Jump to content

Talk:2008 Belgian Grand Prix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2008 Belgian Grand Prix has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 8, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Automated section title

[edit]

There isn't a source for the Heidfeld, Alonso, Kubica incident because it is non-existent. It was probably made up by some Lewis Hamilton fanboy who's jealous that their precious driver broke the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.161.157 (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a source for that other investigation, regarding Heidfeld and others.--80.216.109.30 (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] For Kimi and Lewis' little incident. I can't find much on the second one though...--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 15:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Formula One is dead to me tonight. The Ferrari bias of the officials is a disgrace. Lewis only went off to avoid Kimi, and gained no advantage. A Ferrari win means Bernie will have a good night with his wife tonight, which is why he is so keen to ensure that nobody gets in the way.--MartinUK (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding needs to be done by braking: Hamilton would have never got so close on the straight if he had braked and went behind Kimi. Cutting the chicane, he got past and while he had to let Kimi past, he got very close to him and passed him mere seconds later. But as WP:NOTFORUM stands, I streak my own comment. --Pudeo⺮ 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Lewis gave the place back to Kimi, and only attacked later. The FIA assured McLaren that they had done all that was required of them, and the penalty was awarded after Ferrari complained.--MartinUK (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mclaren also gave telemetry data to stewards which showed that Hamilton had lifted his foot off the accellerator and reduced his speed by 6km/h. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equine-man (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for this discussion, just to say that Ferrari did not complain, and I can provide a source if it's required in an article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if your a Ferrari or McLarren fan, but please dont bias this page by saying 'Unshameful victory for Massa' or 'Hamilton stolen of a win'. Thank-you. 11rey619 (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimi's classification

[edit]

Shouldn't it be "+2 Laps" instead of "Spun off"? –Howard the Duck 02:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if we go by the standard used in the 2008 Australian GP article then both Kimi and Heikki should be listed as Accident and Transmission respectively. If no one objects then I'll make the change. On a different note can we please keep bickering about the race to forums not related to Wiki? --Rubiksphere (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the label on Kimi's position (18th) is a good enough hint that he was classified unlike the two retirements. –Howard the Duck 15:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Raikkonen was classified 18th and has to be listed as such. I don't see a problem with putting "+ 2 laps - accident". Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial 25 Second Penalty

[edit]

I have been watching F1 since the 1980s, and I have no recollection of a penalty being given for cutting a corner when gained places have been given back. Can anyone else think of any? Also, if anyone has the knowledge, this would be a good time to introduce an article about F1 stewards and their selection. It isn't Wikipedia's job to make a judgement about the 25 second penalty decision, but it ABSOLUTELY IS Wikipedia's job to provide information about it. --New Thought (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not a forum but a place to discuss improvement in the article. As for an article on stewards, you can consider adding it to F1 Wikiproject's to-do list where knowledgeable editors could ponder on it. Also make what you mark as a minor edit. LeaveSleaves (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the post more closely - every word of it is about possible improvements to this article and Wikipedia's general Formula One coverage.--MartinUK (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is FIA's criteria for giving penalties in the scope of this article? As for F1 coverage, I've suggested the editor to add it to WPF1's to-do list, where the topic would get a better exposure. LeaveSleaves (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a precedent for someone being given a penalty after giving a place back after they took it illegally is irrelevant and has no place in the article. It's not about giving the place back, it's simply about not gaining an advantage after someone has illegally cut a corner. Giving the place back does not constitute surrendering all of one's illegally-won advantage in many cases - such as this one, incidentally. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
F1 stewards added to linked to-do list. Bretonbanquet: I take it from the way you have worded your remarks above that, like me, you are unable to think of a precedent for an F1 driver being penalised after giving back gained places --New Thought (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the 2005 Japanese Grand Prix Alonso did a similar thing as Hamilton, passed Klien through the chicane, letting him by and emidiately repassing him again. After a few laps the race stewards ordered Alonso to let Klien by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.174.61 (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't give it any thought, because, as I've pointed out, it's not relevant. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very bad at editing wiki pages, so I will post this here. McLaren has lodged a notice of appeal on the 25-second penalty to Hamilton, I thought it should be in the article. Here is the source. --64.230.27.42 (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already added in the article. LeaveSleaves (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's me again... we now have a date for the appeal. September 22nd Source 70.49.135.231 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think that there is enough information out there about this whole incident and the aftermath that it could be expanded into its own page? I could further expand it here but the relevence to the Grand Prix itself on this page would wane. Apterygial (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the incident is connected with the GP, there is no issue of losing its relevance if you decide to expand it here, unlike 2007 Formula One espionage controversy. However, if you still feel you can develop an entire article, you should consider creating first in your sandbox and see if you can expand it to sizable notability on its own, separate from the race article. LeaveSleaves (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Expanding it in Post Race to see where it leads to. Apterygial (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Began the page (Chicanegate?) in my sandbox, feel free to add or comment on it.
Finished it. Unless anyone has any issues with it, I will move it to Chicanegate. Apterygial (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of my thoughts:
  • First, I don't see why can't you accommodate all that in this article itself. This article isn't that big, nor does the new article have probable chance of expanding, since the issue is resolved. And as I see it, a significant portion is already common among them.
  • The title: I'm not sure how well sourced that is, you have provided only one source. Plus, I've found that ManipeF1 is a source slightly frowned upon. Plus it's written more from a fan's perspective than an expert's.
  • The lead: Narrowing of points gap can't be termed as consequence. A consequence is a far more definitive effect. And this might stretch it as to a probable reason for Hamilton's loss of championship, if it happens so, a far fetched OR.
  • Needs sourcing: "This was despite the fact that Ferrari had neither lodged an official appeal with the FIA nor was any indication of an investigation given during the race." As per my knowledge, there's no need of appeal by Ferrari. Stewards can examine that incident on their on volition.
  • Other sources issue: This is something I've struggled to find too, but their is a need to find other sources than from Italy and Britain on the incident, to make it more notable controversy.
My ultimate suggestion would be to merge. LeaveSleaves (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This isn't as big as say Allegations of cheating in the 1994 Formula One season or 2007 Formula One espionage controversy, so I see no need for a new article unless McLaren take it further (Arbitration for Sport?) D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Critisism acknowledged. I've deleted the section on Ferrari not lodging a complaint (though as a curious aside, does anyone know why Ferrari provided a lawyer who worked with the FIA against McLaren at the appeal?) as well as adding another (perhaps more reliable) source for the title. At this stage, sources from outside Britain and Italy will stay as is, but I can expand that. With regards to why I am pushing for a new article, my impression both from this page and from other sources on the web is that this has probably been the biggest controversy of the year, certainly the most debated, and would be huge if Massa wins the championship by less than six points. The other reason is that the ramifications go beyond just this Grand Prix (watching everyone tiptoe through the chicanes at Monza is evidence enough of that) and are related to wider conceptions of bias. My initial impression was that any overlapping detail in the 2008BGP article could be removed, which was why I copied sections of it. Having said all that, I am open to merging, but I feel that too much weight would be given on this page to the incident, when the page should be a report on the race itself. Once again, my sandbox is there to be edited by more people than just me, so feel free. Apterygial (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
It may be worth making a new post at WT:F1, so more people can comment on this. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done that. Apterygial (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we should be concerned with the ramifications of the event at this point. That would be original research. The conceptions of Ferrari bias have been raised multiple times, not only for earlier seasons, but this year too. But these statements, which are mere accusations at this time, do not warrant creation of an entire article. If things do go awry, particularly stemming from this incident or otherwise, we can create such an article at a later stage. That is what the point behind the merger is. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Merged them. Apterygial (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out a few places online, the rule under which the stewards penalized Hamilton was not for "gaining an advantage". It was simply for leaving the track in the first place. You can read the regulations [2]. Section 30.3(a) says "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." and Annex L, Chapter 4, Section 2(g) says "The race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race." It makes no reference to "gaining an advantage" or any other offense. So it appears that the second Hamilton (or anyone else) left the track they were subject to a penalty from the stewards under this catch-all provision. It's possible that there is a specific "gaining an advantage" codified in the rules, but I didn't dig through the rulebook as it is rather extensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.159.21 (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rule he was found guilty of contravening is referenced in the article under 'hamilton penalty'. The link at that reference is the actual charge sheet. (By the way, it is always better to begin new discussions at the bottom of the page). Apterygial (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved to the bottom of the page.) When I added my comment to the discussion page the main page said (and I quote) "Two hours after the conclusion of the race, the FIA issued a statement announcing that Hamilton was guilty of contravening Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L, Chapter 4, Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code which states that cutting a chicane and gaining an advantage is subject to a drive-through penalty." This is -- as you point out -- taken almost verbatim from the steward's decision sheet. Yet as you can see from the link I provided to the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L -- the 100% full text of the cited sections I cut-and-pasted into my first comment -- there is no mention of "cutting a chicane" or "gaining an advantage". It simply says that drivers must remain on-track at all times. It appears to be a catch-all penalty with a lot of leeway for how the stewards apply it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.159.21 (talk • contribs)
Although the rules require drivers to stay within the two white line borders of the track, simply cutting the line does not incur penalty. As you might have seen in number of races, drivers inadvertently cut these lines and go off the track all the time. That simply is not the reason for penalty. However, if such a maneuver causes driver to gain racing places unfairly, a driver is expected to forgo such advantage. Failing to do so incurs penalty. LeaveSleaves talk 09:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having viewed both sources, I agree that neither mention "cutting a chicane" or "gaining an advantage." But the decision (though I don't agree with it) is consistant with the rules:
  • Cutting a chicane is leaving the track, the white lines at the edge of the track mark the road, and Hamilton clearly crossed them. That part is not in dispute.
  • This bit is. It should go without saying that the rules should only be enforced if an advantage is gained. I've just watched Nelson Picquet overrun the last corner at the Shanghai track, because he made a mistake, and the thought of giving him a drive-through penalty for that is unthinkable. If you gave a drive-through for every indiscretion that took place on an F1 racetrack there would constantly be more cars in the pitlane than on the track (think about the first corner at Fuji!) Hamilton being forced off the road by Raikonnen in Belgium is also (in my view) no fault of his own, and the fact he gave the place back should have meant he gained no advantage from the manouver. However, the stewards and the FIA court decided otherwise, and that's what the decision is.
I hope that helps you understand this bizarre decision. And yes, unfortunately, there is a lot of leeway. I would not be surprised if this part of the rules was officially clarified by next year. (Incidentally, I had an edit conflict with LeaveSleaves here, which explains why I essentially echo that user). Apterygial (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing to turn this into a forum, the only people who think the decision is bizarre are people who don't understand that an advantage was still gained and not returned. People believing that Raikkonen forced Hamilton off the track goes some way to explaining why they don't understand the decision. I do not believe that there should be any reference to the decision being complicated or "bizarre" in the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah! I'm sorry I dropped those two innocent words into my reply. Of course I don't want to put it into the article. I believe that the holocaust was wrong, but I'm not going to put Apterygial believes that the holocaust was wrong into that article. My problem here was in the clarity of the rules, not in either drivers' actions. ;). Apterygial (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting at you :o) I just think that the only reason this decision is controversial is that so many people just refuse to understand it - and I'm not referring to you specifically there. It really should never have grown to be such a big thing, but people love a conspiracy. The rule is amazingly clear, and the FIA's interpretation of it is also very clear. The media, particularly the British media, have a lot to answer for, especially for inventing the "rule" that says "if you give the place back, you'll be ok", which as you've outlined, never existed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your clarification accepted. And it's true - I love a conspiracy. I think McLaren were upset because they were told that was all they have to do. I bet Ron Dennis secretly agrees with the decision, but when there is that much money in the air, why the hell wouldn't you appeal? And that created the controversy. Apterygial (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it was definitely worth an appeal, and only Uncle Ron knows what he really believes. For sure he'll never admit it was a fair penalty. I'm sure he'll never listen to Charlie Whiting again anyway, and CW needs to remember that he's not a steward!
And so does McLaren. Apterygial (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nomination

[edit]

Unless anyone has any problem with it, I will list the article for Good Article nomination (F1 needs more of these) here. No major improvements to the article (that I can see) can be made at this point. Apterygial (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could wait, I think there are some areas that can be improved, particularly qualifying and race, and also requires copy-editing. Plus it could be better idea to have a peer review ahead of the nomination. LeaveSleaves (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is incorrect as many have pointed out here; the rules Hamilton was cited for breaking were simply not about "gaining and advantage" but rather for leaving the designated race track. What the reaction/outrage is therefore truly about is why Hamilton alone was penalised for leaving the track on this day when clearly other drivers has also infringed this rule. It would be worth pointing out as well that no driver has ever before or since been penalised under this rule. Truly this penalty was a historic land mark in F1 from this perspective and the article currently misses its significance entirely!

Restructure post race

[edit]

I have created separate sections taking into account two things: (a) Appeal and Reaction sections describe entirely separate events and not part of post race proceedings. (b) To accommodate Glock penalty properly. Also, the section Appeal might need a better title. LeaveSleaves talk 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction section consists primarily of quotes and articles that were published immediately after the race and penalty. It contains very little portion that deals with reactions after court ruling. LeaveSleaves talk 02:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. As is it looks a little clunky. We should probably rename the headings "McLaren appeal", "Reaction to Hamilton Penalty". Or something. Apterygial (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First suggestion is okay. The reaction section however does talk about post-appeal quotes. I think we should leave the title as it is. LeaveSleaves talk 02:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But looking at it objectively, anyone coming to the page and seeing Reaction would think that it was a reaction to the race as a whole, which it wasn't. It was focused on a specific event and subsequent thingy. Apterygial (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I know both F1 FAs have background in the report section, but does it really belong there? It's not part of the racing weekend, and given Post Race has its own section, shouldn't pre-race have one too? Apterygial (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

I have just found this picture (I probably should have sooner, as it is on the F1 portal). Is there anywhere we could include it in the article? I think it's such a good shot, it should be there somewhere. Apterygial (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Push for FA - Comments from D.M.N.

[edit]

Right. It appears that you guys are pushing for FA with this article. I strongly suggest looking at current FA's 1995 Pacific Grand Prix and 1995 Japanese Grand Prix for examples of featured article style race-reports. Here's what I think of the article at the moment (structure wise):

  • Lead - No problems here.
  • Background - Needs huge expansion.
    • If possible it needs to feature technical advancements of both the McLaren and Ferrari to help with the background. I'm not sure if any websites focus on this, but I'm certain the end of year yearbooks will have some bits on the technical side of things. See the example in the Pacific article with the Williams and Benetton.
    • The Background also needs to feature any criticism that was aimed towards any of the leading drivers i.e. was Raikkonen criticised? Was Hamilton praised? things like that. I'd suggest seeing the Pacific article with the bit on Hill as an example - maybe a little quote in their as well for extra efficiency.
  • Practice and qualifying - A mess.
    • I strongly dislike this layout at the moment. The "normal guy off the street" won't have a clue what is going on here. It needs an introduction - mirror off the Pacific article if needed, with necessary changes. It also needs to include a few times to help with flow - how far was Massa ahead by a second or a tenth??
    • The Qualifying needs a bit of a redo also - at the moment it reads chronological - it's an encyclopedia not a news site. "The Force India cars, which employed their seamless-shift gearboxes for the second time in this race," - that just sounds VERY out of place and a random fact. If you're to redo the section go from 1st postion to 20th - that would be more chronological IMO.
  • Race - OK. Apart from a quote that appears in the very middle of the section that shouldn't be there.
  • Post-race and others: I'd be tempted to merge the "McLaren appeal" and "Post-race" sections together - both sections are quite small, thus should be merged.

There's my thoughts on the article. Hope this helps. D.M.N. (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your inputs. I feel we should wait for '08 yearbooks before starting improving the article further, since that would allow significant additional inputs. I believe we have utilized most of the online information available. On hindsight of GA review discussion and considering the concerns raised by reviewer, a PR is absolutely necessary. Of course, now that it has passed GAN, this could be done after expansion. I hope you would be there with you thoughts during that PR. LeaveSleaves talk 17:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I was gonna say we should wait until the yearbooks come out - I would suggest waiting until the new year so everyone's calmed down (in case yearbooks bring a new spike in edits) and in case the official season review has anything on. D.M.N. (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to get the hell away from this page at the moment. I'll work on other Race reports, but I think we can come back to this sometime. I think we can probably expand driver critisism in background using online content, but apart from that, we can wait for the yearbooks. Thanks, D.M.N. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2008 Belgian Grand Prix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Belgian_Grand_Prix&oldid=1196513606"