2008 Belgian Grand Prix

  • Thread starter Thread starter PeterJB
  • 493 comments
  • 19,480 views
Well, yes, that was exactly when they introduced this rule to stop anyone *else* pulling the same stunt :) It was after that incident that they introduced the rule about assessing penalties late in the race as time added after finishing.
 
Only_in_f1
= 100% pointless.

Cars cant even overtake or avoid a collision when over taking without penalty. What about Trulli turning into traffic? Rosberg went across the chicane I didnt hear no penalty.
Click to expand...

Probably because he wasn't fighting for a position let alone the lead. I think the penalty is quite harsh, if anyone got penalised I felt it would have been Raikkonen because before Hamilton passed him at La Source he was blocking quite violently on the Start/Finish line straight. A shame that Kimi ended up in the wall, he had been driving so well initially but maybe it was a bit of karma considering he squeezed Massa on the first lap.

That penalty has really spiced up the Championship now.
 
I support both Kimi and Lewis and have absolutely nothing against Ferrari. But this is getting ridiculous!

Neither Ferrari nor Kimi lodged a complaint against Hamilton's move. Nobody gained an advantage, if anything, Lewis probably lost time and risked damage to his car as Kimi aggressively forced him right to the edge of the track, leaving Lewis with no option but to cut across the chicane or CRASH. Lewis was then clearly seen looking in his mirrors and was not 100% accelerating. Data suggests Kimi was 6km/h faster across the line than Lewis, so how has Lewis gained an advantage?

If anything, Kimi has gained the advantage as at that stage in time, the track was wet, if Lewis had stayed behind Kimi through the chicane, the McLaren (which works better in the rain on dry tyres) would've had the Ferrari's tow as well as having better acceleration due to higher grip levels. This would've meant that Lewis would've crossed the start/finish line at a very similar speed (give or take 2km/h) to Raikonnen. Raikonnen was also blocking as if he had spasms on the way into La Source, why doesn't the FIA investigate the blocking moves there? It's ONE move, you make the defensive move and stick to it. He was weaving back and forth like mad, and yet he isn't even investigated for it?
Lewis is being victimised here. Lewis did not gain an advantage through the move and hence SHOULD NOT BE PENALISED.
 
adamw
right, on the fanboy topic, i'm not one either; i like hamilton because he's an exciting aggressive racer, but then i think raikkonen entirely deserved the title last year after hamilton made just too many rookie mistakes, and my favourite driver out of the entire pack is kubica, who's just pure class on wheels. It's just frustrating that an artificial and unnecessary penalty like this should change the result of such a fantastic race, when clearly the driver who drove the best race won it and did nothing in the incident in question to merit losing two places.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Two tracks I always watch - Spa & Monza... I went to the latter in 2001

Anyhow...

If you look at Roo's video on Page 11.

At late 28secs Raikkonen and Hamilton are overlapped by about half a car length.

At 29secs a multitude of things begin to happen in the space of a split second...

Raikkonen's momentum due to having the better racing line gains him 1/4 a car length to where Hamilton's front wheel is effectively aside Raikkonen's rear one. At this time Hamilton can acknowledge that his attempt to pass on the first corner has not prevailed and (this is the important thing) can brake and still make the second corner. It it important to note he makes a conscious decision not to attempt it and turns while he is still able to have the car only go over tarseal and not 'grass' his already compromised grip levels of his tyres.

Why? Because if he was to break and make the corner he would lose any momentum and would then need to try accelerate a 600kg/800hp car in wet conditions from a pratically standstill position (and this is the kicker) on dry (effectively slicks/ no grip and with incorrect pressures, lost from the last 3/4 of the lap) tyres.

What do you suppose would have happened if this was his choice? You should be reminded you is his regulatory mandate, and there was no mitigating factors that didn't make this an option, like a snatched brake would make this attempt dangerous for him or someone nearby... they were going 40mph at most, he could still concede and make this corner.

If Hamilton had done this, and he should have, he knew the difficulty of accelerating the car, while trying to get the car around the second corner of the chicane (and not on a 'normal' racing line) would have at best lost him bucketloads of time (and track position with Raikkonen) and possibly (maybe even more probably), had him spun when he tried to do this while not losing too much time. Then hello Mr Massa.

Then after Raikkonen has followed the layout of the track. Hamilton after taking a straighter less treacherous 'turn' is able to mildly accelerate safely while Raikkonen twitches exiting the corner (34secs).

Hamilton then just simply accelerates at a slower rate than Raikkonen (remember slowing and conceding means reaccelerating and wheelspin), meanwhile continually stays to the left of him (right as we watch) at no time does he really concede the position (i.e. coming back line astern of the front car). Raikkonen starts a hestitant move to the left but from his position and couple with the fact that Hamilton is not really giving back the position is unsure whether he can do this safely and moves back to his right (38sec).

Hamilton then takes this as 'game on' and attacks Raikkonen and after a small exchange gets past on the inside.

Now watch the video, this is what happens.

The mere fact that Hamilton 'may've' been slightly behind Raikkonen down the pit straight does not mitigate the fact he needed to concede position as there was no way he could've and still been that close to the rear of Raikkonen if he had. He simply stayed to Raikkonen's left and had advantage all the time and attacked when he determined he was behind by the littliest margin (he was controlling when Raikkonen was 'ahead' and was in the best position to determine it, Raikkonen could never have been 100% certain this was the case, unless Hamilton got behind at a 'reasonable' racing distance).

In the heat of the race did I think Hamilton conceded? I gave the benefit of the doubt as I was caught up in the excitement too.

Upon reflection? Nope not at all. Line astern racing distance (look at all examples otherwise historically).

25 secs? I say he may've got away lightly...

If he had done what he could've (take the second part of the chicane) Raikkonen might have had enough cushion to safely negotiate the last 2 laps safely... Hamilton may've been caught by Massa after losing the time to do it.

He didn't, Raikkonen crashed trying to keep position with him, and now he only has one Ferrari driver to worry about in the championship.
 
Last edited:
Do you race?
The difference last year was that altering the standings would have alterd the outcome of the championship.
Click to expand...
That was a nonsense argument last year and still is this year.

I could just as easily argue that should Hamilton lose the championship this year by a few points then this penalty will have altered the championship standing.

In fact to extend your point to its logical conclusion would be to remove all penalties, as they all have an effect on the final results of the championship.



Do you race?
And if you looked at McLaren's attempts to have the offending drivers punished, something really stuck out: of the four drivers, Kubica, Heidfeld nd Rosberg all finished ahead of Hamilton, and all three were named in McLaren's inquiry. But Kazuki Nakajima, who I believe also had a similarly-illegal car, finished behind Hamilton, and yet had no action brought against him. To me, McLaren weren't trying to have those drivers disqualified because they'd broken the rules, they were trying to have them disqualified because it would benefit one of their drivers.
Click to expand...
Hold on a second, you need to not edit the order in which events occured here.

First the race stewards (not McLaren) declared all the BMW and Williams cars tp be running fuel outside the allowed temp range, the stewards then stated that no action would be taken against the teams or drivers.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2007/10/22/fia-williams-and-bmw-cars-illegal/

It was also not just McLaren that believed they should have been excluded...

Mike Gascoyne
They should be excluded from the event, there is absolutely no doubt.
Click to expand...

It was only following this, that McLaren appealed against the lack of penalty, and in that appeal names both teams. The discussion centred aroudn three drivers, because only those three drivers would have had an outcome on the championship. It is however missleading to say that McLaren only targeted three drivers, and the FIA's own paperwork says much.

FIA
WHEREAS on the occasion of the 2007 Grand Prix of Brazil, run on 21 October 2007
and counting towards the 2007 FIA Formula One World Championship, the Stewards
of the Meeting met to consider a report from the FIA’s Technical Delegate that the fuel
on board the cars run by BMW Sauber F1 and AT&T Williams F1 was below the
temperature permitted by Article 6.5.4 of the FIA 2007 Formula One Technical
Regulations.
Click to expand...
Source - http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/court_appeal/judgments/Documents/15-11-2007-ica-McLaren-brazil.pdf



Do you race?
I believe the rules clearly state that if a driver commits an infringement - like crossing a chicane - after a certain race distance has been completed, penalties can be added after the race has ended. Because if you cast your mind back to Silverstone a few years ago, Michael Schumacher effectively took a stop-go penalty after he had won the race.
Click to expand...
Crossing and/or cutting a chicane is not an offence under the FIAs own set of regulations, hell if it was the entire grid would need to get penalised every race. It is an offence to gain an advantage by cutting a corner and/or chicane, and thats quite different, particualrly as the other option here would have been to take out KR.

Its also standard that if you do gain an advantage in a situation like this and then return the place, that you do not suffer a penalty for it.

You are correct that penalties can be added after the race (but you now fall foul of your own first argument - it now effects the end result and therefore the championship - which you claim are grounds for the penalty to be voided), however the main argument here is that the penalty should never have been applied in the first place.

Hamilton gained a place in the process of avoiding an accident, he returned that place as soon as he returned to the track and began racing again. To try and say that he then used this as some sort of advantage in the next corner both sets a very dangerous precidence and throws any basic understanding of the laws of physics out the window.


Regards

Scaff
 
Last edited:
hellnback
At 29secs a multitude of things begin to happen in the space of a split second...

Raikkonen's momentum due to having the better racing line gains him 1/4 a car length to where Hamilton's front wheel is effectively aside Raikkonen's rear one. At this time Hamilton can acknowledge that his attempt to pass on the first corner has not prevailed and (this is the important thing) can brake and still make the second corner. It it important to note he makes a conscious decision not to attempt it and turns while he is still able to have the car only go over tarseal and not 'grass' his already compromised grip levels of his tyres.
Click to expand...

I pause it at 29 seconds and see Hamilton's front right wheel is ahead and caught between Raikkonen's front and rear wheels. If Hamilton had stopped then, it would have caused Raikkonen's rear left to hit Hamilton's front right, leading to Raikkonen spinning.
In fact, the more I watch it, the more it looks like there was a small collision of Hamilton's front right hitting Raikkonen's rear left.

Hamilton is not along side Raikkonen's wheel, he is directly in front of it. If Hamilton was slightly further back, I would agree with you, but Hamilton's car is sufficiently along side Raikkonen's that he couldn't go anywhere except left.

We really need a video of the onboard footage, it would be much easier if we could see it from Hamilton's view.
 
Famine
F1: Exciting racing will be punished.
Click to expand...

A while back I would've disagreed, but with all these recent fiascos - Massa's lack of penalty for dangerous release, Hamilton's penalty for avoiding a crash, lack of penalty for drivers re-entering track dangerously - this is 100% true!👍
 
Can't believe, in a time when there trying to promote overtaking they make a dread full decision like this. All this is going to do is make the drivers to scared to overtake for fear of being penalized. Why don't we just abandon racing and just have the stewards decide who they would like to win, make the whole thing a lot easier.
 
This harks back to the 2006 season "germans in red cars can't win grand prix's" rulechanges

Basically the FIA will use any excuse to keep the drivers championship as close as they can. Hamilton won fair and square - the rain came on and we all know what happens to Kimi when the track gets slidey.

This sucks and I hope against all hope that Mclaren win the appeal.
 
Formula One isn't a sport, it's a farce. I'm not watching it anymore. I've got better things to do with my time.
Just to add something to this debacle it seems the majority of the worlds press are utterly bemused by this too with the great Nikki Lauda calling it "the worst decision in F1 history" - link
 
Last edited:
It's a very close call. In my view (note to suspicious readers: I'm not a fan of Raikkonen, Hamilton, Ferrari or Mclaren), Hamilton lets Kimi go through to the lead (meaning he doesn't block him) but then leaves his car in a position that makes Raikkonen unsure if indeed he did let go. I don't agree with those who think Kimi made an agressive block. He is just trying to aproach Turn 1 in the racing line and then realizes that Hamilton's car is still there, hindering kimi from retaking the racing line. Should he be there? Because it's that moment that makes Kimi lose. He corrects to the inside and then, as Hamilton backs off just a litle to allow it, he goes again to the outside, (and that's when Hamilton takes the inside).

So, for me, the only doubt from all this comes from that split-second moment when Kimi goes for the racing line and has to correct because Hamilton isn't really behind him.

Regardless of this doubt, I don't think he should get a penalty like this one. If indeed he acted wrong, a grid penalty for next race would be more apropriate. I never like to see someone win on the track and lose by stewards decision.
 
👍 for the link, slackbladder, I can't agree with Niki Lauda enough on this one.

battie83
in a time when there trying to promote overtaking they make a dread full decision like this. All this is going to do is make the drivers to scared to overtake for fear of being penalized
Click to expand...
Precisely what I thought - it was clear as day that Hamilton had the measure over Kimi in the closing stages. Perhaps he was too impetuous in deciding to make the pass at Turn 1 immediately after the chicane cut, but according to the FIA ruling, the punishment would still have stood whether Lewis made the pass there or not... this is what I find grossly unfair - given the circumstances and the conditions, Hamilton was bound, sooner or later, if not utterly compelled, to make the move eventually. When he did, at the Bus Stop chicane, it didn't come off cleanly, so he rightly gave the position back - his driving was utterly fair, sportsmanlike, and honourable - at yet he gets punished for it anyway. What message does this send out? As if passing in F1 is not hard enough, you will be punished even if you atone for your "error", if you can even call it that.

What I really hate about this decision, though, is that it doesn't reflect fairly on the actual race itself - and I can't for the life of me think of what else they expected Hamilton to do - be a nice boy and don't overtake the car infront? For the record, I am a Hamilton fan, but we F1 fans are not particularly partisan - if the boot were on the other foot, I would be equally outraged if Kimi or Massa had been cheated out of a win in this way, too. Credit to all the drivers for a classic race. Shame on the FIA from ruining it.
 
Last edited:
Touring Mars
For the record, I am a Hamilton fan, but we F1 fans are not particularly partisan - if the boot were on the other foot, I would be equally outraged if Kimi or Massa had been cheated out of a win in this way, too. Credit to all the drivers for a classic race. Shame on the FIA from ruining it.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly.
 
Niki Lauda was just discussing how Massa is the first / one of the first drivers ever to win a race without EVER leading it.
 
Unsurprisingly the Italian press are saying the opposite and suggesting the reason why Hamilton was penalised was because he attacked Raikkonen so soon going into Turn one. I assume they mean that because he was off track (and did so to avoid a collision - you can see Raikkonens Ferrari and Hamiltons McLaren touch) he should have not just given back the position but dropped further back behind the Ferrari, as if Hamilton had lost traction etc. Thing is there's nothing in the rule book about that, but the Stewards are allowed to interpret things in their own way. Basically it was an extremely subjective view (and certainly not in the spirit of the sport and highly dubious) that they took which the vast majority of the onlookers do not share and shows how the 'sport' can be derailed in an instant.
F1 is now a laughing stock, and I'm having nothing more to do with it.
 
Signed.

I meant what I said too. If this decision stays in place and Hamilton loses the Championship by a few points because of it I probably won't be watching the next season.

Edit:

Niki Lauda thinks "I do not understand this completely wrong decision".

http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43875
 
Last edited:
Oh, cmon. Don't make it seem as if Hamilton was punished for nothing. He was punished because he gained an advantage by cutting a chicane and that is illegal. He would never have been so close if he had exited Bus Stop properly, especially after trying to make an overtaking manouver in that corner. He would have been atleast a few car lenghs back, normally not much overtaking takes place at La source. Not nearly as much as at the bus stop and Les Combes. Being so close because of cutting a chicane, whatever the circumstances, is illegal. Its an infringement. That standard established penalty for such an infringement is a drive through penalty.
 
Alex.
Niki Lauda was just discussing how Massa is the first / one of the first drivers ever to win a race without EVER leading it.
Click to expand...

He was leading after Hamilton and Raikkonen made their second pit stops.
 
Hamilton was punished because although he let Kimi past, he let him past as much as he wanted to and therefore was alot closer than he would have been therefore gaining an advantage. But 25 seconds? Thats utter sloblock they only did that so he'd come 3rd and narrow the title race even more, THEREFORE getting more views THEREFORE MORE MONEY in Ecclestone's pocket.

He has to be behind this ridiculous decision.
 
SagarisGTB
Oh, cmon. Don't make it seem as if Hamilton was punished for nothing. He was punished because he gained an advantage by cutting a chicane and that is illegal. He would never have been so close if he had exited Bus Stop properly, especially after trying to make an overtaking manouver in that corner. He would have been atleast a few car lenghs back, normally not much overtaking takes place at La source. Not nearly as much as at the bus stop and Les Combes. Being so close because of cutting a chicane, whatever the circumstances, is illegal. Its an infringement. That standard established penalty for such an infringement is a drive through penalty.
Click to expand...

How can it be gaining an advantage when he gave the position back to Kimi? With roughly the same gap as before he had to use the run-off and cut the second apex.
 

Latest Posts

Back