McLaren Spa ruling
09-23-2008, 03:46 PM
#1
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
McLaren Spa ruling
guess Hamilton is guilty of not driving a Ferrari 
what a bunch of crap
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/9/8417.html
what a bunch of craphttp://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/9/8417.html
McLaren’s Hamilton Spa appeal ruled inadmissible
The FIA’s International Court of Appeal has thrown out McLaren’s case against Lewis Hamilton’s recent Belgian Grand Prix penalty on the grounds that their appeal was inadmissible.
Hamilton had 25 seconds added to his Spa race time for gaining an advantage by cutting a chicane whilst fighting Ferrari’s Kimi Raikkonen for the lead. This was given in place of a drive-through penalty, as the incident occurred late in the race, and drive-throughs are not susceptible to appeal under the International Sporting Code.
McLaren had appealed the stewards' decision, which saw Hamilton drop from first to third in the Belgian results, on the grounds that their driver had relinquished the lead back to Raikkonen immediately following the incident in order to negate any advantage. They also cited the fact that on two occasions race control had told the team that Hamilton’s conduct appeared to be within the rules.
However, the Court rejected McLaren’s right to appeal, citing Paragraph 5 of Article 152 of the International Sporting Code, which states: “Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal.”
The Court's decision means Hamilton’s championship lead remains at just a single point over Ferrari’s Felipe Massa, who inherited the victory at Spa.
The International Court of Appeal's decision in full:
At the Grand Prix of Belgium, run on 7 September 2008, and counting towards the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship, the Stewards of the meeting imposed a drive-through penalty upon the driver of car No. 22, Lewis Hamilton, for a breach of Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L, Chapter 4, Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.
As the drive-through penalty was imposed at the end of the race, 25 seconds were added to the driver’s elapsed race time in accordance with Article 16.3 of the FIA 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations.
Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are “not susceptible to appeal”.
The competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes appealed the Steward’s decision before the International Court of Appeal in a hearing in Paris on September 22nd.
Having heard the explanations of the parties the Court has concluded that the appeal is inadmissible.
The International Court of Appeal was presided over by Mr Philippe NARMINO (Monaco), elected President, and composed of Mr Xavier CONESA (Spain), Mr Harry DUIJM (Netherlands), Mr Thierry JULLIARD (Switzerland) and Mr Erich SEDELMAYER (Austria).
The FIA’s International Court of Appeal has thrown out McLaren’s case against Lewis Hamilton’s recent Belgian Grand Prix penalty on the grounds that their appeal was inadmissible.
Hamilton had 25 seconds added to his Spa race time for gaining an advantage by cutting a chicane whilst fighting Ferrari’s Kimi Raikkonen for the lead. This was given in place of a drive-through penalty, as the incident occurred late in the race, and drive-throughs are not susceptible to appeal under the International Sporting Code.
McLaren had appealed the stewards' decision, which saw Hamilton drop from first to third in the Belgian results, on the grounds that their driver had relinquished the lead back to Raikkonen immediately following the incident in order to negate any advantage. They also cited the fact that on two occasions race control had told the team that Hamilton’s conduct appeared to be within the rules.
However, the Court rejected McLaren’s right to appeal, citing Paragraph 5 of Article 152 of the International Sporting Code, which states: “Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal.”
The Court's decision means Hamilton’s championship lead remains at just a single point over Ferrari’s Felipe Massa, who inherited the victory at Spa.
The International Court of Appeal's decision in full:
At the Grand Prix of Belgium, run on 7 September 2008, and counting towards the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship, the Stewards of the meeting imposed a drive-through penalty upon the driver of car No. 22, Lewis Hamilton, for a breach of Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L, Chapter 4, Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.
As the drive-through penalty was imposed at the end of the race, 25 seconds were added to the driver’s elapsed race time in accordance with Article 16.3 of the FIA 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations.
Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are “not susceptible to appeal”.
The competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes appealed the Steward’s decision before the International Court of Appeal in a hearing in Paris on September 22nd.
Having heard the explanations of the parties the Court has concluded that the appeal is inadmissible.
The International Court of Appeal was presided over by Mr Philippe NARMINO (Monaco), elected President, and composed of Mr Xavier CONESA (Spain), Mr Harry DUIJM (Netherlands), Mr Thierry JULLIARD (Switzerland) and Mr Erich SEDELMAYER (Austria).
09-23-2008, 04:04 PM
#2
Burning Brakes
I think their logic is something like, IF Hamilton had tucked behind Kimi in the chicane, instead of cutting it, he would not have been able to pass him before the next corner. I was surprised the Speed announcers did not warn against him passing Kimi prior to the next corner to ensure he did not gain any advantage at all from cutting the chicane. Steve M, in fact, encouraged it. After all the rule is one can't gain an "advantage", not simply position, which he did give back.
09-23-2008, 04:13 PM
#3
Cartoon Character
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: Can't be more than 114... Arizona
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the rule is pretty clear, you are not allowed to overtake for one corner after cutting a chicane as you have a distinct advantage over the leading car. You have pushed him off line to avoid an impact and therefor slowed his exit speed. The rule is both fair and reasonable regardless of which team you are piloting for. It is also clear that a drive through is not subject to appeal. Unlike lesser sports and racing series, F1 absolutely adheres to the rules and every driver knows the rules backwards.
I drove in FIA races in various countries and I knew the rules completely as did all of my team mates. Hamilton knew the rules, Dennis knew the rules and these guys have not exactly been pristine over the last few years .There is a lot of money involved, like about $5 million a point, so they always appeal - even when it is unfounded...
09-23-2008, 04:26 PM
#4
Melting Slicks
I'm a Schumacher fan (and I guess a Ferrari fan by association), but in the heat of battle, I can certainly understand Hamilton doing what he did. The rule is clear though - must wait one more corner before attempting a pass. The thing is, he really didn't have to try to pass him there. He was significantly quicker and would have easily passed Kimi within a corner or two anyway. It should be a good fight to the end of the season.
09-23-2008, 04:51 PM
#5
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
please correct me if I'm wrong as i haven't read the sporting regulation for myself and I'm pretty much depending on the announcers for information, but it was my understanding that the rule said that you can't gain an advantage by going off the track but doesn't go into any more specifics than that and the wait until after the next corner was briefed to the drivers and Monza.
09-23-2008, 04:56 PM
#6
Cartoon Character
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: Can't be more than 114... Arizona
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rules are absolutely clear, the briefing was a rehash...
The announcers are completely partisan on Speedvision so they lean towards English teams pretty hard. Probably because Ferrari won't speak with them due to their negative on-air remarks for the last 10 years about the red cars....
The announcers are completely partisan on Speedvision so they lean towards English teams pretty hard. Probably because Ferrari won't speak with them due to their negative on-air remarks for the last 10 years about the red cars....
Last edited by Tintin; 09-23-2008 at 05:03 PM.
09-23-2008, 05:52 PM
#7
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
well, i'm glad someone knew about the "wait until after the next corner" rule. Do you have any reference to that? Just would like to know where in the sporting regulations it says that or where the officials informed the drivers prior to the Spa race that was there interpretation of the rule because I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in thinking that it was a BS call by the officials.
09-23-2008, 07:32 PM
#8
Le Mans Master
If a penalty was warranted, and I do not believe it was, they imposed the penalty that changed the race results instead of the 10 spot back at the next race. And I like Kimi....
09-23-2008, 07:43 PM
#9
Burning Brakes
The rules are absolutely clear, the briefing was a rehash... The announcers are completely partisan on Speedvision so they lean towards English teams pretty hard. Probably because Ferrari won't speak with them due to their negative on-air remarks for the last 10 years about the red cars....
The announcers are completely partisan on Speedvision so they lean towards English teams pretty hard. Probably because Ferrari won't speak with them due to their negative on-air remarks for the last 10 years about the red cars....
09-23-2008, 08:22 PM
#10
Cartoon Character
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: Can't be more than 114... Arizona
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-25-2008, 12:31 AM
#11
Burning Brakes
09-25-2008, 03:01 PM
#12
Cartoon Character
Member Since: Jun 2006
Location: Can't be more than 114... Arizona
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am guilty if misreading the news articles. McLaren were not appealing the rules infraction, just the penalty. They agreed that the pass was not legal, they just didn't like the drive through as a punishment. It is clear in the sporting code that judgements by the clerk of the course are not subject to appeal, which is reasonable when you think about it as the races would be tied up forever without a resolution if every decision were under review. The advantage rule is in the supplemental regs for F1 which may not be at that link. The rest of the FIA rules are.
Be sure that this was a calculated move by Hamilton, F1 drivers are not like normal humans - they do not generally do things in the heat of the moment. A guy who can adjust the brake balance and speak on the radio whilst pulling 4 g's at ridiculous speed (see "Spaceballs") does not get excited and do silly things. Don't believe it? Get out your favourite race game, mine is GTR-2 currently, get into a tight race and prep your wife to come in and ask you a question like "What would you like for dinner" or some such. If you even hear her, I'll bet you crash or at least lose one position. These guys do it as a matter of course.. 22 buttons on the wheel and they manipulate them on the fly!
Hamilton would not have been able to pass and win if he had not tried on the upper pit straight. The next corner is way slow and the line is downhill. Massa would have blocked and won.. if the penalty had been the usual 10 seconds or whatever, he would have been ok. That is why it was 25..
Be sure that this was a calculated move by Hamilton, F1 drivers are not like normal humans - they do not generally do things in the heat of the moment. A guy who can adjust the brake balance and speak on the radio whilst pulling 4 g's at ridiculous speed (see "Spaceballs") does not get excited and do silly things. Don't believe it? Get out your favourite race game, mine is GTR-2 currently, get into a tight race and prep your wife to come in and ask you a question like "What would you like for dinner" or some such. If you even hear her, I'll bet you crash or at least lose one position. These guys do it as a matter of course.. 22 buttons on the wheel and they manipulate them on the fly!
Hamilton would not have been able to pass and win if he had not tried on the upper pit straight. The next corner is way slow and the line is downhill. Massa would have blocked and won.. if the penalty had been the usual 10 seconds or whatever, he would have been ok. That is why it was 25..
Last edited by Tintin; 09-25-2008 at 03:03 PM.
09-25-2008, 09:53 PM
#13
Melting Slicks
So tell me if this is then possible ....
Driver B passes A illegally and gives up spot. The fans watching then see that both
drivers have equal opportunity to begin racing with D A having the advantage of
being able to pick their line. They both have equal traction and similar equipment.
D B then easily passes to the inside of the next turn? How does that happen if both
have gone back "to racing"? Did D A simply make a calculated effort to delay the
race? From the fans POV it sucks! I tune in to watch racing, not lawyers!
Randy
Driver B passes A illegally and gives up spot. The fans watching then see that both
drivers have equal opportunity to begin racing with D A having the advantage of
being able to pick their line. They both have equal traction and similar equipment.
D B then easily passes to the inside of the next turn? How does that happen if both
have gone back "to racing"? Did D A simply make a calculated effort to delay the
race? From the fans POV it sucks! I tune in to watch racing, not lawyers!
Randy
09-26-2008, 01:56 AM
#14
Burning Brakes
So tell me if this is then possible ....
Driver B passes A illegally and gives up spot. The fans watching then see that both
drivers have equal opportunity to begin racing with D A having the advantage of
being able to pick their line. They both have equal traction and similar equipment.
D B then easily passes to the inside of the next turn? How does that happen if both
have gone back "to racing"? Did D A simply make a calculated effort to delay the
race? From the fans POV it sucks! I tune in to watch racing, not lawyers!
Randy
Driver B passes A illegally and gives up spot. The fans watching then see that both
drivers have equal opportunity to begin racing with D A having the advantage of
being able to pick their line. They both have equal traction and similar equipment.
D B then easily passes to the inside of the next turn? How does that happen if both
have gone back "to racing"? Did D A simply make a calculated effort to delay the
race? From the fans POV it sucks! I tune in to watch racing, not lawyers!
Randy
Last edited by Bimota Guy; 09-26-2008 at 02:00 AM.