Raikkonen hit Hamilton in T1 because Hamilton had poor mid corner speed not to mention Raikkonen stood to lose alot more (ie. his front wing) than Hamilton did if the collision had been stronger.

I wanted Kimi to win too (Kimi is my favorite driver even though I am a McLaren fan) so that Massa would take 2nd driver spot in Ferrari. Wanting something to happen should not blind your decision of what is fair and what is not. If penalizing Lewis was the correct thing to do, they should have done it for next race, not tell him "hand over the trophy sorry"

de la Rosa took the position 1 lap later, if he doesn't retain the position overall and it doesn't effect the outcome of the race then why should he be penalized?

I don't think a grid penalty for next race would really be correct in this situation, irrelevant of whether or not Hamilton deserved the penalty, if he did fail to sufficiently cede the line back to Raikkonen then his actions directly affected the outcome of the race so when a penalty is applied it should reflect this and apply to that race, not the next one.

Well, I'd distinguish that on the facts. Schumacher was leading when he cut the chicane. De la Rosa had not overtaken him yet.

^ sorry I meant I believe Lewis' move was fair, not the decision, even though its one I wanted Kimi to win, so yeah, your safe to say even Ferrari fans think its harsh. Taking away his victory after being on the podium is too cruel.

Kimi spun and crashed a few seconds later, why should lewis be penalized if the outcome of the race was the same?

I think the bigger issue is that Schumacher did not gain an advantage from the corner-cutting.

Because the overtaking move that put Hamilton in the lead affected the next lap which defined the outcome of the race. Essentially, if Raikkonen had been able to resume the lead fully (instead of only just clearing Hamilton at the start of the braking zone, which is what happened) then Raikkonen may not have spun.

I am not attempting to defend Schumacher and in that case he was definately breaking the rules but in the end he did not benefit, Hamilton did.

Its fans like me that bring fairness to a sport where there isn't any..not fans like you.. your a hypocrite and your basis is based on you being a Ferrari Fan! My opinion are based on being a F1 Fan.

Fans have very little to do with the FIA or perceived "fairness" in F1, this was pretty obvious when Max Mosley managed to keep his position following that Nazi orgy scandal.

i keep reading that lewis didn't back off long enough after letting kimi pass... what was he supposed to do? park the damn car have a smoke then say "i think it's alright if i started chasing him again...i've given him enough time". It's been said b4, hamilton gained an unfair advantage then gave it back by letting kimi pass... is there a rule that says you're not allowed to immediately step on the gas after letting someone through and then outbrake them going into the next corner? can it be found in that "secret data file"? seriously, this is so unbelievably unfair

being a huge hamilton fan it was heart breaking to hear the news of his punishment/demotion. nothing to do for mclaren or lewis other than wait for the appeal's results. if its successful great otherwise tough luck, time to move on. great race for massa in the end, the championship has been almost handed to him on a platter!

I have been a huge ferrari fan since i first started watching at a young age (the berger and alesi days).
I am embarrassed by this decision and penalty. Watching the incident live it didn't even enter my mind that Lewis could be facing an investigation for a contravention of the rules. As a Ferrari supporter it is going to be difficult to watch the next few races knowing that the championship points positions have been unfairly skewed in Ferrari's favour.

By the way, why did Heiki stop?

Heikki stopped with gearbox problems.

Ohh my.... everyone please bow to guru Pokiou.

The ruling: http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43853

"The stewards, having received a report from the race director and having met with the drivers and team managers involved, have...determine a breach of the regulations has been committed by the competitor and impose the penalty referred to," said an FIA statement.

Hamilton was deemed to have "cut the chicane and gained an advantage", thereby breaching Article 30.3(a) of the sporting regulations and Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.


What will be appealed: http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43860

"Although the British driver let Raikkonen back through to the lead of the race after rejoining the track, it is understood the stewards felt he had still benefited from going off-track as he repassed the Finn almost immediately at the La Source hairpin."


It could be argued that Lewis would have passed Kimi anyway, that Lewis is better in the wet than Kimi, all sorts of "could have" arguments can be dreamed up, but these arguments are pointless because they didn't occur. What did occur is that Lewis passed Kimi at La Source and a plausable reason is that he gained advantage when he cut the chicane. Lewis was very close to Kimi at the line, a position you would not expect him to be had he followed Kimi through the chicane.

The position of the stewards is presented above and it seems to me the appeal will have to show that Lewis would have passed Kimi at La Source anyway, I think it will be difficult to show that.

The whole incident is most unfortunate as everyone has an opinion, often clouded by their own person wishes and prejudices. It's unfortunate that Lewis didn't give Kimi La Source then attacked.

On a different subject I was amazed that Ferrari didn't pit Massa for inters with 2 laps to go. Conditions were rapidly getting worse and it could have moved Massa up. Heidfield pitted for inters with 2 laps to go and came 3rd. He did benefit from Kimi crashing out but at the end the inters were good for 30 seconds a lap.

This is interesting....
http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...Allen&id=43872

Thanks for that. Allen got the analysis right then rationalized Lewis' action, then tossed an orange, (the European GP), in with the apples.

Great article!
Its good to see some depth to his logic; and should be read by everyone commenting in this thread. :-)

while your down there clean my shoes bitch!

Pokiou just calm down man. You're way out of the line..

There is NO rule stating that when you allow a car to pass you that you need to give him a certain amount of lead before you can you prance back onto him..

unfortuantly they decided that it was unfair to KIMI cause his car was slower lol. . thats pathetic, there is no logic in there decision but only favortism.


Btw just to clear stuff up. Im a RED BULL supporter but my second team is McLaren.

so kimi running into the back of the point leader had more to lose by his front wing or the point leaders flat tire.and how did the stewards think that kimi didnt get in front of lewis if kimi was on the inside of lewis at the line at a faster speed then lewis then at the corner on the outside. there needs to be some big changes to f1 cause this is a feeble attempt at at saying there will be no passing of ferrari. kimi looks good as support of massa but the fia is the ultimate support of massa and the prancing horse

Pok, you should stop popping off about irrelevent points.
The facts are, that the stewards deemed Hamilton to gain an advantage by cutting the chicane. You say that Hamilton gave his position back - he didn't, he was on a superior racing line and immediately into Kimi's slipstream. The start/finish speed is irrelevant as Hamilton was in a superior position to attack the next corner, which he wouldn't have been if he hadn't cut the previous chicane.

All of the "he would have won anyway", "Hamilton is superior in the wet", "Kimi crashed anyway" is all completely irrelevant - that didn't happen and therefor can't be argued.

Mate go read the article and you'll see where i pulled the irrelevent points. Cause the IRRELEVENT points is how the stewards came to the conclusion that Hamilton should of been fined!

But other then that i think you missed mark mate. :P teasing mate

Let's think about what happens when someone misses an overtaking manouevre. The driver tucks back behind the chased driver for another go later on. That's just what happens. Hamilton didn't tuck back behind Raikonnen. The FIA has deemed that to be maintaining an advantage. I think that's tough, but not incorrect. Certainly not enough to accuse the FIA of making stuff up to help Ferrari.

Mattk they have done all year long.. Not impossing penalties to ferrari or anything else. I understand what your saying, but i feel like you havent watched the race proppely. Your stating that he didnt tuck behind him.. HE did tuck behind him.. i dont know mate.. I think your just trying to prove a point that has no point while the rest of the F1 community has agreed that the call was bogus.

But cheers for your input.

He only tucked behind Raikkonen briefly when he was switching to pass on the inside. He went down the straight essentially alongside Raikonnen. Like I said, tough call, but that's the way it rolls.

There is no rule stating where he cant be and where he has to be in order to resume racing. Nor is ther a rule stating HOW much of a lead he has to give the car before he can accelerate.. hence why the call was bogus and un justified. I know excatly what your say... but you need to understand what are saying which i believe you now do.

kimi was able to go from the rightside of lewis to the leftside with lewis behind him didnt see alongside him for the the essential straight bogus call why wouldnt they give him drive thru during the race and then kimi running into the back of him eihter way good race we saw the real winner on the grandstand. kimi really felll off in the last stint and should of never let him catch up then when lewis did kimi essentially did what any support would do and tried to cause a error. should be good at monza hopefully heikki repays massa with the same kind of gesture

you know they keep on saying he cut the chicane, why aren't they concerned with why he cut the chicane? if u watch the racing lines they normally take going through that chicane, u will see clearly that kimi intentionally ran wide in order to keep hamilton out of the way. now it's kimi's job to defend the lead- fair enough - but then u have hamilton who's left with; either running into kimi's car, braking and probably still making contact with kimi since he's already squeezing the living daylights out of him, or avoiding him completely by cutting the chicane...the safest option.

and about gaining an advantage from kimi's slipstream, lewis was barely directly behind him for more than a second ... the only time he was behind him was that brief moment when kimi went infront of him and lewis moved out to get the inside line... watch

it's been 2 days since it happened and i can't believe i'm still upset about it

Onboard



Stewart: F1 needs full-time stewards

http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,1895...120502,00.html

Demon that's a really cool vid.. Thanks.
God kimi was wrestling with that wheel at the end!

I don't normally post here but even I have to comment about the apparent screw job that the FIA pulled after the race. I am glad that Mclaren have decided to appeal this decision cause I don't see how Hamiliton avoiding a wreck with Kimi by cutting the chicane and then giving the place back and then taking it back again can be considered an advantage in the rain no less. So hopefully the appeal will be heard and the correct decision will be granted.

Martin Whitmarsh added: "From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was 'okay'.

"If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis’s actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time."
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/9/8344.html

I'm not sure you can make that connection. There are not rules for everything. The general rule is that you can't gain an advantage through non-legal racing manoeuvres. Everything else is a determination of fact by stewards. They may ultimately proved wrong on appeal, but that does not mean that the process they used was fundamentally wrong.

This is a test to see if anyone understands the rules.

If you cut a chicane and gain and advantage you will be penalized. Consider a car that is 0.300 seconds behind going into a chicane and braking late, missing the chicane re-entering the track 0.050 seconds behind the leading car. In this scenario he didn't even pass and have to back off to let the leading car ahead. So, did he gain an advantage by cutting the chicane?

longer onboard http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6o...ltonkimi_sport

you can see how hamilton is catching up to him when the rain is dropping.

Appeal will be heard after the next GP (if at all!!!) yes IF AT ALL. Regulations seem to say that they cannot appeal drive-through penalties. Since this is a drive through penalty awarded AFTER the race, mclaren stands optimistic though no one knows.

i think that was a though call to make, but i don't agree with the decision, i would probably make the rule more especific so it be easier to judge future sitiuations, and give hamilton and all the other drivers a warning to be careful in similar situations.

but worse than that i think was in the GP2 race where B.Senna was taken away a probable victory in the feature race.

it's just bad for the sport and fans, see the stewards become more "important" than the race, on the decision for the winner.

The Sporting Regulations:

16.3 The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident :

a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping ;
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
c) a drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.

However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.

Personally I hope they hear the appeal as it will serve to settle the issue; however, reading the Sporting Regulations would indicate that McLaren's optimism may be a bit 'optimistic'.

Article 16.4b) talks about serving the penalty, i.e. within 3 laps, no work on the car while the penalty is served, etc.

The stewards would have discounted Lewis' position when he left the track since his position is why he left the track. I have no idea what data was available to the stewards to arrive at their conclusion, we may never know but we do know that the stewards decided that Lewis gained an advangtage. With such a close call the smart thing would have been to let Kimi have the next corner and then attack.

The stewards aren't more important than the race and they don't "decide" the winner. They enforce the rules. There has long been a call for having "professional stewards" that go to all the races and are more knowledgeable than the host country's stewards. Penalties or disqualifications after the end of the race are unavoidable.

The FIA’s International Court of Appeal has thrown out McLaren’s case against Lewis Hamilton’s recent Belgian Grand Prix penalty on the grounds that their appeal was inadmissible.

Hamilton had 25 seconds added to his Spa race time for gaining an advantage by cutting a chicane whilst fighting Ferrari’s Kimi Raikkonen for the lead. This was given in place of a drive-through penalty, as the incident occurred late in the race, and drive-throughs are not susceptible to appeal under the International Sporting Code.

McLaren had appealed the stewards' decision, which saw Hamilton drop from first to third in the Belgian results, on the grounds that their driver had relinquished the lead back to Raikkonen immediately following the incident in order to negate any advantage. They also cited the fact that on two occasions race control had told the team that Hamilton’s conduct appeared to be within the rules.

However, the Court rejected McLaren’s right to appeal, citing Paragraph 5 of Article 152 of the International Sporting Code, which states: “Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal.”

The Court's decision means Hamilton’s championship lead remains at just a single point over Ferrari’s Felipe Massa, who inherited the victory at Spa.
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/9/8417.html

To be honest, I think it would have been a good idea to have held the appeal to quell disputes. But the rules are the rules.

Hi.

Now just how much did Ferrari have to pay for this "decision"..? Took a full day to get to it, so they must have negotiated hard.

Same when the penalty was initially handed out - two hours AFTER THE RACE??? During a race this happens within 10 minutes..... Lewis wouldn't have been on the top podium spot when everything would have gone right.

But again, i guess Ferrari needed to negotiate for the penalty (hence an "undisputable" drive-through).

F1 seems rigged like the Thai government lottery used to be. I seriously hope for a Ferrari double-engine-failure in Singapore, and Lewis winning it. Gosh and i used to be a Ferrari fan.........

Thanh

1. If the race is over, you can afford to take your time. The trophy presentation is for TV and Ecclestone would not have wanted any stewards' inquiries to cause any delay.
2. Things take time to process. This is not the weekly short appeals court for summary convictions. Besides, the news report was only a day after the hearing. Seems pretty pretty efficient to me.
3. Where is the evidence Ferrari was even involved in this whole process? From start to finish, it has been McLaren v FIA.

Hi.

Of course it was McLaren vs. FIA.... but has anyone seen the back-end? How come the move (short-cutting the chicane, then letting Raikkonen overtake again) is OK'ed TWICE at first and then, suddenly and two hours later, Lewis is penalized with an "undisputable" drive-through?

Could it not be that Ferrari complained loud and long enough (or simply handed over enough cash) at FIA to have them change their mind (see previous "OK" for the move), now that Raikkonen did not finish and they surely didn't want Lewis to get too big a points advantage?

Someone said "FIA" stands for "Ferrari Instant Assistance". Not my words, but the more you look a tthings, the more it appears tro be true.

Don't get me wrong - i like Lewis for a couple of reasons (bloody good race driver, handsome as heck and first black driver on top of it all) but i watch F1 to see the best RACER win. Not to hear in the news for whom some judge has decided. I don't mind that bes RACER to sit in a McLaren, a Ferrari or a Force India car, as long as he won by driving his distance faster than anyone else.

Best regards....

Thanh

And here we got it..... according to German newspaper "Bild":

"In einem irren Finale gewinnt Lewis Hamilton zunächst den Großen Preis von Belgien. Doch nach einem Protest von Ferrari wird ihm der Sieg später aberkannt"

"At first, Lewis Hamilton wins the Belgian Grand Prix in a crazy final. BUT AFTER A PROTEST FROM FERRARI HIS VICTORY IS DENIED LATER"

........

Thanh

Thanh, what's your beef? Of course Ferrari were going to protest - they felt Kimi had been hard-done by Lewis's move.
The FIA has the dispute with Mclaren, which is ultimately resolved in court yesterday.

Are you male or female? Commenting on Lewis Hamilton being "handsome" is... strange?