That time will come... Still researching how much it's gonna cost

the Massa, kubica thing in japan last year was all forced cuttings.

they were 100% unavoidable were as hamiltons was in somewhat.

but Hamiltons Penalty is mainy due to the fact he didn't give kimi adequate chance to get pass after cutting, not the cut itself.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I don't see what the problem is either. He came into the corner behind Kimi, and left the corner much closer to Kimi than he would have been had he not cut.

Surely being closer is an advantage. And it was gained by cutting the track. Which bit doesn't make sense here?

He'd have still won if he hadn't cut it, and he'd have passed Kimi later in the lap. But by what is effectively cheating he got a deserved penalty.

Thats what people don't understand

Quote from Mustafur :

the Massa, kubica thing in japan last year was all forced cuttings.

they were 100% unavoidable were as hamiltons was in somewhat.

but Hamiltons Penalty is mainy due to the fact he didn't give kimi adequate chance to get pass after cutting, not the cut itself.

I hope that you can define what is, acording to F1 regulations, "adequate chance to get pass after cutting", because I didn´t see anyone posting any part of the rules that states what that is, and the decisions in the past on this kind of situation are, to say the least, pretty inconsistent and ambiguous...

Quote from tristancliffe :

I don't see what the problem is either. He came into the corner behind Kimi, and left the corner much closer to Kimi than he would have been had he not cut.

Surely being closer is an advantage. And it was gained by cutting the track. Which bit doesn't make sense here?

He'd have still won if he hadn't cut it, and he'd have passed Kimi later in the lap. But by what is effectively cheating he got a deserved penalty.

The question for me is as much about who was ahead before the chicane. Kimi only came back up the inside because he let the brakes off after watching Hamilton go past him. So who was passing who at that point?
The onboard video shows just how early Kimi brakes, Hamilton would have made the corner easily if Kimi hadn't dived back after realising his mistake. I think forcing Hamilton to drop back a couple of seconds behind Kimi would be totally unfair in this situation.

It was still the same manouveur though. Kimi realised he'd misjudged the grip, and reduced his braking as part of his defence - totally legal. He had the inside line and was also totally allowed to squeeze Hamilton prior to the second apex.

Let's pretend there is no run off area. Just armco. Had Hamilton kept it out of the armco and navigated the corner then he would have lost a lot of ground. He didn't - he cut the track and stayed close to the Ferrari.

And again, I'll reiterate that I don't think Kimi would have won anyway, as the Ferrari is not good in such cool conditions with water cooled tyres (and I do believe the difference between the two was down to the chassis more than the drivers - Hamilton in a Ferrari would have struggled just as much).

Sinbad do you rememebr how Tristan argued with me about squeezing people off and how that was wrong etc... and all that anti-karting nonsence...

Kimi goes and does it against Hamilton and suddenly it's fine with Tristan. I would take what he says with a pinch of salt!

Kimi can do no wrong in his eyes

This topic is just showing why this type of penalty is just impossible to accuratly judge. Everyone seems to have their own idea as to who was where under braking, what would have happened if Hamilton had stayed on the track, how close Hamilton could be before its considered unfair and whether Kimi should have given Hamilton more room...

It just seems that whatever the desicion had been someone would be unhappy, but its pretty obvious that a penalty in this case is bad for the sport, unless you like champoinships being decided off the track.

Take a look at this:

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=42b26nbFkt4

There was no penalty for Schumacher. And he did it several times.

Quote from tristancliffe :

It was still the same manouveur though. Kimi realised he'd misjudged the grip, and reduced his braking as part of his defence - totally legal. He had the inside line and was also totally allowed to squeeze Hamilton prior to the second apex.

Let's pretend there is no run off area. Just armco. Had Hamilton kept it out of the armco and navigated the corner then he would have lost a lot of ground. He didn't - he cut the track and stayed close to the Ferrari.

And again, I'll reiterate that I don't think Kimi would have won anyway, as the Ferrari is not good in such cool conditions with water cooled tyres (and I do believe the difference between the two was down to the chassis more than the drivers - Hamilton in a Ferrari would have struggled just as much).

I'm not saying Kimi did anything wrong. I don't think he did. I was only saying that Lewis was most certainly not a significant distance behind when they arrived at the chicane, arguably he was ahead, and whilst I take your point about the runoff, he was forced out on to it to an extent because Kimi released the brakes and had a stab back. (That's racing etc etc) He also did give Kimi ample opportunity to defend his position into the next corner, but he chose not to. For these reasons I think the penalty is somewhat harsh, but it was probably a bit naive of McLaren/Lewis to think the incident would be completely overlooked by Ferrari and co.

Ah, but Kimi did NOT squeeze Hamilton off as Hamilton (by virtue of linear distances travelled on the inside and outside lines) was too far behind. Pushing someone off when they are alongside is unfair (which is, I believe, what I said at the time), but squeezing at a second apex is fine - how else do people defend overtakes round the outside?

Anti-karting nonsense? Not at all. The fact is all karters want to get out of karts as soon as the humanly can, and not one person has jumped straight from karts to a decent attempt (or even quarter-decent) at F1, suggesting that more is learnt in the lower formulae than in karting.

Alan, when do you race? I'd love to see how your doing in your championship, or last years championship etc. You said the other day "I do this all the time", indicating you are currently fighting for a championship. But I also get the impression you haven't raced competitively for about 5 years, and even then you sucked so now you just help out at an arrive-and-drive center. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit That sounds like a reasonale viewpoint Sinbad. It is a close call, and certainly not 100% black and white. I sit on one side of the fence, you on the other, but there isn't a vast amount of distance between us (on either side of the fence). But I do get annoyed about those that won't even accept anything in favour of Lewis' punishment - those that suggest he gained no advantage whatsoever from cutting the corner, which is what the penalty was given for.

If there had been an armco instead of runoff I think Kimi would have left more room or both cars would be out.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Edit That sounds like a reasonale viewpoint Sinbad. It is a close call, and certainly not 100% black and white. I sit on one side of the fence, you on the other, but there isn't a vast amount of distance between us (on either side of the fence). But I do get annoyed about those that won't even accept anything in favour of Lewis' punishment - those that suggest he gained no advantage whatsoever from cutting the corner, which is what the penalty was given for.

For me, the biggest problem isn´t there. Ferrari didn´t make any protest about this situation. Acording to a link posted before, even Stefano Domenicali thinks that it was racing. And Kimi didn´t lost this race because of this situation. He lost it because he couldn´t keep his car on the track with that conditions. He even regain first place when Rosberg came into the track, and then spun the car, and finally lost control and crashed into the wall. So, what was the need, to penalise Hamilton in a situation that even you admit it´s "not 100% black and white", and create a "fake" result to this race, that doesn´t translate what happened on the track. I don´t have any preferences for a particular team or driver, but I enjoy seeing races decided on the track, and not by some after race decision. And what I saw on those laps was 2 drivers figthing, under some very difficult conditions, trying to win a race. For Hamilton a 2nd place behind Kimi was a good result. He would win points over Massa, and see Kimi get closer to Massa, not giving the chance to Ferrari choose at this point wich driver would fight for the championship. Instead of doing that he tried to win the race. That should be praised, not penalised.

Quote from chunkyracer :

For me, the biggest problem isn´t there. Ferrari didn´t make any protest about this situation. Acording to a link posted before, even Stefano Domenicali thinks that it was racing. And Kimi didn´t lost this race because of this situation. He lost it because he couldn´t keep his car on the track with that conditions. He even regain first place when Rosberg came into the track, and then spun the car, and finally lost control and crashed into the wall. So, what was the need, to penalise Hamilton in a situation that even you admit it´s "not 100% black and white", and create a "fake" result to this race, that doesn´t translate what happened on the track. I don´t have any preferences for a particular team or driver, but I enjoy seeing races decided on the track, and not by some after race decision. And what I saw on those laps was 2 drivers figthing, under some very difficult conditions, trying to win a race. For Hamilton a 2nd place behind Kimi was a good result. He would win points over Massa, and see Kimi get closer to Massa, not giving the chance to Ferrari choose at this point wich driver would fight for the championship. Instead of doing that he tried to win the race. That should be praised, not penalised.

Well said, exactly how I feel.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Anti-karting nonsense? Not at all. The fact is all karters want to get out of karts as soon as the humanly can, and not one person has jumped straight from karts to a decent attempt (or even quarter-decent) at F1, suggesting that more is learnt in the lower formulae than in karting.

Ferrrai made an offer to Valentino Rossi who's only previous single seater racing was what Tristan?

Quote from Intrepid :

Ferrrai made an offer to Valentino Rossi who's only previous single seater racing was what Tristan?

And that of course had nothing to do with the fact that Rossi == God in Italy and that Ferrari is an Italian company interested in the publicity he'd bring. No sir.

You have the details of an offer? I thought it was just speculation, and nothing more. I don't believe there was any contract of intent, or actualy contract on the table.

But obviously you know more. I mean, you managed to pluck one driver (which was a publicity thing more than anything) out of hundreds that doesn't have single seater experience and use it as your argument that karting is the be all and end all? Wow!

Rossi had experiance in rally cars and racing on a track in a rally car at that point, he had also been racing in the top class of motorbikes for years. He did karting when he was young and gave it up because it was too expensive and he liked the bikes more. Ferrari put him in the car as a publicity stunt, when it turned out he was actually really good they gave him more tests, but it didn't go any further.

Although the Ferrari marketing team would cut their testicles off to have Rossi in their car, he is the most popular and well known Italian in motorsport at the moment.

Jackie Stewart and Niki Lauda has commented on the penalty now and both say it was a unfair decision.

Quick copy and paste of what has been included in Jackie Stewarts thoughts about the stewards.

Quote :

Triple world champion Niki Lauda condemned the verdict as landing F1 in its “biggest mess ever” and said it would drive people away from the sport, while fellow legend Sir Stirling Moss branded it “an absolutely appalling decision”.

If Mclaren appeal, which would be best to do so, I hope the penalty gets lifted as it's unfair and people like Niki Lauda have said it was a unfair decision. Would the FIA take what the likes of Niki Lauda, Sir Stirling Moss have said on the penalty into concideration or not?

Link to what Jackie Stewart has said:
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=43880
Link to what Niki Lauda has said about the penalty:
http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43875

Even Niki has said it could effect F1, as the fans are not happy about the penalty.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I don't see what the problem is either. He came into the corner behind Kimi, and left the corner much closer to Kimi than he would have been had he not cut.

Surely being closer is an advantage. And it was gained by cutting the track. Which bit doesn't make sense here?

I'm sorry, what? Were you watching the same race as me? The facts, that nobody can dispute, is this:

- Hamilton had considerable overlap going into the first part of the chicane.
- Hamilton had inside line in the second part of the chicane.

How can you possibly say that he gained an advantage by letting Raikkonen pass him? Hamilton had overlap, inside line AND momentum. All of those advantages were absolutely, without a shadow of a trout, LOST, when he let Raikkonen pass before the S/F line.

Massa saying "he overtook too soon". Again, I don't see where there is a rule in any rule book saying "you have to wait x seconds before attempting to pass after yielding a position."

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but can Mclaren acctually appeal agaisnt the penalty?

As it was a drive through, which can not be appealed during the race, then technically I don't think that Mclaren have a case.

Quote from dawguk :

I'm sorry, what? Were you watching the same race as me? The facts, that nobody can dispute, is this:

- Hamilton had considerable overlap going into the first part of the chicane.
- Hamilton had inside line in the second part of the chicane.

How can you possibly say that he gained an advantage by letting Raikkonen pass him? Hamilton had overlap, inside line AND momentum. All of those advantages were absolutely, without a shadow of a trout, LOST, when he let Raikkonen pass before the S/F line.

Massa saying "he overtook too soon". Again, I don't see where there is a rule in any rule book saying "you have to wait x seconds before attempting to pass after yielding a position."

Hamilton was alongside, and perhaps a nose ahead, but on the outside. Thus he has no rights to the racing line.
Hamilton had the inside line to the second apex, but because of the turn itself he was no longer ahead or even alongside, and thus had no rights to the racing line.

So Hamilton had neither overlap (at the critical point) or momentum (Kimi got there first).

Hamilton was closer to Kimi across the finish line than he would have been if he hadn't jumped across the chicane, feathered the throttle until Kimi was only just ahead, and then floored it.

Had he not cut the chicane he would not have been close enough to attempt a pass into La Source.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Hamilton was alongside, and perhaps a nose ahead, but on the outside. Thus he has no rights to the racing line.
Hamilton had the inside line to the second apex, but because of the turn itself he was no longer ahead or even alongside, and thus had no rights to the racing line.

So Hamilton had neither overlap (at the critical point) or momentum (Kimi got there first).

Hamilton was closer to Kimi across the finish line than he would have been if he hadn't jumped across the chicane, feathered the throttle until Kimi was only just ahead, and then floored it.

Had he not cut the chicane he would not have been close enough to attempt a pass into La Source.

I'm sorry sir, but you are talking through your bottom.

The chicane is a right left combination. Hamilton overtook Kimi into the chicane on Kimi's left, from directly behind the Ferrari. This means that Hamilton had speed and momentum on Kimi (how else was he able to travel from behind Kimi to alongside him?). The only reason he lost momentum, was because he was squeezed off the track. Raikkonen knew that he was going to lose position (as Hamilton was significantly faster for the whole lap), and took an abnormal line through the chicane.

If you don't think it was abnormal, then you take a look at the rest of the race - there is no reason why Raikkonen was possibly take the line that he did, other than to squeeze Hamilton off the circuit. Further to this, he also KNEW how slippy the track was, and he took a tighter line through the bends regardless of this....

... which also helps to debunk this argument about Hamilton gaining an advantage. The line that Raikkonen took through that chicane was tight enough, and the track was slippy enough, for him to lose a whole heap of time exiting the chicane. The reason he was so far behind when Hamilton re-joined the circuit was because he had to adjust his car after his dodgy line.

Also, just to throw this in there: Ferrari are a bunch of cheats, that bend rules and flex their financial muscle. Also Raikkonen is monotone and boring, and Massa is a poor second place driver to Hamilton. There, I said it

Quote from MASSA :

If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it

This is interesting, and I find it a lot more intelligent that the bold part. Had there been a wall instead of run-off (think goodwood), Lewis would have had to back out or crash. Either way, he probably would not have made that pass into T1 (assuming he'd have to slow considerably from his outside position).
$.02

Quote from tristancliffe :

You have the details of an offer? I thought it was just speculation, and nothing more. I don't believe there was any contract of intent, or actualy contract on the table.

But obviously you know more. I mean, you managed to pluck one driver (which was a publicity thing more than anything) out of hundreds that doesn't have single seater experience and use it as your argument that karting is the be all and end all? Wow!

There was a contract on the table. And it wasn't just a publicity thing, the Ferrari engineers were VERY impressed with his performance. He did struggle getting to grips with the high speed stuff, but they were confident enough that he would be fine. But hey what do I know I just teach 8 year old kids how to push two pedals lol