Anyone here remember what happened when Benetton was found to be an illegal car in one race in 1994? Well, I do. They couldn't participate in the two following races. Now, tell me why McLaren only lost the constructors' points.
As has already been pointed out your memory of exactly what happened with the Benetton is more than a little cloudy here, as it is quite obviously a different situation.
The two race ban was issued to Schumacher only (not the team) for blatantly ignoring a black flag, one given for overtaking on the parade lap (a fairly unsafe thing to do in a year that was focused on safety after the two deaths at Imola that no one will ever forget) . Beneton's punishment for this was a $50,000 fine for failing to obey race official's. Its also worth noting that the clerk of the course (Pierre Aumonier) also had his licence suspended for a year for his poor handling of the situation (he failed to send Schumacher to the back of the grid for the overtaking offence as he should have done).
In addition to that it was also found that the Benetton car's were fitted with illegal 'launch control' systems at the Imola (punishment = $100,000); they also removed the fuel filter from the re-fuleing rig at Hockenheim, the same rig that then erupted in flames while Verstappen's car was refuleing, launching the car into the air (punishment = none). Finally at Spa the team was found to have run the car too low, as shown by wear to the plank (punishment = Schumacher was disqualified).
Now here we have Benetton being proven of rule infringements left right and centre in '94 and the total punishment for the team was a fine. Schumacher lost point from one race (for being caught in an illegal car) and banned from two races for his own stupidity.
Now contrast that with McLaren who have not actually been shown to have used any of the Ferrari data, have co-operated with the FIA (which is quite different to Benetton in '94 who appealed almost all of the above and Schumacher who had, in an open letter at the start of the season, described the FIA as in-competent), who end up with the whole of the 2007 season result wiped out, given the single biggest fine in sporting history and will be forced to prove there 2008 car is Ferrari free before they will be able to race next year.
This is all stinking politics. The FIA desperately needs to have someone else than Ferrari, preferably a British driver in a British car as it's a British association, winning the championship. Even though it takes bending the rules very much. There is no justice in Hamilton, or Alonso for that matter, winning the championship this year. Maybe Hamilton didn't really have the information. But so what, Schumacher didn't build the illegal car in 1994 and still suffered because of it. Why isn't it like that now? Because it would look bad if Ferrari won again. Even if it would be the fair result.
Sorry but you are joking here I hope.
The FIA biased against Ferrari? I think you will find that common opinion has it the other way around (even Murray Walker described them as 'Ferrari Assistance International'), let me ask you about two little instances with Ferrari so far this year. Staring with the fixed wheel covers they claim are for brake cooling, quite strange then that Racecar Engineering carried out aero tests on these (Vol 17 No 10) and found they have a significant role in drag reduction, with limited help on brake cooling, now that would make them an aerodynamic part fitted outside the areas allowed in the technical regulations. I'm also interested to see what (if anything and I doubt it will be anything) happens about Ferrari ignoring the e-mail regarding the use of the 'super-wet' tyres for the start of Fuji; now they claim they didn't not get the e-mail in time to fit them to the car in time for the start, rather strange given that every other team did.
I have to say I find the entire idea that the FIA are biased against Ferrari quite amusing.
* In my opinion, the only thing classifying Hamilton as a rookie is the fact that he drives his first year in F1. Usually a rookie is a guy that has driven something like a Formula Renault for a season or two and then jumps to the top class to see if he can match the best. Not one that has been extensively trained for the job for 12 years.
What!!!!!!!!
The only thing needed to qualify Hamilton as a rookie in F1 is that its his first year in F1, the same criteria that qualifies any first season driver in any other championship as a rookie. He may well have a far better car than most rookies would ever get the chance to start with, but he has also used his ability to match his far from rookie team mate, Hamilton may well have had 12 years getting trained for this, but he also had to have the talent to survive those 12 years and even with them this was the first year he had the chance to race an F1 car against the grid (which I believe you will find qualifies him as a rookie).
Arguably Hamilton had less real F1 seat time than a lot of F1 rookies, given that he did not go through the common route of test driver first, given that he came straight from GP2; another series he did remarkably well in since his rookie year.
Regards
Scaff
Webber closed the gap down to 2 seconds (from what I don't know) before Alonso crashed - or rather that's what the ITV commentary mentioned. It stuck in my mind. It may well've been when Hamilton was slow/off the road.
Anyone knows where to get it? 
