Super Cool United Britainland Grand Preeeee.

[maure 1]

As long as Kimi is back on a decent ride, I care little either way...

[BradSpeedMan 6]

As long as Kimi is back on a decent ride, I care little either way...

just read this from planetf1, not the most reliable of sources, but anyway...

Martin Whitmarsh believes F1 would be "richer" for having former World Champion Kimi Raikkonen back.

Raikkonen quit the sport at the end of the 2009 Championship after failing to land a race deal with McLaren, who opted instead to sign Jenson Button.

Moving over to the World Rally Championship with Citroen, the Finn has been dogged by rumour of his pending return to F1 with Renault admitting they would be interested in having him partner Robert Kubica next season.

Added to that, rumours in the Silverstone paddock claim both Red Bull and Mercedes GP could be keen on securing his services should they lose Mark Webber and Michael Schumacher.

One man who would welcome Raikkonen's return is McLaren team boss Whitmarsh, who believes the Finn "should" be in F1

"Formula One would be richer for having Kimi back," Whitmarsh told the Daily Star.

"He is a very talented and intelligent driver, which is something that people underestimated. That's because he wasn't the most communicative of people on occasions."

He added: "Kimi is one of the most exciting drivers in the world and, frankly, he should be in Formula One.

"If I could wave a magic wand for an F1 grid it would certainly include Kimi. That's why last year we were talking to him."

I read a slight dig at the ferrari driver's here, their driver mistakes are proving costly

[AleHop 0]

I don't know Alex, I think the SC was needed because even if it wasn't a crash, the debris was in a place where it was impossible to try recover it without risking 1 or 2 cars running you over. And plus, it was the only think that would have worked for Vettel (thus the "I don't know" bit, I'm not sure if my bias is talking through me, but I reckon debris on track is bad, right? XD)

No problem, bias always and forever talks through every single human being.

Some guys around here think they talk through God's Word all the time.

Maybe they're not human beings?

That's life.

[wapi 4]

Around about the same time it took for them to penalise Hamilton in Spa when he was run off at the chicane by Kimi...at least he then dropped back again, unlike someone that don't need mentioning here....and gee whiz, Kimi also didn't finish that race, and the penalty was given after Kimi crashed out - infact it was given after the race, for 25 sec's, being the time adjudged to be equal to a drive through penalty.

So there you have it. Similar incidents. Same penalty.

Favourtism, my a##. Some of you have short memories...or maybe just selective ones.

I am not talking of favoritism, my point is poor race management by FIA & FOM guys. My guess is their age is catching up with them.

[JHS 1]

Okay, I've just started drafting my weekend report in word and sorting through my pictures, plenty more to come from my Dad's camera too. It'll be up soon.

[Jean Todt 4]

just read this from planetf1, not the most reliable of sources, but anyway...

Martin Whitmarsh believes F1 would be "richer" for having former World Champion Kimi Raikkonen back.

Raikkonen quit the sport at the end of the 2009 Championship after failing to land a race deal with McLaren, who opted instead to sign Jenson Button.

Moving over to the World Rally Championship with Citroen, the Finn has been dogged by rumour of his pending return to F1 with Renault admitting they would be interested in having him partner Robert Kubica next season.

Added to that, rumours in the Silverstone paddock claim both Red Bull and Mercedes GP could be keen on securing his services should they lose Mark Webber and Michael Schumacher.

One man who would welcome Raikkonen's return is McLaren team boss Whitmarsh, who believes the Finn "should" be in F1

"Formula One would be richer for having Kimi back," Whitmarsh told the Daily Star.

"He is a very talented and intelligent driver, which is something that people underestimated. That's because he wasn't the most communicative of people on occasions."

He added: "Kimi is one of the most exciting drivers in the world and, frankly, he should be in Formula One.

"If I could wave a magic wand for an F1 grid it would certainly include Kimi. That's why last year we were talking to him."

I read a slight dig at the ferrari driver's here, their driver mistakes are proving costly

[HandyNZL 1]

I am not talking of favoritism, my point is poor race management by FIA & FOM guys. My guess is their age is catching up with them.

And my point is nothing has changed...no longer, no shorter. Just the same. Age has nothing to do with it. To suggest that shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject and that you're clutching at a straw excuse to have a bitch and whine because your team has been, in your mind, screwed over.

FFS it's just a bunch of guys in a few cars driving around in circles.

[HandyNZL 1]

No problem, bias always and forever talks through every single human being.

Some guys around here think they talk through God's Word all the time.

Maybe they're not human beings?

That's life.

Nope. We're the sane and logical fifth ape.

[wapi 4]

And my point is nothing has changed...no longer, no shorter. Just the same. Age has nothing to do with it. To suggest that shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject and that you're clutching at a straw excuse to have a bitch and whine because your team has been, in your mind, screwed over.

FFS it's just a bunch of guys in a few cars driving around in circles.

You clearly do not understand my English, so I'll make final effort not to be misunderstood.

I do not think Ferrari has been intentionally screwed over.

I do neither think that Valencia was conspiracy.

I do neither think Silverstone ruling against Alonso is unfair.

It took them long time to decide Hamilton in Valencia as well as Alonso in Silverstone. Both cases were obvious, especially Alonso at Silverstone.

It took them few laps to decide to send SC out in Silverstone after PdlR lost parts of his car.

I am just pointing out that Stewards take really long time to decide very clear cases.

There are unanswered questions:

1. why it was necessary to declare "safety car in this lap" on last lap in Monaco and create unnecessary confusion?

2. Why SC in Valencia did not let cars pass it until Vettel came behind, although according to rules it should do so?

3. Why Sauber was not investigated for losing car parts without obvious impact with other car?

4. Why some cars in Valencia received nonexistent punishment of 5 seconds? When Schumacher overtook Alonso in Monaco they were obliged to punish him with 25 sec!

Also I am suggesting that Charlie Whitting is not young any more and that might have influence on his efficiency on the job.

Finally, I do not think anybody is screwing Ferrari; it is masturbation - they are screwing themselves more efficiently than Stewards, FIA, FOM, Bin Laden or Dr. House could do it.

[HandyNZL 1]

You clearly do not understand my English, so I'll make final effort not to be misunderstood.

I do not think Ferrari has been intentionally screwed over. Me neither...they are just cry babies - or at least acting like they are

I do neither think that Valencia was conspiracy. Of course not. Only munters would think that

I do neither think Silverstone ruling against Alonso is unfair. Nope it was perfectly fair...in 2008 it played into Ferrari hands...this time it didn't

It took them long time to decide Hamilton in Valencia as well as Alonso in Silverstone. Both cases were obvious, especially Alonso at Silverstone. At Valencia they were more worried about Mark Webber than on anything else. In Silverstone they took the usual amount of time, which is probably actually very fast, just that ME, YOU and EVERYONE else in TV LAND will not hear straight away...radio transmissions are usually out by one or two laps...you think they can get the graphics on screen in a split second? Come off it....there is a body running the race, then there is Jonathan spew verbal diarrhea Leggard and Martin have to wear my earmuffs to be in the same room as him Brundle will say something that may or may not be accurate...infact, apart from commenting directly on the race at hand, as in Car A passed Car B, ANYTHING they say has to be taken with a pinch of salt, and can not be considered accurate - it is their opinion.

It took them few laps to decide to send SC out in Silverstone after PdlR lost parts of his car. Again, they would have been watching some footage of the cars, and where the debris was...was it on line or off? It took all of two laps...FFS. So sorry that not all things in life can be instantaneous.

I am just pointing out that Stewards take really long time to decide very clear cases. No they don't. WE in TV LAND get present the final mitigating evidence, so WE can make our minds up instantly. The FIA, and any steward in any race formula anywhere in the world has to look at all the evidence. We get given the last page in the book....they have to read the first 300-pages or so to get there.

There are unanswered questions:

1. why it was necessary to declare "safety car in this lap" on last lap in Monaco and create unnecessary confusion? Because that is what the rules said. Some times things happen that are not quite planned on happening.

2. Why SC in Valencia did not let cars pass it until Vettel came behind, although according to rules it should do so? Because it was trying to give a good time break for those attending to Webber and the debris caused thereof to have a clear track around him for as long as possible. It's called safety.

3. Why Sauber was not investigated for losing car parts without obvious impact with other car? It was only from the TV angle that made it look like not impact. The only rear wing to come off in the last fifiteen years was that of Mika Hakinnens. Half a vertical plane does not just fall off, and fall off in several pieces. If you think there was no contact...well....I can't help with your perception, except maybe suggest a 42" LED screen?

4. Why some cars in Valencia received nonexistent punishment of 5 seconds? When Schumacher overtook Alonso in Monaco they were obliged to punish him with 25 sec! Because of the circumstances. Schumacher did the same as essentially Hamilton did in Melbourne with Trulli...that was the rule that was broken. The cars in Valencia were speeding. Schumacher gained an obvious advantage (he finished ahead of someone). The guys in valencia just went too fast, but no one over took anyone.

Also I am suggesting that Charlie Whitting is not young any more and that might have influence on his efficiency on the job. No I would say it gives him experience. Also he is not the only person involved...infact he has nothing to do with penalties either (while I'm at it)

Finally, I do not think anybody is screwing Ferrari; it is masturbation - they are screwing themselves more efficiently than Stewards, FIA, FOM, Bin Laden or Dr. House could do it. This is very true. Maybe they think because Jean Todt is at the reins they will have more leeway...

It's very easy to blame the FIA for everything. Problem is, all they are doing is sticking to the rule book. And that rule books says to investigate things properly, and you know what...to do that just so happens to take a little time.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

It's very easy to blame the FIA for everything. Problem is, all they are doing is sticking to the rule book. And that rule books says to investigate things properly, and you know what...to do that just so happens to take a little time.

exactly, it's not like their sitting hands folded like us fans enjoying the race with replays and stuff......some appreciation for their part is nessasary. I think they're doing an fantastic job

[BradSpeedMan 6]

hey Handy, this to reiterate your point..

http://www.totalf1.com/full_story/view/346787/Ferrari_was_advised_to_let_Kubica_through/

[dribbler 6]

It is against the rules to have all four wheels off the track when making a pass. It doesn't matter if Kubica's engine blew up, whether he stopped for a burger or pulled in to have nose surgery; it is irrelevant.

[AleHop 0]

It's very easy to blame the FIA for everything. Problem is, all they are doing is sticking to the rule book. And that rule books says to investigate things properly, and you know what...to do that just so happens to take a little time.

Oh, they have a rule book. Really?

[HandyNZL 1]

hey Handy, this to reiterate your point..

http://www.totalf1.c...Kubica_through/

Yeppers. I see that. But Alonso has immunity from the FIA so that means he (and his team) can disregard FIA orders. Instant ones too....

[wapi 4]

It's very easy to blame the FIA for everything. Problem is, all they are doing is sticking to the rule book. And that rule books says to investigate things properly, and you know what...to do that just so happens to take a little time.

There is nothing in the rulebook on process of investigation. Process of investigation is not regulated/defined.

Stewards act ONLY AFTER Charlie Whitting (race director) reports something. If Charlie does not report or until he reports something, nothing happens. So Charlie's speed in decision making is essential for quick justice.

All the evidence that was needed in Hamilton or Alonso case was to replay 5 seconds of tv footage.

Today we learned that Whitting/stewards are not to be blamed for Alonso penalty delay, they had to deal with Ferrari pitwall who wanted to get smart with Charlie instead obeying instantly. Although I cannot imagine why would anyone need to ask Charlie if cutting corner was legal.

[maure 1]

just read this from planetf1, not the most reliable of sources, but anyway...

Martin Whitmarsh believes F1 would be "richer" for having former World Champion Kimi Raikkonen back.

Raikkonen quit the sport at the end of the 2009 Championship after failing to land a race deal with McLaren, who opted instead to sign Jenson Button.

Moving over to the World Rally Championship with Citroen, the Finn has been dogged by rumour of his pending return to F1 with Renault admitting they would be interested in having him partner Robert Kubica next season.

Added to that, rumours in the Silverstone paddock claim both Red Bull and Mercedes GP could be keen on securing his services should they lose Mark Webber and Michael Schumacher.

One man who would welcome Raikkonen's return is McLaren team boss Whitmarsh, who believes the Finn "should" be in F1

"Formula One would be richer for having Kimi back," Whitmarsh told the Daily Star.

"He is a very talented and intelligent driver, which is something that people underestimated. That's because he wasn't the most communicative of people on occasions."

He added: "Kimi is one of the most exciting drivers in the world and, frankly, he should be in Formula One.

"If I could wave a magic wand for an F1 grid it would certainly include Kimi. That's why last year we were talking to him."

I read a slight dig at the ferrari driver's here, their driver mistakes are proving costly

What is said about Kimi is all true. However...

Whitmarsh is a fart in a hurricane, that is, he's no more than a muppet with RD's hand up his arse.

Also, there is no "slight dig" at Ferrari's drivers. Massa sucks, true. But expecting more of Alonso under these circumstances is pure delusion. New team for him, wall errors, and FIA are more than any driver could handle... and Alonso still thrives despite it all.

Nah, you see Kimi, my friend, but are blind to the second best, Alonso.

[maure 1]

It is against the rules to have all four wheels off the track when making a pass. It doesn't matter if Kubica's engine blew up, whether he stopped for a burger or pulled in to have nose surgery; it is irrelevant.

Amusing. Check among previous Whiting's decisions and discover otherwise.

Plus, remember the lewisteric outburst of violence when Hamilton jumped a chicane to gain the necessary advantage to pass Kimi.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Alonso's penalty was too harsh. Correct thing would be to fine him and call it done.

[maure 1]

It was meant to be harsh and disproportionate. Alonso has already gone from being favorite for the championship to being about to lose his job.

It was not a penalty. It was just a message.

[Quiet One 15]

Alonso's penalty was too harsh. Correct thing would be to fine him and call it done.

Would you believe me if I told you that I disagree with you?

I think it was fair and consistent with similar actions in the past. Other factors worsened it but that's life.

Other than that, and while on this subject, I do strongly disagree with the choice of the advisor for the race. A British former driver, in a British GP under pressure of British public opinion, with British drivers fighting at the top for the championship? Er...why didn't they choose Marc Gene for the Valencia GP? What would have happened if the penalty issued to Hammy at Valencia were issued by the stewards under the advise of Marc Gené, but with worse luck/worse timing than he had thus actually depriving him of some valuable points? Can you imagine the outcry?

I mention this only because I think that, in the end, Mansell's opinion didn't arouse any suspicions of favoritism worthy of note. And I am sure his opinion had some weight (geddit? har har har). I think that if FIA is looking for an image of fair play, then the choice was rather poor, even if in the end it had no consequences, a credit towards the usually discredited Spanish fanbase.

[HandyNZL 1]

(in reponse to monsieur puma of the fall) I think you'll find the Ferrari were told straight away to give back the spot as soon as it happened, but ignored three requests from Charlie to do so. Therefore and hitherto the penalty was just and deserved.

The SC was just bad luck, again.

[maure 1]

I do strongly disagree with the choice of the advisor for the race. A British former driver, in a British GP under pressure of British public opinion, with British drivers fighting at the top for the championship?

All I hear is CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!!!

Provide _absolute_proof_ that your claims are in fact so.

[AleHop 0]

Other than that...

Could Mansell be any worse than Whiting?

As maure said, could it be just another message?

Wouldn't you find it fishy if just one referee were picked by FIFA for the whole World Cup like Whiting in F1?

Would you agree if after a few controversial incidents in the World Cup with the same referee once and again, match after match, people started talking about farce if FIFA didn't do anything about that?

Just asking.

[HandyNZL 1]

Could Mansell be any worse than Whiting?

As maure said, could it be just another message?

Wouldn't you find it fishy if just one referee were picked by FIFA for the whole World Cup like Whiting in F1?

Would you agree if after a few controversial incidents in the World Cup with the same referee once and again, match after match, people started talking about farce if FIFA didn't do anything about that?

Just asking.

You do know there's three other race stewards that do change every race?

Just asking...