2008 Belgian GP - Race 13/18

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your argument doesn't add up. If the tyre regs were there to stop the Ferrari dominance (and it did just that in 2005) why change it for 2006? :confused: If however the safety implications of not being able to change a damaged or badly worn tyre outweighed the safety of a reduced grip tyre then its sensible to change the regs back.

You could, Kimi actually could have changed his tire before he destroyed his car, but choose not to. And IMO that cost him the championship. He could have got possibly 6 or 8 points, but instead got none because either he or McLaren decided to go for 10.
 
With the rough ride they have had for a while you can't blame them for wanting to double check.

I hate Mclaren and have no liking of Hamilturd but it's one of the worst mistakes i've seen in F1 for over 10 years. Just as 'gay' as when they bought in the stupid blocking rule in quallies if someone was within 100 yards.

They have set a horrible precedent.

a precedent that has been in place for years? i remember dc getting a stop/go for cutting the chicane at hockenheim in 98/99 its a well established rule in f1 and like massa said they all know it and even discuss it
 
like your argument they were changed for safety but changed back again 1 year later? you were allowed to change a worn or damaged tyre
the change was to stop ferrari and it worked

So Ferrari went from one of the most successful seasons ever in 2004, to losing the world championship 2005 (coming 3rd in DC and CC) and the FiA decided that one year was enough so changed it back? Could you explain why they would do this? There is far more evidence that the changes were for safety and cost reasons than trying to nobble Ferrari. Its just so egocentric!!

The Kimi incident could have been avoided but there is more pressure to keep on racing if your opponents aren't pitting for tyres.
 
So Ferrari went from one of the most successful seasons ever in 2004, to losing the world championship 2005 (coming 3rd in DC and CC) and the FiA decided that one year was enough so changed it back? Could you explain why they would do this? There is far more evidence that the changes were for safety and cost reasons than trying to nobble Ferrari. Its just so egocentric!!

The Kimi incident could have been avoided but there is more pressure to keep on racing if your opponents aren't pitting for tyres.

so why did they change it back?
yes one year was enough then they realised it was unfair to nobble a team to give others a chance
 
Buttttt if McLaren where thinking about letting Kimi through again, they must have thought Lewis' move would be seen as a bit suspicious?

You are just grasping for straws now - its obvious after so many dubious calls against them McLaren arent going to throw away a race win for the sake of double checking, as it was obvious Kimi's tyres where shot (temp wise)

McLaren where only trying to avoid this actual circumstance, and due to incompetance they are in it anyway

CW may not be an official steward, but as he has been Race Director for a lot longer than these stewards have been in place, he knows the rules better than anyone

Its a complete shambles - and its only complete novices or biased fans/team officials who think otherwise

NO drive through penalty has ever been applied if the position was given back immediately - which it clearly was, similar incidents happen frequently and the car that has been disadvantaged immediately takes over and they start racing again (and rarely is there even an investigation unless for some reason the position isnt clearly given back - whcih from numerous videos is clearly NOT the case here)

The Kenyan steward spoke out saying that he was just doing his job blah blah. It's on Autosport.

To be honest he sounds like he isn't a bad fellow and I doubt he would turn around and say "I didn't say it was OK" if McLaren wanted a witness.

Depends what side his bread has been buttered doesnt it - Im not sure though that teams can talk directly to stewards, if CW KNEW it to be an ok move, with his experience in the job, would he check (Im not blaming him for a second, as his experience is more likely correct) - I very much doubt he would check, would you in his position - without 20/20 hindsight?

In the same article:

He added: "We had a choice to mete out a time penalty or 10 grid places in the next grand prix race. We opted for the former and handed a time penalty of 25 seconds.

The other thing I think personally is that surely the stewards penalised McLaren too heavily either way - at the end of the day no one else got affected (as Kimi was out anyway), but the stewards STILL insist on comprehensively altering the Championship , when Ferrari as a team where not affected and neither where Massa or Heidfeld , and yet they all benefit financially and in the Champ GAURENTEED when a grid slot (even around a twisty circuit like Monza) wouldnt affect anyone apart from Hamilton
 
Last edited:
Who do you support Danny??

No one, I've only followed two drivers in my life. Mansell then Villeneuve purely for style and the bravery to speak out. The abiltiy to find passing places no one else would.

I've not been that fond of F1 since the narrow track and grooved tyres of 98 and the onset of traction control both illegally so you dont know whose using what or legally. I don't like how none of the drivers have much of an opinion on anything.

I used to like williams but only because they had a team strength that allowed them to pit one driver against each other and as long as the constructors was won they fought each other. Those days are long gone.

I'd quite like to see Button in a decent car, I wrongly thought Kimi was the real deal.

F1's become a bit of a fighting point in my house because I can't stand hamilton and the Mrs loves him.
 
We could have a prize for the funniest caption!

I will start the ball rolling.

"ok you got the facts you need, heres £50,000, lose them"
 
so why did they change it back?
yes one year was enough then they realised it was unfair to nobble a team to give others a chance

Hang on a minute weren't you saying earlier that there were years of rule changes that were designed to limit Ferrari's success? Now its a single year in which the tyre regulations were dramatically changed? At least i'm consistent with my argument.

If you can find me some actual evidence (not your opinion) that the rule changes were to stop Ferrari and MS winning then I'll carry on having this discussion, otherwise we're just going round in circles. Max explained every rule change in terms of safety and cost. For the record I don't agree with his chosen route (grooved tyres, narrow track, increased reliance on aero) but it had the desired outcome, at the beginning of each season the cars were slower (although by the end of the season it was a different story ;)).
 
Hang on a minute weren't you saying earlier that there were years of rule changes that were designed to limit Ferrari's success? Now its a single year in which the tyre regulations were dramatically changed? At least i'm consistent with my argument.

If you can find me some actual evidence (not your opinion) that the rule changes were to stop Ferrari and MS winning then I'll carry on having this discussion,

correct
the change of points and qualifying changes never worked the tyre rule did whats your problem? max mosley is on record stating the points change was a direct result of schumacher winning the title so quickly

how about you give me some evidence as well other than your opinion or is that a one way street are you really that arrogant? but i think no matter what the evidence you would deny it and blindly carry on regardless i guess you really are quite arrogant if you dont want to carry on debating the matter then dont reply its really that simple
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom