The Actual Incident Between Lewis And Kimi

[Kay 0]

So we now know what was in the report do we?

Otherwise it is an assumption as to what Whiting said. He could have said further action was needed, that the situation was rectified or may have felt obliged to inform the stewards of his conversation with Mclaren.

Why assume the worst case scenario?

[Rainmaster 7]

I'm surprised no one has posted this clarification of the rules by the FIA with regard to chicane cutting. At least something positive comes of all this silly bollocks.

Shame the rules couldn't have said that in the first place eh? I'm no genius but I could have wrote that one up.

[Kopite Girl 0]

The answer is in your question

I'm stating that McLaren are doubtful that the move by Hamilton was 100% legal, which is why they questioned it....

If that is the case, then the FIA should throw the appeal right out of court, as well as throw the book at McLaren again for being stupid idiots.

[Quiet One 15]

I'm stating that McLaren are doubtful that the move by Hamilton was 100% legal, which is why they questioned it....

If that is the case, then the FIA should throw the appeal right out of court, as well as throw the book at McLaren again for being stupid idiots.

Rules say that Whiting can't do much more besides saying "go!", "Stop!", "bring on the SC!" and "yeah, whatever" when Ron calls him for the umpteenth time of the day to ask whether Lewis helmet color looks lovely from his booth or not.

Rules also state that drive through penalties are not subject to appeal.

Ron seems to think that it is legal for him to do that, though. My guess is that he has a photocopy of the Ferrari version of the Code, and thus think everything is possible

[pabloh20 1]

Rules say that Whiting can't do much more besides saying "go!", "Stop!", "bring on the SC!" and "yeah, whatever" when Ron calls him for the umpteenth time of the day to ask whether Lewis helmet color looks lovely from his booth or not.

Rules also state that drive through penalties are not subject to appeal.

Ron seems to think that it is legal for him to do that, though. My guess is that he has a photocopy of the Ferrari version of the Code, and thus think everything is possible

When you think about it, though, it's like having a ref in footy who doesn't know and can't actually enforce the rules.

Have you seen the link, I think Feddy posted it, saying that the 'clarification' for waiting at least 1 corner before overtaking, was apparently a directive from Whiting a few years ago, that was never written down. If that's true, then it really does make you wonder what's going on

[Quiet One 15]

When you think about it, though, it's like having a ref in footy who doesn't know and can't actually enforce the rules.

Have you seen the link, I think Feddy posted it, saying that the 'clarification' for waiting at least 1 corner before overtaking, was apparently a directive from Whiting a few years ago, that was never written down. If that's true, then it really does make you wonder what's going on

My guess: What's going on is an "informal" set of rules, in which the teams ask Whiting on behalf of his intimate knowledge of the sport, trusting his criteria.

That's ok. The problem arises when he ****s up like this time. And the truth is: you have no grounds to complain about that. Nobody told you to trust his criteria. All you can do is feel hurt and never trust him again

And FIA should make a clear, more specific set of rules so teams shouldn't seek Whiting for advice on fields outside his competence.

[Fed up 0]

My guess: What's going on is an "informal" set of rules, in which the teams ask Whiting on behalf of his intimate knowledge of the sport, trusting his criteria.

That's ok. The problem arises when he ****s up like this time. And the truth is: you have no grounds to complain about that. Nobody told you to trust his criteria. All you can do is feel hurt and never trust him again

And FIA should make a clear, more specific set of rules so teams shouldn't seek Whiting for advice on fields outside his competence.

You seem to have a lot to say about how Race control officiates during races, perhaps you can enlighten us on the best course of action Lewis should have taken once he overshot the corner.

[Quiet One 15]

You seem to have a lot to say about how Race control officiates during races, perhaps you can enlighten us on the best course of action Lewis should have taken once he overshot the corner.

Why thank you! Do I sense a bit of sarcasm?

Seriously...it's all in the rule book! And my guess was just a guess. That's what I usually mean when I start a phrase with "My guess:"

What Lewis should have done? What drivers usually do when they cut through the chicane. Slow down, give a clear advantage back and then attack Kimi who was doomed anyways.

Of course, that's easy to say now. Even easier when I am sitting on a comfy chair and my only driving in the past 2 hours was a short ride in the Metro. But that doesn't excuse him does it?

[pabloh20 1]

My guess: What's going on is an "informal" set of rules, in which the teams ask Whiting on behalf of his intimate knowledge of the sport, trusting his criteria.

That's ok. The problem arises when he ****s up like this time. And the truth is: you have no grounds to complain about that. Nobody told you to trust his criteria. All you can do is feel hurt and never trust him again

And FIA should make a clear, more specific set of rules so teams shouldn't seek Whiting for advice on fields outside his competence.

Actually the rules are very clear - thou shalt not drive off track, during practice or race. So many people have fallen foul of that in 2 sessions alone today

[danktrees 0]

What can you say about the time he gained in that move? he was suppose to be behind Kimi at the Chicane en he was suppose to start his acceleration later than Kimi giving Kimi a gap but he made that gap disappear by cutting the chicane, at that point were he let Kimi pass he was suppose to be several cars behind but he was just inches behind using the advantage he gained by cutting the chicane, if you don't see this you should be supporting FA.

he was not supposed to behind kimi. if u look at the side shot of them heading into the turn, his car was ahead of kimis when he started turning. at the very least he was alongside kimi and after cutting the chicane and letting kimi back around him, he was behind him. so how did he gain anything?

i think its moronic to punish lewis for it when race control confirmed he legally let kimi regain the position. then kimi swerved his car at the first turn which is a very dangerous move in the rain but no one criticized him for it. also, how come lewis gets a penalty for repassing kimi and heikki gets a penalty for punting webber (i believe the penalty is justified in heikki's case) but massa gets no penalty for destroying coulthard's car at australia?

[goferrarigo 0]

he was not supposed to behind kimi. if u look at the side shot of them heading into the turn, his car was ahead of kimis when he started turning. at the very least he was alongside kimi and after cutting the chicane and letting kimi back around him, he was behind him. so how did he gain anything?

i think its moronic to punish lewis for it when race control confirmed he legally let kimi regain the position. then kimi swerved his car at the first turn which is a very dangerous move in the rain but no one criticized him for it. also, how come lewis gets a penalty for repassing kimi and heikki gets a penalty for punting webber (i believe the penalty is justified in heikki's case) but massa gets no penalty for destroying coulthard's car at australia?

Dude all of Couthards peanlty has been his fault... and this season alone DC has crashed into atleast 3-4 people...

[The Rumble Strip 0]

It has now been clarified in the drivers briefing that you can

[Fed up 0]

Interesting comments by Max here;

"If you take Belgium, there are people who think both things. There are Ferrari supporters who think the decision was wrong, there are probably some McLaren supporters somewhere who think it was right.

"I don't know. I'll wait to hear what the court of appeal says when it sees the facts. Whatever you do you have the dilemma of needing time and complexity to get a result that will be fair, or you can be rough and ready in pursuit of an instant decision."

McLaren are pressing ahead with their appeal against Hamilton's punishment in Belgium, and have claimed that they were told twice by F1's Race Control that Hamilton's giving back of the lead to Raikkonen was 'okay.'

Mosley, however, believes the team were wrong to enquire with F1 race director Charlie Whiting about whether Hamilton's actions were within the regulations.

"I think there were two mistakes made there," said Mosley about the exchange between McLaren and Whiting. "One is that McLaren should not have asked Charlie. The second is that he should not have answered.

"Because when that rain came down on one of the fastest circuits in the world and most of the cars are on dry tyres, it is a very dangerous situation.

"The worst thing is the possibility that you have a spin and a collision between two cars, which is a nightmare for us. That is something that none of our safety procedures can deal with.

"Charlie is in one of the most high-pressured situations and in that situation the teams should not answer him and he should not answer them because he is not in a position to give even the beginnings of a considered opinion. So there were two mistakes made.

"But the primary mistake in my view was the team's. The team should have decided on precedent, and from everything they know, what advice to give him (Hamilton). I'm not going to express an opinion but the correct procedure was for the team to decide what to tell their driver. Charlie's responsibility is to see that nobody gets killed.

"What I think Charlie said was: 'I think it was OK'. At least that's what I've been told. I'm not there and that will be for the court to decide. It's all going to the court of appeal and it's all open to the press."

Elsewhere, he also mentions that the Stewards sought his opinion before making a judgement.

Anyway, it appears that the the penalty will be upheld and, once again, Max meddles in Mclaren business.

Sorry for dragging this up again.

[Kay 0]

Good job Hamilton wasn't given a ten place penalty - he'd be starting from dead last!

[Jean Todt 4]

Good job Hamilton wasn't given a ten place penalty - he'd be starting from dead last!

Pits!

[Alan333 0]

The debate about the actual incident has become way too polarised, no-one who feels one way or the other is going to change their mind. I think we can probably mostly agree that this decision has exposed some problems with F1 rules and the way they're applied. Where some of us differ is in the belief that had Kimi been passing Lewis no penalty would have been applied. This belief has been highlighted by the incident at Hungary with Michael and De La Rosa which anyone can see is a much clearer breach of the rules and in Valencia where Massa was FINED even though at Spa Senna was handed a drive through for almost exactly the same thing. Maybe someone in the pro penalty camp can explain these descrepincies for me.

[Alan333 0]

That "someone" would be me.

If you paid attention to my post, I didn't say I agreed with the penalty, or that anybody else does for that matter. Even Marca said the penalty was unfair if that is what you are looking for. But what bothers me and many other fans is the whining and the sense of "death of F1" just because Lewis was the one who lost here.

A similar abuse of ambiguous rules were used last year to lift the guy in a crane and put him back on track. It was a joke of a race, yet I don't recall any of the persons who are pulling at their hair now feeling that F1 was doomed then.

As for not having the least respect for Trulli...it says more about you than about the penalty itself.

And no, ITV and the British Press is not "ALL people who professionally expound on F1".

So you would have penalised Lewis for something the crane did and I don't think F1 is doomed in fact I find your post insulting. For start up until a few races this year Trulli was one of the most under achieving drivers in F1and I would thank you to ask what media I read before dismissing what I say. The fact that you did so says a lot about you.

[Quiet One 15]

So you would have penalised Lewis for something the crane did

No, I would have given the crane a drive through penalty.

and I don't think F1 is doomed in fact I find your post insulting.

I aim to please:

For start up until a few races this year Trulli was one of the most under achieving drivers in F1

Really? He is 8th (7th up until this race) overall, he has overshadowed his team mate, he even got a podium and was considered many times as one of the DOD. All this in the sub optimal Toyota team.

and I would thank you to ask what media I read before dismissing what I say. The fact that you did so says a lot about you.

After reading your views on Trulli's performance, you are right: What media do you read????