using a dice = favouring ferrari... yeah makes perfect sense
I've only had a quick look through that official ruling posted above so i may have missed a relevant section. But if Hamiltons penalty is upheld then surely Kimi should be imposed a similar if not more stringent penalty for his actions at Pouhon (sp?).
If you remember both He and Lewis went wide at the corner as the rain increased. Lewis returned to the track as soon as he could whereas Kimi continued around the outside (making up all the time and distance he lost in the first section of the lap), and gained an obvious sporting advantage in doing so. At the following corner, Lewis was forced wide and off the circuit by the Williams, and Kimi was able to place his car in such a position as to prevent Lewis from re-joining the track and thereby was able to pass him. Irrespective of the fact Kimi crashed out later in the lap, he still gained a sporting advantage by going off-track with which he was able to pass a competitor at the very next corner. If Kimi hadn't continued around the outside of Pouhon then he simply wouldn't have been as close to Lewis by the next corner and wouldn't have been able to place his car in such a position as he did.
Granted a retrospective penalty to Kimi would not change his finishing position or the points situation. But, "Rules are Rules", so this situation must have been scrutinised by the stewards also, shouldn't it ? It WAS a breach of regulations after all. So does the official result indicate Kimi was awarded a retrospective 25sec penalty ? nope http://www.spagp.com/results/season/2008/799/ was it even looked at by the stewards, nope.
Point being, if you're gonna enforce one rule on Lewis and McLaren, then all the teams MUST be judged and adhere to the same rules. When that doesn't happen then who can blame life long fans, the media and sponsors for crying foul.
Anyone else think Charlie Whiting deserves the sack ? SamH said above that the stewards can instigate an investigation off their own backs if a blatant breach of the rules has occurred. But at the time Charlie Whiting didn't think anything was untoward with the situation. Surely it's part of his job remit to be able to identify a blatant breach of the rules, and then enforce the correct punishment or procedure to rectify such blatant rule breaking. Yet, at the time he didn't seem to have a clue (or did someone have a few quiet words with him at the end of the race ?) Reading some of the linked sites posted above i'm not entirely sure Charlie Whiting is a guy to be trusted, period, let alone entrusted with such an important position within the sport.
If you remember both He and Lewis went wide at the corner as the rain increased. Lewis returned to the track as soon as he could whereas Kimi continued around the outside (making up all the time and distance he lost in the first section of the lap), and gained an obvious sporting advantage in doing so. At the following corner, Lewis was forced wide and off the circuit by the Williams, and Kimi was able to place his car in such a position as to prevent Lewis from re-joining the track and thereby was able to pass him. Irrespective of the fact Kimi crashed out later in the lap, he still gained a sporting advantage by going off-track with which he was able to pass a competitor at the very next corner. If Kimi hadn't continued around the outside of Pouhon then he simply wouldn't have been as close to Lewis by the next corner and wouldn't have been able to place his car in such a position as he did.
Granted a retrospective penalty to Kimi would not change his finishing position or the points situation. But, "Rules are Rules", so this situation must have been scrutinised by the stewards also, shouldn't it ? It WAS a breach of regulations after all. So does the official result indicate Kimi was awarded a retrospective 25sec penalty ? nope http://www.spagp.com/results/season/2008/799/ was it even looked at by the stewards, nope.
Point being, if you're gonna enforce one rule on Lewis and McLaren, then all the teams MUST be judged and adhere to the same rules. When that doesn't happen then who can blame life long fans, the media and sponsors for crying foul.
Anyone else think Charlie Whiting deserves the sack ? SamH said above that the stewards can instigate an investigation off their own backs if a blatant breach of the rules has occurred. But at the time Charlie Whiting didn't think anything was untoward with the situation. Surely it's part of his job remit to be able to identify a blatant breach of the rules, and then enforce the correct punishment or procedure to rectify such blatant rule breaking. Yet, at the time he didn't seem to have a clue (or did someone have a few quiet words with him at the end of the race ?) Reading some of the linked sites posted above i'm not entirely sure Charlie Whiting is a guy to be trusted, period, let alone entrusted with such an important position within the sport.
when did going through a wide radius suddenly turn into an advantage? the laws of physics must have changes since i last checked
oh please if you look at it from the onboard and consider kimis perspective he most likely wasnt able to see the williams until lewis turned left hard to avoid rosberg and then simply did react to avoid hitting either car
to what possible effect other than to make the fia look petty?
the fia very rarely hands out race changing penalties for cars outside the points and unless the driver made a grave breach of safety regulations theres absolutely no reason to either
or maybe he just looked at it again while not having to watch 18 other cars at the same time and changed his mind? is it really that inconcieveable?
also im not sure what the protocol is but afaik any cutting incident shows up on the race control screens as car #whatever missed an apex and id hazard a guess that the stewards get that log and probably a personal log with all incidents that might or might not be of interest to them from whiting regardless of what whitings personal take on the situation is
That's silly! There is a MASSIVE reason to take into account cars that don't finish in the points especially ones that are fighting for the championship.
COUNTBACK!
Let's say in a hypothetical situation Lew and Kimi finish the championship on the SAME points (not a mad idea considering last year the top 3 were coevered by one point). both have equal 1st and 2nd places. and a DNF each.
Let's say Hamilton's DNF happened on lap 1. That would classify him in 20th. Now take into account that in Spa Kimi classified higher than 20th.
That would class Kimi as champion EVEN with a CLEAR rule breach!
That's an extreme case but proves why the FIA have to be CONSISTENT with every driver on the grid!
If RULES ARE RULES they have to be applied fairly and consistently otherwise that statement is FALSE!
Safety regulations? Massa...valencia..10k fine... nuff said
Of course, you wouldn't be saying that if you weren't a Hamilton fanboy or if the roles had been reversed, now would you?
No! I would be saying the exact same thing if the roles were reversed... it's just that they rarely are.
I don't know why you're all getting so worked up about it. It's not a sport, it's an entertainment! 
You know, like American idols and Britain's got talent 
You know, like American idols and Britain's got talent I'm not going to claim i understand the physics involved, but quite clearly Lewis was dropping him all the way from La Source, but Kimi caught up again in that one corner, so obviously he found more grip by staying in the run off area. Watch any replay, there's plenty in the other thread.
I'm not saying Kimi placed his car with the intention of blocking Lewis' return to the track. It looks like that was the only way Kimi could have gone. But, if Kimi hadn't have closed the gap by running wide at Pouhon it's highly likely Lewis would have been able to rejoin before Kimi had reached them.
Err, to show impartiality ?
So FIA rules only apply to drivers if they're in a points winning position ? Is that legally justifiable ? Are drive through penalties only given to drivers in the top eight positions ? Is that fair ? Is that the way the sport should be governed ?.
I'm not against the sport having these types of rules as seen in this particular situation, but it does the sport no favours if they're handed out to some and not others who do exactly the same thing. Look at Monza, on countless occasions drivers (Massa in particular) cut the chicanes and ended up with bigger gaps to the drivers chasing them down, isn't that gaining a sporting advantage ?
No it's not inconceivable, but it is inconsistent, and lets be honest, it's not exactly the hardest job in the world is it, watching telly and coming up with an opinion. Charlie Whiting has been in the sport for as long as i can remember, and i've been watching F1 regularly since 1978. By now he really should know what's what, and he really should be able to stand by his own convictions.
I'm not sure of the procedure either, but i guess the initial logging of a cars misdemeanour is nothing more than some bloke sitting in front of a couple of dozen TV screens watching every car on every lap, and pressing a button when he sees something untoward. Who HE is i dunno ? it might be Whiting himself ?
When all's said and done, the decision has been made, the penalty stands and the gap between Lewis and Massa is still 1pt. Nothings gonna change that now. But, from what i've been reading on forum after forum, website after website is countless die-hard fans saying they've had enough of this kinda crap and have vowed to turn their backs on the sport. Time will tell if they actually do, (i somehow very much doubt it). But the bigger issue is how the sponsors are gonna view this. Back when Schuey and Ferrari were winning everything, fans and TV viewers were turning away in droves, which put the willys up the sponsors, hence the rule changes of 2002 to try to artificially constrain Ferrari's obvious technical superiority. (personally i though it was a shame) My worry is this kind stuff is gonna scare off the fans again, and the sponsors too....which actually might be a good thing, get rid of these fair weather supporters and sponsors who haven't a clue or don't care about the sport. So it can return to the good old days of the Garagistes, and National Colours. Front engined F1 cars anyone ?
Seriously Shotglass, do you really think todays decision is a good thing for Formula 1 as a global sporting event, or does it make it look a bit half arsed ?
Strobe. The journalist you quoted is English. Look me in the eye and try and say that the English journalists are not biased towards Lewis Hamilton.
T.b.h I knew the appeal wouldn't stand. In every other incident this has happened in the past where an advantage is gained, the offending always drops back and goes a tenth or two behind. Hamilton went alongside Raikkonen and then just darted up the inside.
Rookie mistake, move on. He'll still end up winning the championship this year anyway.
Hamlton's mistake was to think he was in a motor race !
Oh deal Alan. Why can't you admit he didn't give back the advantage properly? Which bit of it don't you understand and we'll help you.
I realise it's not the done thing around here, but i tend to agree with Intrepid (Alan ?) on this one.
Imagine if this had been Alan Jones and Keke Rosberg...."Ahh f*ck it, he was much quicker than me anyway, he deserves the win. Now, who's round is it and give that brunette me room number".
Bureaucracy has been slowly killing the sport for years, and i can't see it ever changing. Seems the term sportsmanship has evolved into something i no longer recognise.
Imagine if this had been Alan Jones and Keke Rosberg...."Ahh f*ck it, he was much quicker than me anyway, he deserves the win. Now, who's round is it and give that brunette me room number".
Bureaucracy has been slowly killing the sport for years, and i can't see it ever changing. Seems the term sportsmanship has evolved into something i no longer recognise.
If it had been AJ and KR there would have been a fight! Possibly not even involving those two people!!!
Lol, probably 
But they would have sat down and had a drink together afterwards. Nowadays it would end up in court with someone claiming compensation. Probably Bernie..
But they would have sat down and had a drink together afterwards. Nowadays it would end up in court with someone claiming compensation. Probably Bernie..
And again, I reckon Kimi would more than happy to go with anyone to the bar at any time! He's not the corporate machine that just praises everyone all the time, he's a decent human being that actually has a life outside of F1! Although Jarno is by far the slickest of the lot...
it is entertaining to point and laugh at intrepid
i have the replay right here and happen to be the one who posted it in the other thread and i dont see any noteworth difference in the gap when they both went off at the same spot and when kimi rejoined a lot later
i agree its stupid that this is even possible in the first place and if it were up to me they would both have ended up stranded in a gravel trap but i dont think kimi gained much by it
the only way that kind of decision would make the fia partial would be a precedent where they penalised a mclaren driver who finished well outside the points
probably not but do you honestly care if fisichella gets a 25 second penalty that drops him from 19th to 20th making sutil the new 19th?
arent there more interesting things to waste the stewards time with? like golf
it is but so did just about anyone else => put trebuchets there that fling anyone who drivesoutside the while lines to the moon
well no but the nature of watching 20 monitors with cars traveling fast and close to each other at once is that you might end up with decisions that you later regard as wrong
how many of these have been anything other than british?
same here
how anyone can still claim that the fia favours ferrari in the light of these rule changes during the schumacher years is a complete mystery to me
+1... except the front engined part
dunno but i dont really care about f1 all that much and the last time i was a fan of anyone there was in pre school
and tbh with you the relatively lax way the fia dealt with mclaren after the spying takes away much more credibility than this
but would he remember anything afterwards?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VW2oAkjcJ4
If Kimi was investigated for his off track advantage gaining, along with other drivers (Trulli cut the chicane several times according to witnesses gaining valuable time), then Hamilton being punished would at least have been CONSISTENT and more 'acceptable'.
The fact no other drivers were investigated for similar, if not the same offences make it a somewhat harder pill to swallow.
If the FIA deemed Hamilton gained an advantage from what he did, then so did SEVERAL other drivers on the same day! Are you suggesting that it is justified that these drivers were not investigated?
I did notice the lengths at which you went into in (over)analysing the Bus-Stop chicane incident in the other thread, so lets not do the same here. In fact i did think you were being unusually Teutonic in your approach to proving your point, and quite frankly it was beginning to scare me, so stop it, stop being so damn German
. Lets just agree to disagree. Although lets agree to putting the gravel traps back, and maybe a wall or two...
If i remember correctly it used to happen quite a lot back in the 'good old days' 80's early 90's. I'd have to spend several days in Wiki to give you examples (which i'm not gonna do), but i'm sure it has happened, although not exclusively to McLaren cars.
OT: "Northern Exposure", that hippy dude wanted to fling a cow but wasn't allowed, so used a piano instead. One of the best bits of Telly i think i've ever seen. Will try to find it on Youtube when i get the time..
Never liked or rated Fisi tbh, so i guess i wouldn't care, no. But i think Sutil has some potential, so yeah, anything to boost his confidence and his F1 stock would be a good thing.
Come-on Shotty, i'm yer a-typical Brit, you don't honestly think i've put any effort into learning a Johnny Foreigner language do you ? I did look in some Deigo website, but typing loudly in English and pointing at stuff didn't seem to have any effect, so i left it...
A cynic would say F1 is purely a business these days, so it wouldn't be beyond the realms of fantasy that Bernie had a quiet word in Luca's shell like, and struck a deal with Ferrari to forgo the championship for a few years to keep the sponsors happy. But with some sort of guarantee of a return to Ferrari's winning streak in the late naughties. Some may say that, but not me, i'm not that cynical, not yet anyway.
Mercedes W196's, Maserati 250F's, 1950's style Auto Union's and Alfa's. Even you would want to watch those thundering round Spa and Monaco
I was reading a rather Interesting little fact about that just the other day. Had a look but can't for the life of me find the link. But, apparently, that $100m dollar fine has never been implemented. Not one single cent of it has been paid, and it doesn't seem as though there's any great hurry to chase it up. Dunno how reliable the source or the site i read it from is, but it may be something worth looking into.
I swear to you that lad IS a reincarnation of James Hunt, he just doesn't give a sh*t does he
. I'm a big fan of Kimi's tbh, i think he's been good for F1. Not that i'm overly bothered by this new generation of squeaky clean word perfect sycophantic F1 wonder kid types that everyone seems to hate. But it is nice to have a different personality on the grid. As Martin Brundle said, "Kimi's just a lovable lunatic", and we all need a lovable lunatic somewhere in our lives.Indeed.
It makes sense actually. Binding legal precedent depends on ratio decidendi - "reasons for the decision" - therefore if a preceding judgment does not include the reasoning behind the decision, then the decision is not binding. It may be influential, but not binding.
And for those those screaming about FIA bias: The judges who sit on the ICA are not part of the FIA. They are lawyers (some of them with very high reputations) who basically volunteered into the role via various national motorsport bodies.
The only thing stinky about this saga are the apparent inconsistencies in the penalties handed out by stewards.
Not saying the FIA are bias here, but in what way does that mean they are not bias?
What I mean is that Max Mosley can't tell the ICA judges what to do, as they are not employees of the FIA. They are free to make up their own mind. The ICA judges don't owe Max and his cronies any favours. (Unless if bribery is involved, which I doubt.)
Other parts of the FIA's regulatory system may be influenced by Ferrari bias as there are paid employees of the FIA involved (Alan Donnelly, Charlie Whiting, et al).
Other parts of the FIA's regulatory system may be influenced by Ferrari bias as there are paid employees of the FIA involved (Alan Donnelly, Charlie Whiting, et al).
With respect, samjh, it isn't called "FIA ICA" to intimate its independence, is it?
It may indeed be true that there is no precedent, but it does not mean that one could not have been set. The previous case, even though it does not technically set a precedence, does show that a precedence COULD be set with this one. All it needed was for the reason the case was being heard to be set out as part of the proceedings. Nothing prevented the body of this case being heard except the decisions made on this occasion. It could have, again, been heard WITHOUT setting precedence.
In my opinion, and ONLY my opinion, this was another dropped ball by the FIA. The general concensus among the drivers was that there WAS FAULT with the penalty, even if there was no fault with the decision to penalise. This case was an opportunity for the FIA to fix an inbalance, and could easily have moved to convert the 25 second penalty to a $10,000 fine. That would have met and matched Massa's penalty that should have been a drive-through, and would have allayed all cries of bias. Okay, not all, but it woulda put a spanner in the conspiracy spokes at least.
It may indeed be true that there is no precedent, but it does not mean that one could not have been set. The previous case, even though it does not technically set a precedence, does show that a precedence COULD be set with this one. All it needed was for the reason the case was being heard to be set out as part of the proceedings. Nothing prevented the body of this case being heard except the decisions made on this occasion. It could have, again, been heard WITHOUT setting precedence.
In my opinion, and ONLY my opinion, this was another dropped ball by the FIA. The general concensus among the drivers was that there WAS FAULT with the penalty, even if there was no fault with the decision to penalise. This case was an opportunity for the FIA to fix an inbalance, and could easily have moved to convert the 25 second penalty to a $10,000 fine. That would have met and matched Massa's penalty that should have been a drive-through, and would have allayed all cries of bias. Okay, not all, but it woulda put a spanner in the conspiracy spokes at least.
wouldnt it be simpler that its business and the fia shaft anyone whos winning regardless of his cars colours?
also how much longer till we get to the point where bernie and ferrari get more business by conspiring with george bush fly planes into the wtc and blame it all on bin laden who somehow finances mclaren?
but id still rather see 79ish cars
or even better cars with regulations that can be more or less summed up as 2m wide 5m long and 150l of petrol per race do whatever you like within these boundaries
iirc most of it was paid by not getting any money for the 07 constructors championship... which is a complete joke
It's prolly not a very funny joke if you're one of the McPartners waiting for cash from the 07 season
I can understand why an actual drive through penalty appeal is deemed inadmissible, for practical reasons.
If the drive through actually takes place during the race, then it would be impossible to sort out subsequently who would have finished where.
Fair enough.
But for what 'practical' reason is an appeal against a post-race time penalty deemed inadmissible?
If the drive through actually takes place during the race, then it would be impossible to sort out subsequently who would have finished where.
Fair enough.
But for what 'practical' reason is an appeal against a post-race time penalty deemed inadmissible?
FIA rejects Spa appeal as 'inadmissible'
(70 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG