"I think it is very clear, the rules are clear," said Toro Rosso's Sebastien Bourdais. "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.

So the penalty to LH is for past transgressions?

"I don't really understand why there is such a mess 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."

Was there any question LH gave the position back?

Quote:
This is a sentiment echoed by Toyota's Jarno Trulli. "I agree the penalty was quite big but I am not a steward. But it is also clear he got an advantage," he said.

What was LH's advantage since he was behind KR before the pass? Was KR not in the most optimum gear or line compared to LH? Was that a result of LH's attempted pass? Maybe, maybe not

"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.

Not sure about the protocol of not attacking in the first corner after giving up the position. Is there a rule about this?

"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."

Take a look at turn 1 at the start. Talk about run off area and passing off course - maybe a different circumstance and interpretation at that point in the race.

Quote:
Williams driver Nico Rosberg added: "He did have an advantage because he would not 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."

In the videos I reviewed, KR and LH were just about even going into the corner. KR should have had the advantage coming out as he had the line. LH avoided a collision and went off course and gained position, then soon after gave it up. IMHO, after re-establishing position, the resultant margin between the two was maintained as it was going into the previous corner. It's up to the drivers to maintain optimum vehicle control regardless of position.

Everyone has an opinion. Not sure the F1 drivers quoted are as objective as one would like.

Sherwood

Everything those drivers said is irrelevant since the penalty was for simply leaving the racecourse, not for gaining an advantage, or for not giving up a position quick enough. So, the next question for Mr. Rosburg is how many spots were you penalized when you drove off the track and nearly collected Lewis and Kimi?

This is why the entire decision is bogus (please read carefully) ;)

Everyone knows that the true reason Lewis was penalized was beacuse he cut the corner and gained a position. This is what journalists, fans, ex drivers and current drivers are arguing about...did he gain an advantage or not. But the sticky wicket for the rulesmakers is that they cannot put this in writing since Lewis did indeed give the position back to Kimi and fullfilled the letter, but perhaps not the "spirit" of the reg. Plus they had the problem that Charlie Whiting had already told McLaren that the manuver was legal. DOH!

But, Hamilton HAD to be penalized for sometihing, so, they looked at each other and said, "well, we cant use that regulation, so lets use another". The one they chose is the regulation that says you cannot leave the track while racing. Well that is pretty all encompassing. Hamilton did leave the track, so he is guilty. the tricky spot comes when you look back that the first two laps and the last two laps and count how many other cars used the runoff's. What about thier penalty?

Keep arguing about how soon he gave the position back, the amount of advantage he gained, how many seconds he was off the gas and how soon he re-passed. Its all irrelevant since none of that had anything to do with the official penalty. What you need to argue about is why Hamilton was penalized for something several others did without penalty.

Oh....and you may want to devote some time to why there was no penalty or black flag for Kimi when his exhaust was flapping in the breeze and then flew off the car in France. Or even better, when he recklessly left the pits before being sent and mowed down two crewmembers. I challenge anyone to try and explain that, because I am pretty certain that there is a rule against driving over crewmembers!:rolleyes:

You are right about the spirit of the rule....and I believe that's what the drivers are getting at. Clearly they understand that Hamilton got an advantage by the move he made.

Consider if the stewards had penalize everyone who'd ever got off track for what some of you are arguing, that "why wasn't the others penalized for cutting the chicane," then we'd all be b!tching about the ease of which they handed out penalties. (I'm sure some of you think that already...and to the M team especially :) )

Kimi got screwed (whether by his own participation or as a result of Hami's recklessness)....and if it had been Senna or Schumi....Hami would have ended up against a wall with Sennas car pinning it there and Massa would be ahead in the points LOL!

"Clearly they understand that Hamilton got an advantage by the move he made."

Souk,
Please explain to me the advantage Hamilton had prior to the final pass of Kimi. Was the illegal advantage that he used Kimi's draft to pass him? or outbrake him?

Missing braking points, then overrunning corners is a common occurrence on the GP circuit. It's expected the illegally overtaking car give up any position advantage to the competition, then continue. I fail to see where LH did not do this. What am I missing?

"Kimi got screwed (whether by his own participation or as a result of Hami's recklessness)....and if it had been Senna or Schumi....Hami would have ended up against a wall with Sennas car pinning it there and Massa would be ahead in the points LOL!"

Kimi was losing time to LH the last lap. Hamilton had the superior car at that point in time. It was just a matter of time, IMO. If Senna or Schumi had attempted a punt, they might have taken themselves out as well, which they might have for all I know, but that's conjecture. Kimi's chance ended when the weather conditions were too much for his car at speed, but he wasn't screwed. He chose to max out when traction wasn't there. Hamilton was nowhere in sight when Kimi lost it and lost the podium position. BTW, I was rooting for Kimi too, but you can't apply selective fairness or apply a commonly made rules infraction to a particular driver just because they want to penalize him.

Sherwood

Anyone else think the FIA is purposefully postponing a ruling so that they can see the results of the next race first. The did it for Massa in Valencia...

http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3262_4130386,00.html