Errhmm...didn't he gain the advantage when he passed Nannini later by quickly cutting the chicane?
IIRC, he was rejoining the race with some help of the marshals, but that time Nannini was already in the lead. I have an obscure memory seeing Ayrton passing Nannini that way in a highlight video, and then crossing the S/F line first, to be disqualified later. Correct me if it's all wrong.

He [Senna] worked his way past both Williams and the Benettons again, to take a three second victory. However, his altercation with Prost seven laps earlier meant he had missed the chicane, and not completed the lap. He was disqualified and Nannini reveled in his first grand prix victory.

Isn't it strange how intentional wrecking goes unpunished? Yet penalties for comparably minor actions are handed out left, right and centre.

Notably Kimi on Sutil at Monaco or COulthard's many incidents this year.

So McLaren can ask anybody they want, but until the stewards make there ruling, it means nothing.

To be fair to Kimi, the thing at Monaco wasn't him doing it on purpose. He simply lost the car on the damp track and spent so much time performing minor miracles in keeping the Ferrari off the barriers that he just couldn't get the thing stopped in time.

According to wiki:



You can see Senna' pass of Nannini in this video at 1:32, he did it with no problems:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ouf1ybLjaik

am afraid you didnt' hear well then.

the rules say (and i READ not heard) 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.". that's 30.1 a for you. look it up... its on page 16.

now now, i'm all happy for the FIA to be strict on rules. dont get me wrong. i wouldn't mind that at all. but how come you're strict when you feel like it and lenient when not? that's chaos. furthermore, if they're gonna be strict, which would certainly justify hamiltons penalty, then they need to take a look at each and every driver and hand out a multitude of penalties.

plus there's the very important factor being overlooked that McLaren got clearance TWICE from FIA. forget advantages, forget slipstreams, or momentum. the FIA said its okay then they went running to the stewards. not to mention the crap that happened in GP2 which i feel was even worse. and you can see my post before the race saying that i expect some stupid crap to happen by the stewards after the very bad decisions taken there.

Drivers say Hamilton penalty was harsh

By Jonathan Noble and Pablo Elizalde Thursday, September 11th 2008, 14:07 GMT

Formula One drivers agreed on Thursday that Lewis Hamilton had taken advantage from jumping a chicane at the Belgian Grand Prix, although some reckon the penalty was perhaps too hard.

"What happened is that he took an advantage by cutting the chicane," said Ferrari's Felipe Massa, who inherited the win after Hamilton was given a 25-second penalty after the race.

"You can ask drivers how many overtaking moves you see there.

"None between the last corner and the first corner, because there is such a small straight there. That is my opinion and it doesn't change."

Toro Rosso's Sebastien Bourdais said rules were rules.

"I think it is very clear, the rules are clear," he said. "Maybe the penalty is very hard but he has made the same mistake twice, he did in Magny-Cours and he did it in Spa.

"I don't really understand why there is such a mess around it, there is a rule book and everyone has to obey the same thing. The penalty is rough but it is up to you to give the position back."

Williams driver Nico Rosberg added: "He did have an advantage because he would not be so close if he had not cut the chicane but the penalty was a bit harsh as it did not have a big result in the end result. But it won't stop us from trying to attack definitely."

Toyota's Jarno Trulli agreed that the penalty may have been too harsh.

"I agree the penalty was quite big but I am not a steward. But it is also clear he got an advantage," he said.

"The rules are very clear, if you cut the chicane you get the advantage you have to drop it and lose advantage, in Lewis' case he should not attack in the first corner that is it.

"This last chicane, they have a lot of run off area they give you more chance to attack because in case of mistake you won't end up in wall or gravel. We have more chance to overtake."

Giancarlo Fisichella added: "I just seen pictures so difficult for me to say if it is right or not what happened. For sure maybe he took a small advantage that is why he had the possibility to overtake him again in braking for Turn One, but obviously 25 seconds penalty was quite a strong penalty."

Alonso: Hamilton penalty was deserved

By Edd Straw Thursday, September 11th 2008, 13:21 GMT

Fernando AlonsoDouble world champion Fernando Alonso believes Lewis Hamilton deserved the penalty that cost the McLaren driver victory in the Belgian Grand Prix.

Alonso said he fully supported the FIA stewards' decision to hit Hamilton with a 25-second penalty, which handed victory to Felipe Massa, because he felt there was no doubt he gained an advantage.

"Yes, I totally agree," he said of the stewards' decision. "Lewis had an advantage by doing that. If he did the chicane properly, he would never have crossed the line one metre behind Kimi. You lose five or ten metres and then you cannot overtake in Turn 1.

"We always said we would give back the position, but at the same time as giving back the position you cannot take advantage of what you did one corner before. If you give back the position, take the slipstream and overtake the guy into the next corner you still have an advantage because of what you did.

"These escape roads are just for safety. You need to imagine that before there would have been a wall, and if there is a wall you cannot use that part of the track."

The Spaniard added that his former teammate should have hung back and taken the chance to overtake Raikkonen later in the race.

"There were two or three laps to the end, many more corners to overtake at with the condition of the circuit. It was clear for me that it was not the right moment to overtake. The stewards take their decisions and they have been very strict this year. They are very hard but consistent."

Alonso added that he was not surprised McLaren opted to protest the decision.

"No," he said when asked by autosport.com whether he was surprised about the their appeal. "They did this last year and they always used to do this kind of thing."

Alonso also believes that Hamilton's penalty could have helped him to claim his first win of the season had he opted to pit for wet tyres a lap earlier.

"I think winning the race was possible because Massa won the race at the end and finished nine seconds ahead of Nick Heidfeld. I was quite a bit ahead of Heidfeld - more than nine seconds - so maybe I could have overtaken Massa at that point and then maybe with Lewis's penalty I would have won the race."

I think someone said that it would have been the save of the year if Sutil wasn't there.

Q. What is your view on the Lewis Hamilton incident?

RK: To be honest, I haven't seen it completely so it is difficult to judge. I think most of the people have their opinion as always, but I don't really have an opinion. For me the circumstances are that in Spa, for the last three years, there are always penalties in this period of races. It was the same last year and it was the same two years ago. But I haven't seen it.

Q. As a driver are you clear on the rules about when the advantage you gain from cutting a chicane is given back?

RK: My opinion is quite clear and I think this why – if I have cut the chicane or gone wide it means that if there was a wall I will not have continued the race. So I am already happy that there was no a wall. I try always, even if I say I am maybe too cautious, I try to really slow down to show that I didn't have any advantage. In the end it is quite difficult to judge from the outside and difficult to judge being not in the car. It is better in my opinion to show it clearly that you haven't got any advantage.

Q. Do the rules need to be clarified?

RK: I don't think so. For me the rule is very clear and it has been like this for many years. You will never make everyone happy, so it is difficult. There will always be people who say that is right, or some that it is wrong. It is difficult. I am happy I am not in the place of deciding penalties or in the stewards' position.

I can see where the stewards have gotten their idea of an advantage from.

Hamilton outbrakes Kimi on the racing line and both are easily into the corner side by side. Kimi leaves Hamilton out to dry (perfectly acceptable) and Hamilton takes the shortcut instead of braking hard and falling behind kimi to avoid the collision. So because he took the cutting option over the "oh shit I'm hung out to dry need to brake hard and fall in behind" option he was able to be right on Kimi's gearbox into T1 and make the move.

So I'm actually going to say that yes, his choice of accident avoidance lead to him being in a better position than he would have been if for example the option to cut the chicane was not there (tyre bundles in the way or something) and therefore he was able to gain an advantage by cutting the chicane.

But in the end, Hamilton was making the move, he was lightyears faster than Kimi and would have had him by the end of that lap without a doubt anyway. I guess I'm just disappointed that this could not be looked at as hard racing with two drivers going hammer and tongs and putting on what was a great spectacle.

But rules is rules I suppose.