[F1] Nieuwtjes #37: Met Osram als hoofdsponsor.

quote:

Tost calls for customer cars rethink

Formula One should reconsider the decision to ban customer cars from the sport in 2010 in a bid to help make the sport more economically viable.

That is the view of Scuderia Toro Rosso team principal Franz Tost, who believes that the way Red Bull have managed to successfully run two teams shows how costs can easily be driven down in the sport.

He sees there being little benefit from forcing small teams like his to become constructors, because of the unnecessary financial outlay needed to produce a car.

"There are six manufacturer teams and 12 places, so I think there should be six manufacturer teams and six private teams, and each private team should work together with a manufacturer," said Tost, whose team will have to become constructors from 2010 unless F1's regulations change.

"The philosophy with Red Bull was always to have one engineering centre providing the two teams with the car. We have halved the costs, because our budget is a quarter of that of other teams and we are able to win.

"That means that what we have done so far from the efficiency and economic point of view is the right way to go. But the regulations are something different and therefore we have to change."

Tost believes in the current financial climate it is crazy to force teams to build their own cars, when manufacturers could so easily have the option to run their own works outfit and a customer partner.

"Look at what happens today in the economy," he said. "The great car manufacturers work together. Why do they work together? They do not want to spend so much money on development and research, which is exactly right because in the end the result nearly is the same.

"We are searching for a wind tunnel. I can tell you now with 150 people working in a wind tunnel, we will not bring a revolutionary car onto the starting grid because it is not possible from the regulation or the physics. All the cars look nearly the same.

"Colour them white and I will make a bet with you that there are not five people who can tell you which car belongs to which team. But regulations are regulations and we are pushing in this direction."

Toro Rosso are due to increase their staff numbers by 80 in the near future as they ramp up their preparations to become a constructor, as a lot of work is put in to finding suitable wind tunnel facilities.

"We are in negotiations with several wind tunnels and it's a tremendous job," said Tost. "I'm not convinced this is the correct way to go in Formula One."

In the shorter term, and despite Sebastian Vettel's shock victory in the Italian Grand Prix, Tost says he will be happy to finish the season with just a few more points-scoring finishes.

"We will move forward but we must keep our feet on the ground," he said. "If we score points in the last four races then I am quite happy. I don't think that we will be in the position to win another race this year because Ferrari, McLaren and BMW are still ahead of us. Not just a little ahead, but far ahead."

quote:

Op zaterdag 20 september 2008 00:13 schreef Atreidez het volgende:
Die nieuwe McLaren topt nu al de lijsten.. Ziet er goed uit voor volgend jaar met Hamiltons tweede wk.

quote:

Op zaterdag 20 september 2008 22:31 schreef ElmarO het volgende:
De teams reden, als ik het goed las, tijdens deze test met zowel 2008-spec als een gedeelte 2009-spec. Dus die tijd van De La Rosa zegt dan niet zo heel veel over volgend seizoen.

quote:

Fernando Alonso wants Massa to win the Formula One World Championship
^{By h.b. - Sep 21, 2008 - 10:45 AM}

However the driver from Asurias thinks that the winner will be Lewis Hamilton.
Spanish formula one driver, Fernando Alonso, has said he wants Felipe Massa to win the drivers championship this year, because if he doesn’t it means that Lewis Hamilton will.

However Alonso said that if he had to place money in a bet he would bet on Hamilton, who he said benefitted from a good car, a highly motivated team, and plenty of good luck.

Asked about the failings of his current Renault team, Alonso said that they had failed to correct adjust to the new Bridgestone tyres for the past two seasons, plus they are aware that the car lacks a bit of power and could perform better aerodynamically.

He said he hoped everything would be in its place next year and he could fight for the world title again.

quote:

Double Dutch prevail in Race 2
^{by setantasports.com staff, 21 September 2008}

PSV Eindhoven emerged as winners of Race 2 of Superleague Formula in Germany on Sunday afternoon, driver Yelmer Buurman capitalising on a late mistake by AS Roma to nip by the Italian car with just minutes of racing remaining.

Second was Anderlecht, with Leicester's Craig Dolby on board, with championship leaders Beijing Guoan third. Long-time leaders Roma were fourth.

In a reverse grid following Race 1's results, Roma and Liverpool got off to a flying start and streaked away from the field.

Tottenham was forced to retire early after a clash with Al-Ain, while Liverpool followed shortly afterwards, retiring with mechanical problems on lap four.

Early pace setters Basel were next to come to an abrupt halt - on lap 13 - with Eindhoven's pace coming to the fore at same stage of the event.

One man on an excellent charge, however, was Rangers' James Walker who had climbed from 15th on the grid to fourth before a spin on lap 15 ended his race and brought the Safety Car out on track.

Also weaving his way through the field was Race 1 winner Robert Doornbos, who even barged Atletico Madrid out of his way at one point. The Dutch racer eventually finished sixth, a result perfectly acceptable considering he started last on the grid.

After a Safety Car mix-up, the action resumed with eight minutes remaining, though it was clear that Roma were struggling and would find it difficult to stay in front of Eindhoven.

The pressure proved too much for Enrico Toccacelo, who ran wide at Turn 1 with two minutes plus one lap left on the clock, to allow not only Eindhoven but Anderlecht and Beijing by.

There was still time enough for Doornbos to get by Galatasaray on the main straight and claim a second a second impressive result on the day for his Italian squad.

“It would be great if we can repeat this same result at Zolder again," Buurman said afterwards.

"It was a great day. I had some bad luck in the first race during the pit stop because the clutch didn’t fully engage and the wheels kept spinning. The engine stalled and I lost about 40 seconds.

“I still got the fastest race lap but if it wasn’t for the pit problem, I might not have been here now.

“I’m really happy - it was a good race. I was right behind Enrico and was waiting my chances when he must have had a shifting issue and I could get through.”

quote:

Op zaterdag 20 september 2008 00:13 schreef Atreidez het volgende:
Die nieuwe McLaren topt nu al de lijsten.. Ziet er goed uit voor volgend jaar met Hamiltons tweede wk.

quote:

Op zondag 21 september 2008 23:21 schreef Giem het volgende:

[..]

Dan heeft die straf dus echt geen effect gehad....

quote:

Op maandag 22 september 2008 09:08 schreef sasquatsch het volgende:

[..]

Nee, want die wordt vandaag terug gedraaid.

Het kan namelijk niet zo zijn dat een race-director (Charlie Whiting) de race beīnvloed door te zeggen dat het goed is (het teruggeven van de plek door Hamilton), waarna achteraf deze beslissing weer wordt teruggedraaid.

quote:

Hoger beroep McLaren in behandeling genomen

Het International Court of Appeal van de FIA buigt zich maandag over het hoger beroep dat het team van McLaren heeft aangespannen tegen de straf die Lewis Hamilton kreeg na afloop van de Belgische Grand Prix. Hamilton kwam in Spa als eerste aan de finish, maar kreeg na afloop van de race een straf van 25 seconden voor het afsteken van de chicane, tijdens zijn gevecht met Kimi Raikkonen.

Na het afsnijden van de chicane liet Hamilton het gas even los om Raikkonen weer voor te laten komen. De Brit plaatste daana meteen weer een nieuwe inhaalpoging in La Source. Daar wist Hamilton zich wel succesvol langs de Ferrari te wurmen. McLaren is van mening dat Hamilton geen voordeel had van het missen van de chicane, maar de wedstrijdleiding in Spa dacht daar anders over en gaf hem 25 seconden straf. Sinds de Grand Prix van Italië moeten coureurs die een chicane missen, één bocht moet wachten, voordat zij een nieuwe inhaalactie plaatsen.

Een belangrijke reden om in beroep te gaan tegen de tijdstraf van 25 seconden, is het feit dat de wedstrijdleiding had laten weten dat Hamilton de positie op een correcte manier aan Raikkonen had teruggegeven. McLaren-baas Martin Whitmarsh zei: "Vanaf de pitmuur hebben we nog aan de wedstrijdleiding gevraagd of ze tevreden waren over de manier waarop Lewis de positie aan Kimi had teruggegeven. Tot twee keer toe zeiden ze dat dit op een goede manier was gebeurd. Als de wedstrijdleiding op dat moment had laten weten dat ze twijfels hadden bij de actie van Lewis, hadden we hem direct de opdracht gegeven om Kimi opnieuw voorbij te laten."

Door de straf viel Hamilton terug naar de derde plek en werd Ferrari-rijder Felipe Massa uitgeroepen tot de nieuwe winnaar van de Grand Prix van België.

Dinsdag wordt de uitspraak verwacht van het International Court of Appeal.

quote:

Rain threat to come true in Singapore
^{Posted 23 September 2008 at 09:05 GMT}

Rain is a very real possibility this weekend for F1's first ever floodlit night race on the twisty streets of Singapore.

Local forecasts predict stormy, tropical and wet conditions throughout this week and into the weekend, with rain typically the most likely in the city-state in the evenings.

Wet conditions under the beaming lights of the inaugural race are a concern particularly for the drivers, who are unsure how distracting reflections from puddles on the track surface, and glimmering rain droplets, will be.

"It rains every night (there)," team owner Vijay Mallya, a long-time Singapore resident, said. "You don't have to pray for rain, it just comes."

Further complicating the unique track conditions will be the fact that, because of the European time difference, most teams have decided that not acclimatising to the Singapore time zone is the best preparation for the night race for the drivers.

While drivers usually prepare for long-haul races by arriving early and adjusting, drivers will fly into Singapore as late as possible, and will eat breakfast in the afternoon, have dinner after midnight, and go to sleep in the early hours of the morning.

"We will concentrate on getting our rest and nutrition right to ensure the body is ready to react in the right way when required," said Honda driver Jenson Button.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 september 2008 12:16 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:
Oei Oei Oei Oei oeioeioeioei
[..]

Listig!!!

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 september 2008 12:16 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:
Oei Oei Oei Oei oeioeioeioei
[..]

Listig!!!

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 september 2008 16:29 schreef voyeur het volgende:
Het beroep van McLaren is afgewezen; geen inhoudelijk oordeel dus.

quote:

Justice evades Hamilton

No-one in Formula One will be surprised at the decision to uphold the penalty that deprived Lewis Hamilton of victory in the Belgian Grand Prix - but that does not mean it was the right one.

The decision to reject McLaren's appeal leaves the world championship finely poised, with the McLaren driver just a point ahead of Ferrari's Felipe Massa with four races to go ahead of this weekend's inaugural night race in Singapore.

That is great for those wanting the title fight to go to the wire but less so for those more concerned about the championship's integrity. Many will believe that if Hamilton loses the title by less than the six-point swing that was a result of his penalty at Spa, then the wrong man will be champion.

DID HAMILTON COMMIT AN OFFENCE?
Hamilton was outspoken during Monday's appeal court hearing in his belief that he had done nothing wrong.
He said he was within his rights to go off the track at Spa's Bus Stop chicane in his battle with Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen and that he gave back any advantage earned before re-passing the world champion.

Both are debatable points.

Hamilton contends that he cut the chicane to avoid a collision with Raikkonen, and that the Finn could have given him more room. Interestingly, in evidence before the court of appeal, Hamilton said something he had not before in claiming that their wheels were interlocked and that had he braked the Ferrari's rear wheel would have broken his front suspension.

Regardless, many of his fellow F1 drivers think Hamilton did have options. They believe Hamilton could have chosen to drop back behind Raikkonen rather than go completely off the track on the inside - indeed that had there been a wall or barrier there instead of a run-off area, he would have done, or not even tried the move in the first place.

As for Raikkonen giving him more room, why should he have? He was ahead by half a car's length and on the racing line as he turned in to the second part of the Bus Stop. It was his corner. In those circumstances it was up to Hamilton to sort himself out. And, if there was a barrier there, and Hamilton had not pulled out of the move, the chances are they would have collided, with a high probability of Hamilton being blamed for taking both of them out of the race.

It is hard to imagine Hamilton, who is as hard a racer as they come, acting any differently had the roles been reversed. He certainly didn't give Red Bull's Mark Webber much leeway as they fought over seventh place in Italy nine days ago. The main reason for the replacement of barriers with run-off areas is safety - although there is the happy by-product of giving drivers in touch-and-go situations more options to get themselves out of them and stay in the race.

But the drivers have to buy into the bargain, too. The rule saying it is illegal to gain an advantage by running off the track is there to stop drivers taking the mickey by exploiting the run-off areas. Once Hamilton had committed to his move, had he not used the run-off area, and instead braked and followed Raikkonen through the chicane, it is extremely unlikely he would have been close enough to pass the Ferrari into the next corner.
That is why the Belgian GP stewards decided he had not sufficiently surrendered his advantage.

WAS THE PENALTY FAIR?
Whether Hamilton deserved to lose the race as a result of his minor transgression is a wholly different question from whether he committed an offence by a strict interpretation of the rules. While most F1 drivers agree that he did not fully surrender his advantage, they are equally united in the belief that to lose the race as a result of it was harsh. The problem most people have with this decision was that it was so transparently unfair.

Hamilton was almost certainly going to win the race anyway. In the slippery conditions, his McLaren's grip advantage over the Ferraris was too big for him not to. Raikkonen's crash not long after his brush with Hamilton and Massa's snail-like pace on the final lap of the race are proof of that. And Massa, who inherited the victory, was never a contender all afternoon.

According to a strict application of the rules, the stewards at Spa had no choice but to penalise Hamilton. The penalty for what he did is to drive through the pits, where there is a speed limit, without stopping. Or - if it happens in the last five laps of the race - for 25 seconds to be added to his race time. But in practice this rule is rarely invoked. What normally happens in these situations is that the driver who benefits from cutting the corner subsequently allows the guy he passed to overtake him, although there is usually some discussion with race control first.

However, in Spa, there was no time for that. McLaren knew the move was open to interpretation, and therefore a possible penalty - or they would not have asked race director Charlie Whiting for his opinion about it. Whiting told them he thought it was OK.

But Whiting's opinion is just that - he has no power over the stewards, even if traditionally these situations have been sorted out between the team and race control. Nevertheless, if McLaren were concerned Hamilton could get a penalty - and given the level of paranoia at the team about the motives of the FIA, world motorsport's governing body - they should have intervened, asked Hamilton to let Raikkonen back past again and then let them carry on.

This was surely a time for flexibility in the application of the rules - just as had been the case when Ferrari illegally released Massa from the pits into the path of another car at the previous race in Valencia. The normal penalty for that is also a drive-through. But the Valencia stewards decided the incident had not affected the result of the race, and Ferrari were let off with a fine.

The decision was widely applauded as a rare example of the stewards using their common sense - a bit of which would have gone down well when it came to discussing Hamilton's misdemeanour. But the lack of consistency that so angers F1 teams about race stewards was on display several times at Spa.

Firstly, in one of the GP2 races, title contender Bruno Senna was given a drive-through for an incident remarkable in its similarity to Massa's in Valencia. And in the Grand Prix, Raikkonen three times ran off the track, arguably gaining an advantage each time, and not one of the incidents was even scrutinised.

THE FUTURE
F1 needs a clear rule defining what it acceptable when a driver involved in a close battle passes his opponent as a result of going off the track. At the Italian Grand Prix, a consensus was emerging that drivers would have to give the place back and not be allowed to overtake at the succeeding corner. That at least provides clarity but it should be enshrined in the rules - after all, it was an attempt to act on a precedent rather than a clearly defined rule that got Hamilton into all this trouble in the first place.

There is also the issue of the FIA's perceived bias in favour of Ferrari. FIA president Max Mosley rejected those claims in meetings with the press at Monza, dismissing them as "nonsensical", and saying the sport could not survive if they were true.

Nevertheless, the number of incidents in which rulings have come down either for Ferrari or against their opponents in recent years - and the climate of fear that pervades F1 when it comes to criticising the FIA - makes it easy to see how such feelings have taken root.

The Spa controversy was just the latest in a large catalogue of those. And for the sake of its own credibility and that of F1, the FIA needs to find some way of changing those perceptions.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 september 2008 16:29 schreef voyeur het volgende:
Het beroep van McLaren is afgewezen; geen inhoudelijk oordeel dus.

quote:

Red Bull Boss Re-Building A1-Ring

Four years after the former grand prix venue was demolished, the A1-Ring circuit in Austria is finally set to be rebuilt.

Work at the circuit in Zeltweg, supported by Red Bull's Dietrich Mateschitz, begun this week, following years of to-ing and fro-ing about the fate of the former Osterreichring.

Austria's 'sportnet' reports that Mateschitz is injecting about 70 million euros into the project.

The restored A1-Ring is to get new pit buildings and grandstands, after the originals were knocked down in anticipation of a bigger redevelopment following the last Austrian grand prix in 2003.

The restored circuit should be up and running by 2010.

"I am happy that Dietrich Mateschitz kept his word and the project is finally on track," Styria politician Christian Buchmann is quoted as saying.

Originally known as the Osterreichring, the circuit was built in the late 1960s and updated in 1997 to host seven more grands prix until 2003.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 september 2008 12:16 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:
Oei Oei Oei Oei oeioeioeioei
[..]

Listig!!!

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 september 2008 17:02 schreef Libris het volgende:

[..]

Neem het maar met een korreltje zout, er wordt hier altijd 'thunderstorms in the late afternoon' opgegeven, maar eigenlijk regent het amper 's avonds. Het is in ieder geval nog niet zoveer vantevoren te voorspelen in de tropen. Vijay praat maar wat.

uit een droog Singapore

-edit- Hier meer echte weerinformatie:http://app.nea.gov.sg/cms/htdocs/mss1.asp

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 september 2008 17:09 schreef vw_caddy het volgende:
FIA verklaart beroep McLaren niet ontvankelijk

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 september 2008 17:10 schreef kepler het volgende:

[..]

tof

Ga je naar de race?

quote:

The full judgement from the ICA

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE CASE:

Appeal lodged by the Motor Sports Association (MSA) on behalf of its licence-holder Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, against Decision N° 49 taken by the Panel of Stewards on 7 September 2008 at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, an event run on 7 September 2008 and counting towards the 2008 Formula One World Championship

Hearing of Monday 22 September 2008 in Paris

The FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL ("the Court"), comprised of Mr Philippe NARMINO (Monaco), who was elected President, Mr Harry DUIJM (Netherlands), Mr Erich SEDELMAYER (Austria), Mr Xavier CONESA (Spain) and Mr Thierry JULLIARD (Switzerland), met in Paris on Monday 22 September 2008 at the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, 8 place de la Concorde, 75008 Paris.

The Court, ruling on the appeal submitted by the Motor Sports Association (MSA) on behalf of its licence-holder Vodafone McLaren Mercedes ("McLaren") against Decision N° 49 taken by the Panel of Stewards on 7 September 2008 at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, run on 7 September 2008 and counting towards the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship, heard presentations and considered arguments presented by the MSA/Vodafone McLaren Mercedes and by the Fédération Internationale Automobile (“FIA”).

The Commissione Sportiva Automobilista Italiana (CSAI) notified the Court on 12 September 2008 of the request of its licence-holder Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro (“Ferrari”) to be heard in the present case in accordance with article 21 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal. The Court therefore heard the presentations and considered the arguments presented by Ferrari.

Attending the above hearing were:

MSA: Robert Jones (Secretary General)

for Vodafone McLaren Mercedes:

Mark Philips QC (Lawyer)
Lewis Hamilton (Driver)
Philip Prew (Race Engineer)
Martin Whitmarsh (Chief Executive)
Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton)
Tim Murnane (Legal representative)
Matt Bishop (McLaren)
David Ryan (Team Manager)
Tom Cassels (Legal representative for McLaren)
Ben Allgrove (Legal representative for McLaren)

for Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro:

Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer)
Stefano Domenicali (Team Principal)
Luca Baldisserri (Team Manager)
Massimiliano Maestretti (General Counsel)
Andrea Fioravanti (Legal representative)
Henry Peter (Legal representative)

for the FIA:

Mr Paul Harris (Lawyer)
Mr Pierre de Coninck (Secretary General FIA Sport, on behalf of FIA Sport)
Mr Sébastien Bernard (Head of Legal Department)
Mr Charlie Whiting (Race Director)

The parties presented oral arguments at the hearing. The witnesses or knowledgeable parties answered questions put to them by the parties and by the Court. The hearing took place in accordance with the applicable rules, with the aid of simultaneous translation; no objection to any element of the simultaneous translation was raised by anyone. During the discussions, the adversarial principle was respected.

Reminder of the facts

1. This case concerns the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, an event that was run at Spa Francorchamps (Belgium) on 7 September 2008, counting towards the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship (“the event”).

2. On lap 42 of the event, the car belonging to the Ferrari team, driven by Mr Kimi Räikkönen, was leading the race at turn 18. The car belonging to the McLaren team, driven by Mr Lewis Hamilton, drew level with Mr Räikkönen's car on the approach to turn 19, cut the chicane and took the slip road. Mr Hamilton thus found himself in the lead, in front of Mr Räikkönen's car, at the exit from turn 19. On rejoining the track, Mr Hamilton allowed Mr Räikkönen to overtake him in order to cede back the latter's place. Immediately afterwards, Mr Hamilton carried out another overtaking manoeuvre at turn 1 (La Source) and again overtook Mr Räikkönen. Mr Hamilton finished the event in the lead.

3. In its decision N° 49 (the “contested decision”), taken on 7 September 2008, the Panel of Stewards considered that Mr Hamilton had not sufficiently ceded back the advantage he had gained by cutting the chicane, and had thus breached Article 30.3.a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations and article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code. On the basis of Article 16.3.a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations, the Panel imposed a drive-through penalty on Mr Hamilton. Article 30.3.a) of those regulations stipulates that “during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits”. Article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code states that “the race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race”. As the penalty was to be applied at the end of the race, the Panel of Stewards added 25 seconds to the driver's race time, in accordance with the provisions of Article 16.3, final paragraph.

Procedure and forms of order sought by the parties

4. McLaren lodged the present appeal with the Court Secretariat on 9 September
2008.

5. McLaren claims that the Court should:

- declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

- annul the contested decision.

6. The FIA, in its submission of 19 September 2008, claims that the Court should:

– declare the appeal inadmissible pursuant to Article 152 of the International
Sporting Code;

– if the appeal is admissible, dismiss the appeal as unfounded and confirm the
contested decision in its entirety.

7. Ferrari, as an intervening party, claims that the Court should:
– declare the appeal inadmissible;

– if the appeal is admissible, confirm the contested decision in its entirety.

Arguments presented by the parties

McLaren

8. Concerning admissibility, McLaren points out in its submission that according to Article 152, three types of penalty are not susceptible to appeal: drivethrough penalties; (ii) stop-and-go penalties; and (iii) penalties expressly specified in FIA Championship regulations. McLaren claims that, as the penalty imposed in this case consists of adding 25 seconds to the race time, it does not fall into any of those three categories and that, consequently, it does fall within the scope of the restriction upon the right of appeal under Article 152.

9. On the substance, McLaren claims that while Mr Hamilton did indeed cut the chicane, he gained no advantage from this, since immediately upon taking the lead of the race he allowed Mr Räikkönen to pass him and retake first place. McLaren considers that since its driver and its car were faster, Mr Hamilton was able to overtake his rival again properly, without in any way using all or part of the advantage he had obtained by cutting the chicane.

FIA

10. Concerning admissibility, the FIA claims that in the contested decision, the Stewards clearly indicated that the penalty imposed was a drive-through penalty. In accordance with Article 152, this type of penalty is not susceptible to appeal. The fact that the penalty came into effect at the end of the race and thus took the form of an addition of 25 seconds to the race time does nothing to change the nature of the penalty.

11. On the substance, the FIA considers that the decision taken by the Stewards is not to be criticised, since Mr Hamilton incontestably gained an advantage by leaving the track. The FIA considers that while this advantage was ceded back to Mr Räikkönen, it was only partially so, and that it had not been ceded back in its entirety.

Ferrari

12. Regarding admissibility, Ferrari also claim that the penalty imposed in the present case constitutes a drive-through penalty, which is not susceptible to appeal pursuant to Article 152.

13. Concerning the substance of the case, Ferrari considers that the Stewards' decision was justified, and claims that Mr Hamilton would not have been able to overtake Mr Räikkönen if he had not gained an advantage from the disputed manoeuvre undertaken at the chicane.

Decision of the Court

Regularity of the appeal

14. Ferrari raised the question of whether or not the appeal submitted against the contested decision had been notified within the time limits stipulated in the Rules of the Court. McLaren claim that the appeal was indeed submitted within the given time limit.

Nothing in the dossiers submitted to the Court establishes that the appeal was not lodged properly, and in particular that the appeal time limits were not respected. The documents produced suggest, on the contrary, that the time limits were observed. It follows that the appeal must be declared properly formed.

Competence of the competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes

15. The competitor Ferrari, having claimed that only Lewis Hamilton was penalised by the Stewards’ decision, and having observed that the driver concerned had not appealed, deduced that McLaren could not appeal. However, it must be noted that, with regard to this decision, the Stewards did indeed record a breach of the rules committed by “the competitor named below’, which referred expressly to the “competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes”.

16. In these conditions, it is clear that this competitor was sanctioned, even if the penalty of 25 seconds was added to the race time of the driver Hamilton. 17. It follows that McLaren, through its ASN, is competent to submit the appeal that is now before the Court.

Admissibility of the appeal

18. Article 16.3 of the Formula One Sporting Regulations stipulates that: “The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident:

a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping.

b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.

c) A drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.

However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.”

19. Furthermore, Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that:
“Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties
specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not
susceptible to appeal. ”

20. The above-mentioned decision of 7 September 2008 demonstrates that the Stewards, after having noted that the driver Lewis Hamilton “cut the chicane and gained an advantage”, considered that an infringement of Article 30.3a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations and of Article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code had been committed. As a consequence, they decided to pronounce the following penalty: “drive-through penalty (Article 16.3(a)), since this is being applied at the end of the Race, 25 seconds will be added to the driver’s elapsed race time”.

21. The foregoing demonstrates that the Panel of Stewards intended to impose a drive-through penalty within the meaning of Article 16.3.a) of the Sporting Regulations. In applying Article 16.3, final paragraph of those Regulations, they added 25 seconds to the elapsed time of the driver concerned.

22. The provisions of Article 16.3 must be read in their entirety, as the three points a), b) and c) and the last paragraph of this Article are manifestly linked. There is no indication that one is allowed to confer an autonomous character to the last paragraph of this provision. On the contrary, this paragraph sets out a specific mode of execution of penalties a) and b) and aims to determine the implementation of these sanctions when they must be imposed during the last five laps of the race or after the end of the race.

23. It is with this in mind that the Panel issued its decision, as the penalty that it expressly imposed on the competitor is indeed a drive-through penalty pursuant to Article 16.3.a).

24. Therefore, the nature of the penalty mentioned in the last paragraph of Article 16.3 (addition of 25 seconds to the elapsed time) is identical to those mentioned in points a) and b). Its legal regime must for that reason be in line with the regime applicable to the sanctions foreseen under a) and b).

The Court therefore considers that the penalty imposed by the Stewards on 7 September 2008 must be considered to be a drive-through penalty.

25. As a consequence, this sanction falls within the scope of Article 152, paragraph 5, of the International Sporting Code. According to these provisions, “penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal”.

26. The above must thus be taken into account in the present matter by declaring inadmissible the appeal against the contested decision.

27. The Court, in a judgment of 12 October 2007 rendered in the Toro Rosso case concerning the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix (driver Vitantonio Liuzzi), concluded, in similar circumstances, that the appeal against a decision to impose a 25- second penalty was admissible. However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case, the FIA for its part leaving the matter to the sovereign appreciation of the Court. Therefore, the Court was able, in the conclusion of its decision, to declare the appeal admissible, but it did not give reasons for its decision on the issue, as the question was not debated. Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to this question and does not bind the Court in the present case.

On the substance

28. In view of the foregoing, it follows that there is no need to examine the substance of the appeal submitted by McLaren.

On those grounds,

THE FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL

Hereby:

1. Declares the appeal inadmissible;

2. Orders the Appellant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 24 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 september 2008 18:27 schreef CloseToTheEdge het volgende:
Jammer...

Maar Hamilton wint toch wel het WDC!

quote:

Hamilton Title Favourite Despite Appeal Setback

Following Lewis Hamilton's rejected appeal he is still favourite with William Hill to win the F1 world title at odds of 4/6. Hills also offer Felipe Massa at 11/10 and Robert Kubica at 20/1.
'If Lewis had got the points back on appeal he would have been 1/3 favourite for the title, but we always thought that was very unlikely' said Hill's spokesman Graham Sharpe.
HAMILTON IS 6/4 FAVOURITE TO WIN IN SINGAPORE THIS WEEKEND WITH HILLS AND 3/1 THIRD FAVOURITE FOR BBC SPORTS PERSONALITY OF THE YEAR FOR WHICH REBECCA ADLINGTON IS 5/4 FAVOURITE WITH CHRIS HOY AT 7/4.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 september 2008 17:09 schreef vw_caddy het volgende:
FIA verklaart beroep McLaren niet ontvankelijk

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 september 2008 19:31 schreef NED het volgende:
Wat kan mij die Hamilton schelen, de A1-Ring komt misschien terug~!~!!!!

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 september 2008 19:31 schreef NED het volgende:
Wat kan mij die Hamilton schelen, de A1-Ring komt misschien terug~!~!!!!

quote:

27. The Court, in a judgment of 12 October 2007 rendered in the Toro Rosso case concerning the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix (driver Vitantonio Liuzzi), concluded, in similar circumstances, that the appeal against a decision to impose a 25- second penalty was admissible. However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case, the FIA for its part leaving the matter to the sovereign appreciation of the Court. Therefore, the Court was able, in the conclusion of its decision, to declare the appeal admissible, but it did not give reasons for its decision on the issue, as the question was not debated. Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to this question and does not bind the Court in the present case.

Dat het ter vrage stellen van de toelaatbaarheid van de kwestie in een rechtbank er juist voor gezorgd heeft dat de FIA het beroep niet-ontvankelijk kon verklaren.

Het eerste punt -en FIA's blijkbare vrede hiermee- geeft precies aan dat de FIA niet van plan is zich te binden aan duidelijk gedefinieerde regels en graag de vinger in de pap wil houden.
Het tweede punt slaat werkelijk nergens op ... dit laat alleen maar zien dat de beslissing of een beroep voor een rechter komt puur aan de FIA is en niets te maken heeft met wat er -voor de verandering- WEL vastgelegd is in de regels.

Als aanvulling valt natuurlijk te debatteren over het feit dat Artikel 30.3.a), welke zegt dat “gedurende de trainingen en de race de coureurs alleen gebruik mogen maken van de racebaan en ze ten alle tijden zich dienen te houden aan de etiquette van de Code die gerelateerd is aan het rij-gedrag op circuits”, geen grond is om een dergelijke straf te geven. Als dit wel zo is zou IEDEREEN die de baan verlaat gestraft moeten worden. We hebben duidelijk gezien dat dat lang niet altijd bestraft wordt.

Formula1 Japan ,Massa vs Kubica

In mijn ogen laat de FIA alleen maar z'n kleuren zien, zoals de BBC het netjes omschreef.

quote:

There is also the issue of the FIA's perceived bias in favour of Ferrari. FIA president Max Mosley rejected those claims in meetings with the press at Monza, dismissing them as "nonsensical", and saying the sport could not survive if they were true.

_{en dit van een man die jaren lang met een strakke kop tegen z'n vrouw kon zeggen dat hij van 'r hield}

quote:

Nevertheless, the number of incidents in which rulings have come down either for Ferrari or against their opponents in recent years - and the climate of fear that pervades F1 when it comes to criticising the FIA - makes it easy to see how such feelings have taken root.

Het dikgedrukte geeft trouwens precies aan waarom alle coureurs een paar dagen na het incident unaniem voor de straf waren. F1 gaat het wel overleven maar klassen als A1GP (hey ... hallo Ferrari, wat een toeval u hier te zien!) en de IRL komen met rasse schreden dichterbij. Persoonlijk zit ik alweer te hopen op een nieuwe race-klasse.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 09:38 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:
Hier worden twee dingen gezegd:

Dat uitspraken kunnen verschillen per rechter;

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 10:06 schreef sanger het volgende:

[..]

Dat is overal zo. Ook in het gebruikelijke recht. Zo onstaat alle jurisprudentie die er is.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 10:11 schreef sasquatsch het volgende:
Ik snap nog steeds niet wat Ferrari deed op de hoorzitting. Ferrari heeft geen reet te maken met de uitspraak van de ICA, omdat Ferrari geen belanghebbende partij in deze zaak is. Iedere uitspraak van de ICA zou alleen maar te maken mogen hebben met McLaren, ongeacht of de uitkomst nu in het voordeel, dan wel nadeel zou zijn van Ferrari. Het gaat namelijk om een tijdstraf die door de stewards aan McLaren is uitgedeeld.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 10:15 schreef Atreidez het volgende:

[..]

Wat is dat nou voor onzin Iedereen weet toch dat FIA in principe Ferrari is!

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 10:11 schreef sasquatsch het volgende:
Ik snap nog steeds niet wat Ferrari deed op de hoorzitting. Ferrari heeft geen reet te maken met de uitspraak van de ICA, omdat Ferrari geen belanghebbende partij in deze zaak is. Iedere uitspraak van de ICA zou alleen maar te maken mogen hebben met McLaren, ongeacht of de uitkomst nu in het voordeel, dan wel nadeel zou zijn van Ferrari. Het gaat namelijk om een tijdstraf die door de stewards aan McLaren is uitgedeeld.

quote:

Die jurisprudentie zorgt er juist voor dat de rechters niet verschillend beslissen, maar in soortgelijke zaken uitgaan van eerder gedane uitspraken.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 10:48 schreef sanger het volgende:

[..]

Wellicht als getuige?
[..]

Maar jurisprudentie is over het algemeen niet overeenkomstog de regelgeving. De rechter kan dus meegaan in de regelgeving of in de jurisprudentie.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 11:14 schreef bodylotion het volgende:
kan iemand mij uitleggen waarom de FIA zo pro Ferrari zou zijn/is?
Wat is het belang dat de FIA heeft door Ferrari voor te trekken?

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 10:57 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:

[..]

We hebben het alleen over een sport en niet over een rechtssysteem. Een sport heeft duidelijke regels die voor alle partijen gelden. Op het moment dat regels voor één partij gelden en voor de andere partij niet dan heet dat binnen de sport "onsportief" of "oneerlijk".

Zoals al vaak gezegd is ... winnen doe je op de baan en niet in een rechtszaal. Op het moment dat de SPORT-regels per rechter kunnen verschillen hebben we het niet meer over een sport. Simpel.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 11:14 schreef bodylotion het volgende:
kan iemand mij uitleggen waarom de FIA zo pro Ferrari zou zijn/is?
Wat is het belang dat de FIA heeft door Ferrari voor te trekken?

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 11:26 schreef Sally het volgende:

[..]

Publiciteit? Centen? Een zevenvoudig wereldkampioen? Uitstraling voor de Formule 1?

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 11:32 schreef bodylotion het volgende:

[..]

Dat heeft Mclaren toch ook?
Raikkonen is nou niet echt het gezicht van de Formule 1, zoals Schumacher vroeger was.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 11:14 schreef bodylotion het volgende:
kan iemand mij uitleggen waarom de FIA zo pro Ferrari zou zijn/is?
Wat is het belang dat de FIA heeft door Ferrari voor te trekken?

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 12:11 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:

[..]

Je zou je eens moeten verdiepen in Italiaanse machtssystemen. klik, klik, klik, klik

quote:

FIA asked to look into chicane problem

The FIA has been asked by Formula One drivers to find a better solution to the problems caused by chicane cutting in the wake of the Lewis Hamilton Spa controversy.

With Hamilton having lost his appeal over the penalty he was handed for gaining an advantage by cutting a chicane in the Belgian Grand Prix, there remains some unease about the expected driver etiquette in similar situations.

Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA) chairman Pedro de la Rosa thinks there has to be a better option to punish drivers for cutting chicanes, rather than the current guideline of handing back positions.

"The bottom line is that there is the need to find a better solution that keeps everyone happy," he told autosport.com. "We have spoken with Charlie (Whiting) and the FIA, and they are looking for a solution as well."

Chicane cutting has become a modern day issue because of the wide-open asphalt run off areas that now surround corners. Mistakes by drivers result in them simply running off the circuit without penalty and resuming further up the road.

De la Rosa admits there is a difficulty in finding an answer as to how to design chicanes whereby they are both safe and do not encourage drivers to cut across them.

"At the moment we have the best compromise," he said. "We all push for the asphalt run-offs, but one of the downsides of that is that you can cut corners without being penalised as much as with gravel or grass. So it's not all positive, but safety is first.

"We have that because it's the safest measure, so the second step is to make sure that if a driver jumps a chicane he gets a proper time loss so there is no controversy. That is the main objective. But the GPDA perspective is just about safety.

"I have nothing to say about jumping chicanes. We are happy with the run-off areas because we pushed for them, and now it is up to the FIA to find a solution to get proper time loss for a driver that jumps a chicane, not the GPDA."

De la Rosa does not believe that the wider use of speed bumps to hinder drivers who cut across chicanes would improve matters.

"It depends where you locate those. They should never be on the run-off areas, because it makes the car jump. But I am sure that there are other ways, or placing them in other areas. We are very happy with the asphalt, it is a massive step forward, but you cannot have all positives."

quote:

Ferrari, FIA To Collect $1 Million From McLaren For Mock Appeal ?

The court bill accrued by the lawyers from Ferrari and the FIA will cost McLaren at least $500,000, but as much as double that amount, according to reports.

The bill, which accompanies the International Court of Appeal's rejection of its Lewis Hamilton penalty appeal, is another slap in the face of the British team in the eyes of that country's press corps.

"It would have saved so much time and money to have declared that (inadmissibility) to be the case ... a week ago," the Daily Express said.

The Independent claims throwing out the appeal because it was inadmissible is evidence of the FIA taking the "easy way out" in the face of deeper questions about governance.

The Mirror quotes British F1 legend Sir Stirling Moss as saying: "Formula one is no longer a sport and that's one of the worst things you can say."

Championship leader Hamilton arrived in Singapore yesterday wearing the same suit he wore in the Paris hearing. The 23-year-old then sat on the cockpit of a mock McLaren in a shopping mall as youngsters played a F1 simulator. "Local sources confirmed that the recreational machine was not fitted with electronic stewards," The Guardian newspaper sarcastically noted.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 11:29 schreef sanger het volgende:

[..]

Volgens de geruchten omdat Ferrari de enige is die vanaf het begin aan de FIA is verbonden.

quote:

The only successful appeal in F1 history came when Ferrari's Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher were disqualified from first and second places over a bargeboard infringement in the 1999 Malaysian Grand Prix, but subsequently re-in stated.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 13:54 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:
Centjes verdelen gasten! Hierom was Ferrari aanwezig in de rechtszaal :
[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 11:26 schreef Sally het volgende:

[..]

Publiciteit? Centen? Een zevenvoudig wereldkampioen? Uitstraling voor de Formule 1?

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 14:42 schreef Atreidez het volgende:
Echt handig idd.. Eerst het appeal aannemen, allemaal mensen invliegen en afspraken maken voor de hearing, en dan op de hearing zeggen dat er geen uitspraak over deze zaak gedaan kan worden. En als topping op de taart alle kosten laten betalen door McLaren

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 14:47 schreef ColtZ40 het volgende:

[..]

De verliezer betaald! En ze wisten dat ze gingen verliezen.

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 15:50 schreef kepler het volgende:

[..]

dat wel, maar het beroep was toch eerst aangenomen? En toen op de hearing toch weer niet...

Ik snap het allemaal niet meer

quote:

Op woensdag 24 september 2008 17:50 schreef Sinister-D- het volgende:

[..]

En als je de spoiler in de OP had gezien had je geweten dat ik je de credits gaf Met link naar dat topic zelf......
[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 25 september 2008 17:59 schreef NED het volgende:
Okay. Dat is dus niet tof.



Zal je zien dat Kimi er een mist, netjes stopt en dat Lewis er vol achterop klapt

quote:

Op donderdag 25 september 2008 18:37 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:

[..]

Lewis kan z'n auto wel op de baan houden hoor Als Kimi zo dom is om dat stoppen op te baan te doen dan verdient ie 't wel dat iemand 'm aan flarden rijdt.

quote:

Op donderdag 25 september 2008 17:57 schreef Sinister-D- het volgende:

[..]

Enja hoor, het begint nu echt belachelijk te worden Ik vind trouwens wel dat de FIA zo een fout in hun regelement toegeeft

quote:

Op donderdag 25 september 2008 17:57 schreef Sinister-D- het volgende:

[..]

Enja hoor, het begint nu echt belachelijk te worden Ik vind trouwens wel dat de FIA zo een fout in hun regelement toegeeft

quote:

Als een coureur met alle vier zijn wielen over de witte lijn komt, dan moet hij geheel tot stilstand komen voordat hij weer terugkeert op het circuit.

quote:

Op donderdag 25 september 2008 20:29 schreef Sinister-D- het volgende:
Wat gaan ze dan doen als iedereen in de eerste ronde er af vliegt in de chicane

quote:

Deze maatregel geldt voor bocht twee en de controversiële dubbele chicane (bocht tien-twaalf). Als een coureur met alle vier zijn wielen over de witte lijn komt, dan moet hij geheel tot stilstand komen voordat hij weer terugkeert op het circuit.

quote:

Op donderdag 25 september 2008 21:00 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 25 september 2008 17:59 schreef NED het volgende:
Okay. Dat is dus niet tof.



Zal je zien dat Kimi er een mist, netjes stopt en dat Lewis er vol achterop klapt

quote:

Op donderdag 25 september 2008 21:34 schreef nils7 het volgende:

Belachelijk straks staat er iemand stil in een chicane en verliest er nog 1tje zijn rempunt... twee eruit.
Of netzoals bij die playstation spelletjes dat als je afsnijd dat er een begrenzer op komt voor 10 seconden

quote:

Honda in 2009 mee met topteams.

Volgens Jenson Button zou er bij Honda enkel beterschap in zicht zijn. Button weet dat alles uiteraard zal afhangen van het werk binnen het team maar als het aan Ross Brawn ligt staan ze komend seizoen mee vooraan.

"Het zal komend seizoen vooral draaien om de banden en KERS maar wij zullen er staan. Het lijkt niet te geloven maar we zijn nu al aan het verbeteren. De kans is groot dat we met de topteams gaan vechten vanaf komend seizoen", aldus Button.
Dat Ross Brawn een goede aanwinst is voor Honda daar twijfelde niemand tot op de dag van vandaag aan maar als hij dit zal kunnen verwezenlijken is inderdaad nog maar de vraag. Men geeft bij Honda wel toe dat de nieuwe reglementering voor 2009 het team erg gunstig zal zijn.

bron: http://www.autosportmedia.nl

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 september 2008 19:51 schreef NED het volgende:

[..]

Het zou toch een bak zijn als hij volgend jaar het licht uit de ogen van Lewis rijdt zeg !!!

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 september 2008 19:57 schreef NED het volgende:
Hij staat overigens op P35 van de rijkste mensen van Monaco.

De top35 that is. Ook al achteraan dus.
Evenals Coulthard overigens. Die staat op P33 en heeft met 35 miljoen Pond 10 miljoen Pond meer dan Jens.

Ik dacht overigens dat beide heren wel meer pegels hadden, maar dat valt eik nog zat mee