2008 Belgian GP - Race 13/18
- Thread starter rpstewart
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
I wouldn't bother mate, I gave up about 4 pages ago.
Well surely if you are posting you're opinion you'd rather people read what you read? Or is it a case that you know it's dross so you don't put any effort into it?
Don't get me wrong, I have my own views on this, but reading other people's opinions is rather entertaining and informative; not so when I can't understand what someone is saying though.
Being a relatively new F1 fan (5 years or so) I love reading about all the past drivers and the history of the sport, a lot of which has been brought up in this thread.
Soldato
Whether you agree or disagree with the penalty, throwing armchair specialist personal insults across a public forum is going a bit too far.
If you must, at least keep it out of the Monza thread when rp puts it up so we can discuss Monza related news and progress.
If you must, at least keep it out of the Monza thread when rp puts it up so we can discuss Monza related news and progress.
Demands for a full-time set of race stewards to be appointed to judge events in each and every grand prix are bound to intensify when F1 arrives in Monza this weekend still debating the rights and wrongs of the decision to strip Lewis Hamilton of victory in the Belgian GP.
The widespread call for the stewards to explain their decision and reveal the reasoning behind it is set to fall on deaf ears and mute mouths because the three stewards who ruled against Hamilton - Nicholas Deschaux, Surinder Thatthi and Yves Bacquelaine - will not be in attendance. The trio, none of whom were contactable yesterday, have already proved reluctant to communicate their thoughts, having announced their ruling in an ultra-brief press release that merely revealed that Hamilton was punished for his failure to stay on the racetrack throughout the grand prix.
The stewards are changed for every race, and given that Bacqueline was seemingly appointed to the role for no other reason than his association with the Spa circuit, for which he acts as a promoter, then there is every reason to suppose that one, if not two, of this weekend's stewards will be Italian. Given the accusations of pro-Ferrari bias that the demotion of Hamilton and promotion of Felipe Massa to race winner has inevitably caused, it is an unfortunate state of affairs to say the least.
Nor does the ever-changing identity of the stewards foster a culture of consistency. With the 'rules are rules' judgement of Deschaux, Thatthi and Yves Bacquelaine in sharp contrast to the common-sense approach of Graham Stoker, Enzo Spano and Manuel Vidal in Valencia when they decided against imposing a victory-denying penalty against Massa, there is every reason to suppose that, in a repeat scenario of Sunday's events in Spa, the stewards at Monza this weekend would adjudge it significantly differently.
For the timebeing, however, it is the lack of consistency displayed by Deschaux, Thatthi and Bacquelaine that remains the biggest bone of contention. Having applied a penalty against Hamilton under the terms of Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code which simply states that 'The racetrack alone shall be used by drivers during the race' it is inevitable that questions are being raised over why they failed to penalise any of the many other drivers who left the circuit during the race.
Having stated in their press release that Hamilton 'cut a chicane and gained an advantage', The Independent isn't alone in observing 'But Raikkonen not only gained an advantage by running on to the high-friction run-off area on the exit to La Source on the opening lap, but did likewise at Pouhon on the 43rd, before he spun. At no stage did the stewards propose a penalty for those actions.'
The widespread call for the stewards to explain their decision and reveal the reasoning behind it is set to fall on deaf ears and mute mouths because the three stewards who ruled against Hamilton - Nicholas Deschaux, Surinder Thatthi and Yves Bacquelaine - will not be in attendance. The trio, none of whom were contactable yesterday, have already proved reluctant to communicate their thoughts, having announced their ruling in an ultra-brief press release that merely revealed that Hamilton was punished for his failure to stay on the racetrack throughout the grand prix.
The stewards are changed for every race, and given that Bacqueline was seemingly appointed to the role for no other reason than his association with the Spa circuit, for which he acts as a promoter, then there is every reason to suppose that one, if not two, of this weekend's stewards will be Italian. Given the accusations of pro-Ferrari bias that the demotion of Hamilton and promotion of Felipe Massa to race winner has inevitably caused, it is an unfortunate state of affairs to say the least.
Nor does the ever-changing identity of the stewards foster a culture of consistency. With the 'rules are rules' judgement of Deschaux, Thatthi and Yves Bacquelaine in sharp contrast to the common-sense approach of Graham Stoker, Enzo Spano and Manuel Vidal in Valencia when they decided against imposing a victory-denying penalty against Massa, there is every reason to suppose that, in a repeat scenario of Sunday's events in Spa, the stewards at Monza this weekend would adjudge it significantly differently.
For the timebeing, however, it is the lack of consistency displayed by Deschaux, Thatthi and Bacquelaine that remains the biggest bone of contention. Having applied a penalty against Hamilton under the terms of Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code which simply states that 'The racetrack alone shall be used by drivers during the race' it is inevitable that questions are being raised over why they failed to penalise any of the many other drivers who left the circuit during the race.
Having stated in their press release that Hamilton 'cut a chicane and gained an advantage', The Independent isn't alone in observing 'But Raikkonen not only gained an advantage by running on to the high-friction run-off area on the exit to La Source on the opening lap, but did likewise at Pouhon on the 43rd, before he spun. At no stage did the stewards propose a penalty for those actions.'
i thought they all ready had full time stewards
about kimi running wide at pouhon so did lewis on the same lap
here is very good video - http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ovii_wwwformulamagcom-hamiltonkimi_sport
the common sense dictates that using a run off to keep racing is fine as long as you dont overtake while doing it the whole gain an advantage is quite clearly going by past events is about overtaking
about kimi running wide at pouhon so did lewis on the same lap
here is very good video - http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ovii_wwwformulamagcom-hamiltonkimi_sport
the common sense dictates that using a run off to keep racing is fine as long as you dont overtake while doing it the whole gain an advantage is quite clearly going by past events is about overtaking
Soldato
Kimi seems to get a huge boost from running wide on the 43rd lap and approaches LH quite quickly, just before they nearly tangle with the spun car of Rosberg.
Soldato
im sorry but ive seen this race a few times too, and the damage to the side pod doesnt damage the tyres at all, the tyres are a mess because as thestig said, he was running over marbles to pick up extra weight, which *ALL* f1 drivers do.
But Hamilton got back on the track straight after going off whereas Kimi made no attempt and stayed out there and just floored it around the outside making the corner less of a corner.
Just look at the amount of ground he made up by not using the proper race track even though he didn't overtake it put him right up behind Lewis for the next corner.
Since Kimi crashed it's a mute point now anyway.
Last edited:
Well we will have to agree to disagree I remember the quotes and F1 press reporting it and I remember the tire damage being shown.
Villeneuve himself points to tyre problems....
"Villeneuve still had to get to the flag to get the points necessary to win the title and with the car handling oddly he could not lap as fast as he had been before the crash.
"When I pushed for a few laps my tires started to overheat and so I had to slow down. Everyone behind me was getting closer and then they were in my mirrors and it was a question of whether to risk going off or let them through. I did not fight then. It was better to let them through and win the World Championship. It is a good exchange."
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr614.html
Well that's all I will say on the subject, it's ancient history and hardly that relevant.
Exactly my point - why not penalise those actions also (or as it was early enough, we should have seen "investigation in progress in relation to cars....")
I dont think its moot as its the crux of the discussion
I certainly remember a few cars going just over the side of the track but coming back on immediately - but one of the ferrari's came onto the run off right near the bottom of the corner, and exited (ie came onto the track) at the extreme top of the "run off"
I have always thought that should be grass or something else to actually stop cars using it to gain places through a "mistake" of running wide
Soldato
I wouldnt like to suggest a conspiracy but seeing how much they are loved on t'internet in general, consider this
F1 powers that be would really like Felipe Massa to be in contention in order to win the Championship at the last race at his home GP?
could that have had some influence on the stewards decision in order to keep massa in closer contention?
F1 powers that be would really like Felipe Massa to be in contention in order to win the Championship at the last race at his home GP?
could that have had some influence on the stewards decision in order to keep massa in closer contention?
Soldato
I take his points about the wall or gravel trap but to suggest that he wouldn't pass Kimi is debatable. In Trulli's opinion Lewis wouldn't have had the speed to pass Kimi but the facts are that Lewis didn't have the speed but passed by out braking. The comment about drafting is a bit of a red herring, he's talking about Monza but describes a similar situation to Spa. Is he suggesting that Lewis was slipstreaming Kimi?
Last edited:
I don't think anyone's contesting Hamilton got an advantage by cutting the corner, after all that's why he gave the place back. Plus I'm not sure Alonso or Massa (the other drivers who I believe have voiced an opinion on the subject) are the most impartial judges of Hamilton's driving.
Soldato
Yeap, Jarno echo's my points about had it been in another circuit or a gravel trap then he wouldn't have tried it.
Will be interesting in Monza to see what penalties are imposed for cutting chicanes.
Soldato
possibly had it been another circuit he would have been less aggressive into the initial corner as to get pushed wide would be game over,
however he slowed to give the place back and then legitimately passed him, who knows how much speed he had over Kimi, he nailed him for pace once the rain started so no reason not to suggest he was legitimately that much faster.
however he slowed to give the place back and then legitimately passed him, who knows how much speed he had over Kimi, he nailed him for pace once the rain started so no reason not to suggest he was legitimately that much faster.
The same alonso who tried to make time up under yellows and had a huge accident? I'd say Alonso has no room to talk really.
- Status