Monday, September 08, 2008
A Fair Advantage
Hamilton misses the chicane and passes Raikkonen. He slows down to let him back through, then overtakes him into the next corner. Due to his shortcut he didn't have to slow down as much as Raikkonen, and therefore gained an unfair advantage. I wonder, though, what a fair advantage is? Aren't all advantages unfair? Isn't that the point of them? Anyway, as far as I can see there are no rules governing what happens after you've let a driver back through who you'd unfairly passed. It doesn't say how long you have to wait before attempting to overtake them again. The team told Lewis to let Kimi past, and then would've told him 'ok, now you can overtake him'. He relied on them for the information.
The stewards, however, must have taken all this information into account, and more information than is available to us. But there's an extra point. Waiting to make a decision until after the race gives the stewards the advantage of being able to look at the big picture. What was it? Surely it was this: Hamilton was quicker in the wet and would've overtaken Kimi eventually, who anyway crashed within a lap. Should the stewards take this information into account, or focus (as they surely did) on the few seconds of the incident alone?
The stewards, however, must have taken all this information into account, and more information than is available to us. But there's an extra point. Waiting to make a decision until after the race gives the stewards the advantage of being able to look at the big picture. What was it? Surely it was this: Hamilton was quicker in the wet and would've overtaken Kimi eventually, who anyway crashed within a lap. Should the stewards take this information into account, or focus (as they surely did) on the few seconds of the incident alone?
Comments:
<< Home
For once I have grasped the detail around a Formula 1 ruling!
Your point about "It doesn't say how long you have to wait..." is surely key - the rule says (I think, but do correct me) that you cannot 'gain an advantage' by cutting the corner (as opposed to specifically saying you must not 'gain a place').
But if you were almost certainly going to crash if you didn't cut the corner then you have gained an advantage by still being on the track!
He yielded to let Kimi through, as he had to under the rule. And once he had done that, surely the race was back on?
Your point about "It doesn't say how long you have to wait..." is surely key - the rule says (I think, but do correct me) that you cannot 'gain an advantage' by cutting the corner (as opposed to specifically saying you must not 'gain a place').
But if you were almost certainly going to crash if you didn't cut the corner then you have gained an advantage by still being on the track!
He yielded to let Kimi through, as he had to under the rule. And once he had done that, surely the race was back on?
The point fourstar is, I believe, that Lewis couldn't have possibly have been where he was had it not been for cutting the chicane. So he hadn't yielded his advantage even though he had yielded his place.
But the punishment didn't fit the crime. Lewis deserved the win. Massa certainly didn't WIN that race.
But the punishment didn't fit the crime. Lewis deserved the win. Massa certainly didn't WIN that race.
I'm still trying to get my head round the counter-argument. Lewis let Kimi pass, so at one point Kimi must've been going faster than Lewis. Surely that negates his advantage?
All I can think of is this: perhaps Kimi was in 3rd gear moving to 4th, whereas Lewis was already in 4th, simply tapping the accelerator and waiting. So, as soon as Kimi had passed, Lewis had more power under his foot with which to accelerate. Someone with more car knowledge might be able to verify this, or not.
All I can think of is this: perhaps Kimi was in 3rd gear moving to 4th, whereas Lewis was already in 4th, simply tapping the accelerator and waiting. So, as soon as Kimi had passed, Lewis had more power under his foot with which to accelerate. Someone with more car knowledge might be able to verify this, or not.
Literally they are saying this...
At the point that Lewis starts back at full throttle he was very close behind Kimi. There is no way that he could have been that close behind Kimi unless he had cut the chicane.
Basically he hadn't given back all of the track advantage. He had slowed, let Kimi past, but was still too close.
It is marginal in the extreme.
At the point that Lewis starts back at full throttle he was very close behind Kimi. There is no way that he could have been that close behind Kimi unless he had cut the chicane.
Basically he hadn't given back all of the track advantage. He had slowed, let Kimi past, but was still too close.
It is marginal in the extreme.
Indeed, have you read James Allen's article? He makes the point that the McLaren was just working better in those conditions, which the stewards perhaps didn't take into account. Lewis was braking later and accelerating faster anyway.
The point is, I think, that the call was marginal, and surely you'd only want to change the result of a race on a very clear call, wouldn't you?
The point is, I think, that the call was marginal, and surely you'd only want to change the result of a race on a very clear call, wouldn't you?
I don't believe so. I think I read somewhere that the process went like this: McLaren asked Charlie Whiting if what they'd done was ok. He said yes, but he referred the incident to the race stewards (which I think he would do anyway) who began investigating it.
I agree it needed to be much much clearer.
Here's a good article analysing the situation:
Seven reasons why so many F1 fans are furious about Hamilton’s penalty
Here's a good article analysing the situation:
Seven reasons why so many F1 fans are furious about Hamilton’s penalty
Don't forget Lewis received disciplinary action for cutting a chicane in this years French GP. The stewards are going to be strict with a repeat offender. Lewis can't afford to mess up like this when he is taking on a tough team like Ferrari.
Shaun.
Shaun.
Here's an idea - why not let the other teams vote on whether they thought it was a bad move?
The Ferrari engined ones will all side with Kimi; but what about the rest? Interesting...
The Ferrari engined ones will all side with Kimi; but what about the rest? Interesting...
All the non-Ferrari teams tend to believe Ferrari receive special treatment from the FIA, so they'll vote for McLaren. I think the teams are all too biased for that system to work efficiently. It'll be like eurovision, except without Terry Wogan on crack.
A ten place drop at the next race might have made more sense.
A ten place drop at the next race might have made more sense.
"All the non-Ferrari teams tend to believe Ferrari receive special treatment from the FIA"
Seemingly, so does the rest of the known universe.
Post a Comment
Seemingly, so does the rest of the known universe.
<< Home
