Well, maybe, but my point was that whether you are in the "rules are rules" camp, or the Hamilton fanboy camp (both of which are absurd and weirdly intransigent positions), for the records to show anything other than the fact that Lewis Hamilton won the Belgian GP in 2008 is a bureaucratic oddity that has nothing to do with racing.
2008 Formula 1 Spa-Francorchamps Grand Prix *Spoilers*
(779 posts, started )
Well, maybe, but my point was that whether you are in the "rules are rules" camp, or the Hamilton fanboy camp (both of which are absurd and weirdly intransigent positions), for the records to show anything other than the fact that Lewis Hamilton won the Belgian GP in 2008 is a bureaucratic oddity that has nothing to do with racing.
the conspiracy theory would never have arosed if the FIA hasn't made so many inconsistents and controversial decisions would it~?
I would like to call that as trying to close up the championship battle, but some will ultimately say it's favouring Ferrari cos after all, Ferrari has been at the beneficiary ends of it more often than not.
Remembered Hungary last year, how is teammate blocking each other in their own pits worth the whole points scored by the team in that weekend to be wipe off?
Remembered Monza 2006 in qualifying~? how come Alonso was docked down the grid because he was "blocking" Massa when Massa was no where close to his gearbox~? he was more like 2sec at least behind.
Remembered Hungary 2006~? Michael on the outside going into the chicane, De la Rosa going down the inside to try to pass him. De la Rosa actually made the corner but Michael just shoot straight on and didn't give the position back. Would that be fair racing?
Remembered 2006 when Renault was running the mass dampers~? it was ran in 2005 too but FIA suddenly decided it was all of a sudden illegal and ban it mid-season. So Renault all of a sudden lost their speed advantage and were suddenly slower than Ferrari so Michael could catch up the points deficit. They claimed the mass dampers was a "movable aerodynamics device" all of a sudden, but the whole car is a "movable aerodynamics device" anyway.
But then I of cos also remembered Monaco, where Michael was sent to the back. I also remembered that was due to the Spannish stewards who basically openly admit he was on the side of Alonso so I don't know how to put that one.
And I also remembered all the rules changes made post season to try to slow the Ferraris down during 2002 and 2004ish when they dominated. So that is why I said FIA tried to close up the championship battle, and Ferrari are often at the beneficiary side of it, because it's not like they've done anything mid-season to stuff the Ferraris up in 2002 and 2004 through.
The conspiracy theory arosed only because of the actions FIA has taken over the past. And there are far too many to list so I only listed the recent examples.
And last but not least, the above arguments didn't only came from McLaren fan or British people... But to quote Pat Symonds: "We have to believe that they [the FIA] are impartial, the sport would not exist if we didn't believe that." And I'm trying to agree to that view, otherwise I wouldn't be bothered watching. Although the evidence does occasionally tends to suggest otherwise. Either due to their inconsistency or either really due to the conspiracy theory...
But one thing I do agree with you, the top 3 drivers are making far too many errors this year.
But I wouldn't terms Lewis taking the escape road as a mistake.
I agree with this guy, and this is the reason I am against the penalty. And I can understand why people have different opinions on this but I just hate it when the championship is decided off-track and over an incident that didn't really affect the race outcome anyway.
No amount of argument or proof will change my opinion of this, and I guess for the people who think the penalty was justified no argument of proof will change it for them. So I'm just going to try and forget about all this until the decision on the appeal comes through, I've said what I feel about the issue.
Patrick Symonds is a straight shooter, one of the most reliable in the paddock. And I agree with his sentiment.
However, it doesn't change the notion that Lewis' action was questionable, and that the rules do state that you cannot cut a chicane.
The rule itself is OK, but the lack of discretion and the utterly inconsistent application of the rule (and not only that rule, but others too) is what's wrecking the sport. Stewards with good discretionary sense would have given Lewis the benefit of the doubt and let it slide for the sake of good sport. But oh no, they have to play snotty.
I'm with Sir Jackie Stewart: get some professional stewards, ones with racing experience - preferably in F1 - and get rid of that Alan Donnelly character. The logic of appointing a businessman on the payroll of Ferrari as Chief Steward is indescribably nonsensical.
Well what I'm really saying is, just scrap the rule book for a second. Maybe get 4-5 past F1 drivers who know what racing is about to make consistent decisions and who obviously have more experience.
Kinda like what Jackie Stewart has said:
That would make me happier.
Cool well I have these people on my side
EDIT: I hear ya samjh
How about stopping this charade of a winner's ceremony when the result is provisional and there's a stewards enquiry underway? That would make a huge difference because F1 couldn't possibly live with that - too many sponsors/TV companies to keep happy. So, instead of 2 hour delays, decisions would have to be made quickly and, rightly or wrongly, the decision stands. Fans leave the circuit debating controversial moments, studio pundits get to perform the race post mortem and everyone moves on. It works in the best football leagues in the world so why not F1?
How are these 4/5 drivers supposed to come to an agrement without a rule book. Personal interptation differs, as we have seen, from one to the next.
Yeah good point, 4-5 experienced drivers with a rule book then
Rules are there for a reason.......mainly to confuse and bewilder mankind. With the amount of rule books I have at work (laws, practises, government enforced proceduce etc) I believe that the devil works for Health and Safety.
I cannot honestly believe the number of people in this thread who are suggesting that sticking to the rule book is stupid, or in some way 'fanboy-ish'. That simply goes to prove your own fanboyism. You don't even want your driver to win by following the rules, you just want him to win. You're looking like a bunch of Schumacher fans. We seriously don't need that level of 'win at all costs' again.
Screw the 'spirit of the sport' as far as the incident goes - the decision was made by the rules. I don't agree with the rules as they stand (and OldBloke made a decent suggestion), but they are the rules and that's what everyone who goes out on the track agrees to be governed by. Whether a driver or team misinterprets them, or whatever, it's not an issue... the stewards make the decision, they made their decision, it's supported by the rules, that's it.
Screw the 'spirit of the sport' as far as the incident goes - the decision was made by the rules. I don't agree with the rules as they stand (and OldBloke made a decent suggestion), but they are the rules and that's what everyone who goes out on the track agrees to be governed by. Whether a driver or team misinterprets them, or whatever, it's not an issue... the stewards make the decision, they made their decision, it's supported by the rules, that's it.
Anyway the rulebook seems to be somewhat lacking. The unfair advantage seems to be the reason for the penalty. In my opinion the only way to qualify that advantage (that means, its existence and consequently the rule enforcement) would be to have access to telemetry data and a perfect understanding of the conditions, such as correct braking and turn in points at the moment of the incident.
This decision will always be controversial as long as there's this lack of transparency. I can't know and decide for myself if it's justified or not. Personally I found Hamilton's move questionable during the race, but not exactly outrageous. All the ensuing debate here didn't help me to understand exactly what went on since it relies on subjective data such as personal interpretations of images and movies. That's not enough, for me. I think that more information should be due from FIA in cases like this, if they really want to avoid their image being tarnished even more than it is at the moment, rightly or not.
Could'nt agree more, the problem we have is that everyone races in a diffrenet style/way, and naturally we are going to come to a diffrent interpetation. The rules are always a problem, they are worded in "legal Terms" which means although the are correct, they do not scan well, leaving indviduals within the sport coming to a diffrent conclusion. Take Football for example, how many times do we see the same foul and yet with 2 refs we see 2 different descions, they use the same rule book but have interpetated the rule diffrently. All it needs is for one word to be miss-read/missunderstood and you have a new meaning to the rule.
As an aside: I found it amusing that the most popular Facebook group amongst members of the "FIA = Ferrari International Assistance" group (also on Facebook) is "The Lewis Hamilton Appreciation Society". 
ok although rules are a pain in the rear-end every sport needs em or it wouldnt be a sport, i have no problems with that, but the (ma)fia do tend to push these rules in strange ways.. ok lets look at this from a RULES point of view...
you carnt cut a corner/chicane
Ok many of you will say its more complicated than than that, its if you gain an advantage.. ok granted, there are few turns on the f1 callender that are "cuttable" and you dont gain an advantage, the general rule of thumb is that you cut a corner, you inevetably gain some sort of advantage, weather or not you take a posission in the process is not the point, you gain an advantage.
so what i want to know is why all shortcuts are not punished in the same way, after all they are the rules!, we must follow them yes? so why do so many go unpunished, and im not JUST talking about the red cars here im talking about the whole pack, many times i see a car "cut" and gain a small advantage but because said driver is not in a BATTLE and not really close to any competitor the infringment gets thrown out, but the advantage still shows on the stopwatch non the less and more importantly A RULE WAS STILL BROKEN...
a video already posted on here http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM shows a grate one..
yes there are many differences to sundays events if you dissect this, but RULE'S were broken here, so why no punishment???
so please dont give us this "RULES ARE RULES" crap, the FIA push them where they feel the need its as simple as that..
this football thing gets pulled in a lot, that 1 ref see's things different to another ref on different days, number one thats why we should have dedicated marshalls in f1, but yea we see the same rule broken in 2 different games with different outcomes, but its decided on the fecking pitch, then we all leave and b1tch and moan in the pub afterwards, go home and wait for the next game..
you carnt sit there and tell me that MS would be 7 times WC if the "RULES ARE RULES" idea was followed...
last thing, the FIA cannot even give a REASON for the penalty, because with the all this media frenzy going on, if i was the FIA i would say "look this is what happened and here's proof" but saying "lewis gained and advantage" just doesn't cut if for me, we need to see HOW they came to this decision, but as yet we have no released info on this, and if we did and the fia was abviously correct mclarean would have no option to take it on the chin...
so yes i agree "rules SHOULD be rules", and not "one rule for one and another rule for another" end of
you carnt cut a corner/chicane
Ok many of you will say its more complicated than than that, its if you gain an advantage.. ok granted, there are few turns on the f1 callender that are "cuttable" and you dont gain an advantage, the general rule of thumb is that you cut a corner, you inevetably gain some sort of advantage, weather or not you take a posission in the process is not the point, you gain an advantage.
so what i want to know is why all shortcuts are not punished in the same way, after all they are the rules!, we must follow them yes? so why do so many go unpunished, and im not JUST talking about the red cars here im talking about the whole pack, many times i see a car "cut" and gain a small advantage but because said driver is not in a BATTLE and not really close to any competitor the infringment gets thrown out, but the advantage still shows on the stopwatch non the less and more importantly A RULE WAS STILL BROKEN...
a video already posted on here http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM shows a grate one..
yes there are many differences to sundays events if you dissect this, but RULE'S were broken here, so why no punishment???
so please dont give us this "RULES ARE RULES" crap, the FIA push them where they feel the need its as simple as that..
this football thing gets pulled in a lot, that 1 ref see's things different to another ref on different days, number one thats why we should have dedicated marshalls in f1, but yea we see the same rule broken in 2 different games with different outcomes, but its decided on the fecking pitch, then we all leave and b1tch and moan in the pub afterwards, go home and wait for the next game..
you carnt sit there and tell me that MS would be 7 times WC if the "RULES ARE RULES" idea was followed...
last thing, the FIA cannot even give a REASON for the penalty, because with the all this media frenzy going on, if i was the FIA i would say "look this is what happened and here's proof" but saying "lewis gained and advantage" just doesn't cut if for me, we need to see HOW they came to this decision, but as yet we have no released info on this, and if we did and the fia was abviously correct mclarean would have no option to take it on the chin...
so yes i agree "rules SHOULD be rules", and not "one rule for one and another rule for another" end of
I didn't need to click on the link because I know instantly it would be the "Schumacher Example" that always gets dragged up in these debates.
1) What Schumacher did was wrong and should have been punished....can't deny that. Not punished for whatever reason (due to whatever reason Conspiracy theory or my personal favorite incompetence from the FIA)
2) That happened years ago, just because it happened then it doesn't mean that that should be allowed to happen again, in fact if you agree that point 1 is valid, you should be jumping up and down at any cut chicane. "If you do the same as you always have, you will get the same as you always got".
3) If Lewis had made the corner correctly he would have lost momentum and speed and therefore there is serious doubt that he would have been in a position to make the pass...instead he cut the corner and was in a good position to overtake, after briefly giving the position back to Kimi.
jamesf1: well, duh. Who else is competitive with Ferrari? No-one. If you went back to the 1990s it would be Hill or Hakkinen fans, I guess. Doesn't really mean anything in particular. The top two teams in F1 are Ferrari and Mclaren, so by nature most with an interest will be fans of one or the other, and it's hardly likely to be Ferrari fans who join an anti-Ferrari group, is it? Sooo, by process of elimination...yeah.
To be clear, I don't think the issue is that we should throw the rule book away. But:
a) there is a very good case that Hamilton did not break the rules. You can argue the toss on this, as we have been doing, but it's certainly not clear cut. Not everyone is saying "yeah, he cheated, but let him get away with it because it was entertaining!", as you try to characterize it.
b) the authorities have already demonstrated numerous times that they are happy to exercise discretion in awarding penalties. The most obvious example being the tap on the wrist given to Massa for a dangerous pit lane exit. It's therefore entirely legitimate to argue that it would have been better for the sake of consistency and the sport for them to exercise discretion in punishing Hamilton for the supposed infraction at Spa, given the ultimate nature of the result.
To be clear, I don't think the issue is that we should throw the rule book away. But:
a) there is a very good case that Hamilton did not break the rules. You can argue the toss on this, as we have been doing, but it's certainly not clear cut. Not everyone is saying "yeah, he cheated, but let him get away with it because it was entertaining!", as you try to characterize it.
b) the authorities have already demonstrated numerous times that they are happy to exercise discretion in awarding penalties. The most obvious example being the tap on the wrist given to Massa for a dangerous pit lane exit. It's therefore entirely legitimate to argue that it would have been better for the sake of consistency and the sport for them to exercise discretion in punishing Hamilton for the supposed infraction at Spa, given the ultimate nature of the result.
correct that is what im saying, if we are to have rules at the "pinnacle" of motorsport they should be enforced "ALL THE TIME" weather it LH that cuts a turn or kubica, it should be enforced at all races at all tracks and to ALL drivers, and not when the FIA feel like going on a power trip..
my second point (should have been the first point
)the FIA should give us (or at least) the f1 TEAMS! the reason for the penalty, and not some half soaked reason "lewis gained a advantage", ok HOW have you come to this conclusion??? and more importantly can they outline what a driver is to do in the future in the same situation?? pull over count to ten and then go? WHAT IS THE RULE!!!!, simply saying you canot gain a advantage is not a well outlined rule imo...massa in the pits, would you deny he gained a slight advantage by leaving to early??? well if he had be released properly he would not be so close to the car infront would he???? its still an advantage no matter how small so how do depict the two??...
"EDIT"
millions of £ go into a f1 team and im sure they would like to know whats ok and what is not, 1 point can make or break an f1 team, all we want is the RULES!!!! there are so many grey area's in f1 right now you need a minors hat to watch.
i find it strange that charlie whiting thought it was ok (the guy who oversee's every f1 race and countless other formule) //// Pat Symonds arguably the best guy in the padock both at his work and for being so strait, all thought it was ok?? countless retired race drivers are scratching there heads and all everyone keeps saying is "he gained a advantage"
so all im asking from the FIA is a strait REASON WHY... then outline what other drivers should do if the situation happens again, how do you make sure you have NO advantage...
then ENFORCE the rules everytime! so when this does happen we all say, "oohh FFS lewis do it right", you simply dont see that the whole reason we are all here asking these questions and discussing this is because the rule book is fubar and so is its enforcement
Couldn't agree more.
What you're asking for is an explanation, and thats another heap of mess we could head down there. How long would it take for everyone to get the explanation, understand it correctly, then lodge appeals. It should be made clear after the race, not during.
Different set of rules, and not really valid. You have a whole list of different scenarios and consequences in the pits than we have on the track.
I understand fully why everyone is complaining, what I can't understand is the constant referring back to Schumacher and the constant conspiracy theories. I had originally called this as a bad decision, but after seeing some more footage, mainly the one on board with Lewis, i could see where the FIA are coming from. I do think a penalty should have been handed out, 25 seconds seems harsh, but then they were left with only 2 choices (the other being a 10 place grid drop for the next race). It just seems that at the present time its very hip and fashionable to be taking pot shots at the FIA.
i do but thats hardly what this thread is about
ive tried to make my point with countless videos and screengrabs to point out why i think that cutting the corner was completely unnecessary and that because of the ambiguity of whether ot not he gained an advantage it was plain old stupid to overtake on the next corner instead of making it clear that if he did gain an advantage down the s/f straight he didnt intend to use it
neither do i... but neither do i want to see drivers spending most of the race off track instead of driving properly
obviously but without a mclaren fanboy filter leading to the conclusion that mclaren somehow always get shafted (which they dont as evident by looking at the fact that their drivers were still allowed to compete in the championship last year) instead of the far more simple and logical explanation that the fia stewards are a bunch of chimps with down syndrom who enjoy playing with dice (aka table top role players)
last year mcferrari and the 2 strongest copmpetitors to kimis title were still allwed to compete for it... if that isnt a major anti ferrari interest incident of the fia keeping the championship interesting i dont know what is
i dont as i decided to completely forget about f1 when the fia decided to make a mockery of it with grooved tyres and by allowing tc
you also forgot about 2005 which had (ridiculous) tyre rules that were designed to slow schumacher down
but my point still stands... the fia is interested in an exciting championship battle that sells tv ads... run that though a mclaren fanboy filter and youll end up with the conspiracy nonsense
nah that was a very concious decision on his part... which makes the whole incident even more questionable and worthy of a steward inquiry
Good grief, this is even more absurd than I realised. I didn't realise anyone was suggesting that he chose to cut the chicane in order to pass Kimi. Despite the fact that he had just knocked a 5 second lead down to nothing, and had a massively stronger car?
i never said he did it to pass kimi (stop reading things into what i write when it suits you) but from the onboard its very clear that he decides to steer onto the runoff while he still has plenty room and time to stay on the road
What excactly is your point?
Lewis gained a slight advantage to be on the back of Kimi coming to La Source but the fact he overtook a Ferrari just puts it all into perspective. He hasn't been penalized for gaining an advantage, hes been penalized for gaining an advantage on a Ferrari which happens to slightly breech the rules...
I'm not a Hamilton "fan" (I'm a Williams "fan"), but even I think he was robbed (and the fans were robbed - all F1 fans). My opinion is that if he did gain an advantage by cutting the chicane, he gave the position back adequately afterwards and in any other circumstances weather-wise Kimi would've been able to defend his position at the next corner. He would've been nowhere near Rykernen in La Source if Kimi hadn't braked so much earlier than Lewis did - the only reason he made the pass there was because Kimi simply couldn't keep him behind, regardless of what happened at the chicane.
The other thing that sticks in fans' throats is that if the stewards are going to insist on handing out penalties to the absolute letter of the law, they should've given Massa a drive-through at Valencia the week before. It's this kind of incongruity that causes all the anger.
However, the reason he was right behind him - as has been pointed out and debated to death - was exactly because he cut the chicane. This is sort of like the proverbial chicken and egg debate, however it's mostly about cocks and balls it seems.
EDIT:
And a little bit of wisdom by DC:
2008 Formula 1 Spa-Francorchamps Grand Prix *Spoilers*
(779 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG