Japanese 2007 Race Thread

[B.P. 0]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8hWIfBkVQUk

That's the Vettel & Webber incident, now you can appreciate that Vettel was honest!

(Sorry if it's been posted already - not enough time to check all the threads)

Thanks Kay, thats the best view of the accident I've seen. Seeing that now can I ask WTF was Hamilton doing?

[Jean Todt 4]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8hWIfBkVQUk

That's the Vettel & Webber incident, now you can appreciate that Vettel was honest!

(Sorry if it's been posted already - not enough time to check all the threads)

It looks like Lewis made a mistake, and ran wide behind the safety car, though Vettel is honest, he made a mistake looking at Lewis.

[Max Mosley 2]

What exactly are people saying Lewis did wrong? He was right behind the safety car. He could hardly have gone any faster at that point.

Thanks for the video too!

[Fed up 0]

Cant see the likes of Kay and friends apologising for wrongly accusing Lewis for causing the crash.

[Kay 0]

It looks like Lewis made a mistake, and ran wide behind the safety car, though Vettel is honest, he made a mistake looking at Lewis.

So how does that contradict me saying Vettel is honest?

[Kay 0]

What exactly are people saying Lewis did wrong? He was right behind the safety car. He could hardly have gone any faster at that point.

Thanks for the video too!

No problem. The first restart is the one at issue. I posted it as I was interested to see the incident in relation to what Vettel said and it looked like he was being completely honest. He messed up by looking at Hamilton, but Hamilton did slow dramatically making it look like he may have a problem (especially considering the slower lap times previous to the safety car). You could put both down to inexperience. Vettel not looking correctly and Hamilton not following the SC correctly hence braking. Hamilton could have pulled away again behind the SC much quicker before the incident happened, I'd be interested to know if someone was on the radio to him at that point and so lost concentration in the corner.

Webber clearly was reacting quite quickly which is good considering his helmet had sick in it... I couldn't get up with food poisoning let alone race in those kinds of conditions...

[Jean Todt 4]

So how does that contradict me saying Vettel is honest?

I don't get what you exactly meant, or what you exactly want to know (am sorry for not understanding you quick enough), all I am saying is that Lewis made a mistake, and Vettel made another mistake by looking at what Lewis did. According to me, lewis made a mistake there, or was he trying to avoid being bumped by Webber, I don't really know.

[Juiceman05 0]

wow....

Anyhow, Massa is out of the points... since Ferrari has the WCC he should committ to taking Lewis out of the next two races so Ferrari can get both WCC and WDC and allow the ZOMGTEHCHEATING drama saga to continue.

Ya, i'm bored... back to financials!

[B.P. 0]

What exactly are people saying Lewis did wrong? He was right behind the safety car. He could hardly have gone any faster at that point.

Thanks for the video too!

No, he wasn't "right behind" the safety car, even Mark was closer the safety car than Lewis at the point of impact.

Lewis should have been a lot closer to the safety car.

[Kay 0]

I don't get what you exactly meant, or what you exactly want to know (am sorry for not understanding you quick enough), all I am saying is that Lewis made a mistake, and Vettel made another mistake by looking at what Lewis did. According to me, lewis made a mistake there, or was he trying to avoid being bumped by Webber, I don't really know.

Well when I posted

I NOW HATE VETTEL!

Clearly it wasn't obvious enough who I was pointing the main finger of blame at.

As for what I was getting at before, from the structure of your sentence it looked like you were saying Vettel was being honest, but he made a mistake which sounded to me as if you were saying he wasn't owning up to it. (I figure that's not the case now!)

[B.P. 0]

Cant see the likes of Kay and friends apologising for wrongly accusing Lewis for causing the crash.

Lewis did have some bearing on the accident , being so wide and slow.

[Max Mosley 2]

I was interested to see the incident in relation to what Vettel said and it looked like he was being completely honest.

Yeah I've always thought he seemed like a nice, honest guy. I am not surprised at all he was telling the truth.

(I figure that's not the case now!)

Confusion all round!

Lewis did have some bearing on the accident , being so wide and slow.

An extremely small bearing on it. Vettel should have been watching where he was going, not wondering about another car that was well out of the way. Webber, Vettel and the stewards all seem to accept this.

[B.P. 0]

An extremely small bearing on it. Vettel should have been watching where he was going, not wondering about another car that was well out of the way. Webber, Vettel and the stewards all seem to accept this.

Yes Vettel should have been watching where he was going, but if Lewis was further up behind the safety car,Vettel wouldn't have had anything to look at other than Marks car. I do believe Lewis had a larger bearing on the accident than you have indicated.

[Kay 0]

Confusion all round!

I never get confused.

Confused is an (male) excuse for getting it wrong.

[goferrarigo 0]

An extremely small bearing on it. Vettel should have been watching where he was going, not wondering about another car that was well out of the way. Webber, Vettel and the stewards all seem to accept this.

Maybe Vettel thought something was wrong with Hammy's car since he was soo wide into the turn, and thus did not expect Webber to brake, thus.......

[Piotr 0]

What exactly are people saying Lewis did wrong? He was right behind the safety car. He could hardly have gone any faster at that point.

Thanks for the video too!

You've got to be kidding me! The SC was on the inside, Lewis was almost OFF the outside, and Webber and Vettel were following the SC. When Webber realized Hamilton is just being stupid and he is actually overtaking him by following the SC, he slammed on the brakes. Vettel, who was looking at Hamilton, had no chance. If you look carefully, yo see that Lewis is at the Bottom right of the screen just starting to get into the turn, Webber is at the apex, and the SC- is GONE past the turn. I would like to know what brakes did Hamilton use, because nobody else seemed to have to brake like he did to warm up their brakes!

[Piotr 0]

I never get confused.

Confused is an (male) excuse for getting it wrong.

Lemmie guess-you are also NEVER wrong, and you are the only reasonable one, right?

[Autumnpuma 0]

A very likely reason? If the punishment had been a slap on the wrist (loss of some points, a 1m dollar fine, being forced to have a dinner with candles with Bernie and Todt), cutting his losses would be perfectly understandable. But when you are being given a punishment more severe than what Exxon would have gotten for an oil spill, the total loss of a year's (or more) work and the obvious impact it would have on your public image, I would have expected either an appeal or at least a stronger position. If somebody accused me of molesting childs (besides Muzza) I would appeal, and take it until the last consequences. Anything but quiet resignation. That doesn't sounds like the logical actions of an innocent man. If he is so innocent and this punishment is so unfair, why not appeal? If appeal if useless because the whole body is corrupted, why suffer all this humiliation? Why not slam the door, threaten to leave a cave of pirates and look for greener, less unfair pastures? Again, he could be innocent. But his actions "cast a shadow of doubt" (as I said in my first post).

The rule McLaren were found in breach of has no defense. Basically, if the FIA and WMSC consider your actions, whatever those actions are, to be detrimental to the sport in general and competition in specific, then you are guilty. No appeal to either body would change that, so why risk sanctions for 2008? McLaren will build another title-chaser next year and will stand to take in alot of revenue because of it. If they challenged the ruling, and lost (very likely) they would suffer the income loss from 2007 and 2008. That is not a gamble any sane man would make, considering a one-footed-blind-idiot can see they would lose the appeal. Why would Ron not just up and leave? There's still money to be made in F1 and his shareholders and employees deserve to keep their jobs (well, some of his employees, anyway).

You're throwing around the 'innocent' and 'guilty' tags. McLaren were found to be guilty of a vague rule. There is no arguing that and McLaren know it, hence no appeal. Thats being pragmatic, not admitting guilt (at least guilt of anything that affected the championship, rather than the perception of said championship).

The rule is vague, I give you that.

More than that, it's impossible to defend against because at it's root it's a perception issue not a 'cheating' issue. The governing body perceives McLaren to have behaved badly so they get punished, even though no facts show McLaren cheated against it's rivals on-track. But of course the vague rule doesn't require that cheating be proven, just that McLaren's actions have damaged the sport. It's a conviction of opinion. McLaren, and all the teams, are fools to participate in a series that has such a rule, but I suppose they figure that making money is worth the risk. Well, now McLaren have to pay for taking that risk.

I am not here to defend FIA's arguments (which I found terribly weak). I just try to picture a scenarion were Ron is guilty, not because I give a rat's arse whether he is guilty or not (personally, I think he is, but your theory is also possible and I have not enough information to judge your opinion inferior to mine in any way), but to show that there are many ways to view this story, and some of them are plausible (of course, you can blame all this on martians, but I think both your theory and mine are more plausible)

Agreed.

Yes...and nope. Don't take my awful painting, copy it with even broader brushes, and then make fun of "your" copy of my picture as it if was my original. I believe that other teams actions are no excuse for a teams misdeeds. If Ferrari kills people, then they should be punished more hrashly than McLaren, that goes without saying. But if at the same time Briatore smuggles a dozen bottles of whisky, I don't think you could use Ferrai's crimes to turn Briatore from a smuggler into an angel. If he gets punished and Ferrari does not, then the courts and laws should be reviewed, but Briatore shouldn't be declared innocent. Because he isn't. McLaren isn't innocent. I am not saying they deserve the punishment, or that they are the only ones who deserve the punishment. FIA sucks, and this saga only showed how much they suck. But McLaren still was in possesion of illegal docs.

The key would be, can we prove Briatore himself smuggled the fine bottles of whisky? If an employee of his actually smuggled them, and then tried to blackmail him with emails, would we then be in the right to blame Briatore for it?

It has not been proven that McLaren were in possession of illegal documents. Thats an assumption on your part. The proof shows that those documents were in the possession of a McLaren employee at his residence (that's where the police found the documents, right?). McLaren took a huge hit for a few employees' actions, whilst the actual wrong-doers were let off without being punished.

Photographs...well...they are not the same. I would of course respect teams even more if they didn't do that. But photographs are not forbidden (I think), I didn't read anybody admitting they took them (besides de la Rosa, but I don't read much so maybe I missed something). And having all the info about a competitors car is not the same as some quick snaps while walking around the pits. There is a scale. The fact that I think that having a 700 page dossier is more important to me than to you does not mean that I can't distinguish those "nuances"

If McLaren were proven to have been in possession of the 700 page dossier, I would agree. Here's what was proven: Coughlan had the dossier at his personal residence. He fed information based on conversations with Stepney (not from the dossier) to Pedro de la Rosa (who in turn fed them to Alonso). At some point Alonso and Pedro tried some of that information relating to weight transfer in the simulator (which would not require anyone to know about the source as ballast placement and set-up info is routinely altered by the driver in his quest to find the perfect set-up). There was mention of a flexing wing being tested somewhere at McLaren, but that path wasn't followed up properly. It's clear that a few personnel at McLaren were in on this, but nothing has been proven that the dossier was ever inside McLaren or discussed with the design team. No part of that dossier was used in competition. A firewall was even set up to block Stepney's email...not sure why McLaren would do that if they were knowingly getting info from him....

Point being that it wasn't proven that McLaren or Ron knew anything about what a few employees were doing, yet they were hanged for it. The proper execution of justice would be to punish those who committed the crime. Alonso, Coughlan, Pedro and any employees that could be proven to have been in on this should have been banned from F1. That would have been justice. The fact that it would have hurt McLaren to lose those people would have been punishment enough.

Back intgo the nunaces stuff Ok, I will assume Ron did not know anything about the saga. (I might say that there is no proof that Alonso knew, because FIA "assumed" from his mails that he knew about it, though all he does is ask for info about Ferrari...my humble contribution to "nuances", but you might ignore this).

There was no proof that Ron knew. There was proof (not assumption) in the emails that Pedro sent Alonso that Alonso knew the info came from Stepney..Pedro even said it came from Stepney specifically at one point (refer to the initial 14 page WMSC release) and that he and Coughlan were close friends. There was no proof that Alonso knew Coughlan had the dossier. In fact, there was no proof that anyone at McLaren knew Coughlan had the dossier. The largest proof was that Stepney was contacting Coughlan and feeding him information, but that was known to a very few McLaren employees. How's that for nuance?

In such case, yes, he will not be equally responsible. I would say he is responsible of incompetence, because if his drivers and some of his more important members of the staff were involved under his own nose yet he failed to notice anything suspicious, that doesn't say much about Ron's management skills.

Do you know how large McLaren is? It's huge. This isn't 1965 at Lotus where Colin Chapman is walking through his warehouse watching each of his 40 people bang out his cars. Give Ron a bit of a break here! Ron established a 'matrix' management system where his department heads run the departments and he only reallly talks with those department heads. If we're talking about mismanagement, how about we turn this towards Ferrari, who can't seem to keep white powder from entering their own cars, can't keep track of Stepney and can't even keep 700 pages of recent car designs from leaving Maranello! I'm not shifting focus here, just pointing out that you're being too hard on Ron, just as bashing Jean Todt for Ferrari's foibles would be incorrect. One man can only do so much.

Anyways, that is just my opinion. You can still argue that he could easily have ignored all this and, again, I have nothing to prove you wrong. He is the main responsible of the team. "Responsible". That's what he gets paid for. He is still to blame. And so does the whole team. If its only that kind of responsiblity, he could very well fire Alonso, de la Rosa and Coughlan. And even sue them. But that won't erase his responsiblity. That's all.

Actually, Ron Dennis is responsible for the company, but I would hesitate to lay any blame on him personally. As CEO of McLaren, he presides over the company that took the blame, but personally I think he knew nothing of this. It's a shame that Ron is being personally attacked from all quarters for something that should rightly be lain on others, or at the very least, the team McLaren.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8hWIfBkVQUk

That's the Vettel & Webber incident, now you can appreciate that Vettel was honest!

(Sorry if it's been posted already - not enough time to check all the threads)

Thanks for the post. It looked to me that Hamilton did indeed slow up, but, as I have seen many times in the past with Mikey the Schu, Rubens and Alonso, the leader determines the pace. Rapid halting behind the safety car is nothing new and happens in every series where the field runs behind the SC. Defending Hamilton? Yup. But I hereby defend any leader in that situation. It's up to the cars behind to watch the cars in front. In most racing collisions, it's the guy behind that gets the penalty. Cases in point, Kubica on Hamilton in Fuji and Vettel on Webber in Fuji.

It's true that Hamilton was called up to the stewards to answer for this incident, but this clip is somewhat out of context. The previous laps show Webber being very ambitious and running alongside Hamilton, when Hamilton wasn't doing the 'stop-start' thing*. With that in mind, Hamilton was pulling off the racing line at the time of the Webber/Vettel incident because Webber was getting too close, too often.

*Common tactic to bunch up the field so as to get a jump on them at the rolling re-start. A related tactic for those behind the leader is to get as close as possible and anticipate the leader's 'stop-start' routine to jump them...Montoya was brilliant at this. Hamilton was guilty of the first tactic and Webber/Vettel the second. Racing is racing and this was a case of Webber/Vettel screwing up something that better drivers have pulled off.

[goferrarigo 0]

If McLaren were proven to have been in possession of the 700 page dossier, I would agree. Here's what was proven: Coughlan had the dossier at his personal residence. He fed information based on conversations with Stepney (not from the dossier) to Pedro de la Rosa (who in turn fed them to Alonso). At some point Alonso and Pedro tried some of that information relating to weight transfer in the simulator (which would not require anyone to know about the source as ballast placement and set-up info is routinely altered by the driver in his quest to find the perfect set-up). There was mention of a flexing wing being tested somewhere at McLaren, but that path wasn't followed up properly. It's clear that a few personnel at McLaren were in on this, but nothing has been proven that the dossier was ever inside McLaren or discussed with the design team. No part of that dossier was used in competition. A firewall was even set up to block Stepney's email...not sure why McLaren would do that if they were knowingly getting info from him....

How do you know they did not use the infomation from the dossier???

[B.P. 0]

Thanks for the post. It looked to me that Hamilton did indeed slow up, but, as I have seen many times in the past with Mikey the Schu, Rubens and Alonso, the leader determines the pace. Rapid halting behind the safety car is nothing new and happens in every series where the field runs behind the SC. Defending Hamilton? Yup. But I hereby defend any leader in that situation. It's up to the cars behind to watch the cars in front. In most racing collisions, it's the guy behind that gets the penalty. Cases in point, Kubica on Hamilton in Fuji and Vettel on Webber in Fuji.

It's true that Hamilton was called up to the stewards to answer for this incident, but this clip is somewhat out of context. The previous laps show Webber being very ambitious and running alongside Hamilton, when Hamilton wasn't doing the 'stop-start' thing*. With that in mind, Hamilton was pulling off the racing line at the time of the Webber/Vettel incident because Webber was getting too close, too often.

*Common tactic to bunch up the field so as to get a jump on them at the rolling re-start. A related tactic for those behind the leader is to get as close as possible and anticipate the leader's 'stop-start' routine to jump them...Montoya was brilliant at this. Hamilton was guilty of the first tactic and Webber/Vettel the second. Racing is racing and this was a case of Webber/Vettel screwing up something that better drivers have pulled off.

Thanks for your analysis of the incident Mike, but nothing you said/say will persuade me to think Lewis wasn't a bearing in the accident after seeing the latest footage. Lewis was just too wide and too slow.

[dribbler 6]

Thanks for your analysis of the incident Mike, but nothing you said/say will persuade me to think Lewis wasn't a bearing in the accident after seeing the latest footage. Lewis was just too wide and too slow.

This comparison might over simplify the incident but if i am driving down a road and hit the back of someone, regardless of whether they stop suddenly, it would be deemed as my fault. It is the responsibility of the car following to react to what i am doing, not the other way around.

The reason all this 'speeding up-slowing down' shenanigans occurs is because (apart from supposedly keeping tyres and brakes warm) the drivers want to be ready for when the leader bolts. What i find incredible is why they don't relax a little more and wait until their bosses on the prat perch give them the message to go. If that happened there would be far less chance for this sort of incident. I ony hope that the FIA don't think up some sort of rule to water down the excitement of this situation.

For the record, i believe Mark was a little too close to Lewis, Lewis was a liitle too erratic and Seb' was caught napping.

[Kay 0]

Lemmie guess-you are also NEVER wrong, and you are the only reasonable one, right?

Geez why are you so up tight? I was having a joke with Murray - humour.

I suggest you reread my post and then you will find it was nothing to do with never being wrong or are you just picking a fight?

[Kay 0]

This comparison might over simplify the incident but if i am driving down a road and hit the back of someone, regardless of whether they stop suddenly, it would be deemed as my fault. It is the responsibility of the car following to react to what i am doing, not the other way around.

The reason all this 'speeding up-slowing down' shenanigans occurs is because (apart from supposedly keeping tyres and brakes warm) the drivers want to be ready for when the leader bolts. What i find incredible is why they don't relax a little more and wait until their bosses on the prat perch give them the message to go. If that happened there would be far less chance for this sort of incident. I ony hope that the FIA don't think up some sort of rule to water down the excitement of this situation.

For the record, i believe Mark was a little too close to Lewis, Lewis was a liitle too erratic and Seb' was caught napping.

Rules state you have to be close to the car in front.

[B.P. 0]

Red Bull's Mark Webber criticised Formula One championship leader Lewis Hamilton on Thursday for erratic driving behind the safety car at last week's Japanese Grand Prix.

The Australian was shunted out of the race by Toro Rosso's German rookie Sebastian Vettel while in second place behind McLaren's Hamilton in heavy spray and rain with the safety car deployed.

Webber and Vettel said a sudden lurch to the right by Hamilton, the 22-year-old who will clinch the title if he wins Sunday's Chinese Grand Prix, contributed to the accident.

"It definitely contributed to Sebastian hitting me up the back because he (Hamilton) wasn't doing what he was supposed to be doing, clearly," Webber told a news conference.

"He spoke in the drivers' meeting about how good a job he was going to do and he did the opposite. Still, we know for next time."

The Australian, who had struggled with food poisoning and vomited during Sunday's race, said the accident had wrecked one of his best chances in 101 Grands Prix starts to claim his first Formula One victory.

"It was one of the lowest points of my career last weekend, in terms of being in a position to challenge for victory, and it was taken away not even in a racing incident," he said.

"It was very, very hard to swallow. It's under the bridge, it's gone and we'll never get that back."

Vettel, who said after the race that he had been distracted by Hamilton's slowing and running wide, again apologised to Webber.

"As a human being you react to movement," he said.

"I saw Lewis move far to the right and thought he was coming to a stop ... I obviously did not plan to ruin both of our races."

Source .Autosports.com

Don't worry Mark & Seb I saw what happened.....

[B.P. 0]

And yet there's more:

World championship leader Lewis Hamilton is currently under investigation by the race stewards at the Chinese Grand Prix over his behaviour behind the safety car in Fuji last weekend, autosport.com can reveal.

It is understood that the FIA has been supplied with new information about Hamilton's driving behind the second safety car phase - where it is suggested that he contributed to the collision between Mark Webber and Sebastian Vettel.

It is not clear what this new evidence may be, but it could relate to video footage suggesting that Hamilton was braking and accelerating excessively.

An FIA spokesman confirmed that the stewards were looking into the matter.

"New evidence has been brought to the stewards attention and they are currently investigating the matter," he said.

It is understood Hamilton has been asked to meet with the stewards tomorrow.

The Webber/Vettel accident was not caught on camera by Formula One's official coverage, but a Youtube video of the accident filmed from the grandstands has highlighted how Hamilton slowed down dramatically on the right of the track, forcing Webber to slow down and catch Vettel unaware.

Formula One's regulations dictate that the race leader must keep a standard distance behind the safety car until the lap before it is due to come into the pits.

Article 40.10 of the F1 Sporting Regulations states: "The safety car shall be used at least until the leader is behind it and all remaining cars are lined up behind him. Once behind the safety car, the race leader must keep within 5 car lengths of it."

With Vettel having already been handed a 10-place grid penalty in China for his part in the accident, it is thought that if the stewards believe Hamilton has done wrong then he could be punished in a similar fashion.

Red Bull Racing's Mark Webber said on Thursday that he believed Hamilton's behaviour had contributed to the accident.

"It definitely contributed to Sebastian hitting me up the back because he (Hamilton) wasn't doing what he was supposed to be doing, clearly," Webber told a news conference.

"He spoke in the drivers' meeting about how good a job he was going to do and he did the opposite. Still, we know for next time."

Source: Autosport.com

Maybe this has not been resolved after all ? And maybe the WDC is still up for grabs ?