F1 2008 BelgianGP Sept 5-7
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,182
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: BMW 525i E39
Ferrari is just basically gone team not even close to as they were last year .... clearly McLaren has dominated this season but then penalties always on them and never on Ferrari ... and giving Lewis penalty on this race is just ***ed up on FIA part of the sport. As they know Ferarri can't win championship on their own so they need these little advantages to win ... Ferrari FTL PERIOD
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,018
From: Sactown
Car Info: 2006 Audi A3/2007 Civic Si
I was waiting for Sir Jackie and here he is.....
Sir Jackie Stewart has called for a shake-up in the way Formula 1 races are officiated in the wake of the controversial penalty applied to Lewis Hamilton after the Belgian Grand Prix.
Hamilton won last Sunday’s race at Spa-Francorchamps on the track but was later adjudged to have gained an unfair advantage by cutting a chicane while battling for the lead with Kimi Raikkonen.
The stewards added 25 seconds to Hamilton’s race time, demoting him from first to third place and handing victory to his championship rival Felipe Massa.
The decision was met with incredulity in large sections of the media and drew a hostile response on fan forums and message boards (click here for itv.com/f1’s Talkback on the subject).
Triple world champion Niki Lauda condemned the verdict as landing F1 in its “biggest mess ever” and said it would drive people away from the sport, while fellow legend Sir Stirling Moss branded it “an absolutely appalling decision”.
Stewart, who has often been critical of F1’s governing body the FIA, said the episode underlined the need for greater professionalism and consistency in the way decisions are arrived at.
“This decision raises questions about [the stewards’] ability and, indeed, about the sport’s very governance,” he told the Daily Telegraph.
Like Lauda, Stewart believes the officiating system in F1 – with a permanent FIA race director (Charlie Whiting) and advisor (Alan Donnelly) but different stewards from race to race – has caused inconsistent decision-making and needs to be overhauled.
“F1 attracts the largest capital investment in sport, but it is being overseen by people who are not doing it full-time and we get inconsistent decisions,” said Stewart.
“In football, rugby, tennis or cricket you have professional referees and umpires who do their jobs day in, day out, and you have accountability.
“We need that in motorsport.”
Stewart argued that the decision to penalise Hamilton was unjustified because the McLaren driver ceded the lead back to Raikkonen immediately after short-cutting the Bus Stop chicane.
“Raikkonen behaved very robustly to defend his position and left Hamilton with no option but to miss the chicane,” he said.
“He was simply doing all he could to avoid an accident.
“Yes, he gained a position, but he slowed immediately and handed it back, as the rules require, then passed [Raikkonen] subsequently.
“We saw earlier in the year, at Silverstone, that Raikkonen isn’t comfortable driving his Ferrari in the wet and it was the same on Sunday.
“Hamilton was clearly much faster and was going to pass him sooner or later.
“The stewards should have taken that into account.”
McLaren intends to appeal the verdict but there are doubts about whether a time penalty of this kind – which was in lieu of the drive-through that would have been imposed had the decision been reached during the race – can be subject to appeal.
However, with the decision reducing Hamilton’s championship lead from eight points to two, Stewart believes the stakes are so high that the case must be heard.
“It’s inconceivable that you shouldn’t be able to appeal in a situation like this,” he said.
“It could affect the world championship’s outcome.”
Sir Jackie Stewart has called for a shake-up in the way Formula 1 races are officiated in the wake of the controversial penalty applied to Lewis Hamilton after the Belgian Grand Prix.
Hamilton won last Sunday’s race at Spa-Francorchamps on the track but was later adjudged to have gained an unfair advantage by cutting a chicane while battling for the lead with Kimi Raikkonen.
The stewards added 25 seconds to Hamilton’s race time, demoting him from first to third place and handing victory to his championship rival Felipe Massa.
The decision was met with incredulity in large sections of the media and drew a hostile response on fan forums and message boards (click here for itv.com/f1’s Talkback on the subject).
Triple world champion Niki Lauda condemned the verdict as landing F1 in its “biggest mess ever” and said it would drive people away from the sport, while fellow legend Sir Stirling Moss branded it “an absolutely appalling decision”.
Stewart, who has often been critical of F1’s governing body the FIA, said the episode underlined the need for greater professionalism and consistency in the way decisions are arrived at.
“This decision raises questions about [the stewards’] ability and, indeed, about the sport’s very governance,” he told the Daily Telegraph.
Like Lauda, Stewart believes the officiating system in F1 – with a permanent FIA race director (Charlie Whiting) and advisor (Alan Donnelly) but different stewards from race to race – has caused inconsistent decision-making and needs to be overhauled.
“F1 attracts the largest capital investment in sport, but it is being overseen by people who are not doing it full-time and we get inconsistent decisions,” said Stewart.
“In football, rugby, tennis or cricket you have professional referees and umpires who do their jobs day in, day out, and you have accountability.
“We need that in motorsport.”
Stewart argued that the decision to penalise Hamilton was unjustified because the McLaren driver ceded the lead back to Raikkonen immediately after short-cutting the Bus Stop chicane.
“Raikkonen behaved very robustly to defend his position and left Hamilton with no option but to miss the chicane,” he said.
“He was simply doing all he could to avoid an accident.
“Yes, he gained a position, but he slowed immediately and handed it back, as the rules require, then passed [Raikkonen] subsequently.
“We saw earlier in the year, at Silverstone, that Raikkonen isn’t comfortable driving his Ferrari in the wet and it was the same on Sunday.
“Hamilton was clearly much faster and was going to pass him sooner or later.
“The stewards should have taken that into account.”
McLaren intends to appeal the verdict but there are doubts about whether a time penalty of this kind – which was in lieu of the drive-through that would have been imposed had the decision been reached during the race – can be subject to appeal.
However, with the decision reducing Hamilton’s championship lead from eight points to two, Stewart believes the stakes are so high that the case must be heard.
“It’s inconceivable that you shouldn’t be able to appeal in a situation like this,” he said.
“It could affect the world championship’s outcome.”
I read earlier that a drive through penalty can not be appealed. WTF the FIA really screwed the pooch on this one. I have faith that Lew will keep his chin up, but damn this was Spa... From a drivers perspective nice to have that under your belt. Masa/Ferrari just keeps falling in ish and coming out smelling like a rose.
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
One thing i really hate is the UK people and UK fans. They've been dying to see a brit have the WC for like over a decade now. They want it to be Lewis, they thought it would've been Coultard, then Button, and now everything rides on Lewis.
They'll say anything and everything about ills that befall on Lewis or McLaren
I'm no tifosi (despite what Glen think
), and I've always been a fan of McLaren, but I'm going to follow my driver, Kimi, and that means I'm following him to Ferrari.
Stewart, and Moss will pretty much always root for Lewis due to the nationality thing. Nothing wrong with that, but lets face it, it somewhat comes up over and over again they are vouching for Lewis.
I like Lewis, I wanted him to beat Alonso (that cry baby) last year, but was ecstatic that Kimi ended up with the WC (a lot of luck and not giving up).
Anyways... I'm going to stick to FIA having some sort of facts and that they will review this and come to a decision eventually. and if there is any truth to what Massa is talking about, well, FIA will probably stand on their decision.
Massa:
They'll say anything and everything about ills that befall on Lewis or McLaren
I'm no tifosi (despite what Glen think
), and I've always been a fan of McLaren, but I'm going to follow my driver, Kimi, and that means I'm following him to Ferrari.Stewart, and Moss will pretty much always root for Lewis due to the nationality thing. Nothing wrong with that, but lets face it, it somewhat comes up over and over again they are vouching for Lewis.
I like Lewis, I wanted him to beat Alonso (that cry baby) last year, but was ecstatic that Kimi ended up with the WC (a lot of luck and not giving up).
Anyways... I'm going to stick to FIA having some sort of facts and that they will review this and come to a decision eventually. and if there is any truth to what Massa is talking about, well, FIA will probably stand on their decision.
Massa:
He said the issue has often been discussed in driving briefings.
"It has been made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained," Massa said.
"If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it."
"It has been made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained," Massa said.
"If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it."
+1 Lew dog is taking this ish. Competitive advantage... Could it be anymore vague? What's next no overtaking from the draft. I'll tell you what, that race was quite possibly one of the most exciting conclusions to a GP in a long while. From the position of an armchair cockpit, no harm no foul was committed. If you saw the race you'd agree. Fans of F1, like myself, were certainly on the edge of their seats. Then the conclusion, what a great finish. I was sooo stoked, I remember thinking "wooo hooo monza next week I can't wait...." Then Monday rolls around and bammo "THE FIA HAS SPOKEN". These bastards need to step back a bit. It's terrible that something can be sooo sweet then sooo sour. Their screwing up the sport for investors.
F*** it Lewis is gonna have Tifosi and Mash for breakfast on Sun.
F*** it Lewis is gonna have Tifosi and Mash for breakfast on Sun.
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Seriously... In some ways, they can be more crazy than those idoit tifosys
But I think you know what I mean.
I've said it before, and i'll say it again: Lewis should've won LAST year, only he is to blame for that screw up in China. Lets just hope, for your sake and your countrymen's sake, he doesn't screw this one up again and hand this off to massa... Cause god do I dislike Massa
But I think you know what I mean.
I've said it before, and i'll say it again: Lewis should've won LAST year, only he is to blame for that screw up in China. Lets just hope, for your sake and your countrymen's sake, he doesn't screw this one up again and hand this off to massa... Cause god do I dislike Massa
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Drivers say Hamilton penalty was harsh
By Jonathan Noble and Pablo Elizalde Thursday, September 11th 2008, 14:07 GMT
Formula One drivers agreed on Thursday that Lewis Hamilton had taken advantage from jumping a chicane at the Belgian Grand Prix, although some reckon the penalty was perhaps too hard.
"What happened is that he took an advantage by cutting the chicane," said Ferrari's Felipe Massa, who inherited the win after Hamilton was given a 25-second penalty after the race.
"You can ask drivers how many overtaking moves you see there.
"None between the last corner and the first corner, because there is such a small straight there. That is my opinion and it doesn't change."
Toro Rosso's Sebastien Bourdais said rules were rules.
"I think it is very clear, the rules are clear," he said. "Maybe the penalty is very hard but he has made the same mistake twice, he did in Magny-Cours and he did it in Spa.
"I don't really understand why there is such a mess around it, there is a rule book and everyone has to obey the same thing. The penalty is rough but it is up to you to give the position back."
Williams driver Nico Rosberg added: "He did have an advantage because he would not be so close if he had not cut the chicane but the penalty was a bit harsh as it did not have a big result in the end result. But it won't stop us from trying to attack definitely."
Toyota's Jarno Trulli agreed that the penalty may have been too harsh.
"I agree the penalty was quite big but I am not a steward. But it is also clear he got an advantage," he said.
"The rules are very clear, if you cut the chicane you get the advantage you have to drop it and lose advantage, in Lewis' case he should not attack in the first corner that is it.
"This last chicane, they have a lot of run off area they give you more chance to attack because in case of mistake you won't end up in wall or gravel. We have more chance to overtake."
Giancarlo Fisichella added: "I just seen pictures so difficult for me to say if it is right or not what happened. For sure maybe he took a small advantage that is why he had the possibility to overtake him again in braking for Turn One, but obviously 25 seconds penalty was quite a strong penalty."
By Jonathan Noble and Pablo Elizalde Thursday, September 11th 2008, 14:07 GMT
Formula One drivers agreed on Thursday that Lewis Hamilton had taken advantage from jumping a chicane at the Belgian Grand Prix, although some reckon the penalty was perhaps too hard.
"What happened is that he took an advantage by cutting the chicane," said Ferrari's Felipe Massa, who inherited the win after Hamilton was given a 25-second penalty after the race.
"You can ask drivers how many overtaking moves you see there.
"None between the last corner and the first corner, because there is such a small straight there. That is my opinion and it doesn't change."
Toro Rosso's Sebastien Bourdais said rules were rules.
"I think it is very clear, the rules are clear," he said. "Maybe the penalty is very hard but he has made the same mistake twice, he did in Magny-Cours and he did it in Spa.
"I don't really understand why there is such a mess around it, there is a rule book and everyone has to obey the same thing. The penalty is rough but it is up to you to give the position back."
Williams driver Nico Rosberg added: "He did have an advantage because he would not be so close if he had not cut the chicane but the penalty was a bit harsh as it did not have a big result in the end result. But it won't stop us from trying to attack definitely."
Toyota's Jarno Trulli agreed that the penalty may have been too harsh.
"I agree the penalty was quite big but I am not a steward. But it is also clear he got an advantage," he said.
"The rules are very clear, if you cut the chicane you get the advantage you have to drop it and lose advantage, in Lewis' case he should not attack in the first corner that is it.
"This last chicane, they have a lot of run off area they give you more chance to attack because in case of mistake you won't end up in wall or gravel. We have more chance to overtake."
Giancarlo Fisichella added: "I just seen pictures so difficult for me to say if it is right or not what happened. For sure maybe he took a small advantage that is why he had the possibility to overtake him again in braking for Turn One, but obviously 25 seconds penalty was quite a strong penalty."
Looks like more Drivers say he did get an advantage. They do feel that 25s was harsh and a lesser penalty would've been more appropriate it seems.
10s?
15s?
Either way, it's apparent that they believe that he did get an advantage.
Whatever Kimi has to say he'll say it in the same monotone drawl. The guy sounds the same whether he's crashed out or won the championship....reminds me on Mika, must be a Finnish thing.
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Kimi said he doesn't want to comment, and that the rules are stated clearly in the drivers meetings.
Hey, 25s is a major penalty, but some soft penalty was due, I think that's becoming obvious.
If Lewis didn't deserve it, well, McLaren will just have to prove it then. But I doubt they can.
What's is matter anyways, Lewis has the best car, and is doing the best so far. He'd going to take this thing this year, if he learned from his mistakes.
I'm just trying show that there is good cause for the penalty, and the aero advantage was probably there.
Thread Starter
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
I'll be honest, I'm pretty much writing Kimi off. I don't think he'll gain 19pts deficit to take the WC. I hope Lewis takes it, cause I really do not want Massa to Win it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post