Episode 76 – I Think the Fans Deserve More than That
- Length: 50:25
- Size: 44.4 MB
- File: episode76.mp3
- Enhanced: episode76.m4a
- Transcript: Coming soon
- Torrent: episode76.torrent
In which we discuss all manner of important things, such as ride on lawnmowers, marker pens, and chocolate ice cream. Oh, and that Belgium penalty business is analysed by us and some guests.
Intro
We will talk about it but before we get to the thing on everyone’s minds we have to look back a bit first.
Good Week / Bad Week
It’s both a good and bad week for Bridgestone as they seem to have plans for the future, as long as they only involve white. Williams have got their grass-cutting measures sorted, whilst we’re worried about the Irish in F1.
News and Views
Ted Kravitz said it first when he realised there would be a problem regarding the close proximity of Donington Park to the airport. In happier news, Ron Dennis supports charity, and fishing.
Qualifying
Raikkonen keeps getting fined, but it might not have been his fault this time. Alonso had a good day, but not quite as good as Hamilton… or Bourdais. Also, why do Force India have such poor performance when they’ve got a Ferrari engine bolted in the back?
The Race
We discuss the pre-rain merits of the race, including the first lap corner and spins, plus tyre decisions and poor, lonely Piquet. Then we discuss the inevitable, the event that everyone wants to hear about. We also get four guests in on the act, Journeyer, Jordan, Steven and Scott all have an opinion on the subject as well.
Feedback
Lots of lovely emails this week. Nigel joins the league in 18th, Dan finishes 20th, Keith needs a new camera, Drew needs to send me some mail, and Carlos and R.G. discuss the relative performance of TV Coverage in Mexico and Portugal.
Housekeeping
Parade Lap was so much fun that we’re going to have to do it again, this time next week.
September 8th, 2008 at 23:17 #1 - Jon Waldock said:
The first show i’ve watched/listened to live. It was very good, even if i was a bit nieve in thinking it was done in one take. (just to clarify, that was because i played back the morning show after the race)
Keep up the goodwork!!! You never know, you might get a Sony Radio Award for your top notch DJ skills!!
September 8th, 2008 at 23:20 #2 - me said:
glad you enjoyed it jon. i feared when i saw your comment that we’d ruined it for you in some way.
September 8th, 2008 at 23:41 #3 - lou said:
Wow 1 was so close with my guess of 52 mins.
This is just what i need tonight 
Am gonna curl up and listen to the podcast and then go to bed 
my comments in the morning/tomorrow 
September 9th, 2008 at 00:04 #4 - The Not-So-Mystic Ollie said:
I duly hand the prestigious title of mysticism to the good lady Lou. From now until the title gets passed, I proclaim thee Mystic Lou.
September 9th, 2008 at 00:10 #5 - Ollie said:
Oh, sorry to double-comment, but I sent Sarah Fairhurst (Liam’s mum) an email, pointing her to the podcast, saying that Liam’s efforts had generated a fair amount of publicity in the F1-blogosphere, and this podcast is another such example. Thought you should know.
September 9th, 2008 at 00:11 #6 - me said:
appreciate that not-so-mystic one.
September 9th, 2008 at 00:33 #7 - Steven Roy said:
I will listen to the show tomorrow but I am sure Lou will be interested to know that Honda are planning to test a very experienced F1 driver to test there car in the near future. Maybe they have decided that the current drivers are not experienced enough to sort out the mess so Ricardo Patrese is to test the car at Jerez on Tuesday. http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43874 Everyone else has young driver programs but it looks like Honda have an old driver program.
September 9th, 2008 at 00:36 #8 - Ollie said:
Aren’t they just living up to Honda’s road car reputation? And I say that being an ex-Honda driver.
September 9th, 2008 at 01:09 #9 - Steven Roy said:
Are you saying that you are too old to drve a Honda?
September 9th, 2008 at 01:15 #10 - Ollie said:
I’m just saying I’m old, but going through a late-life crisis.
September 9th, 2008 at 01:45 #11 - Scott Woodwiss said:
nice work guys, but then you always do produce such excellent broadcasts anyway
September 9th, 2008 at 02:05 #12 - Scott Woodwiss said:
http://www.new.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=22534566720&topic=5589
anyone up for a game to help cure the off-season blues once the season comes to an end?
September 9th, 2008 at 02:48 #13 - Journeyer said:
Nacht. Well-edited, Christine! I’m sure my stuttering tested your abilities well.
Seriously though, was great fun calling in. As it turns out, the title wasn’t quite what I said verbatim, but it means the same thing. 
Cheers!
September 9th, 2008 at 02:51 #14 - Scott Woodwiss said:
sorry, was that aimed at my post?
September 9th, 2008 at 02:52 #15 - Scott Woodwiss said:
Back in 1996, Ron Dennis got Prost to give their new car its first shakedown and he’d been retired for 2 seasons at that point. Mind you, I guess Ferrari did the same thing with Schumacher.
September 9th, 2008 at 03:36 #16 - Journeyer said:
Err, nope, Scott. That was aimed at Christine’s legend editing.
Yep, but that was Prost asking for a McLaren management role (since it turned out he was buying out Ligier that year), not McLaren asking Prost to drive. Ferrari did the same with Schumacher too, but he had been retired for less than a year (and he thrashed everyone on track, too).
Patrese last drove an F1 car… in 1993. I don’t think he’ll be able to tell Honda that much because he hasn’t really driven a modern F1 car in ages. I remember when Niki Lauda drove one of his Jaguar F1 cars a few years back… he wasn’t able to do a lot with it either.
September 9th, 2008 at 08:33 #17 - Mystic Lou said:
Yeah I saw the photos of his seat fitting yesterday on the Honda website. It seems a little strange that they invited him for a guest drive as a thank you for his contribution to the celebrations for Barrichello’s 257th GP though.
September 9th, 2008 at 09:23 #18 - me said:
original and good for a bit of friendly press interest. seems like a smart move to me.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:02 #19 - me said:
out of interest, given the controversial events surrounding f1 right now. anyone think that the beeb might delay their commentator(s) announcement?
they should be revealing the news any day now, but i wonder if the really want to get caught up in a debate about the merits of licence payers funding f1 coverage this week of all weeks?
September 9th, 2008 at 11:06 #20 - Journeyer said:
Perhaps, me, but maybe not. I think any debate on the license fee now would have no impact on their coverage for next year anyway.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:41 #21 - Owen Roberts said:
I’m not sure of this, but my understanding of the rules is that any stewards who may be required to decide a results critical matter are not allowed to be of the same nationality as any of the race participants (which I think means Teams).
So as one of the stewards was French as are Renault the whole stewards decision is invalid, and the FIA should just throw it out, and M/M should decidedly appeal.
Please advise if I’m wrong, which I may well be.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:21 #22 - Steven Roy said:
Owen,
Alianora who is the font of all knowledge on this subject agrees with you and has said elsewhere that technically the presence of the French steward means that any ruling from Spa is void. Unfortunately it now appears that two of the stewards at Silverstone were British so yet another section of the rule book has been torn up by the FIA.
The Kenyan steward who actually represents Tanzania is the same person who earlier in the season was concerned that the biggest problem rallying had was Sebastien Loeb’s facial hair.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:31 #23 - Alianora La Canta said:
Alianora who is the font of all knowledge on this subject {Steven Roy – previous comment}
*blushes profusely*
“The Kenyan steward who actually represents Tanzania” {Steven Roy – previous comment}
Oh no, not another Nazir Hoosein…
(Nazir is Indian, but after a massive falling-out between himself and the Indian ASN, the FIA created another ASN and transferred India’s ASN status to the new, Nazir-headed, ASN. When that failed due to protests and a lack of support from the Indian automotive world, the FIA let him be China’s representative. Hence why there are two Indian ASNs right now, and why there is currently a lot of effort to re-unite them).
The general idea is that representatives of countries should come from the country they represent, but I haven’t checked yet as to whether this is formally recorded anywhere.
September 9th, 2008 at 13:30 #24 - Flibster said:
As if no-one will ask him if he’s there to crack the whip over the stewards to make the decisions faster.
September 9th, 2008 at 13:51 #25 - me said:
jarno’s take:
“Had there been a wall there, instead of the surfaced escape route, would Lewis have attacked anyway? Had there been gravel, he wouldn’t have had the chance to attack when rejoining the track because of dirty tyres.”
as the days goes on i’m swinging yet further towards the idea that the stewards were entirely correct in their decision.
trulli’s a current driver, who has no reason (so far as i can tell) to be influenced by any outside factors. he gained and lost nothing from the stewards choice and he doesn’t have a ferrari engine powering him (although i guess he is italian).
think i’m gonna go with his opinion over those of the ageing mr. lauda. any thoughts?
September 9th, 2008 at 14:04 #26 - Christine said:
I’m not sure I agree with the “if there had been a wall…” argument. Raikkonen got tons of advantage for going all the way round that other corner on the run-off, when Lewis nipped back onto the track.
If there had been a wall there, Raikkonen wouldn’t have made up the distance between them then.
September 9th, 2008 at 14:11 #27 - me said:
true, but lewis also went off at the same corner. he came back on earlier, but if there had been a wall there they both would’ve been out.
kimi should’ve had more dirt on his tyres than lewis when they approached nico, and thus been suitably disadvantaged.
September 9th, 2008 at 14:14 #28 - Journeyer said:
me, playing devil’s advocate here. Wasn’t Lewis slowing down already equal to the time he would’ve lost going through a gravel trap? And chicanes almost never have walls. Straight-lining happens pretty often, but it’s not always punished.
September 9th, 2008 at 14:17 #29 - me said:
don’t know. trulli says “no”, but i’m not sure how you work out how much would have theoretically been lost if the tyres were laden with stones.
September 9th, 2008 at 14:38 #30 - Steven Roy said:
Logically Jarno is correct but there was not a wall there. Jonathan Palmer used to say that any overtaking move was a calculation of risk against potential gain. Lewis clearly thought he could go all the way round Kimi in the right hand part of the chicane so whether there was a wall there or not he may have tried it but the fact that there wasn’t a wall dropped the risk and didn’t change the potential gain so made it more ‘viable’ to take the risk.
Had there been a wall there would Kimi have pushed Lewis against it because had there been a wall or an armco barrier defining the track edge as at Monaco Kimi’s line and speed would have pushed both of them into. You may as well argue that if the first part of the chicane had turned left would he still have turned right. You have to stick with reality and ignore the hypothetical. What if there had not been a gravel trap at the pit entry in China? Lewis would be world champion. So do we use that as a basis to give him the trophy now?
One of the reason more risky manoeuvres are tried now is because the penalty for a mistake is so low. Before drivers would hit earth banks, trees, telegraph poles and later catch fencing or later still end up in a gravel trap. Now there is almost no penalty for going off the track in so many places. Imagine there had been a gravel trap on the outside of the fast left hander where Kimi used the tarmac run off to advantage. He would never have got back on track.
You cannot base decisions on what could have happened had some hypothetical change been in place. Hypothetically had the Ferrari be 10 seconds a lap faster than the McLaren the incident would not have happened. Hypothetically if Honda had hired Stepney and Coughlin with their joint haul of McLaren and Ferrari data they could have been fighting for podium positions.
There was no wall.
September 9th, 2008 at 14:49 #31 - me said:
also a very good point. and now you and christine are swinging me against trulli’s argument. hmm.
September 9th, 2008 at 14:56 #32 - Alex Andronov said:
Apparently McLaren are going to drop the appeal:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-1053795/McLaren-set-challenge-overturn-Hamiltons-penalty-loss-Spa.html
September 9th, 2008 at 14:57 #33 - Steven Roy said:
‘me’,
I have noticed you are much more decisive when you have overdosed on an unnamed energy drink. I doubt anything anyone said could have changed you view on Sunday.
Besides if Christine and I agree we are obviously right.
I have to say if I was not sure myself the clincher would have been Cesare Fiorio’s comments. When someone who used to run Ferrari not only disagreed with the decision but was incensed by it that tells you everything you need to know. Although to be fair Fiorio was always a bit better balanced than a lot of the people who have run Ferrari.
I said somewhere this morning – probably F1 Fanatic – that I have never known anything produce this much discussion and yet there is about 98%+ consensus across all the sites I have read. I have never known so many Ferrari fans be unhappy about a decision that went their way.
September 9th, 2008 at 14:57 #34 - Alex Andronov said:
I just think this whole thing needs to be cleared up. We should be told what the situation is. Exactly what the punishment is and then we can get away from judging each situation on a case by case basis.
September 9th, 2008 at 15:06 #35 - Christine said:
Do you think this will affect how LH approaches an overtaking manouevre in the future?
September 9th, 2008 at 15:07 #36 - me said:
the more i read the less sure i am of anything
my current conclusion is:
valencia = wrong decision
spa = correct decision
however, that is after looking at both events in isolation.
i understand that there’s a lot history building up to sunday’s events, and there’s more than enough evidence to suggest fia bias. but looking at just the overtaking incident, literally those two corners and nothing else, it seems to me like it was a borderline choice, but in the end i would’ve gone with the same.
i also think i’ve underestimated kimi, he’s a smart chap (cookie?) and i think he duped lewis into wrongfooting himself and he timed it to perfection.
September 9th, 2008 at 15:09 #37 - me said:
his magny-cours drive through changed nothing, so i very much doubt it.
he was really annoyed after that race remember.
September 9th, 2008 at 15:19 #38 - me said:
btw. i hope to god i never get called up for jury service
September 9th, 2008 at 15:20 #39 - Alex Andronov said:
Or if you do then you get supplied with a lot of unnamed energy drink!
September 9th, 2008 at 15:22 #40 - me said:
ooh, is that an option?
September 9th, 2008 at 15:49 #41 - Jon Waldock said:
Nope, plain and simple. the percentage of legitamate over takes to ones that are punishable is hugely different (unless your a mclaren driver….which, he is..).
but it shouldnt change anything, and if you go into an overtake thinking “am i going to get punished for this” then you a)shouldnt be overtaking if you know you will get punished and b)shouldnt be a racing driver!!!
September 9th, 2008 at 16:05 #42 - Scott Woodwiss said:
just come through on Autosport Text on my phone – “McLaren have decided to proceed with their appeal against Lewis Hamilton’s Belgian GP penalty.”
Looks like they got the go ahead.
September 9th, 2008 at 16:14 #43 - me said:
wow. i wasn’t expecting that to be honest.
cheers for the heads up.
September 9th, 2008 at 16:21 #44 - Steven Roy said:
No
September 9th, 2008 at 16:21 #45 - R.G (The Nurburgring/Sato/BMW Fan) said:
I’d like to make an amendment to the info screen thingy, I was in Portugal but watching German TV.
September 9th, 2008 at 16:26 #46 - Steven Roy said:
Good news. I don’t know what good it will do but someone had to stand up against the FIA.
September 9th, 2008 at 16:39 #47 - Journeyer said:
Oooh, new info. Wonder what the stewards will answer to this one. They’ll probably say they found something incriminating in the telemetry and/or the video.
September 9th, 2008 at 16:59 #48 - Ollie said:
My tuppence worth. And ignoring the Max thing ‘cos I’d forgotten about that until after I published.
September 9th, 2008 at 17:26 #49 - me said:
agreed.
i think we’ll get some form of clarification out of this though which is a good thing.
and maybe i’d suggest the season was already tarnished in valencia, both by the phantom penalty and the rubbish race in general.
September 9th, 2008 at 17:37 #50 - Steven Roy said:
Ron Dennis was interviewed on ITV at the time and said they spoke to Charlie Whiting and Charlie said he saw nothing wrong with it and that there was no reason for Lewis to give the position back a second time. The FIA then said they spoke to the race director when making the decision. So either Charlie changed his mind or the FIA made a decision to penalise Lewis that he did not agree with.
September 9th, 2008 at 17:45 #51 - Ollie said:
And now, I wanna hear from Charlie! I didn’t realise the FIA/stewards spoke to Whiting after the incident when they were forming their decision.
September 9th, 2008 at 18:22 #52 - Steven Roy said:
Sir JYS has spoken. He says Lewis had no option but to take to the grass and that he gave the position back but re-took the lead because the Ferrari is rubbish in the wet.
He thinks the stewards decision was wrong and that permanent stewards should be used.
JYS is always right.
http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43880
September 9th, 2008 at 18:32 #53 - me said:
the problem with jys chipping in, is that it’s just gonna incense max.
also, jys says:
couldn’t agree more. so why not just be a fraction more patient?
kimi new his game was up, and probably saw the chicane as his “last stand”, lewis fell for it.
September 9th, 2008 at 19:09 #54 - Steven Roy said:
So he should have been patient and not tried a slow speed pass at La Source and gambled on a high speed pass up the hill where Raikkonen had made contact with his team mate while passing him earlier in the race in what Massa thought was an unfair move. Or wait till the top chicane where it would have been easy for Kimi to push him off again. Losing time all the time. Imgaine he had lost time all the way until Le Combes and in the end Heidfeld had got past him on wet tyres. He would now be getting grief for not being more aggresive.
I want to watch drivers who go for an opening when it is presented.
September 9th, 2008 at 19:20 #55 - me said:
wouldn’t he have floated right by kimi, before the guy could do anything about it?
well that’s true (although we’ve slated coulthard for doing similar on many an occasion). it is commendable to see the fighting spirit, and i’m certainly not gonna accuse him of playing the (alonso inspired) points game.
i can’t help thinking that given the clear advantage he and his car had, tapping the break pedal – just once as he left the chicane – wouldn’t have been the end of the world.
i guess the stewards would have found something else to penalise though.
September 9th, 2008 at 19:52 #56 - me said:
something else to add. from lewis’ statement today:
“I momentarily lifted-off on the straight, to ensure that Kimi got back in front…”
now watching the onboard here. to my untrained ear i cannot hear him lift off on the straight. but mclaren’s data must say different for hamilton to make that statement, right? in which case, if he did lift, then mclaren should win this one without question.
please, please tell me why teams aren’t required to post this kind of data during a race:
renault have proven it’s technically possible for the past two years running:
http://www.sidepodcast.com/2007/10/03/the-burden-of-proof/
it would save the sport an awful lot of pain.
September 9th, 2008 at 19:52 #57 - Rich said:
Lewis is a fast driver and one of the top five current F1 drivers. To become great he needs to learn from his (and others) mistakes, to judge situations and finally to overcome natural impetuousness. It is my personal opinion, but he seems to be making as many mistakes this seasons as last and I am not sure I have seen an increasing “maturity”. If he ends losing this year’s championship this issue would be one of the factors responsible.
With respect to yesterday’s incident between Lewis and Kimi, most drivers would probably support Jarno’s analysis.
see http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4122046,00.html
People do need to recognise that we do not have the full information such as access to what is discussed in the driver’s meetings so we (collectively) make judgements that are not necessarily sound. Further many issues are actually irrelevant in the context of the precise event – e.g. Lewis was going to overtake Kimi so it does not change the result. This does NOT make Lewis’ actions automatically right and could make the sport more dangerous.
For me one of the interesting aspects of the race was how Kimi was struggling with the Ferrari in the wet – and in a small way it vindicates Felipe’s disaster at Silverstone. Felipe was actually quite smart to slow so much and keep the car on the track – but its not much fun for the spectators (Christine’s rant). Nick was smarter still (in hindsight) to pit for intermediates but still “race”.
I have been thinking what would make an awesome combination would be Nick’s racing intelligence and rarity of mistake with Lewis’ racing flair – then you have a combination to rival some of the best drivers ever (Juan Manuel Fangio or Jim Clark).
One final thought rests with Kimi – when and if he will support Felipe’s challenge for the championship. Here Lewis has a clear advantage of being the preferred driver within the team (personal view but Kovy is a support driver only). Although last year Felipe did support Kimi with his gaining the championship, I doubt if the favour will be returned this year. I simply think Kimi is not good at adjusting “how” he drives (like Sunday it was either hero or zero). In this respect Felipe has an advantage in that he can drive intelligently and this might be enough for him to secure the world championship.
September 9th, 2008 at 19:55 #58 - Alex Andronov said:
I really do just wish this thing hadn’t happened. It’s so FREAKING annoying!
A great race. Really well fought by the protagonists.
I too am glad that Lewis went for it.
And he may well have been wrong.
But what happened to him was wrong. If nothing else there should be a new kind of punishment for this.
Massa didn’t win the race. The two racers on the day were up the front knocking bits out of each other in their determination to win. Kimi might not have crashed if he hadn’t been passed. Lewis might have overtaken Kimi again if he’d held back.
But whatever happened… For such a technical infraction (believe it or not) Lewis was massively over punished.
Massa did not win the race. The winner was either Kimi or Lewis. And Kimi didn’t finish the race. That’s what happens in F1 sometimes.
Lewis won the race. I saw him do it with my eyes. If he eked out a couple of millisecond advantage… That is what should be added to his time. I know that’s not what the rules say.
But the rules are wrong. Plain wrong. It’s nonsense. I’ve been trying to explain it to non-f1 fans so far this week and it’s not really been easy.
September 9th, 2008 at 20:14 #59 - Rich said:
He did not “lift off” – it is just possible he did not take the revs to the limit before changing (this would allow him to drop back slightly). As I pointed out earlier Lewis got level with Kimi at the point of changing down – yes he was better on the brakes but the manoeuvre started way earlier becuase of higher top speed!
Me has a point here, it is just possible that Kimi did orchestrate this!
I agree with ME we do not have all of the data – and I am also not sure how McLaren can be saying Lewis was travelling 6km/h slower than Kimi’s Ferrari (yet caught the Ferrari on the straight). This suggests they have information on their competitors – you know where that got them the last time!
September 9th, 2008 at 20:21 #60 - Rich said:
While I agree that Lewis was the “moral victor” of the day, how would it have changed (theoretically) if say the rain was a bit harder (making it even slower to drive on the dry tyres) and Nick after pitting for intermediates came through and snatched on track victory from Lewis and Felipe (and Kimi assuming he had not crashed). Would this have made Nick an appropriate victor?
September 9th, 2008 at 20:28 #61 - Alex Andronov said:
I would have given it to Nick. If he was brave enough to have made the call a lap earlier / or it had rained harder. That’s zero to hero stuff. All good in my book!
September 9th, 2008 at 20:42 #62 - Steven Roy said:
Whether or not Lewis lifted off is irrelevant. He gave the place back. He went completely behind Kimi and passed him again. There is no need for data or speed differentials etc. He was on Kimi’s left, dropped back, went behind him and then passed him on his right.
Had he started on Kimi’s right, dropped back to just behind him on his right then attacked back down the inside I could see a case that although he was marginally behind he had kept the inside line but he had the racing line, gave it up and passed him on the dirty side of the track. I really cannot see what is wrong with that.
Sorry Rich but I can see no mistake from Lewis in that part of that lap. He tried an overtake. It didn’t work and he took action to avoid a certain collision. He gained a slight advantage and gave it back. Then he took the position back.
September 9th, 2008 at 20:49 #63 - Steven Roy said:
Niki Lauda radio interview
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/7604776.stm
September 9th, 2008 at 20:54 #64 - Steven Roy said:
The spam filter got me again.
September 9th, 2008 at 21:02 #65 - Stuart C said:
Evening all,
Alianora unearthed this very interesting facet. It was announced back in January as part of a package of changes to the stewarding structure after Tony S-A’s departure.
However… We followed this up with the FIA today and were told that the idea was nixed by the FIA Senate a few weeks after it was proposed. So it’s not actually part of the rules.
Apols for being a tad late on this…
September 9th, 2008 at 21:06 #66 - Steven Roy said:
Thanks for that Stuart. So the FIA went public with a statement on their new stewarding policy. Then turned that on its head but didn’t go public with that. Unbelievable.
September 9th, 2008 at 21:09 #67 - Christine said:
Ah, thanks Stuart, that clears it up.
Funny how we hear about lots of proposals, but we never hear them being, um, unproposed.
September 9th, 2008 at 21:13 #68 - Christine said:
Rescued, sorry Steven.
September 9th, 2008 at 21:54 #69 - R.G (The Nurburgring/Sato/BMW Fan) said:
But surely it wouldn’t work anyway, your going to still get fans from other countries supporting other countries. Hell, I’m from England and support a German team, someone else supports an Japanese etc. So whats that mean some Lithuanian won’t support a Italian team?
September 9th, 2008 at 21:59 #70 - Alianora La Canta said:
If there’d been a wall there, Raikkonen couldn’t have pushed Hamilton so far over in the first place. Hamilton cutting the chicane was reaction rather than primary intent.
September 9th, 2008 at 22:05 #71 - Mattw said:
We have slated Couthard for (repeadidly) driving into other cars.
Of course, but that didn’t happen.
This is supposed to be Motor Racing. Drivers should be going for it, not holding back.
Thing is you can never know what is coming round the next bend. Kimi is slow at one moment – but you never know if he will get used to the conditions and speed up again – or there could be a safety car – or a red flag – or just a string of yellows – or someone on Wets steaming up behind – Or Lewis could pick up a puncture etc etc.
At the end of day, Kimi left the door wide open at Le Source, and Lewis took the opportunity.
September 9th, 2008 at 22:05 #72 - Rich said:
McLaren are appealing and Lewis stated he lifted his throttle – the video footage does not support this statement (its something of an untruth). Being less than honest is not a good start to reversing the situation so in this context it might be relevant.
September 9th, 2008 at 22:09 #73 - Mattw said:
Do you have the exect working on the rule they convicted Hamilton on?
September 9th, 2008 at 22:14 #74 - Mattw said:
It is irrelevant – but how do you know Lewis did not lift? Does the video footage feature onboard footage of this peddles?
The Video footage DOES show Lewis going slower than Kimi after the chicane. That is incontrovertible.
September 9th, 2008 at 22:29 #75 - Alianora La Canta said:
But surely it wouldn’t work anyway, your going to still get fans from other countries supporting other countries. {R.G. – 2 comments ago}
As a British supporter of an Indian team (which has previously been Irish, Russian and Dutch) and an Italian driver (as well as three British ones), I can see what you mean. However, sheer probability means that a loyalty to the same nation is more likely than any other loyalty, except for a loyalty to Ferrari.
September 9th, 2008 at 22:43 #76 - Mattw said:
Yes. After last year, it was good to see McLaren keeping a low profile after a few dodgey decisions earlier in the year. However this one is worth making a stand about – even if it proves to be futile in the end.
September 9th, 2008 at 23:16 #77 - Rich said:
I WANT TO RANT AT THE BRITISH PRESS – LONG POSTING
I have a big problem with the British press who possibly with Macca’s assistance have deified Lewis. Consequently he is perfect, he makes no mistakes. The fans then expect him to be perfect and to win every race (that would make racing very enjoyable). Theoretically speaking if there is a safety car at an inconvenient moment when Lewis had to pit for fuel and the pitlane was closed (like Heidfeld experienced at Spain) and Lewis had to take a stop-and-go penalty it would be construed that the FIA was favouring Ferrari and unjustly punishing Lewis and McLaren.
The above is hypothetical but a good case of British Press bias was the pit-lane fracas at Canada and Hamilton’s ensuing 10 place grip drop for the French GP. The said Press claimed this to be “too severe”. I know Hamilton says that it was not “his fault” but we all saw two stopped cars side by side and a red light at the end of the pits (and McLaren claimed to have told him about the red light) and yet he ploughed into the back of the one car which just happened to be one of his closest competitors for the WDC. But it was not his fault it was “just one of those things”
Fast forward a few weeks the same journalists (like PlanetF1) were then demanding that Massa should be penalised for being released into the path of Sutil in the pitlane at the European GP (yes arguing for a 10 place grid drop at the next GP or a time penalty so Massa lost his GP victory)*.
Firstly footage of pit stop activity confirms every team release their drivers with the assumption that the pitlane is a dual carriage way – but Valencia just happens to be too narrow so a potentially dangerous situation arose. Felipe took evasive action by yielding to Sutil and there was no accident.
In the one case at Canada the driver made a mistake and caused an accident that removed at least one close competitor and possibly another driver and in the second case the team made a mistake the driver took appropriate action that avoided an accident. Despite the different outcome and respective role of the drivers the British Press claim the latter offence to warrant more of penalty than the former! Is this not blatant favouritism?
No wonder most of the world “hates” the British press (if you want I will scan a letter or two that appeared in local press where even the journal editors support this stance!)
Of course for the British F1 journalist industry – Lewis is a meal ticket – the more they can sensationalise him and vilify the other competitors and the FIA the more magazines that get sold increasing revenues and the journalist’s job security. This is where F1 has gone wrong the over commercialisation of the industry. This seriously undermines F1 as a “sport”. I am not saying that the FIA never favour Ferrari. My point is by overstating this point the credibility of everything associated with the sport is compromised. Personally Ferrari did get off lightly at Valencia and at Belgium is was a tough decision against Lewis.
In my own “distorted world” I would have penalised Ferrari (but not the driver) with lost constructors points at Valencia (as if there was a 25 sec penalty) and in the case of Lewis I would not have stripped his Belgium Victory but given him a FIVE grid place drop for the next race) as I think cutting of the chicane was an optimistic move (Lewis would have had to have used the chicane whether Kimi was there or not) and the giving back of the position was little more than a token. There needs to be deterrents to keep the sport safe but it needs to be paid by the responsible partner(s) (team or driver).
Back to my “rant” at the British Press
Heading: “Belgian GP: Lewis Wins The Race Of The Year”
source: http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4113364,00.html
This suggests that the Belgium GP was Lewis’ finest win this year.
Here is my interpretation – Lewis starts from pole and leads. In Lewis’ own words anyone can win a GP from pole, so to prove his point he spins on lap 1 handing the lead to Kimi. Until two/three laps from the end Lewis trails Kimi. Lewis overshoots a chicane (blames Kimi for being in the way so he was forced off the track) Lewis then overtakes Kimi on the straight after yielding position at the chicane. Both Lewis and Kimi have wobbles and off-circuit excursions due to the wet conditions and Kimi bins his car in the wall and Lewis wins. Sorry but I do not see this as Lewis’ most convincing win of the season. Exciting yes but not the most convincing Lewis win. Frankly Lewis was actually quite lucky that one of his off track excursions did not end the race for him.
Finally for Steve my point with Lewis is that he makes too many mistakes in my books (irrespective of whether the incident with Kimi was or was not a mistake) to be considered in the same league as some of the truly greats. Was Lewis’ spin at the beginning of the race not a mistake? If that had not happened he would not have been behind Kimi in the first place so the above event would never have happened. If he had won in this fashion it would put him on the path to greatness but he still needs humility and humbleness to gain such respect.
* If Felipe had received a time penalty that dropped him behind Lewis at Valencia would this have been a “fair” victory for Lewis despite the other driver making NO MISTAKE and taking avoiding action to prevent an accident?
September 10th, 2008 at 00:01 #78 - me said:
well, if you will insist on quoting lauda
agreed, i propose caution though, only because we’ve no idea if the video referenced has been doctored. it doesn’t appear to have been, but macca must have some differing info to release a statement as they have.
because i can hear that he didn’t. unless macca have some freaky engine that doesn’t respond to the accelerator pedal?
September 10th, 2008 at 00:02 #79 - Jordan Allen said:
“ME”, on Jury duty )Part one of two):
“Hanging’s to good for him”, pointing to the defence lawyer….
September 10th, 2008 at 00:04 #80 - Jordan Allen said:
“Me” on Jury duty )Part Two of Two):
“Hanging’s too good for him”, pointing to the judge….
September 10th, 2008 at 00:19 #81 - Steven Roy said:
Frank Williams talking about Lewis last year said ‘When Schumacher retired we thought we had a chance then another super human turns up.’ I don’t think he was duped by the press. Lewis is the best driver out there. I knew about Lewis Hamilton and was watching his career long before anyone was interested in him beyond the occasional paragraph in the specialist press. I have been telling people for years this kid is going to turn up in F1 and blow everyone away. I even predicted he would blow Alonso out of McLaren so I am not being influenced by the press.
As for nationality being an issue I have made my point of view clear on that before but the vitriol resulting from this is being directed at Max who is the same nationality as Lewis. A small percentage is aimed at Ferrari but the majority is aimed at Max.
You can argue that the Ferrari bias is overplayed but what else can anyone conclude when Max’s self appointed deputy who has been his official representative at recent races is on the Ferrari board. Jean Todt represents the teams on the WMSC and he is on the Ferrari board and karting is represented by a gentleman called Macaluso who has been a friend of Piero Ferrari since childhood. No other member of the WMSC – all of whom are personally appointed by Max – has or had a connection with any other existing F1 team. Max’s oft stated choice of successor is Jean Todt who is on the Ferrari board. Pro-Ferrari bias is built in to the system. Alan Donnelly’s company used to do PR work for Ferrari but shortly before his appointment as steward supervisor Ferrari disappeared from the customer list on their website.
I really don’t want to turn this into a rant and I have said all of this before. Look at the number of times a new rule has been invented which benefits Ferrari or something which has been legal is suddenly made illegal which benefits Ferrari.
Michelin tyres passed scrutineering for more than two years before the FIA decided that the same tyres from exactly the same moulds were illegal – advantage Ferrari.
Mass dampers had been legal for 18 months but were banned as aerodynamic devices – advantage Ferrari
Ferrari fitted ‘brake cooling’ devices to there wheels which are illegal aerodynamic devices which breach at least 4 rules. They are legal. Twice this season Ferrari have had to remove them to stop brakes overheatin which is a clear admission that they lied and cheated in the first place – advantage Ferrari
Alonso was penalised at Monza for aerodynamically blocking Massa in qualifying – new rule advantage Ferrari
Valencia penalty – new penalty never been used for that offence before – advantage Ferrari
Malaysian bargeboards illegal on the car but legal on a jig in Paris a few days later which had never been done before – new rule advantage Ferrari
Never has the FIA given equal weight to anyone else’s guage until the cool fuel nonsense at the end of last season – new rule advantage Ferrari.
Believe me I could list a load more but I am boring myself now. I would love someone to give me a list of new rules which were introduced on a whim which disadvantaged Ferrari and advantaged someone else.
The FIA has allowed to many breaches of the rules to become commonplace. One example of that is teams releasing drivers in the pit without enough care. At Valencia Massa had to take avoiding action therefore the release was unsafe and therefore it should have been punished with a drive through. The effect on the race or championship should not be cosidered when a penalty is incurred. If a rule is broken it should attract a fixed penalty regardless of whether this turns the championship on its head or not.
As for Canada Lewis was 100% responsible for not stopping and 95% responsible for the resulting accident. Had Ferrari correctly released Kimi he would not have been sitting illegally next to Kubica. Hypothesising about what would have happened had he been in the correct place is irrelevant it should only be judged on the facts at the time.
I don’t understand how a team can be punished but not the driver. I know Max has done this but it doesn’t make any sense to me. If the driver scores points so should the team. The two should be identical at all times. Massa benefits because Ferrari build great cars and he benefits because they do great pit stops but if they screw up he doesn’t suffer. Sorry but I just don’t get that.
Giving Lewis a penalty for the next race is plain wrong. Again I know the option exists for a 10 place grid drop but it makes no sense to me. If an offence was committed in Belgium the penalty should be for Belgium.
Cesare Fiorio on Italian TV called it the race of the decade so race of the year is mild by comparison.
Yes he makes mistakes but no other driver has been in such a high profile position so early in their career so their mistakes did not attract as much attention. As for Michael he was known to bin it occasionally right through his career.
A lot of drivers who go on to be greats made mistakes in their early years but no-one knew or cared. Those guys were racing for 15th or 20th position. From day one Lewis has been against the best drivers and the best cars racing for the championship. That is a different stratosphere to Schumacher at Jordan and his first two years at Benetton. Senna did his first season with Toleman where nothing was expected and then went to Lotus where the occasional win was the only target.
September 10th, 2008 at 00:28 #82 - me said:
i am not disagreeing with you at all here, but you did ask…
first thing that comes to mind is the one tyre per race rule. killed ferrari’s season stone dead. admittedly it only lasted the one season.
September 10th, 2008 at 01:03 #83 - Steven Roy said:
I rest my case your honour. A change was made without knowing who it would advantage and as soon as it was clear Ferrari were disadvantage Max pulled one of his 180 degree turns.
September 10th, 2008 at 01:39 #84 - Steven Roy said:
Just to prove this is not a nationalistic issue. The following comment was posted by Becken who is Brazilian at BlogF1
http://blogf1.co.uk/2008/09/09/mclaren-confirm-appeal-lodged-with-fia/
September 10th, 2008 at 02:13 #85 - Jordan Allen said:
What I can never figure out is was there ever this much belly-aching with Politics when Williams was giving everyone a Bruce Lee blur-the-camera serve rear-end kicking with a Car that even Christine could win races with?
September 10th, 2008 at 02:21 #86 - Jeremy said:
The FIA have orchestrated a PR stunt.
They can get away with looking silly, so why not cause massive controversy, right before the Italian Grand Prix at Monza?
They can reverse their decision under appeal, just before another race, again, bringing more publicity to the sport.
Has this been mentioned elsewhere? I haven’t had the time to research it to much.
Max you sly dog
September 10th, 2008 at 02:28 #87 - Jeremy said:
No penalty needed.
Lewis would have stayed on the road if Kimi wasn’t there – it was a very obvious jink to the left to avoid an accident.
Lewis could have slowed more, but I prefer drivers who race hard. There needs to be a balance of tactics and speed, but ultimately, it’s called motor racing for a reason.
Kimi braked early for the chicane and then braked early for the corner at the end of the straight after it. This is how Lewis got past.
In reference to an earlier comment about McLaren having Ferrari information – the official FIA timing shows Lewis as being slower over the finish line.
September 10th, 2008 at 02:36 #88 - Journeyer said:
Just watched the Formula1.com video… I love the song. Great editing too… But it has a REALLY nasty ending. Ouch. Check it out.
September 10th, 2008 at 02:39 #89 - Journeyer said:
Jeremy, the appeals hearing for this one will be weeks from now. The earliest it can happen is in October, which is after Singapore. And there’s every chance of it happening AFTER the last race in Brazil, because the FIA Court of Appeal rarely meets this time of year anyway (unless it’s been announced for a month or two in advance).
September 10th, 2008 at 03:03 #90 - Le BOL said:
Yeah, yeah, I was thinking along the same lines: if Kimi crashed out what the fuss is about? It’s not like Massa was ever in a position to challenge HAM, Kimi hit the wall all on his own and would’ve done so anyway, with or without HAM’s move.
Signed the petition grandprix.com has mentioned, just like 29 000 other people, it includes “message to the FIA part”, you can clearly see that people are angry.
September 10th, 2008 at 03:06 #91 - Journeyer said:
That’s the thing, Le BOL, the act was still committed by Lewis, regardless of what happened to Kimi afterwards. So it still has to be punished accordingly regardless of what happened to Kimi afterwards.
September 10th, 2008 at 03:16 #92 - Le BOL said:
Schu did crazy things and got punished only twice: after Jerez 1997 event and in Monaco 2006 while McLaren gets punishments and bans all the time, it’s just too obvious for me.
September 10th, 2008 at 03:21 #93 - Le BOL said:
PH Cahier is still angry with Kimster, check this out: “There is something mischievous about Felipe Massa, and more than a bit of irony in the fact that he is consistently outdoing his teammate, who is paid three times as much as he is…”
September 10th, 2008 at 04:09 #94 - Journeyer said:
I believe Keith, Duncan (vee), and Clive are planning to collaborate on a project Wiki that will list down all major penalties that have been handed out in Formula 1. I think that will tell us how often McLaren and Ferrari get punished versus each other and the rest of the grid.
And after a rough start to the year for Massa, too… remember Malaysia? I’m sure that this thought has crossed LDM’s head once or twice… But Kimi doesn’t seem so keen on staying on beyond next year, anyway, so it may not really matter.
September 10th, 2008 at 05:09 #95 - Mattw said:
So you can tell from the engine note alone when a driver is at 100% vs 75% say?
And when there are two cars in close proximity.
Wow – you have good ears sir.
Have you noticed though that often the pictures and the sound are not in sync?
I still fail to see the relevance of this because Kimi did retake the lead – you cannot have missed that surly?
September 10th, 2008 at 06:48 #96 - Journeyer said:
Mattw, it’s not just about Kimi taking the lead. It’s not as simple as that. Lewis shouldn’t have been challenging him into the next corner as well. Why so? Because he wouldn’t have been as near to Kimi if he took the chicane.
September 10th, 2008 at 07:47 #97 - Mattw said:
Can you show me the rule that says you are not allowed to overtake in that situation?
Exactly how long – according to the rules, does one need to wait untill it is allowable to try another move?
(and has this rule been inforced before? If so When?)
Also how do you know Lewis would not have been as near to Kimi at La Source if he had not had to take avoiding action at the chicane? Lewis was side by side heading into the chicane, and right on his gearbox for a number of corners before that, so there is no reason to believe that he would not have been just as close.
September 10th, 2008 at 08:05 #98 - Journeyer said:
It’s an unwritten rule, mattw, just as much as returning your position to avoid penalty is also an unwritten rule. If one is valid, so is the other, and vice versa.
Simple. Kimi would’ve started accelerating before Lewis. The SF straight is shorter than the back straight, so Lewis would’ve had less time to reel Kimi back in, whereas the chicane is at the end of that much longer back straight.
September 10th, 2008 at 08:12 #99 - Rich said:
@Steven I am not really sure I agree with your responses
I think this would have been even more unfair which was what the British Press seemed to be wanting. What is the penalty since there was no precedent before on which to have made an assessment as ALL the teams were doing this prior to Valencia. At Valencia Massa acted responsibly under the circumstances while at Canada Lewis was irresponsible and had not the character to accept responsibility. Canada finished any small sympathy I might have had for Lewis that interview was “dumb arrogance”.
So Kimi has a 5% responsibility for the Canadian pitlane accident?
In the case of the Lewis/Kimi issue – you can go back to Monza 2005 when Alonso cut a chicane and passed Klien – he dropped back and then retook the lead rather too quickly. Renault then instructed Alonso to drop back behind Klien a second time and Alonso had to redo his overtake a second time and this costed at least 5-10 secs. So there is a past precedent on which to make an assessment.
I have never disputed SOME Ferrari favouritism – but Lewis has escaped punishment like in Japan behind the safety car and Macca using more sets of tyres in Brazil where there was only a fine. It is also the second time Lewis has used the chicane to some advantage this year – so it is in one respect a repeat “offence”.
Finally Jarno coming out with an opinion was also fairly convincing – he is not a vindictive person – in fact by F1 driver standards he is quite mild mannered.
September 10th, 2008 at 08:39 #100 - Rich said:
YES and this was not fair – but allowing WRONGS to go unpenalised does not correct a situation to make it fair.
Kovy has in some ways been more harshly treated than Lewis with various penalties. The problem is the way the British Press allow Lewis to do what ever he wants on the track and escape the consequences. We saw this happen with Michael escaping consequences of his actions and frankly it detracted from his consideration as being the greatest all-time racing driver.
September 10th, 2008 at 08:40 #101 - Stuart C said:
Rich,
I probably won’t be able to change your mind because you obviously feel strongly about this, but I feel that I should dispel some illusions…
The British press occasionally act as a single entity, but not in any ‘conspiratorial’ sense (I’m talking about the newspapers here – you refer to sources such as Planet F1, but please remember that sites such as these do not attend GPs; they just pick up news from other sites through RSS feeds, etc, and rewrite a para or three). They get on well on a personal level and may share information to a degree by necessity, but they work for competing publications. There is no conspiracy to deify Lewis Hamilton and brainwash the British public. They are merely caught up in the general hysteria surrounding him.
I recommend you read the excellent book Extraordinary Popular Delusions & The Madness Of Crowds on this subject.
People – by which I mean you, me, everyone – have opinions, often firmly held. They refract new information through the prism of their own prejudices. It’s natural. Thus newspapers have evolved to deliver information in a form that their readers enjoy. It’s called giving the customers what they want. You go out of business if you do not do this. Hence the Daily Mail, for instance, is chock full of “Foreign pervs are here to steal your jobs – and your kids!” stories. They don’t do this to brainwash the public. They do it because people (like my parents, sadly) lap it up.
So I’m afraid to say that the public as a whole are complicit. You’ll not change human nature by complaining about it on a website!
September 10th, 2008 at 09:25 #102 - Mattw said:
This just goes to show that we are into the relm of making up the rules as we go along.
This really fusraits me when the FIA does this. It was the Same at Monza when Alonso was demoted 5 places on the grid for ‘blocking’ Massa, despite being nowhere near him.
I realise that you cannot anticipate every event that may happen on the track – but if you are running a sport – espically an international one – you need to provide the competitors with a consistant frame work of rules in which to compete in. (and this is one rule book no matter the colour of the cars note!)
Making rules up as you go along is no way to run any sport.
In the dry you might have had a point, but the track was wet, and Lewis was much faster at that point.
Thanks for that – I knew it had to be Monza!
I understand that Charlie Whiting told the team to relinquish the place? In this instance Charlie OKed Lewis’ move twice.
And if you want to split hairs – Lewis DID let Kimi back past on that lap. Maybe not intentionally, but it did happen.
September 10th, 2008 at 09:35 #103 - me said:
that’s not entirely fair steven.
it was widely speculated before the 2005 season began, that bridgestone wouldn’t fit in enough testing mileage with so few cars running their rubber (6, of which 4 rarely ever tested), and there was plenty of chance for the fia to step in and make changes. either before or during the season (especially after indy-gate!).
as it was, red bull were the one’s who stabbed michelin in the back and made the difference that got the ruling changed. nothing to do with max or the fia as i’m sure you are well aware.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:04 #104 - me said:
no, but i never suggested for one second that i could?? please re-read what actually wrote in my comment.
the point i’m trying to get across is that lewis’ words in a statement yesterday (one that has clearly been checked by many lawyers) says:
“I momentarily lifted-off on the straight..”
i don’t hear any lifting. i’m not suggesting that he was full on the throttle or otherwise. just that the word used is lifted-off and i don’t hear that.
to my mind, it’s that sentence that will be most important of all when it comes to the hearing.
not if these things are discussed between drivers and charlie on a weekly basis. it’s arguably bad that we don’t hear about what goes on, but one could say that it’s not any of our business – it’s a drivers meeting after all.
hence the reason i was keen to hear what trulli had to say.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:11 #105 - Steven Roy said:
At the finish line Kimi was hard on the accelerator and Lewis was travelling slower than him. He was only able to catch up because of Kimi’s entry to the chicane being so wide. From the finish line to the corner can only be about 4 seconds and it is impossible for any car in the grid to out accelerate another car in that distance so Kimi had plenty of advantage had he taken a sensible line into the corner. As it was he went into it like an old woman.
I really don’t remember the situation but I will believe you. What I don’t understand about the change back was that it is counter to Max’s direction for F1. We have multi-race engines and gearboxes but we went from tyres that lasted a race distance to tyres that last 20 laps. All he had to do was tell teams that they could change tyres if they want but they can only do one wheel at a time and the same mechanics have to do all wheels at any stop. That way if someone has a problem they can make a change but it encourages people to stick with one set.
He was in an illegal position. Lewis tried to avoid the car in front and had Kimi been in a legal position there would have been a gap. The fact that there was not a gap contributed to there being an accident therefore a small amount of the cause and blame was the position of Kimi’s car.
Rich,
I don’t read the British press at all so I have no idea what the want and I care even less. I have not bought a nwspaper in years. I read a few motor racing magazines but never newspapers. The one thing I guarantee you is that sooner or later the press will turn against Lewis. They always do. Their opinion then will have no more validity than their opinion now. I prefer to argue any case on its merits rather than worry about the motivation of Rupert Murdoch and co whose only interest like Bernie is the bottom line.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:26 #106 - me said:
during a tyre war, that couldn’t happen because the manufactures were pushing the envelope (too far in the case of indy). now it would be more doable, but look at kimi’s last laps at the nürburgring that year.
on the other hand a single race tyre would likely hurt lewis way more than any other driver on the grid, so we should expect the concept to be implemented by christmas
September 10th, 2008 at 10:58 #107 - Journeyer said:
Although Red Bull was set to run Ferrari engines that year, I believe…
September 10th, 2008 at 11:04 #108 - me said:
too true. but then i’m not suggesting ferrari are blameless.
only that, in 2005, the fia could have changed the tyres rules post indy and saved ferrari’s backside, handing them the championship in the process. but it didn’t happen.
again, i’m not defending ferrari or the fia, i know the sport is rotten to the core. steven asked for an example and i provided one.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:13 #109 - Alex Andronov said:
Very true Stuart!
September 10th, 2008 at 11:16 #110 - me said:
ha! omg, sorry just watched it.
http://www.formula1.com/services/play_video.html
do we think bernie watches these edits and okay’s them? in which case what side of the fence is he sitting?
September 10th, 2008 at 11:30 #111 - Lynch said:
^ Yeah, I just watched it also?! what a joke! Its as if they are taking the p out of McLaren at the end, they might as well just have put Ron Dennis in the stocks and thrown tomatoes at him whilst everyone was standing around laughing?!?! Certainly the ending is Anti-McLaren!
September 10th, 2008 at 12:06 #112 - Steven Roy said:
Until Gordon Murray re-introduced pit stops in the 80s we had tyres lasting a full race in a tyre war.
I want tyres and fuel lasting a whole race so that races are won and lost on the track and not by disputes about who did what in the pits and whose pointless unnecessary fuel rig didn’t work propoerly or may or may not have been at the correct temperature.
If full race tyres were introduced Bridgestone could carry their full range of tyres to every race and let each driver run what he wanted. That way Lewis would not have been forced to run tyres too soft for him in Hungary and Kimi and Felipe would not have been tottering round Spa in tyres that were too hard for them. In the end I doubt anyone would be penalised on a regular basis if the right range of tyres were involved.
As for Kimi’s problem at the Nurburgring on the single race tyre that was as the result of a driver error locking up the wheel and flat spotting the tyre. The same thing could easily happen after the last pit stop now. If the team had the option of one wheel changing crew instead of the current four that wheel could have been changed.
My idea is simply to have races decided on the track and not by pit stops. Legitimate orotherwise. If as a result of that Lewis Hamilton suffers and Ferrari gain so be it. Contrary to popular opinion I do not watch racing to see Lewis Hamilton win. I think he is the best driver in F1 now and the best for some time but I am not a fan in the football sense of the word. I simple appreciate his talent and ability.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:09 #113 - Christine said:
Sounds like a brilliant idea. But what about the races where the pit stops are the only action we can hope for?
Valencia would have been completely awful if there was no use for the pitlane. Calling it a procession doesn’t even do it justice.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:14 #114 - Rich said:
There was a right light and stopped cars – basically whether Kimi’s position was or was not illegal is not relevant Lewis was on course to ignore the Red Light. In the 2007 Canadian GP Felipe Massa was given the Black Flag for jumping the Red Light (Yes FIA does give Ferrari penalties).
If Lewis had not had the accident in the pitlane at the Canadian GP and rejoined the race and the Marshal’s Black Flagged him (like Massa the previous year), imagine what the press would have said. However, no one in the British Press reported Massa’s Black Flag incident as being unduely unfair.
We (me and ME) are not saying Ferrari has not had some favouritism in the past – but it is not to the extent suggested by the British Press. The above case is another example of the FIA being quite hard on a Ferrari driver and the team.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:19 #115 - Journeyer said:
Probably not, but it’s nice to think that he does. What side of the fence is he sitting on? Basing on the video, he sitting on the pro-penalty side of things. But it’s very hard to tell.
The video was left hanging, so they may revise the video if Lewis gets his win back. If they did (and I hope they do), I’d want to watch that revised win.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:22 #116 - me said:
the 2008 season video may tell us more. as might the official dvd.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:31 #117 - Rich said:
Splitting hairs further Alonso did give back the position (after cutting the chicane) to Klien at Monza 2005, but it was deemed he had advantage in making that first post-chicane overtake so he had to drop back and re-do the overtake. The situation is basically identical to Lewis at Belgium.
I think the organizers need to shoulder some blame here (inform Macca for Lewis to give back the position), but when Kimi crashed there was no opportunity to correct the situation (by handing back the position). Rather than being a “bad” call the circumstances generated an “unlucky” call for Lewis and Macca.
I repeat what I have said earlier – losing the Belgium GP was quite severe and I would have given Lewis a FIVE place penalty (minimum penalty possible) for the next race. With no penalty FIA could be accused of favouring Macca and Lewis given than in the past a driver has had to re-do the entire overtake or face a penalty.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:33 #118 - Steven Roy said:
Valencia was completey awful but until the technical regulations are sorted and Herman Tilke is banned from motor racing that is going to happen pit stops or not. My problem is that for years we have been denied proper racing by drivers waiting for pit stops before making a move and we have a whole string of pointless controversy resulting from procedures at these needless stops being bent or broken.
As I have said previously I have no interest in the British press. Ferrari bias is built into the FIA to a massive degree. Max’s self appointed deputy is on the Ferrari board. Max’s choice of successor and teams representative on the WMSC is on the Ferrari board. Alan Donnelly’s company has Ferrari as a customer. None of that has anything to do with the British press it is fact. Imagine all those positions were filled with McLaren directors. Would that be fair? No-one on the WMSC has or has had any connection with any other competing F1 team. Max’s official representative at recent grands prix is on the Ferrari board. Ferrari to all intents and purposes are running F1.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:40 #119 - Jeremy said:
It doesn’t say at what point Lewis lifted – my guess is while he was on the grass…
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/9/8334.html
“We looked at all our data and also made it available to the FIA stewards,” said the team. “It showed that, having lifted, Lewis was 6km/h slower than Kimi as they crossed the start-finish line. Having passed the lead back to Kimi, Lewis repositioned his car, moving across and behind Kimi to the right-hand line and then out-braked him into the hairpin. Based on this data, we have no option other than to register our intention to appeal.”
September 10th, 2008 at 12:43 #120 - Rich said:
In a simple exercise to check the fairness of the decision imagine the same incident but the positions changed and Kimi or Felipe were chasing Lewis and they cut the chicane and then dropped back only slightly (less than a car length) and then overtook Lewis and no ensuing penalty resulted – the British Press would be screaming for Kimi or Felipe (plus Ferrari) to be punished and crying “conspiracy”. They would dig up the Alonso-Klien manoeuvre at Monza 2005 and use it as evidence for FIA favouritism to Ferrari.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:47 #121 - Steven Roy said:
Rich,
Why do you care what the British press thinks. Ignore them they are irrelevant to anything. The state of the sport, the way it is run and what the fans get is way more important.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:52 #122 - me said:
lewis’ statement yesterday did specifically state where he lifted. he said (my emphasis):
“I came out of the second apex in front of Kimi and so I momentarily lifted-off on the straight, to ensure that Kimi got back in front.”
that’s why if find this appeal so very interesting, and why i’m hoping we’re all party to the information divulged therein.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:55 #123 - Rich said:
It is about being professional – is it fair that all the teams have to use a McLaren Electronic Control Unit in their cars? This year few would argue that overall McLaren is the package to bet under most conditions (wet/dry) could this be due to this ECU and an inherited advantage for McLaren? In the wet we have seen both Ferrari drivers make clowns of themselves due to a lack of traction. Have Ferrari complained about this, yes sure Ferrari fans, but I have not heard of the team ascribing blame to this.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:57 #124 - Steven Roy said:
I fear Alianora has caught Christine’s panda fetish
http://formula1home.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=469&sid=27c801d792ef579c405286965a52d811
September 10th, 2008 at 12:58 #125 - me said:
my guess is, and i should say i have no real basis for believing as such, that max is now intentionally driving the value of the sport into the ground, with the expectation that CVC will bail out.
from there i guess he’s hoping he can position a buyer of his choosing. conveniently, this will also remove bernie from power.
September 10th, 2008 at 13:00 #126 - Rich said:
I know it is a bit semantic but you can hear even a momentary lift of the throttle – it is possible that Lewis short-shifted – only possession of the telemetry could confirm this. FIA will obviously re-examine similar situations in the past if they agree to listen to the case. Realistically McLaren are doing this to rally support rather than with an expectation to reverse the situation. It is no more than to win public favour/sympathy – a shallow gesture that will show their support for their man Lewis.
September 10th, 2008 at 13:03 #127 - Steven Roy said:
Ferrari’s wet weather problems are down to not generating as much heat in their tyres as McLaren and nothing to do with traction control. Effectively it is the opposite side of the problem that causes Lewis to go through tyres at the rate he does. They struggle with traction because of the lack of grip between the tyres and the road. Traction control would not improve that although it could catch the occasional spin but they would be just as slow. The problem is due to the different suspension designs used by the two teams.
Is it fair that McLaren are supplying the ECU? No its damned stupid to put a team in the position where it supplies a component like that. There are many independent companies who could have made an ECU and I really can’t see the sense in that decision.
September 10th, 2008 at 13:08 #128 - me said:
not necessarily only the suspension designs:
http://axisofoversteer.blogspot.com/2008/09/mclarens-clever-tire-warming-strategy.html
September 10th, 2008 at 13:08 #129 - Steven Roy said:
Or return Bernie to full ownership and then Max would be in position to pick up a second alleged bonus to go with the $300million Bernie allegedly gave him just before he moved to Monaco. So you thin he is orchestrating a good old fashioned bear squeeze. Sneaky.
September 10th, 2008 at 13:13 #130 - me said:
it’s a bit mean. haven’t they been put through enough this week already?
September 10th, 2008 at 13:20 #131 - Steven Roy said:
I haven’t come across this before. I have heard of people stamping on the brakes on a warm up lap to let the heat sink effect heat up the tyres but not this.
September 10th, 2008 at 13:35 #132 - Journeyer said:
Panda fetish? That just sounds… groase. But it’s a super-funny story! Absolutely hilarious!
September 10th, 2008 at 13:40 #133 - me said:
me likes too
September 10th, 2008 at 13:51 #134 - Le BOL said:
(G)lovely video from Bernard, the song though is even better, who’s the artist? Does anybody know?
The ending sucks.
Based on the FIA theory Raikkonen should’ve been stripped of his points in France because he could easlily have killed a spectator or the driver behind him with his exhaust pipe and that’s much more serious than LH cutting chicanes, besides I think Kimi left him with no room. LH in perspective could’ve waited because overtaking Kimi was just a matter of few hundred metres, but on the other hand this racing episode was quite exciting so I think it was worth it, if I were Macca I would protest everything Ferrari does or their drivers do just to get on their nerves. I’d love that.
September 10th, 2008 at 14:04 #135 - Journeyer said:
Brilliant song, no? The title’s ‘Propane Nightmares’ by Pendulum from their 2008 album ‘In Silico’.
Isn’t that what Ferrari would want? Constantly complaining would only serve to distract McLaren from the business of winning.
September 10th, 2008 at 14:05 #136 - Rich said:
My point is McLaren being the supplier of said unit have a position of potential advantage. They need to be professional and not abuse this. I have seen no evidence that they have been unprofessional so it is not a problem. Similarly being a client of Ferrari does not mean there cannot be independence.
An example of professionalism is with my own employers – they put plans to build on a critical ecosystem, under our legislation I am in position to put an objection in through the correct channels which I did. I would not, however, be allowed to go to the press and orchestrate any public action against the university’s intention to build on said ecosystem. My employers could not fire me, similarly I cannot bring them into public disrepute using the public press. We knew where the boundaries were and had to mutually respect them. My judgement was still independent of those of my employers – there is no reason why this should not be the case in other situations.
Back to FIA they do need to be a little more circumspect – but overstating the Ferrari favouritism is not going to win the situation and make the sporter fairer – it is like crying wolf too many times. A combination of “just” criticism and praise is needed to guide the FIA into promoting fairer practice. My criticism of Ferrari in the past and McLaren currently is they orchestrate the press and the public to judge the situation rather than use the official channels – this is unprofessional conduct which other teams seem to respect.
My final comment is aimed at Stuart – simply giving people what they want in terms of press coverage is somewhat irresponsible. The press (including the British) have a responsibility for reporting truthfully and fairly. I am not denying a preference of the press for the driver from your own country but much of collective British F1 Press have overstepped these boundaries. They may conclude Lewis was unfairly penalised at Belgium but they should look for similar but recent situations when reporting which they have not done. There is no analysis of this situation it is all blatant emotional outpourings based on little more than misplaced nationalism.
September 10th, 2008 at 14:05 #137 - Le BOL said:
Pat Symonds confirms my thoughts – check out latest RF1 podcast, Pat says what’s the point of calling for more overtaking if it’s punished immediately?
September 10th, 2008 at 14:08 #138 - Le BOL said:
Can’t agree with you, I’m not British and I don’t agree with this punishment, people all over the world hated it.
September 10th, 2008 at 14:17 #139 - Le BOL said:
Yep, I’m checking out their myspace thingy, myspace page that is, funny blokes, good stuff.
September 10th, 2008 at 14:19 #140 - Steven Roy said:
I totally agree but there is a potential conflict of interest and his company have removed Ferrari’s name from their website just before he got the job. This makes it look like he is hiding that connection. The difference between the two cases is that McLaren’s device has be sbjected to serious scrutiny where Donnelly has unsuccessfully tried to hide his connection to Ferrari. We don’t know whether or not Ferrari are in a postion to seriously affect his income. For all we know 80% of his company’s business could be for Ferrari. Or it could be 0%. But given that Max has a tendency to put Ferrari board members in positions of power you have to question this appointment especially as it is counter to his previously stated aim of permanent stewards
September 10th, 2008 at 14:42 #141 - Rich said:
Realistically most of the press around F1 generated in the English language comes from the British – so I do not have much opportunity other than to read it (I do look for Indian coverage of the same events). This Forum is one where there is an opportunity to express different views and Christine and ME are always “fair” in their views.
I do not understand nationalism, although I have British ancestry I would never support a team/driver on that basis – it is irrelevant and we have A1GP, and the Olympics to vent nationalistic rhetoric. I did not like Michael S’ antics – fortunately none of the current German drivers are in any way like him – in fact they mostly (Timo, Nick, DeSeb and Adrian) seem quite modest fellas for F1 celebs. My favourite drivers are actually DeSeb and then Nick. Lewis is not my favourite, not because of nationality, but because I find him conceited, egotistical and monumentally boring off track. In fact he share more than a couple of personality traits with Michael S (but dresses way better) and has yet to consistently show an equal talent for piloting a racing car.
Reasons I like DeSeb – he is cheerful, does not complain, is hugely engaging when providing commentary and seems to have little in the way of materialistic aspirations. For such a youngster he is impressive in his maturity of conduct. I like Nick because of his understated demeanour, his slightly unconventional appearance (for an F1 driver) and his wickedly dry sense of humour. DeSeb is a really quick driver and Nick because of his intelligence on the race track. Nick is very consistent (and yet to have a self-induced significant racing incident or retirement this year) with some flashes (rare) of pure brilliance. Four (one gifted) second places this year without a win. In fact he is the driver who has scored the most number of GP points without a GP win!
September 10th, 2008 at 14:50 #142 - Rich said:
@ Steven Roy – the Donnelly situation is less than desirable, as it would be if Max stood down and we got the poison dwarf (Jean Todt) at the helm.
September 10th, 2008 at 14:50 #143 - Journeyer said:
Amen to that.
Agreed on that count too.
Is Nick Heidfeld the new Chris Amon?
September 10th, 2008 at 15:02 #144 - Rich said:
I think he is!
September 10th, 2008 at 15:40 #145 - Journeyer said:
Golly, Rich! Keith said that Nick also has the record for most 2nd places without a win.
September 10th, 2008 at 15:44 #146 - Rich said:
It is about being fair…
No one takes the slightness notice when Massa is “black flagged” for ignoring the red pitlane light, when Lewis ignores a red light and wrecks the race of a close competitor half the world sees any penalty handed down for Hamilton as unfair.
Alonso is not allowed to get away with cutting a chicane and a very rapid re-overtake but has to redo the entire operation but for Lewis it is totally fair!
No one was bothered in Japan last year Liuzzi was penalised with a time penalty for passing under a yellow flag despite the organizers admitting it was chaos with near zero visibility and other driver’s penalties like Vettel being reversed. No one is listening to Timo (quote below) for losing his point at Belgium under the somewhat bizarre circumstances of the final laps.
The difference is Toyota/Glock accept the situation Macca/Hamilton want to fight of it!
I want to know why Lewis is soooo special and should be exempt what is required and applied to virtually every other driver? Have we not learnt from the Schumacher Era this is an undesirable state of affairs. Do people really want Lewis to win every race for the next five years – that would make F1 a thrilling sport! No the opposite since the majority of people will ignore the sport and F1 journalist’s job will evaporate.
It gets even more distorted with some saying Kimi “forced” Lewis into cutting the chicane – UTTER RUBBISH Lewis went into the chicane way to fast (given wet conditions) to make the move stick, the location of Kimi’s car on the racing line conveniently disguised Lewis’ optimistic driving at the entrance of the chicane.
September 10th, 2008 at 15:47 #147 - Rich said:
I was going to mention that as well but I thought I would be overstating – he really is F1’s Cinderella – I am just hoping for that happy fairy tale ending!
September 10th, 2008 at 15:53 #148 - me said:
agreed.
also agreed.
yup.
finally, something to disagree with
as i said somewhere earlier, the move wasn’t optimistic by any means. everything going on in lewis’ cockpit was reactive.
to use hamilton’s own words (against massa last year) – kimi ‘tricked’ him.
September 10th, 2008 at 16:15 #149 - R.G (The Nurburgring/Sato/BMW Fan) said:
Now that will be one for the collection, Australia, Monaco, Canada, Britain, Germany (the second half anyway), Hungary (sort of) and now Spa.
True, I don’t even get how you could argue a decision.
Erm,aye, is it safe to ask yet whether anyone is looking forward to Monza? Or will it only be safe in about a week’s time?
September 10th, 2008 at 16:18 #150 - Owen Roberts said:
I won’t be watching
I’m no longer interested in a corupt sport
September 10th, 2008 at 16:19 #151 - Steven Roy said:
The only reasn I haven’t discussed the Glock incident is because I didn’t see it. Was it shown on TV?
The onboard of Lewis shows he turned into the right hand part of the chicane and is online and totally under control aiming along the left hand kerb when he quite deliberately turned left. He did not carry so much speed that he just ran out of road. He simply tried an overtaking move that he could not make stick. Had he not turned left Kimi would have run into him. Now we can argue all day whether Lewis put his car in a position where Kimi had no option but run into him or that Kimi was the more guilty party. Personally it was a racing incident involving two drivers fighting for a position and the one who was in the best place to take avoiding action took it. Given the line Kimi was on there was nothing he could have done to take avoiding action apart from brake a bit earlier for the corner in the first place but I have no gripe about anything done by either driver in this whole incident.
I am not saying Lewis should be exempt I am saying he did nothing wrong. He came out of the chicane ahead of Kimi and gave the place back. At the finish line he was 6 km/h slower than Kimi and behind him. That should be a hopeless position but Kimi left the door wide open so Lewis went for it. Over the years the convention has always been that if a driver gains a place and gives it back to the satisfaction of the race director he is then free to attack. That is what Lewis did unless the McLaren management are lying and Charlie Whiting did not say it was OK.
I really don’t understand how you can compare an incident like this to Schumacher raming people or parking on the racing line to have a qualifying session stopped. If Lewis did anything like that I would be the first to criticise him.
September 10th, 2008 at 16:32 #152 - me said:
i am, but next week might be a little late to look forward
September 10th, 2008 at 16:34 #153 - R.G (The Nurburgring/Sato/BMW Fan) said:
Thats the point, at this rate, no one will even no there is a race going on
September 10th, 2008 at 16:35 #154 - Rich said:
I am not saying Lewis should not be trying – but I think the whole events stemmed from that entrance. It is unfair to blame Kimi for defending his position.
This might surprise people – but I do feel sorry for Lewis and Macca to lose the race victory. Still it remains a recoverable situation, the team should accept this as unfortunate luck and move forward. Sure I think they should pursue more clarity so more decisive ruling can be timeously made in future events.
May be even stranger but actually I would be pleased for Macca were they to get the constructors championship (but NOT through the courtrooms). Personally I consider them to be the best car/team in 2008. Ferrari have at time this year be near farcical with their mis-judgements. BMW Sauber is a very efficient team (seem to make few mistakes) although their qualifying always gets me biting my nails with the risks they take. However, in all honesty they were not the fastest cars and do not deserve to be constructor champions – yet it is “MY TEAM”. They need to produce a more competitive car for their drivers to be deserved winners.
If I get back to Lewis, should he be world champion this year, if he deserves it yes, but not by escaping penalties that would be given to other drivers. I think Felipe is also driving well, he is being intelligent (mostly) on the track, he gets the job done in qualifying and finally he has played in the past second fiddle to Michael S and then last year to Kimi. I think this year when the time is right, for his past support for other drivers to be reciprocated with their support for him. Theoretically, if Massa won Monza and Kimi had another DNF I think that time would have arrived for 2008 season.
September 10th, 2008 at 16:44 #155 - Jordan Allen said:
I think that Hamilton’s penality was deserved as it was based more on a positional, not speed advantage that Hamilton gained.
As Raikkonen sucessfully completed the Bus Stop Chiance, he had to brake from whatever his approach speed was to his exit
speed and he had no problem doing so on a damp track.
Since the tyres are not truly slick, some water on the track can be funnelled into the grooves of the tyre and displaced
into the air as vapour, sort of like bicycle tyres does the same sort of thing on a damp road.
The fact is that the traction should have been marginally better for Hamilton going into the Bus Stop than Raikkonen.
Hamilton should have been able to turn into the Bus Stop.
By simple geometry, everyone should know that the shortest distnace between two points is a straight line. AS the chicane was orginially a Bus Stop Island where passengers can board a bus, we can roughly work out the distance that Raikkonen travelled to be twice the length of a bus. Which I will give the varables Bus(A).(1st Side) and Bus(B). (2nd side).
Hamilton travelled the straight-line, or hypotenuse of these two sides. If you want to be more precise, Hamilton was less
than a 45 angle relative to the approach to the bus stop. We can use properly the cosine law or right-angled triangle
to work out how many meters less did Hamilton travel by straightlineing the Bus stop. Since the Bus are equal length:
Bus(A)^2 + Bus(B)^2 = Hamilton’s distance^2
Bus (A)^2 + Bus (A)^2
2 Bus (A)^2 = (Hamilton’s Distance)^2
Taking the root of both sides.
1.41 (Bus A) = Hamilton’s distance.
By straight-lining the Bus Stop, Hamilton gained more than a half-bus distance (0.59 Bus) on Raikkonen even if he were going at identical speeds. AS Hamiton was going faster than Raikkonen into the Bus Stop, The distance gained would have to be more than this case. Now the length of a bus is way more than an F1 car, it follows than we should be able to see a gap between Raikkonen and Hamiton to the effect of at least more than half a bus length between them to offset the distance gained by Hamilton. Where was it?
I am not convinced that a Hamilton win was set in stone as drivers have won brillant defensive wins in the past, (Gilles masterpeice at Jerez for example) but I grant that Spa is the worst track in the world to be attempting to try a defesnive driving victory. a la Alsono vs. Schumacher in Imola.
No I am not a Ferrari, fan. I do admit to a BMW bias and a perfect day for me would be a Beemer sweep and Two Meccas and Two Ferraris being towed to the garages.
September 10th, 2008 at 16:47 #156 - Rich said:
Possible the howls of protest should be aimed at Charlie Whiting – why should Alonso have given back his overtake of Klien at Monza three years back but Lewis does not in Belgium? We need to be fair to the Marshals – the Monza was a near identical situation so in that sense their ruling was consistent. But if Charlie ruled that Alonso had to give back the position then why did he not insist Hamilton do likewise this past weekend?
I want to hear Charlie Whiting publicly admit he cleared Lewis’ overtake and then to explain why it was different in the Alonso case which he instructed be re-done.
September 10th, 2008 at 16:51 #157 - Rich said:
That would put a smile on my face too as some other teams will be scoring!
September 10th, 2008 at 16:52 #158 - me said:
considering they’re racing with a $100m deficit (and frozen parts), there’s no doubt in my mind, at this point in the season macca deserve the constructors title.
September 10th, 2008 at 16:55 #159 - Rich said:
That definitely gives them even more credit for doing a fine job with the car this year. The reliability of the car has been spectacular!
September 10th, 2008 at 17:20 #160 - Steven Roy said:
Jordan,
Have you broken into ‘me’s’ supply of Red Bull?
The trigonometry is a unique approach to this topic and I congratulate you on your originality but the current chicane and the original Bus Stop have little if anything in common beyond occupying broadly similar parts of the Ardennes.
Had Lewis not taken avoiding action there would have been a collision and no amount of trigonometry is going to calculate the gap between them after they recovered.
To be pedantic Gilles’s defensive masterclass was Jarama not Jerez. He won that race because his Ferrari had a massive power advantage but a rotten chassis. No-one coud keep up with him on the straights and he drove a perfect defensive line all day and this before the Schumacher one blocking move was introduced. Gilles would have abhorred such a concept. He was the cleanest driver their has ever been despite being the hardest. I have used this race on many occasions as the perfect example of why pit stops should be banned. Had there been pit stops he would have been lucky to be tenth.
I don’t think even Gilles could have held off Hamilton in Kimi’s car because he had no grip and traction because of the Ferrari’s inability to heat its tyres. The one thing I can absolutely guarantee though is had Gilles been driving Kimi’s car we would not have been in the current mess because he would not have left the door wide open for Lewis to pass him at La Source. He kept four faster cars behind him for an entire grand prix distance in a dog of a car. Kimi didn’t manage one corner.
At least you have achieved one thing Jordan. You have me enthusing about the sport and a great driver albeit from nearly 30 years ago. How can it possibly be so long ago? At the time we thought Balestre was a disaster as FISA president. If only we had known.
September 10th, 2008 at 17:26 #161 - Steven Roy said:
Not to mention everyone else has seen the data Renault liberated from Woking and is running J-dampers which not only came from a stolen McLaren design but which McLaren had sole rights to the intellectual property of. It is to Ron Dennis’s great credit that despite everything going on he decided to waive those rights so that everyone could have access to the same technology. Although how Max can allow everyone to use stolen McLaren parts while banning McLaren from using anything they learned from Ferrari is beyond me.
September 10th, 2008 at 17:57 #162 - Mattw said:
McLaren had some very average races at the begining of the season. That, combined with Hekki’s up and down form has led to the position they are now in.
You have to ask what the point is of asking Charlie is if he is undermined by the stuards so much.
It was Charlie who OKed the McLaren independant steering, which was then banned by the stewards. Charlie Oked the Mass damper with was also banned by the stemards – and here again.
I have been trying to find a video of Monza 05 to see again the Alonso incident. Simular situation yes – but exactly the same?
September 10th, 2008 at 18:02 #163 - me said:
from ed gorman’s blog:
“I have established that, despite having appeared to convey to McLaren that Lewis had done nothing wrong, Whiting himself then played a key role in instigating the formal investigation of the incident by the stewards.”
“After every race it is normal procedure, apparently, for the stewards to enquire of the race director if there is anything that should be looked at. Whiting is thought to have said to them that, although he had been in touch with McLaren about the exchange between Lewis and Kimi on lap 42, the stewards may still want to have a look at it themselves.”
that doesn’t sound like undermining to me. more here:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/2008/09/a-little-diggin.html
September 10th, 2008 at 18:17 #164 - Mattw said:
Massa was not the first person to fall foul of this rule. As for Lewis, he was lucky to only get a 10 place grid drop. I did not see anyone creditable trying to defend Lewis’ behaviour that weekend.
September 10th, 2008 at 19:12 #165 - Rich said:
Here are a few sites on the Lewis’ Canadian GP Pitstop
Crash penalty is harsh – Hamilton
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7445657.stm
F1: Lewis Hamilton blasts “harsh” grid penalty
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/motorsport/f1news/2008/06/10/f1-lewis-hamilton-blasts-harsh-grid-penalty-89520-20601922/
Setanta Ireland’s David Kennedy reflects on events at the Canadian Grand Prix.
http://sport.setanta.com/en/Blogs/A-to-Z-of-Bloggers/David-Kennedy/2008/06/Hamilton-penalty-is-harsh/
In Hamilton’s own words
September 10th, 2008 at 19:21 #166 - me said:
3 links? how the heck did that comment not end up in the spam bin?
as for the links. the other british tabloids were predictably incensed too. still, we all gotta eat i guess.
September 10th, 2008 at 19:49 #167 - Michael said:
Anyone seen the official Formula1.com Edit of the GP? It’s one of the better ones – up there with Turkey. They do a good job of covering what happened during the GP and after it…
September 10th, 2008 at 20:37 #168 - Jordan Allen said:
Well, me Let them eat cake….
Apparently Rich, MMe/Mlle Sidepodcast People’s Representative of the Committee of Public Safety, Ali got her guillotine working. I can not otherwise explain the “Lost Heads” of the authors of those three links you have found.
And seeing that I have grown rather attached to my head, I will wait to find out what is the offical Jacobin party line from Ali before hazzarding my version of events….
September 10th, 2008 at 20:49 #169 - Jordan Allen said:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:20 pmSteven Roy said:
You can not prove anything Steve….
And Christine: Please check your Volka supply as well as well as the Red Bull supply. I suspect that both liquids are missing in equal quantities….
Call it a hunch “hic!”
Opposite Rudder Jordan, get out of the spin, come on, Opposite rudder….Wait I am not in an airplane….Bloody vertigo…
Then how about Hamilton using the brake pedal thingy?
September 10th, 2008 at 21:09 #170 - me said:
September 10th, 2008 at 21:12 #171 - Steven Roy said:
I’m sorry. That’s way too technical for me.
September 10th, 2008 at 21:22 #172 - me said:
September 10th, 2008 at 21:32 #173 - Jordan Allen said:
Hmmm, I think we have found Hamilton’s problem. Lack of understanding for that wonderful collision-avoidance system known as “Brakes!”
I hear they are especially effective at 90 degree bends in the road and pit stops provided of course the drivers applies pressure to the brake pedal to activate the braking system at the right time.
September 10th, 2008 at 22:30 #174 - Mattw said:
Of the 3 links listed, the first two are reporting on Lewis’ reaction, not making a judgement on the matter.
So that leaves you with one story arguing the Canada penaulity was unjust – and someone I have never heard of at that.
Well done. But unless my maths are out, its not quite ‘half the world’
September 10th, 2008 at 22:33 #175 - Bassano Clapper said:
Interesting article about Chief Steward Alan Donelly and his business links to certain people
http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-labour-and-formula-1s-chief-steward.html
September 10th, 2008 at 22:51 #176 - Rich said:
Please try and find an article discussing Massa’s Black Flagging – the point is it is using the media to get a judgement – its persuasive leading the masses that it was an unfair penalty.
Anyway we have Lewis himself who reckons the rules do not apply to him – in his words they are silly (like the red light) and this is why I say he is dumb arrogant!
September 10th, 2008 at 22:59 #177 - Rich said:
There I was thinking he used the car in front to retard forward propulsion! Glad to be corrected.
September 10th, 2008 at 23:03 #178 - me said:
mmm, yes. that article has a vaguely familiar ring to it
September 10th, 2008 at 23:07 #179 - Bassano Clapper said:
^ sorry if it’s a repost. Just found it searching for Donelly info
September 10th, 2008 at 23:13 #180 - me said:
we mighta covered it here back in january of this year:
http://www.sidepodcast.com/2008/01/25/fia-revise-f1-stewards-process/
the comments are notable on that post, as mr. roy highlights failings in the now discarded concept of neutral nationality stewards, and then goes on to suggest an alternate solution that would surely have avoided all of this controversy and then some.
September 10th, 2008 at 23:29 #181 - Bassano Clapper said:
Interesting read, tx for link
September 10th, 2008 at 23:30 #182 - Rich said:
The Hamilton Hymn
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
when you’re a Hamilton you are perfect in every way.
We can’t wait to look in the mirror
cause we gets better looking each day.
To know me is to love me
We must be a hell of a man.
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
but we are doing the best that we can.
We used to have Naomi Campbell as a girlfriend
but she just couldn’t compete
with all of the other love starved women
who were clamouring at my feet.
Well another gal we could prob’ly find
but we guess they’re all in awe of us so we don’t mind
that we are the most lonesome F1 jockey
cause we treasure our own privacy.
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
when you’re are a Hamilton you are perfect in every way,
we can’t wait to look in the mirror
cause we gets smarter dressing each day
To know me is to love me
we must be more than a Senna of a man.
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
but we are doing the best that we can.
I guess you could say I’m a Schumacher,
only better in each n’ every way.
I could have lots of F1 driver friends
but then I would have to beat n’ cheat them each race day.
Some folks say that we are egotistical.
Heck, we don’t even know what that means.
We guess it has something to do with the way
that every other drivers avoid challenging us each race day.
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
when you’re a Hamilton you are perfect in every way,
We can’t wait to look in the mirror
cause we get to be a better racer each day
To know me is to love me
So for each interview I raise the fee
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
but for sure we’re doing the best that we can!
September 10th, 2008 at 23:34 #183 - Steven Roy said:
My I have had a good day. First I get called a genius at F1 Insight now I get called Mr. Can’t help but feel I am being set up for something.
For anyone who reads the item ‘me’ linked there is one error in it by me not ‘me’ in regard to neutrality but in the end it doesn’t matter. The proposals said that the stewards could not be of the same nationality as any of the teams not drivers. However as Stuart said previously the FIA binned that requirement but didn’t bother to tell anyone.
September 10th, 2008 at 23:36 #184 - Bassano Clapper said:
Maybe Dr MacCabe is a Sidepodcast fan
September 10th, 2008 at 23:37 #185 - Bassano Clapper said:
Anyway, bring on Monza and we can shout at the telly for different reasons I say
September 10th, 2008 at 23:41 #186 - me said:
if he is, he coulda thrown us a link.
September 11th, 2008 at 00:38 #187 - Journeyer said:
Yep, Michael, we were talking about it upthread.
Getting all Robespierre on us are now, are we? If Rich is Robespierre, who’s Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette?
September 11th, 2008 at 01:11 #188 - Steven Roy said:
Oh good cake. Or did she really say let them eat brioche which isn’t cake but is still delicious.
September 11th, 2008 at 02:47 #189 - Jordan Allen said:
Ask Mme/Mlle Sidepodcast People’s Representative of the Committee of Public Safety, Alinora, from whom she gets her orders from, just do not ask her for a shave…
Ask her again who her prime targets are….
Would like top help, but my Tory head already got shelped in the previous (American) Revolution and my family’s been guarding frozen tundra outside of Montreal for Queen and country for the last 230 years…..
Request Replacement Now!.
If I can not be replaced and I still have to guard these few acres of snow I would like to purchase a commission to the rank of ensign please….. You can still do that in her Majesty’s Royal Army right?
September 11th, 2008 at 02:54 #190 - Jordan Allen said:
While I am at this rant for a better posting or promtion The Quatermaster who keeps sending out “Cameron” tartan kilts is going to receive a load of buckshot when I catch up with him…Wearing a kilt in a Canadian winter is bad enough but you can not even find the right “Black Watch” Tartan?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:03 #191 - Scott Woodwiss said:
http://www.autosport.com/journal/article.php/id/1741
very intriguing article by adam cooper that does raise some valid points.
September 11th, 2008 at 13:53 #192 - Steven Roy said:
If you were that cold you wouldn’t care about the pattern on you kilt. Isn’t it sad that the only thing anyone knows about the Black Watch is the colours of their kilt.
@Stuart
Surely you are not having a go at Ms Huffington.
September 11th, 2008 at 16:27 #193 - Jordan Allen said:
Steven:
I will still be freezeing regardless of the supply officer shipping the correct uniform once in a while. It is the damned Regimental Sargement-Major yelling at me about “Not being in proper uniform” and so having to paint dead grass green and rocks white before the winter and mucking out stables in the dead of winter as a punishment for the inproper uniform that gets me!
Pointing out that the RSM is in a “Cameron” kilt gets you 14 days in the stockade buy the way…. Something about not showing proper respect for a superior…
September 11th, 2008 at 22:07 #194 - Scott Woodwiss said:
Guys, I thought I’d better share this while I’m watching the coverage back again.
There were some things I noticed in the last couple of laps and afterwards that all of us might have missed amid the excitement.
1) This is on the subject of the Kimi-Lewis “chicane-gate” incident. There was a replay from a camera which looks to be placed just on the entrace to the pits. I watched it a couple of times, and I swear that Kimi and Lewis DO ACTUALLY TOUCH EACH OTHER. I saw Kimi’s head jolt for a second and at the time they were in the middle of the corner. Immediately after that, Lewis went over the run-off on the inside.
2) This has been pointed out already I’m sure, but when both cars went wide on the penultimate lap at Pouhon, Lewis went straight back on to the actual circuit while Kimi went all the way around on the runoff, which according to this penalty the tarmac runoffs are not part of the circuit. Regardless of his retirement, surely that’s punishable.
3) Lewis did not go as wide on the exit of Blanchimont than Kimi. Lewis only went over the kerb, while Kimi was much wider and over the runoff, which obviously led to his retirement.
4) On the podium, there was some booing. One wonders if that was directed at Lewis?
Interesting, no?
September 12th, 2008 at 00:15 #195 - Peter said:
Taken from F1-Live.com
Q: (Dan Knutson – National Speed Sport News) Could I ask the other four drivers what they thought about that incident and Kimi, and as a follow-up, do you think you and other drivers might be afraid to fight for a position now that you might get a penalty?
Fisi: I have just seen pictures, so it is difficult for me to say whether what happened was right or not. For sure, maybe, he took a small advantage, that’s why he had the possibility, as Felipe said, to overtake him again in braking for turn one. But obviously, a 25s penalty was quite a strong penalty. As for the second question: when we get in the car and we’re fighting to overtake a car, we don’t think about that. We just try to do our best. Obviously we know if we cut a chicane or we take an advantage we need to back off and give the position back.
Bordias: Yes, I think the rules are very clear. Maybe the penalty was a bit hard, but I think he’s made the same mistake twice: he’s done it in Magny-Cours and he’s done it again in Spa. I don’t really understand why there’s been such a mess around it. There’s a rule book and everybody has to obey the same thing. The penalty is really rough but in the end it’s up to you to give the position back or not. Pretty straightforward.
Rosberg: Yeah, I definitely agree, because he did get an advantage, because he wouldn’t have been that close behind Kimi had he not cut the chicane. But then again, I also think the penalty was a bit harsh as that did not have such a big effect on the actual race result in the end.
September 12th, 2008 at 01:18 #196 - me said:
just read this post by mike doodson and he appears to have a slightly different take on the same situation:
“Knowing that McLaren wanted to keep the device secret from everyone else, Ferrari cynically calculated (correctly, as it happened) that McLaren would prefer to let Ferrari make its own copy without permission rather than make a fuss.”
not exactly waiving the rights so that everybody could have access then?
September 12th, 2008 at 03:25 #197 - Jordan Allen said:
Are you saying that Hamilton smacked into the back of Kimi? I wonder if Hamilton damaged Kimi’s differential, which gave up the ghost at Pouhon. That 90 degree swing to the left was weird unless the left had side was getting no power into teh axle. As the Differenital trasnfer the power from teh engine to the axle, that would explain Kimister’s crash.
As to the idea that Hamilton is capaable enough of smashing into the back of his rivals, well, thant’s nothing new…..
September 12th, 2008 at 07:53 #198 - Scott Woodwiss said:
no, he didn’t hit the back of him. it was in the middle of the chicane when they were both alongside and kimi and lewis touched immediately before the latter cut the chicane which led to the said penalty.
If anyone has the race recorded or can download it/watch it back somehow, watch from 2 laps to go where they show kimi chasing lewis round rivage after les combes and they cut to a replay of the incident with the camera just on the edge of the pit entrance or something, and watch kimi’s head. you’ll see it jolt twice when lewis gets alongside before he takes to the runoff. it doesn’t look like they touch from the aerial shot, just very close. watch that close up replay, however, and thet tells a different story.