Do I really have to be 18 to watch it?
No, not really. No swearing. No nudity. No shocking content.
And please multiquote instead of making two consequtive posts.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2008 Formula One Thread
- Thread starter R.Youden
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
No, not really. No swearing. No nudity. No shocking content.
And please multiquote instead of making two consequtive posts.
I've tried it using F1 Championship Season on the PC, with the 'Ring as an add-on. It's probably the only time a racing sim scared me.
WTF after all that time (and money) what was the point?
McLaren’s Hamilton Spa appeal ruled inadmissible
Another victory for formula 1
McLaren’s Hamilton Spa appeal ruled inadmissible
Another victory for formula 1
Expect? No? Hope? A tiny little bit
Hopefully Hamilton can win some more races and take the championship in spite of this.
I expected that it would be denied rather than thrown out. Why didn't anyone in the media/McLaren lawyers pick up on this rule?
I hoped that it would be considered and on the merits of the consideration be ruled accordingly. And I feel that the outcome of such a consideration would be an overturning of the previous punishment.
However we are now in a situation where the officials can punish a person by adding a arbitrary punishment after the race and for it not be challenged. If it was during the race and the penalty of a stop and go was actually issued then I can see how not allowing for it to be contested would make sense but after the race when all that is being decided is a number of seconds and doesn't affect how the drivers actually drove then I can't see why this rule is in place.
I think they did: I certainly read about it in multiple places. I think McLaren simply wanted to be seen to appeal.
I haven't been reading in this area much lately just listening to the radio news and they certainly didn't pick up on it, oh well.
Well, imagine the uttering of some had they point blank refused to even consider an appeal in the first instance.
Unfortunately it's one of those no win situations for the FIA.
That situation has always existed in this instance.
There wasn't enough time remaining in the race to issue a stop and go penalty, hence why 25 seconds was added onto Hamilton's final time, because 25 seconds is (on average) roughly consistent with the total time of a 10 second stop and go.
Ultimately, Hamilton gained an unfair advantage, and was punished accordingly, his only misfortune was that it happened so close to the end of the race, that he couldn't serve a drive through penalty, otherwise I suspect there wouldn't be any such discussion of the suitability of the punishment.
The full judgement from the ICA.
I agree to the time however what I was trying to convey was that if the penalty was given during the race all the drivers would've acted differently there after and as such not be able to appeal makes sense as there is no way you can take into account what might have happened if the penalty was not given.
However in this situation where the penalty is given after the race and as such the drivers can not act differently then the decision should be subject to appeal.
Indeed
And yet in Valencia, where the stewards had plenty of time to debate what penalty, if any, should be accessed to Massa for almost causing a pile-up in the pit-lane which could have resulted in injury to the drivers and pit lane personnel, they decided to wait until after the race (which he won) and decide to just tag him for 10,000(?) Euros.
On the flip side, at least the Belgian stewards were consistent. Instead of following their Spanish peers and tagging Bruno Senna with a 10K fine for causing his own pit-lane near-wreck, they nailed him for (roughly) 25 seconds, as well (by making him do a pit lane drive-through).
But in this instance, I don't see why it should be subject to appeal, the penalty that was given was technically the equivalent of a drive through, and thus should be treated as such regardless of when it was applied (and it would appear this is how the FIA and ICA considered the penalty). It's just unfortunate that there wasn't enough time left in the race for the stewards to consider the incident, and then apply the penalty for it to be taken in the race.
But by allowing an appeal, in essence there could potentially have been a situation whereby a driver could have a penalty overturned, and thus escape a penalty that many wouldn't have questioned had it actually been applied in the race, and which wouldn't have been subject to appeal had it been so applied.
CWallace said:
Completely different situation. Massa took evasive action to avoid an incident, after the team executed an "unsafe release" (for which Ferrari were fined), but regardless it was decided Massa did not obtain a sporting advantage unlike Hamilton.
i dunno about you guys but the tenth time i watched it,
it was clearly wrong.
he missed the turn, then got behind, then passed on the next.
regardless of going behind him, he still had an advantage.
it was clearly wrong.
he missed the turn, then got behind, then passed on the next.
regardless of going behind him, he still had an advantage.
He had an advantage because he was better driving in those conditions then Kimi was. Kimi should have been able to defend the next corner, but he put the power down too fast and too hard which broke traction and hurt his momentum and allowed Lewis to come up alongside and pass him.
At least with the new rules, driver skill is taking out of the equation so the trailing driver has to wait until the next corner to allow the leading driver to get their act together.
He had the advantage because he skipped the chicane, and was able to maintain momentum.
Had he actually made an attempt to take the chicane, then more than likely he would not have been in a position to overtake at that particular time.
I bet you he would've made the chicane had there been a gravel run off.
so the trailing driver has to wait until the next corner to allow the leading driver to get their act together.
Which is logical if the trailing driver has gained an unfair advantage by skipping corners, surely?
He lifted to let Kimi pass and was driving slower when they crossed the start-finish line based on the telemetry reported. That is not my definition of "maintaining momentum".
Anyway, who is looking forward to Singapore this weekend?
He had an advantage because he was better driving in those conditions then Kimi was. Kimi should have been able to defend the next corner, but he put the power down too fast and too hard which broke traction and hurt his momentum and allowed Lewis to come up alongside and pass him.
At least with the new rules, driver skill is taking out of the equation so the trailing driver has to wait until the next corner to allow the leading driver to get their act together.
is that a new rule?
well i can see some people taking advantage of that.
you could force someone to skip the corner, then slow down, and get back up to speed. or something like that
He lifted to let Kimi pass and was driving slower when they crossed the start-finish line based on the telemetry reported. That is not my definition of "maintaining momentum".
It's really not difficult to understand.
Hamilton gained substantially by cutting the chicane. He benefitted from the momentum he gained from cutting the chicane, because he did not have to accelerate from a low speed like Räikkönen, and thus he avoided the difficulties in accelerating that Kimi experienced. This put Hamilton in a position whereby he was able to overtake, because he was closer to Räikkönen then he otherwise would have been.
Had he attempted to make the chicane, he likely would not have been as close to Kimi to attempt such a maneuver on such a short straight.
There was nothing wrong with the overtaking maneuver itself, in fact I think it was excellent, and IMHO, he's the best driver on the grid, certainly the best overtaker, the problem was that he was only in the position to make the maneuver because he cut the chicane.
I am for the novelty factor.
It should be interesting if it rains.
It could be tedious (like all street circuits) if it remains dry.
benlangdon said:
That's always been the rule. Apparently Charlie Whiting clarified it at/before every race.
bartelby said:
No, that'll be reserved for Massa I'm sure.
Friday practice is starting right NOW so I guess we will see soon. I guess only the UK but video feed
I'm really looking forward to this weekend. Based on the promotional Red Bull video floating around the visual sight of the city, coupled with the illuminated track and cars is going to be so cool!
- Status