Spagate: Advantage Gained By Hamilton, But Did The Crime Warrant The Penalty?

The crux of the Stewards argument was that by cutting the chicane, Hamilton gained extra momentum and the optimum run up the pit straight. Because of this was able to slipstream and pass Raikkonen on the run into La Source.

Having watched the replay many times over, I agree with the Stewards views on the incident. Lewis seemingly had a much better run up the pit straight, despite briefly easing off the throttle to temporarily allow Raikkonen back in front.

Therefore, despite letting Raikkonen back in front, he was able to get a large amount of slipstream, which allowed him to set up the pass at La Source.

This is where I feel some official clarification of the rules is badly needed. Just how much of an advantage gained by corner cutting is the driver supposed to give up?

If a driver does overtake through corner cutting and then lets the passed car retake its position, when can the driver then start to challenge that other car again? Before Spa it seemed there was very little or no official ruling on this issue.

Now from the Stewards decision at Spa you would assume that a driver has to let a car repass and then wait for at least one more corner before they can challenge again.

Since Spa, Massa has claimed that drivers have discussed this issue in drivers meetings prior to the Spa race. He goes on to say it was agreed that not only must they give positions back, they must also give up any other advantage gained.

However, it does seem that there are no definite rules or regulations on this issue, and as the controversy from Sunday’s decision has shown, this situation needs some official clarification to make the issue clear to the drivers, the teams and the fans.

It is very easy to be wise after the event and hindsight is a wonderful thing, and bearing in mind Massa’s claims, it seems Hamilton could have been a bit shrewder about the issue.

Instead of challenging Raikkonen into La source, perhaps he should have tucked in behind him and then had a run at him in the long straight up to Les Combes. Surely here he would have had an excellent chance of passing him, such was Hamilton’s superior pace in the damp conditions.

Another point that can be made is that Raikkonen forced Hamilton across the chicane, which he did in a move that was just about fair, but a touch rude. It will also never be known what would have happened had Hamilton stamped on the brakes and followed Raikkonen through the second part of the chicane. Would he have been able to pick up Raikkonen’s slipstream and challenge into La Source?

There are so many ifs and buts with the whole issue, and with it being such a subjective incident and decision, it was always going to be a highly controversial issue.

Then we have the question of the punishment. Yes, Lewis did gain an advantage, but did his crime really warrant the punishment given?

Raikkonen as mentioned pushed Hamilton across the chicane and on the next lap subsequently spun into the wall. These two drivers were in a class of their own all race and so it seems somewhat unfair and harsh for Hamilton to be moved behind Massa and Heidfeld whom he gained no advantage over at all and anyway, he was comfortably faster then both of them all race.

Perhaps a more sensible and shrewd course of action would have been to give Hamilton a ticking off and then for the FIA to issue some official, clear and concise clarification on the rules about gaining an advantage and how much of the advantage the driver must give back. Because a harsh penalty has been given out, it has increased various existing perceptions of the FIA that a significant number of people in Formula One hold.

These are perceptions that the FIA are pro-Ferrari, anti-McLaren and also will try to use various unfair methods to engineer a close championship. It has also led to many fans, especially the more casual fans, becoming angry and disillusioned with Formula One and the way that it is run.