Yeah I agree. This is another thing that the FIA has done that's going to have a negative impact on the sport and turn off viewers. I wish I didn't love F1 so much; I would stop watching it in a heartbeat just because of all the FIA BS. But I've been watching it since I was a baby (dad always had me with him when he watched it) and haven't missed a race for 20 years.... so I don't want to start not watching it now because of the FIA, when there are races as enjoyable as this was up to the finish.
Fair play to Ferrari on that one actually, they didn't like the move but they didn't think it was bad enough to protest about. It was just the guy with Ferrari business links that called it an incident and investigated it. The FIA just need to select a totally unbiased panel, pay them well, and make sure the same ones are used for each race, and that they only enforce penalties when the incidents are totally clear cut.
Just like to add to my post that I still think the FIA are incompetent at governing a world class sport. Far to inconsistent, corner cutting like Lewis did this Sunday shouldn't be tolerated in the slightest yet some drivers have gotten away with it. For example Schumacher at Hungary in 2006. Maybe this is a sign they are going to get strict with it?
The tarmac run offs are there to make the sport `safer` not to use as an extension of the track...
Haha, when you quoted my post, I thought you had a reply regarding something to do with what I said. But no... you just wanted to compliment the boobies
And he used it for what? Was it not to avoid a collision with Kimi? Look at the way Kimi seems to ignore the fact that theres even a car there. If he hadn't done that he would have simply spun around master Kimi and then there goes another penalty. I personally think that his decision was the best to make. If he had backed off at the time he realised Kimi was being a p**** he would have most likely clipped Kimi's rear left wheel.
Sounds like a clarification of the rules are in order.
Perhaps an overhaul of the stewarding system should be done too. There is just too little consistency. Perhaps some independent and retired ex-F1 drivers would volunteer for that (like the FIA ICA, where prominent lawyers volunteer to sit), or be paid part-time for the role.
and the penalty, I mean ban, placed on Pantano was even more bullsxxt.
Lets ban him in the sprint race because he tried diving down the inside in the feature, and unfortunately ended up in the back of someone.
If they wanted to use that as a consistent basis on how they would penalise people who tried diving down the inside, then a shxtload of people would be banned from racing...
To me that is just blatantly trying to close up the championship heading into the final rounds...
No, Hamilton had sufficient claim to the corner for Kimi to grant him some room, given the proceeding corner and the prevailing conditions, it's likely Hamilton would have left the corner in the lead had he been granted this by Kimi. I'm not blaming Kimi for this, I would do the same, i'm sure Lewis would too, I just dont see why Lewis then has to return the place.
This is not missing the entire point, this is subjectively disagreeing with your analysis based upon a difference of opinion. I believe that Kimi did not have the right to the corner, neither did he have sufficient overlap at the previous corner where Hamilton gave him room but was entitled to cut him off (although it would have been a sure accident if he had).
I agree Lewis' repass was not a properly returned position. I disagree that he was obliged to return the position under the rules, he just did to try and be squeeky clean and got penalised anyway for having the wrong colour. Sorry wrong colour car.
That depends if you believe that Hamilton, having gotten control of his car and not left the track, turns onto the grass in an effort to get more racing grip on the very slippery grass, or to avoid Kimi pile driving into his side.
http://www.lfsforum.net/attach ... mp;stc=1&d=1220947943
roughly half way on the connecting "straight"... hamilton still firmly between the line and with some breathing room left but having lost anything that could be considered significant overlap to claim the inside on the left hander
did you completely miss the video i posted earlier because it doesnt agree with that ridiculous conspiracy theory?
Actually I did just watch it from Kimi's onboard which I had not previously seen - the live pictures where unclear (I was posting with a disclaimer about it previously!), but on the onboard it can be seen that Hamilton takes to leave the circuit before Kimi passes him. I'd still argue that with an accident in progress Kimi was being over agressive, but it doesnt break the rulebook - any more so than the chicane incident.
At that point Hamilton lost any right to fight the position into the next corner and should have given up. Kimi has every right to use all the track, as I said earlier if you decide to do the walk of death around the outside you drive yourself off the track.
Hamilton has the pedals, he knew what was going to happen and does it to other drivers himself. I'll tell you for a fact he'd have backed out of that much earlier had their been a gravel trap there but he saw an advantage and took it.
Can no-one disagree without a protest? I disagree with you, but I'm not going to sit outside your house calling for the police to settle the isuse. Disputable issues are supposed to be investigated by the stewards - it was investigated, and they decided there was something to penalise. What's the issue here?
Totally unbiased? Let's raise them on an isolated island, and stop them ever watching F1 so they don't have favourites... Wait, that wouldn't work...
Nope, just someone who does not have business links with Ferrari, and therefore would profit from Ferrari winning the championship would be nice. I don't see why it wouldn't work either, we entrust random strangers with important things like jury duty, they decided if people go to jail or not, so why can't you find 3 unbiased people who can make decisions about a race?
Well yes obviously nobody can be completely unbiased, but that's why they would have 3 people, just making sure they don't have business links to certain teams would be enough!
It's a contract to fullfill provision of software code (I actually look at the contract tender myself when it went out, not that I was interested in bidding, but saw it and was curious). The code is standardised and given to all teams. It does not confer an advantage, and is purely a financial link to FOM which all the teams have anyway (concorde agreement).
this man speaks the truth
