Inconsistencies in F1 Stewards Rulings?

Originally posted by Lifew12


....but he was interested in the sport, not himself.

This part of your post could almost make me doubt that you are around since the late 70's... Balestre may have had a more urban way of dealing with things, but he certainly didn't lack self-esteem.

Seriously, the basic truth is that like in real politics you will always find the same kind of power-hungry autocrats in the position of FIA president. Now what lingers in the corner, waiting for Max' reign to end? A certain Jean Todt, I believe... go figure.

Stewardship is always going to be tough. One only has to look at World Football to see inconsistencies in the way different referees and linesman make umpiring decisions.

In yachting, there is a protest system, whereby a boat has to protest another if it sees any racing incident that is against the rules. Yachting works also by allowing a participant to do a 720 degree penalty turn if they have broken a rule.

Yachting also allows a rules panel to award points if an incident causes damage to a participant, which comes under the "Material Prejudice" appeal. If this rule was in place, as an example at Monaco, Sutil could have called for Material Prejudice when he was hit behind from Kimi, and then the Rules panel would have awarded him likely this placing at that time (which was an easy decision). This would then have resulted in the cars behind loosing some points, for instance Webber's 5th place would have become a 6th place.

Such a system though can get complex with F1, because incidents at the beginning of the race are difficult to work out from a final placings stand point. Racing incidents are a part of the sport, and always have been.

But IMO racing incidents are rarely equitable IMO.

I would like more penalties to be administered during the race, and I'd like them to be less severe. The reason I would like this is because the severe difficulty in overtaking has made current race penalties much more severe than they used to be. For instance at Magny Cores, the difference in time between 3rd place and 5th place was under 3 seconds. The second place car finished less than 11 seconds in front of the 3rd car.

So small time differences have a big effect now. Yet a Stop/Go penalty, which is the least severe of all track penalties, costs over 20 seconds. If the second finishing car had of had a stop go penalty at Magny Cores, such a 20 second penalty would have resulted in the car being demoted from second to 7th place. And 8th place if it was a 25 second stop go penalty.

And such stop go penalties are not equal from track to track, because the penalty depends on the length and speed limit of the pitlane.

There needs to be a Stop Go box on the track, perhaps near the pit exit, but somewhere on the track so that a car could loose a smaller amount of time rather than having to drive into the pitlane.

Also I would like to have a table of offences and penalties, in order to promote transparency and certainty.

I'd like retrospective penalties (sourced from the table of offences and penalties) performed by a Race Review Tribunal, who would respond to any enquiry concerning incidents on the race track.

I'd like the Tribunal Panel to have several members, between 5 and 10 (as teams of over 10 become inefficient), with a number of respected former drivers, F1 team and race officials involved in the Tribunal and race incident reporting processes.

I'd like to remove damage done to the credibility of the Tribunal process by
limiting victim drivers’ and team evidence. In other words, just leave it to the Tribunal.

So, if Lewis did two donuts after cutting the chicane, he would have been okay?

Having a race driver as a steward doesn't mean they'll be good. Look at the V8 Supercar championship - Tomas Mezera has been pretty average.

McLaren fans who are complaining need to realise that if Lewis hadn't cut the chicane, hadn't run into Kimi and blah blah blah, then the stewards wouldn't have been looking at him. Simple.

Originally posted by Sébastien

Ahh that's where I stopped reading, this thread will become nothing but a big cesspool full of whining and conspiracy theories.
Boohooo big bad world all against innnocent little mclaren and favouring Ferrari.
Have fun

I take offence to the "Cesspool" comment...a pool filled with Ccess' would be a cool bunch of guys with hot babes and sweet hairdo's all hanging about drinking rum and coke's whilst beating the women off with a stick...not these whining conspiracy theorists you speak of...

Originally posted by armchair expert
So, if Lewis did two donuts after cutting the chicane, he would have been okay?

Originally posted by as65p


This part of your post could almost make me doubt that you are around since the late 70's... Balestre may have had a more urban way of dealing with things, but he certainly didn't lack self-esteem.

Couldn;t agree more, but he still did not resort to the overtly PR and spin based style of Presidential influence that pervades the Mosley days- he would have preferred to sort something out and get on with racing rather than make a meal of it in the press.

Roebuck touches on it in this months Motor Sport with some quotes from Brundle; worth a read.

Seriously, the basic truth is that like in real politics you will always find the same kind of power-hungry autocrats in the position of FIA president. Now what lingers in the corner, waiting for Max' reign to end? A certain Jean Todt, I believe... go figure.

I think Todt a terrible candidate, but that's another story.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
So small time differences have a big effect now. Yet a Stop/Go penalty, which is the least severe of all track penalties, costs over 20 seconds. If the second finishing car had of had a stop go penalty at Magny Cores, such a 20 second penalty would have resulted in the car being demoted from second to 7th place. And 8th place if it was a 25 second stop go penalty.

And such stop go penalties are not equal from track to track, because the penalty depends on the length and speed limit of the pitlane.

Small point, but a drive thru is the least severe on track penalty.

Originally posted by Clatter
Small point, but a drive thru is the least severe on track penalty.

That is exactly my point though - once 20 seconds was not too bad a penalty, now its huge, due to the inability for today's cars to overtake. The obvious solution is to introduce a lesser penalty, such as having a stop go area on the track, so that a car could literally stop and go, the penalty would be more like 5 seconds. If the officials wanted a 10 second penalty, then make it two stop and gos. Such a method is simple and effective, and brings back an appropriate penalty system.

Consider that at Magni-Cours, Hamilton started from 13th, but had to over drive in order to try to pass cars. At the same track a few years ago, Kimi started I think from the back of the grid and came right through. The speed differential of cars a few years ago to know has maybe tightened a bit, but the difference in speed required to overtake has broadened to over 1.5 seconds now. Trulli was evidence of that as Kova could not get through despite being much faster (although I love him not being able to get through). The penalties are no longer appropriate - and this also stops them being used. So the rules themselves end up not being applied. No wonder fans get frustrated.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
That is exactly my point though - once 20 seconds was not too bad a penalty, now its huge, due to the inability for today's cars to overtake. The obvious solution is to introduce a lesser penalty, such as having a stop go area on the track, so that a car could literally stop and go, the penalty would be more like 5 seconds. If the officials wanted a 10 second penalty, then make it two stop and gos. Such a method is simple and effective, and brings back an appropriate penalty system.

Consider that at Magni-Cours, Hamilton started from 13th, but had to over drive in order to try to pass cars. At the same track a few years ago, Kimi started I think from the back of the grid and came right through. The speed differential of cars a few years ago to know has maybe tightened a bit, but the difference in speed required to overtake has broadened to over 1.5 seconds now. Trulli was evidence of that as Kova could not get through despite being much faster (although I love him not being able to get through). The penalties are no longer appropriate - and this also stops them being used. So the rules themselves end up not being applied. No wonder fans get frustrated.

I agree with your point about the effect of penalties but for me the bigger issue is the inconsistency in the manner they are applied. The fact that is getting harder to overtake is down to other factors that need addressing, but that's been discussed many times and is for another thread.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
That is exactly my point though - once 20 seconds was not too bad a penalty, now its huge, due to the inability for today's cars to overtake. The obvious solution is to introduce a lesser penalty, such as having a stop go area on the track, so that a car could literally stop and go, the penalty would be more like 5 seconds. If the officials wanted a 10 second penalty, then make it two stop and gos. Such a method is simple and effective, and brings back an appropriate penalty system.

Surly thats really really dangerous

Originally posted by Mika Mika


Surly thats really really dangerous

It would be if it was put on a blind corner on the racing line. And certainly with the current low standard of governance of the FIA at the moment, that would be a distinct possibility. The issue though is where its put. Its not difficult to find a reasonable place. For instance it might go opposite the pits on the main straight. Or at the end of the main straight off an outside curve. Or to one side of a chicane. There's lots of spots available. But if there is not a good place available, then don't have it at that race track.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


It would be if it was put on a blind corner on the racing line. And certainly with the current low standard of governance of the FIA at the moment, that would be a distinct possibility. The issue though is where its put. Its not difficult to find a reasonable place. For instance it might go opposite the pits on the main straight. Or at the end of the main straight off an outside curve. Or to one side of a chicane. There's lots of spots available. But if there is not a good place available, then don't have it at that race track.

so you think it would be more consistant to introduce a new penalty system which would be introduced inconsistantly over the calendar's race tracks, depending on if is safe or not to do so?

Fantastic.

One of the consistancies is that whoever is Ferrari's title rival seems to cop the brunt of the rulings. In 05 it was Renault vs McLaren = no funny business. In 06 it was Renault vs Ferrari = penalties for both but Renault copping the short end of the stick. Last year it was McLaren vs Ferrari and McLaren got a 100 million penalty, as well as others. This year it's McLaren vs Ferrari, and also have gotten alot of penalties. It's strange how many Renault got in 06, but haven't got any since.

The thing is, this year there isn't any I can look at and say that the stewards got it wrong. Imo all have been correct choices. So some blame has to go to McLaren, Lewis and Heiki. I'm not sure if Ferrari drivers would have copped the same penalties, and quite frankly would be shocked if they ever got the amount of penalties that McLaren have had in the last 12 months. Let's put Jean Todt as Max's replacement, I'm sure he would ensure this happens. But Lewis and Heiki haven't done themselves any favours.

The problem is it's hard to pinpoint one incident and say that it's definately wrong, the Alonso Massa one at Monza 06 was one where I felt that way. I didn't feel that way about the Lewis one, or the one back at Sepang. The Heiki one in France was maybe harsh, but he did clearly block the lap. But it's not about any one incident but more about a trend that goes back even past 2003. If Williams or Honda suddenly start winning races next year, expect their penalty rate to increase.

Originally posted by HoldenRT
One of the consistancies is that whoever is Ferrari's title rival seems to cop the brunt of the rulings. In 05 it was Renault vs McLaren = no funny business. In 06 it was Renault vs Ferrari = penalties for both but Renault copping the short end of the stick. Last year it was McLaren vs Ferrari and McLaren got a 100 million penalty, as well as others. This year it's McLaren vs Ferrari, and also have gotten alot of penalties. It's strange how many Renault got in 06, but haven't got any since.

The thing is, this year there isn't any I can look at and say that the stewards got it wrong. Imo all have been correct choices. So some blame has to go to McLaren, Lewis and Heiki. I'm not sure if Ferrari drivers would have copped the same penalties, and quite frankly would be shocked if they ever got the amount of penalties that McLaren have had in the last 12 months. Let's put Jean Todt as Max's replacement, I'm sure he would ensure this happens. But Lewis and Heiki haven't done themselves any favours.

The problem is it's hard to pinpoint one incident and say that it's definately wrong, the Alonso Massa one at Monza 06 was one where I felt that way. I didn't feel that way about the Lewis one, or the one back at Sepang. The Heiki one in France was maybe harsh, but he did clearly block the lap. But it's not about any one incident but more about a trend that goes back even past 2003. If Williams or Honda suddenly start winning races next year, expect their penalty rate to increase.

It was funny business in 2005 as well. Remember Japan? Alonso cut the chicane when overtaking Klien. He - on the contrary to a certain mr Hamilton - realized his mistake, gave position back to Klien immediately, and then overtook him properly. All well one might think, but the stewards thought otherwise. Some laps (!!!) later Alonso was ordered to give position back to Klien again. At this point Klien was way back, Alonso more or less had to stop on track and wait for him. Klien passed, Alonso overtook him a third time. Yet a few laps later Aloso was told it was all a mistake, it had been a correct overtaking when he did it after giving back position the first time. How nice. : . This dabbling from the stewards (probably) cost Alonso the race.

Had nothing to do with favouring or hampering anybody though, the WDC was already settled, but it shows that some stewards probably should be better off having another job. Or F1 should be better off without them, rather.

I've never understood the criteria for becoming a race steward, btw. What merits do they have? Anybody ever asks for their CV? Even in something as silly as the dog world you must have some qualifications and merits for becoming a judge and aspirants have to prove they are able before they are allowed to judge at a dog show. Does something similar exist in F1 racing? Now we have the same chief steward at all races, take it or leave it, but the other two? One should be from the country arranging the race and the other one from a country NOT represented on track. That means one of them can be from Bahrain and the other one from Outer Mongolia. No offence to these countries, but their F1 traditions are not very strong.... :

Originally posted by Suntrek
I've never understood the criteria for becoming a race steward, btw. What merits do they have? Anybody ever asks for their CV?

A love of film appears to be crucial.

If FIA wanted to use or exercise its rights on the rulebook, Hamilton would had been banned in 2008 championship for his actions in Canada pitlane -

1. Taking out a championship rival
2. his impact could had sent Kimi out onto the racing line and get hit by Safety car.

Originally posted by Mat Rempit

2. his impact could had sent Kimi out onto the racing line and get hit by Safety car.

That would have been one hell of an impact!

before the FIA get to excercise their rights on the rulebook, they've got to start reading it. As pointed out earlier in this - a thread about incosistencies in application of such rules - they didn;t at Monaco.

Originally posted by Lifew12


That would have been one hell of an impact!

before the FIA get to excercise their rights on the rulebook, they've got to start reading it. As pointed out earlier in this - a thread about incosistencies in application of such rules - they didn;t at Monaco.

Nor at Nurburgring or Brazil or Fuji last year.

Originally posted by kar


Nor at Nurburgring or Brazil or Fuji last year.

And very probably a number of others, kar, going back many years.

What flavour are McLaren grapes?

Originally posted by Mat


so you think it would be more consistant to introduce a new penalty system which would be introduced inconsistantly over the calendar's race tracks, depending on if is safe or not to do so?

Fantastic.

That would be up to the FIA. Already the stop go is inconsistent. I already explained to you in another thread, that pit stop speeds vary. I also said at that same post, that pit lanes also vary in length. Which means the stop go is already inconsistent. And I had thought I made it clear to you then, that such lack of consistency is not fantastic.

I would estimate the difference between a stop go on a main straight area as being as long as it takes for an F1 car to decelerate from its speed at the time, then to accelerate up to speed again. If the best spot is where the race cars are at maximum speed, then it would take longer to stop, and to get back to top speed compared to having the stop-go in a slower part of the circuit. If the speed was lower at that point of the track, then the penalty would be shorter in time. However we are talking one or two seconds - already greater than the differences in times applied to current stop go penalties. Which are far less flexible, because they cost around 25 seconds.

The way to compensate is simple though - add a time delay of the time difference, say one to two seconds for the stop.

Its simple in actuality, but IMO would not be worthwhile unless a different system administered such penalties, because IMO the current system is inconsistent. Which also, is not fantastic.

IMO that penalties now seem rarely administered is also due to the severity of the available penalties. As I said before, a stop-go in the French GP would have resulted in Kimi going from 2nd to 8th place, so in modern F1 what used to be a wrap over the knuckles is now like a disqualification for most competitors.

Originally posted by HoldenRT
One of the consistancies is that whoever is Ferrari's title rival seems to cop the brunt of the rulings. In 05 it was Renault vs McLaren = no funny business. In 06 it was Renault vs Ferrari = penalties for both but Renault copping the short end of the stick. Last year it was McLaren vs Ferrari and McLaren got a 100 million penalty, as well as others. This year it's McLaren vs Ferrari, and also have gotten alot of penalties. It's strange how many Renault got in 06, but haven't got any since.

yeah, that has a ring of truth about it - the culture of the top teams effects how the sport operates.
Ferrari seem to be a very political operation, so when they're involved, the rules get close scrutiny, and opposition has to beat them on the track & off it. NB, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be political - it's just how they are. Mclaren, Renault, and BMW all have a different way of going about winning.

Originally posted by tidytracks
Pretty much agree, although I disagree on Heikki. He was on his outlap and should have heeded.

The issue, as you point out, continued to be Donnelly and the lack of anyone up in race control with even the slightest modicum of race experience.

It's been argued for a long time that what is needed is a racer up there to make an informed decision on the rules and whether the punishment would fit the crime.

I read this report about Donnelly, evidently he lead the decision making on Hamilton's penalty being applied. I also imagine that for that to leak out, it may not have been a fair evaluation.

... it has emerged that Donnelly, Mosley's 'official representative' at grands prix and a consultant to the FIA, 'led' the stewards when they studied footage of the incident. In January, it was announced that retiring permanent steward Tony Scott-Andrews would not be replaced and his place would instead by filled by Donnelly acting as a 'administrator'.

There is, of course, no suggestion that Donnelly and the Magny-Cours stewards were anything but impartial when the judgement was made. As well as working for the FIA, Donnelly is the Executive Chairman of a Sovereign Strategy, a company that lists both the FIA and Formula One Management Ltd among its clients. It has previously boasted of working for Ferrari but has since removed the announcement from the client list on their website.

According to ITV, who supply coverage of F1 in Britain, the only footage of the Hamilton incident provided by the FOM TV host broadcast was an on-board shot from the Englishman's McLaren that apparently showed Hamilton past Vettel before he approached the Nurburgring chicane.

They claim that 'No exterior shot of the incident was offered', but cite the FIA reporting that 'its stewards, led by Max Mosley's number two Alan Donnelly, had access to the circuit's closed circuit TV cameras when making their decision'. The Times reports that the stewards adjudged Hamilton's offence to be "very clear".

It is unclear, however, why this footage has not been made available.

What is needed is at minimum is some ex racers as Stewards.

Here's the technical delegate report from the French GP this year.

Since they now have common ECUS, why don't they check all the cars? For instance, why not have a program that downloads the data from the ECU, and then checks the various settings - automatically? For instance, how come they do not measure all the cars maximum revs from the race? Why not check all the throttle mappings? And so too for all the ECU related data?

From : The FIA Formula One Technical Delegate Document : 48

To : The Stewards of the Meeting Date : 22 June 2008
Time : 17:45


TECHNICAL DELEGATE’S REPORT


Before the race:

Car numbers 01, 04, 05, 12 and 14 have been weighed.

A fuel sample was taken from the refuelling rig of car numbers 03, 09 and 14 and analysed during the race.

On the grid it was checked that all cars had fitted their tyres when the 3-Minutes board was shown.


After the race:

The following cars were weighed:

Number Car Driver

01 Ferrari Kimi Räikkönen
02 Ferrari Felipe Massa
03 BMW Sauber Nick Heidfeld
04 BMW Sauber Robert Kubica
05 Renault Fernando Alonso
06 Renault Nelson Piquet
07 Williams Toyota Nico Rosberg
08 Williams Toyota Kazuki Nakajima
09 Red Bull Renault David Coulthard
10 Red Bull Renault Mark Webber
11 Toyota Jarno Trulli
12 Toyota Timo Glock
14 STR Ferrari Sébastien Bourdais
15 STR Ferrari Sebastian Vettel
17 Honda Rubens Barrichello
20 Force India Ferrari Adrian Sutil
21 Force India Ferrari Giancarlo Fisichella
22 McLaren Mercedes Lewis Hamilton
23 McLaren Mercedes Heikki Kovalainen
From : The FIA Formula One Technical Delegate Document : 48

To : The Stewards of the Meeting Date : 22 June 2008
Time : 17:45


TECHNICAL DELEGATE’S REPORT


Before the race:

Car numbers 01, 04, 05, 12 and 14 have been weighed.

A fuel sample was taken from the refuelling rig of car numbers 03, 09 and 14 and analysed during the race.

On the grid it was checked that all cars had fitted their tyres when the 3-Minutes board was shown.


After the race:

The following cars were weighed:

Number Car Driver

01 Ferrari Kimi Räikkönen
02 Ferrari Felipe Massa
03 BMW Sauber Nick Heidfeld
04 BMW Sauber Robert Kubica
05 Renault Fernando Alonso
06 Renault Nelson Piquet
07 Williams Toyota Nico Rosberg
08 Williams Toyota Kazuki Nakajima
09 Red Bull Renault David Coulthard
10 Red Bull Renault Mark Webber
11 Toyota Jarno Trulli
12 Toyota Timo Glock
14 STR Ferrari Sébastien Bourdais
15 STR Ferrari Sebastian Vettel
17 Honda Rubens Barrichello
20 Force India Ferrari Adrian Sutil
21 Force India Ferrari Giancarlo Fisichella
22 McLaren Mercedes Lewis Hamilton
23 McLaren Mercedes Heikki Kovalainen

The steering wheel of all classified cars has been checked.

Car numbers 01, 02, 04, 05, 06, 10, 11 and 23 were checked for the following:

1) Bodywork around the front wheels
2) Front wing height and overhang
3) Rear wing height and overhang
4) Front and rear wing width
5) Rear wing configuration
6) Rear bodywork area
7) Rear winglet height
8) Skidblock thickness
9) Stepped bottom
10) Diffuser height
11) Diffuser area
12) Overall height
13) Overall width

It was confirmed for car number 05 that the minimum weight of 605 kg was respected at all times during the
race.

The start data of car numbers 01, 02, 04, 05, 10, 11 and 23 have been checked.

Gear shift data checks have been carried out for car numbers 04, 10 and 23.

The gear shift configuration of car numbers 04, 10 and 11 was checked.

The throttle mapping was checked on car numbers 04, 10 and 11.

It was checked that car numbers 02, 04, 05 and 23 did not exceed 19000 rpm during the race.

The fuel pressure of car numbers 02, 04, 05 and 23 during the race was checked.

The tyres used by all drivers during the sessions today have been checked.

The data logger of the refuelling rig of car numbers 05 and 11 has been checked.

A fuel sample was taken from car numbers 02, 11 and 23.

The fuel samples have been checked for density and analysed by gas chromatography.

The results of all the fuel analyses show that the fuels were the same as ones, which had been approved for
use by the relevant competitors prior to the Event.

All car weights and the items checked were found to be in conformity with the 2008 FIA Formula One
Technical Regulations.


Jo Bauer
FIA Formula One Technical Delegate

1- Lewis and the crane was absolutely correct. At that you could have had outside assistance as long as you kept your engine running. MS received a push in 2003 at the same track on a totally dangerous situation and it was perfectly legal. So I don't see any problems on that.

2- Lewis didn't brake any SC rule at Japan 2007. The rules have been corrected after that.

3- Lewis penalty's was fair at Canada 2007. And it shouldn't have been any stronger/weaker had he hit Kubica, Raikkonen, Massa or Sutil.

4- Kimi should have started from the back of the grid at Monaco, but he didn't. Why not? I don't know.

5- Kimi should have receive a black/orange flag at the french GP, but he didn't. Why not? I don't know.

6- Massa blocked Vettel in Q2 in France, more than Heikki did with Webber. Why wasn't he penalised? I don't know.

7- Heikki's penalty for what he did, as automoto365.com says, was a complete joke.

Originally posted by rodlamas
1- Lewis and the crane was absolutely correct. At that you could have had outside assistance as long as you kept your engine running. MS received a push in 2003 at the same track on a totally dangerous situation and it was perfectly legal. So I don't see any problems on that.

2- Lewis didn't brake any SC rule at Japan 2007. The rules have been corrected after that.

3- Lewis penalty's was fair at Canada 2007. And it shouldn't have been any stronger/weaker had he hit Kubica, Raikkonen, Massa or Sutil.

4- Kimi should have started from the back of the grid at Monaco, but he didn't. Why not? I don't know.

5- Kimi should have receive a black/orange flag at the french GP, but he didn't. Why not? I don't know.

6- Massa blocked Vettel in Q2 in France, more than Heikki did with Webber. Why wasn't he penalised? I don't know.

7- Heikki's penalty for what he did, as automoto365.com says, was a complete joke.

I pretty much agree with the above - in regards to Kimi's exhaust it was extremely dangerous - if it had flown off into the crowd and hit a spectator/marshall it could have caused terrible burns and the FIA would have had a serious claim on their hands.

Originally posted by rodlamas

2- Lewis didn't brake any SC rule at Japan 2007. The rules have been corrected after that.

Regarding this point I'd say the fact that they changed the rules indicates that he broke the rule as it stood but the stewards felt it was reasonable that he should have.

Originally posted by Clatter


It's 100% clear in the rules what should have happened.

138) When the three minute signal is shown all cars must have their wheels fitted, after this signal (other than on the grid if the race is suspended) wheels may only be removed in the pit lane.

Any car which does not have all its wheels fully fitted at the three minute signal must start the race from the
back of the grid or the pit lane. Under these circumstances a marshal holding a yellow flag will prevent the
car (or cars) from leaving the grid until all cars able to do so have left to start the formation lap.

Not exactly indentical but very close was David Coulthard's incident at Canada was it in 1999. Anyway being extra tidy he tried to move his car a bit on the dummy grid mere seconds before start of the warm up lap and stalled. His crew rushed to grid to start his engine when not allowed to do so under similar regulation Ferrari violated with Räikkönen. He got away with stop and go I think, which while more severe than drive through was really the only available penalty at the time.

Originally posted by rodlamas
1- Lewis and the crane was absolutely correct. At that you could have had outside assistance as long as you kept your engine running. MS received a push in 2003 at the same track on a totally dangerous situation and it was perfectly legal. So I don't see any problems on that.

2- Lewis didn't brake any SC rule at Japan 2007. The rules have been corrected after that.

3- Lewis penalty's was fair at Canada 2007. And it shouldn't have been any stronger/weaker had he hit Kubica, Raikkonen, Massa or Sutil.

4- Kimi should have started from the back of the grid at Monaco, but he didn't. Why not? I don't know.

5- Kimi should have receive a black/orange flag at the french GP, but he didn't. Why not? I don't know.

6- Massa blocked Vettel in Q2 in France, more than Heikki did with Webber. Why wasn't he penalised? I don't know.

7- Heikki's penalty for what he did, as automoto365.com says, was a complete joke.

Absolutely agree. Although Kimi's lose at Monaco leading to his impact with the back of the Force India car was an unfortunate bi-product of the difficult conditions he should have received either a spot penalty or a penalty held over to his qual position at the next event.

How the steward could deem that a section of very hot exhaust bouncing around ready to fall off (OK it didn't, but.....) wasn't a serious potential hazard defies reason.

The policing of on-track infringements has become MUCH tougher in the modern era and maybe that has been an unfortunate necessity due to what I believe was started by Senna and perpetuated by Schumacher. That both received limp or no penalties at the time inevitably loosened up driver attitudes to on-track contact and the extreme difficulty of overtaking has exacerbated the situation.

agree with a lot of what MP has said in this thread but I think we need more rules and penalty provisions like a hole in the head. What we need is more apparent transparency of rulings. I'm not a fanboy (as I have said many times here) for any team and my allegiance to any driver changes year by year. I cannot escape the conclusion that Ferrari get away with a hell of a lot and their importance in F1, undoubted tat it is, shouldn't give them the confidence to know marginal decisions will almost always go in their favour.

I may be wrong on this point but I thought the stewards if they thought Hamilton's marginal pass was incorrect they should have advised McLaren to instruct their driver to yield the position rather than effectively take him out of the race. Given a 2 second a lap speed advantage is often insufficient to provide passing opportunities at tracks like Magny Cors this sort of ruling really says to the drivers "follow the leader" (unless perhaps you are a Ferrari driver!).

The Safety Car rulings are applied in a manner less fair than the NASCAR equivalent. I think they invented the SC thing anyway but the way Heidfeld's race was destroyed recently by the Safety Car deployment was totally unfair. I haven't seen it explained anywhere but the Canadian Safety Car situation when Hamilton cannoned into Kimi I couldn't quite figue. As I understand it the SC gathers up the field then the pits are declared open. Why after pitting for tyres and fuel was the red light on at the end of pitlane. If the field were properly gathered then the pitlane should have been open at BOTH ends. The use of a red light with a pitlane FULL of cars is urely not a good thing! I don't excuse Hamilton (or Rosberg) for the collision but there perhaps were mitigating circumstances.

Originally posted by rodlamas

7- Heikki's penalty for what he did, as automoto365.com says, was a complete joke.

I think it was deserved. And it was the second time already he has done such a thing. I never saw the Massa issue though. Was it similar to Alonso/Monza? Was it even shown on TV?

Originally posted by Muz Bee
As I understand it the SC gathers up the field then the pits are declared open. Why after pitting for tyres and fuel was the red light on at the end of pitlane. If the field were properly gathered then the pitlane should have been open at BOTH ends. The use of a red light with a pitlane FULL of cars is urely not a good thing! I don't excuse Hamilton (or Rosberg) for the collision but there perhaps were mitigating circumstances.

The Canada pits are very short and it seemed that the whole field had not yet passed hence they made the pitters wait. But I agree that this tactic is accident prone.

Originally posted by rodlamas
1- Lewis and the crane was absolutely correct. At that you could have had outside assistance as long as you kept your engine running. MS received a push in 2003 at the same track on a totally dangerous situation and it was perfectly legal. So I don't see any problems on that.

The rule was you can get outside assistance as long as you are in a dangerous position. Lewis wasnt as he was well of the track while Michael was in a danerous position right on the track.

Originally posted by Drexel


The rule was you can get outside assistance as long as you are in a dangerous position. Lewis wasnt as he was well of the track while Michael was in a danerous position right on the track.

So not in a dangerous position while cars where sliding by, right...

Originally posted by bond



So not in a dangerous position while cars where sliding by, right...

50 meteres off the track is not in a dangerous position. They made the situation worse by having a crane on the race track while cars were sliding off. Now thats dangerous. It was a clear breach of the rules to help Hamilton. And not the first.

Originally posted by Drexel


50 meteres off the track is not in a dangerous position. They made the situation worse by having a crane on the race track while cars were sliding off. Now thats dangerous. It was a clear breach of the rules to help Hamilton. And not the first.

Even if it was 100 meters, as long as cars were sliding to the point of near hiting the crane and other cars that were out, it's still dangerous. As you know...

Originally posted by bond


Even if it was 100 meters, as long as cars were sliding to the point of near hiting the crane and other cars that were out, it's still dangerous. As you know...

It was just the crazy German marshalls helping a Merc, very very dangerous with another car nearly hitting the crane, but nothing to do with the stewards or Lewis (who was doing no more than his duty trying to keep going). It could be argued, with a favourable wind, that the car was in a dangerous position so the rules weren't broken I think, and so the rules had to be changed afterwards.

Originally posted by bond


Even if it was 100 meters, as long as cars were sliding to the point of near hiting the crane and other cars that were out, it's still dangerous. As you know...

Then Hamiltons car should have been lifted over the barrier instead of being craned back onto the track while cars were sliding past.

Originally posted by Drexel


Then Hamiltons car should have been lifted over the barrier instead of being craned back onto the track while cars were sliding past.

But it was nothing to do with the stewards...

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


I read this report about Donnelly, evidently he lead the decision making on Hamilton's penalty being applied. I also imagine that for that to leak out, it may not have been a fair evaluation.


What is needed is at minimum is some ex racers as Stewards.

Hopefully I am not the only one who finds Maxs right hand man at every race leading the stewards to what every decision he needs (aswell as masking evidence - why not just release the video) I remember another of Max's cronies coming out with unsubstantiated lies about the spankings, as Max who has shown how vindictive a person he is and well know to twist court judgements., is this the fair and open F1 that was going to come about after the recent vote.

F1s stench just went up another notch.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
That would be up to the FIA. Already the stop go is inconsistent. I already explained to you in another thread, that pit stop speeds vary. I also said at that same post, that pit lanes also vary in length. Which means the stop go is already inconsistent. And I had thought I made it clear to you then, that such lack of consistency is not fantastic.

I would estimate the difference between a stop go on a main straight area as being as long as it takes for an F1 car to decelerate from its speed at the time, then to accelerate up to speed again. If the best spot is where the race cars are at maximum speed, then it would take longer to stop, and to get back to top speed compared to having the stop-go in a slower part of the circuit. If the speed was lower at that point of the track, then the penalty would be shorter in time. However we are talking one or two seconds - already greater than the differences in times applied to current stop go penalties. Which are far less flexible, because they cost around 25 seconds.

The way to compensate is simple though - add a time delay of the time difference, say one to two seconds for the stop.

Its simple in actuality, but IMO would not be worthwhile unless a different system administered such penalties, because IMO the current system is inconsistent. Which also, is not fantastic.

IMO that penalties now seem rarely administered is also due to the severity of the available penalties. As I said before, a stop-go in the French GP would have resulted in Kimi going from 2nd to 8th place, so in modern F1 what used to be a wrap over the knuckles is now like a disqualification for most competitors.

Didnt realise you were linking the pit lane speeds to the inconsistancy of the penalty system. Agree with your point there.

I dont see a major issue with it though as it is the way it has been forever. That might sound a little ignorant but i dont think we can have everything just as we want it. It's racing after all, and if you want to win, then not receiving any penalty is the way to do that.

Without going into the Mclaren vs Ferrari bias, I think we can ALL agree that the way rules are enforced in F1 are NOT consistant from year to year or even race to race. The rules are often ambigious and caried out by locals who often have personal bias toward teams or drivers. Been this way for years and never corrected. A checks and balances way of carrying out rules needs to be brought in but likely never will.

Originally posted by Mat


Didnt realise you were linking the pit lane speeds to the inconsistancy of the penalty system. Agree with your point there.

I dont see a major issue with it though as it is the way it has been forever. That might sound a little ignorant but i dont think we can have everything just as we want it. It's racing after all, and if you want to win, then not receiving any penalty is the way to do that.

My beef is with the governance, but I've said enough on that already. But my beef with Stop Gos is that a Stop Go worked just fine a few years ago - because a few years ago, 1% comparable speed differential cars could overtake each other. So a stop go hurt say 25 seconds, but you could come back through the field. That actually was great to watch. But now its procession time, and some bureaucrat can make a call that has a total impact on the race - a Stop Go is now equivalent now to a black flag. A few years ago it wasn't. That's just one more reason why F1 needs governance reform. Its like its mentally dead now. Just as the racing is.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


My beef is with the governance, but I've said enough on that already. But my beef with Stop Gos is that a Stop Go worked just fine a few years ago - because a few years ago, 1% comparable speed differential cars could overtake each other. So a stop go hurt say 25 seconds, but you could come back through the field. That actually was great to watch. But now its procession time, and some bureaucrat can make a call that has a total impact on the race - a Stop Go is now equivalent now to a black flag. A few years ago it wasn't. That's just one more reason why F1 needs governance reform. Its like its mentally dead now. Just as the racing is.

You keep referring to a stop/go penalty, but this is rarely used now anyway except for very specific offences. The normal punishment is a drive thru. Still a varible punishment depending on the track, but not as bad as sitting in the pit for 10s.

But now its procession time, and some bureaucrat can make a call that has a total impact on the race - a Stop Go is now equivalent now to a black flag. A few years ago it wasn't. That's just one more reason why F1 needs governance reform.

Wouldn't that rather point to a problem with the technical regulations, (as you yourself say a few years ago the penalty wasn't as severe), than with the governance?

How about a penalty like lets say drop two or three places or even just one to your closest following opponent instead of a drive through?

Originally posted by kar


Wouldn't that rather point to a problem with the technical regulations, (as you yourself say a few years ago the penalty wasn't as severe), than with the governance?

The tech regs are one function of the overall governance. Same too when the rules were changed which raised the front wings, the cars were obviously going to be more unstable when following a car in front (these boards discussed the changes before they were instituted and that issue was discussed even on BBs). If the rules are changed which are going to change the way racing happens, then the regs should also encapsulate the resultant changes.

One of the most bazaar changes with F1 IMO has been the with the SC rules, which were copied from Oval racing, where catching up is very easy, as is overtaking. But F1 is quite different - that change was a governance issue too. However I presume that the leadership wanted better TV, and that unpredictability was good for ratings, so throw in the oval SC rules, and unpredictable race changes are going to happen due to that rule change. If cars could overtake easily though the new SC rules would have made much more sense.

Originally posted by Bernd Rosemeyer
How about a penalty like lets say drop two or three places or even just one to your closest following opponent instead of a drive through?

The problem with that is race strategy, because the cars maybe running different fuel loads, tyres and pitstop schedules, dropping a place would likely be very varied in its outcome. Consider that if a two stopping car has to let a single stopping car in front of it, and the single stopping car is very slow, then the penalty could be quite huge because the car would not be able to overtake in today's F1.