Quote from Intrepid :

You've never raced Hamilton so where's YOUR evidence of him being dangerous. He's one of the cleanest drivers I've ever raced against, and his style is no different now than it was 10 years ago. His style of racing rarely causes accidents... it's Massa's and Pastor's that cause the most trouble. What's dangerous is drivers who think their mirrors are there for decoration and don't understand that racing occasionally includes out-braking manoeuvres into corners.

Smart drivers concede a lost corner (Hamilton, Schumacher 8x wdc championships between them). How many WDC have PM and FM won?

Still I don't need to race against him since I can watch him race from television. My evidence of him being dangerous? here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCsG0DlXkU (what's dangerous is drivers who don't look forward and watch out for cars in front and hit the gas when you're supposed to brake)

He being a clean driver? Here's something to clear that out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDfkz0J74Qg

''His style of racing rarely causes accidents... '' well that I'm not going to even bother to reply. He rarely completely destroyes his car but he does cause accidents more often than other drivers.

''understand that racing occasionally includes out-braking manoeuvres into corners'' Out braking means that you get side by side before the opponent turns in by braking late. If you come late and crashing to opponent's side it's not out-brake manoeuvre, it's a crash.

BTW you can't compare how dangerous Hamilton was in minor leagues with him in F1. Have you raced against him in F1? no? so we're at the same line then when talking about his dangerousness in F1.

Quote from DevilDare :

He could of been 3 times WDC by now if it wasn't for mechanical problems and arguably Webber.

See? Works both ways.

I'm not saying that a driver is dangerous and then going on about how many titles they have won though. :rolleyes:

Quote from CSF :

I'm not saying that a driver is dangerous and then going on about how many titles they have won though. :rolleyes:

Quote :

That is such a moot point as Hamilton could still be a 0x World Champion if it wasn't for a bit more rain at Brazil 2008.

Was replying to this.

Quote from Intrepid :

You've never raced Hamilton so where's YOUR evidence of him being dangerous.

Is it just me or is not racing with someone in RL the stupidest argument ever? How can you judge any other drivers, if you haven't raced with them?

Juzaa has good points and he backs them up . Some people over here are just like Hamilton, they're never wrong

Alan, you honestly think Hamilton is (one of) the cleanest driver(s) you've ever seen? You're prepared to go that far, considering what he's done in F3, GP2 and F1? Blimey, you are a fanboy.

Apologies for the length of this, but it's a 'premium' article from Autosport. I hope they don't kill me for copying it. It is NOT my work. There is little evidence that Alan can read and understand, let alone accept a counter argument even if he doesn't agree with it. But we can try and make him see sense.

Quote :

In recent days, the argument that Formula 1 needs excitement has been used as a justification for why Lewis Hamilton should not have been penalised for what happened during the Monaco Grand Prix.

Superficially, it's a compelling argument, for punishing someone for an error made while trying to pull off the kind of spectacular move that makes the sport what it is, surely is a charter for the processional races that have, at times, threatened to sap grand prix racing of its popularity? After all, Hamilton has pulled off some passing moves during his F1 career that have had us all on our feet applauding.

But scratch the surface and you find that the argument is very flimsy. Those making it are clearly not advocating a mandate for F1 to become a demolition derby; nobody wants that. But if you want to allow drivers to get away with these kinds of moves, where is that line in the sand that needs to be drawn?

How many times are you allowed to get away with booting Pastor Maldonado into the wall? Is it once? Twice? One hundred times. Sometimes, drivers will head into a corner side-by-side, clash and one or both will end up out of the race. This has always happened and should be treated as a racing accident. The Mark Webber/Hamilton collision in Singapore last year is a good example of this. They were racing, Webber got lucky, Hamilton didn't. That's the end of it.

By contrast, in Australia a few months earlier, Webber came from a mile back and hit Hamilton, earning himself a very justified reprimand that could easily have been a grid penalty. Had he the kind of history of penalties and reprimands that Hamilton had stacked up when he made that mistake, chances are he would have been hit harder. Some might call that victimisation, others would say it's taking past records into account.

The Ste Devote clash could have been avoided by Maldonado giving Hamilton a heap of room, no question. But it was racing room that Hamilton was not entitled to when coming from that far back. Had Maldonado stayed wide, he would have continued, so maybe he should have done. But if he had, would he really have been racing? Some have said that Michael Schumacher had given Hamilton that kind of room at the same corner earlier in the race, but that was a slightly different situation. When passing Schumacher, the McLaren man was able to use the momentum to slingshot further alongside him, while Maldonado's positioning on the start-finish straight forced him to check, leading to Hamilton being a little further back in the corner. Fine lines, but an important demarcation. Had Schumacher turned in on Hamilton, it would likely have been considered a racing accident.

What's more, if you show yourself to be someone willing to give unearned ground to people, you will find people hurtling up the inside from miles back every single race. Maldonado? He's flaky, he'll let anyone past, a pursuer will think. As for Schumacher, he can't race wheel-to-wheel, they will say. It's like claiming that the footballer being tackled is at fault for not jumping out of the way of a two-footer that breaks his leg. Equally, the fact that you can commit fouls in football does not prevent clean tackles from being made – just like overtaking in F1.

No code of on-track conduct can tell you exactly when a move is or isn't on, which is exactly why the so-called 'one-move' regulation is so dangerous when people interpret it as meaning you are allowed to shove someone across the track once per straight. But an experienced eye can tell the difference between a genuine 50/50 and one where an attacking driver has overdone it. That's why guys like Allan McNish (who knows exactly how serious the consequences of an on-track clash can be for bystanders) are now part of the FIA stewarding panel. The necessity for every case to be treated on its own specific merits simply doesn't lend itself to absolute consistency, not in the easy answer way that they baying hordes demand.

The point about the safety of bystanders raises another critical consideration. And it's all related to location. Take the clash with Felipe Massa at the hairpin. Marshals line the outside of the corner, where there is precious little space. So too do photographers and cameramen, there to augment our enjoyment of the sport. At that speed, it's eminently possible for a side-on wheel to wheel contact to flip a car. If that happened there – and let's stress that it did not come close to happening in this case – marshals would be in serious danger.

That's why the FIA is so keen to come down heavily on these kinds of moves at Monaco. Such a collision might not lead to disaster if attempted another 100 times, but if it happens on enough occasions eventually someone could get an F1 car falling on their head. After all, if the stewards allow it once, they have to allow it again. That's why Paul di Resta was given a drive-through penalty for his move on Jaime Alguersuari just a few laps earlier – something that those bleating about Hamilton's penalty being unprecedented should have a good think about.

You might argue that's inconsistent, but the FIA does have a responsibility to protect trackside workers and at Monaco this is critical. Hamilton categorially wasn't showing a reckless disregard for their safety; it wasn't that he wasn't willing to exchange a marshal's life for a position, but it probably didn't even occur to him. On another track, on another day, the move would probably not have justified a penalty, but in these circumstances it was dangerous. Hamilton is not fundamentally a dangerous driver, but there are times when a little clarity of thinking on and off track would save him a whole lot of trouble.

We live in an era where people say no-one has been killed on an F1 weekend for 17 years. These people forget Paolo Ghislimberti, killed during the 2000 Italian Grand Prix, and Graham Beveridge, who lost his life at Melbourne in 2001. They were both marshals. Today, they are in far more danger than the drivers at places like Monaco. In fact, that maxim probably holds true at every track.

Then why race at all, you might ask. The answer is that when assessing whether a passing move is legitimate, you are dealing with a spectrum, not clearly delineated right and wrong. That's why a move that might be considered on the edge but just about acceptable in, say, Turkey or Abu Dhabi, where you have several miles of runoff, becomes an over the edge move at Monaco or Valencia. Drivers need to realise the difference and Charlie Whiting will have made it very clear in the drivers' briefing.

Jackie Stewart, a great crusader for safety, joined those having a pop at Hamilton this week. It's no surprise, for he comes from an era where wheel-to-wheel contact could lead to catastrophe. That gives you a very different perspective of on-track ethics, and although the safety measures in grand prix racing today do allow the battling to be that bit more ferocious – no bad thing – it doesn't throw them out of the window.

Forget what has gone before. Schumacher, among others, got away with some pretty dangerous moves in the past. Fernando Alonso, who was put onto the grass the then-Ferrari driver on the Hanger Straight during the 2003 British Grand Prix can tell you all about that. But just because someone wasn't punished for a certain move five, 10 or 20 years ago isn't a reasonable argument for why they shouldn't be now. Anyone watching the lower formulas in recent years will have noted a worrying deterioration in driving standards that will only be rectified by the top level setting an example.

Motor racing is dangerous, yes. And so it should be. But dangerous falls short of reckless and that is the issue at stake here. As for victimisation, forget it. Stewarding is, like refereeing in football, a subjective activity and people tend to see patterns that fit their preconceptions. If Hamilton really was being targeted, surely more of the warnings and reprimands would have lead to real penalties. The context of an offence also needs to be taken into account, such as when Hamilton was penalised for weaving in Malaysia 12 months after being warned about exactly the same thing at the same track!

Mika Hakkinen was banned for a race for triggering a first corner accident at Hockenheim in 1994, the same year that Eddie Irvine was given a one-race ban (increased to three on appeal) for drop-kicking Jos Verstappen's Benetton onto Martin Brundle's head. Schumacher was given a grid penalty for shoving Rubens Barrichello into the pitwall at the Hungaroring last year. Sergio Perez was given a drive-through for accidentally bulldozing Adrian Sutil off the track in China earlier this season. There are plenty of examples when drivers who are not Hamilton have been punished over the years, even though there are other cases where they haven't and probably should have been. Sure, there have been some decisions in the past that have led to reasonable questions about the motivations behind them, but over the past couple of years it has been pretty straightforward. Get it wrong and you will be penalised, reprimanded or warned.

Whoever made those moves at Monaco would have ended up in the dock – and di Resta also did. The difference was, he accepted that the mistake was his. A mistake is a mistake, but sometimes the 'we want to see racing' argument just doesn't hold water. A driver can't always know exactly where he crosses the line from a fair move to a dangerous one, but most of all we at least want to see a recognition that they have overstepped the mark after the fact.

The bottom line is that good on-track ethics actually generates better racing. A driver doing the overtaking should not be able to clatter into the car ahead in a reckless dive any more than the guy who is defending can turn in on someone who has every right to be there. Drivers should be able to attack and defend in the knowledge that there are rules in place to govern what happens. Otherwise, this is no sport.

Let them race hard and let them race fairly. This doesn't only apply to Hamilton, who has proved time and again that he can be scrupulously fair and is far from the only man to have committed on-track offences, but to all 24 drivers on the grid whether they drive Red Bulls and McLarens or Hispanias and Virgins.

As Alan has never raced any other F1 driver, I think we can safely assume that they were all better. Thus, by virtue of racing against people like Alan, Hamilton must be the worst F1 driver ever. Well, it's as sound an argument as his was.

I have nothing to add. Thank you for putting that here. Maybe Intrepid will now see his mistakes. I doubt that but seriously hope so.

To be honest, just comparing the Singapore incident between Hamilton and Webber makes it harder to stomach, why would he complain of a penalty and blame Maldonado if he didn't blame himself in Singapore?

But comparing the Singapore incident only cements the fact that the driver infront and ultimately to blame is at fault. Hamilton at Singapore, and Maldonado at Monte Carlo.

Still, that quote you have made Tristan, is all about shitting over Hamilton. It's not based on a neutral opinion.


Hamiltons actions are NOWHERE near of Schumacher forcing people off the track.

Hamiltons actions are a direct result of the guy infront blocking and or not using the mirrors.

But the fact is, the evidence is there that both Maldo and Massa turned in early on purpose to BLOCK Hamilton.

THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THE ****ING CONTACT.

DONT YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND PHYSICS? YOU CANT JUST DISAPPEAR WHEN UP THE INSIDE AND THEY TURN IN BEFORE THE ACCEPTED TURN-IN POINT.


Then if you still agree with the penalty, obviously you'd rather nobody went up the inside or Hamilton stopped racing all together.

YOU HAVE to make a move at SOME point, it's inevitable.
Hamilton wasn't to blame for Maldonado's retirement, Hamilton tried to avoid contact after Maldonado turned in on him.

How can you agree with that ****ing penalty? It's ****ing idiotic. If you agree with that as good/acceptable racecraft. Then driving standards will greatly diminish and overtakes will seldom happen unless on a straight piece of track.


It doesn't matter WHO was involved in that incident, it's the penalty and the reason why that we should be arguing about but we're not.

Hamilton is affecting the reason behind peoples opinion (mainly Tristan)

; Also don't know what planet Juzaa is from cos his reasonings are completely wack.

Tristan the only reason you agree with the penalties is because you dislike Hamilton for no apparent reason other than general un-interest. So IMO you're opinion is mute, because you're an effective enemy of Hamilton. Same for Intrepid. He's clearly a fan of Hamilton, so he will always inevitably defend him.


We should make a poll. Majority will show what is what.

He won't see it. He's too busy suckling on the Hamilton teat.

Quote from Juzaa :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCsG0DlXkU (what's dangerous is drivers who don't look forward and watch out for cars in front and hit the gas when you're supposed to brake)

He being a clean driver? Here's something to clear that out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDfkz0J74Qg

Nice videos, lol. Don't forget, he's still awesome.

Yes, and Petrov was doing that also. So they are as bad as each other, also Petrov wasn't close enough to pass, Hamilton was just breaking the tow (silly but nowhere near 'dirty' as you people suggest).


It seems to me everyone in favor of the penalties hates Hamilton.

Ironic.

Think about it, if Webber got a Penalty for Singapore people would be against the penalty, and rightly so.

In relation to Maldo - Hamilton incident. That's all it was. And Incident. Didn't deserve a penalty at all. And if you believe that was deserved then I'd love to try doing that to you all on an LFS race. You wouldn't complain because you're allowed to just cut people up and expect them to disappear even though you left the door wide open.

Well, we can confirm Blueflame didn't read the thing I quoted. The author is not known for being against Hamilton; if anything he's usually excessively pro-Hamilton (imo). I think it's a balanced article that qualifies its arguments nicely and openly.

And yes, Hamilton could have backed out of both moves. The laws of physics allow braking. If he's gone so hard into the corner that braking harder was impossible, then he'd have been unable to turn.

The Autosport article is good but not entirely neutral. It makes the assumption that Hamilton "booted" Maldonado off, where many others have questioned whether it was indeed a racing incident. To use the same language as the article, the pass attempt on Massa was reckless, but Massa's attempted pass/block was plain dangerous.

I'm split on the outcomes. The Massa incident was Massa driving dangerously, Hamilton was reckless in continuing the attempt. The Malonado incident was a case of inexperience on Maldonados part, and over optimism on Maldonado making the right call on Hamiltons part, and therefore a racing incident.

If these incidents are taken in the context of what has already happened this season. Maldonado is in his rookie year, so should be cut a little slack. Hamilton has already pushed the boundaries several times and needs to keep his nose clean. Massa is desperately trying to justify his seat at Ferrari, and is trying so hard to the point of being a liability.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Well, we can confirm Blueflame didn't read the thing I quoted. The author is not known for being against Hamilton; if anything he's usually excessively pro-Hamilton (imo). I think it's a balanced article that qualifies its arguments nicely and openly.

And yes, Hamilton could have backed out of both moves. The laws of physics allow braking. If he's gone so hard into the corner that braking harder was impossible, then he'd have been unable to turn.

The key was that YOU didn't like Hamilton and wouldn't place credit where credit was due.

When alongside another car you DON'T expect them to turn early. If they do they are using 'scare' tactics and unless they scare you off, contact will happen.

You're an idiot Tristan, you're supposed to be a real race driver? So say you're coming to a 90 degree right hander.. Lodge at Oulton park maybe, you're on the inside but not fully alongside and the guy turns in on you about 20meters before the corner turn in point and you're going to be able to brake and get outta there? or rather, WOULD you get out of there (if it was hypothetically possible) or would you hold your ground?


Hamilton went up the inside and more importantly HELD HIS LINE. He even gave ROOM to Maldonado for his troubles. A driver that holds their line ISN'T to blame (aslong as they weren't out of control locked up wheels etc.)

Blueflame tell me that how was Hamilton's act JUST breaking the tow. That is forbidden in the rules and also kept Hamilton ahead of Petrov. You make it sound like it's nothing at all. That is pure cheating since without Hamilton's ''breaking the tow'' Petrov would've passed.

Quote from Juzaa :

Blueflame tell me that how was Hamilton's act JUST breaking the tow. That is forbidden in the rules and also kept Hamilton ahead of Petrov. You make it sound like it's nothing at all. That is pure cheating since without Hamilton's ''breaking the tow'' Petrov would've passed.

But you said you weren't against Hamilton. Ironic because clearly you are.

Petrov gave Hamilton a taste of his own medicine before, so Hamilton (wrongly, but justifyably) gave him some back.

Ironic thing is, you make a bigger deal out of THIS than you do the Maldonado incident. Yet Lewis got ass ****ed by penalities at Monaco and for breaking the tow he only got a reprimand.....



OO, I just remembered, Kobayashi up the inside of Sutil at Mirabeau... exactly the same kind of move that Hamilton did on Maldonado, guy on the outside turned in. Yet Kamui only got a reprimand??????

Quote from BlueFlame :

The key was that YOU didn't like Hamilton and wouldn't place credit where credit was due.

When alongside another car you DON'T expect them to turn early. If they do they are using 'scare' tactics and unless they scare you off, contact will happen.

You're an idiot Tristan, you're supposed to be a real race driver? So say you're coming to a 90 degree right hander.. Lodge at Oulton park maybe, you're on the inside but not fully alongside and the guy turns in on you about 20meters before the corner turn in point and you're going to be able to brake and get outta there? or rather, WOULD you get out of there (if it was hypothetically possible) or would you hold your ground?


Hamilton went up the inside and more importantly HELD HIS LINE. He even gave ROOM to Maldonado for his troubles. A driver that holds their line ISN'T to blame (aslong as they weren't out of control locked up wheels etc.)

a) Why don't you expect them to defend?
b) My case is different, as contact has massive budget penalties for me, so I would probably yield, live to fight another day, have another go later, and at the very least try to maximise my result for minimal risk. Hamilton doesn't have to worry about being able to afford a new front wing or the time to make endplates and fit them, so it's hard to compare, but as his points are worth more money (ultimately), I think he ought to have thought "hang on a minute, I'm stuck behind a slower car and there is a potential pass on here. But it's not a big gap and I'm along way back, and he'll be desperate to score those points as it'll pretty much guarantee him a seat in F1 year. I'll get close, make it look like I'm having a go so he defends, get a good run up the hill and through Casino, and maybe make a decent move into Mirabeau or the Hairpin. That'll be safer, and in the mean time I can get him flustered". That thought would take nano seconds. He's proven he can think like that when he's pulled off great overtakes. But he seems to be forgetting more and more of this stuff as the season progresses.

It's like he's unlearning everything that made him so popular with a lot of people.

Quote from BlueFlame :

But you said you weren't against Hamilton. Ironic because clearly you are.

Petrov gave Hamilton a taste of his own medicine before, so Hamilton (wrongly, but justifyably) gave him some back.

Ironic thing is, you make a bigger deal out of THIS than you do the Maldonado incident. Yet Lewis got ass ****ed by penalities at Monaco and for breaking the tow he only got a reprimand.....



OO, I just remembered, Kobayashi up the inside of Sutil at Mirabeau... exactly the same kind of move that Hamilton did on Maldonado, guy on the outside turned in. Yet Kamui only got a reprimand??????

1. If someone wrongs you do you wrong back them as soon as you can and take matters to your own hands? If you believe in the rules you don't take matters to your own hands because you know you're going to only suffer from breaking the rules.

2. I believe I have said enough about both Maldonado and Massa incidents and you can always check in how many posts I reprimand maldonado and in how many talk about Malaysia. No one has even bothered to comment them so I believe I won't gain anything by bringing them up more.

3. Tell me that do you give a man that has committed a crime and has committed many crimes before and clearly doesn't regret them the same penalty as you'd give to a man that committed his first crime. No. That is why Kobayashi got a reprimand. He hadn't done such things before. And as you clearly found out yourself if Kobayashi had done exactly the same and gotten a reprimand it's clearly not allowed to do so. Had Kobayashi done that again he would have gotten the same penalty as Hamilton got.

4. Hamilton deserved the penalties. Try to read and understand Tristan's long post and maybe you'll understand some more about the situations.

Quote from BlueFlame :

You're an idiot Tristan, you're supposed to be a real race driver? So say you're coming to a 90 degree right hander.. Lodge at Oulton park maybe, you're on the inside but not fully alongside and the guy turns in on you about 20meters before the corner turn in point and you're going to be able to brake and get outta there? or rather, WOULD you get out of there (if it was hypothetically possible) or would you hold your ground?)

Judging by the videos I've seen of his races, he doesn't have to pass anyone

except when he spins out on the first lap, then he has to spend the entire race passing cars that are 6 seconds a lap slower than him

Quote from tristancliffe :

It's like he's unlearning everything that made him so popular with a lot of people.

Nah it's just he knew, and everybody knew, he should've had pole and the win, so he was desperately trying to prove a point.

TBH I wouldn't blame him for making some banzai dives to try to rescue his season, but to sulk when he gets penalised for it is a bit childish.

Quote from Juzaa :

I have nothing to add. Thank you for putting that here. Maybe Intrepid will now see his mistakes. I doubt that but seriously hope so.

That article is pretty poor and filled with mistakes. Sighting marshall safety is just poor-taste. Bad track design put marshall's in excessive danger not drivers. If Monaco is putting them in excessive danger at the expense of pretty ordinary racing incidents, simply cancel it now. I am surprised Tristan paid for it to be quite honest...I thought he was smarter than to seek out others opinion at a price. fools and money and all that.

For those of you who like single file boring racing I suggest you go watch trials or some form of highly-regulated, dictated, over-rehearsed motor racing. Maybe that's what F1 is... hence why I've already stated maybe drivers like hamilton are suited racing something better.

... for the rest of us who like extravagant, fierce, crazy.... yet CLEAN racing have a watch of this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eck8QpTRFY0 - it really is child's play this racing malarkey! Attack hard and concede when you need to. Smart, intelligent, clean, and brilliant racing from children no older than 11. No one crashed because these children, I repeat children, know the value of conceding corners when they've been lost. Maybe F1 might catch up one day with this sorta of intelligence and racing understanding, I doubt it though.

You either sit on one side or the other and no amount internet arguments will change that. May as well end it there.

Quote from tristancliffe :

a) Why don't you expect them to defend?
b) My case is different, as contact has massive budget penalties for me, so I would probably yield, live to fight another day, have another go later, and at the very least try to maximise my result for minimal risk. Hamilton doesn't have to worry about being able to afford a new front wing or the time to make endplates and fit them, so it's hard to compare, but as his points are worth more money (ultimately), I think he ought to have thought "hang on a minute, I'm stuck behind a slower car and there is a potential pass on here. But it's not a big gap and I'm along way back, and he'll be desperate to score those points as it'll pretty much guarantee him a seat in F1 year. I'll get close, make it look like I'm having a go so he defends, get a good run up the hill and through Casino, and maybe make a decent move into Mirabeau or the Hairpin. That'll be safer, and in the mean time I can get him flustered". That thought would take nano seconds. He's proven he can think like that when he's pulled off great overtakes. But he seems to be forgetting more and more of this stuff as the season progresses.

It's like he's unlearning everything that made him so popular with a lot of people.

He wasn't defending, defending would have been staying right instead of weaving left, right then left again leaving a gap.

It has been made clear by previous penalty decisions that the responsibility not to crash is the driver's who is behind. If you are not side by side and cannot outbrake him so that once your opponent turns in you are side by side with him you are not allowed to push in for a closing gap. I cant' see why some of you don't understand that. It doesn't even matter whether neither Massa or Maldonado were defending or didn't even see Hamilton because Hamilton was not side by side with them. Not even close. In both occasions Hamilton's front wing was behind their front tires which means that he was way too far to succeed in an overtake unless the driver in front gave him the pass as a gift. Hamilton should've known that he cannot pass that he wasn't in front enough and there wasn't enough room at the time. That was why he was gotten penalty. He caused a collision in both situations a collision that could have been avoidable by just smart thinking. Apparently Hamilton doesn't do smart since he whines like a child about his penalties.

Legislation in real life is formed not only by the law but also the cases and how they are decided. The same applies to any rules any sport has. Law/rules can be seen differently but how the cases are decided by stewards is final and after one penalty from a certain act you should know that the act is forbidden. Hamilton does not. And neither do many here. The stewards have knowledge about rules' intentions and what is agreed behind the curtains. You don't. Stewards also have more cameras and the most importantly a REAL former racing driver who was in his time one of the best and knows how F1 cars are supposed to be driven and raced with safely.

Quote from Juzaa :

It has been made clear by previous penalty decisions that the responsibility not to crash is the driver's who is behind. If you are not side by side and cannot outbrake him so that once your opponent turns in you are side by side with him you are not allowed to push in for a closing gap. I cant' see why some of you don't understand that. It doesn't even matter whether neither Massa or Maldonado were defending or didn't even see Hamilton because Hamilton was not side by side with them. Not even close. In both occasions Hamilton's front wing was behind their front tires which means that he was way too far to succeed in an overtake unless the driver in front gave him the pass as a gift. Hamilton should've known that he cannot pass that he wasn't in front enough and there wasn't enough room at the time. That was why he was gotten penalty. He caused a collision in both situations a collision that could have been avoidable by just smart thinking. Apparently Hamilton doesn't do smart since he whines like a child about his penalties.

Legislation in real life is formed not only by the law but also the cases and how they are decided. The same applies to any rules any sport has. Law/rules can be seen differently but how the cases are decided by stewards is final and after one penalty from a certain act you should know that the act is forbidden. Hamilton does not. And neither do many here. The stewards have knowledge about rules' intentions and what is agreed behind the curtains. You don't. Stewards also have more cameras and the most importantly a REAL former racing driver who was in his time one of the best and knows how F1 cars are supposed to be driven and raced with safely.

As I said a couple of times already. Lewis wasn't completely alongside Massa was because Massa himself didn't slow down as much as he should, that was why Massa himself went into the back of Webber.

Also interesting isn't it that Kobayashi had made contact with the other cars for some of his moves, and yet I don't remember seeing him serving a penalty for those. (Sutil in Monaco, and one of the Toro Rosso in Suzuka last year)

Collision that should've been avoided by smart thinking, how bloody smart was Massa and Maldonado turning in on someone that's already there?
Lewis wasn't completely alongside Button and Vettel as he pulled those moves off in China, luckily for Lewis, Button and Vettel were able to conduct some "smart thinking" to not turn in on him. Unfortunately Massa and Maldonado wasn't smart enough.

Lewis deserved the penalties, Massa and Maldonado deserved to be knocked out of the race. And shame on them for not getting some much needed points for their teams.

Quote from JCTK :

As I said a couple of times already. Lewis wasn't completely alongside Massa was because Massa himself didn't slow down as much as he should, that was why Massa himself went into the back of Webber.

Also interesting isn't it that Kobayashi had made contact with the other cars for some of his moves, and yet I don't remember seeing him serving a penalty for those. (Sutil in Monaco, and one of the Toro Rosso in Suzuka last year)

Collision that should've been avoided by smart thinking, how bloody smart was Massa and Maldonado turning in on someone that's already there?
Lewis wasn't completely alongside Button and Vettel as he pulled those moves off in China, luckily for Lewis, Button and Vettel were able to conduct some "smart thinking" to not turn in on him. Unfortunately Massa and Maldonado wasn't smart enough.

Lewis deserved the penalties, Massa and Maldonado deserved to be knocked out of the race. And shame on them for not getting some much needed points for their teams.

1.Massa hit Webber because Hamilton pushed him there.
2. Kobayashi's banzai move in Suzuka was completely different. Their tires hit eachothers. Which means that Kobayashi was side by side when the collision happened. His speed is questionable but he was alongside and therefore had made it to the gap before he was turned on. Which makes it legal. Had he hit toro rosso's side he'd have gotten a penalty.
3. How many times do I need to say that it's the driver's behind responsibility to watch out that his overtake attempt doesn't end in a crash when he's behind. If you make it side by side with opponent it's legal if you don't and cause a crash it's your fault and the attempt shouldn't have been attempted.
4. Drivers need to think about the whole picture. Lewis is dangerous and Vettel cannot risk his points for just one place. That is the way you win championships; do not crash. Button is in the same team as Lewis' and as we all know Lewis is the favourite one in Mclaren. Reason enough to give room for Lewis? The rest at this point are after better position in another team or maybe just after their best race and have no need to give room where they don't have to. They know that they're doing the right thing and that they don't need to give room.

Don't you mean, Massa didn't take out webber due to the hamilton collision?

Massa went through that corner way to fast he basically had webber from the side of hes car untill the nudge with hamilton push him back to the tyre.

Also your comments about kobayashi, contradict your 3rd point badly.