An Unwelcome Intrusion

It could have been a classic - defending champion Kimi Raikkonen overcomes a recent run of disappointing performances to win his fourth grand prix at his favoured Spa-Francorchamps layout, reinvigorating his championship defence. And, for all but the last few laps of Sunday's Belgian Grand Prix, that is how it looked.

Instead, the race will forever be remembered for what happened between the revised Bus Stop chicane at the end of lap 42 and La Source hairpin at the start of lap 43. Rather than being a signature comeback performance by Raikkonen, Belgium 2008 will go down as another spotlight incident in the career of the reigning champion's likely successor, McLaren's Lewis Hamilton.

What transpired in those critical few hundred yards is open to interpretation and inevitable bias.

The objective sequence of events was that, in the greasy and worsening conditions, Hamilton tried to pass the race leader on the outside under braking for the Bus Stop chicane, Raikkonen refused to give way and held the inside line, Hamilton cut the chicane and regained the circuit in the lead, only to back off and allow Raikkonen through on the start/finish straight before passing him on the inside under braking for La Source.

That triggered a lap of frantic racing in which both drivers went off the circuit and swapped positions for the lead, until Raikkonen lost control and slid helplessly into the wall at Blanchimont, allowing his rival to tip-toe around the final lap to the chequered flag.

Yet, even as Hamilton made his way to the post-race press conference having ticked off another box (a GP win at the ultimate 'drivers' circuit') on his CV, the televised message 'Incident involving cars 1 and 22 under investigation by the stewards' gave ominous warning that the afternoon's drama was not yet over.

The stewards' decision to apply a 25 second penalty after the race, dropping Hamilton to third position and promoting championship chaser Felipe Massa to the top step of the podium, has been received in some quarters as an unwelcome intrusion into what had been a classic on-track scrap between two extremely gifted drivers entirely focused on winning.

Nevertheless, the stewards are not tasked with pleasing the masses, but rather with maintaining equity and order. Especially in a close-run championship such as this year's, any incident which is even slightly dubious must invite investigation.

Which raises the incident's two key questions - did Hamilton gain an advantage from cutting the chicane, and did such an advantage deserve a penalty?

In answer to the first question, Hamilton clearly did gain an advantage. If the Bus Stop was closed in by walls, like many of the corners at Monaco or Valencia, he would have lost significant ground to Raikkonen as the Finn accelerated onto the start/finish straight at least a full car's length ahead of the McLaren. That, in turn, would have reduced the possibility of a pass into La Source.

It's the classic concertina effect, in which the distance between cars closes up under braking, then increases again under acceleration.

By straight-lining the chicane, Hamilton was able to regain the track at speed, feather the throttle and tuck right onto the gearbox of Raikkonen's Ferrari as he let it past: the perfect position from which to jink to the inside and overtake under braking at La Source.

Lewis Hamilton leads Kimi Raikkonen exiting the chicane © XPB

McLaren's plea - that Hamilton was doing 6.7km/h less than the Ferrari as the two cars crossed the start/finish line - is meaningless. Hamilton had to go slower than the Ferrari in order to let it past. It is the timing and the manner of his speed reduction that counts, not the empirical extent of the speed reduction itself.

Being able to get on the throttle earlier than his rival and then moderate his speed was an advantageous position for Hamilton. If both had taken the corner conventionally, Hamilton would only have been able to accelerate once Raikkonen had cleared the apex of the Bus Stop ahead of him.

In that sense, the stewards were justified in their decision. Although it's a subjective call, it's hard to argue that Hamilton's actions on the main straight were geared towards nullifying the advantage he'd gained. On the contrary, he was lining up Raikkonen for the pass, to cement the unfair advantage that he'd gained.

However, the answer to the second question is equally clear: the move was not deserving of a penalty. It is one of the lingering difficulties of motor racing that, in such a fluid and dynamic enterprise where each corner and each incident has its own unique characteristics, no set of rules can govern every eventuality.

In this case, the rules only required Hamilton to surrender the position and allow Raikkonen to re-pass him before rejoining battle. Hamilton unquestionably adhered to the letter of the law. That he did so cynically, and with an eye to pressing home the advantage immediately thereafter, is a possibility that cannot be regulated.

It is equally significant that Hamilton's pass did not affect the race outcome for Raikkonen. The Finn lost his chance of victory by spinning and crashing into retirement, not through Hamilton passing him unfairly.

Eventual winner Felipe Massa's interpretation that Hamilton was too 'optimistic' to press home his advantage immediately, and should have waited before snatching the lead from Raikkonen, is an interesting view. Had he done so, Hamilton may have evaded punishment.

But hindsight is a wonderful luxury that Formula One racers don't enjoy. If they did, then Nigel Mansell would have pitted for fresh rubber at Adelaide in 1986. Damon Hill would have bided his time and chosen his spot before passing Michael Schumacher's crippled Benetton at the same track eight years later. Hamilton himself would either have stopped for new tyres earlier in Shanghai last year, or taken the pitlane entry less aggressively. With just an ounce of hindsight, Great Britain would have another three drivers' world championship titles to its name.

In an era when overtaking is extremely difficult, it's too much to ask an alpha male racing driver to turn down the opportunity of a pass in the belief that he might be penalised for it. If the chance was there, Hamilton was always going to take it.

McLaren have now lodged notice of their intention to appeal the penalty, based presumably on their own telemetry and on team CEO Martin Whitmarsh's assertion that Race Control twice confirmed that Hamilton had allowed Raikkonen to re-pass in an 'okay' manner.

Charlie Whiting © XPB

The McLaren-FIA exchange during the race may prove harmful to both parties' cases. If Race Control did confirm satisfaction that Hamilton's behaviour was legitimate, it will heighten the sense that stewarding decisions in F1 are arbitrary and inconsistent.

However, the mere fact that McLaren twice sought clarification illustrates their own anxiety about the incident. When a team is confident that their driver has adhered to both the letter and spirit of the law, they should not be so anxious to seek official confirmation.

Perhaps the most enlightening information since the incident came from Massa.

While the rule book only states that the driver who gains a position by cutting a chicane must surrender the advantage and allow the other driver to re-pass, Massa added: "Incidents like this have often been discussed in the official driver briefings when it has been made absolutely clear that anyone cutting a chicane has to fully restore the position and also any other eventual advantage gained."

Although that, again, is an entirely subjective ruling. Surrendering the position gained is a measurable that can be easily verified, but how does any third party determine the extent of advantage gained, let alone whether or not it has been nullified fully?

Regardless of the appeal outcome, the incident raises further questions about the future. Do the rules need further refining, and does Lewis Hamilton need to change his approach?

In both cases, the answer is negative. F1 thrives on teams, engineers and drivers actively finding and exploiting loopholes in even the most rigorously worded regulations. So attempting to create a watertight rule about something as subjective as "advantage gained by cutting a chicane" is an exercise in futility. It is a subjective call that must, for better or worse, remain in the hands of the stewards.

Lewis Hamilton has shown, in less than two seasons, that he is a hard-headed professional who will exploit every gap and every potential advantage available to him. That is not unique to the young Englishman, it is a core job description component of every driver, designer and engineer in the sport.

Not that there is any chance of Hamilton changing his approach, whatever the outcome of the appeal.

Earlier in the season, when Hamilton appeared rattled by media criticism following a run of poor form, he silenced his critics the way that any champion driver should - by his performances out on the track.

That will again be his priority as the teams head to Monza. With Kimi Raikkonen now effectively out of the championship hunt, Hamilton's task has become easier. If he can beat Massa in front of the tifosi on Ferrari's home turf, he will have limited, perhaps even repaired, the damage from the Spa penalty.