The Actual Incident Between Lewis And Kimi

[Rainmaster 7]

My two cents:

This underlines the problems I have with Max and the FIA, not because I necessarily disagree with the ruling, but because the rules are so hand-wavy and vague. There should be a clear level in car lengths that Lewis has to concede if he cuts a chicane, rather than just guessing whether he got an advantage or not. This is especially important given the fact that gravel traps are being replaced by runoff areas- why do we have to wait until a controversy erupts before these rules get properly defined?

Another example is Hammy getting lifted off the track by a crane. Everybody can see that is unfair, but because the rules are so vague about it (was his car in a "dangerous" position?) he gets away with it. And I don't blame him for that- he did what he had to do; the rules are at fault not him. Why didn't the rules say "you can be lifted onto the track, but only so you can drive back to the pits"?

Secondly, I don't care what rules were broken- changing the result of a race should not take place except under exceptional circumstances (i.e. Spygate). The fans hate it, the general public hate it, and I can't see how it benefits anyone. If it's too late for the driver to do a drive-through he should serve one the following race- or get a grid drop. Even a points deduction of equivalent value would be better. At least then you'd still know who was the race winner. It might not increase their championship lead, but nominally they would have the race victory.

The Ferrari bias claims and the McLaren bias claims with the crane last year underline it all. People want to have fair punishments, where one can say exactly which rule was broken and quantitively by how much. It's such an easy thing to make it happen- I just can't understand why no one has bothered.

Post of the thread.

[Quiet One 15]

My two cents:

This underlines the problems I have with Max and the FIA, not because I necessarily disagree with the ruling, but because the rules are so hand-wavy and vague. There should be a clear level in car lengths that Lewis has to concede if he cuts a chicane, rather than just guessing whether he got an advantage or not. This is especially important given the fact that gravel traps are being replaced by runoff areas- why do we have to wait until a controversy erupts before these rules get properly defined?

Another example is Hammy getting lifted off the track by a crane. Everybody can see that is unfair, but because the rules are so vague about it (was his car in a "dangerous" position?) he gets away with it. And I don't blame him for that- he did what he had to do; the rules are at fault not him. Why didn't the rules say "you can be lifted onto the track, but only so you can drive back to the pits"?

Secondly, I don't care what rules were broken- changing the result of a race should not take place except under exceptional circumstances (i.e. Spygate). The fans hate it, the general public hate it, and I can't see how it benefits anyone. If it's too late for the driver to do a drive-through he should serve one the following race- or get a grid drop. Even a points deduction of equivalent value would be better. At least then you'd still know who was the race winner. It might not increase their championship lead, but nominally they would have the race victory.

The Ferrari bias claims and the McLaren bias claims with the crane last year underline it all. People want to have fair punishments, where one can say exactly which rule was broken and quantitively by how much. It's such an easy thing to make it happen- I just can't understand why no one has bothered.

Bah...I wish you would talk nonsense just for once.

But you refuse to

[Jame_Shunt 0]

Now let me include, in caps, the part of my post that you edited out: KIMI CRASHED.

Go do an online petition to make FIA give him a drive-through.

There was no need for me to adjust that bit!

I like Kimi a lot and, though I was a bit worried about his attitude at the start of the race (I was worried he was going to take himself and Massa out at one point), I was pleased with the fact that he really wanted to win that race, I don't blame him for using the run off and had no problem with it, but I don't like any implication that he is any more or less holier than Hamilton either. The end of the race was so exciting because there was two men that wanted to win it, and sadly a third who was quite content to sit it out and wait to see what he could get - he did pretty well in the end didn't he. Good luck to Kimi, but shame on Massa.

If Hamilton had not been penalised, no one would have batted an eyelid at Kimi using the run off, just as very few people batted an eyelid when Hammy used the run off on the chicane and then gave back the lead - until the stewards disgraced themselves that is.

[Jean Todt 4]

Hamilton also used the run off area on that moment, and Raikkonen only passed him because Lewis made a mistake.

Also, Kimi crashed.

So, that makes them even?

[cavallino 2]

My two cents:

This underlines the problems I have with Max and the FIA, not because I necessarily disagree with the ruling, but because the rules are so hand-wavy and vague. There should be a clear level in car lengths that Lewis has to concede if he cuts a chicane, rather than just guessing whether he got an advantage or not. This is especially important given the fact that gravel traps are being replaced by runoff areas- why do we have to wait until a controversy erupts before these rules get properly defined?

Another example is Hammy getting lifted off the track by a crane. Everybody can see that is unfair, but because the rules are so vague about it (was his car in a "dangerous" position?) he gets away with it. And I don't blame him for that- he did what he had to do; the rules are at fault not him. Why didn't the rules say "you can be lifted onto the track, but only so you can drive back to the pits"?

Secondly, I don't care what rules were broken- changing the result of a race should not take place except under exceptional circumstances (i.e. Spygate). The fans hate it, the general public hate it, and I can't see how it benefits anyone. If it's too late for the driver to do a drive-through he should serve one the following race- or get a grid drop. Even a points deduction of equivalent value would be better. At least then you'd still know who was the race winner. It might not increase their championship lead, but nominally they would have the race victory.

The Ferrari bias claims and the McLaren bias claims with the crane last year underline it all. People want to have fair punishments, where one can say exactly which rule was broken and quantitively by how much. It's such an easy thing to make it happen- I just can't understand why no one has bothered.

Hmm I've thought this over. One thing i that if you cut a chicane, my view is that you are incredibly lucky to still be in the race. So if the FIA says you shouldn't gain an advantage, I think the driver should take great pain to ensure that there is no way anyone could suggest that you got an advantage. So going for an overtake on the very next corner is just stupid, and I don't Lewis can have much to complain. Not everything can be in a black and white rule and you've to start by looking at who is at fault to begin with.

I think a grid penalty for the next race would make more sense. But then a 10 place grid penalty can cost far more than the points Lewis lost.

So I think the FIA can do better, perhaps much better. But they are never going to have everyone satisfied, particularly the more rabid variety of fans with short memories. They've been spinning these theories for ages. I joined this forum right after Indy 05 happened. The talk was the same, perhaps louder. Nothing's changed. It has been over 3 years. The people writing or signing these lame petitions will still be here. The particularly grumpy ones may sulk and skip a race.

[cavallino 2]

In a sensational turnaround, a flash from La Gazzetta dello Sport quotes defending World Champion Kimi Raikkonen as being prepared to testify on behalf of arch rival Lewis Hamilton at the FIA hearing that will result from Vodafone McLaren Mercedes' protest of the penalty imposed on Hamilton after the Belgian Grand Prix. "I don't care what the stewards said, as far as I was concerned, Hamilton let me by as we passed the pits", said Raikkonen in Geneva today. "I got ahead, I tried to defend the position and the race was on again. My car was for sure very difficult on the prime tyres in the rain and Lewis got by me into the hairpin. That was that."

Raikkonen went on, "For sure, I don't like to lose but I don't like to win through stupid decisions. People say I have lost the love (for F1) but yesterday I showed that second was not what I wanted. There are five races to go and I plan to win them all. I'm not the sort to give up that easily."

Asked if he was prepared to testify to that effect if the McLaren protest goes to the FIA, Raikkonen simply said, "Yes, why not."

Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali declined to comment on Raikkonen's statement but technical director Aldo Costa admitted the Scuderia was not pleased. "Our driver has a view but the team believes the stewards and the FIA have all the information they need. We will be talking to our driver during the week," Costa told Gazzetta dello Sport.

The cynic in me suggests that Kimi will be rather happy for his teammate to lose a few points..

[Quiet One 15]

The cynic in me suggests that Kimi will be rather happy for his teammate to lose a few points..

Don't bother, none of the TF1 sources even mentions that article, which sounds suspiciously fake, anyways. And I don't think the British press would let such a sensational story go unnoticed.

[cavallino 2]

Don't bother, none of the TF1 sources even mentions that article, which sounds suspiciously fake, anyways. And I don't think the British press would let such a sensational story go unnoticed.

Oh I know, that story is fake, bait for desperate Lewis fanatics - who will come and paste the story hear when it is so easy to goto the Gazetta website and see that there is no such story. Just mentioning the fact that imo Kimi will happily testify in favour of Lewis. So it make no sense for him to have a say on the issue.

[YHR 0]

My two cents:

This underlines the problems I have with Max and the FIA, not because I necessarily disagree with the ruling, but because the rules are so hand-wavy and vague. There should be a clear level in car lengths that Lewis has to concede if he cuts a chicane, rather than just guessing whether he got an advantage or not. This is especially important given the fact that gravel traps are being replaced by runoff areas- why do we have to wait until a controversy erupts before these rules get properly defined?

Another example is Hammy getting lifted off the track by a crane. Everybody can see that is unfair, but because the rules are so vague about it (was his car in a "dangerous" position?) he gets away with it. And I don't blame him for that- he did what he had to do; the rules are at fault not him. Why didn't the rules say "you can be lifted onto the track, but only so you can drive back to the pits"?

Secondly, I don't care what rules were broken- changing the result of a race should not take place except under exceptional circumstances (i.e. Spygate). The fans hate it, the general public hate it, and I can't see how it benefits anyone. If it's too late for the driver to do a drive-through he should serve one the following race- or get a grid drop. Even a points deduction of equivalent value would be better. At least then you'd still know who was the race winner. It might not increase their championship lead, but nominally they would have the race victory.

The Ferrari bias claims and the McLaren bias claims with the crane last year underline it all. People want to have fair punishments, where one can say exactly which rule was broken and quantitively by how much. It's such an easy thing to make it happen- I just can't understand why no one has bothered.

Yes your position on the FIA depends on who gets crapped on. The same guys that defended the FIA for the crane incident are screaming to boycott the sport. Very amusing

Somebody mentioned they lost respect for Massa???. What the heck did he do except run a solid third place in a car that could do no better. He then picked up two more positions because of the errors of the guys in front of him. All this without driving aids. Who would have thought

[Oli 1]

I rate Massa far higher than many, but the race was hardly a shining moment for him. He just got lucky.

[teejay 0]

I can't believe all the crying. I'm a LewHam fan and I think it was fair penalty. I thought I saw this before and if you check YouTube, Alonso did the same exact thing, looks identical, and received the same penalty. I applaud their consistency in upholding the rules.

[YHR 0]

I rate Massa far higher than many, but the race was hardly a shining moment for him. He just got lucky.

His drive was uninspiring, but I believe he was down on power and couldn't do much else. THis year he has proven he is capable of more then pole to finish dashes. However I do think we will see one of those at Monza

[Fed up 0]

The Truth!

[Kopite Girl 0]

OH. Its from ITV. Surprise, surprise.

[cavallino 2]

The Truth!

So you admit the article you posted yesterday was a lie?

[mikathegreat2 2]

@ Girl Racer- true

@ teejay- welcome, I see we have 2 things in common, we like Lewis Hamilton (excluding arrogant personality) & support Penske Racing! Now I forget the thread where I nearly choked on a bourbon cream!

[Fed up 0]

OH. Its from ITV. Surprise, surprise.

[url="http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/2008/09/08/grand-prix-special-

[Rainmaster 7]

Just for you

Just something to read.

[Schumikonen 2]

what about Kimi taking the run off area and returning to track and overtaking Lewis?

I don't remember that.

EDIT: In any case you can take 25 seconds out of Kimi's time.

[Quiet One 15]

My whinning counter has overflowed.

We all agree FIA sucks. We all agree their penalties are inconsistent. We all agree that Hamster's penalty is in sharp contrast with the Brazilian dwarf getting scott free for his pit antics.

Now, that does not mean that Hammy did nothing wrong. He did. Was it punishable? Tough call. But he certainly was no innocent party so stop crying like a raped nun. He should have been given a grid penalty? I can only imagine the outcry if he was given a 10 place grid penalty at Monza!

And please, please, pretty please stop quoting ITV's or Lauda or PF1 or any of those laughable sources as serious. At least we the Nando fans had the dignity of not quoting something as spurious as Marca when it came to his controversies.

[kiko01 0]

And please, please, pretty please stop quoting ITV's or Lauda or PF1 or any of those laughable sources as serious. At least we the Nando fans had the dignity of not quoting something as spurious as Marca when it came to his controversies.

Believe or not on Monday i read an article in Marca where a journalyst defended Baby Jesus and critisized FIA's decission (I supposed the guy has been sucked)

[elgo 1]

My whinning counter has overflowed.

We all agree FIA sucks. We all agree their penalties are inconsistent. We all agree that Hamster's penalty is in sharp contrast with the Brazilian dwarf getting scott free for his pit antics.

Now, that does not mean that Hammy did nothing wrong. He did. Was it punishable? Tough call. But he certainly was no innocent party so stop crying like a raped nun. He should have been given a grid penalty? I can only imagine the outcry if he was given a 10 place grid penalty at Monza!

And please, please, pretty please stop quoting ITV's or Lauda or PF1 or any of those laughable sources as serious. At least we the Nando fans had the dignity of not quoting something as spurious as Marca when it came to his controversies.

I read marca today in a cafe and they sort of defended it.They said: Mclaren apelar

[Fed up 0]

So you admit the article you posted yesterday was a lie?

The last word

[Autumnpuma 0]

Cav, you are famous in these parts for being Ferrari-biased, so your observations should be taken with a grain of salt. I've looked at the video and so should anyone else. Here it is. Take specific note at 1:09.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP5pxQGlzFM

At 1:09 Hamilton was clearly behind Kimi and had successfully given Kimi's position back to him. That's all that needed to happen to satisfy the rules. There is no rule stipulating that Hamilton needed to give a certain distance back to Kimi. Everything else is just smoke from yer bum.

[ecapdeville 0]

At 1:09 Hamilton was clearly behind Kimi and had successfully given Kimi's position back to him. That's all that needed to happen to satisfy the rules. There is no rule stipulating that Hamilton needed to give a certain distance back to Kimi. Everything else is just smoke from yer bum.

Hi puma!

I dont know...you mean that every driver can go trough any chicane, keep the velocity, let the car you had ahead pass an inch and then put all the gas again?... dont think so...you should know that when you are behind a car and there is a turn, the car infront of you accelerates before...and thats the moment he gained advantage, dont know if the telemetry can help us here but I bet you that in the moment Kimmy passed Hamilton, Hamilton was faster because he could accelerate before.