Anti-McLaren / Pro Ferrari strip Lewis of win

[Mr E]

I thought giving back advantage was clearly defined in the sporting code? According to Mr Schumacher it is and has he said in his interview after the race, handing back the lead is by allowing the disadvantaged car to get one full car length back in front before the start finish line before recommencing an overtake? Whilst I bow to Mr Schumachers superior knowledge on this in formula one I can also confirm this line of conduct does also apply in other formulas so cannot see any reason why it should not be true in F1?

This is a great area where the "rules" are not transparent. Drivers may be "advised" was they should/shouldn't do, but the "rules" - the written code that should take precedence - do not give such advice, and such advice (if ever given) has never been made public. Now if everything was clear, why was the "1 corner" advice given - and made public - at Monza? If the "rules" clearly stated that 1 car length was to be made, that would have been emphasised and publicised at Monza. And that would have been the end of the matter because everyone would know what the stewards' decision was based on. But no, let's change the "rules" again.

My interpretation of events is that the decision made by the stewards was during the event not after, last 5 laps to be precise but the penalty could not be imposed until the race was over when they deducted 25 seconds completely in line with the rules

There was, I understand, nothing shown on the timing system that indicated that Hamilton's movement was under investigation during the race period. You can imagine the commentators going nuts over that one. If this was the case then, according to the FIA's own Sporting Code the results should have been provisional - which they were not.

There were also 3 penalties that could be imposed - the drive-thru and 10-second penalty would result in 25 seconds being added to the time, but a 10-place penalty for the next race was also a valid penalty. So why did the stewards feel forced to impose a penalty that materially affected the outcome of the race, especially when the one supposedly wronged did not finish?

I agree the FIA come across with a definite bias to Ferrari but professional teams should know better than to appeal when they clearly have no grounds to do so, as this does just as much damage to the sport as the perceived FIA bias

There did seem a basis to appeal - Liuzzi (Torro Rosso) at Japan last year. He had a drive-thru penalty imposed for overtaking under yellow. Now according to the rules, such an appeal is inadmissible but the ruling clearly states that, although the penalty was upheld, the appeal was correct and admissible.

That was McLaren's argument in this case. The response was that, because no-one from McLaren, Spyker or the FIA has raised the matter of admissibly, the court could hear the case. Now this stance was not recorded at the time, and so McLaren could rightly take the view that in this case the same should occur. So it's OK to ignore the rules if no-one brings them up...


So no wonder thousands of people - arguably a large part of those that go to make this so-called sport viable - believe that the FIA is not up to the job. Some may call it bias - see Moseley's comments about how Ferrari has to be protected in F1 as a special case - while others may call it naive incompetence.

 

[Mudster]

I thought giving back advantage was clearly defined in the sporting code? According to Mr Schumacher it is and has he said in his interview after the race, handing back the lead is by allowing the disadvantaged car to get one full car length back in front before the start finish line before recommencing an overtake? Whilst I bow to Mr Schumachers superior knowledge on this in formula one I can also confirm this line of conduct does also apply in other formulas so cannot see any reason why it should not be true in F1?

My interpretation of events is that the decision made by the stewards was during the event not after, last 5 laps to be precise but the penalty could not be imposed until the race was over when they deducted 25 seconds completely in line with the rules

One car length before the start finish line? What happens if the incident occurs 10 corners away from the start finish line.

I've never heard the "1 car length" rule and I'm a huge Formula 1 fan...obliged to give back the lead and return the advantage you've gained - yes...1 car length? Since When?

Having read what Mclaren stated I understand that Ron Dennis got on the communication system to Charlie Whiting, the race Director, twice to ask if they were OK....Charlie said yes, twice.

Once the race had finished, Charlie Whiting asked the stewards to investigate the incident to confirm if there was any breach of rules.

The 25 second penalty was awarded according the rules in the situation where it can't be applied during the race duration.

It has been stated that Charlie Whiting has no authority to give Ron Dennis and Opinion on rules during a race, this is purely the Stewards decision.

So why did RD ask and why did CW offer an opinion, twice, and why was this overlooked?

Bizarrely this has done the sport more damage than MM's Nazi hanky panky.
It's left a very sour taste in the mouth, what is entertaining and outstanding driving is becoming a victim of it's own rule makers.

 

[recycled]

exactly. so if this happens at the first corner after the finish line, you have to crawl around for a whole lap to execute another overtake waiting for the start/finish line? what if that was the last lap?

There is no rule like his.
if there is , please show us.

 

[verytalldave]

So what happens now?

Say Hamilton "wins" the next GP and is then later stripped of the win because of some other infringement nobody has ever heard of. Except of course those who are privy to the minutae of the FIA rulebook and have the time and inclination to study these rules with a magnifying glass.

We are in danger of not being able to have a winners celebration until after those endowed with FIA power have deliberated and allowed the race "winner" to be declared the actual REAL winner.
This is now what we are left with. There seems to be nothing in their way to prevent them doing this now. They have set a precedent and anything could happen after a race has finished now.
Specially if a car other than Ferrari won.

 

[recycled]

So what happens now?

Say Hamilton "wins" the next GP and is then later stripped of the win because of some other infringement nobody has ever heard of. Except of course those who are privy to the minutae of the FIA rulebook and have the time and inclination to study these rules with a magnifying glass.

We are in danger of not being able to have a winners celebration until after those endowed with FIA power have deliberated and allowed the race "winner" to be declared the actual REAL winner.
This is now what we are left with. There seems to be nothing in their way to prevent them doing this now. They have set a precedent and anything could happen after a race has finished now.
Specially if a car other than Ferrari won.

well he could be done for driving with high beams in the street

 

[Mudster]

Anyway, the very fact He was behind the Ferrari deems him to be a car length behind...if he was zero lengths He's next to the other car, therefore one car is right under it's wing.

If they mean a gap of the length of one car behind the one in front...then that's actually two car lengths isn't it?

 

[Dryce]

Bizarrely this has done the sport more damage than MM's Nazi hanky panky.
It's left a very sour taste in the mouth, what is entertaining and outstanding driving is becoming a victim of it's own rule makers.

A cynic might figure that with this organisational debacle MM's little foibles are now forgotten. So job done.

We now have a situation where common sense has been dumped out of the window.

Consider how Mr. Schumacher would use this ruling in a wounded Ferrari with Alonso or Hakkinnen behind him .... applying some race craft you force your opponent off on a chicane and then deny him the the ability to give back the advantage for several corners.

It's ironic that the circuit looked so fantastic at Spa that day and what should have been a triumph for the sport has instead become a showcase for how soiled and poisoned it has become.

 

[Dryce]

Anyway, the very fact He was behind the Ferrari deems him to be a car length behind...if he was zero lengths He's next to the other car, therefore one car is right under it's wing.

If they mean a gap of the length of one car behind the one in front...then that's actually two car lengths isn't it?

Defining the whole thing simply as an 'advantage' that has to be given back is simple. Allowing race control or the stewards to be queried with a quick answer is sensible with the aim to reconcile the situation *on the track* within a lap.

You can't write rules to cover the specifics of every situation, nor can you get it completely right for all parties involved in an incident. Which means there has to be an assumption about common sense prevailing and the importance of having the result decided on the track.

Consider if the FIA ran the Premier league .......

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Good jobs it's just the Stewards that have it in for Maclaren, Rob, and Lewis.

Imagine if the top bod at the FIA also had it in for them too!!??

 

[Mactech]

have you asked mark webber and peter dumbreck?

Yes we have! You will find that there have been no recorded instances of cars flying in their intended direction of travel since new regulations were brought in at the end of 2003 until this year.
We have now had a spate of low flying incidents all at ‘unintended yaw’ that is: the car sideways or backwards. It is this issue that we now must address more robustly than the current regulations.
Nobody is under the illusion that Motorsport will ever be totally safe (or fair! ) but we will continue to drive forward safety standards in line with the perception of what is ‘reasonable risk’

 

[glojo]

I thought giving back advantage was clearly defined in the sporting code? According to Mr Schumacher it is and has he said in his interview after the race, handing back the lead is by allowing the disadvantaged car to get one full car length back in front before the start finish line before recommencing an overtake? Whilst I bow to Mr Schumachers superior knowledge on this in formula one I can also confirm this line of conduct does also apply in other

Smuck face is an expert on this situation and his opinion should be considered

Here we have the roles reversed.

At no time after the illegal overtake did the Ferrari concede the lead.

The Ferrari even blocks the McLaren as it tries to repass the car but smuck face quite clearly blocks this manouvre.

It was deemed the Ferrari had not contravened the regulations and no punishment awared.

Is there a level playing field? Is favouritism shown towards one team?

In a previous Grand Prix we saw a Ferrari unsafely leave the pit area. The offence was blatant, the offence was absolute.

The stewards deferred punishment and eventually a fine was handed out to Ferrari that would not even buy one sordid weekend of whiplashing. Big deal and that must have really taught Ferrari a lesson

At the same circuit, on the same week-end, with the same stewards, we saw a GP2 drivercommit the exact offence, under the exact same conditions, namely they left the pit area in an unsafe manner. No car was damaged, no advantage was gained but the offending driver very quickly received a drive through penalty.

Regarding Hamilton it was stated a drive through penalty could not be awarded!!!

What about at Silverstone when the Ferrari crossed the finish line, won the race and then after crossing the finish line it completed the drive through penalty? That was deemed acceptable and the race result stood.

My thoughts are that McLareen appealed this decision because of British public opinion that demanded it, but they were never going to rock the boat. They cannot as one team take on the Golden Goose that pays their wages. Things will not change until the majority of owners stand up and say enough is enough. They lacked the bottle at the farcical US Grand Prix and they lacked the bottle over this fiasco. Hamilton was slower than Kimi when they crossed the start finish line. If Hamilton had exited the bend quicker than the Ferrari, which he probably did, then Hamilton must surely have lifted and slowed down nto allow the Ferrari to retake the lead??

Is there any bias?

John

 

[recycled]

In that case, they claimed as the mclaren was the car trying to overtake, it is different. cos michael was in the lead and had nowhere to go.
Just a load of rubbish to me.
But at least mclaren know they now have to obey every rule, and be on egg shells to win the race.

 

[glojo]

In that case, they claimed as the mclaren was the car trying to overtake, it is different. cos michael was in the lead and had nowhere to go.
Just a load of rubbish to me.
But at least mclaren know they now have to obey every rule, and be on egg shells to win the race.

Not sure about that. Are you suggesting a race car can leave the circuit, rejoin where they want and providing they have not been overtaken, they can keep their lead? Why go all the way around a circuit? Why not cut out all the wiggly bits and let everyone else go round them?

John

 

[prprandall51]

Not sure about that. Are you suggesting a race car can leave the circuit, rejoin where they want and providing they have not been overtaken, they can keep their lead? Why go all the way around a circuit? Why not cut out all the wiggly bits and let everyone else go round them?

John

No!! Only if you are in a Ferrari. I thought this was all clear by now.

 

[miro]

No!! Only if you are in a Ferrari. I thought this was all clear by now.

I say bring back air horns for racing cars. A good honk might vent some of that rage.

 

[Mudster]

See Jackie Stewart's comments on this incident.....

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/24092008/58/stewart-expects-hamilton-response.html

 

[SJL]

This Thread Says It All Realy

F.i.a. Ferrari International Aid......................

 

[Londonscottish]

See Jackie Stewart's comments on this incident.....

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/24092008/58/stewart-expects-hamilton-response.html

Let's hope he's right.

As far as I am concerned the local stewards and FIA have done a pretty good job in destroying my motivation to watch F1 (and I have been a big fan for many many years).

I'm not even sure I can be bothered to watch whatever Ferrari-rigged result we'll see this weekend.

I think there at no doubt tens of thousands who think like me. Certainly all my FI-watching mates do . And the many thousand who signed the petition.

The FIA are so far out if touch it's untrue.

 

[glojo]

Let's hope he's right.

As far as I am concerned the local stewards and FIA have done a pretty good job in destroying my motivation to watch F1 (and I have been a big fan for many many years).

I'm not even sure I can be bothered to watch whatever Ferrari-rigged result we'll see this weekend.

I think there at no doubt tens of thousands who think like me. Certainly all my FI-watching mates do . And the many thousand who signed the petition.

The FIA are so far out if touch it's untrue.

I think we have to keep our feet on the ground when we look at this and perhaps accept that having Sir Jackie Stewart fight this issue is a bad, bad move. Most of us are British and perhaps slightly bias regarding this issue and yup, I'm on the side of McLaren, but they cannot beat the system and if there is anyone that Herr Mouse-Ley dislikes more than Ron Dennis, it is Sir Jackie. The instant Sir Jackie joined the battle, then Hell, freezing and over are words that all come to mind. Mouse-Ley is a nasty, corrupt, bent person and he must be laughing all the way to the bank now that Sir Jackie has joined the fray.

It would be nice for Hamilton to keep a low profile, say nothing and let his driving do the talking. If there is any rain during just five minutes of practise then hopefully Hamilton might, just might have learnt his lesson and he will get off his backside and get wet!

Have McLaren shouted foul, or are they counting the $'s and looking after their own best financial interest?

John

 

[scumbag]

Mouse-Ley is a nasty, corrupt, bent person and he must be laughing all the way to the bank now that Sir Jackie has joined the fray.

you're worse than me. Thats libel that is. I only call him a buffoon. Which I would guess is just insulting.

Although quite how he would defend himself against either of us would certainly be interesting.