Jeff Shyu wrote:he was never ahead, therefore, never "had the corner".
you can argue that he had the "advantageous line".. but that doesn't mean ahead.
Better look again, the Mclaren was ahead.
As for Spa, even the broadcast/analysis team from Italy's Rai 1 TV ALL thought Hamilton's give back and subsequent pass were legit. That group includes a former Ferrari driver, an engineer and a team manager.
i never disputed that Lewis gave up the position and passed again. I disputed that lewis gained an advantage by cutting the chicane, and never gave up that ADVANTAGE.. he gave up the lead, but not the advantage.
or do you not consider a tow down the front straight an advantage?
edit: and i can't see youtube at work, but i was pretty sure from watching it yesterday, that the McLaren nose never passed the Ferrari nose.
Jeff Shyu wrote:he was never ahead, therefore, never "had the corner".
you can argue that he had the "advantageous line".. but that doesn't mean ahead.
Better look again, the Mclaren was ahead.
As for Spa, even the broadcast/analysis team from Italy's Rai 1 TV ALL thought Hamilton's give back and subsequent pass were legit. That group includes a former Ferrari driver, an engineer and a team manager.
i never disputed that Lewis gave up the position and passed again. I disputed that lewis gained an advantage by cutting the chicane, and never gave up that ADVANTAGE.. he gave up the lead, but not the advantage.
or do you not consider a tow down the front straight an advantage?
edit: and i can't see youtube at work, but i was pretty sure from watching it yesterday, that the McLaren nose never passed the Ferrari nose.
The McLaren's nose is in front of the Ferrari going into corner where MS cut across; he's not allowed to do that to maintain his lead.
There wasn't any tow all the way down the front straight. Hamilton was in Kimi's slipstream for about half a second. How you can keep an advantage when you slow down and let someone else by? He gave up momentum and position. If the checkered flag had been out that lap, Kimi would have one. He was on Kimi's gearbox and would have passed if not forced off. Where's this advantage?
Bob Beamesderfer wrote:There wasn't any tow all the way down the front straight. Hamilton was in Kimi's slipstream for about half a second. How you can keep an advantage when you slow down and let someone else by? He gave up momentum and position. If the checkered flag had been out that lap, Kimi would have one. He was on Kimi's gearbox and would have passed if not forced off. Where's this advantage?
the lack of the 2-3 car lengths between them after what would have been the accordion effect.
Bob Beamesderfer wrote:There wasn't any tow all the way down the front straight. Hamilton was in Kimi's slipstream for about half a second. How you can keep an advantage when you slow down and let someone else by? He gave up momentum and position. If the checkered flag had been out that lap, Kimi would have one. He was on Kimi's gearbox and would have passed if not forced off. Where's this advantage?
the lack of the 2-3 car lengths between them after what would have been the accordion effect.
or does that corner just magically not have that?
Very little if any accordion effect at the slowest corner on the track.
Bob Beamesderfer wrote:There wasn't any tow all the way down the front straight. Hamilton was in Kimi's slipstream for about half a second. How you can keep an advantage when you slow down and let someone else by? He gave up momentum and position. If the checkered flag had been out that lap, Kimi would have one. He was on Kimi's gearbox and would have passed if not forced off. Where's this advantage?
the lack of the 2-3 car lengths between them after what would have been the accordion effect.
or does that corner just magically not have that?
Very little if any accordion effect at the slowest corner on the track.
i won't disagree with you on that, yet, until i go home and rewatch the race.
my gut feeling, is that the slower the corner, the greater the accordion though.
Bob Beamesderfer wrote:There wasn't any tow all the way down the front straight. Hamilton was in Kimi's slipstream for about half a second. How you can keep an advantage when you slow down and let someone else by? He gave up momentum and position. If the checkered flag had been out that lap, Kimi would have one. He was on Kimi's gearbox and would have passed if not forced off. Where's this advantage?
the lack of the 2-3 car lengths between them after what would have been the accordion effect.
or does that corner just magically not have that?
Very little if any accordion effect at the slowest corner on the track.
Bob, after reading the back and forth arguments...in the end I'm with Jeff. I saw that race and what Lewis did was proper, he gave back the lead (although very slowly ), but he did NOT give up the advantage. If he would've, he should've lifted off completely or tapped his brakes for 1 second. That would've had a bigger gap. But he just immediately tucked in behind Kimi.
But what pisses me off is the inconsistency of the FIA ruling and how it just "happens" to always favor Ferrari.
Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:
Bob, after reading the back and forth arguments...in the end I'm with Jeff. I saw that race and what Lewis did was proper, he gave back the lead (although very slowly ), but he did NOT give up the advantage. If he would've, he should've lifted off completely or tapped his brakes for 1 second. That would've had a bigger gap. But he just immediately tucked in behind Kimi.
But what pisses me off is the inconsistency of the FIA ruling and how it just "happens" to always favor Ferrari.
The rule doubtfully outlines any specifics, like a complete lift or a tap of the brakes. Regardless, it's a bogus application of the rule. Kimi's loss of position wasn't his absolute loss of the race; he did that to himself putting his car into the wall.
Still, Jeff, you haven't addressed how it is that Charlie Whiting can twice tell McLaren that Lewis was OK because he gave back the position and suddenly the stewards, who, BTW aren't exactly experts--FIA members, suddenly decided to reverse that. I don't believe Ferrari said nothing; a formal protest, no. But putting a but in the ear of the Ferrari-connected FIA official who overseas the stewards is entirely likely. It's a huge credibility issue. If Race Control's rulings aren't worth anything, then F1 is a charade.
And the more I think about it, the more I think the slower corners do have more of an accordion effect. It's still a bad decision. :mrt:
Last edited by Bob Beamesderfer on Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
this is why i wanted to find out the actual text of the FIA sporting regulations (which i've thus far, been unsuccessful at doing, every keyword search on google just turns up threads like this, disputing the Spa ruling).
if the text says giving up the POSITION, then Lewis was totally right, and i will stand corrected and eat my words.
however, if the text says that the person must give up the ADVANTAGE, then i maintain that Lewis did not do that.
Bob Beamesderfer wrote:Still, Jeff, you haven't addressed how it is that Charlie Whiting can twice tell McLaren that Lewis was OK because he gave back the position and suddenly the stewards, who, BTW aren't exactly experts--FIA members, suddenly decided to reverse that. I don't believe Ferrari said nothing; a formal protest, no. But putting a but in the ear of the Ferrari-connected FIA official who overseas the stewards is entirely likely. It's a huge credibility issue. If Race Control's rulings aren't worth anything, then F1 is a charade.
i don't dispute that, and i don't think i ever did. I think the ruling was bogus, and that Lewis should have won the race. He was going to be able to overtake Kimi after La Source anyways.
I think if if the stewards wanted to assess a drive through, they should have. they missed their opportunity, and made the wrong call at the end after the race was already over.
so yeah, i agree that the final result was bogus, but because the ruling was inconsistent, not because it wasn't justified.
You're not going to convince me that it was justified. The McLaren was moving slower than the Ferrari at the S/F line. Kimi was outbraked going into La Source and continued to drive sloppy with the exception of not hitting Rosberg, who surprisingly hasn't been penalized for wandering back onto the track. I think Kimi had to give up some pace the last few laps to conserve fuel. How else does he lose that much time in so few laps, and this is before the rain, to Hamilton?
i don't think he was conserving fuel, i think it was because the ferrari was not set up to use the prime. They were probably hoping for a warmer track/bigger lead by the 3rd stint.
Jeff Shyu wrote:i don't think he was conserving fuel, i think it was because the ferrari was not set up to use the prime. They were probably hoping for a warmer track/bigger lead by the 3rd stint.
That's a foolish hope in Belgium.
Pat Symonds, Renault's technical director, thinks the ruling was wrong and a poor example for the sport. He points out that all the talk about the FIA/FOM wanting more passing, more excitement, drivers with character is countered with every decision like the one at Spa. The penalty against Alonso last year at Monza is another, which also favored Ferrari. Backfired, though.
Bob Beamesderfer wrote:There wasn't any tow all the way down the front straight. Hamilton was in Kimi's slipstream for about half a second. How you can keep an advantage when you slow down and let someone else by? He gave up momentum and position. If the checkered flag had been out that lap, Kimi would have one. He was on Kimi's gearbox and would have passed if not forced off. Where's this advantage?
the lack of the 2-3 car lengths between them after what would have been the accordion effect.
or does that corner just magically not have that?
Very little if any accordion effect at the slowest corner on the track.
well, i watched it again, now that i'm home.
the McLaren was never AHEAD of the ferrari. it got alongside the ferrari for a splitsecond, and then forced the ferrari off the road.
interesting that Bob said "you can not cut corners to maintain a competitive advantage." barring any actual link to FIA document, that's what my understanding has been based upon. Lewis maintained a competitive advantage, while giving up the position.
Jeff Shyu wrote:
well, i watched it again, now that i'm home.
the McLaren was never AHEAD of the ferrari. it got alongside the ferrari for a splitsecond, and then forced the ferrari off the road.
And as they pulled even, De la Rosa owned the corner and Schumacher turned well before he needed to and cut the corner to maintain his lead. By your argument, it's a violation.
Jeff Shyu wrote:
well, i watched it again, now that i'm home.
the McLaren was never AHEAD of the ferrari. it got alongside the ferrari for a splitsecond, and then forced the ferrari off the road.
And as they pulled even, De la Rosa owned the corner and Schumacher turned well before he needed to and cut the corner to maintain his lead. By your argument, it's a violation.
You should really be on the SEB.
as Aaron pointed out, i love to argue.
My boss keeps wanting me to take my architectural licensing exams. i tell him i'd rather take the LSAT.
Jeff Shyu wrote:
well, i watched it again, now that i'm home.
the McLaren was never AHEAD of the ferrari. it got alongside the ferrari for a splitsecond, and then forced the ferrari off the road.
And as they pulled even, De la Rosa owned the corner and Schumacher turned well before he needed to and cut the corner to maintain his lead. By your argument, it's a violation.
You should really be on the SEB.
as Aaron pointed out, i love to argue.
My boss keeps wanting me to take my architectural licensing exams. i tell him i'd rather take the LSAT.
i think he thinks i'm joking.
I might have to take the LSAT if I don't find a job. I've been told I should be a lawyer. I'm flattered and offended.
Italian GP Pre Practice Interview, comments on Spa Incident:
QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Q: (Ian Parkes - The Press Association) Felipe, Lewis has just remarked at his McLaren press conference that despite what happened and the penalty in Spa, that he's coming here on a high, he feels like he's coming here as a race winner. I'm just wondering if, from your perspective, do you feel the same thing, that you're coming here as a race winner, even though the win was effectively handed to you by the stewards?
Massa: To be honest, I've given my ideas on this many times about what happened. What's happened is that he took an advantage by cutting the chicane. You can ask other drivers how many overtaking manoeuvres you see there: no overtaking. Going from the last corner to the first corner is such a small straight, so he took an advantage, that's clear, that's my opinion, so it doesn't change.
Q: (Dan Knutson - National Speed Sport News) Could I ask the other four drivers what they thought about that incident and Kimi, and as a follow-up, do you think you and other drivers might be afraid to fight for a position now that you might get a penalty?
Fisichella: I have just seen pictures, so it is difficult for me to say whether what happened was right or not. For sure, maybe, he took a small advantage, that's why he had the possibility, as Felipe said, to overtake him again in braking for turn one. But obviously, a 25s penalty was quite a strong penalty. As for the second question: when we get in the car and we're fighting to overtake a car, we don't think about that. We just try to do our best. Obviously we know if we cut a chicane or we take an advantage we need to back off and give the position back.
Bourdais: Yes, I think the rules are very clear. Maybe the penalty was a bit hard, but I think he's made the same mistake twice: he's done it in Magny-Cours and he's done it again in Spa. I don't really understand why there's been such a mess around it. There's a rule book and everybody has to obey the same thing. The penalty is really rough but in the end it's up to you to give the position back or not. Pretty straightforward.
Rosberg: Yeah, I definitely agree, because he did get an advantage, because he wouldn't have been that close behind Kimi had he not cut the chicane. But then again, I also think the penalty was a bit harsh as that did not have such a big effect on the actual race result in the end.
Trulli: Well, I agree completely with my colleagues. The penalty was quite big but I'm not a steward and I cannot decide what kind of penalty should be given. But on the other hand, it was very clear that he got an advantage out of it, so that's where it is. The rules are very clear. If you cut the chicane and you get an advantage, you just have to drop back and give back the position and in Lewis's case he shouldn't have attacked straight away at the next corner; that was it. On the other hand, with this new chicane, there is a lot of run-off, it gives you more chance to attack because in the case of a mistake, you wouldn't end up in a wall or in the gravel. If it was the case of Lewis in Spa, he wouldn't have gone much further than that. We have more chances to overtake.
Bourdais: I think it was very clear and I agree as well. You have to be responsible for what you decide to do, and in this particular case, if you do gain an advantage like I said, you just give it back and make sure that you don't expose yourself to penalties. I think it's the easiest way to handle it. In my previous experience, my previous life in the States, it was actually a common thing. The stewards would not take action if you gave the position back, so I think it's only fair.
Rosberg: I agree and I don't think it's going to stop us from trying to attack, definitely.
Q: (Ian Parkes - The Press Association) To any one of you: although it says in the rules you give a place back, does it say in the rules how much advantage you are supposed to give back? Because Lewis was effectively second both crossing the line - the time sheets prove that - and also going into the La Source hairpin. Just for clarification because we don't know the rules like you guys do.
Bourdais: The rules are available for everybody to read I think and they are very clear. You gain an advantage, you gain an advantage. It doesn't matter how big it is, if you end up being in a position to pass at the next corner then you gain an advantage, because at that place, as everybody said, you are never going to be in a position to pass, if you exit the chicane normally behind the guy, because it stretches out, it's normal. It's very simple, I think.
Q: (Dan Knutson - National Speed Sport News) Felipe, how do you see the championship battle here shaping up for you in the last five races?
Massa: I see it as being pretty competitive. I think when you see that there is a two points' difference and we have five races ahead of us, everything is really completely open. We have 50 points (available) in the championship which is quite a big number of points, compared to the difference, so the battle is hundred percent open. We saw this year that you have some races where maybe Ferrari was a little bit better. You had other races where perhaps McLaren were a little bit better. It's really difficult to make a clear comment on which track we maybe can have an advantage or not, or maybe if we have an advantage or if they have an advantage. I think it will be very competitive all through the races.
There continue to be different opinions about Lewis Hamilton's penalty in Spa, including some rather bizarre comments from Surinder Thatti, the Tanzanian steward (who represents Kenya), who was part of the decision-making process. He would do well not to get quoted too much if he wishes to profile on the grids in F1 in the future. The job of being an F1 steward is one of discretion and not talking about how decisions were made. Former permanent steward Tony Scott-Andrews was exemplary in this respect.
However, this does not detract from a very clear desire on the part of the F1 world to know how the decision was made, particularly when the Race Director Charlie Whiting twice told McLaren on the radio that the move was "OK". What changed Whiting's opinion? And what did he write in his report that went to the stewards?
It is also worth asking how much the stewards are free to make rulings and what if any restrictions they have. There are various FIA bodies that have a right to accept or reject things but they cannot make modifications. It would be good to know whether this true of the stewards as well.
It would also help to know exactly what role was played in the process by the stewards' advisor. He is a man who knows the rules, but should he not also be aware of the implications of decisions and, it could be argued, should he have advised a different course of action. There was obviously a margin of doubt in this respect - as Whiting's reactions underline - so we need to know why the stewards' advisor did not advise caution.
Answering these questions would help to diffuse the affair.
The key point in all of this, however, is not specifically about the manoeuvre in Spa. It is more to do with the perception of the FIA. Any governing body of any sport should be worried when the immediate reaction to any decision is for the whole world to instantly cry "Foul!"
Perceptions are reality in F1 and so the FIA spin doctors obviously have their work cut out if they are to change the views that exist. On paper there seems to be a long trail of anti-McLaren decisions and, some argue, a similar trail of pro-Ferrari decision-making. One cannot deny that these perceptions exist and, similarly, one can be forgiven for asking whether the furore after Spa was in part due to the damage done to the FIA's reputation by the Mosley Scandal, which did nothing positive for the federation.
), but he did NOT give up the advantage. If he would've, he should've lifted off completely or tapped his brakes for 1 second. That would've had a bigger gap. But he just immediately tucked in behind Kimi.
