Jump to content

Talk:1998 British Grand Prix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schumacher passing Wurz wasn't on the approach to the line

[edit]

I have just re-watched this race, and it is fairly clear that Schumacher is ahead of Wurz at least a lap before the restart, not, as this article indicates, on the approach to the restart. He obviously passes him, under the yellow flags, at least a lap before the restart, as he is visible being behind him when they line up behind the safety car. 82.13.35.10 (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schumacher's Penalty

[edit]

This article claims that the incident that triggered Schumacher's penalty is Michael lapping Wurz at the restart before the start/finish line. I have recently re-watched the race and I am certain that this is not the correct incident for four reasons.

- Firstly, Schumacher does not lap Wurz but Fisichella at the restart. Wurz was already behind him at that point.

- Secondly, Schumacher, very clearly, does not get ahead of Fisichella until after the Start/Finish line.

- Thirdly this event does not happen on lap 43, as pointed out in the sources, but on lap 50. Furthermore, the lapping of Fisichella on lap 50 would mean that there would not have been a problem with adding 10 seconds to Michael's race time as it happened within the last 12 laps.(it was a 60 lap race)

- Fourthly, there are 12 or 13 minutes in between Michael lapping Fisichella and Ferrari being informed of a penalty for Michael Schumacher. This is well inside of the 25 minutes time limit and no controversy would have resulted about the awarding of the penalty.

All of this makes me conclude that the the described incident is not the one that triggered the penalty and that it was an other one. It should therefore be corrected in the article. Tvx1 (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that is has been dealt with. Tvx1 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]