First of all sorry if this is the wrong place to tell my opinion about the race.
I think FIA exaggerated a bit. Lewis allowed Kimi to regain his place back, so Kimi got in front and on interior but made a mistake by placing himself on the exterior for the first corner.
But while I admit Lewis tried to repair his mistake, he should have tried not to cut the chicane in the first place. Why so ? Because he still gained some advantage from cutting. If he hadn't cut it, he would have got a very slow exit and would not have been able to try a pass in the first corner. He was clearly faster and with a bit of patience he would have likely won the race.
Continuity of FIA penalties
-
syncmaster
- F1 Driver
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: 05 Apr 2008, 09:57
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
The incident with Massa was different so it's not very convenient to compare it to that of Lewis' just because Massa is a Ferrari driver.
As for the second question, I don't have have much to say except that the series are in different class in terms of coverage and the results of F1 are much more significant and thus the rules can be different too.
Hamilton's penalty affected the results afterwards because it happened at the last laps of the race. Thus they couldn't have imposed a penalty anymore before the race end. There used to be a loophole in the rules which allowed Schumacher once to finish the race in the pits and win when he was given the penalty too late during the race. So they probably avoid those kind of things nowadays.
As for who favors who... you know it's all about the fans and their opinions which highlights the press too. If you think that McLaren is the one that suffers the most here, then think for a while the last season where they were allowed to race with Ferrari's technical documents in possession. And it was prooved quite clearly and they even admitted it that they had discussed the documents, used the information during the 2007 season (for example race strategies) and used the technical information in their 2008 car. FIA said that should any of this emerge after the 100 million fine McLaren should be banned for 2 seasons. Merely apologies were enough, though. Of course the ban would have been very harsh beyond imagination, but it just shows how forgiving FIA was.
I don't want to heat up the argument about spy saga anymore, but I know that this is mostly about McLaren vs Ferrari and thus rise the questions about favoring. Of course when you make a decision, it favors the other subsequently. But anyone who has followed F1 for more than 2 years knows that Ferrari has got their share of wrath from FIA as well. Penalties are given almost every race to somebody and nobody really cares unless it involves the leading drivers.
just my 2 cents
As for the second question, I don't have have much to say except that the series are in different class in terms of coverage and the results of F1 are much more significant and thus the rules can be different too.
Hamilton's penalty affected the results afterwards because it happened at the last laps of the race. Thus they couldn't have imposed a penalty anymore before the race end. There used to be a loophole in the rules which allowed Schumacher once to finish the race in the pits and win when he was given the penalty too late during the race. So they probably avoid those kind of things nowadays.
As for who favors who... you know it's all about the fans and their opinions which highlights the press too. If you think that McLaren is the one that suffers the most here, then think for a while the last season where they were allowed to race with Ferrari's technical documents in possession. And it was prooved quite clearly and they even admitted it that they had discussed the documents, used the information during the 2007 season (for example race strategies) and used the technical information in their 2008 car. FIA said that should any of this emerge after the 100 million fine McLaren should be banned for 2 seasons. Merely apologies were enough, though. Of course the ban would have been very harsh beyond imagination, but it just shows how forgiving FIA was.
I don't want to heat up the argument about spy saga anymore, but I know that this is mostly about McLaren vs Ferrari and thus rise the questions about favoring. Of course when you make a decision, it favors the other subsequently. But anyone who has followed F1 for more than 2 years knows that Ferrari has got their share of wrath from FIA as well. Penalties are given almost every race to somebody and nobody really cares unless it involves the leading drivers.
just my 2 cents
-
TwistedArmco
- F1 Driver
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: 30 May 2008, 18:44
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
I'll add my views to this.
1. McLaren got away with a lot in 2007, remember.
2. Ferrari haven't historically always got away with things.
3. IMHO, Spa penalty must be said to be rather unfair.
Refer to my conclusion at the end if you don't want to be reading for 5 minutes.
1. Az is entirely right. One of McLaren's drivers would have been allowed to take the driver's championship, despite the fact that McLaren were in possession of Ferrari documents, which contributed to the car design, and comparative strategy of McLaren in the 2007 season. Therefore had an illegal car.
On top of that, Hamilton came out of the Hungary incident scot-free. In fact the FIA benefited him (maybe not Mclaren) by taking his side. He wasn't given a penalty for either kerb-hopping or double movement in Monza, one of which (double movement) I believe he should have got a penalty for. (He's a hard racer, too hard on occasion. Not that Alonso isn't of course, but that's not the point.) Finally, Hamilton wasn't given any penalty for his actions in Fuji, not just those which caused Mark Webber's crash, but also for his ridiculous slowing to a standstill, which left following cars at the end of SC periods no choice but to draw alongside and slightly ahead of him. Article 40.13 of the Sporting Code: "In order to avoid the likelihood of accidents before the safety car returns to the pits, from the point at which the lights on the car are turned out drivers must proceed at a pace which involves no erratic acceleration or braking nor any other manoeuvre which is likely to endanger other drivers or impede the restart."
Hamilton also used too many sets of wet tyres in Brazil. Luca Filippi was DQ'd in Sentul for using a set of his team-mates in practice by accident. There goes your GP2 rules/F1 rules argument, although I agree they should be consistent with each other.
2. In 2006, most Fernando fans were bawling at the FIA for Alonso's Hungary penalty, mass dampers and chicanes. Mass dampers, first, Renault used it best, but Ferrari also had rather an effective one, too remember? Of course, how mass dampers are an aerodynamic device, I don't know, but the FIA probably didn't deliberately ban it: how would they know that Renault relied on it so much? Secret meetings with Ferrari personnel? I hate conspiracy theories. The Hungary penalty was absolutely fair, and Schumi was given one straight after. The Monza one absolutely stupid, but that was Ferrari's argument, not the FIA's decision to investigate it, and apparently the FIA was given telemetry to prove it. As for cutting chicanes. Well, Schumi was given his just desserts by Heidfeld.
3. In terms of Spa. Yeah, Kimi deserved to win for his dry weather form, Hamilton deserved to win for his wet-weather mastery. In my view, Hamilton was on the borderline of right and wrong. I don't think that overtaking at the next corner is wrong in itself, if you're opportunistic and good on the brakes, but maybe Hamilton took it to the extreme. After all, he was never less than a car length behind Kimi. A little patience would have allowed him to steam past later in the lap. Kimi was on ice in that small-window Ferrari.
General Conclusion
The Ferrari bias is overhyped. Now (as in 2007/2008) it's much more often McLaren who do something suspicious or aggresive, on track or with the rules. There's also something in Lewis' persona which means he is maximum attack all the time, right on the edge. That is to be admired. But that means that right and wrong are boundaries that he is prepared to push, and answer questions later.
Overall, the bias thing is not to be believed. In this instance, though, although it was borderline, I believe the penalty was wrong. Maybe it was slightly unsporting, like overtaking under a yellow, but no danger was incurred, no real advantage was gained (although the argument that Kimi went off anyway is flawed). Lewis pushed the rules, just too much for the FIA's liking, which sets a bad precedent for the future. I can't say I'm not glad that Massa is back up there with Lewis, and you take championships and race wins however they come. But the whole race and it's conclusion leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, and the mouth of many others who are jingoistic. And I'm not, remember.
(If you don't believe that these are my original views, then see "Rate the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix", page 1, general comment. I've edited it lots of times, but the line "No penalty would probably be fair" was in the original post.)
Essay over.
1. McLaren got away with a lot in 2007, remember.
2. Ferrari haven't historically always got away with things.
3. IMHO, Spa penalty must be said to be rather unfair.
Refer to my conclusion at the end if you don't want to be reading for 5 minutes.
1. Az is entirely right. One of McLaren's drivers would have been allowed to take the driver's championship, despite the fact that McLaren were in possession of Ferrari documents, which contributed to the car design, and comparative strategy of McLaren in the 2007 season. Therefore had an illegal car.
On top of that, Hamilton came out of the Hungary incident scot-free. In fact the FIA benefited him (maybe not Mclaren) by taking his side. He wasn't given a penalty for either kerb-hopping or double movement in Monza, one of which (double movement) I believe he should have got a penalty for. (He's a hard racer, too hard on occasion. Not that Alonso isn't of course, but that's not the point.) Finally, Hamilton wasn't given any penalty for his actions in Fuji, not just those which caused Mark Webber's crash, but also for his ridiculous slowing to a standstill, which left following cars at the end of SC periods no choice but to draw alongside and slightly ahead of him. Article 40.13 of the Sporting Code: "In order to avoid the likelihood of accidents before the safety car returns to the pits, from the point at which the lights on the car are turned out drivers must proceed at a pace which involves no erratic acceleration or braking nor any other manoeuvre which is likely to endanger other drivers or impede the restart."
Hamilton also used too many sets of wet tyres in Brazil. Luca Filippi was DQ'd in Sentul for using a set of his team-mates in practice by accident. There goes your GP2 rules/F1 rules argument, although I agree they should be consistent with each other.
2. In 2006, most Fernando fans were bawling at the FIA for Alonso's Hungary penalty, mass dampers and chicanes. Mass dampers, first, Renault used it best, but Ferrari also had rather an effective one, too remember? Of course, how mass dampers are an aerodynamic device, I don't know, but the FIA probably didn't deliberately ban it: how would they know that Renault relied on it so much? Secret meetings with Ferrari personnel? I hate conspiracy theories. The Hungary penalty was absolutely fair, and Schumi was given one straight after. The Monza one absolutely stupid, but that was Ferrari's argument, not the FIA's decision to investigate it, and apparently the FIA was given telemetry to prove it. As for cutting chicanes. Well, Schumi was given his just desserts by Heidfeld.
3. In terms of Spa. Yeah, Kimi deserved to win for his dry weather form, Hamilton deserved to win for his wet-weather mastery. In my view, Hamilton was on the borderline of right and wrong. I don't think that overtaking at the next corner is wrong in itself, if you're opportunistic and good on the brakes, but maybe Hamilton took it to the extreme. After all, he was never less than a car length behind Kimi. A little patience would have allowed him to steam past later in the lap. Kimi was on ice in that small-window Ferrari.
General Conclusion
The Ferrari bias is overhyped. Now (as in 2007/2008) it's much more often McLaren who do something suspicious or aggresive, on track or with the rules. There's also something in Lewis' persona which means he is maximum attack all the time, right on the edge. That is to be admired. But that means that right and wrong are boundaries that he is prepared to push, and answer questions later.
Overall, the bias thing is not to be believed. In this instance, though, although it was borderline, I believe the penalty was wrong. Maybe it was slightly unsporting, like overtaking under a yellow, but no danger was incurred, no real advantage was gained (although the argument that Kimi went off anyway is flawed). Lewis pushed the rules, just too much for the FIA's liking, which sets a bad precedent for the future. I can't say I'm not glad that Massa is back up there with Lewis, and you take championships and race wins however they come. But the whole race and it's conclusion leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, and the mouth of many others who are jingoistic. And I'm not, remember.
(If you don't believe that these are my original views, then see "Rate the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix", page 1, general comment. I've edited it lots of times, but the line "No penalty would probably be fair" was in the original post.)
Essay over.
No, I'm not calmer. Just more jaded.
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
Perfect summary Armco, I think it´s a conclusion both fanbases can live with. Very neutral and spot on. Nothing to add. Thanks great job.
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
Agree. There's however one or two things you've got wrong regarding the mass damper story - FIA didn't deliberately or undeliberately ban it , they went against their own stewards' conclusion that it was legal, IE it was a case race stewards vs FIA - you go figure why...TwistedArmco wrote:I'll add my views to this.
1. McLaren got away with a lot in 2007, remember.
2. Ferrari haven't historically always got away with things.
3. IMHO, Spa penalty must be said to be rather unfair.
Refer to my conclusion at the end if you don't want to be reading for 5 minutes.
1. Az is entirely right. One of McLaren's drivers would have been allowed to take the driver's championship, despite the fact that McLaren were in possession of Ferrari documents, which contributed to the car design, and comparative strategy of McLaren in the 2007 season. Therefore had an illegal car.
On top of that, Hamilton came out of the Hungary incident scot-free. In fact the FIA benefited him (maybe not Mclaren) by taking his side. He wasn't given a penalty for either kerb-hopping or double movement in Monza, one of which (double movement) I believe he should have got a penalty for. (He's a hard racer, too hard on occasion. Not that Alonso isn't of course, but that's not the point.) Finally, Hamilton wasn't given any penalty for his actions in Fuji, not just those which caused Mark Webber's crash, but also for his ridiculous slowing to a standstill, which left following cars at the end of SC periods no choice but to draw alongside and slightly ahead of him. Article 40.13 of the Sporting Code: "In order to avoid the likelihood of accidents before the safety car returns to the pits, from the point at which the lights on the car are turned out drivers must proceed at a pace which involves no erratic acceleration or braking nor any other manoeuvre which is likely to endanger other drivers or impede the restart."
Hamilton also used too many sets of wet tyres in Brazil. Luca Filippi was DQ'd in Sentul for using a set of his team-mates in practice by accident. There goes your GP2 rules/F1 rules argument, although I agree they should be consistent with each other.
2. In 2006, most Fernando fans were bawling at the FIA for Alonso's Hungary penalty, mass dampers and chicanes. Mass dampers, first, Renault used it best, but Ferrari also had rather an effective one, too remember? Of course, how mass dampers are an aerodynamic device, I don't know, but the FIA probably didn't deliberately ban it: how would they know that Renault relied on it so much? Secret meetings with Ferrari personnel? I hate conspiracy theories. The Hungary penalty was absolutely fair, and Schumi was given one straight after. The Monza one absolutely stupid, but that was Ferrari's argument, not the FIA's decision to investigate it, and apparently the FIA was given telemetry to prove it. As for cutting chicanes. Well, Schumi was given his just desserts by Heidfeld.
3. In terms of Spa. Yeah, Kimi deserved to win for his dry weather form, Hamilton deserved to win for his wet-weather mastery. In my view, Hamilton was on the borderline of right and wrong. I don't think that overtaking at the next corner is wrong in itself, if you're opportunistic and good on the brakes, but maybe Hamilton took it to the extreme. After all, he was never less than a car length behind Kimi. A little patience would have allowed him to steam past later in the lap. Kimi was on ice in that small-window Ferrari.
General Conclusion
The Ferrari bias is overhyped. Now (as in 2007/2008) it's much more often McLaren who do something suspicious or aggresive, on track or with the rules. There's also something in Lewis' persona which means he is maximum attack all the time, right on the edge. That is to be admired. But that means that right and wrong are boundaries that he is prepared to push, and answer questions later.
Overall, the bias thing is not to be believed. In this instance, though, although it was borderline, I believe the penalty was wrong. Maybe it was slightly unsporting, like overtaking under a yellow, but no danger was incurred, no real advantage was gained (although the argument that Kimi went off anyway is flawed). Lewis pushed the rules, just too much for the FIA's liking, which sets a bad precedent for the future. I can't say I'm not glad that Massa is back up there with Lewis, and you take championships and race wins however they come. But the whole race and it's conclusion leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, and the mouth of many others who are jingoistic. And I'm not, remember.
(If you don't believe that these are my original views, then see "Rate the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix", page 1, general comment. I've edited it lots of times, but the line "No penalty would probably be fair" was in the original post.)
Essay over.
However, this is not the time or place for that, your summary is brilliant!
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
To who think that the penalty to hamilton is wrong...Please go to SEE back in SUZUKA 2005 ALONSO - KLIEN...Please see all the sequence of 5 lap...you will see same stuff between lewis and kimi yesterday.... with Alonso even after few laps has to give position back to klien...alonso gave position to klien twice
-
TwistedArmco
- F1 Driver
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: 30 May 2008, 18:44
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
I don't know why, but damned if that means I'm gonna be stupid enough to assume it's a conspiracy theory, or that the world/universe/FIA is against Fernando Alonso, and nor do I assume the same about the FIA and McLaren, the team who nicked a sodding 700 odd page dossier of Ferrari designs and strategy notes!!! "Oh wasn't it unfair that McLaren were fined lots of money for something which was not only illegal in the sport, but in international law??". Yes the FIA must be very biased against everyone who I support.Suntrek wrote: Agree. There's however one or two things you've got wrong regarding the mass damper story - FIA didn't deliberately or undeliberately ban it , they went against their own stewards' conclusion that it was legal, IE it was a case race stewards vs FIA - you go figure why...
For that is what all motorsport fans would love to think. That their guy won despite the tables being turned on him so much. Even in the details. Ferrari fans would assure you that the Ferrari of 2006 was slower all the way through than the Renaults, the Renault fans vice-versa. The truth is gauranteed to be somewhere in between the two extremes.
Conspiracy theories IMHO (very important four letters there) are complete rubbish. No one in sport is completely against any driver or team. Yes, some inadequate things happen, but we're human!! Not robotic - maybe we should robots to do the Stewards' jobs. If anyone crosses a white line, the robots sense it and DT them.. If anyone comes out of his pitstop less than five metres in front of another competitor - automatic DT. Life, and sport, don't work in black-and-white.
As you can tell, I feel strongly about this, and I'm not gonna get hypocritical just because it's Fernando on the one hand, and Hamilton on the other hand. No conspiracy theories ever occur, misguided men in suits, make some wrong decisions, while others do the same or not at a different circuit. It's not as if SPECTRE is behind this. It's just that different people think different things. It's all about luck and bad luck.
No, I'm not calmer. Just more jaded.
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
Right, and that's probably the precendent the stewards used. I don't think A penalty for Hamilton is wrong in the name of consequence, but I think THAT penalty was wrong.teahouse wrote:To who think that the penalty to hamilton is wrong...Please go to SEE back in SUZUKA 2005 ALONSO - KLIEN...Please see all the sequence of 5 lap...you will see same stuff between lewis and kimi yesterday.... with Alonso even after few laps has to give position back to klien...alonso gave position to klien twice
I do want that the one who crosses the line first is the actual winner, to have to wait for stewards' decisions and in worst case wait months for FIA's decisions is not good for the sport. In cases like these when no penalty can be applied in the actual race it's much better to hand out a grid drop in the next race, IMO. And that goes for Glock too, who got the same penalty as Hamilton, albeit for ignoring yellows. Funny no one is outraged by that decision, BTW - Sutil did the same in Monaco but recieved no penalty.
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
point is: why do people fans believe that FIA is against Hamilton...last year just made evident exactly the opposite, in many occasion Lewis was over the edge and the penalty never arrive. Not even when he was put back on track by a tractor...
First penalty that lewis got was this year at the Baharein GP. When clearly the 2 Mclaren for saving petrol where in the middle of the track doing 20 mph, (schumi ferrari and so many others have been penalized for same stuff) so i don't think it was anti- Lewis...
Second penalty he is got was after the crash in Canada...Now to have the penalty there he has crashed virtually against 2 other car (because also Kubica was dodged for mm) at the exit of pit lane with red light and under safety car....Penalty was 10 place only ..,ruin other people cost him 10 place on next race only....This is to compare with what people have said about Massa in Valencia...(where there was no safety car...no red light at the exit of the pit...no gainging from a real competitors....but just a lapped Force india...and if penalty should have been issue eventually should have gone to the team for early release)......Then we have yesterday......well rules are rules and they say that you cannot cut a chigane and gain an advantage position not only in terms of time, but also in terms of position on track, speed, and relationship with your competitors. I believe that Lewis yesterday gain advantage in TRACK POSITION, RELATIONSHIP TO YOUR COMPETITOR (they were side to side) and TIME (if he would have done the chigane at the speed he would have lost 1 sec sure).....
SO PENALTY IS FAIR AND SQUARE.....
Reality is the when he is in fight mode he disconnect himself and thinks that he can do what he does want........
THE correctness of Kimi and Ferrari in fact is all here.........what if kimi under pressure would have done an accident with lewis going both retired (and it could have happen at least 3 time in that lap)......and Massa would have won.......
EVERYBODY HERE would have said.....hey Ferrari is playing the hard game with kimi because MASSA can gain and win (he would have been in front of lewis by 4 points).
as said PENALTY is FAIR.....there is no conspiracy
First penalty that lewis got was this year at the Baharein GP. When clearly the 2 Mclaren for saving petrol where in the middle of the track doing 20 mph, (schumi ferrari and so many others have been penalized for same stuff) so i don't think it was anti- Lewis...
Second penalty he is got was after the crash in Canada...Now to have the penalty there he has crashed virtually against 2 other car (because also Kubica was dodged for mm) at the exit of pit lane with red light and under safety car....Penalty was 10 place only ..,ruin other people cost him 10 place on next race only....This is to compare with what people have said about Massa in Valencia...(where there was no safety car...no red light at the exit of the pit...no gainging from a real competitors....but just a lapped Force india...and if penalty should have been issue eventually should have gone to the team for early release)......Then we have yesterday......well rules are rules and they say that you cannot cut a chigane and gain an advantage position not only in terms of time, but also in terms of position on track, speed, and relationship with your competitors. I believe that Lewis yesterday gain advantage in TRACK POSITION, RELATIONSHIP TO YOUR COMPETITOR (they were side to side) and TIME (if he would have done the chigane at the speed he would have lost 1 sec sure).....
SO PENALTY IS FAIR AND SQUARE.....
Reality is the when he is in fight mode he disconnect himself and thinks that he can do what he does want........
THE correctness of Kimi and Ferrari in fact is all here.........what if kimi under pressure would have done an accident with lewis going both retired (and it could have happen at least 3 time in that lap)......and Massa would have won.......
EVERYBODY HERE would have said.....hey Ferrari is playing the hard game with kimi because MASSA can gain and win (he would have been in front of lewis by 4 points).
as said PENALTY is FAIR.....there is no conspiracy
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
You very well know that FIA largely consists of a bunch of elderly "gentlemen" (gubbjävlar in Swedish - no, I wont translate thatTwistedArmco wrote:I don't know why, but damned if that means I'm gonna be stupid enough to assume it's a conspiracy theory, or that the world/universe/FIA is against Fernando Alonso, and nor do I assume the same about the FIA and McLaren, the team who nicked a sodding 700 odd dossier of Ferrari designs and strategy notes!!!Suntrek wrote: Agree. There's however one or two things you've got wrong regarding the mass damper story - FIA didn't deliberately or undeliberately ban it , they went against their own stewards' conclusion that it was legal, IE it was a case race stewards vs FIA - you go figure why...
That is what all motorsport fans would love to think. That their guy won despite the tables being turned on him so much. Even in the details. Ferrari fans would assure you that the Ferrari of 2006 was slower all the way through than the Renaults, the Renault fans vice-versa. The truth is gauranteed to be somewhere in between the two extremes.
Conspiracy theories IMHO (very important four letters there) are complete rubbish. No one in sport is completely against any driver or team. Yes, some inadequate things happen, but we're human!! Not robotic - maybe we should robots to do the Stewards' jobs. If anyone crosses a white line, the robots sense it and DT them.. If anyone comes out of his pitstop less than five metres in front of another competitor - automatic DT. Life, and sport, don't work in black-and-white.
As you can tell, I feel strongly about this, and I'm not gonna get hypocritical just because it's Fernando on the one hand, and Hamilton on the other hand.
) who are SO best buddies and you scratch my back and I scratch yours and soforth. Do you think they are members of FIA because of some altruistic love of motorsport or because it means power, importance for themselves and luxury hotels? About the mass damper it was allegedly dear Ron who blew the whistle because Macca couldn't get the mass damper to work and they realized they'd miss the train if they didn't do something about it. I'm not saying that is true because I don't know. But somebody did blow the whistle, because the aerodynamical inflence of the mass damper was negligent (and could be a hindrance as well) and the FIA has no means of measuring negligent aerodynamical influences on F1 cars. F1 teams have, however.
But that is not a conspiracy theory as such, IMO. It's just the way things work in F1. You try to get an advantage over the others by any means possible. And since Ferrari/McLaren (and Renault of 2005-2006) most often are involved in the top fight it's no surprise they are also involved in most FIA cases. Like it or not.
And as I see it it's not Fernando on one hand and Hamilton on the other in this very case - on the contrary they are on the same side for once.
Alonso was penalised for doing exactly what Hamilton did and I thought that was wrong. So it's wrong in Hamilton's case too. But the precedent is set. Alonso was still on track though and had somewhat of a chance to recover. Hamilton was not, and thats why I think his very penalty is wrong, a grid drop in the next race or whatever had been more just.
Last edited by Suntrek on 08 Sep 2008, 16:07, edited 1 time in total.
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
Charlie Whiting told Ron Dennis that what Lewis did was Okay. Thererfore any penalty seems rather ludicrous, but nothing further will happen now. its time for monza.
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
whatever those decisions/penalties, whether they are fair or not - or even biased for one team or whatsoever, let's just let them be. let's just move on. anyway an appeal by mclaren is forthcoming, so let's just wait and see - and whatever the outcome would be, let's just accept it. if the fans see that they make these kinds of c**p then we could simply shy away from the races.
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
the appeal won't change anything FIA do not backward...........never done when was needed...
-
JoostLamers
- F1 Champion
- Posts: 11852
- Joined: 25 May 2007, 21:38
- Location: Tilburg
- Contact:
Re: Continuity of FIA penalties
It is really ridiculous that they didn't punish Massa, because some one in GP2 did exactly the same, and got a drive through for it!! It really is unfair, the way it is going at this moment 
<<<The flag Lew1s waved at
