quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Groundwater:

'Bent' is slang for anything that isn't 'correct' and can be applied in many situations.

My 'nine bob note' reference was to indicate that that IMO it was a counterfeit ruling.

I understand.

quote:

My point is simple - Hamilton was going to pass Kimi in those conditions WHATEVER and however hard the meticulous, hard-driving and ultimately very unlucky Finn tried to block him -

Purely speculation.

It certainly did look like Kimi was going to relinquish the lead, however you can never assume.

quote:

Originally posted by Mezzo Litro:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Groundwater:

'Bent' is slang for anything that isn't 'correct' and can be applied in many situations.

My 'nine bob note' reference was to indicate that that IMO it was a counterfeit ruling.

I understand.

quote:

My point is simple - Hamilton was going to pass Kimi in those conditions WHATEVER and however hard the meticulous, hard-driving and ultimately very unlucky Finn tried to block him -

Purely speculation.

Come now Mezzo. Unless I missed something, Kimi then overtook Hamilton AGAIN before losing control AGAIN and crashing out. Maybe I watched a different race but then again I don't have an axe to grind against either team.

You clearly feel that the 'sins of the father' etc. etc.

Not too much to speculate about surely?

Nigel, anything can happen in the rain. Even the real masters of the wet have crashed out from time to time.

I don't deny Hamilton was enjoying his 3rd set of tires better than Kimi was, but you can only speculate what will happen until it happens.

As far as Ron Dennis is concerned, he needs to let Hamilton go. As long as Ron is in F1, Hamilton and he are tied at the hip. I think Hamilton is a great driver, but under the same circumstance (car, that is), I think Vettel is better. Even Kubica and Heidfeld. That's just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Mezzo Litro:
Nigel, anything can happen in the rain. Even the real masters of the wet have crashed out from time to time.

I don't deny Hamilton was enjoying his 3rd set of tires better than Kimi was, but you can only speculate what will happen until it happens.

But my point is we are not speculating - it has already happened.

Kimi was in front AGAIN [and that's important] and lost control and crashed out.

Whether some, all or most of the greats have done so in similar conditions is irrelevant to this discussion since I am not trying to suggest that Kimi isn't a great driver. I think the way he came back and won the title last year proves that.

Nor are your continued comments about Ron Dennis and what he should do, particularly vis a vis Hamilton, relevant to this race and its shoddy outcome.

As far as Hamilton's ability as a driver is concerned I have watched all the drivers you mention as they matured through the ranks of motorsport and Hamilton has a superior record en route to F1 and of course within F1.

However they are all very good but unless they get a top drive IMO we will never know how great they might ultimately be since most people only remember the winners.

But frankly your opinion or mine concerning driver ability is unlikely to be of any interest to anybody but ourselves since we don't drive in F1 or own a team.

Nevertheless I think we are all entitled to a view about what happened in this race without it being contaminated by irrelevancies.

Nigel, the first overtake Lewis made on Kimi was due to cutting a chicane. The second overtake was deemed illegal. And the third overtake was due to a mass confusion precipitated earlier by a back marker. hardly great passing manouevres.

Yes, I am a Ferrari fan. But I also believe in strict adherance to rules.

quote:

Originally posted by Mezzo Litro:
Nigel, the first overtake Lewis made on Kimi was due to cutting a chicane. The second overtake was deemed illegal. And the third overtake was due to a mass confusion precipitated earlier by a back marker. hardly great passing manouevres.

Yes, I am a Ferrari fan. But I also believe in strict adherance to rules.

Nope: the first overtake attempt came after Hamilton had closed down Kimi hand over fist as it got wet and with Hamilton alongside on the outside and moving ahead, Kimi eased him off the track - fair defensive racing IMO. This caused Hamilton to go across the grass and he came back onto the track in front.

He let Kimi back in front, they danced around with each other and Hamilton forced his way through.

Kimi then got past Hamilton again when Rosberg came between them after a spin but then lost it on the exit from the corner.

To any objective observer Hamilton and Kimi had been racing. Hamilton in the wet was faster and in greater control. Kimi lost it. Massa and Heidfeld were nowhere.

Strict adherence to the rules has absolutely nothing to do with it, IMO of course, and I suspect those without an axe to grind would agree.
But glad to see you left Ron Dennis and all the drivers better than Hamilton out of it this time.

Nigel you are giving Hamilton a bit too much credit. When he short cutted the chicane it was not because Kimi forced him out, rather he put himself in a position of having to do so. He tried to pass and failed, doing so left him no room for braking. As I stated previously it certainly looked like Hamilton would take the lead but nothing was assured.

I watched the race and am surprised at the decision, but it's not completely indefensable.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Groundwater:
Come now Mezzo. Unless I missed something, Kimi then overtook Hamilton AGAIN before losing control AGAIN and crashing out. Maybe I watched a different race but then again I don't have an axe to grind against either team.

You clearly feel that the 'sins of the father' etc. etc.

You brought up Ron. I responded.

quote:

Originally posted by VT2IT:
Nigel you are giving Hamilton a bit too much credit. When he short cutted the chicane it was not because Kimi forced him out, rather he put himself in a position of having to do so. He tried to pass and failed, doing so left him no room for braking. As I stated previously it certainly looked like Hamilton would take the lead but nothing was assured.

I watched the race and am surprised at the decision, but it's not completely indefensable.

I am sure it will have a legal defense but IMO not in the spirit of racing. And I think that Kimi did force him out albeit legally - as I keep saying.

Hamilton took a risk and it didn't quite come off. Kimi took a risk by continuing to drive beyond his limit and lost everything.

Consider this for a moment. What do you think the decision would have been if Kimi HADN'T lost control and had won the race?

I have already said that IMO, if Kimi had come in right behind Hamilton, an argument to reverse the positions would not have been entirely without merit.

But if Kimi had managed to stay ahead after the Rosberg incident do you think it would have been reasonable for Hamilton to be relegated to 4th? I guess if you answer yes to that I'm done but it has been fun.

Nigel, my answer is 'yes'

I really enjoy discussing topics like this with people who think with their heads and not with their hearts. I agree, this has been fun, and will continue to be fun with 5 races to go.

Cheery - o and good night my friend across the Pond.

Nigel as I said before "I can clearly see how Hamilton deserves some sort of penalty. I can't see how Massa deserves the win".

I'm glad to see it go in favor of Ferrari, just am not sure if it was "fair".

quote:

Originally posted by Mezzo Litro:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Groundwater:
Come now Mezzo. Unless I missed something, Kimi then overtook Hamilton AGAIN before losing control AGAIN and crashing out. Maybe I watched a different race but then again I don't have an axe to grind against either team.

You clearly feel that the 'sins of the father' etc. etc.

You brought up Ron. I responded.

Come again Mezzo? That should be my line unless you are ready to rewrite history.

I only mentioned 'the sins of the father' because BEFORE my first post you were already on the Ron Dennis kick.

My point was that Ron Dennis isn't relevant to this decision OR he really shouldn't be unless F1 is really ready to go phut!

Nigel, Dennis isn't directly relevant to Lewis' penalty today, but he is indirectly. You must admit that McLaren, and specifically Ron, are under a huge, continual microscope. One might even say and endoscope. All questionable incidents this year have not, and will not go McLaren's way. Sorry 'ol chap.

quote:

Originally posted by Mezzo Litro:
Nigel, Dennis isn't directly relevant to Lewis' penalty today, but he is indirectly. You must admit that McLaren, and specifically Ron, are under a huge, continual microscope. One might even say and endoscope. All questionable incidents this year have not, and will not go McLaren's way. Sorry 'ol chap.

Mezzo, you obviously think you have all the relevant insider facts about McLaren and its dealings [and presumably Ferrari] but forgive me if I doubt it.

What we seem to have here is your post hoc rationalisation to fit a personal prejudice.

Unless you are really saying that Hamilton got a bum decision because of what the officials think McLaren did or didn't do last year - in which case you might be right but that also makes MY point - that it was a 'bent' decision.

Nigel, if you're familiar with my twisted way of thinking/posting, you'll know that I've said many times here in various sports threads (soccer, olympics, F1), that when BIG MONEY is involved, nothing is left up to a random decision. Some results are not by chance, but by design. Am I a little too 'conspiracy theory' crazy? Maybe.

There were a few variation of penalties that could have been assessed to Hamilton (time, money, grid position for next race, points deduction). The stewards chose the most harsh. Very legal. But harsh. This penalty keeps the Driver's Championship alive and exciting.

I know I sound like Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory, but I have seen the soundless, black helicopters.

quote:

Originally posted by Mezzo Litro:
Sorry Nigel. What does "bent" exactly mean? With your Eddie Murphy reference, it sounds like you mean "racist". Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

According to FIA, the Stewards deemed Hamilton did not properly allow Kimi Raikkonen to re-pass after overtaking the Ferrari driver by cutting the final chicane with just over two laps to go. Hamilton did let the Finn pass him after the chicane, but he then used the slipstream of the Ferrari to immediately launch a successful overtaking move at the next corner.

This is the official reason.

He did it to a tee how SPEED TV announcer (and F1 vet) David Hobbs was suggesting. Brilliant.

Kimi was desperate and reckless. First he forced Hamilton off the track. Then he hit Hamilton on the real pass. Then he pushed too hard and wrecked.

And Mezzo, F1 has long favored Ferrari. They've overlooked a few potential penalties this year. And as far as McLaren goes, they've been penalized. Applying bias to unrelated incidents is nothing but corrupt, perverse and unprofessional. How does that mesh with "strict adherence to the rules"?

quote:

Originally posted by Mezzo Litro:I know I sound like Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory, but I have seen the soundless, black helicopters.

No, it sounds like NASCAR!

quote:

Originally posted by Mezzo Litro:
The fine print is that you cannot gain a place advantage by cutting the corner, nor can you gain a momentum advantage. Lewis let Kimi by, but he had a speed advantage clearly due to cutting the chicane. This incident is debatable...and has been debated...and a decision has been made. 25 second penalty. This penalty is consistent with similar F1 incidents.

Mezzo, Let's try a bit of physics and logic on you. You say:"you cannot gain a place advantage by cutting the corner, nor can you gain a momentum advantage. Lewis let Kimi by, but he had a speed advantage clearly due to cutting the chicane".

I say: The rules forbid taking advantage of cutting a corner and seeking to keep such advantage.

But two things are relevant here:
(a) the corner was NOT deliberately cut. Kimi caused Hamilton to go off [legally IMO] when they were side by side. This caused Hamilton to re-emerge on the track ahead of Kimi.
(b) the advantage such as it was was given up when Hamilton allowed Kimi to pass him.

And here's the physics: when Hamilton allowed Kimi past his speed [and therefore momentum; mass x velocity] must have been less than Kimi's i.e. he had given back his advantage. He then got back on the throttle and resumed a position which was exactly the same as the one from which he had launched his first pass when Kimi pushed him off.
He then forced his way past brilliantly in those conditions with Kimi shimmying to block from side to side but this time unable to stop Hamilton from getting past or able to take his line and pushing him [legally] off again. He did manage to give him a nudge from behind.

Now tell me where the advantage came from and even if it existed [allegedly unfairly since that is what the rules are supposed to be about] where it wasn't given back.

When Hamilton slotted in behind Kimi after his 'off' [caused by Kimi however legally] he was in no better a position than he had been before being eased off the track.

IMO it is also significant that Kimi was again momentarily in front when Rosberg, coming back from a spin, came between them before Kimi crashed out.

You say: "25 second penalty. This penalty is consistent with similar F1 incidents"

I say: "Name one that comes anywhere near".

I think your 'men in black' may just have over-reached themselves this time. Complete bunch of 'merchant bankers' ...and before you ask that's rhyming slang and you can probably work it out without my help!

Lets putthis in perspective.

As an Ex-race driver [US & Canada], Driver instructor, SCCA official, Quebec region race official and prior F1 Official, this is my view.

I watched this race yesterday, and during the incident I was screaming WTF, and my honey asked what was wrong. I spotted the incident live, and under many re-runs on SPEED TV. I even slow motioned it.

Lewis was blocking and slowing down, and causing Kimi to come close to rear ending him. Without taking into account prior Lewis trangressions doing the same thing behind pace cars.

The FIA regs are clear and distinct re this issue and blocking.

I would have penalized him at least 10 places on the finish grid and also subjected him to a large fine.

Massa will win. However there is no way we can reserect Kimi.

Other fines and penalties look good, however I would have placed more tham a 25 second penalty for passing under yellow. Would be closer to one lap.

End of case.

quote:

Originally posted by Florida Wino:
Lets putthis in perspective.

As an Ex-race driver [US & Canada], Driver instructor, SCCA official, Quebec region race official and prior F1 Official, this is my view.

I watched this race yesterday, and during the incident I was screaming WTF, and my honey asked what was wrong. I spotted the incident live, and under many re-runs on SPEED TV. I even slow motioned it.

Lewis was blocking and slowing down, and causing Kimi to come close to rear ending him. Without taking into account prior Lewis trangressions doing the same thing behind pace cars.

The FIA regs are clear and distinct re this issue and blocking.

I would have penalized him at least 10 places on the finish grid and also subjected him to a large fine.

Massa will win. However there is no way we can reserect Kimi.

Other fines and penalties look good, however I would have placed more tham a 25 second penalty for passing under yellow. Would be closer to one lap.

End of case.

Yuh think? Nothing biased about your posts throughout this thread?

Of course your claims of race experience and officialdom sit uneasily with aliases so let's just say prove it.

In any case based on the 'official version' for the penalty rather than your invented 'perspective', it is still a crock.

You can invent as many new reasons as you like but whether you know your a from your e those weren't the reasons given.... and there was plenty of time to have given those penalties much earlier in the race supposing for one moment your analysis counted or made sense.

Let's see what the appeal brings.