Ferrari gets F1 assistance yet again.

[Bugsy]

Absolutely discusting decision. [:@][:@]

Here

[AnOther]

I agree. A tad ill advised perhaps but a perfectly legitimate overtake attempt all the same and Raikkonen more or less forced him off. Hamilton didn't directly profit from it anyway as he gave the place back then easily took him again. A bloody travesty and lets hope they get it overturned.

Where the ***k did they come up with a venal 25 second penalty anyway [:-))]

Whatever, it will make his eventual taking of the championship even sweeter [:P]

[Dave&Olive]

hi ok

 got a love hate thing with Lewis but eerrrrrrrrrrr  make the rules up as you go along £ 10,000 fine for Massa  25 second penalty for Lewis .

I am really getting peeed off with it , I said last year I would never watch it again but after xxxxx years it`s hard to stop .

  for you Bugbear ..Jeff Duke was the bike god when I was taken to my first F1

question ..  Who was the only person to win a T.T race and  ride a winner in the Grand National

     Dave

[Russethouse]

Lewis clearly played by the rules and completed a race in the most challenging of circumstances - this is nuts !!!

[AnOther]

Watch again and judge for yourselves. What else was Hamilton supposed to do. He clearly had the legs and took him easily on the straight so how was Raikkonen disadvantaged ?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=D1Mb0tK_gjo

[Bugsy]

[quote user="DaveOlive"]

 

question ..  Who was the only person to win a T.T race and  ride a winner in the Grand National

 [/quote]

I'm guessing...........................but would that be George Formby ?

[:D][:D]

[Pierre ZFP]

So why didn't Raikkonen get a penalty for shunting Hamilton after being overtaken?  Oh no, that's right coz Raikkonen slammed his car into the wall just afterwards (when he was in the lead) so tell me again, exactly how was he impeded??

[just john]

I guess the penalty might be considered to have come from the fact that Hamilton (not my favourite driver)  made a slightly dodgy timed move and was able to avoid any serious loss (after being cut off ) by using the benefit of the run off area to continue, instead of say, struggling through a gravel trap; having said that, Hamilton had the legs of raikkonen and was already piling on the pressure, getting by after was not a struggle and won fair and square, raikkonen was already (ahem) having grip problems which reached its conclusion (totally[:P]). The good thing is that more disatisfaction is building against some of the stewards decisions involving f---rari (not my favourite team) and the sporting nature of f---rari itself. At least Hamilton demonstrated the high ground (again) and probably still has a good chance, unlike raikkonen[8-|]

meanwhile, is Ross Braun making any progress? (hope so)

use of case deliberate

[woolybanana]

Racism

[Sunday Driver]

Just had another look at that incident on You Tube and it does raise a valid point.

Two scenarios:

First - Hamilton outbrakes Raikkonen approaching the chicane but Raikkonen legitimately defends his inside line.  Hamilton concedes and stays on the race track, following him through the chicane.  Coming out, Raikkonen is first on the throttle and gains a few yards, leaving a gap to Hamilton who is unable to pick up a tow. Raikkonen maintains the gap and leads through La Source.

Second - Hamilton outbrakes Raikkonen approaching the chicane but Raikkonen legitimately defends his inside line.  Hamilton continues onto the run-off area, taking a straighter line thus maintaining his momentum, enabling him to regain the track and actually run ahead of Raikkonen half way down the pit straight until just before the start line when he dips in behind the Ferrari to concede the place.  This put him right under Raikkonen's gearbox (and in his blind spot) and in an ideal position to dip out and outbrake him into La Source.

The latter would suggest that Hamilton's use of the run-off area did present him with an advantage which he would not have had if he'd stayed on the racetrack behind Raikkonen...

 

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

My take on it after only seeing it once.

Hamilton tried to take Raikonnen, when there wasn't a move on really. Raikonnen was on the racing line, he didn't force Hamilton off at all. That was Hamiltons fault, for trying to take him on the outside.Then he cut the chicane, and gave the lead back to Kimi (although he was miles closer after doing it), and used his slipstream to his advantage.

The rule states you cannot gain an advantage by cutting the chicane, I think my description shows perhaps he did. Hence he was penalised.

[Quillan]

[quote user="woolybanana"]

Racism

[/quote]

Whats racist, the post proceeding yours or are you saying that Hamilton was penalized because he is of a different colour to the other drivers?

[woolybanana]

Institutional racism of the worst kind. He would not have been penalized if he has been tall blonde and blue-eyed.

[Russethouse]

I think jealousy is the more obvious motive

 

[woolybanana]

Given that Max Mosley has distinctly fascist tendencies, albeit in his private life, and that Hamilton has had racist "greetings" in Spain and Italy, and given that Belgium is no haven of liberal sentiment, I find the racism angle stronger, RH.

[Graye]

I do wonder whether you are taking the "racist" comment too seriously.  I took it to mean "racist" as in being about racing - at which point it is reasonably funny,surely?

And if it was meant in the usual sense,all I can say is -  don't be so silly!  I don't think that sort of racism comes into the equation.  This is a tale of money, pure and simple.  I have lived in Spain and seen their idea of "racism".  Believe it or not, they are not particularly serious in such comments.  They think being attacked racially is part and parcel of earning a huge salary - you only need to listen to their monkey chants in football matches.  Always aimed at the "other" side of course!

[woolybanana]

It comes into every walk of life. And such countries as Spain and Italy are a thousand times worse than UK, or just less inhibited about it. As is Belgium by and large.

[Quillan]

And lets not forget France either. I have seen it here at first hand and it's not very pleasant.

[Benjamin]

Back on topic.

Niki Lauda, and he should know a thing or two, says it's the worst decision he's ever seen in F1.

[just john]

I think I go with James Allen on this one, the nub of which is Hamilton did gain an advantage,
but would have had the lead anyway, in other words right decision but so wrong penalty.

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=James_Allen&id=43872

[Sunday Driver]

Felipe Massa's take on this (via Autosport):

"What Lewis did is the sort of thing that can happen, but I think he was maybe a bit too optimistic in thinking he could just hand back the position, albeit only partially to Kimi and then immediately try and pass him again.

"Incidents like this have often been discussed in the official driver briefings when it has been made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained.

"If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it. That was my immediate opinion after seeing the replay. Maybe if Lewis had waited and tried to pass on the next straight, that would have been a different matter."

OK, possibly a subjective view, but suggests a wrong decision (by Hamilton) and a right penalty (by the Stewards)?......[;-)]

 

[AnOther]

The appeal which never was !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7627941.stm

In politics I think it would be called a dictatorship [blink]

It was a cheeky move but that's what the audience want to see not the tedious Schumacher led procession F1 had become.

All credit to Lewis with his attitude over it and it will make it that much sweeter if he does take the championship [8-|]

[Bugsy]

As you say Ernie.

How can you agree to an appeal (which they clearly did) and then make the statement that the appeal is inadmissable.[6]

[Joffan]

Were any of us REALLY surprised at the verdict?

[Sunday Driver]

McLaren had the right of appeal, which they duly exercised.  When presenting their evidence, they knew that under the Sporting Regulations, a drive-through penalty could not be subject to appeal, so their argument was that the post-race 25 second penalty was not technically a 'drive through' penalty.

The court disagreed and rejected the appeal.