FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[EwanM]

guess in Australia i dont get the same as what you get and have no quams with the guy or what he says does in his personal life.

Im sure some spaniards are the same with over saturation of Fernando Alonso right???

Yeah, but i'm not Spanish and just because I like Fernando Alonso doesn't mean that everything the guy says I agree on.
Alot will be said about him but he really isn't in the position to say anything about being overtaken etc.

[Mikep99]

How boring and tiresome all this is getting.
You know my answers & I am not going to repeat them again in detail, they still stand & the video clearly illustrates it………….. to me anyway. But what the F**K do I know.

The ONLY reason I bothered with my last few posts was because of the constant & monotonous INSISTANCE on every post by some as UNREFUTABLE fact that the SPA incident was Clear cut & the only possible reason for the penalty was the Ferrari bias – as usual.

From my post it is simple to see why it is not clear cut. There are so many issues to take into consideration which are all valid.

BUT

I believe that the benefit of the doubt should apply in this case.
No one really did anything dramatically wrong & it could all be considered a racing incident.
But hammy did gain an advantage which he tried to address to the letter of the law.
But did it really address it to counter the advantage he gained by cutting the corner? This is where the benefit of the doubt should have come into place.

It was ballsy exciting racing which is sorely missed and deserved better.

Was an investigation inconceivable? I don’t think so.
Was the penalty right – I don’t think so but then again ?????

A quick quiz: Why is it built into racing computer/consol games that when you go off track your cars performance is effected dramatically & you loose out ? The answer is CLEAR CUT but in real life we know it ain’t but you should not be in the same or better position than when you went off that’s a fact.

I hate all this controversy it sh!ts me to death just as the constant whining by some.


And McLaren fan,

I can't answer for bud, but as far as I'm concerned, if the situation was identically revered between Hamilton and Raikkonen, I would applaud Raikkonen's move and probably berate Hamilton for surrendering the inside line!

Yeh that’s a good one, and ………………………..




We all know better mate

This is seriously no fun anymore
over and out

[McLaren Fan]

And McLaren fan,

I can't answer for bud, but as far as I'm concerned, if the situation was identically revered between Hamilton and Raikkonen, I would applaud Raikkonen's move and probably berate Hamilton for surrendering the inside line!

Yeh that’s a good one, and ………………………..




We all know better mate

This is seriously no fun anymore
over and out

I'm afraid I don't cry foul all of the time like Ferrari do when they can use their political clout to get some kind of advantage. As far as I'm concerned, Hamilton is a mere employee of McLaren, and if he screwed up, allowing Raikkonen to pass him with ease, I would criticise him. If he did it repeatedly, I'd say a lot worse. One employee of McLaren who is really starting to annoy me now is Kovalainen.

[onelapdown]

The ONLY reason I bothered with my last few posts was because of the constant & monotonous INSISTANCE on every post by some as UNREFUTABLE fact that the SPA incident was Clear cut & the only possible reason for the penalty was the Ferrari bias – as usual.

From my post it is simple to see why it is not clear cut. There are so many issues to take into consideration which are all valid.

BUT

I believe that the benefit of the doubt should apply in this case.
No one really did anything dramatically wrong & it could all be considered a racing incident.
But hammy did gain an advantage which he tried to address to the letter of the law.
But did it really address it to counter the advantage he gained by cutting the corner? This is where the benefit of the doubt should have come into place.

It was ballsy exciting racing which is sorely missed and deserved better.

Was an investigation inconceivable? I don’t think so.
Was the penalty right – I don’t think so but then again ?????

A quick quiz: Why is it built into racing computer/consol games that when you go off track your cars performance is effected dramatically & you loose out ? The answer is CLEAR CUT but in real life we know it ain’t but you should not be in the same or better position than when you went off that’s a fact.

I hate all this controversy it sh!ts me to death just as the constant whining by some.

Re the comments about irrefutability and a case that is clear cut - I hope you're not including me in that because I can see it's a bit of a grey area. I agree with all of the above comments, but I've been stung by racing sims plenty of times when I didn't deserve it! However, at least I had my penalty served there and then and could make up for the time lost rather than finding a hard-fought and well-deserved win taken away two hours later while I was having dinner.

but you should not be in the same or better position than when you went off that’s a fact.

This is the key point and it is my honest view that Hamilton wasn't. However, the real grey area in this particular case is whether:
a) you should not have an advantage reletive to where you probably would have been had you stayed within the rules
b) you should not have an advantage relative to the nearest competetor - period.

If a) then I believe Hamilton complied. If b) I think Whiting gave McLaren duff advice.

The real problem is that the rule states ONLY that you should remain on the track at all times.

[bud]

hahahaha you know we are right!

Roger ...ten 4... tally ho

[FerrariFan63]

I'm afraid I don't cry foul all of the time like Ferrari do when they can use their political clout to get some kind of advantage.

Seriously though, if Mosley farted, I'm sure you and Bud would be on here in a minute claiming that he'd done so in the general direction of McLaren.

[bud]

I'm afraid I don't cry foul all of the time like Ferrari do when they can use their political clout to get some kind of advantage.

Seriously though, if Mosley farted, I'm sure you and Bud would be on here in a minute claiming that he'd done so in the general direction of McLaren.

just lap it up mate you have nothing to worry about following Ferrari

[bud]

FIA sets McLaren appeal date
12/09/2008
The FIA has announced that the FIA International Court of Appeal will sit on Monday September 22 - just four days before the Singapore GP weekend gets underway - to hear McLaren's appeal against the 25s penalty meted out to Lewis Hamilton following the Belgian GP.

The court's decision will be announced the following day.

[McLaren Fan]

Let's hope that sport wins, not just on 23rd September, but for this season and future seasons. Formula One cannot go on as it is now.

[FerrariFan63]

Let's hope that sport wins, not just on 23rd September, but for this season and future seasons. Formula One cannot go on as it is now.

Can't it? People have been moaning since I can't remember when. It still goes on.

[McLaren Fan]

Let's hope that sport wins, not just on 23rd September, but for this season and future seasons. Formula One cannot go on as it is now.

Can't it? People have been moaning since I can't remember when. It still goes on.

It can go on for a few more years, but viewing figures have been declining for a while now. They may have increased a little these last two seasons because the exciting title races, but "spygate", "sado-masochism gate", perceived Ferrari bias etc. is dissuading people from watching Formula One. Formula One teams, for instance, rely on sponsors so they can go and race. Sponsors pump money into the teams so they can get publicity etc., but if nobody is watching the sport, they will have less incentive to inject cash into the teams. If there are no teams able to compete, Formula One is finished.

[FerrariFan63]

Can't it? People have been moaning since I can't remember when. It still goes on.

It can go on for a few more years, but viewing figures have been declining for a while now. They may have increased a little these last two seasons because the exciting title races, but "spygate", "sado-masochism gate", perceived Ferrari bias etc. is dissuading people from watching Formula One. Formula One teams, for instance, rely on sponsors so they can go and race. Sponsors pump money into the teams so they can get publicity etc., but if nobody is watching the sport, they will have less incentive to inject cash into the teams. If there are no teams able to compete, Formula One is finished.[/quote]

It's still a massive sport. And you don't need teams to have £500m a year budgets for it to survive. The budgets could be cut to a small fraction of their current amounts and F1 could still continue. Not as "professionally" as it does now, but in some ways the older days had their advantages.