2008 Belgian GP - Race 13/18

TheStig1 · 11 Sep 2008 at 13:32

gord said:
You only have to watch the youtube videos to see Hamilton try and get back in behind the Ferrari when he realises Kimi is going to drive him off the track, but its not going to happen. Why should he back out of the move anyway? He is there racing legitimately.

same reason heikki should have backed out of his move with webber maybe? if you cant make the move cleanly and on the track then you should back out thats racing

Dutch Guy · 11 Sep 2008 at 13:44

TheStig1 said:
same reason heikki should have backed out of his move with webber maybe? if you cant make the move cleanly and on the track then you should back out thats racing

Sometimes you have to be committed, if you are already braking as hard as you can backing out is not an option.

LH could not back out anymore, he could drive over the slippery stuff close to the track possibly taking them both out or cut the corner, give back the place and continue.

Dup · 11 Sep 2008 at 13:44

TheStig1 said:
same reason heikki should have backed out of his move with webber maybe? if you cant make the move cleanly and on the track then you should back out thats racing

How can you tell if you're going to make it, how can you tell if you will lock your brakes, how can you tell if they will see you? You can't, and if there is a tangle then it will just be a racing incident. Would Louis still be penalised if he didn't cut the chicaine and braked into the back of Kimi?

Kimi braked very early into the entrance of the chicaine, Louis braked later hence going to the outside. Louis thought he had an advantage but Kimi had locked up pulling back the advantage Louis may have had. It was a racing incedent and Louis saw it best to avoid collision, whether it would have happened or not. There was a chance braking would limit his ability to turn into the next apex, hitting KR or he could have cut the kurb a bit and bottomed out, hitting KR. Who knows what would happen. You have a limited scope low down in those cockpits.

At the end of the day, whats done is done I suppose. But it's not a case of LH was all out wrong for cutting the chicaine and handing the place back.

Sparky · 11 Sep 2008 at 13:55

I really can't see an end to this discussion, well at least until we have another incident at Monza to take everyone's mind's off of it.

GravyMonster · 11 Sep 2008 at 14:06

It does seem to be going round in circles a bit, mostly because there's so many unanswered questions.

Dutch Guy · 11 Sep 2008 at 14:18

CS||nuTs said:
I really can't see an end to this discussion, well at least until we have another incident at Monza to take everyone's mind's off of it.

Hopefully it will die down as soon as the appeal is thrown out by the FIA as you cannot appeal a drive-thru ........ or that will cause even more discussion

El_Watcher · 11 Sep 2008 at 14:34

Dutch Guy said:
Hopefully it will die down as soon as the appeal is thrown out by the FIA as you cannot appeal a drive-thru ........ or that will cause even more discussion

I see why you can't appeal a drive-through, because there is no way to calculate time lost to readjust the positions.
On the other side, they shouldn't be able to apply a time penalty after the race because the team/driver has no way to react to win back the lost time.

If you are going to penalise after the race, make it a grid penalty for the next race because at least then the team can adjust their strategy to compensate.

FrankJH · 11 Sep 2008 at 14:48

Dutch Guy said:
Hopefully it will die down as soon as the appeal is thrown out by the FIA as you cannot appeal a drive-thru ........ or that will cause even more discussion

They arent appealing the drive through - they are appealing that the FIA said everything was ok TWICE

I would suggest thats subtelly different

JUMPURS · 11 Sep 2008 at 14:58

El_Watcher said:
I see why you can't appeal a drive-through, because there is no way to calculate time lost to readjust the positions.
On the other side, they shouldn't be able to apply a time penalty after the race because the team/driver has no way to react to win back the lost time.

If you are going to penalise after the race, make it a grid penalty for the next race because at least then the team can adjust their strategy to compensate.

So if that was the last lap, and someone just deliberatly cut the chiacane, they shouldn't be issued the same penalty as someone who done it on the first lap??

I thought we where actually wanting consistancy with decisions.

JUMPURS · 11 Sep 2008 at 14:59

FrankJH said:
They arent appealing the drive through - they are appealing that the FIA said everything was ok TWICE

I would suggest thats subtelly different

No, they are appealing the drive through penalty, on the grounds that the FIA said it was ok.

Skeeter · 11 Sep 2008 at 15:05

Dutch Guy said:
Hopefully it will die down as soon as the appeal is thrown out by the FIA as you cannot appeal a drive-thru ........ or that will cause even more discussion

Well, there is the fact the Stewards have said they could give either a 25 second time penalty (in place of a drive through) that cannot be appealed, or a 10 grid place penalty that can be.

They chose the 25 seconds...

JUMPURS · 11 Sep 2008 at 15:08

Skeeter said:
Well, there is the fact the Stewards have said they could give either a 25 second time penalty (in place of a drive through) that cannot be appealed, or a 10 grid place penalty that can be.

They chose the 25 seconds...

God forbid they show some consistancy with the punishments they hand out. :mad:

Anders0n · 11 Sep 2008 at 15:08

TheStig1 said:
and your point is? do you have one?

To put it simply, you are an ignorant moron.

JUMPURS · 11 Sep 2008 at 15:09

Anders0n said:
To put it simply, you are an ignorant moron.

He is a moron in consoles, but in here, i quite like him

TheStig1 · 11 Sep 2008 at 15:13

Anders0n said:
To put it simply, you are an ignorant moron.

yes very good

i am not the one who is intolerant of other opinions i am not the one posting personal abuse

i suggest you take a look in the mirror good sir

TheStig1 · 11 Sep 2008 at 15:21

Alonso said he fully supported the FIA stewards' decision to hit Hamilton with a 25-second penalty, which handed victory to Felipe Massa, because he felt there was no doubt he gained an advantage.

"Yes, I totally agree," he said of the stewards' decision. "Lewis had an advantage by doing that. If he did the chicane properly, he would never have crossed the line one metre behind Kimi. You lose five or ten metres and then you cannot overtake in Turn 1.

"We always said we would give back the position, but at the same time as giving back the position you cannot take advantage of what you did one corner before. If you give back the position, take the slipstream and overtake the guy into the next corner you still have an advantage because of what you did.

"These escape roads are just for safety. You need to imagine that before there would have been a wall, and if there is a wall you cannot use that part of the track."

The Spaniard added that his former teammate should have hung back and taken the chance to overtake Raikkonen later in the race.

"There were two or three laps to the end, many more corners to overtake at with the condition of the circuit. It was clear for me that it was not the right moment to overtake. The stewards take their decisions and they have been very strict this year. They are very hard but consistent."

Alonso added that he was not surprised McLaren opted to protest the decision.

"No," he said when asked by autosport.com whether he was surprised about the their appeal. "They did this last year and they always used to do this kind of thing."

i think alonso loves lewis really lol

El_Watcher · 11 Sep 2008 at 15:38

JUMPURS said:
So if that was the last lap, and someone just deliberatly cut the chiacane, they shouldn't be issued the same penalty as someone who done it on the first lap??

I thought we where actually wanting consistancy with decisions.

But a 25 second penalty is not the same as a drive-through is it so it is not consistent anyway?
Yes a drive through takes aproximately 25 seconds, but as I have said a team/driver can adjust his driving style/pit strategy to compensate for a drive-through, he can't with a post race time penalty.
Therefore the time penalty is actaully a harsher penalty.

JUMPURS · 11 Sep 2008 at 15:40

El_Watcher said:
But a 25 second penalty is not the same as a drive-through is it so it is not consistent anyway?
Yes a drive through takes aproximately 25 seconds, but as I have said a team/driver can adjust his driving style to compensate for a drive-through, he can't with a post race time penalty.
Therefore the time penalty is actaully a harsher penalty.

He was issued a drive through and since the race was over, the drive through was equated to being 25 seconds. And it wasn't only Hamilton that got that punishment. Timo Glock got the same, a drive through once the race was over, so 25 seconds added to his time.

But again, should this then be carte blanche for people to cut chicanes in the last lap or two knowing they wont get a drive through?

TheStig1 · 11 Sep 2008 at 15:42

a penalty in the last 5 laps is given as a 25 second time penalty thats the rules so they had to do that

Skeeter · 11 Sep 2008 at 15:42

El_Watcher said:
But a 25 second penalty is not the same as a drive-through is it so it is not consistent anyway?
Yes a drive through takes aproximately 25 seconds, but as I have said a team/driver can adjust his driving style/pit strategy to compensate for a drive-through, he can't with a post race time penalty.
Therefore the time penalty is actaully a harsher penalty.

They cannot issue a drive through penalty within the final 5 laps of a race. They must issue a time penalty instead. So the 25 seconds is a drive through, but applied in retrospect.

(correct me if im wrong, but isnt this to stop people doing what Schumacher did and serving a drive through on the final lap, crossing the finish line in the pits and winning?)