2009 Belgian Grand Prix

[Ardius]

Agree but, I think Hamilton feels he has to be after events at Melbourne cost McLaren and him points and I think they may have been fined too.

Take it easy on him... He is British remember, and i hear the British press are rather nosey.

No, he was like that before Melbourne. If anything, he's got a little better after Melbourne because we sometimes see a brief moment of emotion before the corporate babble returns. Like earlier in the year when he was asked about his car being terrible and he said something like "yeah the car isn't so good this year, but the team does a good job and the Mercedes engine is great blah blah blah". He's almost saying the opposite in the same sentence, even Coulthard noted this.

And the whole Melbourne thing partly happened because he is largely unable to voice his own opinion and allows his team to tell him what to do. Sure drivers should do this to an extent but he is allowed to voice his opinion and it would have saved his skin if he had.

This is one of the reasons I don't really like Hamilton as a personality. Great driver to watch and all but he lacks in other areas.

 

[sejtur]

The question however is whether it is fine by the rules to avoid the chaos in the first few seconds by going off the track and gaining two positions in the process.

I don't know. I hope this will soon be clarified once and for all.

 

[tibiquera]

Well, here's my take on the Raikkonen incident:

Using the run-off area is absolutely legal. It has nothing to do with cutting a chicane. For example, drivers quite often use the run-off area of Variante Ascari. Another example is the legendary dispute of Massa and Kubica on Fuji 07, where Massa used the run-off area to overtake Kubica on the last corner of the race. The only reason why drivers usually don't use the run-off is because it would be slower, otherwise they would be using it all the time.

Another point of the discussion is that Kimi did it on purpose to gain an advantage. If you look at the gif on the previous page, pay attention at Kimi's apex at the beginning. He starts turning normally until Heidfeld locks his wheel. Immediately after Heidfeld's lock up, Trulli goes Kimi's way. Kimi changes his line only after Trulli changes his apex to avoid a collision with Heidfeld. If you pay attention you'll see Kimi clearly changing direction in the middle of the turn. Also notice that if Kimi decided to stay on Trulli's outside inside the track, Trulli would probably push him off the track. I won't say Kimi necessarily did what he did to avoid an accident, but it's common sense in Formula One that if a driver sees a slower car in front, he'll not slow down and stay behind the slower car, but rather will change his line and try to overtake. Well, Trulli was much slower and on his way and since Kubica was blocking the inside, his only way was from the outside.

The third issue is that Kimi carried over speed on the run-off area. Well, it's completely unreasonable to expect Kimi not to do it. Any driver does that. If you see you can't do the turn, you'll obviously carry speed to the run-off area. Even on the run-off you're still racing and trying to be as quick as possible.

Finally, the issue that by going on the run-off area Kimi gained an unfair advantage. After Heidfeld locked his wheel, he completely ruined his and Trulli's apexes. It was so bad that Kubica who was in fifth was able to overtake them both. So Kimi overtook them not because his speed on the run-off was greater, but simply because Heidfeld's and Trulli's speeds were abismal after the turn. And the fact that Kubica was so much ahead of Raikkonen after the turn shows that Kimi was slower than Kubica in the turn. One might argue that Kimi overtook Kubica after the Eau Rouge, but if happened for the same reasons Kimi overtook Fisichella after the safety car: Kers and soft tires.

And keep in mind that no drivers or teams complained about anything either. The move was absolutely legal. I believe that no one would care if it was any team other than Ferrari.

 

[Famine]

Using the run-off area is absolutely legal.

No, it isn't. Drivers must stay between the solid white lines marking the boundary of "the track" at all times.

Finally, the issue that by going on the run-off area Kimi gained an unfair advantage.

Under braking for the corner he had 3 cars in front of him and one alongside him. When he rejoined the track, he had 2 cars in front of him.

 

[sejtur]

No, it isn't. Drivers must stay between the solid white lines marking the boundary of "the track" at all times.

And still all drivers make use of curbstones. Very weird actually. Or they must have meant "with minimal of two wheels staying between the white lines at all times"?

 

[tibiquera]

No, it isn't. Drivers must stay between the solid white lines marking the boundary of "the track" at all times.

Are you saying that whoever misses a turn and goes to the run-off should be punished? And how about my example of the Variante Ascari, where drivers use the run-off on purpose to gain an advantage? And how come no driver and no team made any complaints about it? Do we know the rules better than them?

Point is: using the run-off area isn't the same as cutting a chicane. Everyone knows that the run-offs have poor grip. If there was any gain, the drivers would use them every single lap.

Under braking for the corner he had 3 cars in front of him and one alongside him. When he rejoined the track, he had 2 cars in front of him.

Kubica was behind him in fifth not alongside him.

Why did he gain one position? For the same reason Kubica won 3. Heidfeld and Trulli were painfully slow in that corner. Note that Kubica was behind him before the turn and finished way ahead of him after the turn. In other words Kubica went much faster, because he was inside the track, while Kimi lost time by going on the run-off, which confirms that you actually lose time by using the run-off area.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

Point is: using the run-off area isn't the same as cutting a chicane. Everyone knows that the run-offs have poor grip. If there was any gain, the drivers would use them every single lap.

Okay, you can stop using that rut...now.

1) It's not part of the track. People don't cut chicanes all the time; not because there's nothing to gain from it, but for fear of being punished.

2) It's not the optimal line.

For the situation Kimi was in, he clearly gained an advantage. If he'd have stayed behind Trulli, he would've had no chance to get Heidfeld on the straight. And he gained a position off track, by using the run off area. There's a reason why it's not part of the track. He should've gone behind Trulli after going back to the track to show he gained no advantage and stay there until after the next corner, just like Lewis was asked to last year.

 

[NapoleonMikey]

but any time anyone gains a postion its because they had a clear advantage. a driver makes a mistake and the trailing driver takes advantage of it. clearly heidfield made a huge mistake and almost took trulli and raikkonen out because of it. raikkonen went out into the run off area to avoid it and with how slow heidfield was going he ended up losing 2 positions and hes lucky only that. sorry but this whole he gained an advantage argument does hold water with me when clearly heidfield was going to lose the positions because of his mistake. trulli was just unlucky he wasnt in a position to capitalize off of hiedfeilds mistake. i belive the stewards got this call right and to me it seems more like a 'omg ferrari' deal. if we were to penalize people for going into the run off area to avoid cars that are locking up going into turn one every race we would have to go back to places like fuj and penalize all drivers who go into the run off. the run off area is for just that avoiding wrecks and clearly heidfield was a dangerous car in turn one going from the inside line all the way to the out side almost taking a straight line through most of the turn and turning at the last second.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

but any time anyone gains a postion its because they had a clear advantage. a driver makes a mistake and the trailing driver takes advantage of it. clearly heidfield made a huge mistake and almost took trulli and raikkonen out because of it. raikkonen went out into the run off area to avoid it and with how slow heidfield was going he ended up losing 2 positions and hes lucky only that. sorry but this whole he gained an advantage argument does hold water with me when clearly heidfield was going to lose the positions because of his mistake.

He got the position outside the track! Had he stayed inside there would've been no gain, but he was racing out of line.

Last year Hamilton was told that if he wanted to use the outside of a track to avoid a collision, he had to get back TO THE SAME POSITION HE HAD, and WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE NEXT CORNER TO PASS. Fast forward a year later and it's perfectly fine for Kimi to race and gain position outside the track.

It's exactly the same argument made for Hamilton last year; the only difference is that for Lewis it was a paved chicane, and for Kimi it was a paved run off.

Oh, and Hamilton gave back the position he gained.

Consider that even still he had a better pace than Kimi (who crashed shortly afterwards), before you say it doesn't make a difference because of Heidfeld's pace.

 

[NapoleonMikey]

sorry but i see those as 2 different scenarios. at that time hamilton and raikonnen where battling for position and hamilton cut the corner to make the pass. in this situation raikonnen went wide to avoid hitting turilli and hiedfield along with getting hit. if he ran wide onto the run off when he was just racing someone straight up and both cars where running evenly and neither person was a danger at the time and raikkonen went wide to pass then i would say it was a similar situation but going wide to avoid a car that locked up in the turn who was on the inside line and managed to end up all the way on the opposite side of the track seems more like he was trying to keep his car in one piece instead of trying to make the pass. what your saying is raikkonen should have just stayed behind given up several positions and ran the risk of having someone run up behind him and hit him or possibly hitting trulli then being safe and using the run off. i dont care how you look at it but you must admit that heidfield was a danger in turn 1 and no one should have given a position back to him he wasnt in control of his car for half the turn.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

sorry but i see those as 2 different scenarios. at that time hamilton and raikonnen where battling for position and hamilton cut the corner to make the pass.

If Hamilton was going for the pass, why did he wait for Kimi on the other side???

 

[NapoleonMikey]

If Hamilton was going for the pass, why did he wait for Kimi on the other side???

sorry i should have clarified that point a little more seeing as it wasnt my emphasis of my last post. they where battling for position and hamilton put himself in a bad situation himself and cut the chicane. hamilton could have backed off and took the chicane behind raikkonen but choose to battle to the end and ended up cutting the chicane because he was running to hard. he slowed knowing he was going to get penalized.

raikonnen went wide not because he put himself in a bad situation but because he had to avoid a driver that did. he was avoiding an accident with little time to react. i see these as 2 different situations.

 

[yeti]

Well... Simply because of the incident in the pit, Heidfeld had to brake and allow Webber to go and that may has caused Heidfeld around 1-2 seconds or so including the overtaking manoeuvre... So still if Vettel comes to the pit, he'll stay in front of Heidfeld because he was very fast and fast enough to overtake Heidfeld... It also happened to Kubica and just that Kubica can't keep up with the Red Bull of Vettel thus the incident between Webber and Heidfeld just didn't gave any advantages to Vettel... Vettel was just very fast!!!

I disagree - Vettel came out JUST ahead of Heidfeld - something that wouldn't've happened if Heidfeld hadn't been slowed down by Vettel's teammate.

Heidfield didn't slow, he swerved and almost got wall'd.

Incorrect - Heidfeld had to stand on the brakes and swerve.

C.

 

[Famine]

Are you saying that whoever misses a turn and goes to the run-off should be punished?

I'm not "saying" anything.

The FIA's rules are that the track is everything between the two solid white lines, and that drivers must stay on the track at all times.

Interpret this however you want.

Kubica was behind him in fifth not alongside him.

Kubica was alongside him, taking into account that he was on the inside line and Raikonnen was not. At the apex of the corner Kubica was in front of him.

Why did he gain one position?

It doesn't matter. He shouldn't have gained any positions by driving outside the boundaries of the track. He should have ceded the position(s) back.


Raikonnen left the boundaries of the track and gained position. Under FIA rules - clarified last year and retroactively applied to that race - this isn't permitted.

 

[the Interceptor]

He shouldn't have gained any positions by driving outside the boundaries of the track. He should have ceded the position(s) back.

Raikonnen left the boundaries of the track and gained position. Under FIA rules - clarified last year and retroactively applied to that race - this isn't permitted.

Exactly! This incident should at least have stirred an investigation by the stewards. If those come to the conclusion that it was just a chain of events caused by a troubled start and a tight right-hander, I could live with that. But the fact that this was regarded as absolutely nothing to worry about is, to my understanding, questionable to say the least.

 

[senamic]

Raikonnen left the boundaries of the track and gained position. Under FIA rules - clarified last year and retroactively applied to that race - this isn't permitted.

Agreed. Kimi was in the wrong, he used areas outside of the predetermined circuit area to gain an unfair advantage. I think that there is a precedent somewhere, in another open wheeler series that uses similar rules for runoff area. I'll see if I can find it... The internet is a big place.

 

[Christian_C]

Yes but we are talking about the F.I.A here.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Is that the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile or the Ferrari Interests Authority your talking about?

 

[yeti]

There's a difference?!

C.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Kimi was in the wrong, he used areas outside of the predetermined circuit area to gain an unfair advantage.

So what should he have done? Plowed into Trulli simply to prove a point?

Going into that corner, he had very few choices and even less time to make them. He could take the corner properly, and take himself and Trulli out. He could back off, cause a bottleneck and likely take someone else out - as it stood, Alonso and Sutil still collided; how do you think it would have played out if Kimi had bottlenecked everyone? - or he could intentionally run wide to avoid an accident. He uses KERS to overcome the disadvantage he gets from being on the dirty run-off. From the on-board video, he left the circuit behind Trulli, and re-joined behind him.

 

[Tired Tyres]

They should replace runoff tarmac with gravel traps. This sort of issue wouldn't arise then.

And before anyone reminds me of the Schumacher accident at Silverstone, I'm willing to bet that overall, gravel traps are safer that runoff tarmac.

 

[PeterJB]

Exactly! This incident should at least have stirred an investigation by the stewards. If those come to the conclusion that it was just a chain of events caused by a troubled start and a tight right-hander, I could live with that. But the fact that this was regarded as absolutely nothing to worry about is, to my understanding, questionable to say the least.

I bet you that the Stewards don't bother investigating incidents at the starts of races because they think that because the cars are so bunched up at that point that everything fishy is a 'racing incident' instead of a deliberate manouver.

 

[Pupik]

I bet you that the Stewards don't bother investigating incidents at the starts of races because they think that because the cars are so bunched up at that point that everything fishy is a 'racing incident' instead of a deliberate manouver.

...Unless you swerve into another car on a straightaway!

Generally, rules or no rules, first-lap passes do not seem to be governed by the "off-track" rule.

 

[senamic]

So what should he have done? Plowed into Trulli simply to prove a point...

No he shouldn't have. The main debat seems to be whether or not he placed himself in a position that was to serve as an advantage to passing Trulli shortly after. Sure, KERS is his, and he has a right to choose what 6 (6.6?) seconds of the lap he uses it for. But if he used the runoff, with or without KERS, to gain an advantage that he did not properly yield back upon re-entering the circuit. It doesn't matter if yielding that ill-gotten advantage loses him 1 place or 10, it should be done.

 

[Peter]

They should replace runoff tarmac with gravel traps. This sort of issue wouldn't arise then.

And before anyone reminds me of the Schumacher accident at Silverstone, I'm willing to bet that overall, gravel traps are safer that runoff tarmac.

If there's a high speed mistake, you have the runoff to correct yourself or stop the car, but if you make a high speed mistake and head for the gravel trap, there is no grip to correct or brake, and bang, a face full of tire wall. If there was runoff at Imola in 1994, that would have saved Ayrton Senna's life, he would be able to stop the car, and if there was runoff at Silverstone when Schumi crashed, e could stop the car as well.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Don't forget that time in Australia - I think it was 2004 - when Schumacher hit the gravel trap at Albert Park's turn six and launched it into a barrel roll. I get that tarmac runoff areas have additional safety benefits, but they look like the cars are racing in a Woolworths car park. Surely they couldn't just paint it to look real?

 

[yeti]

Put it this way - if he was playing GT5 - he wouldn't be allowed throttle (let alone KERS) for 5 seconds!!

C.

 

[daan]

If there was runoff at Imola in 1994, that would have saved Ayrton Senna's life, he would be able to stop the car,

Bad example. There was no runoff of any sort there as there is a river just the other side of the wall! Also, hitting the wall didn't kill him. IIRC he slowed the car down from 190ish to 135ish before hitting the wall a glancing blow.

 

[Greycap]

I believe that no one would care if it was any team other than Ferrari.

You don't even have to believe, they simply don't. They don't give a damn about Button overtaking Sutil at La Source or Barrichello bypassing the crash scene at Les Combes. But they stick to Räikkönen's manoeuvre like 🤬 on a blanket because it's the red car he was driving. Not to mention that the nose of the Ferrari was past the nose of the Toyota while both were still on the track but there just must be something illegal found in the move (no matter how much tinkering it takes to find it) because people don't want to see Ferrari winning.

Before someone says that Sutil screwed up (which he did) and that it was thus completely OK for Button to overtake him I'll say that Heidfeld screwed up (which he did) and the point becomes pretty moot.

 

[PeterJB]

Who's they?