I understand why people are saying this - however, there is no wall, so it's a moot point.
Also, assuming that Hamilton wouldn't have been able to pass in turn one, is quite incorrect, as he had already gained 3 second on Raikkonen on the previous lap. It's perfectly fair in this case, to assume that he would have been in the position to pass in turn one, given that the McLaren was behaving itself quite a lot more than the Ferrari.
Do you really mean a wall? I imagine thats the most unsafe thing they could do with that corner, just imagine failed brakes at 180+mph followed by a head on into a wall because you couldn't turn into the chicane.
I don't know how you can know that Hamilton wouldn't have been able to pass in T1 if he stayed on track, he was much faster at that stage than Kimi and may have had much better traction on the exit followed by better braking at the end of the straight.
Doubt that given Lewis would have lost so much momentum and the gap between himself and Kimi would have stretched....there is no way on earth or hell that Lewis would have made the pass into T1 unless he divebombed Kimi.
"In my opinion Hamilton got an advantage by cutting the chicane, had he stayed on the road, he wouldn't have had the speed to overtake the Ferrari."
"In the same way at Monza someone could cut the first chicane, catch a rival's draft, and overtake him under braking at Roggia."
"When you attack on the outside, you do it at your own risk, because who's on the inside has the right to do the corner. If there isn't enough room, then you lift.
"Had there been a wall there, instead of the surfaced escape route, would Lewis have attacked anyway? Had there been gravel, he wouldn't have had the chance to attack when rejoining the track because of dirty tyres."
anyway, i'm also tiring of this discussion. it was a pretty dull race until the last 3 laps, then it became the best race in years. the final decision probably won't be overturned, so let's look forward to monza in only 4 days
Hamilton cut the final chicane and therefore needed to give the position back to Kimi. He did this however, in a way which let him past, but still gave Lewis a big chance of passing Kimi into the next corner. He should have backed out and tried to pass somewhere else, and then he wouldn't have got the penalty.
Sometimes you just need to think about something before you make a decision. Hamilton obviously thought he was doing the right thing by letting Kimi back through, but then immediately attacked him at the next corner. to be honest I wasn't at all suprised by the decision after the race, I could have seen it coming.
Have you even seen the onboard footage? The only reason Lewis was there at all was because Kimi braked far earlier for the chicane. It wasn't a planned move, it was an opportunist one, and if he hadn't gone for it he would have gone straight into the back of Kimi.
Kimi's car was useless, he had no confidence in it and he was going to lose the position regardless. That's why he also braked very early for La Source. Lewis could have nailed him there regardless.
Lewis didn't really attack on the outside, he didn't brake particularly late, and didn't try to cut across the nose of Kimi. The only reason they even overlapped, and why this all started, is Kimi's massively overcautious braking point whilst defending the inside line. What Kimi does once he realises his error is a matter of debate, but it's fair to say that after seeing Lewis alongside and significantly ahead of him Kimi elects to not give an inch in his challenge back for the position.
Since when was it acceptable to pretend that someone else isnt alongside you and just try and force them off the road? You seem to think that if your on the inside for a corner you have license to anything you want, 'Got the inside? then just ram them off! they have NO right to be on the outside even if they right along side you, what do they think this is? Racing??'
No wonder your pricing up the cost of driving into a wall, we dont need you to explain how it happened, your logic tells us plenty.
Perhaps people shouldnt even bother turning for corners if they have the inside?
IF there was a wall, which there ISNT, so its purely hypothetical (more hy-pathetic)... if this was at Monaco, then they probably wouldnt have gone side by side, but if they had then Kimi would have been penalised for running Lewis and himself into the barrier. But i guess your arguement doesnt care to consider your hypatheical situation being at a Monaco enclosed track, just like it doesnt like the idea of it actually being at Spa with no barrier.
If someone was there, and you just decide your going to turn into a section of track which the other car would be occupying at the same time, then your driving into them! The difference at Spa was the fact that Kimi knew that forcing him off the track would give him track position and despite the fact that Lewis had a right to be there and was equally alongside him, he'd lose it all.
Where in this racing rulebook does it say 'he who holds the inside is god, and has the right to do whatever they want'??
Are you suggesting that provided your on the inside you can do what the hell you want, that anyone else on the track has absolutely no right to be on the same section of track with them?
What about a late diver, gets a nose overlap, absolutely sod all right to be there, but he has the inside... is that acceptable?? what do you mean no? But he has the inside!! Ram them off, its acceptable if you have the inside!!
How you can comment on Hamilton fanboys, yet here you are making irrational statements purely because its Hamilton... amazing.
Im pretty sure plenty didnt make mistakes, however he had nothing to gain in pushing, he just crawled round, those who had something to lose had to take risks to hold onto, massa had nothing to lose. So the fact that he'd given up on the race already and settled for 3rd place meant he was more deserving of the win than Kimi, who'd fought for the lead, pushed and scrapped to retain it in the bad weather? If you say so, but certainly not im most peoples books
Someone also said something along the lines of "at the start of the corner he was 2-3 car lengths behind him, so he gained"!?! I beg to differ, the start of the corner is at 0 yards, not 100 or 200 odd, they were side by side, infact Lewis was ~75% ahead at one point till Kimi realised there was far more grip than he'd anticipated for. On the same backwards logic, cant we just use the start of the race? Lewis was ahead then, Kimi gained!!
Momentum does not equal "all-empowering right to pass anyone without any resistance".
Whoa... defensive driving? What is this world coming to!? Anyone would have thought they were on a race-track, or something...
You mean to say the racing line is now the slowest way through a corner? All this time, I've been doing it wrong. :weeping:
As an additional point, how can Raikkonen deliberately force Hamilton out and take a tight line through the chicane? Oxymoron, or just moron?
Sensible post
Maybe one of them can teach you simple physics.
It's not a moot point at all. Runoff is not part of the track. Therefore, it cannot, and should not, be used to gain momentum, or pass other drivers - it is for recovery... and any advantage gained by using it, instead of the track, shold be yielded immediately.
I fail to see how this supports your argument at all. See the above comment RE: defensive driving.
Was just checking Autosport F1 to see if Mclaren are going ahead with the appeal and there are: Link
But when I loaded the page up I came across an article stating that the FIA told Mclaren twice that Hamilton gave the position back to Kimi in a 'Okay' Manner: Link
Ron Dennis said he'd spoken to Charlie Whiting, and he said it was 'ok', but that it wasn't up to him to decide (the steward's job). Doesn't matter who you speak to, the stewards decide.
If we're talking about defensive driving, then you can also argue that Hamilton was defending his ability to finish the race, by driving off the circuit to avoid a collision.
Well, if you want to read what I "meant" to say, and what I "actually" said as two entirely different things, then that's your choice. However, what I said was that Raikkonen's line through the chicane was not a racing line.
Well let's see. Chicane's generally have more than one turn. The racing line on this particular chicane, for best drive out of the final section, is to touch the apex of the right hand section, miss the apex on the second (left hand) section, driving wide to the right of the track under full acceleration to enter the straight. It's there for the world to see, for a whole 43 laps, before Kimi decided to change the rules on the penultimate lap. He took a wide line into the first (right hand) section of the chicane, squeezing Hamilton off the circuit. In doing so, he lost the ability to accelerate fully out of the second (left hand) section of the chicane, thus losing traction, acceleration and speed into turn one. There, was that simple enough for you to understand?
You really should watch the video of the incident and then of a normal lap before making such condescending comments.
Kimi does not take the normal line, he's significantly further to the left between the right and following left, making the left hand exit to the chicane tighter.
I'm quite capable of using my vocabulary correctly. I imagine you took the time to consult various other definitions of the word 'oxymoron', rather than the definition that suited your purpose? An oxymoron is 'two concepts {usually words} that do not go together' or even 'association of two contradictions'. You can't take both the tightest line into a corner and the racing line, they contradict. In light of that, the use of the word was valid from a conversational point of view, but probably less so from a formal point of view.
Also, try looking up the word 'paradox', which is in your very own definition of 'oxymoron'. A paradox is 'logic that contradicts itself'. Oh look... contradiction.
Where on earth did you see me direct that at you (or, indeed, anyone else in the thread)? The comment was made as a reference to the previous subject - Kimi and his line through the corner. Now, either what you're saying is an obvious contradiction or everyone upholding the FIA rulebook, here, is moronic.
Perhaps it would do you good not to get so defensive so quickly.
I can't count the number of times I've seen that video now. I realise it's not the normal line, but he was defending a position. Running slightly wider out is a normal, and perfectly valid, way to defend.
I'm not disagreeing with you in the slightest. I agree the current system is rubbish, but the ruling made was in line with the current system.
I agree with James, I see Sinbad's point (as it's sensible), but most of you lot haven't got a clue what you are talking about and seem to be plucking stuff from the ether to make Hamilton look hard done by.
I can't be bothered to explain or argue, so I'm going to leave it now. But I am glad justice has been done (unless the penalty gets overturned).
I like the way that you claim I've said things, without actually saying or inferring them.
Fair enough, in which case your use here was invalid, as I didn't claim that you could take both the tightest line into a corner and the racing line. Not once.
If you'd have used these words instead, that would have been just fine. You didn't though.
Who were you directing it at then? You commented directly after referencing points that I made in a previous post. This, in conversational terms, is called a reply or a response.
Nobody is disputing that, people are disputing the fact that Hamilton tried to gain an advantage by cutting the chicane.
This is obviously going nowhere, so let's just agree to disagree and move on, no?
I dunno Tristan, all you've done is post nonsense about if a wall was there, I know they're a sore point with you lately, but there was no wall in this case.
*ducks and runs for cover*
