tomorrow is the day

[Craig.]

From what I can tell, tomorrow is the day the FIA hears the appeal from Mclaren concerning their spa penalty. I'd imagine a ruling wont take too long no matter what it may be.

[expat]

Will be interesting to see the result. This time around I really do not envy the FIA. Popular opinion is with McLaren. The drivers seem to think it was fare, however, it was wet and the Ferrari is a pig compared to the McLaren in these conditions and the biggest thing, the stewards made lots of pants decisions that weekend. So to back to not to back them.............we will have to wait and see.

Matt

[todayshorse]

I think the Autosport forums will be a melt down if McLaren win this one! I hope they do. But i have to say i dont think they actualy will

All this stuff with all the drivers agreeing with the FIA, well they would really, wouldnt they, until they are in a similar position

[MWISimmer]

The FIA are in a no win situation with this one..

They relent, and clear McLaren. The rest of the paddock will say they've bowed to media pressure.

They uphold the Steward's decision. The media will say they have a vendetta against McLaren.

I really don't know which way this one will go..  :-/  However after watching the pass LOTS of times I can see it from both sides, it's not as clear cut as some would like to make out.

[Craig.]

the big argument and the only one which should matter.

If Lewis had gone round the corner instead of through the chicane, would he have been in a close position to make the pass, would he have been a wheel length behind the Ferrari at the start finish line?
I think the answer to that is no, and thus gained an unfair advantage. This is what they've been saying all along, along with the fact he had far more momentum going into it. Again another advantage. Given the common knowledge that the mclaren is much faster in the rain, it was an advantage that he didn't need to take.

It's not popular, but then again it's how it needs to be viewed by the FIA. It should be obvious by now the fia dont care about popularity.

[C]

[quote]The FIA are in a no win situation with this one..

They relent, and clear McLaren. The rest of the paddock will say they've bowed to media pressure.

They uphold the Steward's decision. The media will say they have a vendetta against McLaren.

I really don't know which way this one will go..

[MWISimmer]

Max has also been quoted as saying something along the lines of "Ferrari are the most important team in F1, without Ferrari there would be NO Formula 1."

I can't be arsed to Google the exact quote, but that was near enough.

EDIT: But I have this from a few months back, just for a laugh:

[expat]

the big argument and the only one which should matter.

If Lewis had gone round the corner instead of through the chicane, would he have been in a close position to make the pass, would he have been a wheel length behind the Ferrari at the start finish line?
I think the answer to that is no, and thus gained an unfair advantage. This is what they've been saying all along, along with the fact he had far more momentum going into it. Again another advantage. Given the common knowledge that the mclaren is much faster in the rain, it was an advantage that he didn't need to take.

It's not popular, but then again it's how it needs to be viewed by the FIA. It should be obvious by now the fia dont care about popularity.

The problem is though, McLaren acted IAW the rules by letting Kimi repass, but in acting with the rules, they are still being penalised. The rule states that one driver must let the other pass. There is nothing to say how long he has to wait to try and overtake again. By giving McLaren a time penalty, it is a case of the rules being written as the race is being run. If acting IAW the rules McLaren gained an advantage, then that is an FIA rule problem and not the fault of McLaren and the FIA should pass regulations fit for the next race. You can't say after a race, we don't like these rules we are going to penalise you.

Max has also been quoted as saying something along the lines of "Ferrari are the most important team in F1, without Ferrari there would be NO Formula 1."

I can't be arsed to Google the exact quote, but that was near enough.

EDIT: But I have this from a few months back, just for a laugh:

It was Ron Denis in the S&M basement with the camera phone

Matt

[Craig.]

the big argument and the only one which should matter.

If Lewis had gone round the corner instead of through the chicane, would he have been in a close position to make the pass, would he have been a wheel length behind the Ferrari at the start finish line?
I think the answer to that is no, and thus gained an unfair advantage. This is what they've been saying all along, along with the fact he had far more momentum going into it. Again another advantage. Given the common knowledge that the mclaren is much faster in the rain, it was an advantage that he didn't need to take.

It's not popular, but then again it's how it needs to be viewed by the FIA. It should be obvious by now the fia dont care about popularity.

The problem is though, McLaren acted IAW the rules by letting Kimi repass, but in acting with the rules, they are still being penalised. The rule states that one driver must let the other pass. There is nothing to say how long he has to wait to try and overtake again. By giving McLaren a time penalty, it is a case of the rules being written as the race is being run. If acting IAW the rules McLaren gained an advantage, then that is an FIA rule problem and not the fault of McLaren and the FIA should pass regulations fit for the next race. You can't say after a race, we don't like these rules we are going to penalise you.

Matt

On your points. It's a general rule that you dont attempt to repass on the first corner. This is discussed in every drivers briefing before the race. Now the FIA have officially written it as 2 corners before a pass.

Charlie.
Half the reason we have the rules and regs we do, is because of Ferrari's success, points changes, car changes and so on.

[todayshorse]

It's a general rule that you dont attempt to repass on the first corner. This is discussed in every drivers briefing before the race. Now the FIA have officially written it as 2 corners before a pass.

This is interesting. But is a 'general rule' thats discussed by drivers at the drivers briefing an offical rule before the 2 corner rule came into force?

A general agreement between drivers is one thing, it written down in

[Craig.]

I can only say this once more.
Charlie Whiting has no say, no power, no right to comment on that issue. He is race director. And as much as I hate to say I agree with something Max said. It was improper and inappropriate for Mclaren to talk to Charlie about it, but it was even more inappropriate for Charlie to respond. He should have been 100% focused on the race, the flags, the fact the weather was going south and the fact problems were happening all over the place. That is his job. It's his say where flags are flown, where accidents happen, when safety cars are needed. By talking to Mclaren and focusing on the issue he was distracted at a time, when critically he needed to make a decision. Ironically the time Kimi dropped it in to the wall.
Mclaren have a radio comm link as do all the teams, to the FIA race stewards, they should have contacted them, as its there job to decide. If it would have been a few laps earlier they would have had the stewards on the radio telling them to give the place back again. So it's them Mclaren should have gone to.

As for the rule originally. It was written, that, should a driver cut a corner and gain a place, he must give the position back, "and not gain an advantage" The problem begins in the fact that the wording is not that clear. It doesn't say for how long, thats where the drivers briefing comes into play, and the whole "wait a corner" discussion is brought up. That came into play after the Alonso incident at Suzuka a few years back.
I think as with a lot of rules and regs in F1, they introduce them so quickly, they dont actually think about the wording, they dont take into account the well it probably wont ever happen, situations. And then when it does your left with the situation we have now from spa.

As for the 2005 tyre rule. That really wasn't the reason Ferrari were that bad. It didn't help. especially having only Ferrari onboard as a top team with money to test.
But the reality was, the F2005 was an absolute dog of a car. They tried to take the best of the F2004, and then make the 2005 car work with those. Reality was they needed a whole new car. The first few races Ferrari chose to run the F2004 because the 2005 was so poor in pre-season testing, and it did okay, but when the wins failed to come, they rushed the F2005 into action, and from then on they were fighting a losing battle with a car that could never be a legitimate race winner. It was only Michael's driving ability that kept it in with a shot, just look at rubens results down the stretch. It's the same situation with Renault now. Last years car was aweful add in two average drivers and it did nothing, that was an upgrade of the R26 which was a great car, but like the F2004 down the stretch, was caught up with by its rivals.

[eno]

There is no excuse for poor wording in rules.  Just because there's been an informal agreement between the drivers, at the drivers briefing, as to the interpretation of the poorly written rule there can be no argument if the rule is followed to it's letter as written in the rule book.... which it was.

In other words you don't rewrite the rule to suit the circumstances.

The Massa pit lane incident a couple of races ago ..... no penalty because it didn't affect the outcome of the race..... what's the difference with this one Kimi stuffed it into the wall a lap or so later so Lewis would have won regardless.

In other words if you set a president then that president continues for the rest of the season.

[Craig.]

Hasn't that been the way of F1 for god knows how long now?

I'm not saying I agree with it. I know some people think I am for the penalty but I'm really not. I dont like Max moseley regardless of his love affair with Ferrari, and I really do wish he was gone so someone with a brain could be allowed to sort all the mess out.

[todayshorse]

Well, although i dont fully understand if autosports report means the appeal can be heard or what, they spent the morming arguing wether the appeal could be heard, and this afternoon will argue the appeal itself. I guess that means that whoever is in charge has allowed the appeal to go ahead.

and i quote from autosprt :-

'Instead, the first two hours of discussions were dominated by debate among lawyers about whether the appeal is admissible in the first place.

Under FIA regulations, drive-through penalties are not subject to appeal. However, McLaren's barrister Mark Philips QC has argued that this case can be appealed because the discussion is about the 25-second time penalty only.

It was highlighted that at last season's Japanese Grand Prix, an appeal was heard about whether or not Vitantonio Liuzzi should have been handed a 25-second time penalty for passing Adrian Sutil under yellow caution flags. That punishment was in lieu of a drive-through penalty that is normally handed down for such offences '

McLaren still using Charlie Whitings 'i beleive it was ok' x2 in there evidence.

[todayshorse]

Well it appears i misunderstood how it was writen! The appeal has been heard, but until tomorrow it wont be decided if they can actualy appeal....weird! Why hear the appeal i they havent decided if Mclaren can appeal? According to Autosport, Ferraris QC was cross examining Hamilton......Wether hes there for ferrari or the FIA i cant quite fathom!

Appears Lewis Stood his ground with 'Ferraris' QC though, so good on him