Wow...just wow. (Added onboard video link)

[The Boston Dangler]

Text

Hamilton Spa Appeal to be Heard This Month

McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton?s victory demotion at Spa-Francorchamps is likely to be heard before the end of this month, an FIA spokeswoman confirmed on Wednesday.

She said the Paris-based governing body is hopeful the International Court of Appeal can deal with the matter before the Singapore Grand Prix late in September, therefore ensuring that the outcome of the 2008 world championship does not hang on a procedural matter.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: RiDE

Originally posted by: bruceb
It seems the main issue is not that he gave the position back, but that he was able to repass the other driver only a few car lengths down the course. By cutting the chicane, he essentially gained TIME on the car ahead of him. If he did not, he would have been further behind in distance
and may not have been able to repass him. I think, if he had slowed down, just a tad, after allowing him to retake the position, that all would have been fine with the race officials.

I agree. But he's a young kid so he goes in with guns blazing. Ironically, that's also why he beached it in China last year which eventually lost him the WDC.

What a stupid statement.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Now with onboard video.

something wrong with my link?

Oops, didn't realize they were the same link.

BTW-The video has been removed anyway.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

video available here:
http://ikbis.com/moski_doski/shot/130673

 

[The Boston Dangler]

FIA issues overtaking clarification

Text

In the regular pre-race drivers' briefing at Monza, scene of Sunday's Italian Grand Prix, Whiting told the gathering that, if a driver negotiates a corner illegally and gains a place, he should wait at least one more corner after giving back the position before launching another overtaking move.

It is understood that Whiting made clear his information was simply a clarification, rather than a new interpretation of the existing rule, or a new rule altogether.

 

[thomsbrain]

Looks clear to me that he would have crashed if he had not cut the corner. I can't believe the speed with which they have to react. The cars brake so fast that it's like a split-second twitch to jerk around the slower car. Gives you new appreciation for the talent and balls of F1 drivers.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
Looks clear to me that he would have crashed if he had not cut the corner. I can't believe the speed with which they have to react. The cars brake so fast that it's like a split-second twitch to jerk around the slower car. Gives you new appreciation for the talent and balls of F1 drivers.

You should have seen qualifying for Monza today. It rained the entire session and every car was on full wet tires. Very fun to watch. Raikkonen and Hamilton really screwed up badly today though and didn't even make it to Q3.

BTW-David Coulthard wrote a piece for ITV-F1 that I thought was very interesting and shed a new perspective on this whole business. One of the quotes I thought was very interesting was this "The problem is that it?s very difficult to pin down what constitutes gaining (or handing back) an advantage, other than the obvious visual test of whether or not a position changes hands.

By that standard, Lewis did gain an unfair advantage, but only temporarily, and he quickly rectified the situation.

He gained an advantage in the first place because he missed out the Bus Stop chicane and came out ahead of Kimi Raikkonen. Simple as that.

Clearly Kimi took a defensive line into the corner, making Lewis go the long way around ? but that was his right as the lead car, and he did nothing unfair.

I remember that whenever people used to complain in drivers? briefings about kerbs and bollards and so on, Eddie Irvine would say, ?Well, what would you do if it was Monaco and there was Armco there? You wouldn?t cut the corner, you wouldn?t miss the chicane??"

Not that that changes my opinion though. And I think he makes some other valid points in the article about the rules in his article. It's worth a read.

Text

 

[The Boston Dangler]

i think the solution to f1 terminal boredom is obvious: flood the tracks in random location at random intervals.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
i think the solution to f1 terminal boredom is obvious: flood the tracks in random location at random intervals.

Rain...the great equalizer.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

well, we should have an answer in a few hours. no matter what, there isn't going to be a clear winner. this is just plain bad for the sport.

 

[punjabiplaya]

Vettel is epic!

 

[The Boston Dangler]

in my nat king cole voice:

:music:inadmissible, that's what you are:music:

all joking aside, the fia is a complete clusterfuck

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, that's what they were essentially told right after the race.

It's a judgement call, and it's difficult to say someone's judgement is wrong. Particularly a panel of judges.

The rules should be specific, and they are not.

It should specifically say in the rules that if you gain an unfair advantage in distance or time, you must give the advantage back immediately, or you will have to do a drive-through penalty.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Utter balls. It wasn't a drive through penalty, but yeah, it's McLaren, so fuck 'em. Right?

 

[LTC8K6]

Utter balls. It wasn't a drive through penalty, but yeah, it's McLaren, so fuck 'em. Right?

Who in the world are you talking to?

Did you miss something?

Who said it was a drive through penalty?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

it was a drive-through penalty. in the last few laps of a race, both drive-through's and stop-and-go's cannot be served, and are instead issued as either a 25 second penalty or a 10 grid-spot penalty at the next race. because the penalty was drive-through in origin, it is not possible to appeal.

mclaren argued that precedent had been set with a drive-through appeal being heard (unsuccessfully) after last year's japanese race. the board had decided it was in error to have heard last year's appeal, and would not repeat the error. why convene in paris with litigants, lawyers and officials? who knows?

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

Utter balls. It wasn't a drive through penalty, but yeah, it's McLaren, so fuck 'em. Right?

Who in the world are you talking to?

Did you miss something?

Who said it was a drive through penalty?

Wow, not you, you touchy bag of nerves. What are you going to do, start a fight? :roll:

If you read the statement by the FIA, you'd KNOW who called it a DTP.