Charlie Whiting MUST resign
Discussion
a report of the Spa appeal said:
McLaren is banking on the belief that FIA race director Charlie Whiting had given verbal approval of Hamilton's attempt to hand the advantage back to Raikkonen between the Bus Stop and La Source, but the court heard that, on reflection, Whiting felt that his initial judgement had been wrong, having been based only on what he had seen on track.
"It became clear to me after seeing the incident in a more detailed way that the whole advantage had not been given back," he told Reuters, "If [Hamilton] had stayed on the track, he would not have been in a position to attack at turn one. He would not have been that close."
If this is true then he must go. Now. Anyone in a position to give advice that is relied on in competition cannot make a decision and then change their mind later on. After all this man has spent years in the sport."It became clear to me after seeing the incident in a more detailed way that the whole advantage had not been given back," he told Reuters, "If [Hamilton] had stayed on the track, he would not have been in a position to attack at turn one. He would not have been that close."
Edited by kevin ritson on Tuesday 23 September 11:00
Hmm interesting, I always had Charlie down as "one of the good guys" and quite resistant to some of the "other pressures" that appear in the F1 circus.
I don't think anyone can expect Charlie to be infallible, every race clerk, race director and race steward I know would (I think) tell you that they don't get it right every time. They try hard to make the right decision at the time but that decisions made in the heat of a race can sometimes, with the benefit of hindsight, appear to be incorrect.
What seems odd to me is the competitor paying the price for the what the race director now says was a bad decision. The usual approach would in my view be for the race director to put his hands up and accept that he was wrong but that as the competitor acted on the advice of the race director it would be in appropriate for the competitor to be disadvantaged.
There really is now't so odd as F1 is there....
Oh BTW - source for your quote?
I don't think anyone can expect Charlie to be infallible, every race clerk, race director and race steward I know would (I think) tell you that they don't get it right every time. They try hard to make the right decision at the time but that decisions made in the heat of a race can sometimes, with the benefit of hindsight, appear to be incorrect.
What seems odd to me is the competitor paying the price for the what the race director now says was a bad decision. The usual approach would in my view be for the race director to put his hands up and accept that he was wrong but that as the competitor acted on the advice of the race director it would be in appropriate for the competitor to be disadvantaged.
There really is now't so odd as F1 is there....
Oh BTW - source for your quote?
Edited by Piglet on Tuesday 23 September 11:11
Indeed mistakes can be made but then the result should have remained and any appeal would be to have Hamilton's win removed rather than McLaren having to fight to get it reinstated.
There's a possibility that Whiting has been set up but there's a far greater impression that the sport is fixed and as things are this does nothing to dispel the feeling. The question is, can anyone trust Whiting now?
There's a possibility that Whiting has been set up but there's a far greater impression that the sport is fixed and as things are this does nothing to dispel the feeling. The question is, can anyone trust Whiting now?
kevin ritson said:
Indeed mistakes can be made but then the result should have remained and any appeal would be to have Hamilton's win removed rather than McLaren having to fight to get it reinstated.
There's a possibility that Whiting has been set up but there's a far greater impression that the sport is fixed and as things are this does nothing to dispel the feeling. The question is, can anyone trust Whiting now?
Does it really matter? The whole sport is rotten.There's a possibility that Whiting has been set up but there's a far greater impression that the sport is fixed and as things are this does nothing to dispel the feeling. The question is, can anyone trust Whiting now?
You cannot help but feel that the rule was deliberately written in an ambiguous way.
The word "advantage" should not have been used. Allowing a re-pass is what Lewis did and it is what every spectator thought was the rule, until recently.
If the rule is redefined to say you must follow the disadvantaged car through the next corner, them I am certain that fans will understand that as well.
By allowing the re-pass Lewis had certainly given up the majority of his advantage, but it seems that it is perhaps somewhere between 70% & 100% that is what is being argued about in Paris.
Had the stewards immediately notified an investigation fans could perhaps have understood their concerns, but Lewis easily outbraked Kimi at La Source, which, I believe, he would probably have done in any event, had he not needed to cut the chicane. He clearly had added momentum at that point in the race.
The word "advantage" should not have been used. Allowing a re-pass is what Lewis did and it is what every spectator thought was the rule, until recently.
If the rule is redefined to say you must follow the disadvantaged car through the next corner, them I am certain that fans will understand that as well.
By allowing the re-pass Lewis had certainly given up the majority of his advantage, but it seems that it is perhaps somewhere between 70% & 100% that is what is being argued about in Paris.
Had the stewards immediately notified an investigation fans could perhaps have understood their concerns, but Lewis easily outbraked Kimi at La Source, which, I believe, he would probably have done in any event, had he not needed to cut the chicane. He clearly had added momentum at that point in the race.
Upside down drawing pins covering the white line boundaries of of the circuit are what's needed. Or those police spike things.
There have been lots of instances this season where many cars from all teams have had all 4 wheels off the track. When running in close quarters with other cars, if one does this and another does not, the one doing it has surely received an advantage (for if he had been going slower, it wouldn't have happened).
Of course this would help if the car were forced off the circuit. But then I guess these instances can turn either way if someone gets heavy.
There have been lots of instances this season where many cars from all teams have had all 4 wheels off the track. When running in close quarters with other cars, if one does this and another does not, the one doing it has surely received an advantage (for if he had been going slower, it wouldn't have happened).
Of course this would help if the car were forced off the circuit. But then I guess these instances can turn either way if someone gets heavy.
Murph7355 said:
Upside down drawing pins covering the white line boundaries of of the circuit are what's needed. Or those police spike things.
There have been lots of instances this season where many cars from all teams have had all 4 wheels off the track. When running in close quarters with other cars, if one does this and another does not, the one doing it has surely received an advantage (for if he had been going slower, it wouldn't have happened).
Of course this would help if the car were forced off the circuit. But then I guess these instances can turn either way if someone gets heavy.
At Monza, everyone had 4 wheels off the track on some of the corners, how does that work? Maybe they need to put proper curbs down.There have been lots of instances this season where many cars from all teams have had all 4 wheels off the track. When running in close quarters with other cars, if one does this and another does not, the one doing it has surely received an advantage (for if he had been going slower, it wouldn't have happened).
Of course this would help if the car were forced off the circuit. But then I guess these instances can turn either way if someone gets heavy.
Murph7355 said:
Upside down drawing pins covering the white line boundaries of of the circuit are what's needed. Or those police spike things.
No, what's needed is a bit of discretion. For the most part that's what's used & it works well.Ambiguous writing of the rules allows the clever to outwit the fast by taking advantage of the ambiguity, something Ferrari does well (eg getting Renaults mass damper classed as a moveable aero-aid despite it not being in the airflow, yet getting their hubcaps approved as part of the brake ducts despite their clearly being moving aerodynamic parts).
I applaud clever interpretation of loopholes, and generally so do the organisers. However when the organisers say 'Ah but we didn't mean that' they should accept it's their own fault for allowing the loophole, not the teams or drivers for using it to their advantage.
McLaren interpreted 'giving back the advantage' as being 'giving back the place', which to me seems logically the thing to do in the heat of the moment.
Riverside said:
McLaren interpreted 'giving back the advantage' as being 'giving back the place', which to me seems logically the thing to do in the heat of the moment.
The argument is that McLaren gave back both the place and the advantage- hence the speed and distance data used as evidence.kevin ritson said:
a report of the Spa appeal said:
McLaren is banking on the belief that FIA race director Charlie Whiting had given verbal approval of Hamilton's attempt to hand the advantage back to Raikkonen between the Bus Stop and La Source, but the court heard that, on reflection, Whiting felt that his initial judgement had been wrong, having been based only on what he had seen on track.
"It became clear to me after seeing the incident in a more detailed way that the whole advantage had not been given back," he told Reuters, "If [Hamilton] had stayed on the track, he would not have been in a position to attack at turn one. He would not have been that close."
If this is true then he must go. Now. Anyone in a position to give advice that is relied on in competition cannot make a decision and then change their mind later on. After all this man has spent years in the sport."It became clear to me after seeing the incident in a more detailed way that the whole advantage had not been given back," he told Reuters, "If [Hamilton] had stayed on the track, he would not have been in a position to attack at turn one. He would not have been that close."
Edited by kevin ritson on Tuesday 23 September 11:00
I cannot belive Charlie would have done/said this without being backed into a corner...
Murph7355 said:
Upside down drawing pins covering the white line boundaries of of the circuit are what's needed. Or those police spike things.
ahh yes, because valencia, with its concrete walls right next to the whiteline was just such an exciting race filled with daring overtaking moves...Piglet said:
Hmm interesting, I always had Charlie down as "one of the good guys" and quite resistant to some of the "other pressures" that appear in the F1 circus.
Indeed, I'm with you there. But recently, well the last couple of years, I've had my mind changed.I accept that in any corporate structure, an employee should support the line taken by the company but thee are limits. Whiting said one thing at the time and then did a 180. The only additional information available to him post race is the read out from the various cars which suported the suggestion that LH did indeed concede right of way. So one must ask oneself, Why such a dramatic change of heart?
Further, the attempt by McLaren to seek an official's point of view shows that there was never any attempt to gain an unfair advantage so as Kimi lost it a short time later with an unforced driver error, no advantage was gained in any case.
I accept that the FiA cannot lay the stewards open to public humiliation if it wants others to put themselves forward. However, there are many ways in which the court can be fair and still do the corporate thing.
But, I am sorry to say, I live in no great expectation that the result will be fair. In fact, no hope at all.
Scuffers said:
kevin ritson said:
If he is, then if he is an honourable man he would want to resign.
I think in the long run, then this is what will probably happen....I think this will be a huge loose to F1 and can only imagine which one of spankies cronies would get the job...
See: www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20792.html
"FIA Race Director Charlie Whiting told the FIA legal department that he had spoken to Scott Andrews about the Fuji decision and said that the former chief steward had indicated that he had made a mistake and that the penalty should have been a drive-through, which could not have been appealed." This is the type of conduct one would expect from Spanky's cronies.
noone seems to have noticed this problem- if cars are now required to wait till the next corner, what do you do in situations such as at fuji with the mega long straight? if one car missed the corner and then reallowed the car is just passed to pass back again, the following straight would be a simple case of a bit of slipstreaming till the end of the straight and possibly a pass at the first corner. but now you wouldn't be allowed to. which then makes you think what if there were 3 cars involved, the one at the back can pass, but the one in the middle is not allowed to.
make sense?
make sense?
10 Pence Short said:
Riverside said:
McLaren interpreted 'giving back the advantage' as being 'giving back the place', which to me seems logically the thing to do in the heat of the moment.
The argument is that McLaren gave back both the place and the advantage- hence the speed and distance data used as evidence.stew-S160 said:
noone seems to have noticed this problem- if cars are now required to wait till the next corner, what do you do in situations such as at fuji with the mega long straight? if one car missed the corner and then reallowed the car is just passed to pass back again, the following straight would be a simple case of a bit of slipstreaming till the end of the straight and possibly a pass at the first corner. but now you wouldn't be allowed to. which then makes you think what if there were 3 cars involved, the one at the back can pass, but the one in the middle is not allowed to.
make sense?
At Monza if they cut the chicane at the first Rettifilio Chicane they waited until the next chicane della Roggia before trying again, forgetting the big corner they go through called Curve Grande, surely what would be the next one not the chicane.make sense?
It's all too blurry, the easy solution instead of introducing additional rules is to take it away completely, just say give the position back and try again any time. It's not synchronised swimming it's motor racing.
stew-S160 said:
noone seems to have noticed this problem- if cars are now required to wait till the next corner, what do you do in situations such as at fuji with the mega long straight? if one car missed the corner and then reallowed the car is just passed to pass back again, the following straight would be a simple case of a bit of slipstreaming till the end of the straight and possibly a pass at the first corner. but now you wouldn't be allowed to. which then makes you think what if there were 3 cars involved, the one at the back can pass, but the one in the middle is not allowed to.
make sense?
I have wondered about this as well. It seems the next logical step in all this will be a debate on the definition of a "corner". Is a sweeping 20deg curve a corner or is it a 90deg sharp right ?make sense?
All being made up on the hoof methinks.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff