2008 Belgian GP - Race 13/18

JUMPURS · 9 Sep 2008 at 16:46

CS||nuTs said:
Finally you are beginning to grasp it. You can appeal to the FA and failing that FIFA.

NOT be told by the FIA that you are not even allowed to lodge an appeal after being told during the race that you have done everything that the rules state.

Do you think you should be able to appeal drive through penalties?? How would you possibly manage to hear the appeals and turn them over within 3 laps of a race??

FIFA make the rules, if one of their rules says this punishment can not be appealed (such as a penalty kick) then you need to suck it up.

IIRC you can't go to FIFA to appeal against a penalty kick given or not.

Sparky · 9 Sep 2008 at 16:50

I agree with you to an extent, but to be told that the FIA have made a decision and you are not even allowed to appeal it is wrong.Ok they give you a 25 second penalty after the race and you have great evidence that they are wrong but you are not even allowed to appeal? You think that is a good way to run a sport?

MTA99 · 9 Sep 2008 at 16:51

JUMPURS said:
And i never said he claimed it was illegal. But PDLR should have been saying it was legal. No debate or that, yes it was legal. It is his team mate after all.

That is if we are following the 'don't bite the hand that feeds' rule.

Do I have to spell it out for you?

PDLR said "Lewis is on the limit of legality" which is the same as saying "it was legal". Its not exactly the same as say "it was legal" because he's expressed an opinion on how legal it was. If he'd said "Lewis is well within the limits of legality" would you feel any differently?

As for the illegal comment, I know what you didn't say, its the implication of your statement about the legality that lead me to believe you thought PDLR was saying it was illegal. If you won't accept that "Lewis is on the limit of legality" means PDLR thinks LH was legal then you must think he means the move was illegal - well that's what I was trying to get across before you failed to see the obvious meaning of the statement.

Just to clarify one last time - "Lewis is on the limit of legality" means Pedro De La Rosa thinks Lewis Hamilton's move was legal.

Got it?

JUMPURS · 9 Sep 2008 at 16:52

CS||nuTs said:
I agree with you to an extent, but to be told that the FIA have made a decision and you are not even allowed to appeal it is wrong.Ok they give you a 25 second penalty after the race and you have great evidence that they are wrong but you are not even allowed to appeal? You think that is a good way to run a sport?

They gave him a drive through penalty. As which you can not appeal a drive through penalty.

because the race was finished when it was issued, they added 25 seconds onto his race time (the length of time to have a drive through).

Since the rules states (rightly imo) you can't appeal a drive through, and Hamilton was issued a drive through penalty, should the FIA not show some consistency and say, 'you can't appeal them'?

How much chaos would it cause if you could appeal a drive through?

MTA99 · 9 Sep 2008 at 16:55

JUMPURS said:
That;'s why when Schumacher was winning everything in sight, the FIA done everything they could to change the rules to stop Ferrari running away with things. But people tend to forget about that.

That old crock! The rules changed for everyone, not just Ferrari - there are other teams out there you know!!

JUMPURS · 9 Sep 2008 at 16:56

MTA99 said:
That old crock! The rules changed for everyone, not just Ferrari - there are other teams out there you know!!

The rules changed for everyone, but they where there to stop Ferrari's dominance.

Not a bad thing at the time imo. But it seems that the FIA managed to swing from changing rules to help other teams and drivers fight Ferrari, to being pro Ferrari?? bit of a swing no?

Sparky · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:04

Actually most of the rules were implemented to stop teams lower down the pits pulling out of F1 due to crazy high budgets needed.

JUMPURS · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:05

CS||nuTs said:
Actually most of the rules were implemented to stop teams lower down the pits pulling out of F1 due to crazy high budgets needed.

Changing the number of points per place affected teams lower in the pits' budgets??

MTA99 · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:05

JUMPURS said:
The rules changed for everyone, but they where there to stop Ferrari's dominance.

Not a bad thing at the time imo. But it seems that the FIA managed to swing from changing rules to help other teams and drivers fight Ferrari, to being pro Ferrari?? bit of a swing no?

This is going way off topic but how can rule changes that effect the whole grid be aimed at stopping Ferrari? If you're Mclaren or Williams and you've spend months trying to perfect a particular areo piece or months coding a traction control system only to find next year it'll have to be 10mm further from the ground or not there at all, that impedes you just as much as Ferrari.

If they really wanted to stop the dominance they should have banned Brawn and Byrne.

Sparky · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:06

Freezing engine development, banning testing periods etc did.

TheStig1 · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:10

MTA99 said:
This is going way off topic but how can rule changes that effect the whole grid be aimed at stopping Ferrari? If you're Mclaren or Williams and you've spend months trying to perfect a particular areo piece or months coding a traction control system only to find next year it'll have to be 10mm further from the ground or not there at all, that impedes you just as much as Ferrari.

If they really wanted to stop the dominance they should have banned Brawn and Byrne.

the points system was changed in a direct result of michael winning the title so early
the tyre change was introduced purely to negate the bridgestone advantage ferrari had at the time as well as the drastic qualifying changes designed to stop schumacher being on pole and to mix up the grid it only worked on year but there was no doubt the fia tried to level the playing field

MTA99 · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:10

JUMPURS said:
Changing the number of points per place affected teams lower in the pits' budgets??

Points used to be awarded for first to sixth, now its the first to eighth.

Many of the "early" changes were to stop the ever increasing speeds (for safety reasons) and to outlaw some of the systems that were in "grey" areas of the regulations, later as the teams complained more vocally about costs, things like quali engines and chassis were banned.

The basic point i'm trying to get across is that if you take off your Ferrari branded blinkers you'll notice that the whole world doesn't revolve around the dancing donkeys

TheStig1 · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:11

MTA99 said:
The basic point i'm trying to get across is that if you take off your Ferrari branded blinkers you'll notice that the whole world doesn't revolve around the dancing donkeys

you talk about them enough to suggest it does

JUMPURS · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:14

MTA99 said:
Points used to be awarded for first to sixth, now its the first to eighth.

Many of the "early" changes were to stop the ever increasing speeds (for safety reasons) and to outlaw some of the systems that were in "grey" areas of the regulations, later as the teams complained more vocally about costs, things like quali engines and chassis were banned.

The basic point i'm trying to get across is that if you take off your Ferrari branded blinkers you'll notice that the whole world doesn't revolve around the dancing donkeys

It was the 8pts for 2nd place which was the one to try to Schumacher.

And as i have said many times, i am not particularly a Ferrari fan (I was happy when Alonso won the DC twice, and would love to see him in a competitive car again. And actually, i did also say, changing the rules to try stop Ferrari's domincance, wasn't neccesarily a bad thing.

I just don't like McLaren

Sparky · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:16

Why would you not like McLaren? Something happen with that particular team that put you off?

MTA99 · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:16

TheStig1 said:
the points system was changed in a direct result of michael winning the title so early

Fair point but it wouldn't have mattered anyway

TheStig1 said:
the tyre change was introduced purely to negate the bridgestone advantage ferrari had at the time as well as the drastic qualifying changes designed to stop schumacher being on pole and to mix up the grid it only worked on year but there was no doubt the fia tried to level the playing field

Which tyre change?

The quali changes were there to increase the TV revenue - you've got to remember Bernie is best mates with Max. In the old system you'd have 40mins of nothing (with 2-3 ad breaks) then 20mins of action with people on in laps, out laps, hot laps, low fuel, quali engines, skinny brakes, the works. They changed it so you had 3 sessions each with time between for a TV ad break.

JUMPURS · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:18

CS||nuTs said:
Why would you not like McLaren? Something happen with that particular team that put you off?

I hate their smugness considering they are **** and have been for years tbh. I think Hamilton is perfectly suited to that team for the very same reason.
They seem to think they are wonderful (again have done for years, even when Renault and Ferrari where ruling the roost) and that everyone is out to get them, but in actual fact, they are not.

TheStig1 · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:18

the one tyre per race rule in 2005

El_Watcher · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:20

JUMPURS said:
They gave him a drive through penalty. As which you can not appeal a drive through penalty.

because the race was finished when it was issued, they added 25 seconds onto his race time (the length of time to have a drive through).

Since the rules states (rightly imo) you can't appeal a drive through, and Hamilton was issued a drive through penalty, should the FIA not show some consistency and say, 'you can't appeal them'?

How much chaos would it cause if you could appeal a drive through?

Does this mean that at Monza, for every time anyone misses the chicane, they get a 25 second penalty at the end of the race. It's gonna make the highlights program a hoot, with Steve Ryder saying "Massa finished first, followed by Hamilton and Alonso, but on countback of all the time penalties, Button wins, Alonso is second and Massa finishes 18th." That'll be interesting.

AFAI can remember, in the past most times people have missed a chicane once, they have been let off, it is only if you keep doing it that they penalise. Why not use the football system, and give the driver a yellow card for a specific offense and then for a second same offense penalise. Use the football rules and only penalise immediately if the offense is dangerous.

JUMPURS · 9 Sep 2008 at 17:24

El_Watcher said:
Does this mean that at Monza, for every time anyone misses the chicane, they get a 25 second penalty at the end of the race. It's gonna make the highlights program a hoot, with Steve Ryder saying "Massa finished first, followed by Hamilton and Alonso, but on countback of all the time penalties, Button wins, Alonso is second and Massa finishes 18th." That'll be interesting.

AFAI can remember, in the past most times people have missed a chicane once, they have been let off, it is only if you keep doing it that they penalise. Why not use the football system, and give the driver a yellow card for a specific offense and then for a second same offense penalise. Use the football rules and only penalise immediately if the offense is dangerous.

No, but at Monza i anyone cuts the chicane without need and gains an advantage, they will get a drive through penalty. And if not i wouldn't be happy either tbh.

Why should we give people a free pass to cut corners? The rule is don't do it, if you get an advantage, you get a drive through (which has always been the case iirc) and i hope it continues through the rest of the season for all teams tbh.