maFIA

[mauricefree]

secondo me i giudici sono tenuti a decidere se vantaggio c'è stato o no: se si la sanzione è quella prevista e stop. sarà semplicistico ma è così. Whitemarsh non doveva chiedere a nessuno, se voleva stare tranquillo doveva dire al suo pilota di non attaccarlo subito, penso che l'avrebbe passato poco dopo... Non credo sia previsto che la scuderia abbia il diritto di sapere subito se sanzione c'è e quanto, i regolamenti vanno conosciuti e nel dubbio... stai dalla parte dei bottoni...

Peccato che nel post parlassi anche e soprattutto della motivazione (con un calcolo in secondi o decimi, peraltro operazione molto difficile senza strumenti di rilevazione precisi), per cui ci sarei andato piano nel comminare la penalizzazione, ma loro hanno deciso così, che guardando il video LH non ha restituito interamente il "maltolto", così, a lume di naso...

Anche in questo caso amen...la porcata/pagliacciata (per me) l'hanno fatta e neppure tanto senza secondi fini. Ora il mondiale è più equilibrato che mai...

comunque è inutile discutere ancora abbiamo detto tutti la ns. opinione divergente: ovviamente per alcuni LH, Whitemarsh e Co. hanno sbagliato; per me in buona fede e facendo un gran finale di gara Hamilton ha dato un saggio di guida e il suo direttore tecnico ha cercato solo di sapere due volte (con la medesima risposta di ok!!) se tutto era a norma con restituzione della posizione dal direttore di gara (non è la prima volta che succede mi pare e non solo dalla mc laren di chiedere lumi), forse la prossima volta chiederanno un parere ad un ultras ferrarista sulle tribune per essere proprio sicuri con un ok di essere dalla parte della ragione, eh già.

Modificato Settembre 10, 2008 da mauricefree

[Jean Valjean]

Non vi siete chiesti come mai la McLaren abbia chiesto tre volte se era tutto a posto?

Sapevano bene che quanto fatto da LH era irregolare!

visto che il regolamento è vago, meglio accertarsi, no?

[Jean Valjean]

Quanto alla penalizzazione di 10 posti in griglia non si può sapere fino Monza conclusa in caso l'avessero data...perchè comunque partire 10° (ammesso uno faccia la pole ) o 11°/12°...cioè quinta o sesta fila non credo che riusciresti ad arrivare anche con una mc laren più che terzo o quarto...anche con un bel recupero...proprio negli ultimi anni abbiamo notato che anche a Monza anche gente come Alonso ed altri hanno faticato a superare (mi sembra Villeneuve) pur con una vettura di 2 secondi più veloce per il disturbo della scia ad altissima velocità con le conformazioni aerodinamiche delle monoposto attuali.

per me 10 posizioni sarebbe stato anche peggio (a meno che non piova )

[Jean Valjean]

Ad ogni modo, mi sembra che l'organizzazione FIA abbia scricchiolato in questa occasione, non vedo dolo da parte di una squadra a chiedere al Direttore un parere, era il Direttore che doveva astenersi dal darlo, perchè così facendo nel darlo ha tolto la possibilità alla squadra di riparare al danno.[/i]"

post molto interessante (ci riveli la fonte?)

purtroppo succede che la fia scricchioli quando accadono dei semi-imprevisti, ma d'altronde prevedere tutto è difficile e comunque lasciare un po' di discrezionalità non guasta per poter eventualmente ravvivare il mondiale

[mauricefree]

per me 10 posizioni sarebbe stato anche peggio (a meno che non piova )

é probabile....

Come dici tu, visto che la regola era vaga, nel senso di interpretabile, il vantaggio da restituire era di difficile quantificazione...si potevano tranquillamente limitare ad una forte multa.

No, hanno dovuto togliere una vittoria cercata, voluta con caparbietà..anche se gli poteva andar bene anche finire dietro a KR.

D'ora in avanti sarà il festival dei trenini e dei piloti radiocomandati...dalla paura delle sanzioni ....vaganti.

[SCRIGNO MAGICO]

O forse basterà non tagliare le chicane per non incorrere in sanzioni, o dopo il taglio non fare i furbi...

[Cozzamara]

Si può discutere fin che si vuole su che tipo di sanzione, ma non si può discutere se era da comminare o no.

Notizia apparsa oggi

Formula 1, i piloti contro Hamilton: "Ha sbagliato lui"

Indice Ultim'ora

MONZA - Tutti contro Lewis Hamilton: secondo molti piloti di Formula1 - interpellati a riguardo - e' stato giusto penalizzare il britannico nel Gp del Belgio, anche se la penalita' e' stata un po' troppo pesante. Nella prima conferenza stampa ufficiale della Fia, Sebastien Bourdais (Toro Rosso), Giancarlo Fisichella (Force India), Nico Rosberg (Williams) e Jarno Trulli non hanno tergiversato. ''Ha avuto un vantaggio tagliando la chicane - hanno detto - e' lui che ha sbagliato. Poteva magari attaccare alla curva successiva. Aveva molte chances per farlo''. Errore di Hamilton indiscutibile, quindi, ma i giudici hanno avuto la mano pesante. ''Venticinque secondi e' una penalita' dura'' ha confermato Fisichella. (Agr)

[mauricefree]

Ah beh è una grande notizia, che novità: i piloti (siccome non è toccato a loro il provvedimento) dicono che hanno fatto bene a punire LH.

Soliderietà su questi aspetti fra piloti (questioni di sicurezza esclusa ovviamente) non ce n'è quasi mai stata, a maggior ragione vs. uno che ha un gran talento ed una vettura che è una delle due migliori (in altre parole la già vista anche in altre occasioni, invidia).

Ovviamente se toccava loro questo provvedimento chissà come mai penso che non avrebbero detto (quegli stessi interpellati): "ah si, hanno fatto bene a punirmi", eh già perchè per coerenza ed onestà di pensiero....

[Jean Valjean]

la pensa differentemente symmonds:

Symonds: Spa penalty will stifle racing

By Jonathan Noble Wednesday, September 10th 2008, 17:48 GMT

Renault director of engineering Pat Symonds believes Lewis Hamilton was hard done with his Belgian Grand Prix penalty - and reckons the controversy will only harm attempts to make the sport more exciting.

Speaking on the official Renault podcast in the wake of Hamilton being stripped of victory for gaining an advantage by cutting a chicane, the highly respected Symonds sees nothing wrong with the way that Hamilton let Raikkonen retake the lead as they battled at Spa-Francorchamps.

And although rubbishing accusations in the media and from fans that the penalty was evidence of a bias towards Ferrari by F1's chiefs, he thinks there are implications from the controversy that could result in drivers being less willing to take risks in the future.

"As it happened in real time, we were talking on the intercom and said: 'Wow that was definitely a situation where he has to give the place back,'" he said. "I guess we weren't that surprised when the stewards were found to be investigating it. Having looked at it again, I feel very, very sorry for Lewis. I think he has been very hard done

by.

"It raises lots of interesting questions, and I am not talking about 'Are the FIA on the side of Ferrari?' We have to believe that they are impartial, the sport would not exist if we didn't believe that. But I think it does call into question [the sport's] philosophy, because everyone is saying we need more overtaking in Formula One, we need more excitement, and we need more personalities.

"And yet it seems to me that everything that actually happens seems to be against that.

"Here we had a great race with people really challenging each other and for why? If it's taken away, then why take that risk?"

Symonds has looked at video replays of the incident since Sunday's race and now believes that Hamilton had complied with the rules and not gained an advantage by cutting the chicane.

"To me the facts are quite clear in retrospect. I have had a look at the videos, I've had a look at the published data which shows that Lewis was nearly 7 km/h slower than Raikkonen across the line, you can quite clearly see on the in-car camera that he lets him get completely in front, and in my view Raikkonen just braked very early.

"Lewis went inside him, and if you look at the in-car camera stuff, Lewis drove around the hairpin very easily. He didn't have a big slide, he didn't have to correct it, he hadn't gone in too deep and come out wide, it was a perfectly legitimate manouevre, and it wasn't that much later that Raikkonen went past him.

"This is racing, this is what we want."

And Symonds believes that more should be done to improve the speed by which decisions are made.

"I think motor racing should be like football, not like cricket," he said, with stewards taking two hours to decide on Hamilton's punishment on Sunday night. "Let's have action, let's know what is going on in real time, not wait for two days to find out the result."

[Jean Valjean]

sil sil ecco la stessa notizia vista da un'altra angolazione

Drivers say Hamilton penalty was harsh

By Jonathan Noble and Pablo Elizalde Thursday, September 11th 2008, 14:07 GMT

Formula One drivers agreed on Thursday that Lewis Hamilton had taken advantage from jumping a chicane at the Belgian Grand Prix, although some reckon the penalty was perhaps too hard.

"What happened is that he took an advantage by cutting the chicane," said Ferrari's Felipe Massa, who inherited the win after Hamilton was given a 25-second penalty after the race.

"You can ask drivers how many overtaking moves you see there.

"None between the last corner and the first corner, because there is such a small straight there. That is my opinion and it doesn't change."

Toro Rosso's Sebastien Bourdais said rules were rules.

"I think it is very clear, the rules are clear," he said. "Maybe the penalty is very hard but he has made the same mistake twice, he did in Magny-Cours and he did it in Spa.

"I don't really understand why there is such a messaggio around it, there is a rule book and everyone has to obey the same thing. The penalty is rough but it is up to you to give the position back."

Williams driver Nico Rosberg added: "He did have an advantage because he would not be so close if he had not cut the chicane but the penalty was a bit harsh as it did not have a big result in the end result. But it won't stop us from trying to attack definitely."

Toyota's Jarno Trulli agreed that the penalty may have been too harsh.

"I agree the penalty was quite big but I am not a steward. But it is also clear he got an advantage," he said.

"The rules are very clear, if you cut the chicane you get the advantage you have to drop it and lose advantage, in Lewis' case he should not attack in the first corner that is it.

"This last chicane, they have a lot of run off area they give you more chance to attack because in case of mistake you won't end up in wall or gravel. We have more chance to overtake."

Giancarlo Fisichella added: "I just seen pictures so difficult for me to say if it is right or not what happened. For sure maybe he took a small advantage that is why he had the possibility to overtake him again in braking for Turn One, but obviously 25 seconds penalty was quite a strong penalty."

[Jean Valjean]

per chi ha la pazienza di leggerlo questa è l'analisi più equilibrata che ho letto fino ad oggi:

Crime and Punishment

Lewis Hamilton's controversial penalty after the Belgian GP, which cost the Briton vital points in his championship lead, rekindled the suspicions, conspiracies, and distrust among many towards the governance of Formula One. Adam Cooper looks at what happened last Sunday - and why it happened

By Adam Cooper

autosport.com contributing writer

If there's one thing Lewis Hamilton can take comfort in this week, it's the fact that he's not the first World Championship contender to have a feeling that dark forces are out to derail his progress to the title.

Michael Schumacher experienced a whole host of problems in his Benetton days, Jacques Villeneuve found himself with a qualifying penalty in the penultimate race at Suzuka in 1997, and more recently Fernando Alonso was so upset with his infamous Monza blocking penalty that he threw a tantrum in Race Control.

Strange things do indeed tend to happen late in the season. Remember the two title contenders and interloper Heinz-Harald Frentzen sharing the exact same pole time at the Jerez finale in '97? Or the Malaysian Ferrari bargeboard saga of 1999, which miraculously ensured that the fight went to the last round in Suzuka?

Reviewing how often things have gone down the years, a cynic might take into account the fact that it's in the interest of the sport as a whole, and in particular those with a stake in TV viewing figures, that the World Championship battle carries on for as long as possible - ideally into the final race. So were any of the above examples in any way influenced by such considerations? Some people might come to that conclusion.

There is a simpler explanation behind some of the headline-grabbing moments outlined here. Relatively routine incidents become major scandals because they involve a championship contender, and because every point won or lost is so crucial as the end of the season draws near. In addition, because the title contenders are invariably on camera, there's more chance that any indiscretion will be seen.

However, this year there's an added dimension as far as Hamilton is concerned. McLaren chief Ron Dennis might have shaken hands with FIA president Max Mosley a year ago at Spa, but there is clearly still a strained relationship between the two. There have been some suggestions that this animosity has continued to manifest itself in a series of penalties that have been applied to Hamilton (and his teammate Heikki Kovalainen) this year.

Is that really true? List the penalties together, and it's easy to come to such a conclusion. Examine them individually, and there is a logical explanation in each case. But equally, in some instances the stewards could have been more lenient. So what was the real story in Spa last weekend?

The precedent

As in the real world, much of motor racing law is based in precedent, and in this case the example that the stewards considered occurred at Suzuka in 2005. That was the race when rain in qualifying created a mixed-up grid, and newly-crowned world champion Fernando Alonso started from 16th.

The Renault driver was on a charge through the field when he cut across the chicane and passed Christian Klien's Red Bull. He backed off momentarily and tucked back in behind, only to pull out and pass him on the run to the next corner, Turn One. In effect, it was an identical scenario to that of last weekend.

"Spa was very similar to one we had in Suzuka 2005 with Fernando and Klien," says Renault team manager Steve Nielsen. "Fernando cut the chicane, and in so doing passed Klien. He gave the place back, but when he did it he dropped completely behind the rear wing, got a tow, and got past him again at Turn One.

"A couple of laps went past and [race director] Charlie [Whiting] got on the radio and said 'you've got to give it back', by which time Fernando was eight or ten seconds up the road. That was bad enough for us, but at least it happened during the race and we could carry on. It cost us a win. Raikkonen won the race, but Fernando was easily the quickest car on the circuit.

"We felt aggrieved at the time. It's a very ambiguous thing, as the regulations say you've got to give the place back. You can give the place back, but if you get a tow apparently you get an advantage that you otherwise wouldn't have had. I think it's very debatable, to be honest."

Indeed at the time there was some suggestion that even as Fernando had dropped back, Race Control had changed its mind and said not to bother after all.

Nevertheless, a precedent (of sorts) had been established: If you use your momentum to re-pass on the next corner, the FIA might take a dim view.

This example also begs the question why were McLaren not told by Race Control in France this year that Hamilton should drop a place before he was given a penalty? Apparently, the difference was in that case he made the initial move and hadn't attempted to correct it - it never occurred to him that he had committed an indiscretion.

The offence

Of course that wasn't the case last weekend. As he steered across the chicane, Hamilton knew full well that he couldn't make a pass in that way, which is why he immediately backed off - even before the team urged him to do so. It was an instinctive reaction. Job done, he felt that he was able to resume the fight immediately, i.e. on the run to La Source.

"I was getting closer and closer, but I was praying for some rain," he said when he met the TV crews immediately after the race. "Please, I need a little bit of rain just to make it more exciting, and it did!

"I was chasing him the whole time, just chasing, chasing, so I had time to plan when I do get close to him where I'm going. I had to make sure when I did close enough there was no 'ifs and buts and maybes'. I had to do the manoeuvre there and then. I pulled one off and then he pushed me wide, then I pulled another one off, and then we went off again. It was great."

Asked whether he thought he might still get a penalty, Lewis was adamant.

"They'll knock it on the head. There's nothing to take from it. If anything, Kimi was the most unfair by leaving me no room and pushing me wide. But I took it as a racing incident. I let him past by lifting, and then had the chance at the next corner. This is motor racing."

But he did concede that he was concerned: "It wouldn't be a surprise, but the fact is it would be unfair. I truly believe that in this situation, I did the right thing.

"I was ahead in the corner, and he pushed me wide, which I thought was a little unfair. He literally pushed me beyond the white line.

"I was forced on the exit road. I had to lift to allow him to come back past. He was clearly past me. And from then on I had to try and get back at him. The rules say you have to let him past, and I did."

In the McLaren pit, there was clearly some concern that things should be done properly, so immediately after the incident sporting director Dave Ryan contacted Whiting in Race Control, and twice asked if Hamilton had complied with the rules. And Whiting gave a positive response. He'd seen only the live pictures that we all saw, and his instant reaction was in Hamilton's favour.

Such mid-race conversations are not unusual, and as we saw with the Alonso example, Whiting can just as easily contact a team to ask a driver to react - something that happens a lot during safety-car periods.

Where things get complicated is that Whiting's rulings, which teams have to regard as sacrosanct in the heat of a race battle, can later be questioned by the stewards. McLaren were well aware of that, as Ron Dennis made clear immediately after the race.

"Lewis was ahead at the chicane and he got pushed wide," he said. "He definitely was in the lead coming out of the chicane. We immediately radioed him to let Kimi past. He let Kimi past, and then overtook him again before the line.

"Inevitably we wanted to know whether that was deemed to be a correction, and we checked with Charlie. Of course Charlie can only give an opinion, he's not the stewards, but he gave an opinion that we had complied properly to the regulations. I would even dispute that there was any fault, because we had the corner in the chicane. But even if we did have the corner, we let Kimi back in the lead.

"Charlie is of course a very important opinion to have. We wanted to make sure that we had complied to the regulations, and let Kimi back into the lead and taken the lead again, and the answer was yes. But as I said, it's for the stewards to decide. Hopefully, looking at the facts, they'll come to the same conclusion."

He then re-iterated that Whiting's opinion was not definitive: "Charlie is not the stewards, but we asked had we properly complied to the regulation, and he said he felt in his opinion we had. I stress, I don't want to put Charlie in a difficult position, he's not the stewards.

"But we felt A) we had the corner anyway; and B) that even if we didn't have the corner, that we had complied to the regulations. I hope what was a great motor race won't be affected by politics, but of course everybody has got to do their job. So we wait hopefully in anticipation."

The verdict

Clearly, Dennis feared that the stewards might take action, and those fears were to be justified when the 25-second penalty was eventually announced.

In effect the stewards had looked back to Suzuka '05, and come to the conclusion that even though he had ceded the place, Hamilton had maintained his advantage into the next corner. He had used his extra momentum to make the passing move at La Source. On reviewing the tapes, Whiting changed his mind and agreed with this reading of events.

Looking at it dispassionately, and as an isolated incident, there is a case to be answered. The argument is that had Hamilton followed Raikkonen round the corner in the normal way, he would not have been close enough to attempt that move. The stewards also considered the fact that at the point he made the decision to steer across the run-off area, his front wheels were aligned with the rears of the Ferrari.

My understanding is that the stewards concluded that he had an alternative course of action - that is to back off momentarily, slip back behind the Ferrari, and follow Raikkonen around the corner. Had he done that, thanks to being on a less favourable line, he would have probably had less momentum coming out of the chicane and even less chance of pulling a move on Kimi on the run to La Source.

That's the argument that the FIA will pursue if McLaren's appeal does get as far as a court, and clearly there is some substance to it.

But there is of course more to the story. Hamilton did not go off the road as a result of an optimistic out-braking move. At some stage during the incident, he was clearly alongside or even ahead, but as the cars snaked round the corner, Raikkonen held his line and eased Lewis towards the kerb.

That is racing, as the cliche goes, and no doubt Hamilton would have done the same, just as he leaned on Felipe Massa in Hockenheim. But it did leave Lewis with very few options. Had he stayed put and the two cars touched, he would have left himself open to accusations of causing an avoidable collision (as would Raikkonen). He could argue that he took to the run-off to avoid just such a collision, although as we've seen, the FIA view appears to be that he could have backed off and dropped in behind.

The key question is the pass at La Source. Was it really all down to the extra momentum that Lewis gained by jumping the chicane? A look at the amazing on-board coverage that appeared on the internet this week shows just how much Raikkonen was struggling. Indeed he braked so early for the chicane that Hamilton appeared to be caught unawares, and his jink to the left and attempt at a pass looks like an unplanned, instinctive reaction.

It seems obvious then that Raikkonen would also brake early for La Source, making it that much easier for Lewis to make his move down the inside. In fact the behaviour of both cars on the run to the hairpin was a little unusual, as they jostled around. It could be argued that Raikkonen was distracted by having the McLaren much closer in his mirrors than it would normally have been, but that seems to be taking the 'gaining an advantage' theme to an extreme.

McLaren has made much of the fact that Lewis was 6.7km/h slower than the Ferrari across the start/finish line, figures that come from the official timing. That certainly strengthens the team's case, although a snapshot reading like that doesn't necessarily tell the full story.

There are other elements that don't appear to have played a role in the decision. Having leaned on Hamilton at the chicane - a move that on a different day might have got Raikkonen into trouble - he then hit Lewis in the rear as the pass was completed at the hairpin. That nudge in itself could be called into question, even if it didn't send Hamilton into a spin.

Later that lap there was another incident that probably did not come up for discussion by the stewards. Hamilton and Raikkonen both ran wide at Pouhon, but while Lewis turned almost instantly back on to the track, Kimi took a wide arc across the asphalt run-off for several hundred more metres before he returned to the racing surface. This wasn't properly seen at the time, but is all too clear from the on-board coverage.

Gaining an advantage by not using the track is surely not just about cutting corners, but also making them bigger. By staying out there on the run-off, well away from the track, Raikkonen not only ensured he didn't spin, he also gave himself a lot more momentum than Hamilton had. And guess what happened at the next corner? He overtook Lewis...

Now, matters are of course complicated by the fact that Nico Rosberg was driving on to the track after an off, and that forced Hamilton to go wide and on to the grass. But the fact is Raikkonen arrived there much closer to the McLaren than he might have otherwise been. And then there's the whole question of yellow flags, and the extra speed that Kimi carried into that corner.

Of course it worked against him when he spun on the exit, but you can see where I am going with this. There was a lot going on at the time, and all of it could have been taken into account when arriving at a sensible, balanced decision.

Then you have to go to the very heart of what gaining an advantage means. OK, so the pass at La Source was open to interpretation - but just seven or eight corners later Raikkonen was back in the lead after the above-mentioned move. Then a couple more corners after that he was in the barrier and out of the race. All things considered, did that tow across the start/finish line really give Hamilton an advantage? One that was worth docking him six priceless points in his battle with Massa?

I am sure some people might have felt a little differently if Raikkonen had tucked in behind Hamilton out of the hairpin, spent the next couple of laps trying to find a way past, and then crossed the line in second. Had the penalty effectively reversed the one-two finish, and handed the win to the guy who had lost out in the move under question, more people might have seen it as a satisfactory outcome.

Instead the win was gifted to Massa, who had at no stage been part of the lead battle, and finished his race with a lap of 2:45 - possibly the slowest non-pitstop, non-Safety Car race winner's lap since F1 last raced at the old Nurburgring.

Even worse for Hamilton, he lost two more points by dropping to third behind Nick Heidfeld. It was pure chance that left the BMW driver 23.8 seconds behind at the end, and thus within the 25-second margin of Hamilton's penalty. I don't know whether, mindful of a possible penalty, McLaren encouraged Lewis to set a reasonable pace so as to minimise any loss of positions. But it would have been impossible to judge how fast Heidfeld was going on wets.

Equally, it may just be pure luck that Hamilton didn't go slower than he did. He finished the race with a 2:36 lap. Had he done a Massa and really cruised around the chicane and crossed the line at 2:44, he would have tumbled to eighth in the final standings, behind Sebastien Bourdais...

The conclusion

It remains to be seen whether or not the matter will actually get to the FIA Court of Appeal and allow both sides to present a full argument, but this story will run for a while. If Hamilton loses the title to Massa by six or fewer points, then some might regard it as a tainted victory for the Brazilian, even if he personally had nothing to do with what happened on Sunday.

In retrospect, Hamilton's decision to go for the overtaking move straight away may prove to be as expensive as Damon Hill's lunge inside Michael Schumacher at Adelaide in 1994. Both men saw an opportunity, and they took it. Had they waited one more corner, the outcome might have been very different.

You could argue that Hamilton should have thought it all through first: 'OK, I've let him through, but I don't want to give the bastards even a half a chance to hang me, so I'll get him out of the hairpin.' Of course it was all happening very quickly, and in the heat of battle would even a Senna or a Schumacher or a Prost have had the mental agility to realise that patience might have paid dividends? Who knows...

The other key issue that emerges from the whole saga is the old question of the stewards, and their ability to make the right calls.

For a few seasons the FIA tried a different system, with Briton Tony Scott-Andrews as a permanent chief steward at all the races. He presided over some really big decisions, cutting through the bullshit to penalise Schumacher for his parking trick at Monaco in 2006, and Alonso for his qualifying antics in Hungary 2007. In both cases, Scott-Andrews had the balls to, in effect, expose a world champion as a liar. He would also issue lengthy explanations of how conclusions were reached, at least giving the media - and the teams - a better understanding of how the penalty was decided.

Teams might not always have agreed with individual decisions, but there was the consistency that had long been demanded, and he was respected within the paddock.

However, for 2008 Mosley decided to revert to the original system, with three stewards alternating at each race. The difference is that they are now presided over - in a specially created role - by Alan Donnelly, the former British politician who has for many years worked closely with Mosley. Donnelly is a very capable individual and is well regarded, but until this year he had no direct experience of administering the law at motor races.

His other role on race weekends is to officially act as Mosley's representative. The two are thus inevitably in regular contact, and it follows that Max potentially has a direct line to the stewards' room when decisions are being made. In other words, if Max sees something on TV that catches his attention he could easily contact Donnelly and express his views.

In January, I asked Mosley to explain how it would work. He denied that he could ever influence decisions made by the three stewards, either directly or via his new proxy.

"The people who take the decisions are the stewards," he insisted. "Alan's job will be to keep an eye on overall the governance questions. Unless we've got someone from the IOC, he's about as good as it comes. And at the same time he will keep the pressure on the people to get things done quickly.

"But there's no way that he's going to tell someone who's the president of the sport in this country or the head of the club in that country how they should decide, any more than I could. They probably wouldn't listen to me, never mind Alan..."

As I tried to absorb the concept of senior officials not listening to the president of the FIA, I further challenged Max on whether his connections with Donnelly would leave himself open to accusations of interfering. He said that he has always known what's going on in race control.

"I always have done," he said. "Charlie's in there, other people are in there, we always know what's going on. But I'm the one who's always believed in the separation of powers, and we apply it in the FIA."

But surely, I suggested, he would have a more direct line than previously? "I may well do, but I know anyway. If I wanted to know, I could always call up any of the stewards. They're not going to say, 'I'm not going to tell you.' It's much more free and easy. And then there's always the right of appeal from the stewards to the Court of Appeal."

In a climate where many observers of the sport feel that there is still something 'personal' between Mosley and McLaren, it seems to me that the Donnelly arrangement does leave the FIA more open than in past years to accusations that its president can influence decisions that are made on F1 race weekends, even if the official procedures suggest that such a scenario can't happen.

Mosley was somewhere outside Europe last weekend, but wherever he was I can't imagine he would want to miss the live broadcast of what is always one of the most dramatic races of the year.

The question of the capabilities of the individual stewards is another matter, and it would be wrong to get into a debate about the three gentlemen involved last weekend. All three by definition have a background in various forms of motorsport, which is why they've landed their roles within their respective ASNs.

But it has to be pointed out that Kenya's Surinder Thatti is very inexperienced at F1 level - I understand this was his second Grand Prix. He demonstrated as much by commenting on the verdict to Reuters this week, something that the FIA will frown upon.

In contrast, Whiting and his loyal lieutenant Herbie Blash have between them experience of well over one thousand Grands Prix, working either for teams or in their current FIA roles. They have seen (and heard) everything, and they know what really matters. And they understand, and enjoy, real motor racing. Their gut reaction on Sunday was that, all things considered, Hamilton had not committed an offence. And that's what McLaren were told at the time.

In North America, most major racing series have a 'referee' who makes the important, 'real time' calls on matters like driving standards. They might sometimes be controversial, but they are consistent, and they are accepted. And they can't be messed around with retrospectively.

But as we've seen, under the present system, Whiting's opinions in cases like this are not definitive. Perhaps it's time that they should be.

Instead, he's now been put in a difficult position. Next time McLaren or anyone else ask a question in similar circumstances he may find it more prudent to take a conservative approach and tell a driver to drop back, when in fact the stewards themselves might have had no problem with the move. If someone loses a race win or even a championship that way, the sport will look a little silly. But perhaps no sillier than it did last weekend...

[Jean Valjean]

al tornantino non si vedono praticamente mai sorpassi (partenza ed errori esclusi) perchè il rettilineo è troppo corto. hamilton avrà anche tratto vantaggio dal tagliare la chicane ma con 6/7 Km/h in meno di kimi non l'avrebbe mai passato se il finlandese non avesse frenato con largo anticipo.

poi che si scelga come giudice uno che è al 2° gp in carriera, beh penso che non ci sia bisogno di aggiungere commenti, sarebbe come fare arbitrare la finale di un mondiale ad un tizio che ha appena finito il corso

[NoRegrets]

Sarebbe servito per lo meno un esperto di F1.

Io avrei proposto Giocus..

[Akelitz]

articolo interessante e in larga parte condivisibile. almeno da me, forse perchè dice alcune cose che già avevo detto.

ci sono due punti sui quali però non concordo:

1) il tentativo di fare un parallello con il successivo sorpasso di KR a LH con l'inglese fuori pista per colpa di NR: se LH fosse passato alla source perchè KR sbagliava la frenata e andava lungo nessuno avrebbe parlato di sorpasso dovuto al vantaggio acquisito

2) la speculazione su quanto accaduto dopo per valutare se il sorpasso sia stato un reale vantaggio visto che KR ad un certo punto era tornato in testa: a parer mio la regolarità di ogni episodio va valutata sul momento. quello che succede dopo è comunque frutto anche di quello. se KR fosse rimasto avanti dopo la source molto probabilmente LH lo sverniciava al kemmel. ma magari invece per stare vicino all'eau rouge si spiattellava lui a muro, oppure entrambi si disturbavano nelle frenate successive e favorivano il rientro di FM che vinceva con pieno merito, oppure KR riusciva a tenerlo dietro tutto il giro. sono solo ipotesi, l'unica cosa sicura è che certamente sarebbe stato un giro diverso da quello che è stato.

[Akelitz]

come promesso torno alla valutazione degli ultimi giri di FM

al 41° giro FM ha 8"1 di ritardo, al 42° ha 7"2 (quindi ha girato 1"1 più veloce di KR), al 43° KR non transita e purtroppo non ho i parziali di settore anche se dalle immagini è evidente che FM si è notevolmente avvicinato fino al momento dell'uscita di KR. in ogni caso, nonostante abbia fatto la bus stop a passo d'uomo passa con un ritardo da LH di soli 5"7. con tutta probabilità aveva quindi guadagnato più di 2" anche in quel giro.

questo a dimostrare che negli ultimi giri, con pista già bagnata, FM non aveva avuto particolari problemi e anzi aveva continuato a tirare come e più degli altri. non era quindi più in difficoltà di LH e KR e non aveva ritenuto fino ad allora di dover rallentare per garantirsi il 3° posto e non rischiare di buttare via il mondiale.

per assurdo fino all'uscita di KR i rischi per lui erano ancora maggiori perchè in caso di uscita avrebbe visto volar via LH e sarebbe stato superato da KR. eppure nonostante questo il brasialiano teneva giù il piede con tenacia.

a quel punto il giro capolavoro. per capire come fossero mutate le condizioni della pista esaminiamo prima i giri di chi si trovava dietro, in bagare per la posizione e quindi intenzionato a spingere al massimo possibile: SV gira in 2'17"5 contro il 2'15"5 del giro prima, RK gira in 2'16"4 contro il 2'14"4 del giro prima, NH e FA non fanno testo perchè giravano con gomme rain ovviamente molto più veloci.

possiamo comunque concludere che tra penultimo e ultimo giro le condizioni fossero lievemente peggiorate tanto da costringere i piloti ad alzare il ritmo di un paio di secondi.

LH che non vuole rischiare si prende ben più di quei 2" e gira 2'36"2 ma FM fa un capolavoro e gira in 2'45"2, 9" più lento dell'inglese, quasi 30" più lento di SV e quasi 45" più lento di NH.

qui non si tratta di non voler prendere rischi, si tratta di aver completamente tirato i remi in barca, bastava girare in 2'25"/2'30" per prendersi un cospiquo margine di sicurezza (10" sul tempo migliore realizzabile) e mettere però abbondante pressione su LH.

[Akelitz]

un graffiante LH in conferenza stampa accusa KR di essere uno con pochi attributi che frena troppo presto.

effettivamente va detto che l'inglese è sembrato molto più aggressivo in frenata, nella pit lane poi è sicuramente quello che frena più tardi di tutti (vedi canada)

[Cozzamara]

un graffiante LH in conferenza stampa accusa KR di essere uno con pochi attributi che frena troppo presto.

effettivamente va detto che l'inglese è sembrato molto più aggressivo in frenata, nella pit lane poi è sicuramente quello che frena più tardi di tutti (vedi canada)

^__^

[Giocus]

complimenti se siete riusciti a sorbirvi tutto il post di jean... Non credo che la dietrologia sia "un'analisi equilibrata", di teorie complottistiche se ne possono immaginare fin che si vuole ma lasciano il tempo che trovano. Sono invece contento che i piloti (gli unici a poter giudicare davvero un episodio del genere) la pensino esattamente come me: punizione giusta ma troppo pesante. A chi dice (simmonds) che queste cose sono il sale delle corse e bisogna lasciar liberi i piloti di fare come LH rispondo che il rischio di avere in futuro (se fosse passata liscia) tanti incidenti pericolosi diventa alto. Inoltre ritengo che l'uscire di pista dovrebbe sempre comportare una penalità di un qualche tipo, comodo azzardare quando non si rischia nulla e non si trovano muretti o ghiaia... Cosa vogliamo? Della piste che con le vie di fuga diventano larghe 40 metri? Un conto salvare una manovra d'emergenza, un conto sfruttare le vie di fuga per fare sorpassi... A parte l'episodio in questione a spa si sono viste varie manovre in cui la via di fuga ha permesso di non decelerare e di avvantaggiarsi (anche KR l'ha usata), a me piacciono di più le piste dove se sbagli paghi...

p.s. dimenticavo (parere di simmonds) i giudici le telemetrie per vedere se KR ha frenato troppo presto non le hanno guardate? Questo è effettivamente un dato che potrebbe ribaltare la situazione, perché altrimenti se un pilota sa che non può essere superato può rallentare apposta, ma a parte questo che andrebbe dimostrato in maniera inconfutabile, resto dell'idea che la cosa più giusta sia proibire il sorpasso entro la prima curva dopo il salto della chicane...

Modificato Settembre 13, 2008 da Giocus

[Giocus]

Sarebbe servito per lo meno un esperto di F1.

Io avrei proposto Giocus..

e ci avresti preso alla grande...

[Ronnie Rava]

Lewis ammazzerebbe il mondiale senza ste cazzate.

Spero che non si trasformi in un mondiale falsato come quello dell'anno scorso.

Già. Peccato che stamattina intanto abbia evidentemente lasciato le sue famigerate palle sul comodino.

[mauricefree]

Ci mancava questo commento (me l'aspettavo che qualcuno scrivesse dopo la mancata qualificazione nella top ten di LH) tecnico....

Cosa c'entrano le palle (l'ormai famigerata intervista) con quello che è successo oggi?

Tra l'altro l'inglese è in buona compagnìa vista la 15° posizione anche di Kimi, la mancata qualficazione di Kubica e la qualifica per pochi centesimi al 10° posto di Massa sempre nel secondo turno. E' stato tutto condizionato dal peggiorare delle condizioni (non prevedibili del tempo) nei 15 minuti del q2 e poi anche del q3.

D'altra parte se ha fatto la pole la Toro Rosso qualifiche tanto normali non possono essere state.

Ma va beh.,..oramai Hamilton è il nemico giurato dei ferraristi...tutto ok, film già visto da anni con altri grandi piloti del passato (Senna e Prost compreso a cui proprio a Monza tirarono delle pietre quand'era in Mc Laren prima ancora dell'arrivo di Ayrton).

Ah son contento per Kimi, che rimane nelle mie simpatìe, che l'abbiano confermato anche per il 2010.

Ciao-ciao Fonso...

[Giocus]

io invece penso sia una grossa cazzata... vettel fa la pole con la toro rosso e la ferrari conferma KR fino al 2010... mah... a livello manageriale mi sembrano tornati i tempi bui della rossa... A parte le qualifiche di oggi, un po' fortunose e un po' frutto di strategie sbagliate (non tutta colpa dei piloti e tanto meno delle loro palle), penso che la rossa meriti qualcosa di meglio di uno spento raikkonen... fonso, vettel, rosberg... sarebbero piloti più freschi o motivati per guidare una rossa... A parte ciò trovare simpatico kr è davvero curioso... Un'aringa lessata è più vivace...

[Jean Valjean]

fonso va alla BMW e comunque strappare vettel dalla tororosso/red bull credo non sarebbe stato facile.

[Jean Valjean]

maurice, nessuno batterà mai quelli che scrissero (proprio a monza) "meglio perdere con alesi che vincere con schumacher" quando fu annunciato l'ingaggio del crucco (che non era proprio amatissimo dai ferraristi)

[mauricefree]

maurice, nessuno batterà mai quelli che scrissero (proprio a monza) "meglio perdere con alesi che vincere con schumacher" quando fu annunciato l'ingaggio del crucco (che non era proprio amatissimo dai ferraristi)

Già, ovviamente dopo il primo mondiale di Schumacher, di Alesi i tifosi ferraristi manco più si ricordavano chi fosse...sempre viva la coerenza....

Prost anche lui il nemico giurato dell'epoca di Alboreto 85/86 e poi nel 90 il maestro che doveva regalare ai tifosi il mondiale...

Modificato Settembre 14, 2008 da mauricefree