FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Denthúl]

Well, their decisions are mostly based on what the drivers have to say when they get pulled in to the stewards' offices. Obviously it has come to light that Lewis has said, in an interview, that he was told to let Trulli pass. Thus, they've listened to the radio transmissions and found this to be the case and don't think it matches up with what Lewis said in their office. Of course, that's all if this is indeed true. It could well not be.

Sorry I don't agree whatsoever, They should have made a decision based on the replay of the incident. In no other type of competition would you call in the competitors and ask them for their stories regarding the incident in question, and base your decision on their testimony. The Stewards should have realized by watching the footage that Hamilton and Trulli were confused by what positions they should have been in, and simply declared Hamilton 3rd and Trulli 4th.

Not that simple. There was no official footage of Trulli going off and Hamilton passing him, and no footage whatsoever of Trulli repassing. Furthermore, if it turns out that McLaren told Lewis to let Trulli past again, then they should not have declared Hamilton third and Trulli fourth. As soon as they gave that order, they forfeited the position.

^ Indeed, DD. It's why I think that regulations regarding post-race time penalties should be changed to allow for appeals.

[Frosty]

Should the Stewards be basing their decisions on what the driver's are saying? Is it just me or does this sound like a very bad way to officiate to begin with.

That is a good point I think Stewards should always ask the drivers involved about their side of the story but their decision should not be based solely upon that. They have access to all the telemetry, TV footage, radio transmissions it's crazy that they made a decision without having all that information!

One of the posts above states that the stewards didn't have access to radio transmissions, for whatever reason. Furthermore, if it wasn't mentioned when they were discussing it with the drivers, they would have had no reason to check.

That’s what I'm trying to say they should wait until they had the radio transmissions and telemetry before making a decision it doesn't matter if none of the drivers brought it up they should still check before making a decision or something like this might happen!

[Denthúl]

Should the Stewards be basing their decisions on what the driver's are saying? Is it just me or does this sound like a very bad way to officiate to begin with.

That is a good point I think Stewards should always ask the drivers involved about their side of the story but their decision should not be based solely upon that. They have access to all the telemetry, TV footage, radio transmissions it's crazy that they made a decision without having all that information!

One of the posts above states that the stewards didn't have access to radio transmissions, for whatever reason. Furthermore, if it wasn't mentioned when they were discussing it with the drivers, they would have had no reason to check.

That’s what I'm trying to say they should wait until they had the radio transmissions and telemetry before making a decision it doesn't matter if none of the drivers brought it up they should still check before making a decision or something like this might happen!

And then they get criticized for taking too long! The guys cannot win.

[csrracer]

Should the Stewards be basing their decisions on what the driver's are saying? Is it just me or does this sound like a very bad way to officiate to begin with.

That is a good point I think Stewards should always ask the drivers involved about their side of the story but their decision should not be based solely upon that. They have access to all the telemetry, TV footage, radio transmissions it's crazy that they made a decision without having all that information!

On the other hand, this was a situation in which, had it happened earlier in the race, JT would have gotten a drive through penalty based on a more or less on the spot decision with no interview or radio transmission data available. So, you could argue the way the stewards handled THIS situation was marginally better than what would have been possible during the race and they did it due to pressure to have closure as quickly as possible after the race. In hindsight it would have been better to have the stewards take their time and look at all the evidence.

If it happened earlier in the race, they would have sorted it out before restarting, Isn't that what happened on the first Safety car period? Keep in mind Trulli didn't pass Hamilton while racing for position he passed him, and Hamilton let him by Because they didn't know what positions they should have been in.

[Frosty]

Should the Stewards be basing their decisions on what the driver's are saying? Is it just me or does this sound like a very bad way to officiate to begin with.

That is a good point I think Stewards should always ask the drivers involved about their side of the story but their decision should not be based solely upon that. They have access to all the telemetry, TV footage, radio transmissions it's crazy that they made a decision without having all that information!

One of the posts above states that the stewards didn't have access to radio transmissions, for whatever reason. Furthermore, if it wasn't mentioned when they were discussing it with the drivers, they would have had no reason to check.

That’s what I'm trying to say they should wait until they had the radio transmissions and telemetry before making a decision it doesn't matter if none of the drivers brought it up they should still check before making a decision or something like this might happen!

And then they get criticized for taking too long! The guys cannot win.

They shouldd have the information instantly after the race!

[csrracer]

I agree if the Stewards are going to wait until the race is over, then wait another 24 hours until you have all the evidence and then make a proper decision. Either way he should have been penalized 1 race position not 25 seconds.

[darwin dali]

I agree if the Stewards are going to wait until the race is over, then wait another 24 hours until you have all the evidence and then make a proper decision. Either way he should have been penalized 1 race position not 25 seconds.

Uh no! The regs are if a drive-through penalty would apply during the last 5 laps of a race, then a 25 sec penalty will be applied in lieu.

[csrracer]

I agree if the Stewards are going to wait until the race is over, then wait another 24 hours until you have all the evidence and then make a proper decision. Either way he should have been penalized 1 race position not 25 seconds.

Uh no! The regs are if a drive-through penalty would apply during the last 5 laps of a race, then a 25 sec penalty will be applied in lieu.

The Regs also assume the Stewards know what they're doing, but they don't. If they did they would have had Trulli and Hamilton swap positions before the end of the race. Just like they would have done before a restart, had there been more time.

[loosecannon]

I will be very disappointed with Lewis if it turns out he lied to Charlie in order to gain a position, unfortunately, I think the fact that they are holding this meeting proves that he did lie and is going to be punished. If the stewards looked over all the data and radio transmissions and found that it supported what Hamilton said, the whole matter would have been dropped when Toyota pulled the plug. But as I see it, they looked over the data, decided Lewis lied and suggested to Toyota that they (Toyota) should drop the issue because the officials will be taking the matter into their own hands. He's screwed. just like every decision seemed to go against him last year.

[darwin dali]

I will be very disappointed with Lewis if it turns out he lied to Charlie in order to gain a position, unfortunately, I think the fact that they are holding this meeting proves that he did lie and is going to be punished. If the stewards looked over all the data and radio transmissions and found that it supported what Hamilton said, the whole matter would have been dropped when Toyota pulled the plug. But as I see it, they looked over the data, decided Lewis lied and suggested to Toyota that they (Toyota) should drop the issue because the officials will be taking the matter into their own hands. He's screwed. just like every decision seemed to go against him last year.

Loosecannon, let's not jump the gun (pun intented ). We'll find out more today once they had the meeting...

[bud]

Naughty Lewis.

[Denthúl]

The Toyota team radio transmissions (for both Jarno and Timo) during the last few laps of the safety car period is available on JA's blog. Interesting that, having passed Lewis, Jarno attempted to yield the position on multiple occasions.

http://allenonf1.wordpress.com/2009/04/ ... -hamilton/

[Hanwombat]

Hamilton summoned by stewards over Trulli pass

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/04/ ... ulli-pass/

i think this is going to turn sour!

Being put back in to fourth place would be the least of Lewis' worries if this turns out to be true. Makes me wonder why the stewards had no access to radio transmissions on Sunday night, though. The FIA and the race organisers need to make this kind of information available for immediate use then we can avoid things like this in the future.

Ehem, it wouldn't be needed if the drivers were more honest like SV

If he has lied then he deserves to be punished! I will be surprised if he has lied because it would be a monumentally stupid thing to do, considering how open all of the radio information is and then to go and tell some jurnos the complete opposite to what he might have told the stewards it would truly be the height of folly!

Naughty boy if he has lied, I want Mclaren to do well, but I dont need a lying driver

[racechick]

Wierder and wierder. I guess lewis didnt go past for fear of penalties.
Any update anyone?

[bud]

thats cool