2008 Belgian Grand Prix

Discussion in 'Motorsport' started by PeterJB, Sep 2, 2008.

  1. Sureboss

    Sureboss Premium

    Messages:
    15,304
    Location:
    United Kingdom

    They'll be getting the red ring of death soon.
     
  2. darkfinal

    darkfinal

    Messages:
    453
    I can only imagine...

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Pupik

    Pupik Staff Emeritus

    Messages:
    17,597
    Location:
    United States
    "I move for a bad trial-thingy."
     
  4. TheMoose

    TheMoose

    Messages:
    773
    I thought the penalty was a bit harsh but after Hamilton's antics at Monza I hope they add a 10 starting spot penalty to it for them appealing!
     
  5. Hun200kmh

    Hun200kmh

    Messages:
    6,461
    Location:
    Portugal
    Verdict tomorrow. Meanwhile, it seems LH got angry when cross-examined by Ferrari's legal representative. Acording to www.autosport.com, this is what he said:

    And at one stage, when angered about some comments regarding his behaviour, Hamilton said to Tozzi: "Are you a racing driver? No!

    "I have been a racing driver since I was eight years old and I know pretty much every single manoeuvre in the book, and that's why I'm the best at my job. We are talking about a skilled driver under intense pressure making a split-second decision which no-one, not unless they are in Formula One, can comprehend."
     
  6. nissan tuner

    nissan tuner

    Messages:
    1,264
    from formula1.com

    Should McLaren’s appeal be successful, Hamilton’s lead in the drivers’ standings will go from one point to seven. If it fails, he will head to this weekend’s Singapore Grand Prix with a one-point advantage over Massa. Either way, the Court’s decision, expected Tuesday, could play a vital role in the outcome of the 2008 championship.

    VMM will also over take Ferrari in the constructor standings if this goes through.

    I'm praying that it does
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2008
  7. SUPER NUMBBER

    SUPER NUMBBER

    Messages:
    1,230
    Vmm?
     
  8. Ardius

    Ardius

    Messages:
    10,373
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Vodafone McLaren Mercedes ;) They are allowed an acronym you know, like STR, RBR or SF....though STR is the only one that is commonly used as they are the only ones named as such on the time boards/championship boards.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2008
  9. Scaff

    Scaff Staff Emeritus

    Messages:
    23,257
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    And the award for least surprising news of teh day goes to the FIA.

    source - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70792

    Seems they have stuck with the notion of drive through penalties not being subject to appeal still stands when they are turned into time penalties (despite a precedent that says otherwise). Which quite handedly means they don't have to bothering discussing or explaining the actual case at all.

    Rough translation to my ears - go away were not interested.

    However, as I said before no big surprise. Appeals to the FIA generally have a snowflakes chance in hell of being upheld.


    Regards

    Scaff
     
  10. nissan tuner

    nissan tuner

    Messages:
    1,264
  11. Tired Tyres

    Tired Tyres

    Messages:
    10,347
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Totally expected. As far as I am concerned FIA stands for Ferrari Interests Authority.
     
  12. Roo

    Roo Premium

    Messages:
    6,357
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    .
     
  13. P3nT4gR4m

    P3nT4gR4m

    Messages:
    1,660
    The FIA have just lost the last minuscule shred of respect I had for them.

    The judges decision is final - even when the judges decision is not final and the judges decide to change their mind.

    In the event that the judges change their mind new rules will be made up on the spot to justify any and all travesties. Precedent may be used if available but, failing that, any old **** and bull may be cited.

    Even when the judges final decision is patently ludicrous - The FIA will uphold whichever final decision the judges declare as their final final decision until such a time as the judges decide their final decision needs revising, the revised decision being the final decision in lieu of subsequent final decisions emerging.

    In the event that Ferrari doesn't win the championship the judges will ensure that Ferrari wins the championship.
     
  14. PeterJB

    PeterJB Premium

    Messages:
    7,630
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Well, at least they didn't increase the penalty.
     
  15. Muzaffar

    Muzaffar Premium

    Messages:
    5,627
    Location:
    Malaysia
    That was just a waste of time. The FIA should just emailed them and said "no means no" and would probably do something better. :rolleyes:
    Well yeah, kinda hard for McLaren to swallow but lets hope the rest of the race isn't as plagued as this one..... :irked::tup:
     
  16. Sureboss

    Sureboss Premium

    Messages:
    15,304
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Lewis took a voluntary drop of 10+ places in the next race...
     
  17. Pupik

    Pupik Staff Emeritus

    Messages:
    17,597
    Location:
    United States
    There is no "overwhelming" evidence that the short-cut helped Lewis Hamilton after he waved Kimi Raikkonen by for his mis-step. Hamilton then passed Raikkonen, and shortly afterward, Raikkonen crashed, and Lewis Hamilton was too far in front to be challenged. Am I missing anything here...Was there really any reason for this 25 second penalty, since it was effectively cancelled out by the fact he let him by (which is also a rule)? I know Formula One is a technical exercise in the name of sport, but if this a sporting decision, why the arbitrary mathematical ruling?

    Do the drivers need penalties tacked onto their slight mistakes, of which some can be grave and dangerous, not to mention the mental pressures and physical tolls already placed on them? Will drivers be allowed to settle their errors and mis-steps on the track, or in courtrooms?

    Some days, this sport repulses me. On most days, it's the governing body.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2008
  18. Touring Mars

    Touring Mars Moderator

    Messages:
    22,221
    Location:
    Scotland
    That was arguably the most exciting FIA ruling of the season :boggled::tup:

    After a thrilling 45 minute debate, Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton) pulled off a stunning but controversial riposte to Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer). Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer) briefly regained the initiative after an unexpected intervention by Massimiliano Maestretti (General Counsel) with just 2 minutes of the debate left, with both Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton) and Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer) having to make evasive comments. However, Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton) was declared to have made an inadmissible comment, so the debate win was awarded to Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer), with Mark Philips QC (Lawyer) promoted into second place, and Tom Cassels (Legal representative for McLaren) finishing the day in third place. Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton) is considering appealing against the decision...
     
  19. sukerkin

    sukerkin

    Messages:
    2,063
    Just in case this hasn't been brought up yet (I'll bet it has, so apologies if anyone if offended by repetition):

    http://www.sniffpetrol.com/
     
  20. Tired Tyres

    Tired Tyres

    Messages:
    10,347
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    The second story nearly killed me through laughter.
     
  21. Pupik

    Pupik Staff Emeritus

    Messages:
    17,597
    Location:
    United States
    I bet 'ol Nige will say it was the most difficult case he'd ever been a part of, and that Mark held him up in the chambers. Tom's probably whining that both of them were wearing wingtips that were 0.5mm too wide, and that Sue was 5 kg overweight.
     
  22. Alex.

    Alex. Premium

    Messages:
    8,833
    Location:
    England
    :lol: that's fantastic, did you think that up yourself?
     
  23. Only_in_f1

    Only_in_f1

    Messages:
    1,748
  24. Ardius

    Ardius

    Messages:
    10,373
    Location:
    United Kingdom
  25. prisonermonkeys

    prisonermonkeys Premium

    Messages:
    33,155
    Location:
    Peru
    SO when the FIA penalise a driver for doing the wrong thing, they're favouring Ferrari, but when the driver gets away with breaking the rules, they're doing the right thing?

    How does that work!?
     
  26. Muzaffar

    Muzaffar Premium

    Messages:
    5,627
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Agreed. Wish the FIA had just not get involved for an otherwise small incident.... :tdown: Well at least this race can be put to rest now, there is still 4 races left in the season. ;)
     
  27. Scaff

    Scaff Staff Emeritus

    Messages:
    23,257
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    From your point of view.

    Many of us consider this to be a case of a driver penalised for doing the right thing, just not right enough in the FIA's eyes.

    No one has ever claimed that LH did not cut the chicane or that when he returned to the track he was in front of KR. However he then returned the place to KR and at one point was 7 meters behind him and going 6km/h slower, that however has been deemed to be just as serious an offence as not bothering to return the place at all.

    As I said quite a while ago in this thread, this now sets a precedent that a driver should not bother returning any advantage gained, after all if the penalty for gaining an advantage is the same as the one for attempting to return it, then why bother returning it.

    Finally to pre-empt the point that normally follows, that he didn't give enough back, I ask the questions that has still not been answered.

    • How are both drivers to know and agree what the gap was at the start?
    • How does the driver returning this now measure it?

    Now I know why they have not been answered, because you can't know either of these things, certainly not during a race. Which is why it has always been accepted that returning the place (and to my mind being around two car lengths behind and moving slower is returning it) is all that is asked.

    The FIA's clarification of the sporting regs was nothing of the sort, I've read the sporting regs and nothing even close to this clarification ever existed before this incident.

    Its then rather telling that despite precedent being set, the FIA refuse to even hear the appeal.

    Thats why a very large number of us believe the FIA has been unfair in this, now despite a few tongue in cheek posts I have made, I can assure you that I would be equally stubborn in my position regardless of the colour of the car.


    Scaff
     
  28. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    67,097
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I'm not sure if this is a relevant question or not, but...

    Why, in the case of McLaren appealing a penalty with the FIA, were Ferrari invited? What particular benefit to the dispute between McLaren and the FIA was gained by having the McLaren driver in question cross-examined by a lawyer working for Ferrari?
     
  29. P3nT4gR4m

    P3nT4gR4m

    Messages:
    1,660
    Simple - they ask Charlie Whiting and he lies to them

    +1 - I'm a Hamilton fan but if the shoe had been on the other foot and Kimi had been penalised for doing the same thing to Lewis, it'd still have sucked and I'd still be ranting my guts up in this very forum about the level of suction which was evident.
     
  30. Touring Mars

    Touring Mars Moderator

    Messages:
    22,221
    Location:
    Scotland
    I had been thinking the same thing myself - it kind of puts the mockers on the whole "we didn't make any complaints" claim by Ferrari when the steward's decision was first made public...

    Ditto - indeed, this decision sucks so much, I wouldn't be surprised if James Dyson patented it.