Remember Mark Webber’s controversial interview on ITV after his retirement at the Japanese Grand Prix?
It’s kids, isn’t it. It’s kids with not enough experience, and they just go and fuck it all up!
At the time, most people — myself included — thought that he was referring to Sebastian Vettel. But my brother brought up an interesting point to me today. He didn’t say “it’s a kid”. He said, “It’s kids.”
Was he laying the blame on Hamilton as well as Vettel?
His most recent comments — that “Hamilton did a shit job behind the Safety Car” — are pretty scathing about Hamilton’s role. As far as I can see, he has made no criticism of Vettel since Sunday.
Given the announcement that Hamilton is now being investigated by the FIA stewards for his role in the crash, Webber’s quote now takes on a new meaning. Isn’t it funny how most of us assumed he was just talking about Vettel when he could have been talking about Hamilton as well?
No, it’s not funny, since it’s blimmin’ obvious to anyone with half a brain that Hamilton was not at fault.
Perhaps, but to those of us in possession of more than half a brain it’s clear there’s a case to answer. Even at the first start Hamilton’s driving was borderline – the on-board shots from Alonso were quite unnerving as he sped up and slowed down, and that’s from second place – the effect further down the grid with the stop/start wave moving down the pack plus the lack of visibility must have been bad.
But the Webber incident was so unnecessary – the safety car wasn’t coming in, there was no restart, and no need to drive so unpredictably. Still – why take my word for it – at least Webber, Vettell and Button agree, in fact unanimous out of the drivers we’ve heard from (plus Alonso, but we might consider him to have a vested interest…!)
Yes it was kids, and it was Hamilton and Vettell: if you watch the YouTube video, Hamilton has certainly got a case to answer. He braked so hard that from being alongside the Safety Car he goes to at least 17 lengths behind – the Safety Car was a round the next bend before Hamilton finished rounding the bend on which the accident occured. He had to stay within 5 lengths – he is going to have to come up with an answer, or start 10 places back on Sunday.
Looks like the stewards are not investigating Hamilton after all. This from rasf1:
This is the way it should be. It is not the job of the stewards of the Chinese Grand Prix to investigate something that happened at the Japanese Grand Prix.
Instead, it is going to the FIA Court of Appeal next week.Update: Wrong about that last sentence, I misread a story (the appeal is actually for the Sutil thing).
Ok, here is what Hamilton thinks:
Exactly.
Interesting how Hamilton thinks that the “five car lengths” rule applies to Webber but not to himself. As I said, I’ve seen plenty of races in the wet, and nobody has driven like Hamilton behind the SC that I can remember.
Vettel has now had his penalty reversed, which I think is the correct outcome.
wow, not that Im too surprised. Too much is being decided in FIA courtrooms and not on the track.
Maybe Hamilton should just win this year and then bugger off to America – Im sure thatd suit all you with Hamiphobia.
I’m not even sure why we’re listening to Mark Webber – he’s achieved absolutely nothing in the years he’s been in F1 other than moaning… moaning about Jaguar, moaning about Williams and now moaning about the “kid” who’s beating him.
The stewards have announced that no penalty will be given to Hamilton.
Remember that Alonso said something similar last year!… Everybody feels like a victim. Mind you, Alonso just broke a fakey rule, while Hamilton broke an actual rule.
Hamilton clearly did not break any rules in the view of the FIA, otherwise he would have received a penalty.
Yeah, but like I said in the other post, Hamilton is the new Golden Boy in the eyes of the FIA, filling the void left by Schumacher. Just like Michael Schumacher, Hamilton will be able to get away with more than most.
Besides, they’ve removed Vettel’s penalty, so they must have thought that Hamilton did play a part in the accident. They just don’t have the guts to punish him for it.
I maintain that if Schumacher tried to brake-test somebody during a Safety Car period, or used a crane to re-start his race, the British media would have castigated him. But of course, it’s eh-okay when Hamilton does it.
Hamilton is the new Golden Boy in the eyes of the FIA
How on earth can you think that? Ferrari is the constant goldenboy in the eyes of the FIA, apparently commanding a 50% importance in FIA the decision making process – but McLaren and Hamilton are being lambasted at almost every race by the FIA for one thing or another.
Where does this Hamiphobia come from?
It’s about hypocrisy. Like I said, if Schumacher did the stuff that Hamilton does, he would have been criticised for it, and rightly so.
All too often when you press somebody on Hamilton’s behaviour it descends into nationalism. Well he’s British. Woo-hoo, good for him. But I think Britain’s had enough world champions and it dominates F1 anyway. Why not give other countries a shot?
As for the FIA, their pro-Ferrari bias is not in doubt (I’ve covered it extensively on this blog). But for the past three or four years that has manifested itself as anti-Alonso bias as well. When you look at the things the FIA has stuck its nose into, they have affected Alonso more than most. I think there is a resentment among a lot of people about the fact that Alonso was able to beat Schumacher fair and square when Schumacher didn’t have an excuse.
Hamilton was hit by Kubica at Fuji and Kubica got a penalty. But Alonso was hit by Vettel and got worse damage, but Vettel went unpunished for that incident.
Maybe, but aren’t all countries the same.
How many is enough world champions? I dont see it myself, you can never have enough world champions.
In the teams? Sure, theres good historical and technological reasons for that.
If theyre good enough they can manage it themselves, they dont need any favours. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor racing, not a charity hand out.
I must have missed all these things Hamiltons been doing which are comparable to driving into Hill in order to win and stopping in the middle of the track during qualifying – to name but 2. Enlighten me, please.
Removing Vettel’s penalty does not even remotely imply that they believed Hamilton to be at fault. The two are entirely unconnected. They have simply decided that Webber slowing down and Vettel losing concentration was a 50/50 racing incident and there should be no further penalty as retirement from the race is penalty enough. It does not have any bearing whatsoever on whether Hamilton was to blame or not.
Regarding Ferrari, I’m starting to think that the decision by Schumacher and Brawn to move to Ferrari in 1995 (and not McLaren as was expected by everyone else at the time) was in part down to their calculation that the FIA was institutionally biased in favour of Ferrari, and that they (Schumacher and Brawn) could use that bias to their considerable advantage in the coming years. With the recent revalations surrounding the floor pan incident in Australia (the fact that the FIA knew it was illegal before the race), it seems even more likely that this was the case.
#16, I was being facetious. My point is that Hamilton does not just gain my respect because of where he comes from. In fact, I respect it a lot more if a driver comes from a country where F1 isn’t a traditional sport because he will have much steeper hills to climb than the average British racing driver.
As for Hamilton’s controversial incidents, there was his moaning post-Monaco, instigating the Hungaroring controversy (conveniently ignored by the British media, who chose to direct their ire at Alonso) and the crane incident.
Don’t forget that Hamilton has not even completed his first year yet.
Schumacher crashed into Hill in his third full season, and stopping in the track during qualifying happened in his seventeenth.
I dont see how even those 3 examples combined are equivalent to DRIVING INTO Hill.
A whinging Aussie, say it ain’t so.
Yeah, but nowhere have I said that Hamilton has done anything as bad as driving into Hill. All I have said is that he plays Schumacher-esque dirty tricks, and if Schumacher had done them he would have been criticised for it.
By the way, why are you not so concerned about the time when Schumacher drove into Villeneuve?
Just because driving into Hill was more memorable, and a blatant ‘taking out’ manoeuvre from what I remember
Isn’t that comparing Schuey and Hamilton? Aren’t my two examples Schumacher dirty-tricks? Nothing Hamilton has done can be compared to those two surely? Seems fair to question your comparison.
Well, yes, my whole point is to compare Hamilton to Schumacher. What you have done is taken two of the very worst of Schumacher’s many dirty tricks and said, “well, Hamilton isn’t as bad as Schumacher then”. But I never said Hamilton was as bad as Schumacher. Like I said, Schumacher did not even play as many dirty tricks in his first season!
I said Hamilton plays Schumacher-esque dirty tricks. And if Schumacher had played the same dirty tricks, he would have been criticised by the British media and fans for it. But he gets away with it because he is British! That was the only point I was making. You just keep on constructing straw men.
What are these dirty tricks? really? None of the examples you gave me were ‘tricks’ ; moaning – wow! see Webber for moaning (or any F1 driver); Not sure what the Hungoaring controversy is; and the crane – discussed to death, seems to me he just took advantage of a rule that no one else had the presence of mind to think of.
So what has that got to Hamilton? Thats the media up to their usual tricks.
No sir, I think it is you that is constructing the men of straw.
British or not, why can you not be pleased that there is an exciting young driver in F1, the season would have been far less interesting without him – and its just a lucky coincidence that he’s British. Ignore the media hype and ITV’s (Allen’s in particular) sycophantic coverage (as is usual for ITV) and just enjoy the racing.
Wow, if you don’t know the Hungaroring incident then you really must have been relying on the warped British media view of everything. No wonder you can’t see when Hamilton is in the wrong. Here is the story.
As for the crane, just remember how much Schumacher was criticised when he was pushed out of the gravel at Europe in 2003. And remember also that when Heidfeld and Alonso tried to do the same thing, they were ignored by the marshals. Hamilton on the other hand did not just get pushed out of the gravel — he was helped by machinery as well!!
What straw man have I constructed?
I enjoy the racing, and as I keep on saying I think Hamilton is an amazingly talented driver. The difference is that I can recognise it when Hamilton has done something wrong.
Ah, I remember the incident now. Didn’t Alonso’s physio stop him from going or was that media hype? It’s surely difficult to say exactly what happened there unless youre one of Hamilton, Alonso or Ron Dennis. There’s been so many stories and counter stories Im not sure I can choose a story to believe.
Chalk it down to ‘fog of war’ maybe?