2008 Belgian GP - Race 13/18

Status
Not open for further replies.
In general, the only reason why the mid-field cars were making it onto the podium was because 1 of the Williams cars was going out of the race or having some sort of problem. If everything went to form (dry race, no break-downs or freak accidents), the podium would be Prost, Hill, Senna - virtually every race. I cannot make a similar prediction with such assurance in 2008. Any one of 3 can realistically win (barring freak occurrances).

Before the season even started, the rumours were that Prost was coming back for 1 last season - to win the world title. Thats all. I believe he only signed a 1 year contract, which in the world of F1, is very rare, when it comes to signing for the best team in F1 (which Williams were, at the time).

Had Prost stayed at Williams, I doubt that Senna would've had the chance to sign for them, for 1994. Frank Williams though, wanted to have Senna on-board - Mansell, then Prost, then Senna. Not a bad sequence of drivers.

Oh and Prost was definitely past his best in 1993. Mansell would definitely not have allowed Senna to win so many GPs that season (in a car which was about 1-2s/lap faster than the McLaren, Senna was driving).

In 1992, the only time MS managed to win was when it rained and Mansell was on the wrong tyres. I have no doubt that in 1993, the same wouldve been true.

Its a shame that we were robbed of Prost vs Mansell, in 1993, but I guess thats the way it goes. Still, we were treated to some great racing in 2007, when for the first time, since the Mansell vs Prost vs Senna era, we saw 2 drivers at McLaren, with genuine dislike for eachother, really have a go at eachother.
 
sunama said:
If everything went to form (dry race, no break-downs or freak accidents), the podium would be Prost, Hill, Senna - virtually every race.
Click to expand...

But that isn't what happened, is it? There were many races where it was bone dry, reliability was good, no-one hit a stray badger....and the Williams cars didn't get a 1-2.

sunama said:
Its a shame that we were robbed of Prost vs Mansell, in 1993, but I guess thats the way it goes.
Click to expand...

True. But at least we were then treated to Mansell tearing up the field Stateside :)

Cavallino said:
I vote this thread be locked.

All those in favour say "I".

:D
Click to expand...


It's probably time, to be honest. 'tis up to the Dons though.
 
Don't see why it should be closed, it stops this discussion getting into the Monza and future F1 threads and there is still the appeal to be done.
 
JRS said:
But that isn't what happened, is it? There were many races where it was bone dry, reliability was good, no-one hit a stray badger....and the Williams cars didn't get a 1-2.
Click to expand...

I dont want to particularly get into a race by race commentary of what happened in 1993, but Hill was every new to racing. I think he had raced in only a few races in a Brabham (was it?), so in effect, he was a rookie. In the first half of the season, he was learning his trade, from Prost. This is why he had no problems, playing shot gun to him.

In the latter half of the season, he was the guy scoring the points.

1. South Africa - Prost wins. Hill has an accident. I think he even spun on the first corner. He pannicked. This prevented a 1-2, though that may not have happened, even had Hill finished. Prost won the race by 1m 19s, lapping everyone except for Senna.
2. Brazil - Taken from Wikipedia, "...race leader Alain Prost hit the spinning car of Christian Fittipaldi, leaving the track strewn with wreckage. Prost's team-mate Damon Hill therefore lost a big lead, and was passed by Ayrton Senna shortly after the restart. The race still saw Damon's first points and podium. This prevented the Williams 1-2, which was very possible, had there been no accidents.
3. European GP - Senna was possessed in this race. I think he went from 6th to first, by the end of the first lap, or similar. He then opened up a gap at will. The entire race was conducted in a torrential downpour. On a dry track, Williams were dominating and a 1-2 would've been likely. The Williams qualified in 1 and 2.
4. San Marino - The 2 Williams qualified in 1st and 2nd. They were dominant. But once again failed to convert this into 1st and 2nd in the race. Prost and Hill pulled away from everyone else, heading for their first 1-2 of the season, when Hill's car broke and the race was over for him. Prost won the race, by over 30 seconds, while coasting in the closing laps. Had Hill's car not broken down, they wouldve got a 1-2.
5. Spain - Once again, Williams were totally dominant. They qualified, in 1-2. Prost and Hill pulled away from the start, heading for their first 1-2 of the season. Alas, Hill's car broke down. Prost won.

...and so on. I can go on and on, but during the races, if you had seen them, you would understand that unless it rained or the Williams broke down or crashed, they would finish every race in 1-2. Such was the dominance.

Another statistic to look at is the Constructors points total that year:

1. Williams 168
2. McLaren 84.

Williams doubled McLaren's points total. Another indication of near total dominance over the opposition. The races were boring unless you were a Williams, Prost or Hill fan.
 
What, nobody in here mentioning the appeal that started today?

Personally, Im ignoring all the hoo hah and stuff about it, all im interested in is the verdict on this:

The court heard a short clip of dialogue between McLaren sporting director Dave Ryan and race director Charlie Whiting at the time of the incident.

Ryan: 'Do you believe that was okay? He gave the position back.'

Whiting: 'I believe it was. Yes.'

Ryan: 'You believe it was okay.'

Whiting: 'I believe it was okay.'
Click to expand...

http://planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4180675,00.html
 
this_is_gav said:
What verdict are you expecting from that? It's meaningless. It's merely filler for the McLaren appeal. It has no substance in itself.
Click to expand...

If McLaren loose, then that conversation means CW has been given the power to miss-inform teams during a race, change his mind, and basically do whatever he wants.

If McLaren win, then the credibility of CW comes into question, along with his ability to impartially judge a race. It also open the gates for other teams to dispute his decisions.
 
But it's just an opinion. He has no influence over the stewards. He made an immediate call based on his own limited views. He is merely the race director. His decisions have no bearings on penalties.

If McLaren win it opens up a worrying precedent. Far more worrying than them being penalised in the first place.

The size of the penalty was harsh, but it's in keeping with the rule book. They could have given a 25 second penalty or apparently a 10 grid drop for the next event. On any other track than perhaps Monza following, they did Hamilton a favour in only losing him 2 positions, as he'd have lost a hell of a lot more had he been given a 10-place drop (like I say, perhaps not at Monza, but anywhere else).

AmTechFox said:
Guys

Why was Ferrari involved today in court?

What I mean is, did they complain to the FIA and thus bidding that the result stands?
Click to expand...
They'll need to provide data and accounts of the personnel involved just like McLaren.

Ferrari claim they hadn't complained by the time the incident was announced to be under investigation (which was within those final 2 laps IIRC).
 
this_is_gav said:
But it's just an opinion. He has no influence over the stewards. He made an immediate call based on his own limited views. He is merely the race director. His decisions have no bearings on penalties.

If McLaren win it opens up a worrying precedent. Far more worrying than them being penalised in the first place.

The size of the penalty was harsh, but it's in keeping with the rule book. They could have given a 25 second penalty or apparently a 10 grid drop for the next event. On any other track than perhaps Monza following, they did Hamilton a favour in only losing him 2 positions, as he'd have lost a hell of a lot more had he been given a 10-place drop (like I say, perhaps not at Monza, but anywhere else).


They'll need to provide data and accounts of the personnel involved just like McLaren.

Ferrari claim they hadn't complained by the time the incident was announced to be under investigation (which was within those final 2 laps IIRC).
Click to expand...

What are you going on about

Charlie Whiting has to know the rules inside and out to be the race director -he has only been doing it for donkey's years after all, therefore if he thinks that LH /McLaren gave the place back, thats what the final result should reflect (even if the stewards have made a ****-up)

Certainly not "limited views" - as he is the person all teams report to when an incident takes place

It makes sense that the person who has been doing it for so long is correct otherwise why is he in that position in the first place (after all its not like this kind of thing doesnt happen several times a season in one way or another.....several times at Monza before consideration of other races)

Its not in keeping with the rule book otherwise ALL ex drivers wouldnt be saying its a bs decision

Im not really sure how much viable data Ferrari can provide, as the car never finished the race and it was visibly ahead several times on the same straight
 
FrankJH said:
What are you going on about

Charlie Whiting has to know the rules inside and out to be the race director -he has only been doing it for donkey's years after all, therefore if he thinks that LH /McLaren gave the place back, thats what the final result should reflect (even if the stewards have made a ****-up)

Certainly not "limited views" - as he is the person all teams report to when an incident takes place
Click to expand...

CW is not a steward.
 
Emlyn_Dewar said:
CW is not a steward.
Click to expand...

I never said he was - but what is the point of the teams ALL reporting to him mid-race if he gives out incorrect info (which I cant believe he does, as he has done the same job for donkeys years)

If he is found at fault - then its the FIA's fault for getting the teams reporting to him when he doesnt have any steward decision making power

Makes no sense at all if thats the case
 
Ron Dennis has already said that CW can only provide an opinion and he (at the time) was of the same opinion regarding the Hamilton move.

CW cannot make the final decision.
 
News story from someone who was at the hearing today.

Caution, don't read with a drink in your hand - you may ruin a keyboard - it's that laughable.

Linky

And another article where the FIA decided to change their mind about a punishment last year - and as such McLaren can't use it in their argument.

Linky 2

And another one on the same point:

Linky 3

Complete and bloody shambles.....
 
I always understood it that the 25 second penalty was in lieu of the drive-through penalty that they couldnt give him because he was in the final stages (last 3 laps I think) of the race?

I think its weak ground that the McLaren lawyer attempted to say that it wasnt a drive-through penalty because it was a plain time penalty. Perhaps Ive read that wrong?

It more and more sounds like exactly the same debacle football has been having with the new and revised offside rules where no-one really knows if its correctly applied until after the event using video replays :rolleyes:

To be honest I dont care for the end result, just another piece of mud that sticks on whats supposedly to be at the top echelon of motorsports...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom