Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cavallino

The Actual Incident Between Lewis And Kimi

Recommended Posts

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.

Perfectamente explicado, amigo. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

A driver can cut the chicane just fine as long as he doesn't gain a position by doing so. Many drivers cut chicanes by mistake during a race, resulting in a faster lap time for that lap but it doesn't mean anything (and no penalty is given) unless that driver has gained a position from it. Clearly Hamilton cut the chicane to avoid Kimi, gained a position from it, then gave that position back on the straight.

Was Hamilton faster on the straight than Kimi because of the chicane-cutting? Yes, on the exit of the chicane he had more speed and the video shows Hamilton ahead right after the chicane. After than, when both cars were on the straight leading up to the start/finish, Hamilton slowed to allow Kimi by. At that point, logically, Hamilton was slower than Kimi. How then can Hamilton have gained a speed advantage at that point from the chicane exit? When he slowed to allow Kimi by, however briefly, he scrubbed any speed advantage he had. How is it Hamilton's fault that Kimi could not maintain the lead that was given to him on the straight?

It's good to hear from you ecap, but this incident is getting more press because of the individuals/teams involved than because of the actual incident. Too much bias out there and, sadly, you are contributing to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A driver can cut the chicane just fine as long as he doesn't gain a position by doing so. Many drivers cut chicanes by mistake during a race, resulting in a faster lap time for that lap but it doesn't mean anything (and no penalty is given) unless that driver has gained a position from it. Clearly Hamilton cut the chicane to avoid Kimi, gained a position from it, then gave that position back on the straight.

Was Hamilton faster on the straight than Kimi because of the chicane-cutting? Yes, on the exit of the chicane he had more speed and the video shows Hamilton ahead right after the chicane. After than, when both cars were on the straight leading up to the start/finish, Hamilton slowed to allow Kimi by. At that point, logically, Hamilton was slower than Kimi. How then can Hamilton have gained a speed advantage at that point from the chicane exit? When he slowed to allow Kimi by, however briefly, he scrubbed any speed advantage he had. How is it Hamilton's fault that Kimi could not maintain the lead that was given to him on the straight?

It's good to hear from you ecap, but this incident is getting more press because of the individuals/teams involved than because of the actual incident. Too much bias out there and, sadly, you are contributing to it.

Yup, that sums it up perfectly. Kimi for some reason braked early for La Source, presumeably because he had his mirrors full of Lewis's McLaren. Lewis took the opportunity that presented itself, like any other driver would. Lewis in future is smart enough to realise that to ensure no doubt is lingering over any possible advantage taken, the best way is to wait for the there to be no doubt at all, and this can only be achieved by attacking again later in the lap.

You can bet we probably won't get an expalination from the FIA on what is right and wrong for when that situation comes up again in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A driver can cut the chicane just fine as long as he doesn't gain a position by doing so. Many drivers cut chicanes by mistake during a race, resulting in a faster lap time for that lap but it doesn't mean anything (and no penalty is given) unless that driver has gained a position from it. Clearly Hamilton cut the chicane to avoid Kimi, gained a position from it, then gave that position back on the straight.

Was Hamilton faster on the straight than Kimi because of the chicane-cutting? Yes, on the exit of the chicane he had more speed and the video shows Hamilton ahead right after the chicane. After than, when both cars were on the straight leading up to the start/finish, Hamilton slowed to allow Kimi by. At that point, logically, Hamilton was slower than Kimi. How then can Hamilton have gained a speed advantage at that point from the chicane exit? When he slowed to allow Kimi by, however briefly, he scrubbed any speed advantage he had. How is it Hamilton's fault that Kimi could not maintain the lead that was given to him on the straight?

It's good to hear from you ecap, but this incident is getting more press because of the individuals/teams involved than because of the actual incident. Too much bias out there and, sadly, you are contributing to it.

Shut up you biased Lewisteric b#####d full of sh...oh, it's you Mike! Sorry, it's just the spirit around here these days.

Ok, my own biased view on the subject (we've been discussing this for long so I will repeat myself a little):

1) Hammy did gain an advantage. His car was better aligned and had better traction than the struggling Ferrari. The Ferrari wouldn't be in such bad shape, had Hammy not stuck his car in an optimistic move then suddenly reappearing right besides Kimi at the exit. He gave his position back, not his advantage.

2) It should have been a minor incident, not worthy of notice if other drivers were involved. We agree.

3) The FIA has entered a cul de sac. They messed up with so many stewart decisions that now they could not go back even if they wanted to. Let's suppose now they decide not to stick their noses again for the next race. Let's assume a similar situation occurs, only with the names inverted. Can you imagine the outroar? Same if somebody does a controversial manoeuvre and the ruined race is for Nando, or Massa, etc. They broke the balance. Now they can't go back. And, frankly, I don't think they even want to.

4) As for this incident itself, it says a lot that usually drivers brake and brake hard after cutting the chicane to let the other guy through. I can't remember many cases when a guy did what Hammy did. It was controversial to say the least. We might discuss whether the FIA should have meddled or not. But it was a unusual manoeuvre, no doubt about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, that sums it up perfectly. Kimi for some reason braked early for La Source, presumeably because he had his mirrors full of Lewis's McLaren. Lewis took the opportunity that presented itself, like any other driver would. Lewis in future is smart enough to realise that to ensure no doubt is lingering over any possible advantage taken, the best way is to wait for the there to be no doubt at all, and this can only be achieved by attacking again later in the lap.

You can bet we probably won't get an expalination from the FIA on what is right and wrong for when that situation comes up again in the future.

I hope you're wrong about Hamilton, indeed, any driver's, future handling of this kind of thing. There was no advantage gained unless we throw out logic and physics completely. A car that has slowed down to allow another car past did not, nor will ever, gain an advantage from it. The stewards are wrong and that should be pointed out rather than expect the drivers to anticipate wrong rulings and react accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you're wrong about Hamilton, indeed, any driver's, future handling of this kind of thing. There was no advantage gained unless we throw out logic and physics completely. A car that has slowed down to allow another car past did not, nor will ever, gain an advantage from it. The stewards are wrong and that should be pointed out rather than expect the drivers to anticipate wrong rulings and react accordingly.

On the subject of FIA and their rulings, there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow your post referenced Symonds and at the same time I post the article you mentioned. Damn my timing is good.

Marry me. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was Hamilton faster on the straight than Kimi because of the chicane-cutting? Yes, on the exit of the chicane he had more speed and the video shows Hamilton ahead right after the chicane. After than, when both cars were on the straight leading up to the start/finish, Hamilton slowed to allow Kimi by. At that point, logically, Hamilton was slower than Kimi. How then can Hamilton have gained a speed advantage at that point from the chicane exit? When he slowed to allow Kimi by, however briefly, he scrubbed any speed advantage he had. How is it Hamilton's fault that Kimi could not maintain the lead that was given to him on the straight?

It's good to hear from you ecap, but this incident is getting more press because of the individuals/teams involved than because of the actual incident. Too much bias out there and, sadly, you are contributing to it.

The advantage he gained by cutting the chicane was that he was able to be directly behind Kimi without having to catch him. Had Hammy stayed on the track like your supposed to he would have had to get on the brakes to avoid crashing and in turn lose a second or two to Kimi who had the position.

That being said I don't think he deserved the full wrath of the penalty given. At most he should have gotten a grid penalty. Plus Kimi practically gave the position away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The advantage he gained by cutting the chicane was that he was able to be directly behind Kimi without having to catch him.

He didn't need to catch him, Hamilton was right on Kimi going into the chicane. He attempted a legitimate pass but Kimi stayed on the line, also legitimately, and Hamilton ran off the track. At that point there was no place to enter back onto the track without colliding with Kimi so he entered ahead of him and, when they were both on the straight, slowed down to let Kimi past as the rules state he should. Answer this please: How can Hamilton have an advantage after he let Kimi take a position ahead of him? At that point, Kimi should have been able to hold the lead if his car was the faster of the two, if not then Hamilton was clear to attempt another pass.

Had Hammy stayed on the track like your supposed to he would have had to get on the brakes to avoid crashing and in turn lose a second or two to Kimi who had the position.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. The infraction occurred at the last part of the chicane and the gained position was given back. Incident over.

That being said I don't think he deserved the full wrath of the penalty given. At most he should have gotten a grid penalty. Plus Kimi practically gave the position away.

He should have gotten no penalty at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He didn't need to catch him, Hamilton was right on Kimi going into the chicane. He attempted a legitimate pass but Kimi stayed on the line, also legitimately, and Hamilton ran off the track. At that point there was no place to enter back onto the track without colliding with Kimi so he entered ahead of him and, when they were both on the straight, slowed down to let Kimi past as the rules state he should. Answer this please: How can Hamilton have an advantage after he let Kimi take a position ahead of him? At that point, Kimi should have been able to hold the lead if his car was the faster of the two, if not then Hamilton was clear to attempt another pass.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. The infraction occurred at the last part of the chicane and the gained position was given back. Incident over.

He should have gotten no penalty at all.

An advantage doesn't just mean position. Hammy wouldn't have been able to get on the gas at the same time as Kimi thus losing some ground until he was able to accelerate. When he let Kimi by he then entered directly into the slipstream. That is the advantage he gained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The advantage he gained by cutting the chicane was that he was able to be directly behind Kimi without having to catch him. Had Hammy stayed on the track like your supposed to he would have had to get on the brakes to avoid crashing and in turn lose a second or two to Kimi who had the position.

That being said I don't think he deserved the full wrath of the penalty given. At most he should have gotten a grid penalty. Plus Kimi practically gave the position away.

One of the Stewards did say that they had 2 choices to either give a dive through (25secs) or a 10 place peanlty next race... They decided the 25 sec peanlty. I think the 10 place peanlty would have been worse for Lewis...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ 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!

Definitely without the arrogance would be better! Love Penske Racing, lucky enough to make it to the ALMS in Utah this year and saw an awesome race. Friendliest drivers around too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the Stewards did say that they had 2 choices to either give a dive through (25secs) or a 10 place peanlty next race... They decided the 25 sec peanlty. I think the 10 place peanlty would have been worse for Lewis...

Without doubt :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On some other news post (I can't remember which one) a guy imagines what would have happened if the names were reversed and he thinks Ferrari would have gotten away with it. As most of us think. But he also says that probably Kimi would have given back position "cleanly" and with "several car lengths" in between.

No driver in their right state of mind would give up serveral car lenhths for the sake of it. Okay okay maybe Ide would, so he knew for sure he wouldn't crash into them!!!

An advantage doesn't just mean position. Hammy wouldn't have been able to get on the gas at the same time as Kimi thus losing some ground until he was able to accelerate. When he let Kimi by he then entered directly into the slipstream. That is the advantage he gained.

I can see your point James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An advantage doesn't just mean position. Hammy wouldn't have been able to get on the gas at the same time as Kimi thus losing some ground until he was able to accelerate. When he let Kimi by he then entered directly into the slipstream. That is the advantage he gained.

Exactly. No way Hamiliton would have been in a position to pass after the failed attempt. He gained an advantage, and I repeat, made no effort to get back on the track , and just "headed him off at the pass" The feeble attempt, to let Kimi back in front, was just that, Feeble Did he even give a car length back ???? What is the definition of giving the place back??? Is it just the nose???? or do you have to let the complete car go by :P

The opinion of the FIA decison is 50/50. Nothing is going to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FIA might as well just announce a new rule: No overtaking on the circuit. Overtaking by pit stop strategy only. That's what will improve the show. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact that they are even allowing an appeal on a decision that is not appealable per the the same set of rules that punished Hamilton shows that the FIA in no way favors Ferrari, it just bows to pressures that could disrupt its financial base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the quote from Kimi on page 2 of this thread is true it kind blows all the bs about the penalty being fair out of the water. Or are you all going to disagree with BOTH of the drivers involved. I suppose with the blinkers some people here wear you probably still will. :mf_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget about the penalty but do those who defend Hamilton think it is a good thing to see that manouvre every race we have some chicanes on track?

I don't think so. The rule should be cleared up and that penalty might help. Sorry Hammy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forget about the penalty but do those who defend Hamilton think it is a good thing to see that manouvre every race we have some chicanes on track?

I don't think so. The rule should be cleared up and that penalty might help. Sorry Hammy.

Ok, ignoring the penalty, to be perfectly honest, Aley, I am not defending Hamilton as such because my opinion would be the same whatever drivers were involved, I'm really defending racing.

However, it wouldn't bother me seeing it happen again, but I don't think it's really the point. In my eyes it was an extremely opportunistic attempt into the bus stop chicane and he got it wrong. Now, do I want to see drivers punished every time they make a mistake trying to overtake? Absolutely not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone point me to any media commentators on the sport who think this penalty is just. Even Ferrari have sounded luke warm on saying that it is. Someone criticised a link because it was from ITV, maybe they could post a link from anyone who commentates on F1 who agrees with this travesty because apart from Trulli (who I have no respect for) I haven't read one. Get searching people. :eusa_think:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...