Here's Hamilton's take:
2008 Formula 1 Spa-Francorchamps Grand Prix *Spoilers*
(779 posts, started )
i disagree (this time with some deinterlacing and framenumbers)
1) hamilton still steering right with very little overlap (front wheel slightly in fron of the ferraris rear wheel) imho barely a nose in and not enough to claim the line
2) just one frame after hes decided to cut the corner despite having enough road left to safely slot in behind
3) another 3 frames later hes still within the white lines and already steering left
which is exactly the problem... hes put himself in a very dubious position by needlessly overtaking right after isntead of making a point of conceding the position he gained by cutting
Well, Hamilton was in the lead braking for that chicane, but while entering Kimi was further into the chicane. I mean, forcing Lewis to shortcut the chicane means he was ahead at that point. And there is no rule telling you have to let the competitior pass if he's anywhere near. Fighting for the win of the race Kimi blocked Hamilton so he would have had to either brake or use the shortcut there.
BUT: If he braked he would never have been in the slipstream of Raikkonen, so by letting him by with minimal less speed to get back behind him "Fortunately I got back in his slipstream" was a clear advantage at that point.
I'm not sure whether the 25 seconds are okay, but just in that moment he acted like that I thought "this cannot be according to the rules" because being that close behind Kimi he had all possibilities to go by easily.
BUT: If he braked he would never have been in the slipstream of Raikkonen, so by letting him by with minimal less speed to get back behind him "Fortunately I got back in his slipstream" was a clear advantage at that point.
I'm not sure whether the 25 seconds are okay, but just in that moment he acted like that I thought "this cannot be according to the rules" because being that close behind Kimi he had all possibilities to go by easily.
Right. You can't consider their position halfway through a chicane; as I already wrote, when two cars enter a chicane side by side, whoever has the outside line for the *first* half will inevitably lose out through it, but then gain through the *second* half where he has a right to the inside line. Just think Blackwood chicane - if you went in side-by-side with someone with you on the right, you would feel pretty aggrieved if the other guy cut across you to the apex of the second part of the chicane, right? You have a right to that line, he should leave you a car's width at the apex.
Each racer must leave the other room; it would be wrong for Hamilton to have tried to hit the apex of the right hand section and force Raikkonen off the track, so it's equally wrong for Raikkonen to try and hit the apex (actually he hits it early) of the left hand section given that they went into the corner together. If he leaves Hamilton room, as he should have done given that they went in neck and neck, they would likely have come out side by side, or with one slightly ahead if he drove the corner better. But by driving right to the apex of the left hand section, Raikkonen never let it be a fair contest.
Commander, it's already been completely and unarguably demonstrated that Hamilton never got any slipstream from Raikkonen. He is never directly behind Raikkonen as they go up the straight. He simply outbrakes him.
Each racer must leave the other room; it would be wrong for Hamilton to have tried to hit the apex of the right hand section and force Raikkonen off the track, so it's equally wrong for Raikkonen to try and hit the apex (actually he hits it early) of the left hand section given that they went into the corner together. If he leaves Hamilton room, as he should have done given that they went in neck and neck, they would likely have come out side by side, or with one slightly ahead if he drove the corner better. But by driving right to the apex of the left hand section, Raikkonen never let it be a fair contest.
Commander, it's already been completely and unarguably demonstrated that Hamilton never got any slipstream from Raikkonen. He is never directly behind Raikkonen as they go up the straight. He simply outbrakes him.
Hamilton himself disagrees about the slipstream. He clearly stated in the press conference that he got into Kimi's slipstream. Unless we punters know better than the Hamilton himself, we'll have to accept that he did slipstream behind Kimi.
As for the so-called "right":
Hamilton did not have right-of-way through the first corner, because Kimi regained the lead on entry to that corner. Hamilton had no choice but to acknowledge Kimi's position on the inside and provide room, otherwise he would have been found at fault for dangerous driving. Kimi was also ahead in the transition for the second corner, therefore Hamilton had to give him right-of-way (which he did correctly by cutting the chicane).
The issue is not the incident at the chicane itself, but what happened after the cut. Did Hamilton follow the rules by ceding Kimi? In my opinion, he did. However his action was not clear enough for the stewards' satisfaction. If he had held back a bit more and allowed Kimi to take a clear lead (tucking directly alongside and behind, is not what I'd call "clear"), he would have gotten away with it.
The penalty is, IMHO, incorrect. However Kimi defence during the chicane was right.
All this doesn't even matter.
The facts are:
Hamilton was behind Raikonnen at Start/Finish and
Hamilton had less mph then Raikonnen at Start/Finish.
So the only thing left to have an advantage at is the
gap between both. Now you can assume that Hamilton
was closer than he would have been without shortcutting
but simply can't tell. And therefore you can't penalise him
because that's based on guesswork, not facts.
The facts are:
Hamilton was behind Raikonnen at Start/Finish and
Hamilton had less mph then Raikonnen at Start/Finish.
So the only thing left to have an advantage at is the
gap between both. Now you can assume that Hamilton
was closer than he would have been without shortcutting
but simply can't tell. And therefore you can't penalise him
because that's based on guesswork, not facts.
I can only say what I see, and from the regular camera view, Hamilton is clearly a full car width *outside* (with respect to the corner when they finally reach it) Raikkonen for the first half of the straight, then cuts directly across the back of him and is a full car width *inside* when they begin to brake for the corner. I just can't see any point in that straight when he could possibly be in the slipstream of Raikkonen's car. Perhaps he was just using the phrase as shorthand for "close behind"? But if you can point out on the video the point at which Hamilton's car is directly behind Raikkonen's (other than the split second where he switches position from outside to inside), please do.
I guess during the chicane is more open to interpretation, but to my view, Raikkonen is not clearly ahead at any point during entry to the chicane. He only pulls ahead (always by less than a car length) during the right hand section, which as I said is to be expected since he has the inside line during that section. I don't think he has the right to the inside line of the left hand section unless he can drive it without blocking off Hamilton's natural line, which he clearly can't.
I guess during the chicane is more open to interpretation, but to my view, Raikkonen is not clearly ahead at any point during entry to the chicane. He only pulls ahead (always by less than a car length) during the right hand section, which as I said is to be expected since he has the inside line during that section. I don't think he has the right to the inside line of the left hand section unless he can drive it without blocking off Hamilton's natural line, which he clearly can't.
you you can a chicane isnt some special place where the laws of racing conduct and physics suddenly dont apply... its just 3 seperate corners very close to each other
and hamilton is really the last person in f1 to have any reason to complain about being run off track
shotglass: I don't know if it's codified in the rules, but to my mind a chicane is a single element. It's not two separate corners. That's why they are inevitably called "a chicane" (note the singular), not "those two separate corners which happen to be very close to each other". 
Edit: the issue isn't that Hamilton can complain about being run off the track - the issue is that it's hardly fair to penalize *him* for it.
Edit: the issue isn't that Hamilton can complain about being run off the track - the issue is that it's hardly fair to penalize *him* for it.
back in the (good) old days. A 10sec stop go given on the last 5 laps of the race would translate into 25sec added on the time at the finish. But somehow they reckon that a drive through without having to stop for 10seconds is also worth 25 seconds~?
everyone seems to forgot about that point even through drive through has been introduced for many years already...
The real problem here is the insane idea that a driver ever has the right to drive another car off the track.
the only consistent thing about the FIA is their inconsistency...
as far as I could remember only Nick Heidfield got a penalty for driving someone off the track (DC at Bahrain) since I started watching F1...
If they always allow that type of driving, surely that means that they're being consistent..?
Edit: Anyway, taking the line when another car has minimal overlap, such as with Kimi and Lewis, is acceptable and fair in F1. Kimi did not drive Lewis off the track - Lewis decided to try and stay beside Kimi, even though Kimi was clearly ahead and was obviously going to take a tight line through the second part of the chicane. This type of driving is seen at every GP, and imo, with these guys being the best drivers in the world, it's perfectly fine.
What he stated makes it inconsistent.
i.e., Heidfeld got a penalty and Kimi didn't.
edit: or maybe I misread. the tone of his post is kind of ambiguous.
I'm trying to stay out of the argument... lol
but what I stated of cos did make it inconsistents, but just that once through... lol
agreed but in this case hamilton didnt have nearly enough overlap to claim the inside so he wasnt driven off but just plain old behind instead
He was fully alongside and even ahead going into the corner, and at least halfway alongside when he was forced off. That's enough, IMO.
jctk: the 25 seconds is written into the regulations; if they choose a drive through as the sanction, it has to count as 25 seconds.
just some food for thought...
Kimi punted Sutil off 4th in Monaco, absoblutely no punishment at all.
Massa released into a Force India in Valencia, only got a fine of some sort I believe?
Heikki spun Webber, DT immediately.
Lewis "gained an advantage in the chicane", a post race 25sec penalty... ummm... so driving dangerously in the pitlane and punting someone off the road deserve less penalties~?
note I didn't say the Heikki penalty was undeserved...
Kimi punted Sutil off 4th in Monaco, absoblutely no punishment at all.
Massa released into a Force India in Valencia, only got a fine of some sort I believe?
Heikki spun Webber, DT immediately.
Lewis "gained an advantage in the chicane", a post race 25sec penalty... ummm... so driving dangerously in the pitlane and punting someone off the road deserve less penalties~?
note I didn't say the Heikki penalty was undeserved...
I'm just saying it was outdated...
a 10sec stop/go = 25sec
a drive through also = 25sec~?
thats jsut not what happened
heres a frame a couple of frames before he decided to speer off to the left
jctk: I agree on that, but it's not something they can magically change for this particular decision. But yes, the regulations are probably wrong there, it should be 15 or 20 seconds, as that's about how much track time a drive through costs on most circuits.
As for the points about previous decisions, well, I think it's a dangerous road to go down, as it just opens twenty million cans of worms. FWIW I though the Kimi and Massa decisions were sensible. The thing with the Massa incident is it's hard to issue a sanction on the basis that it's Massa's fault - that's hard to prove. So it's a bit tough to issue a sanction that costs Massa in terms of championship chances for an incident that may not even have been his fault. I think it's good for the sport to let that one ride without penalizing Massa, though they could have issued a more meaningful sanction to the *team* somehow.
Again with Raikkonen in Monaco I can see the decision there. It was simply a flat out mistake / accident - either Raikkonen overbraked or he got unlucky and hit something on the track. There was absolutely no reason for him to intentionally take out Sutil, and I don't think anyone has even suggested that was the case. Again I think it would be bad for the sport for him to be artificially hurt in the standings for what was either an honest mistake or an unlucky accident.
For me the thing is, if you establish a perfectly sensible precedent with decisions like that - of not enforcing regulations to the strictest extent in the interests of letting the championship play out fairly - why throw it out of the window when it comes to Hamilton? Aside from the whole debate about whether Hamilton did anything wrong, even if you were to accept for the purposes of argument that he did, the prior incidents clearly set a precedent for not giving Hamilton a points penalty, since the incident in the end did not materially affect the outcome of the race. It's very hard, IMHO, to support *both* the penalties given to Raikkonen and Massa *and* the penalty given to Hamilton. I think the former were correct, I don't think Raikkonen or Massa should have been punished any more than they were...but in that context, even if it were undeniable that Hamilton had been at fault in the incident with Raikkonen, the punishment meted out seems unduly harsh.
As for the points about previous decisions, well, I think it's a dangerous road to go down, as it just opens twenty million cans of worms. FWIW I though the Kimi and Massa decisions were sensible. The thing with the Massa incident is it's hard to issue a sanction on the basis that it's Massa's fault - that's hard to prove. So it's a bit tough to issue a sanction that costs Massa in terms of championship chances for an incident that may not even have been his fault. I think it's good for the sport to let that one ride without penalizing Massa, though they could have issued a more meaningful sanction to the *team* somehow.
Again with Raikkonen in Monaco I can see the decision there. It was simply a flat out mistake / accident - either Raikkonen overbraked or he got unlucky and hit something on the track. There was absolutely no reason for him to intentionally take out Sutil, and I don't think anyone has even suggested that was the case. Again I think it would be bad for the sport for him to be artificially hurt in the standings for what was either an honest mistake or an unlucky accident.
For me the thing is, if you establish a perfectly sensible precedent with decisions like that - of not enforcing regulations to the strictest extent in the interests of letting the championship play out fairly - why throw it out of the window when it comes to Hamilton? Aside from the whole debate about whether Hamilton did anything wrong, even if you were to accept for the purposes of argument that he did, the prior incidents clearly set a precedent for not giving Hamilton a points penalty, since the incident in the end did not materially affect the outcome of the race. It's very hard, IMHO, to support *both* the penalties given to Raikkonen and Massa *and* the penalty given to Hamilton. I think the former were correct, I don't think Raikkonen or Massa should have been punished any more than they were...but in that context, even if it were undeniable that Hamilton had been at fault in the incident with Raikkonen, the punishment meted out seems unduly harsh.
shotglass: at that point in the picture, Hamilton has already been forced off the track. Look at the amount of space Raikkonen has left him: there's not a car's width on the track.
Do you actually know much about racing? Kimi's error on Monaco was a genuine driving error. You could put a penalty for Kimi on dangerous driving but even that would be very iffy. Kovalainen's error on the other hand was pure misjudgement on Heikki's behalf and essentially Heikki went for a pass on Wabeer on a place where he was in no place to go for it. The resulting collision was purely Heikki's fault.
If you try a pass in a place where it isn't possible (check Sato's career for this) you get a penalty and deserve it. If you spin and happen to take other car out as a result you hardly deserve a penalty for it simply because it was a genuine mistake.
---
Well, I'm not surprised by the least. FIA has a record of making only totally random and strange decisions, this is just one more. Hamilton clearly deserved the victory even with all the controversy people seem to find in all this. Yet another decision like this from FIA, I can't believe you are actually surprised about it!
And if anyone thinks that the fight for p1 at spa was anything to compare to the Arnoux/Villeneuve fight then you need to see that one again: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LzCqY8Wg5So. That was two drivers fighting fair and hard for the position - not like two spoiled f1 drivers using all the tarmac in the damn Valley of the Ardennes only ending up annoyed by the fact that the other driver seemed to have managed to use the addon tarmac even more efficiently...
the point still was, punting someone off the race vs spinning someone... both are probably unintentional, both were caused by a driver mistake, yet the one with the more serious consequences wasn't punished.
as for the 25sec drive through, surely the one writing the rules should have thought of it after so many years, yet everyone seems happy to not mention it for some odd reasons...
2008 Formula 1 Spa-Francorchamps Grand Prix *Spoilers*
(779 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG