Hamilton disqualified
- Thread starter R2D2
- Start date
-
- Tags
- disqualified hamilton
talbir
MB Enthusiast
Errr.....this makes no sense....McLaren are not the team leading the pack, Ferrari have no need to see them banned or compete with them at the moment...and neither are Ferrari strong themselves.
The races at the moment will not be about Ferrari or McLaren, but about Brawn GP and Red Bull Racing and BMW Sauber.
And shouldn't the stewards have reviewed all the evidence, including the requests and the (open) radio convsersations before the inquiry.
Why should Maclaren be punished becuase the stewards can't do their job properly (which brings us back to that acronym again).
Agreed
And why does is Trulli judged to have made an error and only gets penalised by a few secs but when Hamilton is judged to be in the wrong gets disqualified (and poss more)??
It all sucks...
You won't believe it but I was a life long Ferrari fan until Hamilton arrived at Mclaren. I never used to believe Ferrari conspiracy theories but having read all the F1 books, followed all the nonsense of the last few years, I believe it now. Bernie and Max needs a strong Ferrari as F1 would lose much glamour if they weren't there. Basically the only rule in F1 is Ferrari have to be there or there abouts. If things don't work out like you crash, have a slow car, break the rules, don't worry it'll get fixed!!...one way or the other. If you think the messing around with results has been bad wait and see what happens if a diffuser team beats Ferrari on Sunday...........
I think my old mate Brundle makes more sense of this than most others:
BBC commentator and former F1 driver Martin Brundle said: "This does not look good for Hamilton or McLaren.
"Hamilton passed Trulli as he was off the road. Hamilton clearly wondered then, to give him the benefit of the doubt, if he had passed under the safety car conditions and was trying to let Trulli back through.
"There was a point when he was doing just 15mph in his McLaren and Trulli had no option but to repass him.
"I think Lewis then saw half a chance of a third place instead of a fourth, went up to the stewards and didn't give them the full story.
"Now they've matched up his comments (to them) to radio content between him and the team, and other information they've gathered, and they've decided that effectively he was telling fibs.
"I think it's a big issue and it's not going to go away. If they were asked a direct question they should have given the right answer, and they clearly didn't."
If you listen to Eddie Jordan you will be more confused than you were!
BBC commentator and former F1 driver Martin Brundle said: "This does not look good for Hamilton or McLaren.
"Hamilton passed Trulli as he was off the road. Hamilton clearly wondered then, to give him the benefit of the doubt, if he had passed under the safety car conditions and was trying to let Trulli back through.
"There was a point when he was doing just 15mph in his McLaren and Trulli had no option but to repass him.
"I think Lewis then saw half a chance of a third place instead of a fourth, went up to the stewards and didn't give them the full story.
"Now they've matched up his comments (to them) to radio content between him and the team, and other information they've gathered, and they've decided that effectively he was telling fibs.
"I think it's a big issue and it's not going to go away. If they were asked a direct question they should have given the right answer, and they clearly didn't."
If you listen to Eddie Jordan you will be more confused than you were!
Transcript of the radio communication here http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/4/9115.html
Looks like Mclaren were unsure of the position after Truli fell off track and opted to allow him to pass whilst waiting for confirmation from race director.
Don't understand why they didn't just come out and explain the facts which as I see them are.
1) Truli fell off the track
2) They were unsure wether under a saftey car they had to let him back into 3rd otherwise they would be penalised for overtaking under the saftey car caution
3) They let him pass because of 2) above whilst waiting for clarification
4) No clarification before end of race so decided to hold station.
No big deal really if they got it wrong worst case scenario is that they end up with 4th place.
By saying that they didn't let Truli pass compounded their error.
Looks like Mclaren were unsure of the position after Truli fell off track and opted to allow him to pass whilst waiting for confirmation from race director.
Don't understand why they didn't just come out and explain the facts which as I see them are.
1) Truli fell off the track
2) They were unsure wether under a saftey car they had to let him back into 3rd otherwise they would be penalised for overtaking under the saftey car caution
3) They let him pass because of 2) above whilst waiting for clarification
4) No clarification before end of race so decided to hold station.
No big deal really if they got it wrong worst case scenario is that they end up with 4th place.
By saying that they didn't let Truli pass compounded their error.
