Belgian Gran Prix! HOLY CRAP!
09-08-2008, 08:36 AM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: AL,IL, GA, CA
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS, SLK, ETC
Even though, LH let Kimmi pass him, you have to admit that LH covered A LOT of ground...He mst closed .900 gap... So, Kimi is the victim..
FIA made the right call IMO
FIA made the right call IMO
09-08-2008, 12:44 PM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
He closed in that whole 5 second gap so saying that he only gained the last .9 by being to aggressive is a bit of a stretch. Plus he had to cover that ground to get to the point of passing and he was 100% under control the whole time and never risked a incident. Kimi forced the issue and closed the door with a car halfway up his side pod.
Even Kimi and his team felt the race was fair. I honestly think this could very well be one of 2 things. I bet this is just BE trying to get viewers around hte world since everyone seems to like to see the RED car win. After last year its clear the FIA is not a far sanctioning body at all. Its very biased. I just hope this is not more racism like we saw in Spain. That would be a crushing blow for the sport. Hamilton is an amazing driver who deserves an equal shot. He is winning in a series slanted towards his competitor. That shows some skill IMHO.
09-08-2008, 04:07 PM
#29
Pictures don't lie...
1) The Approach to the chicane. KR clearly in front, and on his side of track aimed at the apex. He is not forcing LH wide at all.
2) Right Apex... KR clearly ahead. KR is on the apex and LH is attempting an outside pass (He has almost the whole track to his left). If the lead car were LH, would you insist that LH yield the apex to KR? Of course not!
3) Left Apex... KR clearly FURTHER ahead of LH's car -- LH not even in Kimi's view. KR is clearly aimed at the apex, which is his for the taking. Again, if the lead car were LH, would you insist that LH yield the apex to KR? Get real people.
4) Start/Finish Line... LH has still not dropped back far enough to yield the position he gained in the chicane.
5) At the 200Meter brake board line into La Source (actual line on track overpainted for clarity, see S/F line in background). Only now has LH dropped sufficiently behind, and has begun his move behind KR.
The reason why shortcutting must be given back immediately is to clear the matter before subsequent events occur, such as creating an accident if the position is not given back right away. LH did NOT yield his position immediately as required, but carried on down the straight and into the beginning of the next corner. Lots of bad things could have happened because the yield was not offered right away.
Instead, rather than yielding much earlier, he decided against it, not for malicious reasons, but rather because of the heat of the moment. As others have observed, he could have laid back more to be sure he satisfied his obligation under the rules, knowing that he would have several more opportunities to pass in the next two laps.
If the Stewards are not allowed to interpret the rules, then there is no need for any rules. The officials at Spa have been doing this since 1950. Spa is one of the original 4 tracks raced in the modern era. So the officials at Spa are among the most experienced in F1.
I'm all in favor of deciding things on the track among racers, which is why I said initially that I hate these incidents mucking-up the end to a race. But when the boundaries of rules are stretched, the stewards must make gutsy calls that are not popular with everyone.
I frankly couldn't care less which driver wins out on this. The rules are the rules that level the field for all. Sometimes the rules go your way, sometimes they don't.
I will wait for the final ruling as patiently as the rest of you. But I will not be at all surprised if the ruling is upheld.
1) The Approach to the chicane. KR clearly in front, and on his side of track aimed at the apex. He is not forcing LH wide at all.
2) Right Apex... KR clearly ahead. KR is on the apex and LH is attempting an outside pass (He has almost the whole track to his left). If the lead car were LH, would you insist that LH yield the apex to KR? Of course not!
3) Left Apex... KR clearly FURTHER ahead of LH's car -- LH not even in Kimi's view. KR is clearly aimed at the apex, which is his for the taking. Again, if the lead car were LH, would you insist that LH yield the apex to KR? Get real people.
4) Start/Finish Line... LH has still not dropped back far enough to yield the position he gained in the chicane.
5) At the 200Meter brake board line into La Source (actual line on track overpainted for clarity, see S/F line in background). Only now has LH dropped sufficiently behind, and has begun his move behind KR.
The reason why shortcutting must be given back immediately is to clear the matter before subsequent events occur, such as creating an accident if the position is not given back right away. LH did NOT yield his position immediately as required, but carried on down the straight and into the beginning of the next corner. Lots of bad things could have happened because the yield was not offered right away.
Instead, rather than yielding much earlier, he decided against it, not for malicious reasons, but rather because of the heat of the moment. As others have observed, he could have laid back more to be sure he satisfied his obligation under the rules, knowing that he would have several more opportunities to pass in the next two laps.
If the Stewards are not allowed to interpret the rules, then there is no need for any rules. The officials at Spa have been doing this since 1950. Spa is one of the original 4 tracks raced in the modern era. So the officials at Spa are among the most experienced in F1.
I'm all in favor of deciding things on the track among racers, which is why I said initially that I hate these incidents mucking-up the end to a race. But when the boundaries of rules are stretched, the stewards must make gutsy calls that are not popular with everyone.
I frankly couldn't care less which driver wins out on this. The rules are the rules that level the field for all. Sometimes the rules go your way, sometimes they don't.
I will wait for the final ruling as patiently as the rest of you. But I will not be at all surprised if the ruling is upheld.
09-08-2008, 05:05 PM
#30
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 ML500, 06 Subaru STI, 03 Yamaha R6
Bob,
you are right pictures dont lie, at the start finish line he is technically behind Kimi, by your own logic when reffering the the apex positions. and that line is what 100-150 metres from the corner at 160 or so KPH?
You are a better driver than all if immediately means more effectively than that?
you are right pictures dont lie, at the start finish line he is technically behind Kimi, by your own logic when reffering the the apex positions. and that line is what 100-150 metres from the corner at 160 or so KPH?
You are a better driver than all if immediately means more effectively than that?
09-08-2008, 05:59 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nyc
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOLD 04 E55 Now 93 w124 3.2 sold W210 E55 sold waiting on W211 E63 p030
Imagine if Lewis did not let Kimi pass... He would have been so far ahead, then the stewards would have had a reason to penalize Hamilton. Thank FIA(FERRARI INTENTIONAL ASSITANCE)
Last edited by EdoubleNickel; 09-08-2008 at 06:19 PM.
09-08-2008, 06:12 PM
#32
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'04 E55; '03 E500 Sport
Even Lauda now sees the FIA bias...
From http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=43875
--------------
The Austrian legend said that Hamilton's penalty made him start to believe suggestions that the authorities favoured Ferrari.
"In the past, there have always been rumours and stories - and I've always been completely against them because they've never been proven - that Ferrari, because of its past and history, was always against McLaren with the stewards and the FIA, who if there was a decision, were in favour of Ferrari," said Lauda.
"I've always said this is bulls**t, that this is a sport and you have to be neutral, but the decision yesterday makes me believe that everyone is watching Ferrari in a positive way and McLaren in a very negative way.
--------------
Consider the above statement knowing that Niki drove for both Ferrari and McLaren, but has said that his heart was with Ferrari...
McLaren has appealed, so the book isn't closed yet on Spa '08.
--------------
The Austrian legend said that Hamilton's penalty made him start to believe suggestions that the authorities favoured Ferrari.
"In the past, there have always been rumours and stories - and I've always been completely against them because they've never been proven - that Ferrari, because of its past and history, was always against McLaren with the stewards and the FIA, who if there was a decision, were in favour of Ferrari," said Lauda.
"I've always said this is bulls**t, that this is a sport and you have to be neutral, but the decision yesterday makes me believe that everyone is watching Ferrari in a positive way and McLaren in a very negative way.
--------------
Consider the above statement knowing that Niki drove for both Ferrari and McLaren, but has said that his heart was with Ferrari...
McLaren has appealed, so the book isn't closed yet on Spa '08.
09-08-2008, 06:16 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nyc
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOLD 04 E55 Now 93 w124 3.2 sold W210 E55 sold waiting on W211 E63 p030
Pictures don't lie...
1) The Approach to the chicane. KR clearly in front, and on his side of track aimed at the apex. He is not forcing LH wide at all.
2) Right Apex... KR clearly ahead. KR is on the apex and LH is attempting an outside pass (He has almost the whole track to his left). If the lead car were LH, would you insist that LH yield the apex to KR? Of course not!
3) Left Apex... KR clearly FURTHER ahead of LH's car -- LH not even in Kimi's view. KR is clearly aimed at the apex, which is his for the taking. Again, if the lead car were LH, would you insist that LH yield the apex to KR? Get real people.
4) Start/Finish Line... LH has still not dropped back far enough to yield the position he gained in the chicane.
5) At the 200Meter brake board line into La Source (actual line on track overpainted for clarity, see S/F line in background). Only now has LH dropped sufficiently behind, and has begun his move behind KR.
The reason why shortcutting must be given back immediately is to clear the matter before subsequent events occur, such as creating an accident if the position is not given back right away. LH did NOT yield his position immediately as required, but carried on down the straight and into the beginning of the next corner. Lots of bad things could have happened because the yield was not offered right away.
Instead, rather than yielding much earlier, he decided against it, not for malicious reasons, but rather because of the heat of the moment. As others have observed, he could have laid back more to be sure he satisfied his obligation under the rules, knowing that he would have several more opportunities to pass in the next two laps.
If the Stewards are not allowed to interpret the rules, then there is no need for any rules. The officials at Spa have been doing this since 1950. Spa is one of the original 4 tracks raced in the modern era. So the officials at Spa are among the most experienced in F1.
I'm all in favor of deciding things on the track among racers, which is why I said initially that I hate these incidents mucking-up the end to a race. But when the boundaries of rules are stretched, the stewards must make gutsy calls that are not popular with everyone.
I frankly couldn't care less which driver wins out on this. The rules are the rules that level the field for all. Sometimes the rules go your way, sometimes they don't.
I will wait for the final ruling as patiently as the rest of you. But I will not be at all surprised if the ruling is upheld.
1) The Approach to the chicane. KR clearly in front, and on his side of track aimed at the apex. He is not forcing LH wide at all.
2) Right Apex... KR clearly ahead. KR is on the apex and LH is attempting an outside pass (He has almost the whole track to his left). If the lead car were LH, would you insist that LH yield the apex to KR? Of course not!
3) Left Apex... KR clearly FURTHER ahead of LH's car -- LH not even in Kimi's view. KR is clearly aimed at the apex, which is his for the taking. Again, if the lead car were LH, would you insist that LH yield the apex to KR? Get real people.
4) Start/Finish Line... LH has still not dropped back far enough to yield the position he gained in the chicane.
5) At the 200Meter brake board line into La Source (actual line on track overpainted for clarity, see S/F line in background). Only now has LH dropped sufficiently behind, and has begun his move behind KR.
The reason why shortcutting must be given back immediately is to clear the matter before subsequent events occur, such as creating an accident if the position is not given back right away. LH did NOT yield his position immediately as required, but carried on down the straight and into the beginning of the next corner. Lots of bad things could have happened because the yield was not offered right away.
Instead, rather than yielding much earlier, he decided against it, not for malicious reasons, but rather because of the heat of the moment. As others have observed, he could have laid back more to be sure he satisfied his obligation under the rules, knowing that he would have several more opportunities to pass in the next two laps.
If the Stewards are not allowed to interpret the rules, then there is no need for any rules. The officials at Spa have been doing this since 1950. Spa is one of the original 4 tracks raced in the modern era. So the officials at Spa are among the most experienced in F1.
I'm all in favor of deciding things on the track among racers, which is why I said initially that I hate these incidents mucking-up the end to a race. But when the boundaries of rules are stretched, the stewards must make gutsy calls that are not popular with everyone.
I frankly couldn't care less which driver wins out on this. The rules are the rules that level the field for all. Sometimes the rules go your way, sometimes they don't.
I will wait for the final ruling as patiently as the rest of you. But I will not be at all surprised if the ruling is upheld.
09-08-2008, 07:37 PM
#35
No, behind means behind. One car following another with tangible space between them.
There have been dozens of examples in F1 over the years where someone shortcutting a chicane, fell "behind" to give back the position... In each case falling behind meant 2-5 full car lengths (or more) "behind," yielded quickly, too, I might add... leaving no doubt that the offending party concedes he made the error.
Cutting behind mere inches in a continuous maneuver to slice to the other side is not a clear-cut demonstration of falling behind or conceding the position, but more a sign of aggression, out of character with all the other examples that came before. That Hamilton chose to press the envelope left doubt in the Stewards' minds that he truly conceded, and hence their decision. That's all.
You can find politics in this all you want, but I personally think it's unnecessary to add such manufactured intrigue to what was already a complicated rules interpretation.
09-08-2008, 08:14 PM
#36
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 ML500, 06 Subaru STI, 03 Yamaha R6
Geez... This last weekend also saw the second closest finish in IRL history, a mere .0033 second (8 inches) win by Helio Castroneves over Scott Dixon. By further extension of this twisted logic game you propose, I assume we'd have to say Dixon was "behind" too. But I imagine Scott Dixon would have a different take on it.
No, behind means behind. One car following another with tangible space between them.
There have been dozens of examples in F1 over the years where someone shortcutting a chicane, fell "behind" to give back the position... In each case falling behind meant 2-5 full car lengths (or more) "behind," yielded quickly, too, I might add... leaving no doubt that the offending party concedes he made the error.
Cutting behind mere inches in a continuous maneuver to slice to the other side is not a clear-cut demonstration of falling behind or conceding the position, but more a sign of aggression, out of character with all the other examples that came before. That Hamilton chose to press the envelope left doubt in the Stewards' minds that he truly conceded, and hence their decision. That's all.
You can find politics in this all you want, but I personally think it's unnecessary to add such manufactured intrigue to what was already a complicated rules interpretation.
No, behind means behind. One car following another with tangible space between them.
There have been dozens of examples in F1 over the years where someone shortcutting a chicane, fell "behind" to give back the position... In each case falling behind meant 2-5 full car lengths (or more) "behind," yielded quickly, too, I might add... leaving no doubt that the offending party concedes he made the error.
Cutting behind mere inches in a continuous maneuver to slice to the other side is not a clear-cut demonstration of falling behind or conceding the position, but more a sign of aggression, out of character with all the other examples that came before. That Hamilton chose to press the envelope left doubt in the Stewards' minds that he truly conceded, and hence their decision. That's all.
You can find politics in this all you want, but I personally think it's unnecessary to add such manufactured intrigue to what was already a complicated rules interpretation.
Your the one adding a twist to the rules here, yes by your definition Dixon was behind, he did after all lose the race. I refer to it as your definition because you made the point that Kimi was ahead in the corner.
The rule does not say you must give back the position by such and such a degree or space, it says you must give back the advantage, which he did. the stewarts have created a very poor precedent that is making a mockery of my beloved series, I give crap to Nascrap fans all the time over there series being a joke, now I haven't a leg to stand on. F1 just became worse when we try to intrepret the intent of rules mid season rather than the letter of the rule.
09-08-2008, 08:14 PM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
Geez... This last weekend also saw the second closest finish in IRL history, a mere .0033 second (8 inches) win by Helio Castroneves over Scott Dixon. By further extension of this twisted logic game you propose, I assume we'd have to say Dixon was "behind" too. But I imagine Scott Dixon would have a different take on it.
No, behind means behind. One car following another with tangible space between them.
There have been dozens of examples in F1 over the years where someone shortcutting a chicane, fell "behind" to give back the position... In each case falling behind meant 2-5 full car lengths (or more) "behind," yielded quickly, too, I might add... leaving no doubt that the offending party concedes he made the error.
Cutting behind mere inches in a continuous maneuver to slice to the other side is not a clear-cut demonstration of falling behind or conceding the position, but more a sign of aggression, out of character with all the other examples that came before. That Hamilton chose to press the envelope left doubt in the Stewards' minds that he truly conceded, and hence their decision. That's all.
You can find politics in this all you want, but I personally think it's unnecessary to add such manufactured intrigue to what was already a complicated rules interpretation.
No, behind means behind. One car following another with tangible space between them.
There have been dozens of examples in F1 over the years where someone shortcutting a chicane, fell "behind" to give back the position... In each case falling behind meant 2-5 full car lengths (or more) "behind," yielded quickly, too, I might add... leaving no doubt that the offending party concedes he made the error.
Cutting behind mere inches in a continuous maneuver to slice to the other side is not a clear-cut demonstration of falling behind or conceding the position, but more a sign of aggression, out of character with all the other examples that came before. That Hamilton chose to press the envelope left doubt in the Stewards' minds that he truly conceded, and hence their decision. That's all.
You can find politics in this all you want, but I personally think it's unnecessary to add such manufactured intrigue to what was already a complicated rules interpretation.
I would be prone to side with Charlie Whiting. He might be one who knows the FIA Code. Now if the team CHECKED with race control as to the completion of the "point by" and they said that looks good how can then THEN try to give yo a 25 second penalty? Had Charlie told Ron (who as a McLaren fan I hate) that they were likely in the clear it should stand. If it were an issue Race Control should have sad FALL BACK 5 lengths then proceed. Lewis still would likely have found his way past in the chaos of a finish.
It has to be fair and clear as to what to do. They followed the rules and the rules dont say a distance or time frame in which to complete the re-pass. Your response is your opinion and I think differently. What needs to be done is a rule needs to be written that clears up the situation. But if the code reads give the position back in a timely fashion LH did as the book requires.
What I do agree with is that the FIA will likely affirm the ruling since its pro Italy.
09-08-2008, 08:44 PM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,220
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
6 Posts
W203 slightly modified
Geez... This last weekend also saw the second closest finish in IRL history, a mere .0033 second (8 inches) win by Helio Castroneves over Scott Dixon. By further extension of this twisted logic game you propose, I assume we'd have to say Dixon was "behind" too. But I imagine Scott Dixon would have a different take on it.
No, behind means behind. One car following another with tangible space between them.
There have been dozens of examples in F1 over the years where someone shortcutting a chicane, fell "behind" to give back the position... In each case falling behind meant 2-5 full car lengths (or more) "behind," yielded quickly, too, I might add... leaving no doubt that the offending party concedes he made the error.
Cutting behind mere inches in a continuous maneuver to slice to the other side is not a clear-cut demonstration of falling behind or conceding the position, but more a sign of aggression, out of character with all the other examples that came before. That Hamilton chose to press the envelope left doubt in the Stewards' minds that he truly conceded, and hence their decision. That's all.
You can find politics in this all you want, but I personally think it's unnecessary to add such manufactured intrigue to what was already a complicated rules interpretation.
No, behind means behind. One car following another with tangible space between them.
There have been dozens of examples in F1 over the years where someone shortcutting a chicane, fell "behind" to give back the position... In each case falling behind meant 2-5 full car lengths (or more) "behind," yielded quickly, too, I might add... leaving no doubt that the offending party concedes he made the error.
Cutting behind mere inches in a continuous maneuver to slice to the other side is not a clear-cut demonstration of falling behind or conceding the position, but more a sign of aggression, out of character with all the other examples that came before. That Hamilton chose to press the envelope left doubt in the Stewards' minds that he truly conceded, and hence their decision. That's all.
You can find politics in this all you want, but I personally think it's unnecessary to add such manufactured intrigue to what was already a complicated rules interpretation.
09-08-2008, 11:02 PM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: AL,IL, GA, CA
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS, SLK, ETC
Outcome could be different if LH jst backed off instead of taking short cut...We could play "WHAT IF" games all day...I'm jst sharing my thoghts n not really taking any sides. That move def put kimi into panic mode for sure..
We'll find out how this drama will end soon.
Finally, f1 is getting fun to watch again...
We'll find out how this drama will end soon.
Finally, f1 is getting fun to watch again...
Last edited by Quicktwinturbo; 09-08-2008 at 11:06 PM.
09-08-2008, 11:03 PM
#40
Seems the FIA tend to catered more to Ferrari sensitivity.
I guess its ok as long as you are in the red car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfDdqvhBIEw&NR=1
I guess its ok as long as you are in the red car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfDdqvhBIEw&NR=1
09-09-2008, 01:05 AM
#41
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: AL,IL, GA, CA
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS, SLK, ETC
09-09-2008, 02:07 AM
#42
09-09-2008, 05:05 AM
#43
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'11 997.2 Carrera GTS
Massa can cut the chicane multiple times and not receive a penalty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53igbrZtELg
vid is from the 2007 japanese grand prix
A breakaway series from facist max and FIArrari is needed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53igbrZtELg
vid is from the 2007 japanese grand prix
A breakaway series from facist max and FIArrari is needed.
09-09-2008, 10:26 AM
#44
Super Member
Here is an online petition if you wish to add your opinion:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...ed.cgi?belgp08
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...ed.cgi?belgp08
09-09-2008, 12:49 PM
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NY/NJ
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
2012 W212 E350 Bluetec
It's not often I agree with MB-Bob on matters relating to F1, but the legions of MM and LH fans attacking him need to take a step back and look at the other side as well.
It's NOT a question of whether he gave the position back. The rules ask whether he gained an advantage or caused others to be disadvantaged. So one has to presume the stewards saw LH exiting the chicane runoff with better speed/momentum, which allow him to overtake KR again almost immediately. Slipstreaming KR immediately after taking the racing line just made that even easier.
So my question is, can anyone deduce from the replays at what speed each of LH and KR are traveling as they retake the racing line, i.e. when LH comes back from the chicane runoff area?
The penalty seems a little harsh (and I'm not a LH fan), but I don't think it's incredulous to suggest LH came back from the runoff (while his opponent manuevers the chicane slowly) with better momentum and therefore an advantage had been gained.
So IMO it's still a little unclear, and I'd really like to know their respective exit speeds. But let's dispense with the "he gave the position back" blabber - that's not even the question here....
It's NOT a question of whether he gave the position back. The rules ask whether he gained an advantage or caused others to be disadvantaged. So one has to presume the stewards saw LH exiting the chicane runoff with better speed/momentum, which allow him to overtake KR again almost immediately. Slipstreaming KR immediately after taking the racing line just made that even easier.
So my question is, can anyone deduce from the replays at what speed each of LH and KR are traveling as they retake the racing line, i.e. when LH comes back from the chicane runoff area?
The penalty seems a little harsh (and I'm not a LH fan), but I don't think it's incredulous to suggest LH came back from the runoff (while his opponent manuevers the chicane slowly) with better momentum and therefore an advantage had been gained.
So IMO it's still a little unclear, and I'd really like to know their respective exit speeds. But let's dispense with the "he gave the position back" blabber - that's not even the question here....
09-09-2008, 12:52 PM
#47
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Diego, CA & San Jose, Costa Rica & Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 9,498
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
1959 220S / 1979 230 G / 2002 A210 AMG / 2003 C320 SC / 2004.5 C320 SS / 2005 ML350 SE / 2008 smart
Pictures don't lie...
1) The Approach to the chicane. KR clearly in front, and on his side of track aimed at the apex. He is not forcing LH wide at all.
2) Right Apex... KR clearly ahead. KR is on the apex and LH is attempting an outside pass (He has almost the whole track to his left). If the lead car were LH, would you insist that LH yield the apex to KR? Of course not!
3) Left Apex... KR clearly FURTHER ahead of LH's car -- LH not even in Kimi's view. KR is clearly aimed at the apex, which is his for the taking. Again, if the lead car were LH, would you insist that LH yield the apex to KR? Get real people.
4) Start/Finish Line... LH has still not dropped back far enough to yield the position he gained in the chicane.
5) At the 200Meter brake board line into La Source (actual line on track overpainted for clarity, see S/F line in background). Only now has LH dropped sufficiently behind, and has begun his move behind KR.
1) The Approach to the chicane. KR clearly in front, and on his side of track aimed at the apex. He is not forcing LH wide at all.
2) Right Apex... KR clearly ahead. KR is on the apex and LH is attempting an outside pass (He has almost the whole track to his left). If the lead car were LH, would you insist that LH yield the apex to KR? Of course not!
3) Left Apex... KR clearly FURTHER ahead of LH's car -- LH not even in Kimi's view. KR is clearly aimed at the apex, which is his for the taking. Again, if the lead car were LH, would you insist that LH yield the apex to KR? Get real people.
4) Start/Finish Line... LH has still not dropped back far enough to yield the position he gained in the chicane.
5) At the 200Meter brake board line into La Source (actual line on track overpainted for clarity, see S/F line in background). Only now has LH dropped sufficiently behind, and has begun his move behind KR.
KR is ahead in all 5 shots. How is that not the advantage?
How far back is "yielding" or providing the sufficient drop behind ?
Is that written somewhere in the rules ?
Does there have to be front to back space between the cars to define a "yield" or "sufficient drop".
I guess I don't understand these terms, but as I see it, KR was ahead the whole time, until LH made his last move and passed him. Up to the point of passing, KR was ahead.
it's a freaking race !!
09-09-2008, 02:24 PM
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,717
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
11 Posts
2007 E63 w/P30 and Eurotech CF Diffuser
I do not agree with the decision.
I have signed the petition.
If Hamilton had not let off, Kimi would have never re-passed. As a result Kimi had more momentum.
Heidfeld sure did pull off a surprise!
I have signed the petition.
If Hamilton had not let off, Kimi would have never re-passed. As a result Kimi had more momentum.
Heidfeld sure did pull off a surprise!
09-09-2008, 03:57 PM
#49
From what I have read, Kimi crossed the start/finish line ahead of LH with 6.7km/h quicker. McLaren also got a confirmation from Race Control that it was ok for LH to try and pass Kimi again from his position.
Last edited by 1Lop2K5C; 09-09-2008 at 04:09 PM.
09-09-2008, 05:37 PM
#50
Super Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
540 6spd
It clearly shows that Hamilton let him by. He just out-drove Raikonnen though that sequence .. plain and simple.
