F1 News, Views and Reviews

Trulli Reckons Hamilton Deserved Penalty

Toyota driver Jarno Trulli believes that the stewards were right to hand Lewis Hamilton a 25 second penalty at the end of the Belgian Grand Prix for gaining an illegal advantage after cutting the bus stop chicane.

The hot topic of F1 at the moment has been brought into the media spotlight as many reckon it was a bad choice to penalise the British driver, but Trulli reckons that other circumstances would have led him not to cut the corner or indeed encourage others to do the same.

“In my opinion Hamilton got an advantage by cutting the chicane,” Trulli told Gazzetta dello Sport. “Had he stayed on the road, he wouldn’t have had the speed to overtake the Ferrari.

“In the same way at Monza someone could cut the first chicane, catch a rival’s draft, and overtake him under braking at Roggia.

“When you attack on the outside, you do it at your own risk, because who’s on the inside has the right to do the corner. If there isn’t enough room, then you lift.

“Had there been a wall there, instead of the surfaced escape route, would Lewis have attacked anyway? Had there been gravel, he wouldn’t have had the chance to attack when rejoining the track because of dirty tyres.”

Hamilton cuts the bus stop chicane

Advertisements

2 responses

  1. LUTi

    Only a sick mind can overlook, that someone is much faster and is pushed out by a competitor who is willing even to crash just to defend his position for next couple of corners only (Hamilton could pass Raikkonen another 3 times by the end of the race, if needed – as it looked at that period). Hamilton did not deliberately go out of the track, but had to avoid the crash – with more fair driving of Raikkonen, he shall be the first passing the finish line already in that lap! Trully is a pussy, and he shall concentrate on his performance and results!

    September 13, 2008 at 4:02 pm

  2. wittym

    The appeal was rejected as inadmissable on the basis of no appeal of a drive through is permitted. However precedent was already set in Japan last year in which a Torro Rosso appeal was allowed into a 25 sec penalty that was also in liew of a drive through.
    FIA responded by stating that
    “there is an error on the face of the Decision (Japan) document,” and so the precedent would not hold, because “Tonio Liuzzi’s punishment was meted out under a different article of the rules”. They expanded by stating that the steward had addmitted making a mistake in the 2007 Japan GP and therefore that appeal was over an admitted steward mistake.

    However Mclaren contacted the steward Scott-Andrews
    who told the court in Paris: “he was extremely surprised and that it wass “grossly inaccurate and misleading” and that he had done nothing of the sort.

    The steward’s testimony was embarrasing for FIA but their dishonest, revision of the precedant was upheld and the arguments concerning the technicalities of the gaining advantage and returning it, were never taken into account.

    Ferarri’s lawyers, who were allowed to argue on both the precedant and the unfair advantage issue, like prosecuting counsel in Paris, went home happy.

    September 23, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s