Odds on

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Just keep spreading the word about the petition. If it is going to work, it needs to be posted up on as many motoring forums as possible. Scoobynet alone is not going to work....

FlightMan

Using that **** to back up your argument.

scooby L

Read it... sits pretty much on the fence from what I can read....

Hamilton backed off.... but not enough because the McLaren was so much quicker than the Ferrari at that point...thus it not being good enough... what utter B@ll@cks...

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Exactly, because it was a tough call. But he achknowledges that Lewis made a **** up. He could have easily over-taken Kimi later in the lap, but he chose to make the situation work to his advantage.
Like I said, if for example you believe that having £90 returned to you when you have had £100 stolen is fair, then the FIA made the wrong call........

scooby L

Read the other post for what I think...

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

No it was ok with Charlie Whiting so no call needed to have been made. He acknoledges Lewis could ahve gone round him later and says he is too much of a racer not to take advantage of something offered on a plate. He doesn't say he deliberately made it happen like that which is the important difference to what you are saying.

5t.

magepaster

iTrader: (2)

IF you look at footage you will see Hamilton was in front when entering the chicane by half a car length. Kimmi seeing that he was being outdriven deliberately tightened his line which forced Hamilton to take avoiding action which the rules state you must do. once Hamilton had SLOWED to let Kimmi pass, again as the rules state, he then passed Kimmi on the straight while Kimmi was dodging about like a dodgy dodger. Now you seem to think that Hamilton SLOWING to let Kimmi pass gave Hamilton the advantage because slowing down obviously means you go faster.

Chicanes have tarmac run offs to enable this avoidance of collision and to give an escape for too much speed when entering the chicane.

I am not particularly a fan of Hamilton but he did everything by the book in this case and was unfairly treated by being punished for an incident totally out of his control.

Dream Weaver

I'm sure Ferrari will have been making the right noises as well though to push a decision through.

Boro

iTrader: (1)

Does anyone actually know which rule Hamilton broke to get the penalty? I dont mean "i think it was X rule" but an factual written rule with terminoligy"

Because, thats what will decide the outcome of this.

For eg, after gaining the advantage from the chicane, was he supposed to "give up his place" or "not gain an advantage from it".

Those are two very different things but i cant find the exact wording of the rules.

Dream Weaver

According to Have The Stewards Made An Error Of Fact? - Planet-F1 News - from planet-f1.com

It was as follows:

"Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations' makes no mention of whether an advantage had been gained and instead states that 'During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits'. The near-identical Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code adds that 'The racetrack alone shall be used by drivers during the race'.


In other words, Hamilton was purely and simply punished for leaving the racetrack when he cut the chicane. "

So Kimi and Massa should have had the same as they both left the track at times.

Boro

iTrader: (1)

Surely there is a rule somewhere about gaining a place or advantage from leaving the track?

Also, im not sure if this has been mentioned already but an appeal may be inadmissable as the penalty was infact a drive through penalty which couldnt be delivered as such. Drive throughs cant be appealed against.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

I just love it how everyone forgets how Mclaren were proven to have in their posession, technical data and drawings belonging to Ferrari, which they initially denied!

scooby L

& Toyota & Renault!!

Boro

iTrader: (1)

I havent forgotten, its just not relevant

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

I just don't trust Mclaren anymore, not after last year.

Boro

iTrader: (1)

Ahh, so this was planned all along? Hamilton gets close on the corner, cuts it, gets infront, then slows down to let him pass, only to overtake him again.

I can see how that would work a few laps from the end.

All part of the tactics, good thinkin'.

Didnt realise they had Mystic Meg on their team, lol.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Dream Weaver

Are you serious?

Every team will have info on every other team, it's just that we only get to hear about it when it's the Ferrari info that is leaked, oh wait I wonder why maybe the FIA only do something when it's Ferrari on the wrong end of it

Boro

iTrader: (1)

The plot thickens...

urban

iTrader: (1)

Nor do I.

They're two faced, and so is hamilton.

22BUK

And his dad's even worse. What an obnoxious ****.

magepaster

iTrader: (2)

OH my God! You are so far from the plot that not only have you lost it but you never even realised there is a plot.

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

And 9/11 didn't really happen yeah yeah yeah.

Boro

iTrader: (1)

So, how come Kimi got away with overtaking on a yellow?

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

How the hell to punish a car that crashed? And if you are referring to when on lap 2, Hamilton spun......he spun! Should Raikkonen have stopped and waited?

judgejules

..

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

so, whats the petition up to now anyone. Or has nobody recently signed it?

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

at chrispurvis100 coming onto this thread to spout his cack, when he's overwhelmingly been owned on the other thread about this

scooby4181

signed