Belgium Grand Prix 2008 ***SPOILERS***

to be honest i'd quite like to see it overturned even if its only to have a fantastic finish sorted on the track rather than in the stewards office.

but i'm just struggling to see exaclty how mclaren plan to win this?

surely all the evidence they have was given to the stewards in the first place?

i cant see the FIA overturning anything unless they come up with some new evidience or new angle with which to fight their case with.

which would probably mean arguing the confusion caused by race control's response. For that to win, the FIA would effectivly have to admit that their own officals cocked it up, which i really cant see happening.

or maybe they try and go with that kimi ended up back in front half a lap later anyway when lewis went off?(though that really would smack a bit of desparation)

marcl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What happened with the other things though as
> people were saying alonso and nick also passed
> cars under yellow flags.

I can't see how Nick passed under yellows (unless there were other spins). He certainly didn't gain a position through passing under yellow (we saw all of his moves), so if for anything it must be a backmarker. Alonso too only overtook after the green flag on the final corner, so again, unless there were other instances we didn't see, then I can't see what those arguments are for.

Apparentlty DC was the back marker but am only going on what people are saying. They did not gain a place.

Tbh though I am gonna stop saying what people have said and just stick to what can be backed up as its getting stupid.

There is one thing they can do that would really upset a few people is declare the race early, give kimi the win. They seem to have had to many incidents on the final lap to cope with.

Call the race on the lap before lewis made that pass, I know it sounds stupid but it would almost be the best thing.

I half expected the race to be stopped.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

matt3454 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that illustrates why Hamilton had to go
> over the tarmac and not try and cut over the
> raised curbs.


he didn't even have to leave the track though, that's the point. he only had to brake and stay within the confines of the track and follow Kimi round.

---

RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael

thats all massa had to do at Hockeheim but racers dont seem to be able to be able to use the brakes




LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

Pat Symonds backs lewis as well.

[www.autosport.com]

He said what alot of us said Kimi broke to early for the 1st corner.

Have to say I share the same opinion as Symonds does on the thing.

Anyway, slightly changing the subject, the onboard video of the battle, is it just me or is Rosberg doing some really dangerous driving after he spun off. He seemed to be coming back onto the track at an almost 45degree angle to the track and was extremely lucky not to collect Kimi and Lewis. Amazed he wasn't investigated for it.

marcl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pat Symonds backs lewis as well.
>
> [www.autosport.com]
>
> He said what alot of us said Kimi broke to early
> for the 1st corner.


and who else?, almost every driver said that Hamilton did gain advantage

i think Trulli put it great. a bit extreme of an example but it pretty much sums it up, if you come full speed and cut the last corner at canada, even if you let the car behind pass right away as fast as 7kph, you would still be in a position better than you where if you hadn't cut that corner..

Mclaren had no other option than to appeal, that's right, but i for one, think it won't change anything

I don't see what Kimis braking point for either corner has to do with it. Hamilton gaining an advantage from the momentum carried from missing the corner is the issue.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

For all we know had he not cut the chicane Lewis could have been less that 7km/h slower over the line. Kimi squired exiting and Lewis could have taken advantage from that. It's impossible to say he gained an advantage.

Hamilton complied with the rules best he could. He knew over the line he had to have less momentum than Kimi and for Kimi to be in front. He complied by that.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

Covfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway, slightly changing the subject, the onboard
> video of the battle, is it just me or is Rosberg
> doing some really dangerous driving after he spun
> off. He seemed to be coming back onto the track at
> an almost 45degree angle to the track and was
> extremely lucky not to collect Kimi and Lewis.
> Amazed he wasn't investigated for it.


Not really. Rosberg was already recovering to the circuit before either Lewis or Kimi would have been in his view, I don't agree with the angle, since it was Fanges Chicane and he'd simply be driving to the line, and the slow speed can be explained away by the greasy track surface causing a lack of traction.

If you'd investigate him for any of that, then you'd definitely have to investigate both Kimi and Lewis because they would have a much better view of the hazard than Rosberg, and both could have done more to slow down.

Hamilton gained an 'unfair advantage' that's it. He cut the chicane and gained an unfair advantage.
He ceded the place but over took too soon he still had the momentum of his earlier trip across the chicane.
Mclaren says the data shows Hamilton 6 'clicks' slower over the start finish.
So what, Kimi was slower any way after the initial cutting the chicane by Hamilton broke his momentum.
The fact is, If Hamilton did not cut the chicane he would not have been able to gain enough speed on that short straight to take kimi and that's what the stewards will say and it will stick.

chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For all we know had he not cut the chicane Lewis
> could have been less that 7km/h slower over the
> line. Kimi squired exiting and Lewis could have
> taken advantage from that. It's impossible to say
> he gained an advantage.

Only if Kimi cocked up royally (and a lot more than he did). No way would Lewis would have been able to keep up in such circumstances. Plus, you can't start saying "well... Kimi might have crashed..." or something. Another way of looking at it is saying that Kimi might not have crashed had they come out of La Source differently.

- Fact. He cut the course when he didn't need to.
- Fact. He waited until Kimi had overtook him and immediately attacked him.
- Common sense: He wouldn't have been able to had he stayed within the confines of the race track, or attempted to.

So, was an advantage gained through cutting the course? How can anyone say it wasn't?


I think we all agree that 25 seconds is too harsh a penalty for such an infringement, but it's a damn sight better than just letting people do this and waving a finger.

If Hamilton wins this, where do we stop? The line has been wiped away. Is it suddenly acceptable to just miss out a chicane and cite something like "understeer in the slipstream" or 'accidentally' locking a wheel and launch an attack in the following corner through the space gained?

Hamilton wins. Can open. Worms everywhere.


chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hamilton complied with the rules best he could. He
> knew over the line he had to have less momentum
> than Kimi and for Kimi to be in front. He complied
> by that.

What's the S/F line got to do with anything Chet?



Anyone else impressed with the speed Piquet's inters could run early in the race? We all know the Bridgestone inters have a large operating window, but he was only around 3 seconds per lap slower than Kimi on the longest lap of the season, and wasn't gaining over the wet part of the lap. He was a second slower in qually 2. Odd decision, but I expected him to be losing positions all over the dry part of the lap.

Was Piquet on Inters? Because Allen said he was, but to me it just looked like hard dries to me, and the others on MSN.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was Piquet on Inters? Because Allen said he was,
> but to me it just looked like hard dries to me,
> and the others on MSN.


No, he was on the primes.

The fact that the Hamilton incident is being debated at all begs the question why the stewards felt justified to penalise him anyway. If it was a black and white, clear cut incident, then no problem. But it wasn't and therefore they should've left it alone.

piquet started on wets.

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was Piquet on Inters? Because Allen said he was,
> but to me it just looked like hard dries to me,
> and the others on MSN.

Ah, apparently you're right.

Looking at the race reports, he was on a 1-stopper. I just assumed he'd pitted when we returned from the ad break and he'd crashed out on the primes.

Note to self: never assume ITV are right.

The ferrari engine has been given the all clear.

And piquet was on dry tyres I just read the report.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2008 12:52PM by marcl.

Alonso referring to Lewis Hamilton this Wednesday:

"This year , if you make something bad, you pay."