Well this'll make people even happier - Raikkonen was under investigation for passing Lews under yellow flags, but did not take action because they deemed it "not worthy of their consideration"!
Redders1989
Why, yes it does. But I didn't see any yellow flags. And if there were, it could be argued that Jesus 'Stop calling me Lewis' Hamilton was part of the incident, after all he did go off track and Raikkonen stayed on track.
Hamilton passed too soon - Massa
Lewis Hamilton paid the price for passing Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen too soon after cutting a chicane, according to his title rival Felipe Massa.
McLaren driver Hamilton was stripped of victory in Sunday's Belgian Grand Prix after being handed a 25-second penalty.
Massa said Hamilton was "maybe a bit too optimistic" in taking the lead.
"If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it," he said.
McLaren have indicated they intend to appeal against the decision, and have until Sunday evening to officially confirm whether they will go through with it.
"What Lewis did is the sort of thing that can happen," Massa wrote on his website, "but I think he was maybe a bit too optimistic in thinking he could just hand back the position, albeit only partially to Kimi, and then immediately try to pass him again.
"Incidents like this have often been discussed in the official driver briefings, when it was made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained.
"Maybe if Lewis had waited and tried to pass on the next straight, that would have been a different matter."
Hamilton, interviewed before the stewards' verdict was made public, said he did not think he had done anything wrong.
"I had taken a short cut and I knew I had to let him pass," Hamilton said.
"That's what I did. Then I got back in his slipstream and got through again at the next corner.
"He hit me up the back and nearly caused me to spin. It was a great fight and I don't think there was anything wrong. This is motor racing. I think it was fair and square.
"I didn't want to wait until he flew past. I couldn't really see where he was. But eventually I could see him and I don't think I was on full throttle when he came past.
"I don't know how much more I could have done."
BBC SPORT
Here's James Allen's Opinion:
An extraordinary grand prix with one of the most exciting finishes ever has been given a different complexion by the stewards' decision to penalise Lewis Hamilton for taking an advantage from cutting a chicane.There is not doubt that this is a very big call by the stewards and a lot of unbiased observers among the media and the public will find it hard to understand.
It takes a lot to unpick the results of a grand prix, especially one which would otherwise probably be long remembered as a classic and a great advert for the sport.
The controversial callI've watched the incident many times now and Hamilton cuts the chicane because he was pushed out wide – quite fairly – by Kimi Raikkonen; his trajectory makes it hard for him to follow the Ferrari around the corner and, faced with going on the grass, he chose instead to cut the chicane.
It's a deliberate act on his part, amazing speed of thought, but he clearly chooses the least worst option.
He is therefore in front coming out of the chicane, but crucially he is on a line he would not have been on had he taken the chicane normally.
Although he clearly hands back the lead to Kimi as they cross the start/finish line and the timing sheets show you that Kimi clearly crossed the line first, he is on him immediately afterwards.
And this is the nub of the stewards' argument.
Raikkonen's car did get fully in front of Hamilton's – his speed across the start/finish line was 212km/h, compared to 206km/h for Hamilton – but Lewis immediately regains the momentum.
Kimi then does a kind of double block on him before Lewis sticks his car up the inside into La Source.
The speed differentialLewis was much faster than Kimi at that point of the race because the McLaren keeps heat in its tyres better in those conditions, as we saw in Silverstone, especially on the harder compound.
So Kimi was finished anyway. Lewis had him; he was always going to get him before the finish.
The stewards clearly felt that he didn't give back enough of the advantage he gained from cutting the chicane.
Watching it over and over again you can see what they mean; it's a very delicately balanced call.
But you have to take account of the performance difference which existed between the two cars at that point anyway.
On a normal dry track, Lewis's gesture of easing off by 6km/h would have put Kimi well ahead by La Source.
It's just that the Ferrari was not able to take much advantage of Hamilton's gesture, so it seemed an insufficient gesture.
McLaren checked at the time with race director Charlie Whiting that they had done the right thing, and according to the team he told them they had.
But the stewards disagreed. They felt he should have dropped in behind Kimi and had a go at him later.
He was much faster and would have got him down the straight after Eau Rouge anyway.
But he's a racer and he went for it as soon as he thought he'd negated his unfair advantage from cutting the chicane.
Lewis's racer's instinctThe frustration for neutrals in the paddock – including many members of other teams, who are outraged by this decision, no doubt like many members of the public – is that this is racing after all.
Hamilton was impetuous to get on with it, as Damon Hill was in Adelaide in 1994 when Michael Schumacher hit the wall.
These are racers who seize the moment, which is why we love them.
It is that killer instinct which raises them above the rest of us normal people and makes us tune in to watch them in our millions.
But the stewards wanted a clearer sign that Hamilton recognised he had gained an unfair advantage.
The fall-outA 25-second penalty drops him from first to third and cuts his championship lead to just two points with five races to go.
Many people will find this decision hard to justify and will inevitably question it in the light of Valencia, where Felipe Massa and Ferrari were convicted of unsafe release from the pit stop (an offence which normally attracts a drive-through penalty) and yet were merely fined while Massa kept the 10 points.
These are big calls, like a referee in soccer giving or not giving a penalty, which changes the result of a match.
But a referee has to make a decision on the spot. Here the stewards took a few hours to review all the evidence. And there are some unfortunate perceptions of F1 being aired as a result.
I hope that the outcome of this championship is clear enough either way that it does not hinge on this decision.James Allen
Find the whole verdict, plus more, here.
James Allen cannot be trusted. He is the Lewis Prothero of British motorsports. Yes, because Lewis is so great, he deserved the position even though he cheated. Okay. Isn't it Allen who poops bricks and has anurism every time a Brit wins?
And this whole pit spot bull... Open wheel racers are fluffs when it comes to pitting. In real racing, if you hit any over-the-wall guy, you lose the tenth of a second his body slowed you down. Contact with other cars? Well, if you both happen to be in the same place at the same time, oh well, you just cost yourself some downforce or cut a tire or knocked the grille in.
STEWART CALL FOR FULL-TIME F1 STEWARDS:
Sir Jackie Stewart has called for a shake-up in the way Formula 1 races are officiated in the wake of the controversial penalty applied to Lewis Hamilton after the Belgian Grand Prix.
Hamilton won last Sunday's race at Spa-Francorchamps on the track but was later adjudged to have gained an unfair advantage by cutting a chicane while battling for the lead with Kimi Raikkonen.
The stewards added 25 seconds to Hamilton's race time, demoting him from first to third place and handing victory to his championship rival Felipe Massa.
The decision was met with incredulity in large sections of the media and drew a hostile response on fan forums and message boards.
Triple world champion Niki Lauda condemned the verdict as landing F1 in its "biggest mess ever" and said it would drive people away from the sport, while fellow legend Sir Stirling Moss branded it "an absolutely appalling decision".
Stewart, who has often been critical of F1's governing body the FIA, said the episode underlined the need for greater professionalism and consistency in the way decisions are arrived at.
"This decision raises questions about [the stewards'] ability and, indeed, about the sport's very governance," he told the Daily Telegraph.
Like Lauda, Stewart believes the officiating system in F1 - with a permanent FIA race director (Charlie Whiting) and advisor (Alan Donnelly) but different stewards from race to race - has caused inconsistent decision-making and needs to be overhauled.
"F1 attracts the largest capital investment in sport, but it is being overseen by people who are not doing it full-time and we get inconsistent decisions," said Stewart.
"In football, rugby, tennis or cricket you have professional referees and umpires who do their jobs day in, day out, and you have accountability.
"We need that in motorsport."
Stewart argued that the decision to penalise Hamilton was unjustified because the McLaren driver ceded the lead back to Raikkonen immediately after short-cutting the Bus Stop chicane.
"Raikkonen behaved very robustly to defend his position and left Hamilton with no option but to miss the chicane," he said.
"He was simply doing all he could to avoid an accident.
"Yes, he gained a position, but he slowed immediately and handed it back, as the rules require, then passed [Raikkonen] subsequently.
"We saw earlier in the year, at Silverstone, that Raikkonen isn't comfortable driving his Ferrari in the wet and it was the same on Sunday.
"Hamilton was clearly much faster and was going to pass him sooner or later.
"The stewards should have taken that into account."
McLaren intends to appeal the verdict but there are doubts about whether a time penalty of this kind - which was in lieu of the drive-through that would have been imposed had the decision been reached during the race - can be subject to appeal.
However, with the decision reducing Hamilton's championship lead from eight points to two, Stewart believes the stakes are so high that the case must be heard.
"It's inconceivable that you shouldn't be able to appeal in a situation like this," he said.
"It could affect the world championship's outcome."
SOURCE: ITV-F1
McLAREN PRESSES AHEAD WITH APPEAL:
McLaren has confirmed that it will go ahead with its appeal against the penalty imposed on Lewis Hamilton after last Sunday's Belgian Grand Prix.
Hamilton won the race on the track but was demoted to third place by the stewards, who adjudged him to have gained an unfair advantage by cutting a chicane while disputing the lead with Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen.
The Woking team notified the governing FIA of its intention to challenge the verdict on Sunday night, but has been mulling over whether to press ahead with an appeal or accept its lot to enable it to focus exclusively on this weekend's Italian GP.
The team released a statement on Tuesday confirming that it has now formally filed an appeal.
"Following our decision to register our intention to appeal the penalty handed out to Lewis Hamilton by the FIA stewards at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, we hereby confirm that we have now lodged notice of appeal," said team CEO Martin Whitmarsh.
The case will be settled by the FIA's International Court of Appeal.
SOURCE: ITV-F1
There ye go yux, got it up for ya :D
Cjek, is there anyway I can get hold of that Video?, I wanted to do my own interpretation of it lolkipi19
Would this be for te Idea that I gave you? If so, I want all credit 8) lol
McLAREN THOUGHT FIA "OK" WAS ENOUGH:
McLaren CEO Martin Whitmarsh says assurances from the FIA led the team to believe that Lewis Hamilton had done enough to negate the advantage he gained by short-cutting the track in last Sunday's Belgian Grand Prix.
Hamilton was later stripped of his victory and relegated to third place after the stewards ruled that he had passed Ferrari rival Kimi Raikkonen in an unfair manner.
Although the Briton immediately let Raikkonen back through after straight-lining the Bus Stop chicane, he repassed the Ferrari under braking for the ensuing La Source hairpin only seconds later.
McLaren boss Ron Dennis revealed to ITV Sport after the race that the team had checked with FIA race director Charlie Whiting that Hamilton had conformed to the rules, which require any advantage gained by short-cutting the course to be promptly rectified.
"Inevitably, we wanted to know whether that was deemed to be a correction so we checked with Charlie," Dennis told Ted Kravitz.
"Of course Charlie can only give an opinion because he's not the stewards, but he gave the opinion that we had complied properly to the regulations."
In a statement released on Tuesday, Whitmarsh said the team was in fact given two separate assurances that Hamilton had behaved correctly - and that, had it not been given the thumbs-up, it would have told its driver to let Raikkonen back through.
"From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was 'okay'," said Whitmarsh.
"If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis's actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time."
Speaking in detail about the incident for the first time, Hamilton claimed that he straight-lined the chicane in order to avoid an accident with Raikkonen, with whom he was wheel-to-wheel on the outside line as they braked for the Bus Stop.
He also confirmed that he then lifted off to allow the Ferrari past on the start/finish straight.
"In the closing stages of the race I was catching Kimi consistently, lap by lap, and with three laps remaining I got close enough to attempt to overtake him on the entry to the last chicane," Hamilton said.
"I managed to get slightly ahead of him in the braking area for the first apex of the chicane.
"He fought back approaching the second apex - but, in doing so, he left no room for me on the inside line.
"The only way for me to avoid a collision was therefore to cut inside the second apex.
"I came out of the second apex in front of Kimi and so I momentarily lifted off on the straight, to ensure that Kimi got back in front.
"The team also came on the radio and instructed me to allow Kimi to repass, which I had already done.
"As a result, Kimi crossed the start/finish line ahead of me and 6.7km/h (4.2mph) quicker than me."
Hamilton insisted that his subsequent pass of Raikkonen into La Source was a separate outbraking manoeuvre, and not set up due to extra momentum he was carrying by virtue of cutting the chicane - a contention that is sure to be central to McLaren's case, which has now been sent to the International Court of Appeal.
"After allowing Kimi to completely repass, I crossed from the left side of the track to the right side of the track, passing behind Kimi in the process," said Lewis.
"I then attacked Kimi on the inside of the first corner, and successfully outbraked him."
SOURCE: ITV-F1
NO ANTI-McLAREN BIAS, INSISTS STEWARD
One of the three stewards who stripped Lewis Hamilton of victory in the Belgian Grand Prix has rejected suggestions of an FIA conspiracy against McLaren.
Hamilton won last Sunday's race at Spa on the road but was demoted to third place after stewards adjudged him to have gained an advantage by short-cutting the track during his epic battle with Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen.
The ruling has proved hugely controversial, with fans and some British newspapers claiming it is part of a pattern of decisions that show the powers-that-be are biased against McLaren.
But Surinder Thathi, a Kenyan who was one of the three FIA-appointed stewards at the Belgian GP, insists he and his colleagues were simply doing their job without fear or favour.
"There was no conspiracy against anybody, McLaren included," Thathi told the Reuters news agency.
"We acted professionally and within the FIA rules.
"Hamilton took a short-cut inside of the corner while off the track."
Thathi revealed that the stewards considered giving Hamilton a grid penalty for the Italian GP before settling for a retroactive 25-second time penalty.
"We had a choice to mete out a time penalty or 10 grid places in the next grand prix race.
"We opted for the former and handed a time penalty of 25 seconds.
"I know I am a very unpopular person in the United Kingdom now, but then I was doing my job and I know I acted professionally."
In the wake of the controversy former world champions Jackie Stewart and Niki Lauda have called for Formula 1's officiating system to be overhauled and permanent stewards appointed.
SOURCE: ITV-F1
MARK HUGHES ON "CHICANEGATE":
The sporting question
Lewis Hamilton was pushed out across the Spa chicane escape road by Kimi Raikkonen, rejoined ahead, backed off to allow Kimi to repass as required by the rules, went round the back of him and overtook him again. It seemed very clear-cut.
But if you were a lawyer tasked with pushing Ferrari's case, looking for any bit of legal daylight in which to create doubt, you would question whether Lewis would have been close enough to do that move if he'd not missed the chicane, regardless of the reason why he missed it.
It's actually a 'what if' question to which there can be no answer.
To compare the two scenarios - what happened, with what would have happened had Hamilton not missed the chicane - is impossible.
At this stage of the race the McLaren had vastly more grip than the Ferrari because of the way the red car loses dry tyre temperature far more quickly and totally than the McLaren in wet conditions.
So, had Lewis tucked in behind the Ferrari through the chicane, he'd have accelerated out of there far faster because of his vastly superior traction.
He would have crossed the start/finish line going faster than the Ferrari and therefore have been perfectly placed to have made full use of his vastly superior braking grip to make an outbraking move into La Source.
As it was, he crossed the start/finish line alongside the Ferrari but travelling 6km/h slower, as he was in the process of allowing Kimi by.
Which of those two scenarios would have made for a more advantageous situation for Lewis - alongside but going slower or partly behind but going faster - is impossible to judge.
Exactly how much more tyre grip did he have? Which way would it have led Kimi to move? Impossible to determine.
Which leaves us with the question: If it's impossible to judge (which it was) then why the hell make a judgement?
The political question
Regardless of what the reasoning was as to why the stewards tasked themselves with trying to judge an impossible question, getting involved was always going to result in a widespread perception of championship manipulation - which is disastrous for the credibility of the sport.
This was not an argument over seventh place between a Renault and a Toyota, but a magnificent sporting scrap between two of the three contenders for the world championship.
It was a stunningly tense and exciting duel between two of the best drivers in the world in the two best cars, fighting out the destiny of a race - and possibly a world title - into the last couple of laps on perhaps the sport's greatest circuit.
As an advertisement for F1 - after the tainted 2007 season, after the deadly dull Valencia race just two weeks ago - it came at a perfect moment too.
Those last three laps were among the greatest sporting moments in the sport's history.
And with a quick bit of bureaucratic interference, all that goodwill was wiped away, turned instead into ridicule and distrust from the public.
At best it has made F1 look stupid. At worst it has triggered suspicion in some, deepened it in others.
Two weeks earlier Ferrari's Felipe Massa, the third title contender, was released in the pit lane in what was adjudged to be a dangerous manner.
Personally I was relieved when he was not given a drive-through penalty, because that would have been interfering with the outcome of the world championship at a crucial stage over an arcane point of interpretation.
Yes, the decision played into the hands of those who believe there is Ferrari favouritism.
But to have interfered in the outcome of a crucial race just to prove that suspicion unfounded would have been wrong.
Given that backdrop, the Spa incident absolutely invited the race stewards not to get involved when the tables were turned.
And they failed to take that opportunity, thereby fuelling the perception - accurate or not - of the championship being rigged in Ferrari's favour.
At best, it was an incredibly stupid time to come down in favour of one title contender over another.
SOURCE: ITV-F1
PETITION AGAINST STEWARDS' DECISION
You are able to make comments and send them to the FIA, if you so wish.
As I write, 14,682 signatures have been made.
Redders1989
The number now stands at 45,199. Still the petition isn't widely known enough, but this shows strong backing for the belief of an incorrect call by the stewards nonetheless.
[QUOTE="Redders1989"]PETITION AGAINST STEWARDS' DECISION
You are able to make comments and send them to the FIA, if you so wish.
As I write, 14,682 signatures have been made.
Redders1989
The number now stands at 45,199. Still the petition isn't widely known enough, but this shows strong backing for the belief of an incorrect call by the stewards nonetheless.
Well if you think that'll help, I should start a petition to give Kimi the championship; I'm sure a lot of people will sign that one too.
In regards to the other penalty...
GLOCK "CONVINCED" HIS PENALTY UNJUST:
Timo Glock says he remains "absolutely convinced" that he did not pass under yellow flags on the final lap of the Belgian Grand Prix after he was stripped of eighth place.
Amid the controversy that surrounded the stewards' decision to hand race winner Lewis Hamilton a 25-second time penalty in the hours after last Sunday's event, Toyota's Glock was handed the same punishment which dropped him from the final points position to ninth.
Stewards ruled that the German driver had passed Red Bull's Mark Webber at the final chicane while yellow flags were waving for Kimi Raikkonen's accident.
But Glock - who made up 13 seconds on the RBR driver after switching to wet tyres for the final rain-hit lap - believes he was clear of the flags by the time he made his move.
"I am absolutely convinced I didn't do anything wrong because it was quite obvious that Mark Webber was running at a different pace due to the grooved tyres," he said.
"I was a lot quicker on the standard wets and he had to brake much earlier than me for the Bus Stop.
"I believe I only passed him after the green flag.
"But the stewards have made their decision so we just have to accept that."
Glock admits he was frustrated to have the final point taken away from him after Toyota had struggled for pace throughout the weekend.
"It was really disappointing to be told that I had lost the place because I fought so hard on the last couple of laps to make up ground," he said.
"Considering the circumstances over the weekend and earlier in the race, a point would have been a good result, so I wasn't happy to be told I had been penalised."
Toyota's failure to score points at Spa meant it had its advantage over Renault in the fight for fourth in the constructors' championship halved to five points, with five rounds remaining.
Glock, however, is optimistic that warmer weather at Monza this weekend should allow it to enjoy a stronger showing.
"We have to push hard to score points because every point is important to us in the fight for fourth in the constructors' championship," he said.
"We have the hard compound Bridgestone tyres again so warm-up might be a bit tricky, although I expect the weather will be much better than in Belgium so that should help.
"The test went pretty well for us and we did some good work on the Monza aero package but you never really know what the situation is in testing.
"We'll have to wait and see on but we definitely have the potential to score more points."
SOURCE: ITV-F1
SYMONDS: SPA RULING BAD FOR RACING:
Lewis Hamilton's demotion in the Belgian Grand Prix could set a negative precedent for Formula 1 and result in drivers willing to take fewer risks in wheel-to-wheel battles.
That is the view of Renault's engineering chief Pat Symonds who reckons Hamilton was "very hard done by" after stewards stripped him of race victory for cutting a chicane while battling with Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen.
The controversial verdict created widespread controversy and prompted renewed suggestions from fans and sections of the British press that the sport's governing body is biased in favour of Ferrari.
And while Symonds told Renault's latest podcast that he was convinced the sport was run fairly, he believes the real problem with the verdict could be that it further dilutes the racing.
"It [the verdict] raises lots of interesting questions and I'm not talking about 'are the FIA are on the side of Ferrari?'" he told the podcast.
"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 philosophy because everyone is saying we need more overtaking in Formula 1, we need more excitement, we need personalities and yet it seems to me that everything that actually happens seems to be against that.
"Here we had a great race, people really challenging each other and for why?
"If it [race victory] is taken away, then why take that risk?"
After looking at the incident again since the closing laps at Spa on Sunday, Symonds said he felt sympathy for Hamilton after he lost a stunning race victory.
"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 that we weren't that surprised when the stewards were found to be investigating it.
"But having looked at it again, of course in real time you don't see that much of it you are concentrating on your job rather than watching race, I feel very, very sorry for Lewis.
"I think he has been very hard done by."
Symonds believe that replays and data showed that Hamilton had clearly given the position back to Raikkonen on rejoining the track, and that his subsequent move at La Source was a fair pass.
"To me the facts are quite clear in retrospect," he said.
"I've 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 in the in-car camera that he let 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 round 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 gone out wide.
"To me it was to me a perfectly legitimate manoeuvre and it wasn't that much later that Raikkonen went past him.
"This is racing, this is what we want."
Some of the criticism over the decision centred on the fact the stewards verdict came two hours after the end of the race and Symonds' believes decision making should be more immediate so fans know what is going on.
"I think motor racing should be like football, not like cricket," he said.
"Let's have action, let's know what is going on in real time, not wait for two days to find out the result."
SOURCE: ITV-F1
Pretty exciting race, especially those last 3 laps. Had my mom and dad on the edge of their seats during breakfast.
I don't agree totally with the Hamilton penalty, but he should have hit the brakes either to move in behind Raikkonen or slow down on the straight and then floor it. He obviously had a power/guts advantage.
I'm not a Ferrari fan, but I was sad to see Kimi wreck after being so dominant. If it hadn't rained...? Who knows?
UNBOWED LEWIS VOWS TO STAY ON ATTACK:
Lewis Hamilton insists his confidence has not been dented by his Belgian Grand Prix demotion and has vowed to continue his attacking approach to his world championship bid.
Just four days on from being stripped of a stunning victory on the road at Spa, the points leader began his preparations for this weekend's Monza race with the media keen to get his first public reaction to the controversial stewards' decision.
But while the verdict means he heads into the final five races of the year with just a slender advantage over Ferrari rival Felipe Massa, Hamilton claimed he still felt "great" and was keen to play up McLaren's prospects for the forthcoming races.
"I still have a two-point lead and we are going to make sure that we just continue to attack and perform like we did in the last two races," Reuters quotes him as saying.
"I feel great.
"I think for the next few races our car really will suit the circuits just as well as it did at Spa.
"We are going to make sure we do the best job we can."
And while Massa's inherited Spa victory, on the back of his Valencia win at the previous round, should mean the Brazilian is full of confidence this weekend, Hamilton insists he still feels like the one with the momentum.
"He is the one who has to work damn hard to keep up with me," he said.
"I feel like I'm coming here off a win, and moving onto the next race."
McLaren's decision to appeal Hamilton's punishment means the Briton retains the chance that his Spa victory could be reinstated if the FIA's International Court of Appeal overturns the Belgian stewards' verdicts at a hearing in the coming weeks.
However on the back of five penalties in the past 13 races, Hamilton admits it is crucial the team does its best to avoid any more punishments.
"Everyone in the team feels like we won the race [in Belgium] on moral grounds," he said.
"We just have to try our best to stay squeaky clean and stay out of trouble for the rest of the season."
SOURCE: ITV-F1
McLAREN APPEAL SET FOR SEPTEMBER 22ND:
McLaren's appeal against Lewis Hamilton's Belgian Grand Prix penalty will be heard on 22nd September, Formula 1's governing body has announced.
The FIA's International Court of Appeal will convene in Paris on the Monday before the inaugural Singapore GP, with a verdict not expected until the following day.
Hamilton's Spa victory was rescinded after race stewards deemed that he gained an advantage by cutting a chicane during his battle for the lead with Kimi Raikkonen.
The Briton was demoted to third place, handing the win to Felipe Massa and reducing his world championship lead over the Ferrari driver to two points.
There is a possibility that the appeal will be thrown out on a technicality, without the substantive issue being considered, since the retrospective time penalty imposed on Hamilton was in lieu of a drive-through and these are not subject to formal challenge.
The admissibility of the appeal is expected to be decided at the hearing itself.
SOURCE: ITV-F1
DC: STEWARDS SHOULD PUBLISH REASONS:
David Coulthard has called on the FIA's race stewards to publish the reasoning behind their decisions in the wake of the controversial penalty that stripped Lewis Hamilton of his Belgian Grand Prix win.
Hamilton won last Sunday's race on the road but was later demoted to third place after the stewards adjudged him to have gained an unfair advantage by cutting a chicane while disputing the lead with Kimi Raikkonen.
The ruling provoked derision in parts of the media and protestations from many F1 fans that they would not watch the sport again.
The FIA press release announcing the verdict merely stated the offence and the penalty, shedding no light on the evidence taken into account or the decisive arguments.
Coulthard believes greater transparency in future would allay concerns about the consistency of officiating decisions and enhance the sport's credibility in the eyes of the public.
"What I feel would help considerably is if more of the thought process behind the stewards' rulings were to be put into the public domain, because if people understand how a decision has been reached, I think it stands a far greater chance of being accepted," he said in his latest itv.com/f1 column.
"Maybe there should be a journalist delegate - a permanent pass-holder who has worked in the sport for several years - who attends the stewards' meetings and is duty-bound to minute them and then convey the verdict to the press office in a way that explains the reasoning behind it.
"At the end of the day, Formula 1 relies on media coverage and the viewing public for its popularity.
"As with any sport, the decision-making needs to be credible and not just fair but seen to be fair, otherwise people will lose faith.
"So we need whatever solution brings greater clarity to the rules, and transparency and consistency in the way they are enforced."
Former world champions Niki Lauda and Sir Jackie Stewart have argued that Formula 1 needs to abandon its system of rotating stewards, but Coulthard does not believe that this would necessarily take the sting out of controversies.
"I'm not convinced that having full-time stewards would magically change that," he said.
"And if the rules are written in plain English, it should be possible for different representatives of the FIA to attend grands prix and come to similar conclusions."
SOURCE: ITV-F1
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment