planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:48 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5317
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.

It is ok then for Lewis to go outside the track around the chicane to avoid contact but it is not ok for Kimi to go off track when he lost the car and went wide? Strange.

You can argue that Kimi didn't actually overtake Lewis while outside the track and didn't gain an advantage by going off the dirty slippery surface outside the track, on the longer trajectory. In my eyes Kimi did gain a bit of an advantage, as he found traction in the end before he rejoined the track, but you can't say that this helped him to overtake Hamilton, as Hamilton went outside the track to avoid Rosberg.

It was nonsense, the end that is. The part that Lewis got an unfair advantage is clear enough


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5317
Lt. Drebin wrote:
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.


We fully agree Lt!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12288
Siao7 wrote:
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.


I understand it's not in the rules but what I am saying is that it is situation where the fouling driver would never normally be punished. It's a standing convention both before or since that if the fouling driver doesn't stay ahead for whatever he reason he won't get punished.

So when I say it's not relevant I mean the manor of the advantage being handed back is never a factor in stewards thinking. This occasion was a one off.

With Hamilton they changed that convention and punished him for something they don't punish anybody else for. I guess Hamilton gave them an excuse to penalise him and they took it. The size of the penalty I think proves the intention of the penalty and it wasn't to make sure Hamilton gained no advantage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5317
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
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.


I understand it's not in the rules but what I am saying is that it is situation where the fouling driver would never normally be punished. It's a standing convention both before or since that if the fouling driver doesn't stay ahead for whatever he reason he won't get punished.

So when I say it's not relevant I mean the manor of the advantage being handed back is never a factor in stewards thinking. This occasion was a one off.

With Hamilton they changed that convention and punished him for something they don't punish anybody else for. I guess Hamilton gave them an excuse to penalise him and they took it. The size of the penalty I think proves the intention of the penalty and it wasn't to make sure Hamilton gained no advantage.


Again, how long is the lasting advantage? Hamilton kept it for a bit and wasn't about to give it back.

I don't know about a standing convention, maybe this is something the drivers talked about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20902
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
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.


I understand it's not in the rules but what I am saying is that it is situation where the fouling driver would never normally be punished. It's a standing convention both before or since that if the fouling driver doesn't stay ahead for whatever he reason he won't get punished.

So when I say it's not relevant I mean the manor of the advantage being handed back is never a factor in stewards thinking. This occasion was a one off.

With Hamilton they changed that convention and punished him for something they don't punish anybody else for. I guess Hamilton gave them an excuse to penalise him and they took it. The size of the penalty I think proves the intention of the penalty and it wasn't to make sure Hamilton gained no advantage.


Again, how long is the lasting advantage? Hamilton kept it for a bit and wasn't about to give it back.

I don't know about a standing convention, maybe this is something the drivers talked about.

Not sure about convention but didn't they actually introduce new rules after this race, where the whole "lasting advantage" comes from?


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

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5317
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
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.


I understand it's not in the rules but what I am saying is that it is situation where the fouling driver would never normally be punished. It's a standing convention both before or since that if the fouling driver doesn't stay ahead for whatever he reason he won't get punished.

So when I say it's not relevant I mean the manor of the advantage being handed back is never a factor in stewards thinking. This occasion was a one off.

With Hamilton they changed that convention and punished him for something they don't punish anybody else for. I guess Hamilton gave them an excuse to penalise him and they took it. The size of the penalty I think proves the intention of the penalty and it wasn't to make sure Hamilton gained no advantage.


Again, how long is the lasting advantage? Hamilton kept it for a bit and wasn't about to give it back.

I don't know about a standing convention, maybe this is something the drivers talked about.

Not sure about convention but didn't they actually introduce new rules after this race, where the whole "lasting advantage" comes from?

I believe so. It is always difficult to compare last week's GP with one from 10 years ago when there were rule changes and clarifications in the meantime


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12288
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
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.


I understand it's not in the rules but what I am saying is that it is situation where the fouling driver would never normally be punished. It's a standing convention both before or since that if the fouling driver doesn't stay ahead for whatever he reason he won't get punished.

So when I say it's not relevant I mean the manor of the advantage being handed back is never a factor in stewards thinking. This occasion was a one off.

With Hamilton they changed that convention and punished him for something they don't punish anybody else for. I guess Hamilton gave them an excuse to penalise him and they took it. The size of the penalty I think proves the intention of the penalty and it wasn't to make sure Hamilton gained no advantage.


Again, how long is the lasting advantage? Hamilton kept it for a bit and wasn't about to give it back.

I don't know about a standing convention, maybe this is something the drivers talked about.

Not sure about convention but didn't they actually introduce new rules after this race, where the whole "lasting advantage" comes from?


You don't have to look at examples after there are examples from before as well. Nobody ever gets/got punished for that situation. Except for that one time. If you want further evidence of the purpose of the penalty you only have to look at the size of it. If you want even more proof look to Fuji just a few races later where Hamilton got another penalty for doing something that has never been penalised before or since.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20902
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
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.


I understand it's not in the rules but what I am saying is that it is situation where the fouling driver would never normally be punished. It's a standing convention both before or since that if the fouling driver doesn't stay ahead for whatever he reason he won't get punished.

So when I say it's not relevant I mean the manor of the advantage being handed back is never a factor in stewards thinking. This occasion was a one off.

With Hamilton they changed that convention and punished him for something they don't punish anybody else for. I guess Hamilton gave them an excuse to penalise him and they took it. The size of the penalty I think proves the intention of the penalty and it wasn't to make sure Hamilton gained no advantage.


Again, how long is the lasting advantage? Hamilton kept it for a bit and wasn't about to give it back.

I don't know about a standing convention, maybe this is something the drivers talked about.

Not sure about convention but didn't they actually introduce new rules after this race, where the whole "lasting advantage" comes from?


You don't have to look at examples after there are examples from before as well. Nobody ever gets/got punished for that situation. Except for that one time. If you want further evidence of the purpose of the penalty you only have to look at the size of it. If you want even more proof look to Fuji just a few races later where Hamilton got another penalty for doing something that has never been penalised before or since.

But as has been pointed out, it was a fairly unique situation that to the best of my recollection hasn't actually happened before (or since). You can't draw conclusions about intent when there aren't any other examples to draw from.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12288
Zoue wrote:
But as has been pointed out, it was a fairly unique situation that to the best of my recollection hasn't actually happened before (or since). You can't draw conclusions about intent when there aren't any other examples to draw from.


The relevant bits around Hamilton's foul are far from unique. IE the gaining and advantage that was later relinquished for whatever reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20902
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
But as has been pointed out, it was a fairly unique situation that to the best of my recollection hasn't actually happened before (or since). You can't draw conclusions about intent when there aren't any other examples to draw from.


The relevant bits around Hamilton's foul are far from unique. IE the gaining and advantage that was later relinquished for whatever reason.

i think it was the manner in which it was done. I suspect they may have felt he was taking the mickey


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4270
The conversation in here seems to be totally missing the point (with the exception of mikeyg123). Whether or not the overtake was illegal is irrelevant. What's relevant is that getting a 25 second penalty for it and giving positions to multiple drivers who were not involved in the overtake is something that was totally unprecedented and that hasn't happened since.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12288
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
But as has been pointed out, it was a fairly unique situation that to the best of my recollection hasn't actually happened before (or since). You can't draw conclusions about intent when there aren't any other examples to draw from.


The relevant bits around Hamilton's foul are far from unique. IE the gaining and advantage that was later relinquished for whatever reason.

i think it was the manner in which it was done. I suspect they may have felt he was taking the mickey


I mean when he had to go off to avoid Rosberg and Kimi got the place back.

I agree with the initial incident he didn't give enough of the advantage back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20902
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
But as has been pointed out, it was a fairly unique situation that to the best of my recollection hasn't actually happened before (or since). You can't draw conclusions about intent when there aren't any other examples to draw from.


The relevant bits around Hamilton's foul are far from unique. IE the gaining and advantage that was later relinquished for whatever reason.

i think it was the manner in which it was done. I suspect they may have felt he was taking the mickey


I mean when he had to go off to avoid Rosberg and Kimi got the place back.

I agree with the initial incident he didn't give enough of the advantage back.

I understand. I'm trying to explain a possible motivation for the severity of the punishment, in that they may have felt he was trying it on and therefore were sending a message that this wouldn't be tolerated


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20902
sandman1347 wrote:
The conversation in here seems to be totally missing the point (with the exception of mikeyg123). Whether or not the overtake was illegal is irrelevant. What's relevant is that getting a 25 second penalty for it and giving positions to multiple drivers who were not involved in the overtake is something that was totally unprecedented and that hasn't happened since.

I don't think anybody's missing the point. We've been discussing why the punishment was so severe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12288
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
But as has been pointed out, it was a fairly unique situation that to the best of my recollection hasn't actually happened before (or since). You can't draw conclusions about intent when there aren't any other examples to draw from.


The relevant bits around Hamilton's foul are far from unique. IE the gaining and advantage that was later relinquished for whatever reason.

i think it was the manner in which it was done. I suspect they may have felt he was taking the mickey


I mean when he had to go off to avoid Rosberg and Kimi got the place back.

I agree with the initial incident he didn't give enough of the advantage back.

I understand. I'm trying to explain a possible motivation for the severity of the punishment, in that they may have felt he was trying it on and therefore were sending a message that this wouldn't be tolerated


I think it's a bit of a reach and a lot less likely than them wanting to effect the championship, especially with the Fuji penalty in mind as well but I do acknowledge it is possible.

It would still be incredibly harsh though. Especially as Mclaren even checked to make sure it was OK so they were hardly trying to sneak one past the stewards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4270
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The conversation in here seems to be totally missing the point (with the exception of mikeyg123). Whether or not the overtake was illegal is irrelevant. What's relevant is that getting a 25 second penalty for it and giving positions to multiple drivers who were not involved in the overtake is something that was totally unprecedented and that hasn't happened since.

I don't think anybody's missing the point. We've been discussing why the punishment was so severe

The point is that there's really no valid argument that a 25 second penalty was justified. There have been numerous cases in F1 (several every year) in which an overtake was deemed to be illegal or where a driver was deemed to have gained an advantage from using a runoff area. At no point before or since Spa 2008, was the punishment for a one-time incident of this nature a 25 second time penalty. Also, the only way a driver not involved in an illegal overtake is ever gifted a position is if he also overtakes the driver who was overtaken illegally in the interim time between when the illegal overtake happens and when the place is returned. To gift positions to drivers that are 15-20 seconds behind is totally ridiculous and, again, unprecedented and never seen since.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6814
Location: Belgium
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The conversation in here seems to be totally missing the point (with the exception of mikeyg123). Whether or not the overtake was illegal is irrelevant. What's relevant is that getting a 25 second penalty for it and giving positions to multiple drivers who were not involved in the overtake is something that was totally unprecedented and that hasn't happened since.

I don't think anybody's missing the point. We've been discussing why the punishment was so severe

The point is that there's really no valid argument that a 25 second penalty was justified. There have been numerous cases in F1 (several every year) in which an overtake was deemed to be illegal or where a driver was deemed to have gained an advantage from using a runoff area. At no point before or since Spa 2008, was the punishment for a one-time incident of this nature a 25 second time penalty. Also, the only way a driver not involved in an illegal overtake is ever gifted a position is if he also overtakes the driver who was overtaken illegally in the interim time between when the illegal overtake happens and when the place is returned. To gift positions to drivers that are 15-20 seconds behind is totally ridiculous and, again, unprecedented and never seen since.
Was another penalty available to the stewards? I don't have a copy of the 2008 rules, do you? It's just a thought, but this case may well be an unfortunate fall-out from rules brought in earlier. Schumacher "serving" a penalty after the race comes to mind.

I cannot see giving a driver a penalty after the race as gifting positions to other drivers. Those other drivers had nothing to do with a transgression by Hamilton on Räikkönen.

_________________
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: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4270
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The conversation in here seems to be totally missing the point (with the exception of mikeyg123). Whether or not the overtake was illegal is irrelevant. What's relevant is that getting a 25 second penalty for it and giving positions to multiple drivers who were not involved in the overtake is something that was totally unprecedented and that hasn't happened since.

I don't think anybody's missing the point. We've been discussing why the punishment was so severe

The point is that there's really no valid argument that a 25 second penalty was justified. There have been numerous cases in F1 (several every year) in which an overtake was deemed to be illegal or where a driver was deemed to have gained an advantage from using a runoff area. At no point before or since Spa 2008, was the punishment for a one-time incident of this nature a 25 second time penalty. Also, the only way a driver not involved in an illegal overtake is ever gifted a position is if he also overtakes the driver who was overtaken illegally in the interim time between when the illegal overtake happens and when the place is returned. To gift positions to drivers that are 15-20 seconds behind is totally ridiculous and, again, unprecedented and never seen since.
Was another penalty available to the stewards? I don't have a copy of the 2008 rules, do you? It's just a thought, but this case may well be an unfortunate fall-out from rules brought in earlier. Schumacher "serving" a penalty after the race comes to mind.

I cannot see giving a driver a penalty after the race as gifting positions to other drivers. Those other drivers had nothing to do with a transgression by Hamilton on Räikkönen.

Massa and Heidfeld both gained positions after the penalty, therefore they were gifted positions. The reason, for example, that Max was given a 5 second time penalty in Austin was to effectively administer the normal punishment for an invalid overtake (to hand back the position that was taken through an invalid maneuver). In the case of Spa 2008, 2 drivers were given a position that was never taken from them. That would be the equivalent of giving Max a 25 second penalty and thus handing 4th place to Bottas (who was 20 seconds behind and not in any way involved in the overtake).

You do make an interesting point with regards to the rules. I actually don't have a copy of the rules to check what options were available to them, however, I would suggest that a grid penalty for the next race or something that doesn't directly give an advantage to someone who wasn't involved would have been more appropriate even if a more sensible time penalty was not available within the rules (although that would also be an unprecedented and inappropriate penalty). Really, considering Raikkonen's DNF, the correct thing would have been a reprimand of some sort with no actual penalty. Nothing about the final result was corrected by the penalty. It's sole purpose was to hand Massa the win.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5317
sandman1347 wrote:
The conversation in here seems to be totally missing the point (with the exception of mikeyg123). Whether or not the overtake was illegal is irrelevant. What's relevant is that getting a 25 second penalty for it and giving positions to multiple drivers who were not involved in the overtake is something that was totally unprecedented and that hasn't happened since.


And if you read my posts, you'd see that I agree that the 25 sec penalty was a cr@p one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 166
sandman1347 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The conversation in here seems to be totally missing the point (with the exception of mikeyg123). Whether or not the overtake was illegal is irrelevant. What's relevant is that getting a 25 second penalty for it and giving positions to multiple drivers who were not involved in the overtake is something that was totally unprecedented and that hasn't happened since.

I don't think anybody's missing the point. We've been discussing why the punishment was so severe

The point is that there's really no valid argument that a 25 second penalty was justified. There have been numerous cases in F1 (several every year) in which an overtake was deemed to be illegal or where a driver was deemed to have gained an advantage from using a runoff area. At no point before or since Spa 2008, was the punishment for a one-time incident of this nature a 25 second time penalty. Also, the only way a driver not involved in an illegal overtake is ever gifted a position is if he also overtakes the driver who was overtaken illegally in the interim time between when the illegal overtake happens and when the place is returned. To gift positions to drivers that are 15-20 seconds behind is totally ridiculous and, again, unprecedented and never seen since.
Was another penalty available to the stewards? I don't have a copy of the 2008 rules, do you? It's just a thought, but this case may well be an unfortunate fall-out from rules brought in earlier. Schumacher "serving" a penalty after the race comes to mind.

I cannot see giving a driver a penalty after the race as gifting positions to other drivers. Those other drivers had nothing to do with a transgression by Hamilton on Räikkönen.

Massa and Heidfeld both gained positions after the penalty, therefore they were gifted positions. The reason, for example, that Max was given a 5 second time penalty in Austin was to effectively administer the normal punishment for an invalid overtake (to hand back the position that was taken through an invalid maneuver). In the case of Spa 2008, 2 drivers were given a position that was never taken from them. That would be the equivalent of giving Max a 25 second penalty and thus handing 4th place to Bottas (who was 20 seconds behind and not in any way involved in the overtake).

You do make an interesting point with regards to the rules. I actually don't have a copy of the rules to check what options were available to them, however, I would suggest that a grid penalty for the next race or something that doesn't directly give an advantage to someone who wasn't involved would have been more appropriate even if a more sensible time penalty was not available within the rules (although that would also be an unprecedented and inappropriate penalty). Really, considering Raikkonen's DNF, the correct thing would have been a reprimand of some sort with no actual penalty. Nothing about the final result was corrected by the penalty. It's sole purpose was to hand Massa the win.


Not wishing to get involved in the wider debate, but Hamilton was deemed to have breached Article 30.3.a) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations and article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code. Article 30.3.a) stipulates that "during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits". Article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code states that "the race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race". As the penalty was to be applied at the end of the race, the Panel of Stewards added 25 seconds to the driver's race time, in accordance with the provisions of Article 16.3, final paragraph.

Article 16.3
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.

https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.n ... 5-2008.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4270
SR1 wrote:

Not wishing to get involved in the wider debate, but Hamilton was deemed to have breached Article 30.3.a) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations and article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code. Article 30.3.a) stipulates that "during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits". Article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code states that "the race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race". As the penalty was to be applied at the end of the race, the Panel of Stewards added 25 seconds to the driver's race time, in accordance with the provisions of Article 16.3, final paragraph.

Article 16.3
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.

https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.n ... 5-2008.pdf

Thanks for digging that up. This certainly shows the road map to handing Ferrari the win. It also shows that they could instead have imposed a grid penalty or, of course, not imposed a penalty at all and instead issued a reprimand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6814
Location: Belgium
SR1 got there before me; plus a full copy of the sporting regulations. Thanks!

sandman1347 wrote:
SR1 wrote:

Not wishing to get involved in the wider debate, but Hamilton was deemed to have breached Article 30.3.a) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations and article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code. Article 30.3.a) stipulates that "during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits". Article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code states that "the race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race". As the penalty was to be applied at the end of the race, the Panel of Stewards added 25 seconds to the driver's race time, in accordance with the provisions of Article 16.3, final paragraph.

Article 16.3
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.

https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.n ... 5-2008.pdf

Thanks for digging that up. This certainly shows the road map to handing Ferrari the win. It also shows that they could instead have imposed a grid penalty or, of course, not imposed a penalty at all and instead issued a reprimand.
I doubt an official reprimand was possible; it isn't mentioned in that copy of the sporting regulations at all.

Incidently, during the same Belgian Grand Prix, Glock was given the same penalty (25 seconds added after the race) for overtaking under yellows.

_________________
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: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20902
SR1 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't think anybody's missing the point. We've been discussing why the punishment was so severe

The point is that there's really no valid argument that a 25 second penalty was justified. There have been numerous cases in F1 (several every year) in which an overtake was deemed to be illegal or where a driver was deemed to have gained an advantage from using a runoff area. At no point before or since Spa 2008, was the punishment for a one-time incident of this nature a 25 second time penalty. Also, the only way a driver not involved in an illegal overtake is ever gifted a position is if he also overtakes the driver who was overtaken illegally in the interim time between when the illegal overtake happens and when the place is returned. To gift positions to drivers that are 15-20 seconds behind is totally ridiculous and, again, unprecedented and never seen since.
Was another penalty available to the stewards? I don't have a copy of the 2008 rules, do you? It's just a thought, but this case may well be an unfortunate fall-out from rules brought in earlier. Schumacher "serving" a penalty after the race comes to mind.

I cannot see giving a driver a penalty after the race as gifting positions to other drivers. Those other drivers had nothing to do with a transgression by Hamilton on Räikkönen.

Massa and Heidfeld both gained positions after the penalty, therefore they were gifted positions. The reason, for example, that Max was given a 5 second time penalty in Austin was to effectively administer the normal punishment for an invalid overtake (to hand back the position that was taken through an invalid maneuver). In the case of Spa 2008, 2 drivers were given a position that was never taken from them. That would be the equivalent of giving Max a 25 second penalty and thus handing 4th place to Bottas (who was 20 seconds behind and not in any way involved in the overtake).

You do make an interesting point with regards to the rules. I actually don't have a copy of the rules to check what options were available to them, however, I would suggest that a grid penalty for the next race or something that doesn't directly give an advantage to someone who wasn't involved would have been more appropriate even if a more sensible time penalty was not available within the rules (although that would also be an unprecedented and inappropriate penalty). Really, considering Raikkonen's DNF, the correct thing would have been a reprimand of some sort with no actual penalty. Nothing about the final result was corrected by the penalty. It's sole purpose was to hand Massa the win.


Not wishing to get involved in the wider debate, but Hamilton was deemed to have breached Article 30.3.a) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations and article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code. Article 30.3.a) stipulates that "during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits". Article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code states that "the race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race". As the penalty was to be applied at the end of the race, the Panel of Stewards added 25 seconds to the driver's race time, in accordance with the provisions of Article 16.3, final paragraph.

Article 16.3
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.

https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.n ... 5-2008.pdf

Well that shows that a 25s penalty was pretty much the only penalty they could give, aside from a grid drop at the next race, which kind of takes the wind out of any championship meddling claims. The stewards didn't exactly have a lot of choice in the matter


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20902
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

The relevant bits around Hamilton's foul are far from unique. IE the gaining and advantage that was later relinquished for whatever reason.

i think it was the manner in which it was done. I suspect they may have felt he was taking the mickey


I mean when he had to go off to avoid Rosberg and Kimi got the place back.

I agree with the initial incident he didn't give enough of the advantage back.

I understand. I'm trying to explain a possible motivation for the severity of the punishment, in that they may have felt he was trying it on and therefore were sending a message that this wouldn't be tolerated


I think it's a bit of a reach and a lot less likely than them wanting to effect the championship, especially with the Fuji penalty in mind as well but I do acknowledge it is possible.

It would still be incredibly harsh though. Especially as Mclaren even checked to make sure it was OK so they were hardly trying to sneak one past the stewards.

Given the sporting regulations displayed above, it does seem that affecting the championship was not likely to be a motive, or if it was then it was incidental. It seems the penalty given was fairly straightforward under the rules at the time


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4270
Fiki wrote:
SR1 got there before me; plus a full copy of the sporting regulations. Thanks!

sandman1347 wrote:
SR1 wrote:

Not wishing to get involved in the wider debate, but Hamilton was deemed to have breached Article 30.3.a) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations and article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code. Article 30.3.a) stipulates that "during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits". Article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code states that "the race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race". As the penalty was to be applied at the end of the race, the Panel of Stewards added 25 seconds to the driver's race time, in accordance with the provisions of Article 16.3, final paragraph.

Article 16.3
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.

https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.n ... 5-2008.pdf

Thanks for digging that up. This certainly shows the road map to handing Ferrari the win. It also shows that they could instead have imposed a grid penalty or, of course, not imposed a penalty at all and instead issued a reprimand.
I doubt an official reprimand was possible; it isn't mentioned in that copy of the sporting regulations at all.

Incidently, during the same Belgian Grand Prix, Glock was given the same penalty (25 seconds added after the race) for overtaking under yellows.

The precedent for heavy-handed penalties for overtaking under yellows was actually established though. Additionally, I vaguely recall the threads in here at the time going over the numerous other incidents of off-track excursion during that race in which this regulation was not invoked. It's primarily the lack of precedent or subsequent penalties of the same sort that exposes this incidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1096
So? Hamilton got screwed. Get over it, that happened almost ten years ago.

IMO if we ran a poll, most would agree that Lewis Hamilton got the short end of the stick. It happens, sometimes justice goes wrong. Whether or not it was a deliberate bad mistake is something we will never know. But in racing, we learn, make changes, and move on. It is not a perfect sport, nor is it mature. Drivers still die, accidents happen, and rules require constant tweaking when something like this incident occurs.

Holding on to a resentment for this many years is emotionally unhealthy. Do what teams and drivers to, learn and move on.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12288
Zoue wrote:
Given the sporting regulations displayed above, it does seem that affecting the championship was not likely to be a motive, or if it was then it was incidental. It seems the penalty given was fairly straightforward under the rules at the time


The giving of the penalty was not straightforward Seeing as they never give penalties in these circumstances except for against Hamilton at Spa. Any penalty given goes against previous precedents. Kimi got the place back the very same lap. No advantage was gained by Hamilton, Kimi was ahead when he spun out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4270
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
So? Hamilton got screwed. Get over it, that happened almost ten years ago.

IMO if we ran a poll, most would agree that Lewis Hamilton got the short end of the stick. It happens, sometimes justice goes wrong. Whether or not it was a deliberate bad mistake is something we will never know. But in racing, we learn, make changes, and move on. It is not a perfect sport, nor is it mature. Drivers still die, accidents happen, and rules require constant tweaking when something like this incident occurs.

Holding on to a resentment for this many years is emotionally unhealthy. Do what teams and drivers to, learn and move on.

Not sure who you're talking to but you should probably check back to see how the topic came up. I don't see anyone in here holding onto anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 166
Zoue wrote:
Given the sporting regulations displayed above, it does seem that affecting the championship was not likely to be a motive, or if it was then it was incidental. It seems the penalty given was fairly straightforward under the rules at the time


I’m not great at this kind of rule interpretation, but it does appear that a 25 sec time penalty was the only viable option—that, or simply no penalty at all.

Hamilton did cede back the position.
At the time of the incident, there was no enshrined rule that a driver also had to wait, at least one more corner, before attempting to overtake again. This was a complete grey area. It was only clarified/solidified after Spa, in Monza.
As explained by Mikeg123, Hamilton had gained no lasting advantage. Räikkönen got the place back, shortly thereafter.
Again, as pointed out by Mikeyg123 & Sandman, the lack of precedence to punish in similar circumstances.
McLaren twice checked the propriety of Hamilton's move with Race Control.

Looking at the whole picture, would it have been so unreasonable for the stewards to not punish? I don't know, to me, there’s enough there to give Hamilton the benefit of the doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12288
SR1 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Given the sporting regulations displayed above, it does seem that affecting the championship was not likely to be a motive, or if it was then it was incidental. It seems the penalty given was fairly straightforward under the rules at the time


I’m not great at this kind of rule interpretation, but it does appear that a 25 sec time penalty was the only viable option—that, or simply no penalty at all.

Hamilton did cede back the position.
At the time of the incident, there was no enshrined rule that a driver also had to wait, at least one more corner, before attempting to overtake again. This was a complete grey area. It was only clarified/solidified after Spa, in Monza.
As explained by Mikeg123, Hamilton had gained no lasting advantage. Räikkönen got the place back, shortly thereafter.
Again, as pointed out by Mikeyg123 & Sandman, the lack of precedence to punish in similar circumstances.
McLaren twice checked the propriety of Hamilton's move with Race Control.

Looking at the whole picture, would it have been so unreasonable for the stewards to not punish? I don't know, to me, there’s enough there to give Hamilton the benefit of the doubt.


Agreed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4270
mikeyg123 wrote:
SR1 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Given the sporting regulations displayed above, it does seem that affecting the championship was not likely to be a motive, or if it was then it was incidental. It seems the penalty given was fairly straightforward under the rules at the time


I’m not great at this kind of rule interpretation, but it does appear that a 25 sec time penalty was the only viable option—that, or simply no penalty at all.

Hamilton did cede back the position.
At the time of the incident, there was no enshrined rule that a driver also had to wait, at least one more corner, before attempting to overtake again. This was a complete grey area. It was only clarified/solidified after Spa, in Monza.
As explained by Mikeg123, Hamilton had gained no lasting advantage. Räikkönen got the place back, shortly thereafter.
Again, as pointed out by Mikeyg123 & Sandman, the lack of precedence to punish in similar circumstances.
McLaren twice checked the propriety of Hamilton's move with Race Control.

Looking at the whole picture, would it have been so unreasonable for the stewards to not punish? I don't know, to me, there’s enough there to give Hamilton the benefit of the doubt.


Agreed.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:18 am
Posts: 18
Since we're talking 2008, Japan...

Hamilton penalised for Kovalainen forcing Räikkönen off track. Bourdais penalised for having Massa cut across him. There is a valid discussion to have about Spa with points for both sides but when viewed in context with these it feels a little dodgy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20902
SR1 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Given the sporting regulations displayed above, it does seem that affecting the championship was not likely to be a motive, or if it was then it was incidental. It seems the penalty given was fairly straightforward under the rules at the time


I’m not great at this kind of rule interpretation, but it does appear that a 25 sec time penalty was the only viable option—that, or simply no penalty at all.

Hamilton did cede back the position.
At the time of the incident, there was no enshrined rule that a driver also had to wait, at least one more corner, before attempting to overtake again. This was a complete grey area. It was only clarified/solidified after Spa, in Monza.
As explained by Mikeg123, Hamilton had gained no lasting advantage. Räikkönen got the place back, shortly thereafter.
Again, as pointed out by Mikeyg123 & Sandman, the lack of precedence to punish in similar circumstances.
McLaren twice checked the propriety of Hamilton's move with Race Control.

Looking at the whole picture, would it have been so unreasonable for the stewards to not punish? I don't know, to me, there’s enough there to give Hamilton the benefit of the doubt.

That's the thing, though. It could be argued - and indeed was - that he didn't really cede the position as he left himself in a much better position than had he taken the corner normally. He barely let Kimi by before hitting the loud pedal again. That was what they were punishing. If they hadn't, then it would have left room for people to try a similar thing again in future races. And even McLaren thought the move was dodgy, else they wouldn't have sought clarification form Whiting not once but twice that everything was OK. If it was all straightforward and above board, why on earth would they do that?

As has been pointed out earlier, it was a fairly unique occurrence: it's difficult to find a lack of precedence to punish if you also can't find a precedence of action in the first place.

A number of drivers at the time thought his move was out of order. In which case, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect a punishment. And if 25s was the only punishment available, that's more a fault of the punishment system than any sign of heavy-handedness on this specific occasion. Which makes the whole affair fairly straightforward


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20902
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Given the sporting regulations displayed above, it does seem that affecting the championship was not likely to be a motive, or if it was then it was incidental. It seems the penalty given was fairly straightforward under the rules at the time


The giving of the penalty was not straightforward Seeing as they never give penalties in these circumstances except for against Hamilton at Spa. Any penalty given goes against previous precedents. Kimi got the place back the very same lap. No advantage was gained by Hamilton, Kimi was ahead when he spun out.

It's been explained already that there wasn't really a precedent for what Hamilton did. In which case there's nothing untoward about the punishment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12288
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Given the sporting regulations displayed above, it does seem that affecting the championship was not likely to be a motive, or if it was then it was incidental. It seems the penalty given was fairly straightforward under the rules at the time


The giving of the penalty was not straightforward Seeing as they never give penalties in these circumstances except for against Hamilton at Spa. Any penalty given goes against previous precedents. Kimi got the place back the very same lap. No advantage was gained by Hamilton, Kimi was ahead when he spun out.

It's been explained already that there wasn't really a precedent for what Hamilton did. In which case there's nothing untoward about the punishment


And you're still not understanding.

As I have explained I am talking about Kimi getting back passed half a lap later. There is lots of precedents for an illegal overtake where the fouled have gotten back past the fouler and no penalty has been given. Kimi got back passed twice so even if you judge the first one to be not enough you should be well satisfied by the second.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20902
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Given the sporting regulations displayed above, it does seem that affecting the championship was not likely to be a motive, or if it was then it was incidental. It seems the penalty given was fairly straightforward under the rules at the time


The giving of the penalty was not straightforward Seeing as they never give penalties in these circumstances except for against Hamilton at Spa. Any penalty given goes against previous precedents. Kimi got the place back the very same lap. No advantage was gained by Hamilton, Kimi was ahead when he spun out.

It's been explained already that there wasn't really a precedent for what Hamilton did. In which case there's nothing untoward about the punishment


And you're still not understanding.

As I have explained I am talking about Kimi getting back passed half a lap later. There is lots of precedents for an illegal overtake where the fouled have gotten back past the fouler and no penalty has been given. Kimi got back passed twice so even if you judge the first one to be not enough you should be well satisfied by the second.

I do understand, but I think that's a bit of a red herring. As I've already said it's entirely possible that they felt his actions were making a mockery of the rules and they decided to nip that in the bud. What went on after is irrelevant


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12288
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Given the sporting regulations displayed above, it does seem that affecting the championship was not likely to be a motive, or if it was then it was incidental. It seems the penalty given was fairly straightforward under the rules at the time


The giving of the penalty was not straightforward Seeing as they never give penalties in these circumstances except for against Hamilton at Spa. Any penalty given goes against previous precedents. Kimi got the place back the very same lap. No advantage was gained by Hamilton, Kimi was ahead when he spun out.

It's been explained already that there wasn't really a precedent for what Hamilton did. In which case there's nothing untoward about the punishment


And you're still not understanding.

As I have explained I am talking about Kimi getting back passed half a lap later. There is lots of precedents for an illegal overtake where the fouled have gotten back past the fouler and no penalty has been given. Kimi got back passed twice so even if you judge the first one to be not enough you should be well satisfied by the second.

I do understand, but I think that's a bit of a red herring. As I've already said it's entirely possible that they felt his actions were making a mockery of the rules and they decided to nip that in the bud. What went on after is irrelevant


Would seem unfair to punish someone who at least makes some effort, even if not enough, to give the position back than if they had made no effort at all.

What you are saying would mean had Hamilton just kept on his merry way after the chicane but Kimi still got the place back at Fagnes, Hamilton wouldn't have got a penalty?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 166
Zoue wrote:
SR1 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Given the sporting regulations displayed above, it does seem that affecting the championship was not likely to be a motive, or if it was then it was incidental. It seems the penalty given was fairly straightforward under the rules at the time


I’m not great at this kind of rule interpretation, but it does appear that a 25 sec time penalty was the only viable option—that, or simply no penalty at all.

Hamilton did cede back the position.
At the time of the incident, there was no enshrined rule that a driver also had to wait, at least one more corner, before attempting to overtake again. This was a complete grey area. It was only clarified/solidified after Spa, in Monza.
As explained by Mikeg123, Hamilton had gained no lasting advantage. Räikkönen got the place back, shortly thereafter.
Again, as pointed out by Mikeyg123 & Sandman, the lack of precedence to punish in similar circumstances.
McLaren twice checked the propriety of Hamilton's move with Race Control.

Looking at the whole picture, would it have been so unreasonable for the stewards to not punish? I don't know, to me, there’s enough there to give Hamilton the benefit of the doubt.

That's the thing, though. It could be argued - and indeed was - that he didn't really cede the position as he left himself in a much better position than had he taken the corner normally. He barely let Kimi by before hitting the loud pedal again. That was what they were punishing. If they hadn't, then it would have left room for people to try a similar thing again in future races. And even McLaren thought the move was dodgy, else they wouldn't have sought clarification form Whiting not once but twice that everything was OK. If it was all straightforward and above board, why on earth would they do that?

As has been pointed out earlier, it was a fairly unique occurrence: it's difficult to find a lack of precedence to punish if you also can't find a precedence of action in the first place.

A number of drivers at the time thought his move was out of order. In which case, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect a punishment. And if 25s was the only punishment available, that's more a fault of the punishment system than any sign of heavy-handedness on this specific occasion. Which makes the whole affair fairly straightforward


Hamilton was penalised for not sufficiently ceding back the advantage (not the position) he had gained by cutting the chicane. Considering Räikkönen was back in front, less than a lap later, Hamilton enjoyed no overall advantage. The advantage had been ceded back.

As for McLaren contacting race control- with the prevailing uncertainty about whether a driver had to wait, at least one more corner, before attempting to re-pass- it’s perhaps understandable they sought clarification. It was a bit of a grey area. The paddock welcomed the subsequent clarification ""It is now pretty clear to people that they should probably not attack again immediately, which wasn't mega clear in the past," (Grand Prix Drivers' Association leader Mark Webber).

Sure, some drivers were of the opinion that Hamilton's move was out of order. But equally, there were plenty within F1 who construed Hamilton’s move as acceptable (Lauda, Jackie Stewart, Pat Symonds,Mike Gascoyne etc-- all thought Hamilton did nothing wrong - that, having let Räikkönen back past, he had fulfilled his obligation).

Personally, i have no strong feelings about this-one way or the other. But looking at the entire picture of events, imo, there's a decent case for leniency from the stewards. Enough to give Hamilton the benefit of the doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1096
sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
So? Hamilton got screwed. Get over it, that happened almost ten years ago.

IMO if we ran a poll, most would agree that Lewis Hamilton got the short end of the stick. It happens, sometimes justice goes wrong. Whether or not it was a deliberate bad mistake is something we will never know. But in racing, we learn, make changes, and move on. It is not a perfect sport, nor is it mature. Drivers still die, accidents happen, and rules require constant tweaking when something like this incident occurs.

Holding on to a resentment for this many years is emotionally unhealthy. Do what teams and drivers to, learn and move on.

Not sure who you're talking to but you should probably check back to see how the topic came up. I don't see anyone in here holding onto anything.


The very fact that this little chunk of history has been revived and so soundly discussed is ample proof.

I'm an old fart, we got upset when a driver got killed. But a corner-cutting incident from nine years ago where one driver got screwed over provokes such a response? Wow, that's all I can say, just wow.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4270
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
So? Hamilton got screwed. Get over it, that happened almost ten years ago.

IMO if we ran a poll, most would agree that Lewis Hamilton got the short end of the stick. It happens, sometimes justice goes wrong. Whether or not it was a deliberate bad mistake is something we will never know. But in racing, we learn, make changes, and move on. It is not a perfect sport, nor is it mature. Drivers still die, accidents happen, and rules require constant tweaking when something like this incident occurs.

Holding on to a resentment for this many years is emotionally unhealthy. Do what teams and drivers to, learn and move on.

Not sure who you're talking to but you should probably check back to see how the topic came up. I don't see anyone in here holding onto anything.


The very fact that this little chunk of history has been revived and so soundly discussed is ample proof.

I'm an old fart, we got upset when a driver got killed. But a corner-cutting incident from nine years ago where one driver got screwed over provokes such a response? Wow, that's all I can say, just wow.

Save the old fart stuff please. No one is actually upset in this discussion.


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: 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