FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[stonemonkey]

Maybe this has been brought up already and if it has it's been lost among a lot of other stuff.

Last year after Spa Mclarens appeal was heard but then rejected without even being considered on the grounds that because of the nature of a drive through penalty it could not be rescinded even if it was given out after the race in the form of a time penalty and that appears to be regardless of any new evidence.

I am not saying Trullis reinstatement shouldn't stand or anything like that, but it makes it look to me like Mclarens appeal rejection last year was the result of the rules being changed or interpreted to suit a perticular agenda.

[bud]

the FIA has never been consistent.

[Hanwombat]

the FIA has never been consistent.

! ! ! !

[Denthúl]

Maybe this has been brought up already and if it has it's been lost among a lot of other stuff.

Last year after Spa Mclarens appeal was heard but then rejected without even being considered on the grounds that because of the nature of a drive through penalty it could not be rescinded even if it was given out after the race in the form of a time penalty and that appears to be regardless of any new evidence.

I am not saying Trullis reinstatement shouldn't stand or anything like that, but it makes it look to me like Mclarens appeal rejection last year was the result of the rules being changed or interpreted to suit a perticular agenda.

Absolutely not. Toyota dropped their appeal, the stewards took this further because of the possibility that Lewis had misled them.

[bud]

Absolutely not. Toyota dropped their appeal, the stewards took this further because of the possibility that Lewis had misled them.

has that ever happened before though?

[Denthúl]

Absolutely not. Toyota dropped their appeal, the stewards took this further because of the possibility that Lewis had misled them.

has that ever happened before though?

I don't know - have we ever had this situation before? Yes, people have misled or simply lied to the stewards, but they tended to keep the story the same with the media as well. It's new ground, I guess.

Point is, relative to what the question asked, this isn't inconsistency.

[rleggett]

What puzzles me is why were Trulli and Hamilton called to give evidence in the first place? Surely when this is effectively a drive through penalty, which is given as a time penalty because it is late in the race, there should be no discussion? If this had happened in the first safety car period, then the Stewards would simply have made their own mind up based on the video evidence without being able to all either driver.

If there is a lack of consistency, then that is it. But I agree that the position is different to McLaren's appeal at Spa. In fact, that is the reason why Toyota dropped their appeal - they knew it was invalid because of the type of penalty.

[stonemonkey]

Maybe this has been brought up already and if it has it's been lost among a lot of other stuff.

Last year after Spa Mclarens appeal was heard but then rejected without even being considered on the grounds that because of the nature of a drive through penalty it could not be rescinded even if it was given out after the race in the form of a time penalty and that appears to be regardless of any new evidence.

I am not saying Trullis reinstatement shouldn't stand or anything like that, but it makes it look to me like Mclarens appeal rejection last year was the result of the rules being changed or interpreted to suit a perticular agenda.

Absolutely not. Toyota dropped their appeal, the stewards took this further because of the possibility that Lewis had misled them.

Yeah, after searching around I've found that it's to do with the right to appeal. I was under the impression after4 Spa08 that the reason for it was that if a drive through is imposed during a race then no appeal could change the outcome and that once a post-race drive through had been imposed it was subject to the same.

Still, it gives the FIA totally free reign as to whether or not to acknowledge any new evidence that surfaces on any incidents.

[Gaz]

yeh the FIA are rubbish.

[McLaren Fan]

Still, it gives the FIA totally free reign as to whether or not to acknowledge any new evidence that surfaces on any incidents.

Indeed. McLaren are a marked team. The FIA can manipulate the regulations and procedures to make sure they nail them every time they get an excuse to do so.

[darwin dali]

What puzzles me is why were Trulli and Hamilton called to give evidence in the first place? Surely when this is effectively a drive through penalty, which is given as a time penalty because it is late in the race, there should be no discussion? If this had happened in the first safety car period, then the Stewards would simply have made their own mind up based on the video evidence without being able to all either driver.

If there is a lack of consistency, then that is it. But I agree that the position is different to McLaren's appeal at Spa. In fact, that is the reason why Toyota dropped their appeal - they knew it was invalid because of the type of penalty.

Wasn't it McLaren that started the whole investigation by talking to Charlie and asking for clarification if not even outright ask for change of the final ranking??? That would explain why JT and LH were interviewed...

[stonemonkey]

What puzzles me is why were Trulli and Hamilton called to give evidence in the first place? Surely when this is effectively a drive through penalty, which is given as a time penalty because it is late in the race, there should be no discussion? If this had happened in the first safety car period, then the Stewards would simply have made their own mind up based on the video evidence without being able to all either driver.

If there is a lack of consistency, then that is it. But I agree that the position is different to McLaren's appeal at Spa. In fact, that is the reason why Toyota dropped their appeal - they knew it was invalid because of the type of penalty.

Wasn't it McLaren that started the whole investigation by talking to Charlie and asking for clarification if not even outright ask for change of the final ranking??? That would explain why JT and LH were interviewed...

There was a change in order of the cars during the safety car period, that would warrant an investigation. The teams response was to be cautious instead of relying on Lewis' opinion that he'd passed only when Trulli had left the track.

EDIT:
Edited as they were asking for clarification after the first time the order changed.

[racechick]

What puzzles me is why were Trulli and Hamilton called to give evidence in the first place? Surely when this is effectively a drive through penalty, which is given as a time penalty because it is late in the race, there should be no discussion? If this had happened in the first safety car period, then the Stewards would simply have made their own mind up based on the video evidence without being able to all either driver.

If there is a lack of consistency, then that is it. But I agree that the position is different to McLaren's appeal at Spa. In fact, that is the reason why Toyota dropped their appeal - they knew it was invalid because of the type of penalty.

Wasn't it McLaren that started the whole investigation by talking to Charlie and asking for clarification if not even outright ask for change of the final ranking??? That would explain why JT and LH were interviewed...

There was a change in order of the cars twice during the safety car period, that would warrant an investigation. The teams response was to be cautious instead of relying on Lewis' opinion that he'd passed only when Trulli had left the track.

Yep. Should have trusted Lewis! or as someone else has suggested, got an expert to concentrate soley on rules and regs and then stuff the FIA with their own rule book.

[csrracer]

One thing that does stay consistent, is that Ferrari seems to never be penalized ????