Lewis third, Jarno given 25s penalty > Trulli 3rd, Lewis DSQ

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.

Post Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:19 am

dave34m wrote:Early on the stewards said that the comments LH made to the media conflicked with the evidence he had given them.
Im not sure why they took LH word over trullis at the stewards meeting but the reports in the media suggested that something was wrong with the whole thing.
Im a big McLaren fan and a New Zealander and I dont like what has happened here at all.



Trulli said he told the stewards that LH slowed so much off line that he thought LH had a mechanical issue and he couldn't go any slower and keep up with the safety car so he had no choice but to regain the position. LH said the opposite, that he didn't let him by and that he wasn't told to let him by.

Trulli says "North". LH says "South". Somebody is lying and it is the stewards job to get the facts straight before ruling. Why didn't they penalize JT for lying when he asserted the exact opposite as LH did before the stewards? There is no "opinion" here as mikhak would have us believe. JT's testimony was very certain, detailed and explicit. He said the LH slowed so much off line that he thought he had a reliability issue and that he had to pass to keep up with the safety car. There is no "opinion" there. It is an explicit assertion of facts that was contrary to LH's version.

The stewards were simply derelict in their duties, failed to conduct even the most basic investigation, failed to confer properly with their own Race Director Charlie Whiting who had all the records from Mac's pitwall on the highly touted FIA instant emailing system wherein Mac said that they just told LH to let JT through (reference to this communication with Charlie Whiting is on the radio transcript). The stewards then made an indefensible, rash and hasty ruling that was so wrong that they were forced to reverse it 4 days later. But instead of owning up to their incompetence, they blame shifted and said their ruling was based upon believing LH. This necessarily means they didn't believe JT's explicit contrary version. Someone was lying and their first ruling meant that they chose to believe that JT's very explicit assertions were in fact, lies. But strangely enough they didn't punish JT under article 105.3.2.8.4.86 (or whatever). This is further evidence of the FIA complete incompetence and inconsistency.

And where was mikhak during the 4 days when the FIA held to the position that JT's testimony had to be false? Was he calling for JT's head on a platter? I missed that somehow.

This whole thing is one big FIA smokescreen and the people have fallen for the diversion. Face it, the FIA are a bunch of boobs.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
gcdugas
 
Joined: 19 Sep 2006

Post Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:40 am

mikhak wrote:oh and it wasnt just hamiltons story versus trullis story and the stweards decided which one they like best to believe. they also had video footage as well to make their decision which must not have shown enough evidence that hamilton deliberately slowed to let trulli past.



"Must not have"? Really? You are clearly grasping at straws here. But somehow now the in-car footage does now show it only because the radio transcripts have surfaced in the media? Did the in-car footage change when the radio transcripts surfaced?

The stewards plainly did not consider the following....

1.) IM communications between their own Race Director and Mac.
2.) Post race interviews LH made before the stewards called him in.
3.) The radio audio records from all teams.
4.) Available TV footage records that is provided as a "world-feed" to media outlets. Every inch of the track is covered by cameras and recorded, often from several angles.
5.) And we can deduce that they did NOT use the in-car footage because it squares with what we now know is the truth which is that LH slowed way off-line and Trulli had to repass him to keep up with the SC.

I would like to repeat the question I asked earlier....

gcdugas wrote:More questions to Max...

Last year at this time you [Max Mosley] were involved in a sordid sex scandal with disputed N@z! overtones. You retained the Quest Investigative Service run by Lord Stevens. If he conducted the investigation into who set you up with the same degree of thoroughness that the FIA stewards ran their Aussie 2009 GP inquiry, would you pay Lord Stevens? Does the F1 watching public deserve any less than you expect from those acting on your behalf?
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
gcdugas
 
Joined: 19 Sep 2006

Post Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:02 am

gcdugas wrote:Yes it appears inescapable the LH lied. So what do you want? Banished for the season? Why not banished for 2010 as well? Banished for life and his superlicense revoked forever. Hung by his toenails over a vat of boiling oil! Name your recommended punishment and then tell me what your recommended punishment will be for the stewards? For Max and his lies.... Enough bravado and self-righteous indignation... let's hear what you think fits the crime and leave it at that. But don't leave out the other guilty parties, nor let them escape your indignation.


I am still waiting for recommendations from the "crucify LH" crowd. Let's hear it.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
gcdugas
 
Joined: 19 Sep 2006

Post Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:46 am

so apparently hamilton contacted mosley and blamed it all on mclaren and was granted his own press conference...felt like he wanted to quit but mosley told him not to

so in all likelihood he'll try and find a way to a new team i reckon, his image is being tarnished and will be again considering mosley seems to want to screw mclaren and they appear to be bending over at every opportunity to give him a chance to do it

now....which top team will be looking for a driver next year.....*cough*brawn*cough*

it'd be great to have an all english team, english drivers, english personel and english sponsors!
hulmerist
 
Joined: 12 Feb 2009

Post Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:54 pm

vall wrote:
Kester wrote:Regardless, the case at point is no longer what happened on track, it's the fact Lewis was asked a direct question, to which his answer didn't correlate to information that was later discovered.



right. That's it. If LH said, yeah, they told me to let him go and I did it, then it would have been OK. Truly would not be penalized and LH would keep his 4th place. But as I see it, they tried to take advantage from the situation and make it look like Truli overtook LH.


But Hamilton's rightful place was 3rd not 4th. The problem was McLaren kept asking Charlie for a decision (with messages) on whether Hamilton could pass Trully (and not get penalised for SC) but he never answered them. Why?

There was probably a lot more going on behind the scenes after the race and in the end McLaren got screwed. They probably asked for 3rd place and Trulli to be 4th and they were told that there was no rule to allow for that (IS THERE?) and to file another complaint if they want. There's a lot of bad blood there so they did and it got out of proportion. They probably have supporters and enemies in FIA and there was a battle, but in the end the enemies won. So yeah, technically they "lied", but only because they were being wronged in the first place.

At any rate, what would be a bigger story in a sporting event like say the Olympics. If an athlete was found using steroids or if the Council was caught red-handed doing something sinister or being incompetent (nearly criminally so)?
I think McLaren admitted they lied as a compromise to avoid further complicating matters and further penalties (and maybe even destroying F1 completely). FIA is not angels.

EDIT: Stewards/Charlie made a pigs-ear of it, as they should have told McLaren and Toyota during the race to swap places. And none of this would have happened.
Last edited by komninosm on Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
komninosm
 
Joined: 5 Apr 2009

Post Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:06 pm

hulmerist wrote:so apparently hamilton contacted mosley and blamed it all on mclaren and was granted his own press conference...

Source?
felt like he wanted to quit but mosley told him not to

so in all likelihood he'll try and find a way to a new team i reckon, his image is being tarnished and will be again considering mosley seems to want to screw mclaren and they appear to be bending over at every opportunity to give him a chance to do it

now....which top team will be looking for a driver next year.....*cough*brawn*cough*


Don't be melodramatic. That's quite unlikely. You've clearly not been around F1 long enough. This crap happens all the time, don't let it get you bogged down, and try you best to rise above it and focus on the racing, which is what we're all here for.

it'd be great to have an all english team, english drivers, english personel and english sponsors!


No, it wouldn't. F1 is an international sport, one of the most so, I recon. Just like he USAF1 team, trying to keep it "all domestic" is a pointless concept that in the end will only hamper a team's efforts. Drawing from an international pool of talent, in drivers, personnel, suppliers, and sponsors, means you are in a position to get the best the world has to offer. And I believe the world is a bigger place, with more to offer, than any one country.

Oh, and keep in mind, McLaren is based out of Woking :wink:
The FOZ
 
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Winterpeg, Canada

Post Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:53 am

donskar wrote:
lkocev wrote:I never said I was blaming the Stewards for McLaren lying, only people within McLaren can do that. There is no need for you to be a smart ass, I guess you are another typical Ferrari fan, because of your immediate jump at the oportunity to bring up Stepney-gate.

Seriously now mate, the Stewards have a wealth of resources to refur to when these type of situations arise, they are paid to do a job and that job involes investigating incidents and applying penalties accordingly. They should have already listened to the radio transmission recordings, and viewed all footage available to them before the 'sit-down' with Lewis even happened. They left themselves open to be misled, and on top of that, they based their penalty to Jarno on inconclusive evidence... and these are they guys that said Lewis gained an advantage by cutting the chicane at Spa-Francorchamps?

You mention Ferrari allowed themselves to be robbed, just remember, it was one of their own empoyees that robbed them. You seem to forget that F1 teams are not made up of engineers who are robots, programed to be 100% loyal and ethical, but instead engineers who are human, humans who want more money sometimes, who want better working conditions sometimes, who want a new boss because there current one is a bit of a cunt to them, who are willing to lie, and do un-ethical things to get these things. Ferrari are an F1 team, they know the classification of their information, data, all that stuff, the fact that their own employee leaked that information so easily and so much, would suggest to a reasonable man that they were not doing enough at that time to protect there information, from these type of threats.

Back on topic I read that a steward commented that the matter can be taken further with McLaren, seems a bit silly to me. Enough is enough, its gone as far as it needs to go, Hamilton has been DQ'd, McLaren made to look like assholes again, and the stewards have proven (yet again) that they can more or less do what ever they want, screw up as bad as they want, and get away with it because no one in the correct position to speak out against them has the balls to speak out against them.


I bow to your eloquence: “There is no need for you to be a smart ass“ which is exceeded only by your faultless logic: “Ferrari . . . were not doing enough at that time to protect there information, from these type of threats.”

Excuse me while I go double-check my locks. Wouldn’t want to cause myself to be robbed.

And back on topic: FIA's rules may very well be absurd and illogical. But they ARE the rules. They must be followed (else there is chaos) or overturned. I hope that SOMEDAY, FOCA or SOMEONE will rise up and throw the rascals out.


There is no sentence in that post where I explicitly wrote Ferrari caused themselves to be robbed. What your suggesting to me is that team officials are supposed to trust their staff completley and, and assume that they are always going to do the right thing. When you have such a large group of people working where classified information is involved, simple 'good will' is just not good enough, you must take measures and have procedures in place to increace the protection of their information.

Sure, there is going to be cracks in any system that very cunning people can slip through, but it is none the less, Ferrari's job to reduce the size of those cracks, and has absoloutley nothing to do with McLaren. Why do you think security organisations and the like go through records of all there employees and have external organisations paid to investigate every situation possible? Could it be because they have nothing better to do with there money? The answer is no, they do it because they are diligently trying to protect there companies/organisations from internal threats.

Sure you might ask; 'What are the reasons for that information to end up in the hands of a McLaren employee?' ... Well, perhaps try asking 'What are the reasons for that information not to end up in the hands of a McLaren employee?' ... Those dossiers could have just as easily ended up in the possesion of an employee of Toyota, Renault, Red Bull, ect. I write that becuase Stepney was not paid by McLaren to steal that information from Ferrari. Of course you may believe that he was, but certainty is not confirmed by belief, but instead with evidence. That is what this is all about really...

It is not acceptable that in the case of applying a penalty to a driver for possibly illegaly overtaking under a safteycar period, that you simply take the word of the driver he allegedly overtook! A detective would never take the word of someone who is alleged to have murdered, that he 'didn't do it' and the case should not be any different for a bunch of Stewards investigating a racing incident.

I'm not trying to deny the fact that McLaren are without egg on their faces in this situation, that they didn't lie. But lets be honest now... Do you really think McLaren are the only team to have done things like this??? The whole reason of the Stewards is to enforce transparency and compliance to the FIA's rules by all teams, what we have here is not an example of them doing a good job of that.
Forever McLaren-Mercedes
lkocev
 
Joined: 25 Jan 2009

Post Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:27 pm

komninosm wrote:But Hamilton's rightful place was 3rd not 4th. The problem was McLaren kept asking Charlie for a decision (with messages) on whether Hamilton could pass Trully (and not get penalised for SC) but he never answered them. Why?


For two reasons:

1. Because Charlie Whiting is not a race steward. Just because he says something is ok does not nessecarily mean it is definately 100% within the rules. It is the job of the race stweards to ensure the race is run within the rules, Charlie makes sure the show runs like clockwork, sending out safety cars, flags, starting proceedures etc, and while he can be useful in contacting if, as a team, you are unsure about something, he's not the final aurthority.

and most importantly:

2. It is the job of the teams (drivers included) to know the rules. Know, I can understand that as a driver in the car, racing, it can be confusing, and it maybe hard to recall rules which have never or very rarely come into play during your carear, but that's why the team's strategic guru's need to know the rules. I would place a bet on the fact that this whole farce wouldn't have happened if Mclaren had somebody on that pitwall of theirs who knew the rules inside out, (as I've said before, a Ross Brawn or Pat Symonds for example). But time and time again Lewis' Mclaren team have let him down with regards to situations like this.


A little OT but related to my train of thought:
Lewis young and naive, thinks a bit too much with his heart and not his head sometimes, and as a result may make the odd (on this occason HUGE) mistake on or off track. And while I'm not saying that makes him blameless (far from it, I'm stating this as a criticism of him) I do believe that a team should or at least should be able to try and help calm down or mature a driver like him.

Take, for example, Fernando Alonso, we've seen before at Renault (remember the "My team aren't behind me" nonsence of 2006?) he can be a little...erm...tempermental. But we never saw him throw his toys out the pram quite like he did at Mclaren in 2007. To me, Mclaren are so set in their, quite unique way of doing things, they fail to manage the temperment of young, hungry drivers like Lewis or Fernando properly. (or fiery drivers in general) In fact, I cannot remember a time in which they did, since the days of Ayrton Senna! Kimi looked unhappy his whole time there (admittedly this might be due to his engine thinking it was a grenade for most of 2003! and a succession of mediocre cars since then).

I just feel that Mclaren have this very particular way of doing things, and since the days of Senna haven't really had a driver (bar Fernando & Lewis) who have exceptional buring desire which manifests itself outwardly. (Mika & Kimi were both more or less mute, Heikki is a quite guy who just gets on with it, DC seemed to bend over backward for them regardless of what damage it might do to him or his title bid, and Michael Andretti didn't really last long enough to judge!) Maybe it's been so long, and they're so set in their ways (to the extent that after a race Lewis had to wear a wied suit so the sponsor labels showed in the post race press conference!) that they have forgotten, or simply don't value the importance, of deveolping a flexible working relationship with their more tempermental drivers.

And while none of the latter part of my post is aimed at placing nor relieving blame from anybody with regard to this topic, it's just something that came to mind, whilst thinking about the topic in hand. So sorry for the OT nature of this post, but I thougt I might share this observation with you all.
Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.
Spencifer_Murphy
 
Joined: 11 Apr 2004
Location: London, England, UK

Post Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:13 pm

Yes, but isn't Charlie the middleman between the teams and the stewards?
Whatever the case it is clear the stewards didn't do their job. A team asked them what to do and they didn't reply. They weaselled out and delayed till the race was over.
Was it even possible for the stewards to award 3rd place to Hamilton and 4th to Trulli after the race finished? I think that's not possible within the rules. That's why McLaren pushed for the DSQ of Trulli. The problem is the lame stewards and the stupid rules. And the bad blood that exists between some teams and FIA, on both sides!
komninosm
 
Joined: 5 Apr 2009

Post Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:32 pm

Spencifer_Murphy wrote:
komninosm wrote:But Hamilton's rightful place was 3rd not 4th. The problem was McLaren kept asking Charlie for a decision (with messages) on whether Hamilton could pass Trully (and not get penalised for SC) but he never answered them. Why?


For two reasons:

1. Because Charlie Whiting is not a race steward. Just because he says something is ok does not nessecarily mean it is definately 100% within the rules. It is the job of the race stweards to ensure the race is run within the rules, Charlie makes sure the show runs like clockwork, sending out safety cars, flags, starting proceedures etc, and while he can be useful in contacting if, as a team, you are unsure about something, he's not the final aurthority.

and most importantly:

2. It is the job of the teams (drivers included) to know the rules. Know, I can understand that as a driver in the car, racing, it can be confusing, and it maybe hard to recall rules which have never or very rarely come into play during your carear, but that's why the team's strategic guru's need to know the rules. I would place a bet on the fact that this whole farce wouldn't have happened if Mclaren had somebody on that pitwall of theirs who knew the rules inside out, (as I've said before, a Ross Brawn or Pat Symonds for example). But time and time again Lewis' Mclaren team have let him down with regards to situations like this.


Spencifer.... Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.

Why does the FIA call him the Race Director? Why does the email/IM system go to him? Why have the teams historically communicated with Charlie during the races? Do you know the rules? Do you think that the teams don't know who to talk to about an issue after racing for 30+ years under the present regime?

Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
gcdugas
 
Joined: 19 Sep 2006

Post Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:35 pm

For two reasons:

1. Because Charlie Whiting is not a race steward. Just because he says something is ok does not nessecarily mean it is definately 100% within the rules. It is the job of the race stweards to ensure the race is run within the rules, Charlie makes sure the show runs like clockwork, sending out safety cars, flags, starting proceedures etc, and while he can be useful in contacting if, as a team, you are unsure about something, he's not the final aurthority.

and most importantly:

2. It is the job of the teams (drivers included) to know the rules. Know, I can understand that as a driver in the car, racing, it can be confusing, and it maybe hard to recall rules which have never or very rarely come into play during your carear, but that's why the team's strategic guru's need to know the rules. I would place a bet on the fact that this whole farce wouldn't have happened if Mclaren had somebody on that pitwall of theirs who knew the rules inside out, (as I've said before, a Ross Brawn or Pat Symonds for example). But time and time again Lewis' Mclaren team have let him down with regards to situations like this.



Totally agree with 1. and 2. there. One could say if stewards/charlie made a quick decision in the race itself this would never have happened. But if we go back to the incident itself, this would not have happened if mclaren had not instructed hamilton to allow trulli past. Mclaren, a team of highly experienced engineers and people who have been around F1 a long time had 1 car to follow, ie. Hamilton cos heikki was out of the race, and even they messed up! They made the wrong call on letting trulli past, hamilton was entitled to 3rd place but in the confusion the team messed up. Again i stress that all the team had to concentrate on was hamilton. So how can you expect charlie and the stewards to manage a safety car period, deal with all the cars on the track and come to a decision on whether hamilton should pass trulli within just a few laps when even mclaren were confused at the time!

After having eventually tracked down the on-board video footage of trulli overtaking hamilton i am more confused than ever. It seems obvious that hamilton was off the racing line and slowed down to let trulli past. So what video footage did the stewards have available in the first meeting to let them think otherwise. Martin whitmarsh said the data shows that that lap of hamiltons was no different to any other lap of his behind the safety car so did not slow down. Maybe this is the data presented to the stewards along with hamiltons testimony that he didnt slow down. Why didnt trulli and toyota make a bigger fuss?

Another thing is martin whitmarsh said they assumed the stewards had listened to the radio conversations. If we take that to mean mclaren as a team assumed this then dave ryan could not have been in a position to instruct lewis hamilton to lie about these conversations before the meeting took place. MW also said he thought the radio conversations irrevelant. So it looks like dave ryan while in the stewards meeting realised that the stewards had not heard the radio conversation and in the heat of the moment saw that they could use this to their advantage and therefore deny letting trulli overtake, thereby regaining the 3rd position which the team threw away. I expect he felt very guilty for the team messing up and costing hamilton 3rd place and here was a way to remedy that. Hamilton then dutifully towed the line in behind dave ryan to back this up.

Or if we want to get super-conspiracy theoeretical then some people in the FIA told mclaren that the radio conversations would not be made available to the stewards at the meeting. Therefore you can lie and get the 3rd place you deserve.........but this was all just a clever ploy to lure mclaren into lieing and then out of max mosleys top drawer comes this new evidence of radio conversations and hamiltons post-race interview with the media as the sting in the tail for mclaren!
mikhak
 
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Stockholm

Post Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:00 pm

mikhak is an FIA operative. This is plain to see by the sheer nonsense that comes out of his mouth. He defends the indefensible. You are free to ignore him.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
gcdugas
 
Joined: 19 Sep 2006

Post Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:23 pm

Ha an FIA operative!! thought i was max mosley before this....have I been demoted to lowly FIA operative?

And i'm not defending the stewards or FIA, i think it was a very stupid decision they took in that meeting directly after the australian gp. but rather than label the stewards as incompetent and leave it at that, i want to try to make some sense of all the sides in this story. theres some big questions still to be answered like what video footage was available to the stewards, why did the stewards make such a stupid decision, and how would mclaren know that the stewards would be so incompetent not to have analysed the radio recordings?

i'm just trying to imagine what happened at this meeting and the sequence of events leading to this. unfortunately the fia say theres no minutes taken at these stewards meetings which is a pity cos then we just have to rely on what people say afterwards. after reading the press release from the FIA again i think the stewards only had a video of hamilton passing trulli and to base a decision on that is really stupid.
mikhak
 
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Stockholm

Post Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:29 pm

mikhak wrote:And i'm not defending the stewards or FIA, i think it was a very stupid decision they took in that meeting directly after the australian gp. but rather than label the stewards as incompetent and leave it at that, i want to try to make some sense of all the sides in this story. theres some big questions still to be answered like what video footage was available to the stewards, why did the stewards make such a stupid decision, and how would mclaren know that the stewards would be so incompetent not to have analysed the radio recordings?

Because radio recordings were private till the Melbourne race. In years past, they could not make use of radio transcripts so I assume they just forgot they could do it this year.
jddh1
 
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Location: New York City

Post Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:17 pm

gcdugas wrote:Spencifer.... Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.


I know...that's why I didn't stay silent.

I never said I know the rules better than the teams.

To answer some of your questions:

Why does the FIA call him the Race Director?


Because he directs the race, much like I said in my previous post, he decides start procedures, when the safety car is deployed, flags and other things.

Why does the email/IM system go to him?

As opposed to the race stewards? Because in a sporting event that you participate in you are expected to know the rules. You do not perform an act, then seek clarification from the referee on whether it was correct or not (And that's why the email system doesn't direct to the stewards).

Why have the teams historically communicated with Charlie during the races?
Because, as I pointed out above, while they cannot comunicate with the stewards (the highest aurthority of the sporting aspect at the race) they CAN communicate with Charlie. He is about at high up the ladder as they can get.

Do you know the rules? Do you think that the teams don't know who to talk to about an issue after racing for 30+ years under the present regime?

No I dont know each and every one of the rules, but then again its not my job to! Whereas IT IS the job of competetors to know the rules of the sport in which they are competing. And no after 30+ years of racing I don't think the teams do not know who to talk to, of course they do! As I pointed out, they cannot talk to the stewards, they can however talk to the next highest person, Charlie.

Like I said in my previous post, Charlie can give an indication as to what he believes is right and what he believes is not. However he id NOT part of the decision making process, i.e he is NOT a race steward. Relying on Charlie to tell you whats right and wrong is about as useful to a team as relying on the referee to ensure the team knows the offside rule.

If you are seriously trying to place some blame on to Charlie you're surely scraping the bottom of the barrel for people to blame insted of who actually IS to blame. At the end of the day ONLY two parties are to blame for this:

1. Mclaren for A) not knowing the rules & B) Telling Lewis to lie.
2. Lewis Hamilton for making as he put it "a huge mistake" and carrying out the lie he was told to tell.

You cannot blame anybody else.
Silence is golden when you don't know a good answer.
Spencifer_Murphy
 
Joined: 11 Apr 2004
Location: London, England, UK

PreviousNext

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chuckjr, dans79, raymondu999 and 10 guests