2008 Belgian GP - Race 13/18

JRS · 12 Sep 2008 at 13:32

FrankJH said:
(you are trying to say there is little difference between them - and yet the drivers have "company cars" as gifts - well certainly thats how Schu got a garage full, he didnt need to pay for them)

Schumacher owned a Bugatti EB110 SuperSport from 1994 to 2003. Now, I'm pretty sure that at the time he got it he wasn't a Bugatti employee - he was driving for Benetton. He also paid for it IIRC (all $350k) rather than being given it.

What was your point again?

FrankJH said:
You are clutching at straws trying to even suggest they are different companies - its no difference to Sony Japan, Sony Europe and USA - they are all allowed to use the same branding and one way or the other get funds from parent company

I'm clutching at straws?

So, because there is next to sod all evidence to suggest that this guy a) influences race stewards, b) is currently on the payroll of The Almighty Evil That Is Ferrari™ and c) has any connection to the Ferrari race team beyond the contract he used to have with Ferrari S.p.A....I'm the one clutching at straws for not buying into the face that there is one gigantic pro-Ferrari conspiracy afoot?

You know, some of you on here really are the reason why I'm not more pro-Hamilton. I like the guy, I really do. But his fan club....God, it just beggars belief sometimes.

TheStig1 · 12 Sep 2008 at 13:35

McLaren's attempt to reinstate Lewis Hamilton as Belgian Grand Prix winner will be heard by Formula One's court of appeal in Paris on September 22.

MTA99 · 12 Sep 2008 at 13:37

JRS said:
You know, some of you on here really are the reason why I'm not more pro-Hamilton. I like the guy, I really do. But his fan club....God, it just beggars belief sometimes.

Pro-Hamilton != Anti-Ferrari

The problem for you is that both camps are fighting the same fight so its getting on your nerves twice as fast

JRS · 12 Sep 2008 at 13:50

MTA99 said:
Pro-Hamilton != Anti-Ferrari

That I'm well aware of, being a Ferrari fan who likes Hamilton

MTA99 said:
The problem for you is that both camps are fighting the same fight so its getting on your nerves twice as fast

Actually, it's on an exponential scale. Two camps going at it produces annoyance waaaay more than twice as fast, especially when they come out with stuff that doesn't have a single shred of evidence to back it up or even in a few cases make sense!

MTA99 · 12 Sep 2008 at 14:07

JRS said:
Actually, it's on an exponential scale. Two camps going at it produces annoyance waaaay more than twice as fast, especially when they come out with stuff that doesn't have a single shred of evidence to back it up or even in a few cases make sense!

Have you got evidence of this exponential (or logarithmic

) increase?!? :confused:

JRS · 12 Sep 2008 at 14:09

MTA99 said:
Have you got evidence of this exponential increase?!?

Yeah.....this damned thread!

El_Watcher · 12 Sep 2008 at 14:17

JRS said:
Two things. Firstly, I doubt they're constanty shuttling employees from road cars to race cars and back. Secondly, just because a company does some work for the main company doesn't mean that they'll be hired to do work for the Scuderia which seems to be the contention of FrankJH among others.

IIRC Jean Todt stepped down as team executive director, to take over as CEO of the company, only to then move back as some advisor for the team again.

TheStig1 · 12 Sep 2008 at 14:28

todt was a ferrari employee
this company were pr for ferrari its hardly the same
ferrari was a client along with many others even the city of london and they love lewis right lol

El_Watcher · 12 Sep 2008 at 15:20

TheStig1 said:
todt was a ferrari employee
this company were pr for ferrari its hardly the same
ferrari was a client along with many others even the city of london and they love lewis right lol

I know but JRS was saying that just because the PR company worked for Ferrari (road cars), doesn't mean they had any contact with Ferrari (racing), but Jean Todt moving divisions shows that there would have been a link between this bloke and the racing division.

I think there are rules in business that stop this sort of conflict of interest, even if the link is minimal.

JRS · 12 Sep 2008 at 16:51

El_Watcher said:
I know but JRS was saying that just because the PR company worked for Ferrari (road cars), doesn't mean they had any contact with Ferrari (racing), but Jean Todt moving divisions shows that there would have been a link between this bloke and the racing division.

Would, or could? Subtle difference.

Yes, it's possible that this guy has had a decent amount of contact with the racing team through his work with Ferrari S.p.A. But did he? Has it been proven? Where is this proof?

And following on from that, is there proof that he's influenced the stewards against McLaren and Hamilton? Where is this proof?

Until there is any evidence, I'm afraid it's all just a bunch of whiny Hamilton fans upset that the governing body appears to them to be screwing their boy over. They might well be right. But until proven.....

Demon · 12 Sep 2008 at 17:11

I've just read through most of the thread (Been on hols for 2 weeks and missed most of the 'action').

Personally, even though I agree with points on both sides, I found the FIA decision on Ferrari's questionable pit lane system terrible, just a measly fine for 2 major infractions of safety and no ruling to make Ferrari improve a deeply flawed system, then the swing the other way to penalise LH for what is effectively a 'racing incident' that was dealt with fairly on track by the drivers with nobody put in danger, is just as terrible.

It's no use squabbling over rules etc, as the rules aren't in dispute, it's the provably inconsistant application of them that I agree is the worse sham in all this.

JUMPURS · 12 Sep 2008 at 17:15

JRS said:
And following on from that, is there proof that he's influenced the stewards against McLaren and Hamilton? Where is this proof?

He is allegedly the only person to have interviewed Hamilton about the incident. And also Hamilton would no speak a yes or no if it was only him, only nod.

what the **** is that all about? One of the most bizzar things i have ever read in an F1 story lol

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4134454,00.html

JUMPURS · 12 Sep 2008 at 17:15

Demon said:
I've just read through most of the thread (Been on hols for 2 weeks and missed most of the 'action').

Personally, even though I agree with points on both sides, I found the FIA decision on Ferrari's questionable pit lane system terrible, just a measly fine for 2 major infractions of safety and no ruling to make Ferrari improve a deeply flawed system, then the swing the other way to penalise LH for what is effectively a 'racing incident' that was dealt with fairly on track by the drivers with nobody put in danger, is just as terrible.

It's no use squabbling over rules etc, as the rules aren't in dispute, it's the provably inconsistant application of them that I agree is the worse sham in all this.

Ferrari's system isn't flawed. Kimi just done a Lewis and didn't see the lights correctly in a pit lane

Skeeter · 12 Sep 2008 at 17:22

I resent the fact that as someone who feels the stewards decision is wrong brands me a 'whinning Hamilton fan'.

Am I not allowed to feel the sport is being destroyed by inconsistent and unjust rullings handed out by a governing body who fail to present evidence for their decisions and seem to be isolated from the fans that they seem to keep trying to say they are out to please?

As a follower of the sport I am entitled to dissagree with the decisions and have no trust or confidence in the FIA based upon its actions throughout the entire sport, and not be branded due to the effects on one party.

If this makes you a 'Winging Hamilton Fan', it must also make you a 'Massa Lover', 'Pit Crew Hater', 'Kimi Fan', Toyota Basher', 'Winging Glock Fan', Winging Alonso Lover' 'Complaining Heiki Fan' and 'Renault Employee'.... And thats just from the last 2 events.

TheStig1 · 12 Sep 2008 at 17:24

JUMPURS said:
He is allegedly the only person to have interviewed Hamilton about the incident. And also Hamilton would no speak a yes or no if it was only him, only nod.

what the **** is that all about? One of the most bizzar things i have ever read in an F1 story lol

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4134454,00.html

what planet f1 neglects to copy and paste is this part of the article

Donnelly declined to comment, although the FIA explained that this was normal practice: Donnelly chairs the stewards' meeting, canvasses their views and puts their questions to the witnesses for them.

Then the three stewards, excluding the non-voting Donnelly, come to a conclusion.

one person asks the questions yes but they are from the stewards

TheStig1 · 12 Sep 2008 at 17:27

Skeeter said:
I resent the fact that as someone who feels the stewards decision is wrong brands me a 'whinning Hamilton fan'.

Am I not allowed to feel the sport is being destroyed by inconsistent and unjust rullings handed out by a governing body who fail to present evidence for their decisions and seem to be isolated from the fans that they seem to keep trying to say they are out to please?

to be fair when you ignore the countless other occasions chicane cutting has resulted in a penalty then you do seem to be whining just because its about hamilton

the rules have been applied very consistently for these issues for many years
all the drivers seem to agree he gained an advantage that he never gave back and the penalty for that is a stop/go or drive/thru always has been

Skeeter · 12 Sep 2008 at 17:30

TheStig1 said:
to be fair when you ignore the countless other occasions chicane cutting has resulted in a penalty then you do seem to be whining just because its about hamilton

the rules have been applied very consistently for these issues for many years
all the drivers seem to agree he gained an advantage that he never gave back and the penalty for that is a stop/go or drive/thru always has been

Yet when you are informed that your move is perfectly legal, that you safely and fairly returned the place, and then later get penalised by the same body who deemed it fair, it brings into question the credability of those handing out the penalties.

This has moved on from a 'OMG Thats so unfair on Hamilton the FIA bums Ferrari' issue to a much deeper and more serious one relating to the inconsistencey and uncertainty within the rulings of the Governing body of the sport. I suggest you keep up.

JUMPURS · 12 Sep 2008 at 17:32

Skeeter said:
Am I not allowed to feel the sport is being destroyed by inconsistent and unjust rullings handed out by a governing body who fail to present evidence for their decisions and seem to be isolated from the fans that they seem to keep trying to say they are out to please?

I know, i hate the inconsistent rulings. I mean why are McLaren not down the bottom of the pit line in the half garages and not enough parking for their multi million pound media centre?
Shocking, send them back is what i say!!!

But then again, the FIA don't give McLaren any benefit do they

JUMPURS · 12 Sep 2008 at 17:33

Skeeter said:
Yet when you are informed that your move is perfectly legal, that you safely and fairly returned the place, and then later get penalised by the same body who deemed it fair, it brings into question the credability of those handing out the penalties.

This has moved on from a 'OMG Thats so unfair on Hamilton the FIA bums Ferrari' issue to a much deeper and more serious one relating to the inconsistencey and uncertainty within the rulings of the Governing body of the sport. I suggest you keep up.

Until the FIA/Charlie Whiting say that is the case, i will take McLaren's word with a pinch of salt.

Surely they have the recording of the radio transmission? Release it to the press.

TheStig1 · 12 Sep 2008 at 17:33

suzuka 05 renault were told the same then they realised no he used the advantage to still gain that spot
whiting might well have thought it was ok until he had the full facts but mclaren seem to be changing their story on that one daily
i suggest you keep up as there has been countless times this penalty has been handed out but if you wish to show us evidence of chicane cutting to make a place up that has gone unpunished then the floor is yours to show us this inconsistency you claim is happening
so over to you then

seems the f1 grid agrees - http://www.autosport.com/news/grapevine.php/id/70482