planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:43 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20899
SR1 wrote:
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.

There's also a pretty strong case for the stewards to do what they did. The fact that Hamilton may have lost the position again further down the line is, to an extent, irrelevant as far as the offence goes. He still flouted the rules and they took action accordingly. Tbh after refreshing myself on the rules above I'm struggling to see where the controversy actually lies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20899
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

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?

I'm not saying that. We're only guessing what went on in the stewards minds, after all. But I do think that if Hamilton had made a genuine effort to give the place back and not try to still seek advantage from cutting the chicane in the first place, he wouldn't have had a penalty. I don't think he was the victim he is being portrayed to be


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1748
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.
Vettel got 20 seconds at Hockenheim in 2012 for driving off the track to overtake Button. Not only did that drop Vettel back behind Button, but also gave 3rd place to Raikkonen and 4th place to Kobayashi.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm
Posts: 65
It was fair to the letter of the law, even ifnit was exremely harsh in terms of natural justice. Hamilton was always going to have Raikkonen, it was just a case of when.

Kimi subsequently binning it only adds to that. That would have been a 5 second time penalty if it happened in 2017.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:53 am 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12274
BMWSauber84 wrote:
It was fair to the letter of the law, even ifnit was exremely harsh in terms of natural justice. Hamilton was always going to have Raikkonen, it was just a case of when.

Kimi subsequently binning it only adds to that. That would have been a 5 second time penalty if it happened in 2017.


It wouldn't have been a penalty at all in 2017.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2488
Earlier in the thread I stated that I thought the magnitude of the penalty was harsh. Having seen the regulations from 2008 it's apparent that, besides a 10-grid drop at the next race, 25 added seconds was the sole option. I also think some form of sanction was appropriate (though I disagreed with it, what, nine-odd years ago) on the basis that, though Hamilton did relinquish the place he was in a position to pass again immediately - which he would almost certainly not have been otherwise - and therefore did gain a advantage for cutting the chicane. What happened after that is largely irrelevant to this.

Today, it may well have been a 5-second penalty - actually, today it would not have mattered because of the changes that have been made to the Bus Stop chicane between then and now! It's also worth noting another poster's comment (don't recall who) concerning Vettel being given a 20-second penalty after the 2012 German GP for passing Button, off-circuit, dropping him from second to fifth... where are the numerous pages surrounding this one?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:03 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12274
tootsie323 wrote:
Earlier in the thread I stated that I thought the magnitude of the penalty was harsh. Having seen the regulations from 2008 it's apparent that, besides a 10-grid drop at the next race, 25 added seconds was the sole option. I also think some form of sanction was appropriate (though I disagreed with it, what, nine-odd years ago) on the basis that, though Hamilton did relinquish the place he was in a position to pass again immediately - which he would almost certainly not have been otherwise - and therefore did gain a advantage for cutting the chicane. What happened after that is largely irrelevant to this.

Today, it may well have been a 5-second penalty - actually, today it would not have mattered because of the changes that have been made to the Bus Stop chicane between then and now! It's also worth noting another poster's comment (don't recall who) concerning Vettel being given a 20-second penalty after the 2012 German GP for passing Button, off-circuit, dropping him from second to fifth... where are the numerous pages surrounding this one?


Vettel did gain an advantage from that. Hamilton lost his advantage when he was forced off half a lap later so didn't. That is the big difference between the two cases if you are not considering the first sub par attempt to hand back the advantage.

The rules have always been applied that way. I gave the example of Sainz in Austin. He passed Perez off track but no penalty was given because Perez passed him back so he didn't gain a lasting advantage.

I don't know why people want to claim that what happened after is irrelevant in this case when it is clearly relevant in others.

The only way the above example would be similar would be if -

- Vettel overtakes Button off track.

- Vettel lets Button past immediately but passes again at the next corner.

- Vettel is then pushed off by a back marker when lapping

- Button repasses Vettel whilst he is recovering.


So Button is back in front of Vettel despite being overtaken twice and everyone is back where they should be.

Do you honestly think in this case Vettel still gets a penalty?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2488
mikeyg123 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Earlier in the thread I stated that I thought the magnitude of the penalty was harsh. Having seen the regulations from 2008 it's apparent that, besides a 10-grid drop at the next race, 25 added seconds was the sole option. I also think some form of sanction was appropriate (though I disagreed with it, what, nine-odd years ago) on the basis that, though Hamilton did relinquish the place he was in a position to pass again immediately - which he would almost certainly not have been otherwise - and therefore did gain a advantage for cutting the chicane. What happened after that is largely irrelevant to this.

Today, it may well have been a 5-second penalty - actually, today it would not have mattered because of the changes that have been made to the Bus Stop chicane between then and now! It's also worth noting another poster's comment (don't recall who) concerning Vettel being given a 20-second penalty after the 2012 German GP for passing Button, off-circuit, dropping him from second to fifth... where are the numerous pages surrounding this one?


Vettel did gain an advantage from that. Hamilton lost his advantage when he was forced off half a lap later so didn't. That is the big difference between the two cases if you are not considering the first sub par attempt to hand back the advantage.

The rules have always been applied that way. I gave the example of Sainz in Austin. He passed Perez off track but no penalty was given because Perez passed him back so he didn't gain a lasting advantage.

I don't know why people want to claim that what happened after is irrelevant in this case when it is clearly relevant in others.

The only way the above example would be similar would be if -

- Vettel overtakes Button off track.

- Vettel lets Button past immediately but passes again at the next corner.

- Vettel is then pushed off by a back marker when lapping

- Button repasses Vettel whilst he is recovering.


So Button is back in front of Vettel despite being overtaken twice and everyone is back where they should be.

Do you honestly think in this case Vettel still gets a penalty?
I was largely referring to the size of the penalty and the subsequent loss of positions. But, in terms of gaining a lasting advantage, I will argue my position. Hamilton did not voluntarily yield his position later on in that lap; he was forced to go off-circuit. In the case of Sainz-Perez, did the re-pass not happen almost immediately (poor recollection)?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:30 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12274
tootsie323 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Earlier in the thread I stated that I thought the magnitude of the penalty was harsh. Having seen the regulations from 2008 it's apparent that, besides a 10-grid drop at the next race, 25 added seconds was the sole option. I also think some form of sanction was appropriate (though I disagreed with it, what, nine-odd years ago) on the basis that, though Hamilton did relinquish the place he was in a position to pass again immediately - which he would almost certainly not have been otherwise - and therefore did gain a advantage for cutting the chicane. What happened after that is largely irrelevant to this.

Today, it may well have been a 5-second penalty - actually, today it would not have mattered because of the changes that have been made to the Bus Stop chicane between then and now! It's also worth noting another poster's comment (don't recall who) concerning Vettel being given a 20-second penalty after the 2012 German GP for passing Button, off-circuit, dropping him from second to fifth... where are the numerous pages surrounding this one?


Vettel did gain an advantage from that. Hamilton lost his advantage when he was forced off half a lap later so didn't. That is the big difference between the two cases if you are not considering the first sub par attempt to hand back the advantage.

The rules have always been applied that way. I gave the example of Sainz in Austin. He passed Perez off track but no penalty was given because Perez passed him back so he didn't gain a lasting advantage.

I don't know why people want to claim that what happened after is irrelevant in this case when it is clearly relevant in others.

The only way the above example would be similar would be if -

- Vettel overtakes Button off track.

- Vettel lets Button past immediately but passes again at the next corner.

- Vettel is then pushed off by a back marker when lapping

- Button repasses Vettel whilst he is recovering.


So Button is back in front of Vettel despite being overtaken twice and everyone is back where they should be.

Do you honestly think in this case Vettel still gets a penalty?
I was largely referring to the size of the penalty and the subsequent loss of positions. But, in terms of gaining a lasting advantage, I will argue my position. Hamilton did not voluntarily yield his position later on in that lap; he was forced to go off-circuit. In the case of Sainz-Perez, did the re-pass not happen almost immediately (poor recollection)?


Yes it did but the position was taken back not willing given. We see this quite a few times. I don't see why it is relevant only in this case.

I think perhaps Kimi crashed so soon after getting back ahead it changes it in people's minds because they just don't think of Kimi running in the lead at that point. But the fact is he did get back past Hamilton and the cars ended up in the correct order.

I can sort of see how it can be argued from your angle but not when considered what we often see happen and the penalty Hamilton got a month later in Fuji just cements it for me really.

Those penalties and Alonso's in Monza 06 there was something not right with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2488
mikeyg123 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Earlier in the thread I stated that I thought the magnitude of the penalty was harsh. Having seen the regulations from 2008 it's apparent that, besides a 10-grid drop at the next race, 25 added seconds was the sole option. I also think some form of sanction was appropriate (though I disagreed with it, what, nine-odd years ago) on the basis that, though Hamilton did relinquish the place he was in a position to pass again immediately - which he would almost certainly not have been otherwise - and therefore did gain a advantage for cutting the chicane. What happened after that is largely irrelevant to this.

Today, it may well have been a 5-second penalty - actually, today it would not have mattered because of the changes that have been made to the Bus Stop chicane between then and now! It's also worth noting another poster's comment (don't recall who) concerning Vettel being given a 20-second penalty after the 2012 German GP for passing Button, off-circuit, dropping him from second to fifth... where are the numerous pages surrounding this one?
Vettel did gain an advantage from that. Hamilton lost his advantage when he was forced off half a lap later so didn't. That is the big difference between the two cases if you are not considering the first sub par attempt to hand back the advantage.

The rules have always been applied that way. I gave the example of Sainz in Austin. He passed Perez off track but no penalty was given because Perez passed him back so he didn't gain a lasting advantage.

I don't know why people want to claim that what happened after is irrelevant in this case when it is clearly relevant in others.

The only way the above example would be similar would be if -
- Vettel overtakes Button off track.
- Vettel lets Button past immediately but passes again at the next corner.
- Vettel is then pushed off by a back marker when lapping
- Button repasses Vettel whilst he is recovering.
So Button is back in front of Vettel despite being overtaken twice and everyone is back where they should be.

Do you honestly think in this case Vettel still gets a penalty?
I was largely referring to the size of the penalty and the subsequent loss of positions. But, in terms of gaining a lasting advantage, I will argue my position. Hamilton did not voluntarily yield his position later on in that lap; he was forced to go off-circuit. In the case of Sainz-Perez, did the re-pass not happen almost immediately (poor recollection)?
Yes it did but the position was taken back not willing given. We see this quite a few times. I don't see why it is relevant only in this case.

I think perhaps Kimi crashed so soon after getting back ahead it changes it in people's minds because they just don't think of Kimi running in the lead at that point. But the fact is he did get back past Hamilton and the cars ended up in the correct order.

I can sort of see how it can be argued from your angle but not when considered what we often see happen and the penalty Hamilton got a month later in Fuji just cements it for me really.

Those penalties and Alonso's in Monza 06 there was something not right with.
I'd argue that circumstance might play a part - did Perez get back past Sainz immediately after being passed?

Don't get me wrong - as with Alonso's penalty (stated) I took a cynical view that it was in an effort to keep the championship open. I'm arguing that there may be some credence to the (Hamilton, Spa 2008) decision, regardless of any perceived motive behind it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5317
SR1 wrote:
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.

The thing is, Hamilton was never going to give the advantage back to Kimi. Kimi's overtake only happened through circumstances. I think all other drivers from the examples above did an illegal overtake and then gave the position back.

I believe that they punished Hamilton for this reason. If you gain an advantage then you'll be penalised. We can argue for hours for what is the duration of the long-lasting advantage, etc. Heck, it still isn't clear and I can't really see how one would quantify this; is it a lap? Two corners? 3 minutes? How much is long enough? The point is that the stewards thought that half a lap was long enough and they punished Lewis. That's about it.

It may have been to spice up the WDC fight. Who knows?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:08 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12274
tootsie323 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Earlier in the thread I stated that I thought the magnitude of the penalty was harsh. Having seen the regulations from 2008 it's apparent that, besides a 10-grid drop at the next race, 25 added seconds was the sole option. I also think some form of sanction was appropriate (though I disagreed with it, what, nine-odd years ago) on the basis that, though Hamilton did relinquish the place he was in a position to pass again immediately - which he would almost certainly not have been otherwise - and therefore did gain a advantage for cutting the chicane. What happened after that is largely irrelevant to this.

Today, it may well have been a 5-second penalty - actually, today it would not have mattered because of the changes that have been made to the Bus Stop chicane between then and now! It's also worth noting another poster's comment (don't recall who) concerning Vettel being given a 20-second penalty after the 2012 German GP for passing Button, off-circuit, dropping him from second to fifth... where are the numerous pages surrounding this one?
Vettel did gain an advantage from that. Hamilton lost his advantage when he was forced off half a lap later so didn't. That is the big difference between the two cases if you are not considering the first sub par attempt to hand back the advantage.

The rules have always been applied that way. I gave the example of Sainz in Austin. He passed Perez off track but no penalty was given because Perez passed him back so he didn't gain a lasting advantage.

I don't know why people want to claim that what happened after is irrelevant in this case when it is clearly relevant in others.

The only way the above example would be similar would be if -
- Vettel overtakes Button off track.
- Vettel lets Button past immediately but passes again at the next corner.
- Vettel is then pushed off by a back marker when lapping
- Button repasses Vettel whilst he is recovering.
So Button is back in front of Vettel despite being overtaken twice and everyone is back where they should be.

Do you honestly think in this case Vettel still gets a penalty?
I was largely referring to the size of the penalty and the subsequent loss of positions. But, in terms of gaining a lasting advantage, I will argue my position. Hamilton did not voluntarily yield his position later on in that lap; he was forced to go off-circuit. In the case of Sainz-Perez, did the re-pass not happen almost immediately (poor recollection)?
Yes it did but the position was taken back not willing given. We see this quite a few times. I don't see why it is relevant only in this case.

I think perhaps Kimi crashed so soon after getting back ahead it changes it in people's minds because they just don't think of Kimi running in the lead at that point. But the fact is he did get back past Hamilton and the cars ended up in the correct order.

I can sort of see how it can be argued from your angle but not when considered what we often see happen and the penalty Hamilton got a month later in Fuji just cements it for me really.

Those penalties and Alonso's in Monza 06 there was something not right with.
I'd argue that circumstance might play a part - did Perez get back past Sainz immediately after being passed?

Don't get me wrong - as with Alonso's penalty (stated) I took a cynical view that it was in an effort to keep the championship open. I'm arguing that there may be some credence to the (Hamilton, Spa 2008) decision, regardless of any perceived motive behind it.


Yes he did. But I don't see why one corner or 9 make a lot of difference. Neither driver gained an advantage over their competitor in terms of the race.

Your last paragraph I agree with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:09 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12274
tootsie323 wrote:
Don't get me wrong - as with Alonso's penalty (stated) I took a cynical view that it was in an effort to keep the championship open. I'm arguing that there may be some credence to the (Hamilton, Spa 2008) decision, regardless of any perceived motive behind it.


Yes he did. But I don't see why one corner or 9 make a lot of difference. Neither driver gained an advantage over their competitor in terms of the race.

Your last paragraph I agree with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5317
mikeyg123 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Vettel did gain an advantage from that. Hamilton lost his advantage when he was forced off half a lap later so didn't. That is the big difference between the two cases if you are not considering the first sub par attempt to hand back the advantage.

The rules have always been applied that way. I gave the example of Sainz in Austin. He passed Perez off track but no penalty was given because Perez passed him back so he didn't gain a lasting advantage.

I don't know why people want to claim that what happened after is irrelevant in this case when it is clearly relevant in others.

The only way the above example would be similar would be if -
- Vettel overtakes Button off track.
- Vettel lets Button past immediately but passes again at the next corner.
- Vettel is then pushed off by a back marker when lapping
- Button repasses Vettel whilst he is recovering.
So Button is back in front of Vettel despite being overtaken twice and everyone is back where they should be.

Do you honestly think in this case Vettel still gets a penalty?
I was largely referring to the size of the penalty and the subsequent loss of positions. But, in terms of gaining a lasting advantage, I will argue my position. Hamilton did not voluntarily yield his position later on in that lap; he was forced to go off-circuit. In the case of Sainz-Perez, did the re-pass not happen almost immediately (poor recollection)?
Yes it did but the position was taken back not willing given. We see this quite a few times. I don't see why it is relevant only in this case.

I think perhaps Kimi crashed so soon after getting back ahead it changes it in people's minds because they just don't think of Kimi running in the lead at that point. But the fact is he did get back past Hamilton and the cars ended up in the correct order.

I can sort of see how it can be argued from your angle but not when considered what we often see happen and the penalty Hamilton got a month later in Fuji just cements it for me really.

Those penalties and Alonso's in Monza 06 there was something not right with.
I'd argue that circumstance might play a part - did Perez get back past Sainz immediately after being passed?

Don't get me wrong - as with Alonso's penalty (stated) I took a cynical view that it was in an effort to keep the championship open. I'm arguing that there may be some credence to the (Hamilton, Spa 2008) decision, regardless of any perceived motive behind it.


Yes he did. But I don't see why one corner or 9 make a lot of difference. Neither driver gained an advantage over their competitor in terms of the race.

Your last paragraph I agree with.


I'm sorry, but I disagree Mikey. It's exactly because they haven't quantified this (like the blue flags) that there is a problem. Let alone the intent of giving the position back (which Hamilton didn't seem to have), can't you see the difference? If the other car took 10 laps to give the position back, it would be the same? What if one of the cars had to pit, how would they sort that positioning out?

It is absurd to entertain this. A number of things can happen during a race and the longer a driver delays giving the position back the bigger the chance of something happening that would make giving that position back impossible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:48 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12274
I agree with you there is a cut off point which has not been clarified but we have seen people instructed to give a position back by the stewards laps later. So we have seen laps have been fine in the past. If either driver pits a penalty gets applied. We have seen that before in the past as well.


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: mikeyg123, Paolo_Lasardi 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