2008 Belgian Grand Prix

  • Thread starter Thread starter PeterJB
  • 493 comments
  • 19,484 views
re·scind
1: to take away : remove
2 a: take back, cancel <refused to rescind the order> b: to abrogate (a contract) and restore the parties to the positions they would have occupied had there been no contract
3: to make void (as an act) by action of the enacting authority or a superior authority

the Interceptor - you're talking about the same thing "giving the other driver his position back" - with different words
 
Last edited:
Yes, but my argument was that the term is not defined precisely in the rules. Therefore, Hamiltons action was no different to Alonsos according to the rules. Yet, they were handled differently.

EDIT: Besides, the only reason Alonso went behind his opponent was that there was a long straight. If the corner would have been closer, he probably would have cut to his inside, just like Hamilton.
 
Last edited:
As I said the only time Hamilton was directly behind Raikkonen was when he initiated an attacking move to the inside.

Alonso returned directly behind, to a position you would expect had he not cut the chicane, picked up a tow then used it to pass...

Totally different.

Yes, agreed rules don't cater every single scenario, but like other sports, motorsport does have unwritten ethics. Where in soccer does it say 'you must kick the ball out when a injured opponent is down on the field'? It simply doesn't.

Motorsport it is expected that you return to a normal racing position expected before the error occured. Hamilton didn't. He was penalised.
 
Last edited:
hellnback
Motorsport it is expected that you return to a normal racing position expected before the error occured. Hamilton didn't. He was penalised.
Click to expand...
But why wasn't Trulli penalised for driving back onto the racing line after he spun out, forcing several cars to avoid him? Why was Hamilton not penalised for changing the lane twice in the lap after the discussed incident? If you punish people for wrong actions, you can't randomly pick said incidents to your liking.
 
hellnback
Motorsport it is expected that you return to a normal racing position expected before the error occured. Hamilton didn't. He was penalised.
Click to expand...

But not for that. He was penalised for leaving the track.
 
Where is it said that to give back a place, you have to drive directly behind the other car?
 
Yep, I have the same objection to your position, hellnback. You keep talking about "racing position" as if such a thing were defined, which it isn't. Hamilton gained a place when he was clearly ahead of Raikkonen; he returns it when he's clearly behind him, which he is up the straight (otherwise he could hardly cut across the back of him). Coming out of the chicane, Hamilton is P1; driving up the straight, he's P2. That's giving the position back. You just can't arbitrarily make up a rule that you have to be in a "racing position" (whatever that is) to have given the position back.
 
the Interceptor
I don't see the difference between the discussed action and Alonsos maneuver that legitimates Hamiltons penalty. Anyone?
Click to expand...
That's the point. Even though it is not on the video, Alonso gave back the position to Klein. If I remember correctly, Renault went to the stewards and they were informed to give the place back or receive a penalty. If the FIA would have punished Alonso then, they can punish Hamilton now. it sets a precedant.

The reason why they cut the chicane is irrelevant. Getting the unfair advantage is what is important.
 
Sorry, I'm not following you on several levels. For starters, the video clearly shows how Alonso did give the position back to Klein. Alonso was not punished because there was no reason to. Still, Hamilton was punished for doing the same thing. If they didn't punish Alonso then, why did the punish Hamilton now, for other reasons than being biased?
 
Alonso conceded the place after he has overtaken Klein for the second time. The legality was questionable so he gave the place back. Though maybe I was wrong in my recollection and Alonso didnt have to give it back. But he gave the place back (for the second time).

The fIA doesnt look too good in all this now that ive got the information straight, but he shouldnt have overtaken like that (both of them, Hamilton and Alonso). They gained advantages they would not have likely gained by taking the normal line. Whether it is in Gran Turismo or F1, cutting a chicane should NOT put you in any good position to overtake.

On a completely other note, maybe if Ferrari had thought faster and realised pitting Massa with 2 laps to go (its starting to rain and Alonso is 40 seconds behind you, no risk) was the way to go, he would have won without a problem. Heidfeld and Alonso risked their points on pitting for wet weather tires, why didnt Ferrari risk nothing on it? :indiff:
 
SagarisGTB
The fIA doesnt look too good in all this now that ive got the information straight, but he shouldnt have overtaken like that (both of them, Hamilton and Alonso). They gained advantages they would not have likely gained by taking the normal line. Whether it is in Gran Turismo or F1, cutting a chicane should NOT put you in any good position to overtake.
Click to expand...

I quite agree that neither Hamilton or Alonso should have overtaken like that, which is why they gave up the advantage they gained, in Hamilton's situation dropping from P1 to P2. Nothing in the rules states in any way that you then have to line up behind the car in front.

I'm also yet to get an answer from the numerous people who have claimed that Hamilton used this to gain an advantageous position. Given that he dropped his car to P2 and was slower than the car in front on the start of the straight.

If KR then was not ready to defend his position in the next corner, then that is an issue KR has to take up with himself. Thankfully the FIA have not yet put in place a sporting regulation that demands you ask for permission to overtake a red car (but how long can it be before we see that :)).


Regards

Scaff
 
Scaff
I'm also yet to get an answer from the numerous people who have claimed that Hamilton used this to gain an advantageous position. Given that he dropped his car to P2 and was slower than the car in front on the start of the straight.
Click to expand...
Had both drivers tooken the normal line thorugh Bus Stop chicane, he would have started accelerating about half a second later than Raikkonen (or whatever the gap between them was) and so he would have been travelling slower at any given time on that straight, by probably more than 6km/h. The spacing that develops between cars when they exit corners would have also placed him farther behind. So, when Kimi crosses the finish line, Hamilton wouldnt have been beside him travelling 6km/h slower, but a few car lenghts back travelling 6km/h+ slower (I dont know how much exactly, but I imagine an F1 can gain more than 6km/h in half a second at the speed they were travelling). He was in a much better position to overtake than had he been in a normal racing senario where both drivers had stayed on the track.
 
Cutting the chicane enabled Hamilton to still be in a position to overtake. Dropping back and going round the chicane would mean that he would end up further behind Kimi and would not have been in a position to overtake.
 
So everyone understands what Hamilton was penalised for:

l__o9t3970-3.jpg


SagarisGTB
Had both drivers tooken the normal line thorugh Bus Stop chicane, he would have started accelerating about half a second later than Raikkonen (or whatever the gap between them was) and so he would have been travelling slower at any given time on that straight, by probably more than 6km/h. The spacing that develops between cars when they exit corners would have also placed him farther behind. So, when Kimi crosses the finish line, Hamilton wouldnt have been beside him travelling 6km/h slower, but a few car lenghts back travelling 6km/h+ slower (I dont know how much exactly, but I imagine an F1 can gain more than 6km/h in half a second at the speed they were travelling). He was in a much better position to overtake than had he been in a normal racing senario where both drivers had stayed on the track.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand, had both drivers taken the normal, on track line, how both cars would've got through unscathed.
 
So it looks like not only do the race stewards not know which regulation to cite (both of those clauses say that a driver should use only the track), but they don't know how to use a possessive apostrophe either...
 
Famine
So it looks like not only do the race stewards not know which regulation to cite (both of those clauses say that a driver should use only the track), but they don't know how to use a possessive apostrophe either...
Click to expand...


I say, that's preposterous!

Yves, Nicholas and Surinder (respectively Mr. Bacquelaine, Mr. Deschaux and Mr. Thatthi) should be banned from motorsport until they learn proper english ... :rolleyes:


OT: Famine's post reminded me this clip :D

 
Add Ralf Schumacher to the list of people disgusted at the FIA right now....

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080908173841.shtml

On point, isn't there a rule that mandates drivers to respect the space of others when driving side by side, even if they are on their preferred racing line (i.e., pushing off)? Seems to me like Kimi just lunged for the next corner expecting Hamilton to fall behind him in a snap, regardless of weather conditions.
 
super: yes, there is, but it applies only when the cars enter the corner together - when neither is clearly ahead of the other.

This is complicated in this instance. The rules apparently consider the two parts of the chicane to be two separate corners, so the question becomes, were the cars 'together', or was one clearly ahead, at the entrance to the left hand section of the chicane? Which of course depends on where you consider the entrance to be.
 
SagarisGTB
Had both drivers tooken the normal line thorugh Bus Stop chicane, he would have started accelerating about half a second later than Raikkonen (or whatever the gap between them was) and so he would have been travelling slower at any given time on that straight, by probably more than 6km/h. The spacing that develops between cars when they exit corners would have also placed him farther behind. So, when Kimi crosses the finish line, Hamilton wouldnt have been beside him travelling 6km/h slower, but a few car lenghts back travelling 6km/h+ slower (I dont know how much exactly, but I imagine an F1 can gain more than 6km/h in half a second at the speed they were travelling). He was in a much better position to overtake than had he been in a normal racing senario where both drivers had stayed on the track.
Click to expand...

daan
Cutting the chicane enabled Hamilton to still be in a position to overtake. Dropping back and going round the chicane would mean that he would end up further behind Kimi and would not have been in a position to overtake.
Click to expand...

To be honest I see this as speculation at best, had he pulled back it could be argued that the would have touch wheels and both cars end up out of the race.

Its easy to state that he should have pulled back with the benefit of hindsight and the ability to watch replays repeatedly (and even with that people don't agree); however Hamilton had less than a second to make that call. Having made it he returned to the track and immediately dropped behind the KR's car, relinquishing the advantage he had just gained.

I must say guys, you seem to be suggesting that he should have stopped everyone and got a tape measure out to make sure he was exactly the same distance he was before he entered the corner. I know that sounds silly, but you are both applying that kind of burden on a situation that was over in seconds.

Letme put it another way, do you believe that Hamilton did what he could to redress the balance without unduly penalising himself and given the time he had to make the call?

I personally believe that he did all he could to follow both the letter and spirit of the sporting code in this instance, and it would seem that the vast bulk of opinion (here, among drivers and commentators) agree.


Regards

Scaff
 
Brazilian broadcasters had a good analisys of the incident. Considering the statement and the moves, the thing was that Hamilton didn't slow down enough while letting Kimi go. According the our broadcasters, Lewis would have being slower on the finish line had he made the last chicane, basically, he should have slowed down, let Kimi go, and then after this was clear, initiate another move.

It looked like an X overtake because both moves were chained togheter. Everybody knew Hamilton was going to overtake Kimi, he should just have waited until the other corner. Just a bit more patience.

Would i penalize him? off curse not, but F1 these days is a lot different from, let's say, 15 years ago. It has being "sissy-fied" a lot.

The thing is, and the only explanation that i heard that makes sense, (even being FIA the ones calling it) is that he should have being punished because if not that would open a precedent for drivers to cut chicanes only to let the other driver back into position while already making a move the overtake again. A move that wouldn't exist if the driver in question hadn't cut the chicane in the first place.

I thought that explained well.

I never thought i would be on the side of the things. I always liked the agressive stile of drivers like Schummy and Senna, who would literally run people of the track to win, but after 5 years of GTP and many races in OLR i learned that you have to be "clean" and respectful.

Seems like a tough decision, but justified. (if the explanation goes beyond the paper like the broadcasters did here).
 
Roo
I still don't understand, had both drivers taken the normal, on track line, how both cars would've got through unscathed.
Click to expand...
Scaff
To be honest I see this as speculation at best, had he pulled back it could be argued that the would have touch wheels and both cars end up out of the race.
Click to expand...
You two are missing what im saying. I was giving a reference to how it would have been if Hamilton had not tried to overtake at Bus stop and instead planned to overtake at La Source. He would have been in a much worse position. On the ideal overtaking senario for La Source, he would have been farther behind and slower. This is important because it means he was in a position to overtake at La Source because he cut the chicane, had he not, he would have been further back (not much overtaking ever happens at La Source even with fast cars passing slower ones).

If he had not bailed for cutting the chicane but slammed on the brakes to take the corner, he may have hit Kimi or if not, lost multiple seconds and would not have had an opportunity to overtake at all for several corners. So that becomes irrelevant, unless you want to tell me that bailing on his move and cutting a chicane should give him the right to attack from an improved position at the next corner? He cut a chicane, cheated the course. Not his fault, but he shouldnt take advantage of that. His shortcut put him into a better position to overtake. Thats his infraction. Had he dropped back further and attacked later, there would be no question or opportunity to punish him. It may seem harsh (and I wouldnt have taken away his win, a grid penalty for the next race would have been sufficient), but as Fasj made a point of, if you let him get away with it, other drivers will try the same, so something had to be done.
 
I hate that the FIA messed up the best race of the year. Maybe the stewards planned this to keep us talking about F1 till the next race. Build drama and what not
 
SagarisGTB
You two are missing what im saying. I was giving a reference to how it would have been if Hamilton had not tried to overtake at Bus stop and instead planned to overtake at La Source. He would have been in a much worse position. On the ideal overtaking senario for La Source, he would have been farther behind and slower. This is important because it means he was in a position to overtake at La Source because he cut the chicane, had he not, he would have been further back (not much overtaking ever happens at La Source even with fast cars passing slower ones).

If he had not bailed for cutting the chicane but slammed on the brakes to take the corner, he may have hit Kimi or if not, lost multiple seconds and would not have had an opportunity to overtake at all for several corners. So that becomes irrelevant, unless you want to tell me that bailing on his move and cutting a chicane should give him the right to attack from an improved position at the next corner? He cut a chicane, cheated the course. Not his fault, but he shouldnt take advantage of that. His shortcut put him into a better position to overtake. Thats his infraction. Had he dropped back further and attacked later, there would be no question or opportunity to punish him. It may seem harsh (and I wouldnt have taken away his win, a grid penalty for the next race would have been sufficient), but as Fasj made a point of, if you let him get away with it, other drivers will try the same, so something had to be done.
Click to expand...

Unless all other drivers see themselves in the same situation as Hamilton (being pushed off the track) you won't see everyone suddenly cutting corners.Claiming that it sets a positive precedent is mindless and absurd. Other drivers have done it in the past with total impunity, as others have pointed out; why pick out Hamilton, the guy trying to do everything right after being forced in a dangerous situation (doesn't qualify as "cheating", either)? At best, this just reinforces that the FIA doesn't mind altering results to make the championship seem more interesting; at worst it discourages safe driving. I guess it would've been preferable to slam on the brakes, lock the tires and take both of themselves out.

Why did Hamilton try to overtake on THAT corner? Simple - at that point it was clear Raikkonnen was braking way too early; had he taken place behind Raikkonnen as some are suggesting, there was a very good chance Kimi was gonna slam the brakes early again, and they would've both been out (Raikkonen, on the other hand, decided to up his pace when he saw Hamilton and do everything he could to block him, instead of letting the faster car by). That's why you see Lewis almost never tailed Kimi on this incident; almost always stayed at his side. He thought all this through and decided in a matter of split seconds.

I doubt, had Kimi been driving normally, Hamilton would've attempted that. And I don't think he would've been that far behind exiting the corner under normal circumstances; they entered the bus stop side by side, he would've come out right behind Raikkonnen anyways. This penalty is all a BS.
 
Last edited:
Roo
Please can you clarify this? It reads to me that you are suggesting it was Hamilton's fault that Raikkonen crashed into the wall (whilst, incidentally, being off the track).





When Hamilton turned off the circuit, at this point:

Spa2008-1.jpg


... his front wheel is alongside Kimi's rear. If he had continued on track but braking, there would have been contact and Kimi would've spun. That would be considered to be 'Causing an Avoidable Incident' - something that his teammate was given a penalty for in the very same race.

Secondly, Hamilton's nose was 3/4 of a car behind Raikkonen's - yet by the time they got halfway down the next straight, he was a full car length behind. Where is the advantage gained? Jumping the chicane benefitted Kimi as much as Lewis, in that the Ferrari still had 4 wheels attached and was pointing the right way.



No wonder Hamilton went to the outside, given how early Raikkonen braked!
Click to expand...

Raikonnen also braked very early at La Source, Hamilton nearly ran into the back of him! Regardless of the chicane incident, Hamilton would've taken him by the end of the straight after Eau Rougue anyway. Still, Hamilton did everything he could to avoid a collision and allowed Kimi to repass, a move OK'ed by Charlie Whiting.

Ridiculous. Shame on you FIA. SHAME.
 
SagarisGTB
I was giving a reference to how it would have been if Hamilton had not tried to overtake at Bus stop and instead planned to overtake at La Source. He would have been in a much worse position. On the ideal overtaking senario for La Source, he would have been farther behind and slower. This is important because it means he was in a position to overtake at La Source because he cut the chicane, had he not, he would have been further back (not much overtaking ever happens at La Source even with fast cars passing slower ones).
Click to expand...
In a normal situation, I would agree with you. In this situation however, it was obvious that the McLaren had severely more grip and traction than the Ferrari. Watch how Kimi struggles to get his power on the ground when he comes out of bus stop, while Hamilton easily keeps up. Also, Hamilton gained about a second on Kimi within one lap prior to this incident. Therefore, it is highly likely that Hamilton would have been able to out-accelerate and out-brake Kimi on the short straight leading to La Source.

The thing is ... this is speculation. We don't know what would have happened because it didn't happen. Given the above knowledge however, it's hard to keep up arguments against Hamilton about what would have been if.
 
hellnback
Hamilton was never directly behind Raikkonen (in a racing position before he attacked).

Look at Alonso, totally behind even obsured in the camera shot
Click to expand...

Hamilton was directly behind Raikonnen heading towards Bus Stop. Kimi braked so early that Lewis had to dodge left, leaving him on the outside of the corner. Even on the straight after Bus Stop, Lewis slipped back behind Kimi as soon as Kimi got ahead of him. I don't know what video you're looking at.
 
the Interceptor
Still, Hamilton was punished for doing the same thing. If they didn't punish Alonso then, why did the punish Hamilton now, for other reasons than being biased?
Click to expand...
👍 I'm kinda picking up on this and...... well, let me make a quick recap of things.

Malaysian GP: Both McLaren drivers were each put back five places on the grid for impeding Nick Heidfeld and Fernando Alonso, respectively, during Q3.
Canadian GP: He was given a 10 position grid penalty for the next race after he crashed into the back of Räikkönen's car in the pits.
French GP: He was given a drive-through penalty after overtaking Vettel before running off the track in the second half of the Nurburgring Chicane.

and this.

How unfair is it for Hamilton not to get a penalty in a season? This is all the FIA's fault I tell ya.....
 

Latest Posts

Back