what would scooby do

^^ ^^

The truth of F1 "racing"

Luan Pra bang

An advantage that he lost by letting Kimi go infront and going completely behind the Ferrari over the start finish line which is WHAT THE RULES STATE HE SHOULD HAVE DONE.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

I understand that the gap that he 'gave back' was less than it would have been if he hadn't cut the chicane. What don't you understand?
Put it this way, if somebody stole £100 and then returned £90, is that fair? Should they go unpunished?

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Again that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.... even if it is wrong. Perhaps you are struggling to understand that he didn't gain an advantage at all?

urban makes a good point saying Kimi would have been goign as fast as possible. Was he? do we know that? Are we certain that Raikkonen's ***** are as big as Hamilton's because from the race i was watching there was no comparision.

If the look at the telemetary i think they'll find Kimi wasn't accelerating as much and that is why he got passed. No other reason. He was going so slow it made Lewis look fast!

Plus at least one car gat a penalty for being involved in an avoidable collision - strange Raikkonen wasn't pulled up for running Hamilton up the back wasn't it?

5t.

urban

iTrader: (1)

Watch the footage again - here's what I think.

He cut the corner to avoid a collision - yes.

Now he supposedly is 6kph slower than KR, but just look at the acceleration of his car in comparison to the ferrari.

Doesn't quite add up. Had he taken the corner properly then he could not have had the advantage in the first place, for an overtaking move that was never going to happen.

Dream Weaver

It's based on position as per the rules though, and NOT on distance. He gained a "place" and gave it back, end of story it doesn;t matter how far off he was.

I don't know why I am surprised to see an English sporting hero being booed by English people though, lack of support for sportsman by our own countrymen is the one thing that makes British sport what it is

Anybody that believes this is fair and not some sort of toy/pram incident by Ferrari is very naive IMO.

classic scooby

iTrader: (21)

just signed

over 10000 signed so far

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Grow up! Raikkonen tagged the back of Lewis, no damage was done and it would have been more than likely that Raikkonen came off worse. That's what you call a 'racing incident'.

-Lewis tried to over-take at the bus stop
-Raikkonen defended his position which he totally entitled to do
-Lewis could have backed off
-He didn't and cut the chicane.
-He re-joined ahead of the ferrari and strugged to regain traction. Is this why the telemenry shows him backing off, to control the wheel spin?
-Raikkonen on the cleaner side of the track with more traction moved back ahead of Lewis but only just.
-Raikkonen moved across to defend his position from Hamilton. Would he have had to if Lewis hadn't cut the chicane?

You cannot just ignore the above facts.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

So you HAVE to support someone if they share your nationality? Give me a break!
I don't agree with the punishment being given after the race, but you cannot ignore what he did.

FlightMan

And I've just listed to Nikki Lauda on radio 5 saying:

Lewis did nothing wrong.
The McLaren was the faster car at that time of the race.
LH outbroke KR under braking. There was no slipstream involved.

So, I think I'll listen to the opinion of an ex F1 world champion ( IN A FERRARI ) thankyou.

Flatcapdriver

And a McLaren.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

That's it, problem solved, all hail Mr Lauda!
Mr Lauda said that Mclaren shouldn't have been punished after it was proven they had cheated. Believe Lauda? No thanks. I still do not feel a 25 second punishment should have been given as it leads to all this rubbish. But the move was not clear cut and to ignore what happened would have been far worse.

FlightMan

Well if its choice between Lauda and Purvis.

Yep, Lauda gets my vote.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

For the love of God this is nothing to do with Ferrari, they did not protest the result, the stewards made a unilateral decision to investigate it and impose a penalty.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

I personally like to form my own opinion. Rather than listening to what he/she said and just agreeing.

When he made the move I thought, 'that could be viewed as a bit suspect by the stewards', but then thought nothing of it. Obviously they had more to go on than what I did. I love it how people know everything from the comfort of their arm-chair.

I don't know what the score was concerning telementry, but I can see why the stewards had to have a look at it.

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

unnecessary.

- Lewis was allowed to try to overtake (that's racing)
- Kimi could also have realised he just can't drive as well as Lewis a point proved just a few minutes later as he spun himself (unforced) into the wall
- If Raikkonen was on the cleaner more grippy side of the track then way did he need to cover Lewis? Why didn't he simply pull away and clear the corner in first? After all, he was on the grippy stuff as you say....

Get the telemetary. Kimi bottled it quite simple.

5t.

MooseRacer

Quite amusing that Mark Blundell said in the build up that he believed there was no Ferrari bias in the FIA.

Don't get onto scoobynet in the near future Mark, you'll get lynched by both the F1 posse and the English language custodians.

MooseRacer

As did Lewis, infact it was his 2nd [unforced] spin of the race. Luckily for him, not into a wall.

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

true but lets be honest he was much much faster than Kimi and that car was twitching like a bunnies nose the whole time. Lewis just did a better job of correcting and controlling it. The fact he managed to avoid the Williams was nothing short of brilliant.

He might be arrogant but he can be driving like that. The only other person i've seen drive so well as others fall off the road is Schumacher.

5t.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

If the FIA were biased towards Ferrari, then there is not much imagination required to believe that they would instigate the investigation before Ferrari even had time to raise a petition......


.....which is exactly what they did.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

The boy can't even understand traffic lights!

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Read and be quiet.

James Allen's Belgian GP verdict - Feature - F1 | ITV Sport

Miniman

iTrader: (2)

But isn't this the point "moved back ahead of Lewis". If this is what the rules state then he abided by the rules. Any talk about the exact incident at the curve and if it was cheating/gaining advantange is mute. KR gained the place back as per the rules for any indiscretion earlier.

If the rules do not state the exact time or % of time or gap to be given back to the other party, then surely it's not fair to penalise the driver who gave the position back? If there is a suggestion that the stewards are going to look at incidents and look at how big the gap is after it is passed back, then there needs to be exact rule clarification before penalising a driver.

I do not know the exact rule book on this, but if the rules are ambigous enough to allow different intepretations of the rules and/or do not specify the gap size, then the driver should not be penalised, the rules need to be tighened first. Possibly even a post race clarification issued, so all parties are aware for future incidents.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Oh of course, silly me. LOL!

Do you really believe that? Bet you reckon Nasa never went to the moon either

MooseRacer

No argument from me there. And. just like Schumacher, that arrogance contributes to the supreme talent Lewis has.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

And how many times was schumy punished? There would have been an uproar if he was British.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Regardless of whether I can see your point I think using James Allen to justify your point is the forum debate equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Point is that even someone who was present can see both sides of the argument.

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Exactly. James Allan = Muppet.

I can see both sides of the argument but once again he talks about Kimi not being able to get away.

chrispurvis has argued Kimi was on the grippy side of the track so which is it? Grippy and being let in front ok as James says, if this was the case he should have been fine or not grippy so can't get away or simply not good enough to take advantage? I vote for the latter.

Again, the telemetary from Kimi's car will tell a lot.

5t.

Turbo2

So now this F1 circus is all the humble Pork chop's fault is it? I think you're buying your meat from the wrong shop mate. The chops we get are at least 90% meat with just a nice bit of fat and bone. A bit like Hamilton's girlfriend. Yum yum, you really can't beat a nice bit of pork.