SPA..The amazing last 3 Laps!

larry1

The best finish in years. :D Managed to Capture and rip the last 3 laps and upload them here..enjoy:)
http://www.motorsportmad.com/view/5669/2008-belgium-grand-prixthe-incredible-last-3-laps

Firewalkwithme

larry1 wrote: »

The best finish in years. :D Managed to Capture and rip the last 3 laps and upload them here..enjoy:)
http://www.motorsportmad.com/view/5669/2008-belgium-grand-prixthe-incredible-last-3-laps

Unfortunately it's been ruined by what happened off track after the race.

Inquitus

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

Unfortunately it's been ruined by what happened off track after the race.

Aye, I am not a LH fan, but this stinks of the FIA trying to contrive results to keep the WDC alive....very poor show imo.

qBot

Inquitus wrote: »

Aye, I am not a LH fan, but this stinks of the FIA trying to contrive results to keep the WDC alive....very poor show imo.

Unbelievable, Mclaren should definitely appeal that decision.

Sabre0001

Inquitus wrote: »

Aye, I am not a LH fan, but this stinks of the FIA trying to contrive results to keep the WDC alive....very poor show imo.

Not too sure...WDC wasn't over with original results - 8 points, 4/5 races left. Now it's just a lot closer. Meh, we shall see!

Top Dog

qBot wrote: »

Unbelievable, Mclaren should definitely appeal that decision.

I believe they are. Though I suppose we'll know more in the coming days.

redspider

I think FIA are correct in sanctioning Hamilton those 25 seconds (equivalent to a 10-second stop-go penalty) because he clearly gained an advantage.

The problem with Hamilton's move is that he clearly cut the chicane, and although he allowed Raikonnen's car length to get back in front, by inches perhaps, Raikonnen's car was far from "settled" from the previous chicane-cut corner move which blocked his speed and caused him to lock up wheels. The 2nd overtaking move was far too close to the previous chicane (illegal) cut-through for it to be deemed totally independent especially due to Hamilton's positioning. It was a very short "straight" and the cars were nowhere near back to their previous-corner (chicane) gap.

I think FIA are correct in this instance and this line of thought is backed up by many of the (ex-)drivers' original thoughts, such as Mark Blundell, who thought it was a dodgy move post-race and reckoned it would be reviewed.

Most drivers are not surprised by the sanction. Lewis should have been instructed by his pit wall crew to wait a few bends before attacking again. And who knows what would have happened as the wet played havoc with the dry tyres grip.

Overall, in this case it was Hamilton's over-exhuberance which has cost him points and I think its a correct call.

Redspider

Xavi6

Can't believe I went to bed with 10 laps left

heyjude

I'm not a Hamilton fan and I don't buy into the anti-Hamilton/pro Ferrari conspiracy theories, but I think the 25 second penalty was very harsh, especially given that Raikkonen didn't finish the race. I know that some will say that maybe Raikkonen wouldn't have spun if he was still leading.....but it seems a bit odd.

As for the anti-Hamilton conspiracy junkies, well my answer to them is that Hamilton got some very favourable rulings from the stewards last year and luck swings both ways. Remember the grand prix where Hamilton obstructed Alonso in qualifying and Alonso did the same in the pitlane and Alonso was penalised, while Hamilton wasn't and the occasion where he was towed out of the gravel by race marshals and allowed to continue in the race. Over time, good and bad luck tend to even themselves out, this time maybe Hamilton lucked out.

Having said all that, McLaren must have a good chance of having this overturned.

v10

heyjude wrote: »

Having said all that, McLaren must have a good chance of having this overturned.

They might not even be allowed to appeal it

qBot

redspider wrote: »

I think FIA are correct in this instance and this line of thought is backed up by many of the (ex-)drivers' original thoughts, such as Mark Blundell, who thought it was a dodgy move post-race and reckoned it would be reviewed.

I don't know lad, there are a lot of ex-drivers very opposed to the stewards decisions last Sunday too. The last three laps were probably the most exciting piece of F1 in long time and they have now been completely disgarded with this ruling. It's pathetic in my opinion.

Manic Moran

I don't know, I'm in two minds on the ruling.

On the one hand, I certainly agree that he gained an advantage by cutting the corner. On the other hand, I really doubt there was any intent to do so, the man was racing. Some form of penalty should have been imposed, but I think it would have been better to go with a grid-spot penalty for Monza, unless the sporting regs don't leave any discretion to the type of penalty.

NTM

vectra

He got what he deserved.
He Broke the rules and that is that.
He will NOT get his points back by any means
Just to clarify a simple ruling so all you Hamilton Fanboys will understand why he got penalised in the first pleace. It was NOT just for cutting the chicane but for the follow up incident..::
READ IT AND WEAP

if a driver negotiates a corner illegally and gains a place, he should wait at least one more corner after giving back the position before launching another overtaking move

Mena

vectra wrote: »

He got what he deserved.
He Broke the rules and that is that.
He will NOT get his points back by any means
Just to clarify a simple ruling so all you Hamilton Fanboys will understand why he got penalised in the first pleace. It was NOT just for cutting the chicane but for the follow up incident..::
READ IT AND WEAP

He did wait till the next corner. Watch the video. Damn fan boys.

vectra

Mena wrote: »

He did wait till the next corner. Watch the video. Damn fan boys.

Are you on drugs or something??
maybe watching the wrong race?

Lewis Re-Passed kimi on the home straight BEFORE THE NEXT CORNER :rolleyes:

I think you need to go to specsavers :cool::P

G-Money

The Belgian Grand prix was great. Almost to the point where I wished I had recorded it so I could watch it again. Going off topic for a second, I love the track. It's on of those tracks that when you see the onboard footage you think to yourself "That looks great, I'd love to drive that circuit". The flowing corners, the speed, it's great.

I admit I found a certain satisfaction at seeing Raikonnen go into the wall on the 2nd last lap. But I agree with others that the race was ruined to a certain extent by what happened after it was over.

Initially I didn't think Hamilton gained an advantage as he backed off and let Raikonnen back into the lead. But then Massa said something that got my brain ticking. He said that Hamilton would never have been close enough to pass Raikonnen at La Source, had he taken the previous chicane correctly. Maybe that's true, maybe not. I'm not an F1 driver so I can't be sure.

But seeing what happened after that anyway (Hamilton went off to avoid Rosberg and Raikonnen passed him again, for the 2nd time, then spun, then went into the wall). It was hardly like Hamilton stole the race win from him by cutting the chicane. I think in that event, the penalty would have been appropriate. But I think in light of what happened, it seemed unfair.

I also liked the point that Ted Kravitz made to Raikonnen. He said "Don't you think it's unfair that Lewis got penalised for the move on you, yet it's Massa who benefited from it?"

Oblomov

ROFLMAO...

The stewards used appendix L of the International code, which makes no reference to advantage or otherwise, the section used was that all racing should be carried out on the track. The advantage given or taken is an unwritten rule and until the Italian GP the next corner overtaking rule didn't even exist. Imagine there is a long straight, you have the ideal opportunity to overtake a slower car, . . . and you've got to wait.

Surreal, nonsensical or just ludicrous

Given that KR left the track to stay level with LH... and the stewards did nothing.



Comments subsequently by one of the stewards after the GP would give the impression of a bias. Bearing in mind, notes to the effect that he should not be selected as a steward for future races were also made.

That completes the case for the defence,

Allen Donelly was appointed to oversee the stewards and ensure that a quick and equitable decision was made, but 2 hours aftert he GP.... 'Kin nonsense.

One of the stewards was the chairman for the commercial promotion company for the Spa circuit.

The joke was that Donnelly put on a grubby mack and walked around the circuit, " Psst, you busy, wanna be a steward, watch the race for free."

vectra

Oblomov wrote: »

ROFLMAO...

Given that KR left the track to stay level with LH... and the stewards did nothing.

Actually Kimi slid off the track and it was his only way of getting back on .. unless maybe you wanted him to stop and get out to push the car back on track?? :rolleyes:

Biro

Oblomov wrote: »

Given that KR left the track to stay level with LH... and the stewards did nothing.

Actually both of them ran wide at that point, LH rejoined the track first KR stayed wide till the gap in the kerb came up.
Also it's not considered a "short cut" if it's actually a longer distance!

EvilMonkey

Oblomov give it up will you, every current F1 driver that i have seen asked about the decision said it was right. Do they all have an agenda against Hamilton? Hamilton has learnt a harsh lesson and he will not make the same mistake again. The problem i have with it was that it took so long to make the decision and that Charlie Whiting told them they were ok when they asked obviously before he checked with the stewards.

Oblomov

OK Evil Monkey, what about the ones you didn't see asked..

If you have an alternative argument, given that the Appendix l of the International sporting code under which the steward saw fit to penalise hamilton states, all racing must be on the track, please feel free to voice it and not comment on what some reporter has stated on what he believes some drivers might have said..

The rule of advantage, if you would care to elucidate as to where this is written, I would be greatly obliged.

EvilMonkey

Oblomov wrote: »

OK Evil Monkey, what about the ones you didn't see asked..

If itv could have found one they would have shown it.

Oblomov wrote: »

If you have an alternative argument, given that the Appendix l of the International sporting code under which the steward saw fit to penalise hamilton states, all racing must be on the track, please feel free to voice it and not comment on what some reporter has stated on what he believes some drivers might have said..

What drivers said not reporters i never said anything about reporters.

Oblomov wrote: »

The rule of advantage, if you would care to elucidate as to where this is written, I would be greatly obliged.

Its not in the rules. The rules say if you cut a corner you get punished. This advantage thing is an un-written rule where drivers in more recent years leaned if they gave the place back sometimes they avoided the punishment. If the rules were strictly applied every driver that cut a corner would get a drive through penalty. The FIA have now clarified their position on this after spa link. This dose not apply in Hamiltons case this is to avoid similar incidents in future. In hamiltons case he clearly gained a major advantage despite giving the place back and this is why he was punished.

Oblomov

If itv could have found one they would have shown it.

Surely, you mean the ones the editor felt like including

The rules say if you cut a corner you get punished.

Here we go, Ohh No they don't. t
The feed back is that not having seen the real thing it was agreed the penalty was OTT by a large number of drivers.....

Appendix L has a greater emphasis on drug abuse than drivers' penalties.

In hamiltons case he clearly gained a major advantage despite giving the place back and this is why he was punished.

Not true, the only reason was because an objection was made, as no objection was made about KR misdemeanors, nothing was done. Exactly the same moves, exactly the same outcome and nothing, i.e. no objection.

Charles Whiting as race director had OKed the move but had to pass it over to the stewards upon receipt of the objection.

Level playing field you cannot have one rule etc etc.

Oblomov

The part to swot:

Appendix L of the Imternational Sporting code,

Chapter Vl: Code of driving conduct on circuits.

Paragraph 2, sections a to g

Section g: The track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race.

Dial it into google or yahoo

Oblomov

The part to swot:

Appendix L of the Imternational Sporting code,

Chapter lV: Code of driving conduct on circuits.

Paragraph 2, sections a to g

Section g: The track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race.

Dial it into google or yahoo

vectra

Oblomov wrote: »

The part to swot:

Appendix L of the Imternational Sporting code,

Chapter lV: Code of driving conduct on circuits.

Paragraph 2, sections a to g

Section g: The track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race.

Dial it into google or yahoo

Grow up
It is bad enough With Max messing up F1 without the likes of you trying to push rules in peoples faces.
Listen
When a vast amount of the British Public are getting fed up with Lewis this and lewis that.. along with his arrogance and big headedness..
Do you think people here really care if Hamilton gets slapped for acting the maggot on track?

EvilMonkey

Oblomov wrote: »

Surely, you mean the ones the editor felt like including


Here we go, Ohh No they don't. t
The feed back is that not having seen the real thing it was agreed the penalty was OTT by a large number of drivers.....

Appendix L has a greater emphasis on drug abuse than drivers' penalties.



Not true, the only reason was because an objection was made, as no objection was made about KR misdemeanors, nothing was done. Exactly the same moves, exactly the same outcome and nothing, i.e. no objection.

Charles Whiting as race director had OKed the move but had to pass it over to the stewards upon receipt of the objection.

Level playing field you cannot have one rule etc etc.

lol what are you on about?? Take off the blinkers will you. :rolleyes:
We will see what happens in the appeal. Im not posting any more on this.

Oblomov

What a pair of larks,

So, it's make up the rules as you go along and, even to the point, of informing drivers retrospectively of rule addition... it's not even a change.

You can mis-quote, adapt or change as much as you like but the bits you believe apply do not even exist.

That's the 'kin joke.

And, you just want to stick your head in ......... the sand and ignore the truth..

Any court relies on the best argument not the reality, not the factual evidence... and in this case, the undermining of the authority of the FIA appointed stewards, hardly likelu to happen given Spanky attitude to Ron Dennis.

Otherwise OJ would be in the slammer.