

Juzaa just let them be... I've already learnt it's useless argue about Hamilton here, he makes no mistakes, he's that perfect.

I'm starting to see that. This is my final post in here since it's no use trying to explain things to 13 yr old Hamilton fans. (I like Button much more, he's a real F1 driver)

And Pearcy the cameras that filmed the footage were not in the same place (which is quite obvious) and if you look at the ads in the wall in the fifth pic you'll see that there's an ad in left picture and no ad in right picture. Wonder why? Let me explain that to you; someone who likes Hamilton took pictures of the situations that resembled each other enough and cut them so that it would look as if they were taken from the same place and at the same time. They were not. Notice that in one picture you see the right side of the road and in the other you don't. In tv you could see both sides of the road. So someone edited them out. Why would he have done that since they would've proved his point much better if he was right? Just go to youtube and watch both actions and you'll see that when compared to outer wall when they pass it Schumacher is much closer to it than Maldonado. Lesson; do not trust pictures that can be cut the way the editor wants but instead watch the videos and determine for yourself where they were. The difference is about 1 meter which is quite much. I'm not bothering to make pics since you'll claim them to be edited for sure. WATCH THE VIDEOS, listen to professionals, don't use only one source!

Quote from sinbad :

That's rubbish, there's no way Hamilton was going too fast to make the corner.

The only reason they touched is that Maldo squeezed him in the actual braking area.That suggests to me that he turned in much earlier than he normally would have.

I think he saw LH and tried to defend too late, like Massa did.

1. He was going too fast and too sharp.
2. Maldonado was ahead and Hamilton didn't use the space but instead drove straight. Maldonado didn't push him there.
3. Watch the replay not the pics and you'll see Maldonado's lines are exactly the same as the driver's who was in front of him.

''Look at the top picture!!!! It was identical until schumacher gave room and maldonado started to squeeze him. Open your eyes!''

Then can you explain to me why there's a black line that's under Hamilton's right front tire in pics 5 and 6 and in Schumacher pics it's about 1 meter from Hamilton's right front tire? It's exactly the same line in both pictures and with that you can see that even though the pics are cut so that it looks like both situations happen in same places they do not.

I can't believe you think that Hamilton's pass was identical with his crash to Maldonado. Just look at where their cars were...You are a troll right?

Quote from pearcy_2k7 :

The lines we're different because schumacher saw him and realised he'd left the gap and should leave room, not just turn in on him. By the time maldonado tried to defend the corner it was too late and too late for hamilton to do anything either. F1 drivers and the FIA have got it wrong before, they're not always right.

Yet the decision was done few hours after the race and they had time to watch the replays more that we've probably watched.

Think about this too; If Maldonado hit a wall because he couldn't drive the corner properly because he was pushed a bit by Hamilton how could Hamilton have driven the same corner with even worse lines and the same speed and survived without hitting the wall? Simple answer he couldn't have done that and that's why all this conversation is useless. He must have known that he couldn't drive the corner with that speed. He used Maldonado as a bumper and caused the crash.

Quote from Intrepid :

He should have recognised earlier a car was on his inside like a certain Mr Schumacher who proved that it is possible not to crash when someone overtakers you into T1.

The image you've posted is one frame and is merely the consequence of maldanado not using his mirrors and slamming his car blindly into Hamilton. In the contest of the the sequence of photos the evidence is damming... What we have is quite clearly a 'racing incident'.

At the end of the day Maldanado left a gap and crashed because he wasn't smart enough to recognise that racing drives will see gaps and go for them.

In Shumacher their LINES were totally different. You can't compare 2 situations that have different lines like that. Schumacher turns exactly as sharp as Maldonado.

In the image I posted the hit had not yet happened so how is that a result? That is where the situation actually begun when Hamilton should've braked and let go. At the end of the day Hamilton is to blame and he's already been blamed for situation Maldonado by a few former F1 drivers as well. I think they know best, don't you?

Just look at Hamilton's racing line with Maldonado. Even if he had driven straight forward would he have cut the corner. You're telling me that Maldonado should've actually turned left in a corner that turns right just because Hamilton's coming in an impossible line?.

You're telling me that it doesn't matter what angle and speed you come from? Try to do 90 degree turn driving 180km/h on a track that's 5 meters wide. What you're saying is that even if I come from an angle that doesn't give any hope of finishing the corner without crashing I'm to be given room. I don't think so. Both Schumacher and Maldonado did turn to the corner the same way. They just were in different positions. One made it possible to overtake and the other didn't. It's that simple.

Quote from Intrepid :

/end debate

Schumi saw him late... but saw him he did.. and conceded. Arguably Hamilton had even more overlap with the move on Maldanado. Racing incident, no more no less. You couldn't ask for a better move up the inside into St Devote. Quite funny reading so much praise for the move on Schumi by journos yet the same ones criticise the Maldanado move where Hamilton was probably in a cleaner position.

Just look at the pictures.You can see that in Hamilton/Schumi their lines are way different than in Hamilton/Maldonado. Maldonado is positioned exactly where Hamilton is against Schumi. When Schumi turned in there was room for Hamilton, and when Maldonado turned in there wasn't. Hamilton couldn't have pulled that move off even if Maldonado gave him room. He would've pushed Maldonado into wall with that angle and speed. You can also see that when Maldonado starts turning in Hamilton's wing isn't even at the level of Maldonado's front tires. Both Maldonado and Schumacher held their lines but the difference is that with Schumacher there was room. In later one there wasn't.

Quote from Intrepid :

0:24 on this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... QnpFg&feature=related - according to you Gilles should have been given a penalty. That's a dive down the inside and he wasn't alongside at any point. It required Arnoux to take evasive action otherwise they would have crashed. Arnoux wasn't stupid and guess what?.... CONCEDED his track position. He didn't believe in just turning in because it was his right. He was smart and carried on racing because that's proper racing and that's what proper racing drivers do... not BLINDLY turn in when u leave a gap

That was known as the greatest F1 battle and that move directly goes against your philosophy of racing.

What are you talking about? That's a clean pass. When the turn began they were both even. Arnoux had to take evasive action because he wasn't ahead. Villeneuve was alongside with Arnoux when Arnoux would've turned in. He couldn't because Villeneuve had braked later and gotten side by side with him and that's what made the pass so good and extraordinary. If you don't recognize the difference between being dead even at the corner and being few meters behind you really ought to get glasses. Really you're just making a fool out of yourself.

And how does it go against my philosophy of racing? If I'm in front I turn in normally. If someone dives in and makes it there before I turn in I let him go since I'm not allowed to dive into his side. You're really messed up.

Intrepid you're not allowed to turn on me if I'm side by side with you.
Have you lost your mind? Turning in regardless whe I am is only allowed if I'm behind you. You need to stay ahead of me which means that you have to block my pass attempt at straight most of the times well before the corner. If you wait until the corner to do your move 3-4 times out of 5 I'm already ahead of you or we're neck to neck. And if I'm behind once I see you're turning in or that I don't have a shot at overtake I just brake and don't try to ram myself there. You're clearly influenced by some sort of stuff since you can't think straight anymore. Just let it wear off and then come back.

Quote from Intrepid :

Gezmoor if you think the driver in front is always entitled to the line then I can categorically state if we ever raced you'd never pass me ever full stop. After 10 laps of being repeatedly turned in on and having your car wrecked to pieces you'd soon change your mind. And the great thing is, by your own rules, you'd be the one to blame. That's the insanity of having putting no responsibility on the driver in front. I of course wouldn't do that because I am not an idiot I know when to concede... i don't turn in like a complete idiot to a lump of metal is on my inside, and that only happens when I've left a gap I shouldn't have in the first place.

I dare say that if you were 1-2 seconds slower you would not. Remember that you're only allowed to change line once during straight. If you block the inside you lose speed to the next straight because you have to slow down (brake earlier) and can be overtaken in the next straight if the driver behind you gets outside and exits the corner faster. Remember that we've seen passes where the faster driver did not even pass from inside but from outside. You could probably keep him down few laps, that's all.

If I see I'm not going to fit inside then I do not go there, possibly show myself there and cut outside trying to get faster exit. Remember that if you drive inside in turn 1 you might end up outside in turn 2.

Passing isn't supposed to be easy. If it was it wouldn't be fun. All the greatest passes are extremely skillful and done so that the other had no way to defend from them. That's what makes 'em so special.


I agree with Squelch that the red flag rule should be changed. Without it we would've had extremely interesting last 5 laps.

Quote from gezmoor :

So people should have anticipated Hamiltons late brake up the inside Kamikazi moves and just let him through huh? Last time I checked it was the overtakers responsibility to make the pass without incident not vise versa. The person in front is completely entitled to hold the line and drive just like no one was behind them. If the idiot behind can't pass without a move that is nothing more than scare tactics and bullying then they don't deserve to be in F1. So much of Hamiltons "great overtaking" ability is actually just down to him having a reputation as making late lunges up the inside that people have no choice but to change their line to avoid a collision else risk being put out of the race altogether. Hamilton doesn't race with his head. He races from frustration and agression IMHO. To me that makes him a poor racing driver irrespective of his car handling skills. Same goes for any other driver that uses the same type of techniques. I know it's a fine line, but maybe Hamilton should do a bit of self reflection as to why he's been pulled up "5 times out of 6" rather than pulling the race card BS, (yeah he claims it was a joke.. I don't believe it .. he expressed what he really believed then realised it would look bad and tried to make light of it). I think he was let off extremely lightly for his remarks.

Finally, what is the point of a penalty that ends in no actual loss of points? 20 second penalty when he was so far ahead of the next car is laughable, he should be happy he was let off that second incident, as he didn't actually suffer from the so called penalty in any way. IMO he should have been given a placement penalty and knocked back two or more positions.

How can you say that Hamilton went for a gap since there was no gap he could fit in the corner. He deliberately took a risk and smashed himself into Maldonado's side. That risk paid off this time and proved that crashing is sometimes acceptable in the sport since Hamilton's 20 second penalty was just for the show it didn't mean anything.

You're right Maldonado didn't block the attempt early but he didn't have to because he was in front and stayed there throughout the straight. Hamilton couldn't have overtaken from inside since he was too far behind to get any room for free. You need to ''battle'' for the room, not just expect someone will leave room for you to go if you're behind. It was a reckless move and should've earned Hamilton a real penalty. Not one that didn't count.

Intrepid it's not the driver's in front responsibility to make sure they survive the corner it's the driver's who's behind. That's why drivers in front aren't blamed.

you're allowed to go into gaps that exist but if you see a gap that's going to close up for certain before you can fit yourself there properly attempting to ram into the gap is just plain idiocy. That's what Hamilton did. He knew that the gap wasn't going to last enough for him to fit there. But he still tried and failed.

When attempting an overtake you can not expect that the gap will stay there. You have to anticipate other racer's moves and where their cars are going. Hamilton saw Webber knew that Massa had to turn inside and still attempted the pass. Hamilton knew he was behind Maldonado, knew he'd turn in normally and still put himself into a position where he could not but crash.

You have to accept that you can't overtake in every corner every time and wait until you got a chance to pull off your move. Hamilton had the patience with Schumacher and didn't have it with Massa or Maldonado.

You are slowly getting my point. But these championships won by crashing were decades ago and you have to admit that there's currently at least one former professional driver in the jury which makes their decisions much better than before. The rules are what they are and everyone should drive by them. Even Hamilton. Besides if all professional racers felt that the rules needed changing they'd say so. Right now the only one who's having problems is Hamilton.
If the front car can block the pass 80% of the time I have no problem with that. That means that from every 5 attempts you'll get past once. If you're faster you'll get past withing 5 laps according to that, if you're not well...you don't get past.

Comparing Hamilton to Räikkönen is quite ridiculous. Räikkönen didn't crash even nearly as much as Hamilton. Räikkönen was fast and fair driver. He left F1 because he didn't like media and couldn't get a winning team that would let him drive rally when he wanted. And Montoya, come on give me a break that man was a joke. You can't compare him to either Hamilton or Räikkönen. Montoya was basic driver and he caused collisions so much that I believe Mclaren just got sick with him and threw him out. He never had the speed or mind to become a F1 champion.

Squeltch just watch this and tell me Hamilton hit Massa after Massa had hit Webber http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8dG9ID4ba0

If you think F1 is lame then don't watch it. But as long as F1 stands drivers are forced to follow the rules F1 has and if they don't they will get penalized. That's exactly what happened to Hamilton.