FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.
#64271
So, in other words, McLaren themselves were doubtful whether or not LH's driving was kosher and so they asked CW in an attempt to cover their arses. Well, it backfired - let's see what the appeal results in...

Its normal procedure DD :rolleyes:

But then again McLaren have to ask when they can take a piss these days!
#64276
So, in other words, McLaren themselves were doubtful whether or not LH's driving was kosher and so they asked CW in an attempt to cover their arses. Well, it backfired - let's see what the appeal results in...

What a load of bollocks, DD. :rolleyes:
#64277
From Planet F1:

McLaren appeal likely to be heard after Italian GP
Wednesday 10th September 2008

The appeal against the 25-second penalty handed to Lewis Hamilton following his Belgian Grand Prix victory is likely to be heard between the Italian and Singapore GPs.

McLaren on Tuesday lodged an official protest against the stewards' decision to demote the Englishman to third after they ruled he gained an unfair advantage when he cut the chicane while trying to overtake Kimi Raikkonen at Spa.

The Woking-based team's appeal is based on the fact that race officials twice reassured them that Hamilton's move past Raikkonen was "okay".

In a statement McLaren CEO Martin Whitmarsh said: "From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was 'okay'.

"If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis's actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time."

McLaren also feel they have evidence that Hamilton slowed down just before the start/finish line at Spa.

Hamilton said in the statement: "The team also came on the radio and instructed me to allow Kimi to repass, which I had already done. As a result, Kimi crossed the start/finish line ahead of me and 6.7km/h quicker than me.

"After allowing Kimi to completely repass, I crossed from the left side of the track to the right side of the track, passing behind Kimi in the process. I then attacked Kimi on the inside of the first corner, and successfully outbraked him."

McLaren, though, may be up against it as the FIA's court of appeal could dismiss their case as confusion reigns over whether or not motorsport's governing body even have a case to answer.

Article 152 of the FIA's International Sporting Code states a drive-through penalty is 'not susceptible to appeal'.

However, the McLaren bosses feel they have a case as the penalty was handed down retrospectively. If their appeal is successful Hamilton's victory will be restored, but if they fail they face the risk of an even greater penalty.
#64279
So, in other words, McLaren themselves were doubtful whether or not LH's driving was kosher and so they asked CW in an attempt to cover their arses. Well, it backfired - let's see what the appeal results in...

What a load of bollocks, DD. :rolleyes:


nothing new there :wink:
#64297
So, in other words, McLaren themselves were doubtful whether or not LH's driving was kosher and so they asked CW in an attempt to cover their arses. Well, it backfired - let's see what the appeal results in...

What a load of bollocks, DD. :rolleyes:



How so? Just stating the obvious. Why else would they ask?
#64327
So, in other words, McLaren themselves were doubtful whether or not LH's driving was kosher and so they asked CW in an attempt to cover their arses. Well, it backfired - let's see what the appeal results in...

What a load of bollocks, DD. :rolleyes:



How so? Just stating the obvious. Why else would they ask?

It's another nice piece of phraseology from you, DD. It's ambiguously worded, but I've been on this forum long enough to know what you are implying.
#64330
So, in other words, McLaren themselves were doubtful whether or not LH's driving was kosher and so they asked CW in an attempt to cover their arses. Well, it backfired - let's see what the appeal results in...

What a load of bollocks, DD. :rolleyes:



How so? Just stating the obvious. Why else would they ask?

It's another nice piece of phraseology from you, DD. It's ambiguously worded, but I've been on this forum long enough to know what you are implying.


Hm, curious now: what exactly am I implying, eh? :wink:
#64335
Looking back now don't you think they were right to be cautious in trying to avoid something like what is going on right now? Instead of being a sign of guilt, could the question have been a sign of justified paranoia?
#64347
Looking back now don't you think they were right to be cautious in trying to avoid something like what is going on right now? Instead of being a sign of guilt, could the question have been a sign of justified paranoia?


Paranoia or not, it would have been the wiser decision to play it safe and stay back a while longer to avoid any of this...
#64348
Oh, for dear sake. What a load of rubbish. :rolleyes:

What Hamilton did was well within the regulations. Had I been running the team, I wouldn't have felt the need to even contact race control. To make sure Hamilton's move was within the regulations, McLaren's pit staff contacted race control twice to ensure the move was legal. If it wasn't, the team would have allowed Raikkonen past again. Can you play things any more safe? :rolleyes:
Last edited by McLaren Fan on 10 Sep 08, 21:38, edited 1 time in total.
#64368
Looking back now don't you think they were right to be cautious in trying to avoid something like what is going on right now? Instead of being a sign of guilt, could the question have been a sign of justified paranoia?


Paranoia or not, it would have been the wiser decision to play it safe and stay back a while longer to avoid any of this...


yeah why not stop for a cup of tea during that time

hey ole chap fancy a cup of tea.....

oh wait we are racing good fellow

come again i say
#64370
Looking back now don't you think they were right to be cautious in trying to avoid something like what is going on right now? Instead of being a sign of guilt, could the question have been a sign of justified paranoia?


Paranoia or not, it would have been the wiser decision to play it safe and stay back a while longer to avoid any of this...


yeah why not stop for a cup of tea during that time

hey ole chap fancy a cup of tea.....

oh wait we are racing good fellow

come again i say


Well, LH was reigning KR in and would have passed him very soon anyway, so what's the rush? Inexperience of the driver paired with McLaren's cockiness me thinks...

See our F1 related articles too!