planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:11 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Ireland
lamo wrote:
The 2008 Mclaren is the only car in the last 30 years to win the WDC whilst winning less races than another car. #

That's one little nugget that evaded me. That Spa decision still grinds my gears

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4272
mcdo wrote:
lamo wrote:
The 2008 Mclaren is the only car in the last 30 years to win the WDC whilst winning less races than another car. #

That's one little nugget that evaded me. That Spa decision still grinds my gears

Yeah that was one of those Max Mosely era decisions that just made no sense whatsoever. Basically took a win from Hamilton and handed it to Massa (who was 20 seconds behind him at the end of the race). Had Kimi finished the race, they might have had a leg to stand on but to give such a hefty penalty and basically gift a win to Massa was ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20911
sandman1347 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
lamo wrote:
The 2008 Mclaren is the only car in the last 30 years to win the WDC whilst winning less races than another car. #

That's one little nugget that evaded me. That Spa decision still grinds my gears

Yeah that was one of those Max Mosely era decisions that just made no sense whatsoever. Basically took a win from Hamilton and handed it to Massa (who was 20 seconds behind him at the end of the race). Had Kimi finished the race, they might have had a leg to stand on but to give such a hefty penalty and basically gift a win to Massa was ridiculous.

I don't think it was that ridiculous. their fight may have unfolded differently if Lewis hadn't unlawfully passed when he did. That's what they were punishing. Would have been even more ridiculous if they'd let him get away with it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
lamo wrote:
The 2008 Mclaren is the only car in the last 30 years to win the WDC whilst winning less races than another car. #

That's one little nugget that evaded me. That Spa decision still grinds my gears

Yeah that was one of those Max Mosely era decisions that just made no sense whatsoever. Basically took a win from Hamilton and handed it to Massa (who was 20 seconds behind him at the end of the race). Had Kimi finished the race, they might have had a leg to stand on but to give such a hefty penalty and basically gift a win to Massa was ridiculous.

I don't think it was that ridiculous. their fight may have unfolded differently if Lewis hadn't unlawfully passed when he did. That's what they were punishing. Would have been even more ridiculous if they'd let him get away with it

He gave the place back, what penalty did Verstappen receive for unlawfully passing Kimi in Austin?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4272
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
lamo wrote:
The 2008 Mclaren is the only car in the last 30 years to win the WDC whilst winning less races than another car. #

That's one little nugget that evaded me. That Spa decision still grinds my gears

Yeah that was one of those Max Mosely era decisions that just made no sense whatsoever. Basically took a win from Hamilton and handed it to Massa (who was 20 seconds behind him at the end of the race). Had Kimi finished the race, they might have had a leg to stand on but to give such a hefty penalty and basically gift a win to Massa was ridiculous.

I don't think it was that ridiculous. their fight may have unfolded differently if Lewis hadn't unlawfully passed when he did. That's what they were punishing. Would have been even more ridiculous if they'd let him get away with it

If they deemed the overtake to be illegal, they could have instructed him to give back the position (the normal {and logical} recourse for such an offense). Considering the fact that Raikkonen crashed out of the race, there was no way to do that. Considering how late in the race the overtake happened, there is simply no way that Hamilton gained the amount of time that they penalized him with. In other words, they just handed the Ferrari driver the win there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20911
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
lamo wrote:
The 2008 Mclaren is the only car in the last 30 years to win the WDC whilst winning less races than another car. #

That's one little nugget that evaded me. That Spa decision still grinds my gears

Yeah that was one of those Max Mosely era decisions that just made no sense whatsoever. Basically took a win from Hamilton and handed it to Massa (who was 20 seconds behind him at the end of the race). Had Kimi finished the race, they might have had a leg to stand on but to give such a hefty penalty and basically gift a win to Massa was ridiculous.

I don't think it was that ridiculous. their fight may have unfolded differently if Lewis hadn't unlawfully passed when he did. That's what they were punishing. Would have been even more ridiculous if they'd let him get away with it

He gave the place back, what penalty did Verstappen receive for unlawfully passing Kimi in Austin?

How he gave it back led to the penalty in the first place. What is the relevance of asking about a different incident more than ten years later?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20911
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
lamo wrote:
The 2008 Mclaren is the only car in the last 30 years to win the WDC whilst winning less races than another car. #

That's one little nugget that evaded me. That Spa decision still grinds my gears

Yeah that was one of those Max Mosely era decisions that just made no sense whatsoever. Basically took a win from Hamilton and handed it to Massa (who was 20 seconds behind him at the end of the race). Had Kimi finished the race, they might have had a leg to stand on but to give such a hefty penalty and basically gift a win to Massa was ridiculous.

I don't think it was that ridiculous. their fight may have unfolded differently if Lewis hadn't unlawfully passed when he did. That's what they were punishing. Would have been even more ridiculous if they'd let him get away with it

If they deemed the overtake to be illegal, they could have instructed him to give back the position (the normal {and logical} recourse for such an offense). Considering the fact that Raikkonen crashed out of the race, there was no way to do that. Considering how late in the race the overtake happened, there is simply no way that Hamilton gained the amount of time that they penalized him with. In other words, they just handed the Ferrari driver the win there.

OTOH, if they'd done nothing they would have effectively allowed him to get away with an illegal pass...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4272
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
That's one little nugget that evaded me. That Spa decision still grinds my gears

Yeah that was one of those Max Mosely era decisions that just made no sense whatsoever. Basically took a win from Hamilton and handed it to Massa (who was 20 seconds behind him at the end of the race). Had Kimi finished the race, they might have had a leg to stand on but to give such a hefty penalty and basically gift a win to Massa was ridiculous.

I don't think it was that ridiculous. their fight may have unfolded differently if Lewis hadn't unlawfully passed when he did. That's what they were punishing. Would have been even more ridiculous if they'd let him get away with it

If they deemed the overtake to be illegal, they could have instructed him to give back the position (the normal {and logical} recourse for such an offense). Considering the fact that Raikkonen crashed out of the race, there was no way to do that. Considering how late in the race the overtake happened, there is simply no way that Hamilton gained the amount of time that they penalized him with. In other words, they just handed the Ferrari driver the win there.

OTOH, if they'd done nothing they would have effectively allowed him to get away with an illegal pass...

Whether or not the pass was illegal is not really the issue. He didn't hit Raikkonen or do anything dangerous so the penalty is not some kind of punishment for dangerous driving. It's an infraction that basically is for being deemed to have taken the position in a manner that is not valid. It's akin to someone getting all 4 wheels off the track during an overtake. Basically you just give back the position and call it a day. In such a case where the other driver crashes out of the race like this case or if, for example, the race comes to an end before the penalty is assigned, they could have given him the 5 second penalty that Max just got (an amount of time that would be more representative of what Hamilton could reasonably be deemed to have gained). Instead they gave him a 25 second penalty. This is a number that has no basis in the actual incident. The only purpose of this number was to ensure that he lost positions to drivers who were not in any way impacted by the overtake. This is a grossly imbalanced penalty. An illegal overtake is an incident that should not be punished in such a way as to benefit someone who had nothing to do with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8716
Apologies,

I completely messed up the Hamilton 2008 wins statistic.

The statistic is. He won the WDC without winning the WCC which only occurred in 2008,1994 in the last 30 years, it also happened in 1986 and quite a few times in the early 80s. But in 1994 Benetton still won the most races. So I am not sure the best way to word that statistic.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
Zoue wrote:
OTOH, if they'd done nothing they would have effectively allowed him to get away with an illegal pass...



He didn't get away with it. He didn't get a lasting advantage as Kimi retook him half a lap later. We see the rules applied that way very often. EG Sainz fighting with Perez in Austin. Sainz overtook off track but Perez passed back so obviously no penalty was given.

That penalty was not consistent with any other precedent we have seen around that Issue in F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8716
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
OTOH, if they'd done nothing they would have effectively allowed him to get away with an illegal pass...



He didn't get away with it. He didn't get a lasting advantage as Kimi retook him half a lap later. We see the rules applied that way very often. EG Sainz fighting with Perez in Austin. Sainz overtook off track but Perez passed back so obviously no penalty was given.

That penalty was not consistent with any other precedent we have seen around that Issue in F1.


Yes this is the often over looked part of the whole saga. Kimi re-overtook him 30 seconds later by himself going off track at Pouhon and getting a big advantage by running a really wide line and getting lots of momentum to re-overtake Hamilton. It's just Kimi spun literally 3 seconds later.

I think that and the fact Kimi didn't even finish negates Hamiltons wrong doing into turn 1.

I wonder how the rules would view the entire incident now, would Kimi be in the wrong for not leaving Hamilton space? Hamilton was marginally ahead going into the corner after all. Hamilton was also ahead going into the corner and once he gave his advantage back, he was a car left behind. Then Mclaren were told he didn't need to give it back. The whole affair really smells bad. This and the Alonso Monza penalty in 2006 were quite ugly decisions for F1, thankfully that seems to be a thing of the past. Add the Michelin tyre saga in 2003 to that too.

Its a great shame that Massa won that race. Kimi and Hamilton gave us an epic duel and neither won.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20911
lamo wrote:
Apologies,

I completely messed up the Hamilton 2008 wins statistic.

The statistic is. He won the WDC without winning the WCC which only occurred in 2008,1994 in the last 30 years, it also happened in 1986 and quite a few times in the early 80s. But in 1994 Benetton still won the most races. So I am not sure the best way to word that statistic.

ah, cool. That makes more sense!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20911
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
OTOH, if they'd done nothing they would have effectively allowed him to get away with an illegal pass...



He didn't get away with it. He didn't get a lasting advantage as Kimi retook him half a lap later. We see the rules applied that way very often. EG Sainz fighting with Perez in Austin. Sainz overtook off track but Perez passed back so obviously no penalty was given.

That penalty was not consistent with any other precedent we have seen around that Issue in F1.

circumstance. If they had done nothing they would have given out the message that there was nothing wrong with the pass. But they wanted to send a clear message that it wouldn't be tolerated so there would be no ambiguity


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
OTOH, if they'd done nothing they would have effectively allowed him to get away with an illegal pass...



He didn't get away with it. He didn't get a lasting advantage as Kimi retook him half a lap later. We see the rules applied that way very often. EG Sainz fighting with Perez in Austin. Sainz overtook off track but Perez passed back so obviously no penalty was given.

That penalty was not consistent with any other precedent we have seen around that Issue in F1.

circumstance. If they had done nothing they would have given out the message that there was nothing wrong with the pass. But they wanted to send a clear message that it wouldn't be tolerated so there would be no ambiguity


Or they could have just said the pass wasn't legal but as no lasting advantage was gained, as per usual rulings no penalty will be given.

There is plenty of examples where someone overtakes illegally but loses the position and no penalty is given. The stewards actually often ask the fouling driver to give the position back so they clearly support the idea that if no advantage is gained then a penalty will not be applied.

Hamilton's case is a massive outlier when compared to usual stewarding. Especially when considering the actual size of the penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
lamo wrote:
The 2008 Mclaren is the only car in the last 30 years to win the WDC whilst winning less races than another car. #

That's one little nugget that evaded me. That Spa decision still grinds my gears

Yeah that was one of those Max Mosely era decisions that just made no sense whatsoever. Basically took a win from Hamilton and handed it to Massa (who was 20 seconds behind him at the end of the race). Had Kimi finished the race, they might have had a leg to stand on but to give such a hefty penalty and basically gift a win to Massa was ridiculous.

I don't think it was that ridiculous. their fight may have unfolded differently if Lewis hadn't unlawfully passed when he did. That's what they were punishing. Would have been even more ridiculous if they'd let him get away with it

If they deemed the overtake to be illegal, they could have instructed him to give back the position (the normal {and logical} recourse for such an offense). Considering the fact that Raikkonen crashed out of the race, there was no way to do that. Considering how late in the race the overtake happened, there is simply no way that Hamilton gained the amount of time that they penalized him with. In other words, they just handed the Ferrari driver the win there.

McLaren actually asked if the repass was alright and Whiting said it was, also let's not forget that Hamilton went off the track in the first place because he was forced off by Kimi, a few strange things happened that year post spygate.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
That's one little nugget that evaded me. That Spa decision still grinds my gears

Yeah that was one of those Max Mosely era decisions that just made no sense whatsoever. Basically took a win from Hamilton and handed it to Massa (who was 20 seconds behind him at the end of the race). Had Kimi finished the race, they might have had a leg to stand on but to give such a hefty penalty and basically gift a win to Massa was ridiculous.

I don't think it was that ridiculous. their fight may have unfolded differently if Lewis hadn't unlawfully passed when he did. That's what they were punishing. Would have been even more ridiculous if they'd let him get away with it

He gave the place back, what penalty did Verstappen receive for unlawfully passing Kimi in Austin?

How he gave it back led to the penalty in the first place. What is the relevance of asking about a different incident more than ten years later?

That would be the size of the penalty dished out to Hamilton, also how would the race have unfolded differently when Kimi repassed Hamilton by illegally going off the track at Eau Rouge so he basically re-righted the situation and was actually in front of Hamilton when he crashed out of the race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
That's one little nugget that evaded me. That Spa decision still grinds my gears

Yeah that was one of those Max Mosely era decisions that just made no sense whatsoever. Basically took a win from Hamilton and handed it to Massa (who was 20 seconds behind him at the end of the race). Had Kimi finished the race, they might have had a leg to stand on but to give such a hefty penalty and basically gift a win to Massa was ridiculous.

I don't think it was that ridiculous. their fight may have unfolded differently if Lewis hadn't unlawfully passed when he did. That's what they were punishing. Would have been even more ridiculous if they'd let him get away with it

If they deemed the overtake to be illegal, they could have instructed him to give back the position (the normal {and logical} recourse for such an offense). Considering the fact that Raikkonen crashed out of the race, there was no way to do that. Considering how late in the race the overtake happened, there is simply no way that Hamilton gained the amount of time that they penalized him with. In other words, they just handed the Ferrari driver the win there.

OTOH, if they'd done nothing they would have effectively allowed him to get away with an illegal pass...

I've already answered that but I will repeat that Kimi retook the position with an illegal pass and then crashed out while in front of Hamilton, there was actual no reason to penalise Hamilton, do not the stewards now say that there has to be a lasting advantage, it was pure hogwash.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
OTOH, if they'd done nothing they would have effectively allowed him to get away with an illegal pass...



He didn't get away with it. He didn't get a lasting advantage as Kimi retook him half a lap later. We see the rules applied that way very often. EG Sainz fighting with Perez in Austin. Sainz overtook off track but Perez passed back so obviously no penalty was given.

That penalty was not consistent with any other precedent we have seen around that Issue in F1.

circumstance. If they had done nothing they would have given out the message that there was nothing wrong with the pass. But they wanted to send a clear message that it wouldn't be tolerated so there would be no ambiguity

Really no ambiguity, ok.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
The stewards deciding to give Massa the win in Spa and Hamilton's penalty in Fuji are both more than suspicious. Both went against every previous precedent set and nobody has been penalised for the similar things in the future. No wonder Hamilton has such a persecution complex.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5320
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAQFWonJts

A lot of drivers disagreed with you poker and mikey.

Anyway, funny to see Nico's bitterness since back then!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
Siao7 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAQFWonJts

A lot of drivers disagreed with you poker and mikey.

Anyway, funny to see Nico's bitterness since back then!!


Regardless of others opinions surely you can see the inconsistency of the penalty? Nothing like it before or since....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
Siao7 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAQFWonJts

A lot of drivers disagreed with you poker and mikey.

Anyway, funny to see Nico's bitterness since back then!!

While Rosberg thought that Verstappen's off track pass on Kimi in Austin was perfectly alright, it was alright because he thought Kimi forced Verstappen off the track, whilst Kimi definitely forced Hamilton off the track, who is being consistent here?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5320
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAQFWonJts

A lot of drivers disagreed with you poker and mikey.

Anyway, funny to see Nico's bitterness since back then!!


Regardless of others opinions surely you can see the inconsistency of the penalty? Nothing like it before or since....


It's easy the since part: there's a rule, so drivers know not to do this. The before I am not sure, I can't recall a similar overtake like this, meaning the driver overtaking, giving the position back and immediately overtaking again.

It's been analysed to death and I'm afraid people will never agree. Did Kimi push Hamilton off the chicane or did Hamilton made his way past when he should have maybe lifted? I am not sure. What is definitely sure is that he waited enough for Kimi to get in his slipstream and re-pass straight away. What was also obvious is that had he followed Kimi around the chicane he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake him at that point. that was what a lot of people argued.

For me it was a stupid thing from Hamilton; he was so much faster than Kimi at that point of the race that he could have waited for a corner or two and nail him easily. I do think that 25 sec was too much to be added though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAQFWonJts

A lot of drivers disagreed with you poker and mikey.

Anyway, funny to see Nico's bitterness since back then!!


Regardless of others opinions surely you can see the inconsistency of the penalty? Nothing like it before or since....


It's easy the since part: there's a rule, so drivers know not to do this. The before I am not sure, I can't recall a similar overtake like this, meaning the driver overtaking, giving the position back and immediately overtaking again.

It's been analysed to death and I'm afraid people will never agree. Did Kimi push Hamilton off the chicane or did Hamilton made his way past when he should have maybe lifted? I am not sure. What is definitely sure is that he waited enough for Kimi to get in his slipstream and re-pass straight away. What was also obvious is that had he followed Kimi around the chicane he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake him at that point. that was what a lot of people argued.

For me it was a stupid thing from Hamilton; he was so much faster than Kimi at that point of the race that he could have waited for a corner or two and nail him easily. I do think that 25 sec was too much to be added though.


I thin you miss understand my angle. I'm not arguing the pass was legal. I agree that is up for debate. My gut feeling would be not legal. What is unusual is that Hamilton was penalised despite Kimi getting back past half a lap later. Hamilton gained no lasting advantage. This is something we see very often. If no lasting advantage is gained then no penalty is applied.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5320
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAQFWonJts

A lot of drivers disagreed with you poker and mikey.

Anyway, funny to see Nico's bitterness since back then!!


Regardless of others opinions surely you can see the inconsistency of the penalty? Nothing like it before or since....


It's easy the since part: there's a rule, so drivers know not to do this. The before I am not sure, I can't recall a similar overtake like this, meaning the driver overtaking, giving the position back and immediately overtaking again.

It's been analysed to death and I'm afraid people will never agree. Did Kimi push Hamilton off the chicane or did Hamilton made his way past when he should have maybe lifted? I am not sure. What is definitely sure is that he waited enough for Kimi to get in his slipstream and re-pass straight away. What was also obvious is that had he followed Kimi around the chicane he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake him at that point. that was what a lot of people argued.

For me it was a stupid thing from Hamilton; he was so much faster than Kimi at that point of the race that he could have waited for a corner or two and nail him easily. I do think that 25 sec was too much to be added though.


I thin you miss understand my angle. I'm not arguing the pass was legal. I agree that is up for debate. My gut feeling would be not legal. What is unusual is that Hamilton was penalised despite Kimi getting back past half a lap later. Hamilton gained no lasting advantage. This is something we see very often. If no lasting advantage is gained then no penalty is applied.


He only got by afterwards because Hamilton made a mistake trying to pass a backmarker, right? Or do I remember it wrongly?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAQFWonJts

A lot of drivers disagreed with you poker and mikey.

Anyway, funny to see Nico's bitterness since back then!!


Regardless of others opinions surely you can see the inconsistency of the penalty? Nothing like it before or since....


It's easy the since part: there's a rule, so drivers know not to do this. The before I am not sure, I can't recall a similar overtake like this, meaning the driver overtaking, giving the position back and immediately overtaking again.

It's been analysed to death and I'm afraid people will never agree. Did Kimi push Hamilton off the chicane or did Hamilton made his way past when he should have maybe lifted? I am not sure. What is definitely sure is that he waited enough for Kimi to get in his slipstream and re-pass straight away. What was also obvious is that had he followed Kimi around the chicane he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake him at that point. that was what a lot of people argued.

For me it was a stupid thing from Hamilton; he was so much faster than Kimi at that point of the race that he could have waited for a corner or two and nail him easily. I do think that 25 sec was too much to be added though.


I thin you miss understand my angle. I'm not arguing the pass was legal. I agree that is up for debate. My gut feeling would be not legal. What is unusual is that Hamilton was penalised despite Kimi getting back past half a lap later. Hamilton gained no lasting advantage. This is something we see very often. If no lasting advantage is gained then no penalty is applied.


He only got by afterwards because Hamilton made a mistake trying to pass a backmarker, right? Or do I remember it wrongly?


On the right path, Rosberg went off track (a lap down) and pulled back on right in front of Hamilton who was forced to go off.

But I don't see the manor in which Kimi gained the advantage back is relevant. It never has been in future cases. And that is my point when I talk about it being unprecedented before or since. It's something we see quite often really. I used an example of Perez and Sainz in Austin earlier. Sainz overtook Perez off track but lost the position when Perez retook him. Sainz certainly didn't give the place back but no penalty was given as Sainz didn't gain an advantage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAQFWonJts

A lot of drivers disagreed with you poker and mikey.

Anyway, funny to see Nico's bitterness since back then!!


Regardless of others opinions surely you can see the inconsistency of the penalty? Nothing like it before or since....


It's easy the since part: there's a rule, so drivers know not to do this. The before I am not sure, I can't recall a similar overtake like this, meaning the driver overtaking, giving the position back and immediately overtaking again.

It's been analysed to death and I'm afraid people will never agree. Did Kimi push Hamilton off the chicane or did Hamilton made his way past when he should have maybe lifted? I am not sure. What is definitely sure is that he waited enough for Kimi to get in his slipstream and re-pass straight away. What was also obvious is that had he followed Kimi around the chicane he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake him at that point. that was what a lot of people argued.

For me it was a stupid thing from Hamilton; he was so much faster than Kimi at that point of the race that he could have waited for a corner or two and nail him easily. I do think that 25 sec was too much to be added though.

Kimi repassed Hamilton 2 corners later in the lap by going off the track illegally and crashed whilst leading the race it was total nonsense.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAQFWonJts

A lot of drivers disagreed with you poker and mikey.

Anyway, funny to see Nico's bitterness since back then!!


Regardless of others opinions surely you can see the inconsistency of the penalty? Nothing like it before or since....


It's easy the since part: there's a rule, so drivers know not to do this. The before I am not sure, I can't recall a similar overtake like this, meaning the driver overtaking, giving the position back and immediately overtaking again.

It's been analysed to death and I'm afraid people will never agree. Did Kimi push Hamilton off the chicane or did Hamilton made his way past when he should have maybe lifted? I am not sure. What is definitely sure is that he waited enough for Kimi to get in his slipstream and re-pass straight away. What was also obvious is that had he followed Kimi around the chicane he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake him at that point. that was what a lot of people argued.

For me it was a stupid thing from Hamilton; he was so much faster than Kimi at that point of the race that he could have waited for a corner or two and nail him easily. I do think that 25 sec was too much to be added though.

Kimi repassed Hamilton 2 corners later in the lap by going off the track illegally and crashed whilst leading the race it was total nonsense.


He didn't Kimi retook after Pouhon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23736
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAQFWonJts

A lot of drivers disagreed with you poker and mikey.

Anyway, funny to see Nico's bitterness since back then!!


Regardless of others opinions surely you can see the inconsistency of the penalty? Nothing like it before or since....


It's easy the since part: there's a rule, so drivers know not to do this. The before I am not sure, I can't recall a similar overtake like this, meaning the driver overtaking, giving the position back and immediately overtaking again.

It's been analysed to death and I'm afraid people will never agree. Did Kimi push Hamilton off the chicane or did Hamilton made his way past when he should have maybe lifted? I am not sure. What is definitely sure is that he waited enough for Kimi to get in his slipstream and re-pass straight away. What was also obvious is that had he followed Kimi around the chicane he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake him at that point. that was what a lot of people argued.

For me it was a stupid thing from Hamilton; he was so much faster than Kimi at that point of the race that he could have waited for a corner or two and nail him easily. I do think that 25 sec was too much to be added though.

Kimi repassed Hamilton 2 corners later in the lap by going off the track illegally and crashed whilst leading the race it was total nonsense.


He didn't Kimi retook after Pouhon.

I don't know all the corners by name I just remember Kimi going off the track going up the hill.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 15th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
That was when he spun at the end of the lap. He went wide round Pouhon and overtook Hamilton into the next corner which is Fagnes. It's about 8 corners later rather than 2. Not that this changes anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6816
Location: Belgium
lamo wrote:
Yes this is the often over looked part of the whole saga. Kimi re-overtook him 30 seconds later by himself going off track at Pouhon and getting a big advantage by running a really wide line and getting lots of momentum to re-overtake Hamilton. It's just Kimi spun literally 3 seconds later.
If he really ran wide at Pouhon, and crashed at Blanchimont 3 seconds later, he was giving a whole new meaning to "poetic licence". Literally... (Just teasing, Lamo.)

lamo wrote:
I wonder how the rules would view the entire incident now, would Kimi be in the wrong for not leaving Hamilton space? Hamilton was marginally ahead going into the corner after all.
No, that's not the "rule" as explained by Mr Whiting this summer; the car "ahead" at the apex is what matters. And that was Räikkönen, by nearly half a car length. Now, I'm still looking for the rule that says this, but if it truly is in existence, it was perfectly clear that Hamilton had to yield - provided the same rule was in use then.

The only debatable points about that episode are whether Hamilton did give all of the advantage back in slotting in behind (the stewards decided he didn't), and how badly McLaren shot themselves in the foot, by getting race control to doubt their initial decision enough to refer the matter to the stewards. I'm sure somebody slept badly that night besides Hamilton. My idea is that McLaren asking race control twice, meant they knew there was something fishy about Hamilton giving the place back and launching an immediate attack at the same time.

lamo wrote:
Its a great shame that Massa won that race.
I may be wrong, but didn't he keep it on the island? Neither Hamilton nor Räikkönen managed to do that, if memory serves.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12299
Fiki wrote:
lamo wrote:
Yes this is the often over looked part of the whole saga. Kimi re-overtook him 30 seconds later by himself going off track at Pouhon and getting a big advantage by running a really wide line and getting lots of momentum to re-overtake Hamilton. It's just Kimi spun literally 3 seconds later.
If he really ran wide at Pouhon, and crashed at Blanchimont 3 seconds later, he was giving a whole new meaning to "poetic licence". Literally... (Just teasing, Lamo.)

lamo wrote:
I wonder how the rules would view the entire incident now, would Kimi be in the wrong for not leaving Hamilton space? Hamilton was marginally ahead going into the corner after all.
No, that's not the "rule" as explained by Mr Whiting this summer; the car "ahead" at the apex is what matters. And that was Räikkönen, by nearly half a car length. Now, I'm still looking for the rule that says this, but if it truly is in existence, it was perfectly clear that Hamilton had to yield - provided the same rule was in use then.

The only debatable points about that episode are whether Hamilton did give all of the advantage back in slotting in behind (the stewards decided he didn't), and how badly McLaren shot themselves in the foot, by getting race control to doubt their initial decision enough to refer the matter to the stewards. I'm sure somebody slept badly that night besides Hamilton. My idea is that McLaren asking race control twice, meant they knew there was something fishy about Hamilton giving the place back and launching an immediate attack at the same time.

lamo wrote:
Its a great shame that Massa won that race.
I may be wrong, but didn't he keep it on the island? Neither Hamilton nor Räikkönen managed to do that, if memory serves.


Who knows if Massa kept it on the island. His last few laps weren't shown.

Kimi got the place back after Hamilton was forced off at Fagnes so no lasting advantage gained. By every precedent before or since that would mean no penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4147
Man, the Kimi vs Lewis when the rain started coming on was something else. Short, but so damned exciting to watch two guys who were two of the best then going hell for leather and really pushing it in some tricky conditions.

The trouble with the rule was it's not clear what constitutes giving up the advantage gained. Lewis dropped behind by a tiny amount so I can see why they'd think there was no issue. Lewis gained time by cutting so I can fully understand why you'd come down on the other side.

I have no issue with him gaining a penalty for it, but the penalty was overly harsh from my perspective.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8716
I am not sure if Massa kept it on the island, Hamilton went off when he had to take avoiding action (as Rosberg rejoined directly into his path). He also straight lined Eau Rouge a little bit on the last lap. Kimi dropped it three times however in about half a lap.

Massa was only 3-4 seconds behind Hamilton when he rejoined the track having avoided Rosberg. He ended the race 15 seconds behind Hamilton, so he either had a spin or took the last lap very slowly.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2490
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAQFWonJts

A lot of drivers disagreed with you poker and mikey.

Anyway, funny to see Nico's bitterness since back then!!


Regardless of others opinions surely you can see the inconsistency of the penalty? Nothing like it before or since....


It's easy the since part: there's a rule, so drivers know not to do this. The before I am not sure, I can't recall a similar overtake like this, meaning the driver overtaking, giving the position back and immediately overtaking again.

It's been analysed to death and I'm afraid people will never agree. Did Kimi push Hamilton off the chicane or did Hamilton made his way past when he should have maybe lifted? I am not sure. What is definitely sure is that he waited enough for Kimi to get in his slipstream and re-pass straight away. What was also obvious is that had he followed Kimi around the chicane he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake him at that point. that was what a lot of people argued.

For me it was a stupid thing from Hamilton; he was so much faster than Kimi at that point of the race that he could have waited for a corner or two and nail him easily. I do think that 25 sec was too much to be added though.

Kimi repassed Hamilton 2 corners later in the lap by going off the track illegally and crashed whilst leading the race it was total nonsense.
I'm not sure whether you're talking about Spa 2008 but neither of the above are correct. Kimi passed Lewis several corners later (when Lewis had to take to the grass to avoid a struggling Rosberg) before spinning - on-circuit - immediately after, and handing back the lead to Lewis. He then crashed a few corners later again, whilst in pursuit of Lewis.
I understand the decision behind the penalty but also thought that it was rather severe.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20911
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWAQFWonJts

A lot of drivers disagreed with you poker and mikey.

Anyway, funny to see Nico's bitterness since back then!!


Regardless of others opinions surely you can see the inconsistency of the penalty? Nothing like it before or since....


It's easy the since part: there's a rule, so drivers know not to do this. The before I am not sure, I can't recall a similar overtake like this, meaning the driver overtaking, giving the position back and immediately overtaking again.

It's been analysed to death and I'm afraid people will never agree. Did Kimi push Hamilton off the chicane or did Hamilton made his way past when he should have maybe lifted? I am not sure. What is definitely sure is that he waited enough for Kimi to get in his slipstream and re-pass straight away. What was also obvious is that had he followed Kimi around the chicane he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake him at that point. that was what a lot of people argued.

For me it was a stupid thing from Hamilton; he was so much faster than Kimi at that point of the race that he could have waited for a corner or two and nail him easily. I do think that 25 sec was too much to be added though.

Kimi repassed Hamilton 2 corners later in the lap by going off the track illegally and crashed whilst leading the race it was total nonsense.
I'm not sure whether you're talking about Spa 2008 but neither of the above are correct. Kimi passed Lewis several corners later (when Lewis had to take to the grass to avoid a struggling Rosberg) before spinning - on-circuit - immediately after, and handing back the lead to Lewis. He then crashed a few corners later again, whilst in pursuit of Lewis.
I understand the decision behind the penalty but also thought that it was rather severe.

I think they wanted to send a message as they thought he had taken the mickey by giving back the place - if it can be called that - like he did. It's clear the penalty was designed to make sure he - or others - wouldn't even think about doing that again


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20911
Fiki wrote:
lamo wrote:
Yes this is the often over looked part of the whole saga. Kimi re-overtook him 30 seconds later by himself going off track at Pouhon and getting a big advantage by running a really wide line and getting lots of momentum to re-overtake Hamilton. It's just Kimi spun literally 3 seconds later.
If he really ran wide at Pouhon, and crashed at Blanchimont 3 seconds later, he was giving a whole new meaning to "poetic licence". Literally... (Just teasing, Lamo.)

lamo wrote:
I wonder how the rules would view the entire incident now, would Kimi be in the wrong for not leaving Hamilton space? Hamilton was marginally ahead going into the corner after all.
No, that's not the "rule" as explained by Mr Whiting this summer; the car "ahead" at the apex is what matters. And that was Räikkönen, by nearly half a car length. Now, I'm still looking for the rule that says this, but if it truly is in existence, it was perfectly clear that Hamilton had to yield - provided the same rule was in use then.

The only debatable points about that episode are whether Hamilton did give all of the advantage back in slotting in behind (the stewards decided he didn't), and how badly McLaren shot themselves in the foot, by getting race control to doubt their initial decision enough to refer the matter to the stewards. I'm sure somebody slept badly that night besides Hamilton. My idea is that McLaren asking race control twice, meant they knew there was something fishy about Hamilton giving the place back and launching an immediate attack at the same time.

lamo wrote:
Its a great shame that Massa won that race.
I may be wrong, but didn't he keep it on the island? Neither Hamilton nor Räikkönen managed to do that, if memory serves.

it's a good point that McLaren must have known that what Hamilton did was wrong, or else they wouldn't even have bothered asking once, let alone twice


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Posts: 953
mcdo wrote:
lamo wrote:
The 2008 Mclaren is the only car in the last 30 years to win the WDC whilst winning less races than another car. #

That's one little nugget that evaded me. That Spa decision still grinds my gears


To be fair, I don't hold any grudges for what happened in 2007/2008 years. Ferrari was the best car and should have won both titles with ease but with Massa/Kimi in the team.. they were missing special drivers. If it wasn't for Alonso/Lewis, Mclaren wouldn't have been challenging for wins. When you look at this season, if Ferrari still had Massa with Kimi... I doubt they would have a single win under their belt.

I may love Vettel but it's safe to say he has dominated Kimi like Alonso did and those drivers are the 'special crop'..

I like Kimi and Massa but driving wise they've both been dominated by Alonso and we've seen what Vettel does to Kimi. I also think it's safe to say - Nico was a better driver than he gets credit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5320
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

Regardless of others opinions surely you can see the inconsistency of the penalty? Nothing like it before or since....


It's easy the since part: there's a rule, so drivers know not to do this. The before I am not sure, I can't recall a similar overtake like this, meaning the driver overtaking, giving the position back and immediately overtaking again.

It's been analysed to death and I'm afraid people will never agree. Did Kimi push Hamilton off the chicane or did Hamilton made his way past when he should have maybe lifted? I am not sure. What is definitely sure is that he waited enough for Kimi to get in his slipstream and re-pass straight away. What was also obvious is that had he followed Kimi around the chicane he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake him at that point. that was what a lot of people argued.

For me it was a stupid thing from Hamilton; he was so much faster than Kimi at that point of the race that he could have waited for a corner or two and nail him easily. I do think that 25 sec was too much to be added though.


I thin you miss understand my angle. I'm not arguing the pass was legal. I agree that is up for debate. My gut feeling would be not legal. What is unusual is that Hamilton was penalised despite Kimi getting back past half a lap later. Hamilton gained no lasting advantage. This is something we see very often. If no lasting advantage is gained then no penalty is applied.


He only got by afterwards because Hamilton made a mistake trying to pass a backmarker, right? Or do I remember it wrongly?


On the right path, Rosberg went off track (a lap down) and pulled back on right in front of Hamilton who was forced to go off.

But I don't see the manor in which Kimi gained the advantage back is relevant. It never has been in future cases. And that is my point when I talk about it being unprecedented before or since. It's something we see quite often really. I used an example of Perez and Sainz in Austin earlier. Sainz overtook Perez off track but lost the position when Perez retook him. Sainz certainly didn't give the place back but no penalty was given as Sainz didn't gain an advantage.

I think it is relevant. It is part of the race. The rules do not specify how long is a lasting advantage. One corner? Ten laps? Where's the limit?

The manner that Kimi got the position back is because of outside factors. I understand the example with Sainz and I think that the stewards should have addressed it. But they want to dish out less penalties, so it may have played it's part.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4209
Lewis gained an advantage and therefore also a penalty. He came closer to Kimi than he would, had he followed the track. Period.

Stupid impatient move. He could do it the right way but was too inexperienced for that. He matured in the meantime.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group