If he had been smart and given back the place properly he'd have won. Still the lack of experience?

Also, ban tarmac run-off areas completely, please. That's probably the worst part of the current F1 tracks... :/

Quote from Gil07 :

If he had been smart and given back the place properly he'd have won. Still the lack of experience?

Also, ban tarmac run-off areas completely, please. That's probably the worst part of the current F1 tracks... :/

Imo he did give back the spot properly. But then the next corner Master Kimi decided to brake earlier then Mister Lewis so Lewis got the spot back...

When you give a spot back you can't just get back in the draft and overtake in the next corner That's not giving the place back...

Quote from Gil07 :

When you give a spot back you can't just get back in the draft and overtake in the next corner That's not giving the place back...

He didnt draft him at all into T1

Quote from Gil07 :

When you give a spot back you can't just get back in the draft and overtake in the next corner That's not giving the place back...

He didnt catch the draft thats the thing. If he had then maybe but he stayed beside not directly behind Kimi.

Quote from J@tko :

He didnt draft him at all into T1

Then he didn't slow down enough, since he still made the pass the next turn, which was my point. Why pick up on a small meaningless detail?

But what counts as giving the place back properly? A meter? 5 car lengths? I don't have a copy of the rule book handy but I'm sure Kimi did get his place back, and Hamilton was lapping quite a bit faster than Kimi at this stage, so it seems unreasonable to say Hamilton only passed because had an unfair advantage...

Like others have said, the best thing they could do is put gravel down on such places.

Quote from Gil07 :

If he had been smart and given back the place properly he'd have won. Still the lack of experience.

There's nothing in the rules saying exactly how much you need to give back, you just need to relinquish your place. From McLaren's own data, Lewis lifted off, and was 6mph slower going across the start. Lewis never got the draft, he simply out-braked Kimi. It may not have been the cleanest fight, but in my view it was just hard racing. Sometimes you loose, sometimes you win. I don't think either driver did anything wrong, or anything that anyone else wouldn't have done given the same circumstance. The decision is bollocks.

Quote from Gil07 :

Then he didn't slow down enough, since he still made the pass the next turn, which was my point. Why pick up on a small meaningless detail?

Because, after reading your post, you think that he only passed thanks to getting the draft into T1. Actually, he just outbraked him

That's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter how he got past, he just shouldn't have. He did not give the place back properly.

Anyway, it's not like I care that much, Ferrari and McLaren can both be DQed for me

Haha.

But like someone said what is ''properly'' it can be interpreted differently depending on the person. For me, letting someone get in front of you completly means that you did your job and you let him by properly. From that point it becomes normal racing again. Other people might think that properly means that he should wait a couple of corners until Kimi calms down after the battle and then attack again.

Quote from Gil07 :

That's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter how he got past, he just shouldn't have. He did not give the place back properly.

Anyway, it's not like I care that much, Ferrari and McLaren can both be DQed for me

Then when should he have passed? How much should he have backed off? If he didn't pass at T1 but drafted him through Eau Rouge and then passed him is that OK or still an unfair advantage?

Part of the problem of these rules is they are trying to control the drivers actions too much, and it basically takes from what the whole thing is about.

Boy, oh boy. I'm really starting to believe that the FIA is Ferrari biased after this ruling. And I always said it's a conspiracy theory.

As for the incident itself: I could agree that in general, a move like Lewises at La Source is debatable, if the advantage gained by cutting the track had not really been given back. However, in this case, a steward would have to take into account what went on before the advantage was gained and the position of the cars relative to eachother.

Lewis had considerable overlap before he cut the chicane (which was unavoidable). He slowed down after cutting to a point where he was fully behind Kimi. So, any advantage gained was given back, maybe even more. Therefore the FIA decision is plain wrong, imo.

It was a damn exciting race, though.

Btw: The GP2 races were even more exciting. There was more overtaking going on than in the last 5 years of F1 combined. (albeit at least one questionable decision by the stewards regarding the unsafe release of Senna).

Quote from RossUK :

God this is terrible. Those last few laps were some of the most exciting I've seen in a long while, its not often you get an adrenalin rush watching F1 to say the least. In fact the incident in question is what I watch racing for. Who cares if things get a bit tight and one car has to go off track? As long as the offending car lets the other back through all is fair, that's the spirit of racing right?

I agree. It's such a shame.

After all the complaints that F1 is just a 'procession', we finally get some nip-and-tuck, thrills-and-spills racing with a real fight to the finish and look what happens.

They kill it stone dead.

Suzuka 2005. Alonso overtakes Klien by cutting the chicane, gives Klien the place back but immediately tucks in behind and overtakes again at the next corner. Three laps later the stewards decide this is not sufficient and order Alonso to give the position back again, which he does so, and then has to overtake him again.

Just throwing it out there, this is not the first time this has happened, cut the conspiracy bullshit.

Yes but neither Alonso or Klien are Ferrari!!!!11!

I'm sure most people are not angry about this because of supposed Ferrari/FIA relationship, but because it ruined the race.

I'd be much happier if Hamilton's penalty was to overtake Kimi again.

Quote from mythdat :

Suzuka 2005. Alonso overtakes Klien by cutting the chicane, gives Klien the place back but immediately tucks in behind and overtakes again at the next corner. Three laps later the stewards decide this is not sufficient and order Alonso to give the position back again, which he does so, and then has to overtake him again.

I was thinking about that at the time. It was a bit different with Alonso, because he used the advantage of slipstream on the straight to re-pass Klien, so effectively he didn't concede the advantage he gained. Hamilton didn't do that - he gave up any advantage he'd gained and when they both arrived at La Source Hamilton's car was fully behind Raikkonen's.

If I can figure that out, while watching it live, why can't the stewards figure it out with the benefit of replays and a couple of hours to make a decision?

How is a drive through ever 25 seconds? As far as i know, an average pit stop, including pit entry and exit, costs the driver about 25 seconds. a drive through only costs the driver about 15 seconds, so how can they justify this?

Quote from thisnameistaken :

If I can figure that out, while watching it live, why can't the stewards figure it out with the benefit of replays and a couple of hours to make a decision?

Cus they are all over 80 and their eyesight has gone a bit fuzzy? The rulebook might also have been obstructing their view of the race/screens.

Not sure if the inboard has been posted, but here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70rXr2Mkq_M

For some reason it doesn't seem like Hamilton lifted to let Kimi by, he seems to accelerate 100% after cutting the chicane. However, Kimi still gets by. Either, Lewis didn't have the momentum or he deliberately accelerated more slowly than he could have. Not sure what to make of it, tbh.

Quote from DeKo :

How is a drive through ever 25 seconds? As far as i know, an average pit stop, including pit entry and exit, costs the driver about 25 seconds. a drive through only costs the driver about 15 seconds, so how can they justify this?

"The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident :
a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping ;
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds
and then re-join the race.
c) a drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.

However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after
the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time
of the driver concerned."

meh.

Quote from mythdat :

Suzuka 2005. Alonso overtakes Klien by cutting the chicane, gives Klien the place back but immediately tucks in behind and overtakes again at the next corner. Three laps later the stewards decide this is not sufficient and order Alonso to give the position back again, which he does so, and then has to overtake him again.

Just throwing it out there, this is not the first time this has happened, cut the conspiracy bullshit.

Really?

And did Klien then stuff it into the wall before the finish so it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference anyway?

Quote from Linsen :

Not sure if the inboard has been posted, but here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70rXr2Mkq_M

For some reason it doesn't seem like Hamilton lifted to let Kimi by, he seems to accelerate 100% after cutting the chicane. However, Kimi still gets by. Either, Lewis didn't have the momentum or he deliberately accelerated more slowly than he could have. Not sure what to make of it, tbh.

sounds like he's not fully throttle to me. Something like 80%. You can see him looking in his mirrors waiting for Kimi

First few shifts seem a bit slow, in any case I still believe that Lewis was not obliged to actually let Kimi past, and that Kimi should have his FIA Super Licence reviewed after several serious safety infringements.