Originally Posted by j52c (Post 34634103)

Here is another one for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qjQiOJpHBM

This was Massa overtaking Gloch, why was this not investigated?
Massa was clearly off the track when he overtook, lok at the 1:39 second mark.

Also,

There was a yellow flag waving when this happened.

Originally Posted by shawty (Post 34634066)

But at 22 seconds, he was infront, they both locked wheels going into that corner and were fighting for 1st place. This is called racing and should be left alone. Like I said, when you are commited in a F1 car, you stay commited. We see incidents like this almost every race, they just dont happen to be between 2 people fighting for the championship at the end of a race. Regardless, if you can find the part of the rule book where it states how long he has to lift off for or how long he has to stay behind after giving the place up, then you could easlily prove your argument.

And if you do prove it, I want Kimi penalised for doing the the same thing, the only difference was he didnt make a place, he just made up ground.

Originally Posted by tcbass (Post 34634129)

Not making a place is a crucial difference, and it's the making a place or not loosing a place through cutting a corner that's punished, usually by a drive through penalty. As there wasn't enough laps left of the race for the penalty to be implemented it was given after it's was finished. The alternative once they had decided the guilt (rightly or wrongly) would have been a 10 place grid penalty for the next race, thus not affecting the outcome of this. But for this type of infringement a drive-through is handed out.
Had Kimi not crashed out he might have received the same penalty, who knows, we can only speculate. The thin is you can't give a drive-through penalty to someone that's not in the race any more.

I wouldn't had any arguments had this not been investigated, and left as the exciting racing it was. I agree it's a little harsh and thought it was wrong initially, but looking at it I can see where the stewards are coming from.
Lewis would have been a lot further back had he gotten out of it as soon as he realised the door was shut and made it round the chicane instead of deliberately cutting it, then gently yielding (if he did at all) until he was just about behind Kimi at the next corner.

The stewards did this of their own back, Ferrari did not complain!

The difficulty with this one is that it happened so close to the end that the penalty was handed out post race. If it had happened earlier and drive-through served during the race I don't think it would have been so controversial even if it had the same result in the end.

Mark Blundell on last nights "The ITV Lewis Hamilton Show" went through the slow-mo of the incident and concluded that the penalty was probably justified, because of the advantage gained through cutting the chicane.

On a side note, this sort of deliberate action to gain a advantage, not strictly according to rule or slight bending thereof, which on occasions came back to bite him, is something Michael Schumacher was famous for. He was either hated or loved for this uncompromising, arrogant attitude depending on which side you stood on. Now with Lewis it has seemed to switch sides. How Ironic. ;)

Originally Posted by shawty (Post 34634135)

None of that makes sense, and most of this isnt in the rule book.

You say "Not making a place is a crucial difference, and it's the making a place or not loosing a place through cutting a corner that's punished", Hamilton gave the place back, so there for did not break any rules. If you can find a rule that states how far the driver has to be behind before making another pass then do so, if not then we are arguing over something you cant prove which is not in the rules.

You cant have it both ways, both Hamilton and Kimi made up time, by cutting out a corner, the difference is, Hamilton won a place and had to give it back which he did. The rules under what Hamilton has been punished mention nothing of the advnatge he might have made.

Originally Posted by tcbass (Post 34634143)

I'm not trying to have it both ways, I agree, as stated several times before, that the penalty is harsh, but I can see where the stewards are coming from, just about. I would have been more than happy for this to have been left alone. As for Kimi's moves, it might well ave been punished had he not crashed out, who knows.

I used to have these same discussions with avid Schumacher fans, the similarities are striking. Drivers of their ability and uncompromising desire to win at all costs are bound to cause controversy. Their similarities are striking.
(Just such a shame that Lewis drives for the devil ;) :D)

Originally Posted by shawty (Post 34634148)

See you are having it both ways. Regardless wether he crashed out or not, he should be punished the same has Hamilton. You cant have one rule for one and not the other. A penalty should come for the next race on sunday. And the whole point was, he did crash out, so any advantage if any Hamilton got, was null and void in the end anyway.

Originally Posted by tcbass (Post 34634265)

With that argument you'll have to wait until the end of every race for the punishment to be handed out, just in case the other party retires and any advantage gained is negated. :)

The penalty applied for this kind of incident is a drive through which is served in the current race. If this had happened at the start they should both had one during the race itself.

Originally Posted by Rob (Post 34634267)

If a penalty was to have been issued, on an equivalent of a drive through type basis, the stewards should have been acting at the same speed that they would have done if the race was still live. In otherwords a penalty should have been issued within a couple of laps timing of the "incident" coming under investigation. Effectively the revised finishing postions would then have been known by the time the podium presentations were happenning. It seems just wrong that it can be announced a couple of hours later since drive throughs are an instant type of penalty.

Originally Posted by shawty (Post 34634270)

Its a stupid rule as it happens at least once in every race, which results no penalty IF the car that took the advantage gave it back, like Hamilton did. There is no two ways about it, the stewards were wrong and are now making rules up for some.

Ive still had no answer about where it states in the rules how far behind you have to be before you can try to overtake again nor have I had an answer of how being side by side (even ahead at one point) going into the corner, then being behind the car that he was side by side off is gaining an advantage. The advantage was he got past Kimi by cutting the corner, the advantage was given back when he let Kimi back past, end off, Id go as far to say that Hamilton came of worse by letting Kimi back infron due to the fact they were side by side going into the corner.

Originally Posted by tcbass (Post 34634271)

I absolutely wholeheartedly agree.

---------- Post added at 17:52 ---------- Previous post was at 17:38 ----------



It does not. Like all F1 rules it's open to interpretation.
I think he is in a much better position for the pass in the next corner then he would have been had he not cut the chicane in the manner he did.
The stewards were obviously of the opinion that he did not fully negate the advantage gained, maybe he didn't give it up as soon and as decisively as he should.
On his acceleration after the corner it does not sound like he is lifting at all, I don't know what you think it sounds like, but to me it doesn't sound like someone letting another car through. (the second clip linked to previously).

There is obviously differences of opinions influenced by various allegiances and preconceptions floating around.