Mon 8 Sep 2008
Lewis Hamilton’s penalty : Either I am wrong, or everyone else is…
Posted by Craig under Formula 1 with the tags F1:2008 • FIA • Formula 1 • Lewis Hamilton • penalty • StewardsI think I may be in a minority of 1 on this!
There’s no hiding the fact that I don’t really like Lewis Hamilton, but that doesn’t really enter into the equation as far as I’m concerned.
Having read through comments on other sites, I think the general masses are getting a few things confused here which I’ll aim to clear up.
Firstly, I’ve read a few people saying that even if Hamilton has broken any rules it doesn’t matter as Kimi later crashed out. This is utter nonsense and I think most F1 fans would agree - if someone has broken a rule then anything else which happened either as a consequence or not doesn’t really matter.
Secondly, others are complaining that as a result of this Massa has ended up winning a race he didn’t deserve to win. Again, I think most would agree that this is a fact, but that there’s nothing much can be done about it - if the leader is penalised then it’s unavoidable that everyone else moves up a spot.
Thirdly, and this is the important point as far as I’m concerned, the general consensus is that if someone overtakes having taken a shortcut then they have to yield the position again straight away. I’m not so sure that’s the rule though - I think at some point that has been reported as a “simplified version” but that the actual rule states no advantage must be gained by running off the course.
I feel this is what has caught Lewis out in this case, and the reason for the steward’s punishment.
There’s no denying Lewis was catching Kimi at this late stage in the race, and it was quite possibly only a matter of time before he managed to get past him. Had Kimi retained his lead and Hamilton been trying to pass him when the rain was much heavier then who knows what would have happened though.
My view, and it’s only my view, is that Hamilton was a little way behind Kimi prior to the chicane. He then tried to outbrake him round the outside, and at this point he edged ahead, but Kimi had the inside line and ultimately was ahead after the first right hand corner of the chicane. This meant he was legitimately allowed to place his car anywhere on the track so he held the racing line, pulling over to the inside of the next left hander which I’m sure any driver would have done. Some say he should have left room up the inside for Lewis but that would have been tantamount to simply allowing Hamilton overtake so I don’t see how that stands up personally.
Hamilton claims that by taking this line, Kimi forced him off the track and that rather than run over the kerbs and astroturf (which may have caused him to spin or lose time) he decided to take to the escape road. In my opinion, Kimi didn’t force Lewis off the road as I think Lewis could have braked a little to effectively fall in behind the Ferrari. This would have lost him time and I can understand why the racer in him probably didn’t even contemplate this action, but to say there was no other option but for him to take to the escape road is simply wrong in my opinion.
Having come out of the escape road ahead, Hamilton was told by his team that he had to give the position back. Noone knows exactly what was said but either due to his own instincts or due to what the team said, Lewis tried to give the place back by losing out as little as possible. Again this is somewhat understandable but I think was his downfall.
Depending on the actual wording of the rules, if giving the place back was all he had to do then I don’t think he would have received a penalty given he did just that. However, if he is not meant to have gained an advantage through the chicane then things are not so clear.
Unfortunately so far the stewards have not made anything very much public regarding their decision, but I am assuming they took the whole chicane as one move. In other words at the end of the chicane Lewis, having gone off the track, should have been no closer to Kimi than when he went into it.
Anyone who watches F1 will know that overtaking can be incredibly difficult as the fancy wings etc of the car in front creates a lot of disturbance in it’s wake which means the wings of the following car can’t operate as effectively as it would in clean air. There is however a point where it is benefical to be close behind, ie in his slipstream, but it’s getting to that point which is the hard bit and is generally achieved under braking for a corner when aerodynamics are a little less important.
It could be argued that if Hamilton was X distance behind Kimi coming up the straight prior to the chicane, then he should have been that same distance behind him after letting him retake the lead othwerwise he has gained an advantage, albeit not a place. This is what I think has warranted the penalty.
It seems pretty clear to me that once Kimi takes the lead after the chicane, Lewis is much closer than he had been before - effectively he was well in Kimi’s slipstream thereby allowing him an excellent run down to the first corner.
McLaren’s defence seems to be based on the fact that Lewis was travelling at 6kmh slower than Kimi as they crossed the start/finish line which they say shows that he had done all he had to do in relinquishing the place to the Ferrari driver. I’m not sure if this is all the evidence they have to offer, but if it is then I can’t see their appeal being successful mainly because they had provided this information to the stewards on Sunday and it obviously didn’t change their minds.
Will McLaren actually appeal? I don’t think I’d advise it given that in the past additional penalties have been added where it has been unsuccessful, and it may be that once they have given it further thought they will decide not to pursue matters. They already seem to have the public’s support on the matter so perhaps that is a victory of sorts.
While I can understand why the penalty was given, I also sympathise with those who don’t think it was handled very well. I agree that I want to see the true race winner on the podium and that in an ideal world any investigations would take place prior to the podium celebrations and press conferences.
This is obviously not always possible so perhaps all podiums should be scrapped or delayed if any of the top 3 drivers are under investigation by the time the race ends?
I seem to recall other instances in the past where cars have failed scrutineering well into the night and results were changed even at that late stage. While I think it’s hard to take, I also don’t think rule breakers should be “let off” simply because their offences are found late in the day.
This story is going to run and run, with several big F1 fans claiming they are close to giving up on the sport while others see this as further evidence that the FIA and their stewards do everything in their power to help Ferrari to the titles year after year.
While I do sometimes feel this way, at the moment I feel that it’s not as biased as it perhaps appears - perhaps McLaren and their drivers simply break more rules than Ferrari!
September 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Well, I kind of agree that there was a case to investigate, and I totally agree that Hamilton himself gave the stewards reasons to investigate.
There was only one penalty possible, the questions was whether to give it or not.
If hamilton gained advantage he had to be penalized, if he did not he should walk away with race win.
I do think that he gained some advantage, but I am not absolutelly convinced. With a bit of doubt I would probably be against the penalty.
The stewards thought otherwise but they also had more info and data about the whole incident than I have.
So whether the ruling is justified that may be a question. But I would not call it a farce. For me it was 50:50 decision and stewards leaned towards the penalty
What is interesting is the relatively calm repsonse from both Ferrari and McLaren …
September 8th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
This is the part of the Pro-Ferrari argument I have a problem with. I cannot see how it is acceptable for a driver to turn into a driver who he knows is alongside him. And yet countless drivers have got away with it in the past. I think it is dangerous and wrong. Remember the outrage when Schumacher did it to Hakkinen (2000) and Alonso (2003)?
Faced with that, there were nothing Hamilton could do but cross the chicane. Unlike what he did at France, he let Raikkonen pass him again. So as far as I’m concerned he did everything that might reasonably have been expected of him based on the rules and past precedent.
The stewards decision was wrong and totally out of proportion with the supposed ‘crime’.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Well I think there were to parts of the story. The part one was Raikkonen’s defense that lead to Hamilton cutting the chicane. If that move from Kimi was ruled dangerous or illegal there would be likely be no investigation into what Hamilton did next. Stewards did not seem to be interested in Kimi’s actions there. End of part one.
Part 2 - what did Hamilton next. He returned back to the track ahead of Kimi, position he gained as a direct result of cutting that chicane. He slowed down, allowed Kimi to retake the lead but only just. The moment he was in Kimi’s slipstream he pulled off another overtaking maneuvre.
I believe the question stewards asked here was whether hamilton was able to pull that second overtaking maneuvre as a result of the advantage he gained after cutting that chicane. Point for debate, but I do not think it so clear that we say right away that the decision the stewards took was wrong and out of proprotion.
Yes, FIA may seem biased, but sometime when I see how quickly the whole internet starts blaming FIA in unison, sometime only minutes after they come up with some decisions I wonder whether we also do not have here case of anti FIA bias … Yes FIA and Max, same as FOM and Bernie have done many stupid things. But not every decision that goes against McLaren is biased, same as I do not think that we should automaticaly consider anything anti McLaren being pro Ferrari.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
@Milos: Phew, I’m glad to see I’m actually in a minority of 2, not 1!!
There has been quite a bit of abuse for the length of time the stewards took to come to a decision - if it had happened earlier in the race then they wouldn’t have reached a decision before the end! I think that they knew this was a tough choice, one that could go either way, and that they were better taking extra time to debate it rather than to just rush it in order to get the result confirmed as soon as possible. There wasn’t any pressure put on them time-wise so why not take the extra time to discuss it fully?
I also agree that not everything which goes against McLaren is pro-Ferrari necessarily and vice versa. Had Hamilton been overtaking Heidfeld, Kubica, Alonso, Button or Coulthard I would still have thought the punishment fair enough.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
@Keith Collantine: For possibly the first time ever, I don’t agree with your thoughts on a subject!
The point I was making wasn’t pro-Ferrari, I don’t have any particular like for the red team - but neither do I have anything against them either.
As usual, James Allen is far more eloquent in print than in speech and his piece for ITV-F1 is quite a good read. Given his vocal support for Hamilton during his commentaries I thought he would side with the McLaren driver, but it would appear that’s not the case.
On your point about Kimi’s handling of the chicane, he says :
I take it from your comment, that you are miffed more about this point than the question of whether Hamilton gained an advantage by running wide or not?
One good thing to come of this is that it’s at least got people talking about F1 again - Valencia was far too dull lol!!
September 8th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I find this one the best post about this topic
September 8th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Add me as another in the minority. I don’t get the fuss at all - I think the HK penalty was far more marginal, and harsh.
The drivers have been told in briefings that they must “fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained”. And it’s very clear Hamilton didn’t restore the advantage he had gained.
If it had been two different drivers there would be nobody complaining. Kimi’s defending into the chicane was robust, but nothing Hamilton hasn’t done, and exactly the same thing he would have done had the positions been reversed.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
@Don Speekingleesh:
Yes, another one who agrees with me!!
I do think it’s a shame that the stewards aren’t a bit more open - if they had come out and said “this was a close call but because of X, Y and Z we felt we had no other choice but to serve a penalty” then I think most neutrals would accept it. Lewis fans obviously would still feel aggrieved, but a lot of the doubt would have been taken away.
I can’t see there being any chance of this happening however!