F1 Digest - Canada GP
- Length: 11:33
- Size: 10.7 MB
- File: digest28.mp3
- Transcript: digest28.pdf
- Torrent: digest28.torrent
After days of abuse, the track decided to hold out for an entire race distance, which meant we could concentrate on the serious business of racing. Find out what happened in the Canadian GP in today’s F1 Digest.
The Race
With two of the heavyweights out early in the race, it’s time for some of the mid-field runners to shine.
Conclusions
Most people don’t really want to talk too much about the weekend. They’re probably tired, frustrated, and happy to move on. ‘Cept for BMW, of course.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:01 amme said:
totally off topic, fia.com got a redesign.
screenshot in case it changes:
http://www.drop.io/sidepodcast/asset/new-fia-website
June 9th, 2008 at 1:03 amlou said:
Brilliant podcast Christine, i can’t believe you managed to get it all into 11 mins! that takes skill!
I really love the driver comments at the end, specially today, i have not had enough time to look them up myself. 
marmots!
awww he did well then…just had a thought (please don’t laugh at me) What happens if a driver sneezes while racing, that must be soooo dangerous!….anyway….Well done Christine!! 
i didn’t know Rubens had a cold
June 9th, 2008 at 1:21 amRich said:
As always excellent review of the Canadian GP. I think Hamilton saw that Kimi’s tail light was not on but Robert’s was and thought he was still moving forward. Congrats you got the marmot in - I wondered if you had forgotten.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:26 amGiddy Up said:
What an entertaining race. If you need the track to be falling apart to have a race like that, there should be more of it!
June 9th, 2008 at 1:31 amRich said:
Somehow I doubt the F1 drivers would see it that way!
June 9th, 2008 at 1:38 amme said:
it seems be entertaining, the sport just requires one additional thing to spice up the action. the track collapsing, rain in monaco, or lewis’ tyres shredding in turkey.
i guess it just shows how good the racing could be, given half a chance. the overtaking was impressive yesterday considering the conditions.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:40 amlou said:
yesterday?…oh right….yesterday
June 9th, 2008 at 1:48 amme said:
my favourite quote of the day from kimi:
“I saw a red light and chose to stop. Unfortunately someone else saw a red light and chose not to.”
the word “chose” is interesting. he wouldn’t be suggesting lewis did it deliberately would he?
June 9th, 2008 at 1:51 amRich said:
Where did you find that gem!
June 9th, 2008 at 1:52 amlou said:
Kubica kinda suggested Lewis did it deliberately too saying,
‘I have to be grateful to Lewis as he chose Kimi and not myself’
again the use of ‘chose’
June 9th, 2008 at 1:55 amme said:
sorry should’ve said. quote came from ed gorman:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2008/06/robert-gets-his.html
but brad spurgeon also uses the word “felicitous”:
http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/sports/f1/?p=451
June 9th, 2008 at 1:58 amme said:
good call lou. if it comes down to three points between those two at the end of the season, that’ll be something worth remembering.
i guess if it’s a 50/50 choice between your nearest rival and another guy, that’s not a tough choice to make. i just saw him heading for the gap to the left of them both though.
the guy would’ve had to time to think about it, if he saw the light when he should’ve. but nico still managed to balls it up and he had nothing to gain.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:17 amlou said:
I don’t think Lewis did it deliberately, all the evidence suggests, as you said, he just tried to get out of the way and go into the space. Its just interesting how the other drivers seem to be suggesting it may be.
Kimi did make a good piont,
‘Obviously, anyone can make mistakes, as I did two weeks ago in Monaco, but it’s one thing to make a mistake at two hundred (miles) per hour but another to hit a car stopped at a red light.’
June 9th, 2008 at 2:18 amSidepodcastFan said:
Almost forgot about DC’s #62nd podium but especially this quote during the press conference …
“As I said before, I’m just delighted to have a good points’ scoring finish after the first few races of the year. It was beginning to look like I was a crasher. In Monaco I managed to do that pretty much myself but all the other ones, I seem to have been assisted by other cars, so it’s nice to bring the car home in a difficult race.”
Nicely put DC….. with three different layers of flying colors.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:13 amJordan Allen said:
Everyone:
In all fairness to Nico, I would not be surprized if he was just following Hamilton down the pit lane, and nothing odd is happening until Hamilton hits Kimi.
What was going thru Hamilton’s head if he is looking down pit lane and notices that both the BMW adn the Ferrari are getting bigger (closer) by wahtever the pit lane speed limit is (they are stopped, Lewis has to be moving at whatever the Rev Limit speed is.)
So what is wrong with Hamilton?
Jordan (Allen) F1.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:29 amAbout that Safety Car Pitstop by Button | Sidepodcast : Your Weekly F1 Podcast said:
[...] Christine pointed out in her F1 Digest show earlier, during yesterday’s race in Canada, Jenson Button entered the pit lane whilst it was [...]
June 9th, 2008 at 7:22 amScott In Italy said:
Inexperience
I knew someone would get the lights wrong (they work a little different now, right?), but I never really thought it would be Hamilton. Figured it would be a Toro Rosso 
I totally agree. It’s easy enough to keep an eye on two cars ahead when you’re on a motorway, but driving down pit lane, you’re really trusting the guy in front.
BMWs and DC: Wow! Never expected that podium! I loved it. Totally unexpected - even DC getting a podium before Webber. And how was DC *not* one of the cars getting taken out in pit lane?
Great race
Nice podcast too 
June 9th, 2008 at 7:46 amMattw said:
Hamilton and Kubica seem to get on well, so maybe Lewis just chose to hit the car he didn’t like?
It is also possible that he saw Kubica slow on the pit lane, and thought Kimi was going round him?
I predicted an embracing mistake from Lewis - I just expected him to hit ‘the wall of Champions’ - rather than just hit ‘the champion’
The lights work in the same way as they always have done. What is different now (this year and last), is the new safety car rules. In the old days, the drivers would race into and out of the pits before the pack forms behind the safety car. Now the safety care backs the pack up until the pits are opened.
Also, in Canada the pit lane is substantially shorter than the track.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:49 amLadySnowcat said:
Good summary as always Christine… such a lot to get in and you only missed mention of Kimi’s fastest lap just before the safety car….
And even a marmot mention… I knew you couldn’t resist after we discussed them on Friday….
Thanks for the references to comments on other blogs guys… I’ll go and have a look at them now….
June 9th, 2008 at 8:06 amRich said:
We all know that Kimi set the fastest lap time at the Canadian GP with a time of 1:17.387, but second fastest was little Nick with 17.430!
In contrast the best Alonso could manage was 1:18.225 and the best Kovi could muster was 1:18.462 nearly a second slower than Hamilton’s best of 1:17.506.
Rubens fastest was 1:18.301 more than a second faster than Jenson’s best of 1:19.352 - definitely a day Jenson does not wish to remember!
Really pity Nick could not have just got that little extra speed for fastest lap - it would have made a better consolation prize.
My conclusion BMW Sauber is getting close to Ferrari and Macca, and don’t write off the little guy just yet!
June 9th, 2008 at 8:18 amRich said:
If you look at the videos posted at drop.io Lewis was concentrating on what Kimi and Robert were doing in front rather than on the lights*. McLaren stated that they did tell Lewis to watch out for the red light. He was annoyed at having lost first place in the pits and this distracted him. He certainly went into the back of Kimi at quite some speed.
Nico was concentrating on getting behind Lewis and therefore also not concentrating.
Both accidents entirely preventable therefore the penalty is fair, unlike in Monaco where Kimi shunted Adrian (that was much more of a racing incident). However, Alonso at Monaco should have got a penalty for driving into Heidfeld.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:28 amLadySnowcat said:
Nick set his fastest lap when he was trying to build his advantage when he was at the front in clean air just before his pit stop I recall….
June 9th, 2008 at 8:41 amMattw said:
Yep, fully agree with that - on both points.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:48 amRich said:
True but Hamilton had the same advantage when leading the race, Kubica had the same opportunities when he lead the race, it fact many drivers had the same opportunities.
My point is when he gets the tyres warm he can live up to his name of Quick Nick - remember he got fastest lap at Sepang! The press is writing him off to soon (last year he scored nearly twice the number of points Robert scored). My second point is the BMW Saubers are closing the gap on the front runners in terms of raw speed under race conditions.
Kimi’s fastest lap was impressive, since he completed rather few laps, he clearly did have the race pace to challenge Lewis (who claimed they were breezing to a victory).
June 9th, 2008 at 9:06 amLadySnowcat said:
I heard this morning that Lewis had been warned about the red light but was too worried that Kimi and Kubica had come out before him to listen….
June 9th, 2008 at 9:17 amRich said:
McLaren stated that in their race review - whether it is true or not is any ones guess as it comes from McLaren whose track record for honesty is as notably absent as speed is from a Force India car.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:52 amMattw said:
Why would McLaren say that if was not true?
June 9th, 2008 at 11:00 amMattw said:
“Mind that red light!”
“What light?”
SPLAT
June 9th, 2008 at 12:03 pmlou said:
Christine and ‘me’ i can’t apologise enough
I’m so sorry but i can’t ring up and leave a voicemail 
I have been rished off my feet all morning and now have to go into school to hand in my textiles for moderation. I thought i would have time. sorry 
I will try make it you to you next week with loads of photos of the renault 
sorry again.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:03 pmStuart Codling said:
Afternoon all,
These GPs that fall at the end of our issue cycle are always nerve-wracking for the F1 Racing crew, because invariably we’ll be carrying an interview with someone who chooses this weekend in particular to make an utter chump of themselves. And it has come to pass…
Happily, though, a couple of weeks ago we persuaded the management to let us put Robert Kubica on the cover of our August issue. Here’s hoping he doesn’t have a stinker at Silverstone!
SC
June 9th, 2008 at 12:20 pmLadySnowcat said:
Surprise surprise…
Another interview with Lewis then… I can hardly wait…
A picture of him walking on water perchance…
June 9th, 2008 at 12:21 pmScott Woodwiss said:
Wow, we have a guy from F1 Racing posting on Sidepodcast! Awesome! Hey, can I just ask - is my question to Damon Hill going to be picked?
June 9th, 2008 at 12:38 pmme said:
nice one, and that’s two in a row there stuart, you might be starting a trend.
i think i’d put the farm on kubica, after his last couple of races, and he came home 4th at the old airfield last year.
he’s as safe a bet as you can make in f1 right now isn’t he?
June 9th, 2008 at 12:41 pmScott Woodwiss said:
Do you reckon Stuart’s scouting for new writers for F1 Racing?
Christine would be awesome.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:43 pmme said:
oh, but lou we’ve built the whole show around you, made you a special jingle and everything
i’m joking of course, not a problem at all.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pmLadySnowcat said:
I may be wrong but I think it’ll be Lewis for July ….
That’s what he means when he says they have Robert for August…
June 9th, 2008 at 12:57 pmme said:
ahh, right, with ya now sorry.
on a completely different subject, poppy mentioned this in the live commenting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.j…06/09/umgaffe109.xml
June 9th, 2008 at 1:09 pmLadySnowcat said:
Does this mean Martin has this to look forward to?….
June 9th, 2008 at 1:11 pmmy FA fantasy said:
What’s with ALO publicly slamming the team for “strategy error” (which was exactly the same as KUB’s)? I’m intrigued, he recently slammed McLaren for supposedly messing with his toys last year.
The guy turned into a complaining megastar, he’d be better off at Ferrari. Poor Carlos Ghosn’s nerves must be on edge, “one of the most exciting driver line-ups of 2008″ proved to be one of the least effective in scoring points. Trouble on the horizon.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:13 pmRich said:
Why did Ron say last year say that for months (since Hungary) he had not spoken to his driver Alonso, but had to retract the statement somewhat at the FIA spy case held in Paris?
Why did Ron say that when Heikki arrived at McLaren from Renault he was a broken man and they had to rebuild him? Heikki counteracted the statement that it was categorically not the case.
McLaren is a media machine designed to grab attention for itself - so this would make sense to say they told Lewis. (let the driver take all the blame)
It actually probably went something like this…
[Pit Crew] blah blah blah … “Mind that”
Whoosh…!!!!!
“RED”
SPLAT
“light!”
“um? What red light?” [Lewis sheepishly reporting back to Macca]
Some of the ex Alonso mechanics at Macca will in the background be sniggering (unobserved by Uncle Ron) with “like father like son”.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:19 pmAlianora La Canta said:
Mattw, good summary
Stuart, sorry to hear that you and your colleagues have been inconvenienced by Lewis’ mistake. Interesting to hear the lead times for cover pictures.
LadySnowcat, I assume it is a Hamilton interview, since F1 Racing said there was one coming in the little preview box at the end of last issue, but if they’ve got an interview with Rosberg as well, I can imagine things would be really strange…
June 9th, 2008 at 1:21 pmLadySnowcat said:
They had an interview with Nico in the June edition… he came over well….
June 9th, 2008 at 1:26 pmAlianora La Canta said:
I was impressed too, LadySnowcat. Nico is intelligent and articulate.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:32 pmAlianora La Canta said:
Ron wouldn’t have said that, Rich - it wasn’t months between Hungary and the spy case transcript, it was five-and-a-half weeks. Ron just doesn’t do that sort of imprecision, and if he had, nobody recorded it in the FIA transcripts of the meetings. Sometimes he gets things wrong (clearly the Heikki thing was a misread of the situation), but there is no evidence that suggests Ron was lying at any stage of the case.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:35 pmme said:
9 points in 7 races, and in severe danger of being beaten by both honda and str at the next race. yep, that’s a sure sign of trouble.
still, on the bright side, flav’s getting married
June 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pmRich said:
In contrast BMW Sauber at the beginning of the year would have a driver line-up best described as solid and look at how they have scored - 3 points shy of Ferrari and 17 ahead of Macca!
June 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pmAlianora La Canta said:
still, on the bright side, flav’s getting married
{me - 2 posts ago}
Very true - may Flavio and Elisabetta have a happy married life together.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:43 pmmy FA fantasy said:
True. Maybe he’s too distracted.
I guess it’s no excuse; Saint Luca (Montezemolo) would beat the hell out of his staff if they tried to do something similar.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:45 pmme said:
putting on my pedantic hat, i noted that ron might have intentionally lied at the beginning of the season, but was immediately shot down by all and sundry:
http://www.sidepodcast.com/2008/03/14/the-number-23-car/
in hindsight, i guess he just wasn’t concentrating. but alonso has suggested that last season, the noise coming from the team was little more than a tissue of lies.
difficult to call and i guess we’ll never really know. at least not for a long time.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:09 pmlou said:
hehe
June 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pmMattw said:
Good grief! Bit a mountain out of a molehill. In ‘Ron speak’ it probably meant that Lewis carried number 23 on his car on the day of this birthday or something. Not really anything of any significance.
He would say that though won’t he?
However, McLaren was docked constructors points at Hungary last year because Ron was caught being ‘economical with the truth’ - ironically when he was trying to defend Alonso’s actions in qualifying
June 9th, 2008 at 2:32 pmshaun said:
You no what the problem with F1 is these days…?, they don’t bring the safety car out enough…i would have thought the two guys that drive it would want to be on the TV more - holding up the F1 drivers whilst the marshals tow someones car away that has broken down in the car-park a mile from the circuit…maybe they could just bring it out for no reason at-all…that would be really good!, not!.
Oh well, at least they didn’t spoil Kubica’s race, ha ha!(in the Simsons Nelson Munts voice).
S.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:45 pmStuart Codling said:
Hello again,
Do I detect a level of (perfectly understandable) disgruntlement about the presence of Lewis on the cover? As I wrote on this site a couple of weeks ago (at some length, but not exhaustively), we’re in a perpetual pickle because if we put anyone other than Lewis on the cover, news-stand sales dip. That means that if we go before ‘the suits’ with a cover proposal sans-Lewis, they waste very little time in explaining what a bunch of goons they think we are.
More so than ever in the current climate, a magazine cover is a functional page that exists to jump off the shelves and sell the mag to people who might otherwise not buy it. That means the infamous ‘casual browser’. If the cover features someone they don’t recognise or don’t care about, they won’t buy it. The sales figures don’t lie!
Actually, during production of the June issue we mulled over the idea of having a split-run cover – say, 60/70 percent with Jenson on, and the rest with Nico. But we dropped the idea for a number of reasons, mainly because there was no way to guarantee a reasonable ‘mix’ when it went into distribution. However, we learned that in principle it doesn’t cost too much to produce a different cover, so it may be that in the future we could produce a separate one for subscriber issues. How does that sound?
Scott – I’ve had a flick through and it looks like your Damon question didn’t make it. But don’t let that put you off trying again. We do get hundreds of responses so we end up having to be quite brutal. What I would suggest is to get your questions in as quickly as possible once you get the email – we receive the data a few days later in an enormous Excel document. And as you can imagine, there can be plenty of repetition or variations on a theme, so being first in with a question will improve your chances.
Alianora – I think Lewis inconvenienced himself more than us, although I predict a few grumpy letters along the lines of “What did you go and put that twit on the cover for?” Lead times for features and cover treatments do vary, but so many things in F1 fall out of bed at the last minute that it’s very bad practice to schedule in stories that are due to happen in the last couple of weeks of the issue. In the case of the Lewis cover, the shoot happened very early – the day after we photographed Jenson for the cover of the June issue, in fact.
It’s been said that it would be easier to get David Beckham to interview Osama Bin Laden, with Lord Lucan taking the photographs, than it is to get 10 minutes with Lewis Hamilton. I hope you can see the sound commercial reasons for us putting Lewis on the cover of our ‘redesign’ issue, having been granted this rare opportunity…
On the other hand, within an hour of me putting a formal request in for the Bobby K interview, BMW replied not only with a definite yes, but also with precise dates and times. Let’s hope this continues now that megastardom beckons.
SC
June 9th, 2008 at 2:50 pmme said:
agreed, that was the general consensus anyhow. worth exploring all the same i think.
they do that in NASCAR a lot i believe, any time the racing gets a bit predictable, you’ll see a bunch of phantom cautions.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:58 pmme said:
that sounds like a brilliant idea. could you do it sans some of the marketing blurb too? so we just get a nice glossy picture of the driver alongside the red and white logo.
i hear steve ryder keeps him in a suitcase between races
June 9th, 2008 at 3:04 pmStuart Codling said:
That would certainly be the best way of doing it. The model here is the car mag Evo: on their subs covers they just have a nice image, the logo and an issue date. It doesn’t even need so much as a barcode…
June 9th, 2008 at 3:07 pmJordan Allen said:
A better picutre would be of him crossing a road against a red light about to be hit by a Williams-Toyota coming down the cross-street!
Jordan (Allen) F1.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:09 pmScott Woodwiss said:
Martin Whitmarsh Q & A on autosport.com, and it answers the question whether or not the team told him about the red light:
So, in other words, yes, it was his fault.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:19 pmme said:
i haven’t seen evo, but that sounds perfect to me. a good incentive to encourage subscribers too, i’d imagine.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:21 pmlou said:
I would subscribe! seriously i would. I really should do actually….
June 9th, 2008 at 5:17 pmStuart Codling said:
Scott – You know, I’ve been thinking for a while – and this weekend has made me even more sure – that Lewis could benefit from some advanced media training. Yes, he’s eloquent and generally personable – but sometimes he mires himself in self-contradictory doublespeak that serves him very poorly from a strategic point of view.
I first noted this tendency last year, at that infamous team press conference in Hungary. Ron had been called to the Stewards and Lewis had arrived from wherever he’d been (watching the GP2, according to him; sulking, according to Ron; squealing to the Stewards, according to almost everybody else). So it was just Fernando and Lewis, with Norbert Haug sitting between them, fiddling ineffectually with his Blackberry. The British press, led by PA’s Ian Parkes, the Mail’s Jon McEvoy and Ed Gorman of the Times, were skewering the inconsistencies between Fernando’s account of events and Lewis’s.
“I’m not disagreeing with him,” said Lewis, chafing (in my notebook there are some squiggles to denote the tone and emphasis placed on the “him”). “I’m just telling my side of the story.”
Well, what is that if not disagreement?
There was yet more doublespeak of this ilk in the wake of the pitlane incident, ably dismantled by people on this site and elsewhere – the business of “if I ruined Kimi’s race,” etc. Far better to take it on the chin, admit to having committed an error, and move on. The incident would then be closed, and people like us wouldn’t be deconstructing it on the internet days later.
The much-maligned Alastair Campbell was very right in his belief that when a scandal breaks you should get everything out immediately and take the hit, because the steady drip of revelations is far more damaging in the long run. This is a fundamental of news management.
For Lewis, ducking the blame fuels the fire – and seems somewhat ungracious.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:54 pmScott Woodwiss said:
i’m still a little confused as to why Rosberg suffers a penalty as well. He only hit Hamilton through no fault of his own, as far as I can tell. Or did he get it for reversing in the pitlane to get back out?
June 9th, 2008 at 6:03 pmScott Woodwiss said:
I think it’s because McLaren TELL the drivers what they should say rather than let them say what they wish. I remember reading in the 2005 F1 yearbook, DC talking about how Red Bull said he could “Forget all you’ve learned. Here you can say what you like to the journalists.”
To me, by that statement, McLaren are a VERY image concious team. In some ways I don’t blame them, since they’re a respected team, championships and all that. But I think sometimes they just need to loosen up and not worry about what they think everyone else is saying about them.
If Lewis was to ever move to another team, you probably would find him a much better person to the media than he currently is at McLaren. Look at DC - compare him in his McLaren days to him now, and you’ll see he’s quite a different person.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:21 pmlou said:
From what i can find it just appears that they both got penalties as they both hit stationary cars. It appears that they were the only 2 not to notice the pit lane was closed, Rosberg therefore just hit the back of Lewis. I suppose if he had known the pit lane was closed he would have expected Lewis to stop, but he didn’t, had no time to react and hit him. Well thats what i think…..not sure though, im sure ‘me’ or someone with correct me
All f1.com say about Rosberg is in the following,
June 9th, 2008 at 6:26 pmChristine said:
Absolutely right. During Live Commenting in Monaco, there were plenty of I HATE KIMI’s flying around for the Sutil incident.
But the guy apologised, even though technically it wasn’t even his fault, and all is well.
Here, I’ve yet to find Hamilton explicitly saying: “I am sorry.” Like you say, if he did, the incident would be closed.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:26 pmJordan Allen said:
Well, you could loosely say that for crashing into the back of a championship leader, he should get the same penalty as the championship leader crashing into the other championship leader. That’s the top two out.
On the other hand, you do have a point, namely that what I already mentioned that whereas even if Nico could see the red light, He could still drive to the end of the queue and wait for it to turn green there. Hamilton’s going down the pit lane, and once Hamilton stops, that is when Nico applies the brakes, to come up behind Hamilton.
Hamilton does not stop until he runs over Kimi. And Bico will not figure that out until he sees the McLaren’s rear wing at a very strange looking angle, by then it is too late.
But Hamilton’s point of view will see two cars getting bigger as the distance decreases between themselves, like we all have observed approaching a red light, so what is wrong with Hamilton?
I know, He was just “breezing along” the pit lane.
Jordan (Allen) F1.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:30 pmlou said:
On the subject of the pitlane incident (am just watching the highlights programe - it’s on again) and the first thing James Allen said when he saw it happen was ‘I would love to know if the light was red when the Ferrari stopped!’ Interesting how he immediatly blames the Ferrari, but never appoligises for doing so. Even when he sees the replays.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:47 pmme said:
in any accident, even on public roads, it’s the responsibility of the driver behind not to hit the car in front. if you haven’t left a big enough stopping distance you are at fault.
the pitlane is a dangerous place, and while some drivers may have been panicking about losing a place or two, it’s their responsibility to be wary of possible dangers - maybe a ferrari guy throwing his truck full wheels around the place, that sort of thing.
the pitlane isn’t the place to sort out your tearoff’s and figure the next part of your race strategy, although most drivers use it for that.
rosberg deserved a penalty because he didn’t brake soon enough. he may argue that it was dusty down there, but the fact is two drivers were paying attention yesterday, and two were not.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pmJordan Allen said:
Can we not just grab “Me” to swap spots with a mouth taped shut James Allen and get “Me” to do his best Murray Walker impersonation and give Martin Brundle free reign to verbally smack some sence into him for “Murray-isms” or should it be called “Me-ee-isms”?
Jordan (Allen) F1
June 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pmme said:
dear lord, please tell me that isn’t true? please tell me that wasn’t james’ actual reaction?
another take i guess, is the itv highlights editor’s have a mean streak a mile wide if they left that quote in there. after the laurel and hardy edit, i’m thinking those kids are a riot!
June 9th, 2008 at 6:53 pmme said:
jordan, i wouldn’t work for itv, even if that was my community service punishment for belittling some hard working track marshals.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:58 pmlou said:
That was his actual reaction! i had to rewind it and listen again cause i couldn’t quiet believe it.
Well they have nothing to loose do they? Why not make fun of the guy? They probably have the same opinion on him as we do
I met a guy who does the tv and tech stuff for silverstone (so the british gp too) and he said you can get pretty bored, even if you like f1 (which he did). So if its the same for the ITV guys…and its their last year….why not 
June 9th, 2008 at 7:06 pmme said:
it does, i’d also add into the mix that mclaren are over protective when it comes to who they grant interview’s too.
i appreciate there are many, many demands on lewis’ time, but by mostly granting slots to hamilton sympathisers, fans will rarely get a balanced view from the media.
i always thought at the height of the last years inter-team battle, macca would’ve been better served if they gave the spanish press lewis and the british press alonso.
that may seem ridiculous, and it probably wouldn’t have changed a lot of what was written, but that fact is that it was unusual for either driver to respond to criticism or take tough questions in the latter half of last season. and their arguments / standpoint were always backed up by the people interviewing them.
we ended up with two very distinct sides of the story, most of which seemed to contradict each other.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:55 pmDom said:
Listening to ITV’s interview with Hamilton after the incident, he doesn’t once admit an error, despite being asked if he had made one. He had seemed to convince himself that it was just bad luck it happened it him. He did manage to mention he was leading the race a few times though.
Stuart is absolutely right. Had he simply put his hands up to the error, we wouldn’t still be criticizing him.
Hehe. He couldn’t possibly accuse Hamilton of the mistake, could he?
June 9th, 2008 at 7:57 pmScott Woodwiss said:
James Allen and Lewis Hamilton are secretly engaged - even Lewis doesn’t know about it!
June 9th, 2008 at 8:05 pmRich said:
@Alianora
True with respect to time frame you mention - it is weeks rather months, so put it down to my momentary lapse of memory or my wish to be a Ron Dennis disciple. Now seriously onto Ron and the lying issue.
Take some time and compare the two article references from the same website and only eight days apart…
http://www.forumula1.net/2007/f1/f1-news/wmsc-transcripts-released/
http://www.forumula1.net/2007/f1/f1-news/alonso-denies-rift-with-dennis/
Explanation either Fernando Alonso or Ron Dennis is lying.
Now compare the following
McLaren Press Release 16th July 2007 which basically stated …
McLaren denies statements that Coughlan’s sworn affidavit that he told several fellow McLaren employees about his possession of considerable amounts of Ferrari Intellectual Property.
The important aspect from that Press Release (which I cannot find online) are …
with the Official Letter from McLaren dated December 5 2007 (I do have a scanned copy of this) to FIA
“the inspection [of McLaren technical data] provides some support for the conclusion… that ‘a number of McLaren employees… were in unauthorised possession of… Ferrari technical information’… We apologise wholeheartedly… that it has taken the intervention of the FIA and a time consuming process to expose all of the facts emanating from this matter”.
In the letter, it goes on to identified certain systems on the car and offered to “enter into discussion… as to a moratorium of an appropriate length in respect of the use” of the systems.
Are they not entirely contradictory?
Add to this
Did or did not Lewis say the F-word to Ron during Hungary GP practise?
Did or did not Alonso deliberately hold up Lewis preventing him from getting pole position at Hungary?
Are Alonso and Hamilton talking or not talking after Hungary?
Was the Heikki issue (coming from Renault destroyed and needing repair or not) genuinely a misreading?
My next evidence is Ron’s slip of the tongue during the Chinese GP
“We weren’t racing Kimi, we were basically racing Fernando”
Is this an example of treating your drivers equally as Ron emphatically claims he always ensures?
Marco Andretti said his father did not receive equal treatment at McLaren with statements like “if you ask me, it was sabotage” etc etc.
Montoya, Coulthard and Raikkonen don’t speak highly of Ron and McLaren’s integrity but of relief at not being within the organization.
Max had the following to say on Ron Dennis…
In science we use the concept of parsimony to explain observations (Occam’s razor) - basically the best explanation is the one requiring the least number of assumptions.
The two most parsimonious explanations to the above contradictions are that McLaren/Ron Dennis are incompetent or economical with the truth (fool or knave syndrome). Since McLaren can afford to take $100 million fine and remain competitive and Ron Dennis was placed at number 648 in the Sunday Times Rich List 2006 with a net worth of £90 million, I can discount the former explanation.
Using the scientific approach, your establish a testable hypothesis that can be falsified e.g. Ron Dennis is honest and has integrity, it you find enough evidence that contradicts this you can conclude Ron Dennis is not honest or does not have integrity. This is called falsification using an initial null hypothesis and is part of the scientific method. Science does not establish absolutes, simply plausibility within small but quantified margins of being wrong (called probability).
I would like to conclude that ME’s commentary on the subject makes for interesting reading.
http://www.sidepodcast.com/2008/03/14/the-number-23-car/
This is not an issue of agree to disagree, you need to provide a plausible explanation or new evidence for the above contradictions to establish your hypothesis that there is “no evidence that suggests Ron was lying at any stage of the case” and “Ron just doesn’t do that sort of imprecision”.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:05 pmlou said:
ahaha i don’t think he can actually form the words in his mouth. ahhaha
aww Steve will be heart brocken! lol
June 9th, 2008 at 8:13 pmlou said:
Rich, that is possibly the longest comment ever
June 9th, 2008 at 8:16 pmme said:
axis have an audio interview with holly s. here:
http://axisofoversteer.blogspot.com/…ham-lewis-i-would-not.html
as i commented over there, when asked if he made a “mistake” the answer is no, but when lewis tries to find a word to adequately describe what it was, he can’t.
i guess in his own mind he’s flawless? i blame the parents.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:26 pmRich said:
Lou’s comment
Difficult to be leading the race but crash into the car ahead of you that is on the same lap.
I agree with you Scott - McLaren tell their drivers what to say, whereas Mark Webber has also said that he can talk to the press the way he sees the situation at Red Bull Racing. Hamilton’s doublespeak is little more than Ron controlling his puppet (ventriloquist’s puppet).
June 9th, 2008 at 8:30 pmRich said:
Verbal diarrhoea infecting the blog site ….. sorry!
June 9th, 2008 at 8:33 pmDom said:
wow. I did not expect that.
If he can’t call it a mistake then surely he meant to do it? He really needs to think about what he’s saying. Hopefully he’ll see the reaction in the media and realise that the British reporters won’t always be with him.
Nice to see the BBC actually questioning him, rather than agreeing with him.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:38 pmMattw said:
He did say that, but was it not the obvious reaction? It certinally was the question on my lips!
Remember this was before we saw the shot confirming that the red light was indeed on.
I think you are reading far two much into this one sentance. He was suggesting that if the red light was on, then it was Lewis at fault. What is wrong with that?
June 9th, 2008 at 8:42 pmlou said:
Rich am struggling to find where i said that. was it on the race thread yesterday?
I meant it in a good way
your comment was very interesting and thought through :S
June 9th, 2008 at 8:44 pmMattw said:
I fully agree he should have just taken it on the chin. He gave a very ‘Ron’ style response - kinda of admiting he ws at fault without admiting liability.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:48 pmGaulty said:
Thanks for saying my name right, you wouldn’t believe how many saw it wrong.
Great pod as always.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:48 pmlou said:
Not the obvious reaction for me, to be honest i was shocked and didn’t know what had happend. But Kimi stopping on purpose would not cross my mind, cause he would loose out too, and he need pionts. but that could be me….
June 9th, 2008 at 8:50 pmRich said:
Just listened to the BBC interview…
http://axisofoversteer.blogspot.com/…ham-lewis-i-would-not.html
“You cannot even call it a racing incident”
Another GEM is Lewis’ interpretation of his focusing…
“then I went and looked at the red light, then I looked back and they had STOPPED and I tried to avoid them, its an unfortunate situation that there were two cars side by side, if there was one I would have clear it without a problem!
He concluded “I don’t know what I call it” - I think that is bit worrying.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:55 pmDom said:
It all happened very quickly, so I can understand. I suppose you would think think that if you had been considering that Raikkonen could have broken down, in which case Hamilton wouldn’t have been at blame.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:55 pmlou said:
I have forgotten whats the speed limit for the pitlane?
June 9th, 2008 at 9:01 pmme said:
i didn’t catch it so i can’t really comment, but two cars stopped in tandem didn’t they. that’s odd behavior if there wasn’t a stop light.
still think we have to give those two kudos for not racing each other when they were so close. must’ve been so tempting.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:03 pmStuart Codling said:
You’re right up to a point. The McLaren PR culture has traditionally been more controlling, but if a driver gives an interview extemporaneously – ie in the heat of the moment, in the pit lane, immediately after an incident – it’s probable that they haven’t been ‘nobbled’ just yet.
Now, apart from that, Rich, I’m going to have to sit down with a piece of paper and a glass of wine and map out all of the implications of your post. Some of your questions I may have partial answers to but for many I can only say, “Unknown…”
June 9th, 2008 at 9:04 pmme said:
80kph during the race.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:06 pmDom said:
50MPH isn’t it?
The angle that it was shown didn’t make the incident entirely clear. I’m quite surprised they noticed the red light despite the fact they were effectively racing each other.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:10 pmlou said:
thank you :)didn’t actually end up going to bed last night so yeah memory is even more shot than usual. I thought it was 50 but that must be mph
June 9th, 2008 at 9:22 pmme said:
article 30.12 of the sporting regs:
it used to be greater but they slowed it recently (2006 maybe?) from 100 to 80km/h.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:28 pmlou said:
ahhh thanks ‘me’
June 9th, 2008 at 9:31 pmConnor said:
What interests me about this pit lane incident is why it took lewis so long when compared to kimi and robert. Other than some pit crew error, could it not have been that he was lighter than the other two cars and therefore, had to take on more fuel to be on par with them? (I think I either heard or read this somewhere. I can’t remember where though.) This would certainly make any claim that they were “untouchable” false. It would certainly help to explain why Kovi didn’t have such a fantastic race.
Also, if Lewis’ macca was so dominant why didn’t he set the fastest lap? I’m not saying that Lewis’ car didn’t behave well,just that it wasn’t as good as he was making it out to be. I personally believe that it was Kimi’s race for the taking. However, having said this, I am very happy for BMW!
June 9th, 2008 at 9:36 pmDom said:
Was that a copy and paste job, or do you know all the regulations by heart?
June 9th, 2008 at 9:45 pmRich said:
I am contrary as usual … also being African we often see things from a different, um unique, perspective - what I think is Eurocentric would not be noticed by Europeans and possibly you would even interpret as paranoiac. We have a history of political deceit that has not altogether found resolution in our present government. Consequently I am pathologically opposed to hypocrisy. To me Ron Dennis and doublespeak are synonymous. In contrast I have huge respect for Mario Thiessen - he seems straight, focused and even has a sense of humour, I like his style - and the promptness he or BMW responded to your requests (this is exactly as I would have expected this). I realise he had issues with Frank Williams (who I also have admiration for)which would be interesting to know more of. I also really like Christian Horner’s management style at Red Bull - especially being the youngest team principal. I have been losing respect for Pat Symonds since he seems to blame Alonso’s recent accidents at Heidfeld’s door. I also have reservations about flamboyant Flavio. My analysis - could and probably is wrong.
I also have my theories as to the game Fernando is playing this year. Lewis, not my favourite but in one sense I feel sorry for the guy - he is being manipulated by McLaren, the media etc and becoming delusional of his own skills which are, admittedly good, but not error-free. I think Kimi is slightly overrated and not as dedicated a driver as other but with great amounts of natural skill. In contrast Massa is underrated, possibly has to work harder to get the results. Personally I think Robert is developing into the most complete driver on the track. Nick is very professional, smooth and when conditions are right very fast,but possibly needs to adapt better to prevailing circumstances and is not aggressive enough. Best stop there and for you to ignore my ramblings.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:47 pmme said:
i only wish we knew. given that there seemed to be a bit of a panic going on inside the helmet, one would assume he was expecting to be in front of the other two, so i’d pitch for mistake from the pitcrew. no evidence to back that up though.
ha, i had them to hand from the jenson post earlier. alianora’s the one with the memory
June 9th, 2008 at 9:47 pmSteven Roy said:
I would love to know why so many drivers have had problems seeing that red light in Canada. As was mentioned over the weekend at least two drivers in the past have shot straight through it.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:53 pmRich said:
Well Heidfeld got second fastest lap - but had several laps of consistent purple sector 1 or 2 or both - but lost out on the final sector - I was watching the live timing. I think Robert might still have won even with Kimi and Lewis.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:02 pmRich said:
Personally I think Macca were running lighter than either BMW or Ferrari, therefore needed more fuel to have a similar time for the next pit stop (viz they worked out the Ferrari and BMW were pitting latter). This would be a basic risk mitigation strategy. I also believe that they thought they were quicker that they really were on the race day. Kimi getting fastest lap and Robert closing might well have induced some panic in the Macca team.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:02 pmSteven Roy said:
Come on. Lewis was way out in front. Someone behind him setting the fastest lap cannot be dominating.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:05 pmConnor said:
I would like to think so, but either way, it would have been a fantastic race. It is just unfortunate that we weren’t able to find out.
I think it is now safe to say that we officially have a three horse race. What do you all think?
Oh, and I don’t mean to come off anti-Hamilton. I think he is a fantastic talent. I just don’t think he is as well composed and experienced as he or the media make him out to be. This is the first year I’ve been diligently following formula 1, so I may be as well informed as I’d like, but am I mistaken for seeing him as a relative new boy to formula 1? I just wish that he would handle things with a bit more humility, and let his driving speak for itself.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:17 pmme said:
today the british tabloids aren’t making him out to be anything of the sort sadly. it doesn’t take much for them to switch allegiances!
June 9th, 2008 at 10:19 pmConnor said:
Also, why didn’t Heidfeld stay on his two stop strategy? He would have come out of the pitlane ahead of kubica (like he did) and been able to control the race from the front. Instead, he switched to a one stop, and Kubica was able to overtake him because he was so heavy on fuel. I think Nick could have won this race if he had just stayed on his strategy because as Brundel has pointed out in the past, it is very difficult to overtake a teammate because he has the same car.
The best part about Canada this year though, is that no matter how you cut it, there was still a fantastic result.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:25 pmSteven Roy said:
Connor,
This is Lewis Hamilton’s second F1 season so he is very much a new boy.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:40 pmRich said:
Are you sure Nick was originally on a two stop strategy? That is an interesting thought - it might have been BMW hedging their bets if there was a second safety car incident. He did set some fast laps when there was clear air and he was on a light fuel load.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:51 pmConnor said:
This is a quote from Nick on the formula 1 website, “We then decided to switch to a one stop strategy, with a very high fuel load and with the soft option tyres which was a challenge. However, I was able to keep Fernando Alonso behind me.”
I think I agree. BMW saw their chance to claim their first victory, and decided not to muck it up by having their drivers compete for it. However, I honestly have no idea.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:56 pmmy FA fantasy said:
And rightly so - FA is 100% to blame for both incidents. Bringing FA back was a mistake, he couldn’t care less this year since he’s on his way to the Red team. I mean, he’ll bag his 35 million anyway and can complain to make everyone else look bad. But the guy suffers from the Schum nervous syndrome when drivers get so obsessed with victory or podium that they prefer to crash out.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:08 pmmy FA fantasy said:
Probably Fisi/Kovalainen line-up last year was more consistent. Flav is getting older and crazier, they could keep him as consultant or something like that but the situation when drivers are obliged to sign something with him in order to drive for Renault (I wonder how Flav could possibly have accepted that Fisico was managed by Zanarini). This is so stone age.
I’m starting to like Bourdais even more - before the race he said “it’s gonna be what’s it gonna be”, spoken like a true prodigy.
Alonso could potentially emulate JV. I hope not ’cause I’d like to see more fierce races from him, like Japan 2005 or Bahrain 2006.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:10 pmRich said:
Thanks Connor - I think we now know why Nick was not that enthusiastic about the result. This would not be the strategy for the fastest race and with it he could have won - in fact I think you are right and he would have won. Once Nick gets the tyre temps up he is competitive - but this issue hurts his qualifying.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:24 pmRich said:
Do you happen to know how many points they had scored at this point last year - not even sure where to look to get this information?
I reckon Alonso is doing his utmost to show everyone look I am fantastic but this car is p@®©! It is not actually important to finish the race just to make an impact (pun intended). He either has or wants to get a Ferrari drive and frankly the only interest in the Renault he has is the generous salary package - Renault F1 are being sacrificed to advance Alonso F1 career. I guess we then agree here! I think Flavio has other interests which is also affecting the team.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:41 pmme said:
ha! hadn’t heard that one, but it like it.
wrong. it’s to inflate bernie’s and flav’s pockets. they
needwant the spanish tv moneyJune 10th, 2008 at 5:07 amMattw said:
We usually see a lot of safety car interruptions at Canada (last year we had 4). With the current regulations as they are - If Heidfeld was fuelled on a two stop strategy, Another safety car would have put him is serious danger of loosing track position to the people stopping only once. What BMW did was split their strategies to ensure a team win.
I hope the weights of the cars after qualifying are released so we can see just how good Lewis’ lap was.
But at the pit stop Mclaren may simply have wanted to put more fuel in than Kimi/Kubica, and have a later second stop. More fuel could have given him a tactical advantage at the end of the race .
We only saw a handful of laps from Lewis in the Race. After the first couple of laps, we don’t know how hard he was pushing, plus we never got to see a ‘low fuel’ lap, so we can’t really say how much performance he ultimately had.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:36 amme said:
very good point, i suspect also that having got the least favourable tyre out of the way early on, he would have been better placed for a fight than his nearest rivals come the end of the race too.
the plus side to all of this, is there’s a real race to be had in france.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:23 ammy FA fantasy said:
Twice as many points - HK and FIS tried to bring home as many as possible and they were being slammed for it (the team had 21 points after Canada 2007 to be exact and the drivers didn’t act like clowns which is what little Nelson and ALO are doing). You can always check it out on Bernard’s website in “results”.
I mean I have nothing against ALO personally, couldn’t care less about him, what else can he possibly ask for? He’s rich, he won 2 titles, money and offers keep coming in. He has a legion of demented female (and many male) Spanish-speaking fans. He’s a success. But logically he’s in the wrong team. Renault need a hungry young prodigy, like Vettel maybe? Hamilton or Kubica? Those 3 are already taken so I can only see Kova going back to RF1 next year and maybe some crazy young bloke to occupy Piquet’s seat. And they gotta get rid of Flav who’s acting like mafia.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:03 pmAlianora La Canta said:
Warning! Long comment alert!
Wow, I missed a lot since I last looked in on this entry! I have attempted to tackle stuff in chronological order
Stuart, good to hear that the BMW people were so easy to deal with. Hope whoever’s lucky enough to get the Kubica interview has a good time doing it.
Rich, to tackle your questions in order:
The Fernando/Ron one is simple - the FIA transcripts pre-date Spa by several days. Therefore, the conversation Fernando refers to is after the WMSC meeting and therefore could not have been known about by Ron at the time he spoke (unless you are suggesting Ron is gifted with an unusually high ability to see the future, which isn’t the case. Fernando’s confusion would have been because by the time he saw the comments in the press, he was already talking again.
Timing is also important to the second statement queried. There is no evidence to suggest that Ron (or indeed anyone outside a tiny group of people) knew that Alonso or de la Rosa had any knowledge of Ferrari information at the time. That revelation happened in Hungary. I still haven’t seen any evidence that anyone outside the Stepney/Coughlan/Alonso/de la Rosa quartet even saw the information in the dossier (certainly the only thing in the transcripts implying this is Max Mosley’s unsupported opinions). The apology letter, if read carefully, admits nothing at all, only suggesting possibilities - and in any case was more or less forced in order to avoid more opinion-based (or possibly opinion-based - the FIA never gave solid evidence suggesting McLaren had broken the rules, but they might have had some they chose not to reveal) penalties.
I have no idea what Hamilton said during the Hungary GP qualifying because the host broadcaster chose not to provide the team radio (possibly “assisted” by McLaren’s usual blocking of their frequency). For all I know, Hamilton could have been talking about three-week old socks…
Alonso deliberately held up Hamilton because McLaren had an extremely fiddly strategy, Hamilton thought that the two cars between him and Alonso at the start of Q3 meant he could ignore that strategy and Alonso decided otherwise.
I’m sure the Heikki thing is a mis-reading - if Ron can mis-read Montoya’s basic suitability for McLaren, then a mere matter of a driver’s state of mind is quite easily explained. Reading drivers is something of a weakness of Ron’s (which mattered a lot less when Jo Ramirez was there to calm drivers down and sort them out, but since he retired at the end of 2001 things have generally been less settled in the driver department and I don’t think that’s a co-incidence).
The “we were racing Fernando” slip of the tongue was pretty bizarre, possibly born of the idea that Fernando had effectively left the team already (at least in Ron’s head), and the manner in which he had done/about-to-do so made him an enemy. Not equal feeling, but it doesn’t equate to unequal treatment - after modifying things to ensure the “equality tsar” couldn’t complain, Alonso was worse off, not better off as he would have been had unequal treatment been the case. Given the FIA’s insistence on punishing McLaren for every real or imagined slip over the boundaries at the time, you may be sure that there would have been serious punishment had inequality been even hinted at.
Marco’s comments were laughable. If Michael Andretti wants reasons why he failed in F1, he can look at the huge gulf between him and Senna (understandable in a rookie), the insistence on skipping testing to commute to and from America each race (less so) and regular spinning and crashing (which has been totally unforgivable in Ron’s book ever since Andrea de Cesaris in 1981).
Montoya and Raikkonen were mishandled by McLaren - Montoya never suited the smart-appearance, high-restriction, precision culture and Raikkonen never felt free enough. Both of those are due to the corporate culture and neither to integrity. Whenever I’ve seen Coulthard interviewed about McLaren in his post-McLaren career, he’s had a balanced view of the team. He’s never complained about their integrity (though he has complained about other elements of McLaren’s culture).
Max has lied on many occasions (not least concerning when he would leave his own post - first he said he’d leave in 2001, then he said he’d leave in 2005, then 2004, then 2005 again…) and he’s had a feud with Ron dating back to the FISA/FOCA war, so his unsupported opinions (which those in the transcript generally were, including the bit Rich quoted) cannot be relied upon for an accurate assessment.
The “23″ thing sounds like the sort of thing people say when they get a concept stuck in their heads, when suddenly everything looks like it relates to that concept whether it does or not. Anyway, Ron was still being precise, even when he was being precisely wrong. The reason why I doubted Rich’s quote that Ron hadn’t spoken to Alonso for months had accuracy is because Ron is not the type for vague statements. Some of his statements sound vague because he often uses three times as many words as strictly necessary to convey the basic idea, the sentences themselves invariably mean something precise when you take the time to analyse them.
The comprehensive proof that Ron did not lie at any point during the case would take a massive amount of space and would probably bore everyone else silly. If Rich wants, I can go tackle it on my blog, in which case I can put a link here when it’s ready to be seen.
As for Lewis’ evasions, I guess he is finding out that a rose by any other name is still a rose the hard way…
Steven, we’ve had three people be black-flagged for ignoring the red light in Canada (Montoya in 2005, Massa and Fisichella in 2007). According to the strict interpretation of the rule, it would have been five had Raikkonen and Hamilton not arranged their own removal from the race, for their collision put both of their cars over the white line at the end of the pit lane (which is all that is necessary to trigger Article 40.7 of the Sporting Regulations (which is the one that handles pit lane light infractions).
The hypocrisy thing is interesting. I’m not very keen on it, but I have learned that nearly everyone engages in it to some extent (and that hypocrisy is therefore relative), partly because symbolic language requires people to have the same experiences paired with a symbol to prevent hypocrisy (which very rarely happens) and partly because neurotypical group dynamics require a certain amount of verbal candy and denial of socially unacceptable features of reality in order for individuals to integrate into the group. It’s one of those discussions which lies way outside Sidepodcast’s scope, but I thought it might be worth bearing in mind.
I agree with Rich about Theissen and Williams, and have rather more than reservations about Briatore. As for Symonds, I usually think he talks sense, but blaming Heidfeld for Alonso’s over-ambition does not come under my definition of sense.
Like Rich, I think that BMW were planning to make sure at least one of their drivers was in contention for victory no matter what the Safety Car did. As it happened, Kubica was the lucky one, but there were other possible scenarios that could have given Heidfeld victory instead.
my FA Fantasy, agreed with Alonso’s return not being the right thing to do. Had Flavio understood what strength was in the driver pairing he had and concentrated on making it work instead of trying to get his personal talisman back at all costs, then maybe things would have been better in 2007 - and they would certainly have been better in 2008! (That said, I’m a Force India fan, so maybe I shouldn’t complain about its good luck…)
The reasons for Flavio accepting Fisi back despite not being managed by him were pretty vague. I suspect the fact that Webber had decided he was going to go to Williams against Flavio’s advice (how the management relationship survived that I do not know…) and the impression that there wasn’t exactly a long queue for the other Renault seat were factors in it. Also, Fisi and Flavio had teamed up before and discovered that while they could work together as driver/boss, managee/manager didn’t work for them. No point in making the same error twice!
Not sure how the rest of Alonso’s career will pan out - his difficulties in complaining about his own team discreetly could limit his options, but his 9 points so far says he’s still got the speed when he gets the car. I can’t see Kovalainen returning to Renault to ease Renault’s and Alonso’s problems, though. I think he may well be happier at McLaren than Renault - though since the question hasn’t been put to him directly (as far as I know) I cannot be 100% certain.
Sorry for the extreme length of this comment.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:45 pmme said:
not a problem alianora.
what i will say, is at the moment we don’t have a whole lot more information to go on regarding the macca vs. max trial than we had at the time. i suspect that will change in the future, probably the near future.
no doubt more inside information will spill out from those who support max, as well as from those who don’t. nigel may one day release his manuscript and fernando is looking like a man with a story to get off his chest right now.
the whole truth will out eventually.
in the meantime i’m still of the belief that although the macca trial was unfair and one-sided, there is no-way that there were just four people within that organisation with access to ferrari data, i simply cannot believe that.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:15 pmRich said:
I agree with me on this. Alianora, you have certainly defended Ron with great passion and skill, it is really good to read and eloquent in presentation.
The issue remains there are two letters from the same organization, the first defiant, aggressive and protective, the second subservient, apologetic and broken. It is as if it was not from the same corporate HQ.
I have absolutely no doubt that Ron is actually no more or less honest and possessing integrity than say Flavio. My point is Flavio does not keep telling us how much integrity he has. Integrity and respect are attributes you earn from those around you. This grates on me and I guess on Max. There is no question in my mind that Max’s viciousness in dealing with McLaren was extreme.
There are issue you skilfully skipped e.g.
Conflicting accounts of the relationship between Ron Dennis and Fernando Alonso - one has to be untrue.
To suggest that only four people knew of Ferrari IP and yet the letter from Martin Whitmarsh suggests that this IP did get incorporated into the design of the 2008 contender makes no sense to me. My only thought is extremely poor management and a lack of any auditing procedures, it is actually bizarre. The university where I work is black, with some 16 000 students and about 6000 computers, and yet every student’s transaction (payments, assignments and exam results) is electronically tracked and audited from submission to external assessment and the Vice Rector keeps a very tight reign on this information flow. If a small, black African university can manage to keep accountability and the information flow to senior management it is difficult to understand how the top brass at a high tech operation like McLaren seem to not know what their employees are up to.
There is no way Fernando will ever be in a position to get this off his chest - he will be legally kept to silence. Nigel is altogether a more loose canon - but will anyone accept his side of the story, I think he has rather lost credibility?
June 10th, 2008 at 8:23 pmRich said:
Thanks my FA Fantasy for info! 21 versus 9 points - like to be a fly in the wall of Corporate Renault HQ when their F1 programme is discussed.
Sorry for being dumb - what is the link to Bernard’s website?
June 10th, 2008 at 8:28 pmRich said:
The issue is can you see McLaren retaining Kovalainen’s services?
There is an immense amount of speculation that Nick Heidfeld will be shown the exit door - he has nearly twice the points of Kovi, and nobody really thinks this year’s BMW-Sauber is quite as competitive as the McLaren - getting close.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:00 pmRich said:
Hamilton quoted from http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_3672947,00.html
I don’t think Kimi would argue with you on this one nor your own mechanics who have to fix the car.
No stopping you, to true not even a red light at the pit exit!
How the hell does Macca let him say such things - he is producing script good enough for the F1 comedy show.
Somebody please take the poor kid aside and help him with his communication skills.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:32 pmAndyT said:
I’ve just listened to this episode, great stuff as usual.
On the subject of the investigation - I thought that the standard practice was to announce “incident involving car(s) under investigation by the stewards” or similar.
Hamilton (car 22) hit Raikkonen (car 1) then was hit by Rosberg (car 7), so the incident involved those 3 cars/drivers even though Kimi was not at fault.
Did anyone notice that they failed to swap insurance details?
Checking the car numbers I noticed that there is no car 13, I wonder why…
June 11th, 2008 at 11:54 pmAlianora La Canta said:
Rich, if you know of a university that can keep tight, controlled information flow without losing, mangling or otherwise getting errors in the data, could you please give the secret to my old university? For all its size, reputation and resources, it still regularly messed up - despite it having an Information Management department. To be honest, it’s been more common to find large organisations mess up stuff of that kind than get it right, so your small university could make an absolute fortune showing its UK equivalents where they’re going wrong.
I love your interpretation of Lewis’ quote. Absolutely hilarious and so true.
AndyT, there is no number 13 because it is considered unlucky by a lot of people. It’s only been used twice in F1, where it has been 11th once (Moises Solana in Mexico 1963) and failed to qualify the other time (Divina Galicia in the 1976 British GP).
June 12th, 2008 at 2:25 amme said:
appreciate that andyt.
i didn’t now you mention it, but i’ve noticed that both parties have employed standard insurance company policies and refused to admit responsibility for the accident.