I Look Like Kevin Costner
Grand Prix fanatic..
- 3,847
- 44
- 48
Mclaren must appeal on this. It is utter tripe from the stewards. He gained no advantage apart from the fact he was way quicker in the wet stuff than Kimi was!
-
Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial RAF Rumour Network.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The Belgian GP @ The best track of the lot!
- Thread starter I Look Like Kevin Costner
- Start date
E
elnino
Guest
Dont like LH or ferrari but think he was unlucky as he did give the flying fin first place back before they crossed the line. Was decent race for a change 2.
G
gemarriott
Guest
I'm beginning to think my Mrs is right
DT_Xtremez_42: she reckons it's a fix for ferrari
DT_Xtremez_42: she reckons it's a fix for ferrari
E
elnino
Guest
Think you could be spot on there but if LH just keeps doing his best I am sure he will prevail come the end of season. As I said b4, I dont particularly like him but would like to see him win title now to put a stop to ferrari bias.
G
gemarriott
Guest
me too!
I just wish after he ran up rakkinons arse in the pit lane that race he'd said (oops I dropped a bollock) instead of making excuses.He might have been a bit more likeable then.
Even so he has been sh1t on here.
G
grumpyoldb
Guest
McLaren have lodged an appeal............
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=35880
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=35880
I Look Like Kevin Costner
Grand Prix fanatic..
- 3,847
- 44
- 48
It would be criminal if they hadn't. I really do hope the FIA will dump this decision, but what is the betting they will jump on Hamilton harder.
I realise that many of you will understand F1 better than I, but I'd be interested to know WHY LH was dumped to 3rd with the 25sec penalty.
After his little slide, he let the Ferrari pass:- Hamilton did let the Finn pass him after the chicane, but he then used the slipstream of the Ferrari to immediately launch a successful overtaking move at the next corner.
If he got in the slipstream, he MUST have been behind the Ferrari, so it's not as if he took advantage of a slide, is it?
I just hope that the appeal is upheld.
[ Thought: If I was a real cynic, I'd be thinking about how much these events cost Ferrari in cash terms and to whom at the FIA. but then, we all know these things don't happen, don't we. ] { cough }
DT_Xtremez_06:
After his little slide, he let the Ferrari pass:- Hamilton did let the Finn pass him after the chicane, but he then used the slipstream of the Ferrari to immediately launch a successful overtaking move at the next corner.
If he got in the slipstream, he MUST have been behind the Ferrari, so it's not as if he took advantage of a slide, is it?
I just hope that the appeal is upheld.
[ Thought: If I was a real cynic, I'd be thinking about how much these events cost Ferrari in cash terms and to whom at the FIA. but then, we all know these things don't happen, don't we. ] { cough }
DT_Xtremez_06:chumpzilla
Sergeant
- 833
- 0
- 16
Frigging F1 Stewards
Frigging F1 Stewards
I'm not a massive F1 fan by any stretch, but I do like to see how Lewis Hamilton gets on in his races. Now i'm fuming because the sad lonely (racist?) stewards have again fudged our only true racing driver at the moment over. What have they got against him, as i understand, Lewis pulled over and let Kim through after he spun out. But then whooped his sorry backside to take a deserved win, but the stewards obviously don't appreciate the gentlemanly/sporting behaviour of an excellent up and coming F1 driver
Expecting Scandinavian defence!?
Frigging F1 Stewards
I'm not a massive F1 fan by any stretch, but I do like to see how Lewis Hamilton gets on in his races. Now i'm fuming because the sad lonely (racist?) stewards have again fudged our only true racing driver at the moment over. What have they got against him, as i understand, Lewis pulled over and let Kim through after he spun out. But then whooped his sorry backside to take a deserved win, but the stewards obviously don't appreciate the gentlemanly/sporting behaviour of an excellent up and coming F1 driver
Expecting Scandinavian defence!?
E
elnino
Guest
I could be wrong but the way I understand it is as follows;
If you gain a plaice by cutting corner or similar, you have to allow all those you passed to overtake you before the end of the lap and I must admit I thought Hamilton had done just that but maybe ferrari have seen something different. Either way, drivers of the day must be Torro Rosso.
If you gain a plaice by cutting corner or similar, you have to allow all those you passed to overtake you before the end of the lap and I must admit I thought Hamilton had done just that but maybe ferrari have seen something different. Either way, drivers of the day must be Torro Rosso.
sparks will fly
Corporal
- 374
- 0
- 0
Steward were a bit harsh to Hamilton he did lift off and allow Kimi to pass him before the finish line to give him back the advantage. So annoyed with this decision
I Look Like Kevin Costner
Grand Prix fanatic..
- 3,847
- 44
- 48
Hamilton let Rakkonian back passed by feathering the throttle and letting Kimi go passed him. He might have had a slipsteam from Kimi, but I would suggest that his traction was just much better and the real reason why he could make such an attack into La Source (like it had been for the rest of the run up to the Bus Stop!!)
Watch it again. Kimi was all over the place in the braking zone of La Source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHuwWAlaMA4
Hamiltons view from the poast race press conferance (after ITV finish)
Q: (Ed Gorman - The Times) Lewis, are you aware that the stewards have announced they are investigating an incident between yourself and Kimi? We're not sure exactly which one it was. Are you aware of that and what could your thoughts be? Is there any part where you felt that you'd contravened the rules?
LH: Absolutely not. I will explain what happened. It began to rain. I caught Kimi and I got a good tow from him down the back straight and I was in a good position to dive down the inside at turn 18. He covered his spot, which was fair, but he braked very, very early, so I was able to outbrake him and go round the outside which I did. I left him enough room, I didn't close the gap so much that he had to go on a kerb, I left him enough room, yet he accelerated or picked up more pace going into the corner, and drove me as wide as he possibly could. I had no road left. There was a question I had to ask: if I stay where I am, I'm going to go over the Astroturf… there's some green bit behind the big kerb, the last kerb… and go over it and hit him. Or I go left. That was the option I had to do, I did it. I knew that I had to let him past and also the team came over the radio and said 'you have to let him past' which I did. I was accelerating so that I didn't lose too much ground because I thought that would be unfair. Fortunately I got back in his slipstream and again, he moved to the inside and back to the outside and again, I dodged him and went up the inside and at the apex to the corner he hit me at the back, and that nearly caused me to spin, but fortunately I kept hold of it and went on from there. That was a great fight and I don't think there was anything wrong there. The rules say you should let him back past which I did.
Q: (Ian Parkes - The Press Association) Lewis, given the explanation that you've just given us, would you be surprised now if the stewards did decide to punish you in any kind of way?
LH: Absolutely, absolutely. This is motor racing and if there's a penalty, then there's something wrong because I was ahead going into that corner, so I didn't gain an advantage from it. We were still able to race at the next corner and I gave him his spot back, and I think it was fair and square, so I think it would be absolutely wrong. But you know what they're like, so we will see.
It does stink like the Schumi plank of 14 years ago.
Watch it again. Kimi was all over the place in the braking zone of La Source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHuwWAlaMA4
Hamiltons view from the poast race press conferance (after ITV finish)
Q: (Ed Gorman - The Times) Lewis, are you aware that the stewards have announced they are investigating an incident between yourself and Kimi? We're not sure exactly which one it was. Are you aware of that and what could your thoughts be? Is there any part where you felt that you'd contravened the rules?
LH: Absolutely not. I will explain what happened. It began to rain. I caught Kimi and I got a good tow from him down the back straight and I was in a good position to dive down the inside at turn 18. He covered his spot, which was fair, but he braked very, very early, so I was able to outbrake him and go round the outside which I did. I left him enough room, I didn't close the gap so much that he had to go on a kerb, I left him enough room, yet he accelerated or picked up more pace going into the corner, and drove me as wide as he possibly could. I had no road left. There was a question I had to ask: if I stay where I am, I'm going to go over the Astroturf… there's some green bit behind the big kerb, the last kerb… and go over it and hit him. Or I go left. That was the option I had to do, I did it. I knew that I had to let him past and also the team came over the radio and said 'you have to let him past' which I did. I was accelerating so that I didn't lose too much ground because I thought that would be unfair. Fortunately I got back in his slipstream and again, he moved to the inside and back to the outside and again, I dodged him and went up the inside and at the apex to the corner he hit me at the back, and that nearly caused me to spin, but fortunately I kept hold of it and went on from there. That was a great fight and I don't think there was anything wrong there. The rules say you should let him back past which I did.
Q: (Ian Parkes - The Press Association) Lewis, given the explanation that you've just given us, would you be surprised now if the stewards did decide to punish you in any kind of way?
LH: Absolutely, absolutely. This is motor racing and if there's a penalty, then there's something wrong because I was ahead going into that corner, so I didn't gain an advantage from it. We were still able to race at the next corner and I gave him his spot back, and I think it was fair and square, so I think it would be absolutely wrong. But you know what they're like, so we will see.
It does stink like the Schumi plank of 14 years ago.
Last edited:
propersplitbrainme
Warrant Officer
- 4,196
- 0
- 0
Why has this thread been moved to What Grips My Sh1t??????
Anyway, hamilton appears to have been penalised under two regualtions namely:
Artlice 30.3 (a) of the sporting code which states that:
During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provions of the code relating to driver behaviour on circuits.
And,
Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code which states that:
The race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race.
I can find nothing about what happens if the driver does not comply with these regualtions so in theory a driver could cut a corner on his own at some time during the race, go on to win and later be penalised. There is nothing about 'gaining an advantage' per-se (unless anyone else can find it) and so the whole thing seems to be open to interpretation by the stewards as they see fit.
Anyway, hamilton appears to have been penalised under two regualtions namely:
Artlice 30.3 (a) of the sporting code which states that:
During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provions of the code relating to driver behaviour on circuits.
And,
Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code which states that:
The race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race.
I can find nothing about what happens if the driver does not comply with these regualtions so in theory a driver could cut a corner on his own at some time during the race, go on to win and later be penalised. There is nothing about 'gaining an advantage' per-se (unless anyone else can find it) and so the whole thing seems to be open to interpretation by the stewards as they see fit.
If it was just those rules then most of the field, including both Ferrari's should also have been penalised.
They might as well just come out and state that he was penalised because his car was not red.
I Look Like Kevin Costner
Grand Prix fanatic..
- 3,847
- 44
- 48
Can the moderator who moved MY THREAD on MOTOR RACING please return it to its rightful place, (namely) THE MOTOR SPORTS CLUB!
propersplitbrainme
Warrant Officer
- 4,196
- 0
- 0
Yeah, thats my point Weebl, it happens all the time so in theory penalties should be getting issued left right and centre, not just here but in most other races in the calendar.
I can't find what is stated in the regs as 'gaining an advantage' from it which appears to be the crux of the issue.
G
grumpyoldb
Guest
Yeah.........! Come on. Put us back where we belong. There wasn't even an explanation.
G
grumpyoldb
Guest
The following has been taken from here...............
http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3261_4114467,00.html
This is not what sport or F1 is meant to be. Winning a race should be a black-and-white business. The driver of the car that crosses the line in first place is the winner and the glory is his. End of story. It is a sacrosanct principle and any violation of it can only be considered - let alone applied - in the most extreme of circumstances and with the supported of the most overwhelming weight of evidence. The results of a grand prix should be determined, like in any other sport, in its sporting arena, not in unseen backrooms by unknown officials. For that is politics, not sport, not F1.
This is the void and guiding principle that the race stewards of the Belgian GP leapt over - by their own impetus, it should be noted, for there was no protest made by Ferrari or any of McLaren's other competitors - when they delivered their notification of 'an investigation into an incident between cars 1 and 22' just at the moment Lewis Hamilton was being physically blocked by a Spa race official from celebrating victory with his McLaren engineers. That moment in the pits - the pits, a jobsworth denying the appreciation of sporting achievement - would gain a poignant resonance as night fell. Winning the already-quickly-forgotten Greatest Grand Prix in Living Memory will be the cause of obituaries rather than celebration.
The blurring of the distinction between politics and sport in F1 had already become a popular lament long before Sunday. F1 is a spectacularly political sport. Yet rarely, if ever, has it made such a leap from one to the other based on so little. For where is the justification in stripping Hamilton of victory? No, do not misread 'where' for 'what' nor confuse the plea for justification as the herald for further debate on whether Hamilton gained an advantage when he cut the chicane. Instead, consider the lack of justification cited by the stewards, who, remaining cloaked in anonymity, are still yet to offer any explanation for their punishment other than cite the terms of the offence and announce its punishment. Not a word of insight has been forthcoming, nor a single piece of telemetry or testimony to support it. Given their absolute abuse of sport's most absolute principle, the silence is deafening.
If the decision to strip Hamilton of his victory was to be made then the evidence had to be overwhelming, so clinical that it prevented any dissent. Than none has been supplied, that identifying the winner of the Belgian GP has been reduced to a matter of debate, lays the sport bare.
And the debate will rage on, as perplexing as well as an unacceptable state of affairs given that the terms of the debate are unknown. For what is it that Hamilton has been found guilty of? Observing, as per the 30-word press release the FIA filed announcing that the result of the Belgian GP was no longer the result of the Belgian GP, that Hamilton was guilty of "cutting the chicane" tells us nothing that none of us have not already seen. The stewards - and their Ferrari-supporting apologists - might well retort that they do not have to provide any commentary other than a verdict. But that misses the point and avoids entirely the repercussions and significance of a decision which makes explanation essential.
Is it that Hamilton has been punished for deliberately seeking an advantage by deliberately steering over the chicane? Or is it for inadvertently gaining an advantage by avoiding an avoidable accident? Is it for gaining an advantage but not satisfactorily or adequately surrendering it? Or is it that he has been found guilty of exploiting an advantage that was neither his by right nor no longer in his possession, deemed to have broken the spirit of the rules if not the wording?
Or is it due to motives altogether different, altogether more political? It must be, for, in the absence of all other explanation, only that suspicion can begin to explain the desecration of what was once a sport.
Pete Gill
Amen.
http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3261_4114467,00.html
This is not what sport or F1 is meant to be. Winning a race should be a black-and-white business. The driver of the car that crosses the line in first place is the winner and the glory is his. End of story. It is a sacrosanct principle and any violation of it can only be considered - let alone applied - in the most extreme of circumstances and with the supported of the most overwhelming weight of evidence. The results of a grand prix should be determined, like in any other sport, in its sporting arena, not in unseen backrooms by unknown officials. For that is politics, not sport, not F1.
This is the void and guiding principle that the race stewards of the Belgian GP leapt over - by their own impetus, it should be noted, for there was no protest made by Ferrari or any of McLaren's other competitors - when they delivered their notification of 'an investigation into an incident between cars 1 and 22' just at the moment Lewis Hamilton was being physically blocked by a Spa race official from celebrating victory with his McLaren engineers. That moment in the pits - the pits, a jobsworth denying the appreciation of sporting achievement - would gain a poignant resonance as night fell. Winning the already-quickly-forgotten Greatest Grand Prix in Living Memory will be the cause of obituaries rather than celebration.
The blurring of the distinction between politics and sport in F1 had already become a popular lament long before Sunday. F1 is a spectacularly political sport. Yet rarely, if ever, has it made such a leap from one to the other based on so little. For where is the justification in stripping Hamilton of victory? No, do not misread 'where' for 'what' nor confuse the plea for justification as the herald for further debate on whether Hamilton gained an advantage when he cut the chicane. Instead, consider the lack of justification cited by the stewards, who, remaining cloaked in anonymity, are still yet to offer any explanation for their punishment other than cite the terms of the offence and announce its punishment. Not a word of insight has been forthcoming, nor a single piece of telemetry or testimony to support it. Given their absolute abuse of sport's most absolute principle, the silence is deafening.
If the decision to strip Hamilton of his victory was to be made then the evidence had to be overwhelming, so clinical that it prevented any dissent. Than none has been supplied, that identifying the winner of the Belgian GP has been reduced to a matter of debate, lays the sport bare.
And the debate will rage on, as perplexing as well as an unacceptable state of affairs given that the terms of the debate are unknown. For what is it that Hamilton has been found guilty of? Observing, as per the 30-word press release the FIA filed announcing that the result of the Belgian GP was no longer the result of the Belgian GP, that Hamilton was guilty of "cutting the chicane" tells us nothing that none of us have not already seen. The stewards - and their Ferrari-supporting apologists - might well retort that they do not have to provide any commentary other than a verdict. But that misses the point and avoids entirely the repercussions and significance of a decision which makes explanation essential.
Is it that Hamilton has been punished for deliberately seeking an advantage by deliberately steering over the chicane? Or is it for inadvertently gaining an advantage by avoiding an avoidable accident? Is it for gaining an advantage but not satisfactorily or adequately surrendering it? Or is it that he has been found guilty of exploiting an advantage that was neither his by right nor no longer in his possession, deemed to have broken the spirit of the rules if not the wording?
Or is it due to motives altogether different, altogether more political? It must be, for, in the absence of all other explanation, only that suspicion can begin to explain the desecration of what was once a sport.
Pete Gill
Amen.
propersplitbrainme
Warrant Officer
- 4,196
- 0
- 0
Spot, fcukin on Mr Gill.