Looking back at the Valencia weekend there were a number of things that perhaps need some discussions. There was much talk about the penalties involved and whether they were fair or not. Ferrari obviously felt that Fernando Alonso was hard done by, while McLaren felt pretty much the same way about Lewis Hamilton’s penalty. There were questions too about Mark Webber’s accident and what can be done about wheel-over-wheel accidents. There was a strong feeling that the race track needs to be changed to try to promote better racing.
In addition, there were a couple of other discordant notes: the Ferrari’s minus any signs of a bar code, or even a white box on their bodywork (the power of the anti-tobacco lobby seems to be endless); and the appearance of Flavio Briatore on the grid, swanning around as though Singapore 2008 never happened.
The question of penalties created flak for the FIA, largely from Ferrari, which felt that it lost out. It is all well and good to complain but to suggest manipulation of the results is really going too far. The stewards took a long time to decide on whether Hamilton should be penalised. It was right to do that because it was a very marginal call. As it turned out the track position meant that Hamilton was able to avoid the full impact of the penalty. Alonso sat behind the Safety Car as he was supposed to do and so lost a chunk of time. That was more bad luck than manipulation. When you have Safety Cars going out because of an accident there are always going to be winners and losers. Alonso is sometimes lucky. In Monaco for example, he should have been penalised for an overtaking manoeuvre on Karun Chandhok under caution, as the very point at which Nico Hulkenberg had crashed. Race Control missed that incident and Fernando got away with it, so making too much noise about the faults of others is never a good idea… There is a solid argument that Race Control should have better tools so that they do not have to be looking out for infringements, but rather reacting to electronic flagging of any and every transgression. With modern GPS technology there is no reason why all of this cannot be analysed easily and instantly. I am told that the only thing standing in the way of Race Control getting all this stuff is cost: everyone wants the technology, but no-one wants to pay. Fair enough, then we will just have to go on arguing every time there is a problem…
The minimal penalties for the other drivers reflected the kind of time that they gained by not slowing down too much. I think that was a good decision too, because we do not want seven guys going at high speed suddenly all slowing down because they feel they need to. This creates the potential for more Mark Webber like incidents, which are to be avoided. In this case I think common sense won the day. It was tough on some drivers, particularly the ones who came into the pits at the same time as their team-mates as they lost out doubly.
As for the Webber crash, it is easy to get into hyperbole about the dangers and the drama of it, but I think – as several drivers said – that this reflects just how far the sport has come. This is not to be complacent but rather to give a little recognition to the FIA for the work that has been done. I know that the federation has done some work on wheel-over-accidents and I would be fascinated to see the results of that research, in terms of whether this kind of accident has patterns which can be used to minimise the dangers (such as the angle of deflection from the straight path, the height achieved by the car and so on).
There were two discordant notes in Valencia that I felt did the sport no good at all. The track did not produce good racing – for the third consecutive year. The venue is not glamorous and the race track no great challenge and that is such a shame because the city of Valencia has a lot more to offer than appears on the TV.
The final note was the presence on the grid of Flavio Briatore. To allow that to happen means that the sport appears to the world to accept that what happened in Singapore in 2008 was OK and that the perpetrators can swan around like they used to. That sends out a terrible signal about the morality of the sport – if indeed one can use the two words in the same sentence. If those in F1 want to go on seeing Briatore that is fine. There are overpriced restaurants all over the world where they can do this, but to do it in front of the TV cameras simply make F1 look sleazy.
Couldn’t agree more about the Briatore thing.
Obviously for an Italian it was double painful to see Briatore going around in the paddock because he was shown to us multiple times on state tv being interviewed and providing comments pre-race. This nonsense continued the following day when his opinions on the accidents and the penalties won a large space on the national newspapers.
Flav is still extremely powerful in Italian media and has tons of “friends” (read: people who cannot say no to him).
Talking about Flavio and Singapore 2008 is quite timely when Alonso is moaning about races manipulated by Safety Cars. Think he was a nice beneficiary, wasn’t he? Perhaps best to not go on about it too much, I would have thought…
I’m not entirely sure about the 5 second penalties though, especially not in the context of the Schumacher penalty at Monaco. In these instances it would be particularly useful to see how much faster than the suggested delta the drivers actually were, and we could then balance that against the penalty meted out.
I certainly don’t buy into the notion that the race was purposely manipulated in any way as Ferrari has suggested but I do think that Hamilton should have received a harsher penalty. It was plain for everyone to see that he passed the safety car. He knew it, we knew it, and the FIA knew it. So to take that long to come up with a non existent ‘penalty’ was nothing more than a joke. The FIA really has to get its shit together!
As for Flavio walking around on the grid… who really cares! It may look sleazy but its the very same rule makers (FIA) that allowed him back in the paddock that made a mockery of the race moments later.
I do not think that the FIA has any control over the issuing of passes.
On the basis that Flavio should be cast away and banned from going anywhere near a grand prix…surely this should have happened in 1994 when they were found to be using traction control? Or when Ferrari changed the result of Austria 2002? Or when BAR were using fuel as ballast in 2004? Or when Senna/Prost were open about smashing into each other in the late 1980′s/1990′s?…
You’ve got to forgive people, even if they do remind you of Silas Greenback from Danger Mouse.
Josh,
No you do not. Not in this case. This was way beyond anything else you have mentioned.
i think the question from a common F1 fan is overtaking a safety car is very dangerous act as there could be marshals down the track working or any other scenario etc… given that FIA is “promoting road safety” and
those who respected the rules fell back where as those who broke the rules got away yet again!!!!
so there is a continuity in the way things have been happening off late i.e. Hamilton gets away for breaching regulations again and again
furthermore, no blue flags were waved to back-markers which cost Ferrari a victory…
in Valencia, the gap to the leaders increased further for no fault of Ferrari
it seems as if FIA is promoting breaching the rules rather than respecting the rules…. if this is the message then dont worry coz teams will start breaching the rules soon as each and every point in F1 costs too much of R&D so breaching the rules is cheaper way out
there is a definite lack of consistency in the way FIA handles the issues…
Lewis hamilton was black flagged for overtaking the SC in Imola GP2 race in 2006 so one wonders what is it now that FIA is so reluctant to hand out same penalty? especially when it is “promoting road safety”
There are too many questions but not satisfactory answers
Does that guy not get a hint?!
slight correction in my post above..
no blue flags were waved in montreal that cost Ferrari a victory
Terrible is the right word for FB’s presence on the grid, Joe. Maybe it’s just how it looks to a fan, but F1 seems brighter, straighter, more transparent – FB & Mosley’s time seems almost another era, even Bernies occasional outbursts of daft seem almost amusing these days. Having FB back the same weekend as Ferrari and Alonso reintroduce their pet definition of the word ‘fair’ – i.e. ‘when we win’ – brings it all back in a quite worrying way.
History has a way of catching up with people; Alonso’s obsessive ranting contrasts sharply with what’s going on at McLaren with Hamilton and Button, and you’d have to be quite dull to think that was simply because LH is leading and JB knows he’s not a match for LH. The truth about Alonso at McLaren gradually becomes clearer to me all the time.
Given Alonso mouthing off about manipulation of results and safety cars, it seems that Singapore 2008 HAS been forgotten.
To cap it all, Mr Briatore (of all people) is now spouting off that Lewis should’ve been black-flagged.
http://en.espnf1.com/europe/motorsport/story/21780.html
Irony is obviously not a word he has any familiarity with.
Why don’t they just stop cars from making pit-stops during safety car periods? Re-fuelling is no longer an issue.
Yes, it would still bunch up the field and cancel out hard earned gaps but everyone would still be in the same positions.
If the pits were closed until, say, two laps after the safety car had gone back in, all the teams would have to make strategic racing decisions about when to pit their drivers. There would (presumably) be no stacking and no one would lose out to luck.
Cars damaged in the causal incident would be have to be allowed into the pit to to effect repairs and join the back of the queue but other than that no one enters.
There are probably arguments against this idea but I can’t think of them right now. Am I missing something obvious?
I think at least Kobyashi did his bit to dispel the can’t race at Valencia myth ? And doesn’t letting Hamilton off with these slap on the hand penalties for multiple inadvertent minor infringements every other race says just as much about it being ok to do it again …
Sky, you can’t compare F1 and GP2 penalties. There are different people running each show. Plus different situations for Lewis each time.
If kobayashi had not held up button early then Lewis would have lost at least one place.
If the FIA hadn’t (wrongly) overturned the lifetime ban, then Bernie would not have been able to grant Flav a pass
Jon
The FIA had no choice. The courts forced them to do it. The courts did not rule on Briatore’s guilt but on the judicial procedure (or lack of it) that the FIA went through. The federation did take legal advice on this and felt it was all right. The courts ruled against it. This is why the FIA has now introduced the licence discussions for team principals so that no-one will ever get away with such a thing in the future.
‘As for the Webber crash, it is easy to get into hyperbole about the dangers and the drama of it, but I think – as several drivers said – that this reflects just how far the sport has come’
Wheel-over-wheel accidents like this — or indeed any accident where one or both cars become airborne — are principally dangerous because of the likelihood of a second impact. Allan McNish was involved in a crash at Donington in F3000, as I’m sure you’ll remember, in which he failed to clear a slower car and was launched over the fence, with part of the car hitting and killing a spectator. Gilles Villeneuve had a similar accident, with similar consequences, at Mt Fuji in 1977. In both cases the drivers walked away; the spectators were less fortunate. Despite the huge volumes of catch-fencing around the Valencia circuit, the fact that Webber was able to demolish some trackside signage suggests that the Red Bull could have landed outside the track’s limits. Surely the first responsibility of the FIA and Formula One drivers is not to endanger the lives of spectators and track workers? That the accident was purely a matter of driver error indicates that Webber and Kovalainen — and the GP2 drivers Kral and Gonzalez — neglected this. Indeed there’s certainly an argument that another primary responsibility of the driver is not to endanger their own lives through their actions on the track, but after Senna and Mansell (or indeed Gilles Villeneuve) this seems to have become the main component of a Great Driver…
On this tack, it’s also apparent that even if Webber had remained ‘in’ the circuit, had the accident occurred a car width to the right, it seems possible that the Red Bull could have entered the catch-fencing, or impacted the wall while upside down. As the sad cases of the F3000 driver Marco Campos, or Tony Renna at Indianapolis a decade later, demonstrate, entering catchfencing or striking a concrete wall head-first — while only possible once a car has gotten airborne — is unsurvivable. Formula One does not need a grisly fatality on live television, still less one that could have been avoided by the use of basic racing skills by one or both of the drivers. I don’t pretend to have any solutions for this — perhaps one reason such driving has proliferated in recent years is because high downforce cars allow one to change direction freely as never used to be the case — but accidents such as Webber’s provide as much evidence to show that in some areas, safety in motor sport has regressed, rather than improved.
Richard
Agree totally about Briatore.
From what I have read elsewhere, one of the reasons for the lenient 5 sec penalties for delta time infringements was that the system didn’t work properly – the delta times the system gave the drivers who were close to the end of the lap were unrealistic. It seems the system does not include a reaction or braking time allowance in its calculations. If a driver still has half a lap to go to the 1st SC line then this doesn’t matter, but drivers who were only a few seconds away from the 1st SC line when the SC light came on in the car had an impossible task to slow enough to achieve the required delta time.
This does raise the question of why all the drivers got the same penalty. Button & Kubica (who were affected worst) arguably should not have been penalised at all but some further back should have got the full 20 sec penalty (ie equivalent to a drive thru) as they had far more time to adjust their speed.
All the ‘race fixing’ comments seem to rely on the assumption that Hamilton deliberately passed the safety car after backing up the others.
What I saw on TV was Hamilton back off seemingly because the safety car started to move out across the pitlane exit blend line before it reached the second safety car line.
When the safety car went back inside the line Hamilton accelerated and passed. However, this hesitation was pivotal. If LH hadn’t backed off he would have passed it long before the second line which he was perfectly entitled to do.
This can all be seen about 5m20s into the BBC hightlights here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8766004.stm
I see no malice aforethought in this action. Just bad timing and bad luck (for some more than others).
C’est la vie.
Joe,
I couldnt agree more on the Briatore note, I’m glad you mentioned it. His presence not only in Valencia but also in Monaco swaning around like a King is like sticking two fingers up at everyone who adores the sport for what it is.
He brought shame to one of the best car manufacturers, ruined a drivers career and could have killed innocent people by being totally selfish and greedy.
It’s pure mockery of the rules and to the whole Renault Team who have managed to do an amazing job this year at building the team he ruined and taking it back to a credible force in F1. I understand he is friends and business partners with Bernie but surely he must have some morales, maybe not??
Alonso is a great racer, but his temperament does him no favours as he clearly lost the plot. Its not as though he or Ferrari have never gained an unfair advantage by chance or deliberately. Lewis had a split second to react to the SC, he did slow momentarily, I assume because it was all happening so quickly he couldn’t make a rational decision in the time allowed. I wish Ferrari would come down off their high prancing horses and stop behaving like they own the bloody sport.
As for Flav, just disgusting.
I’ve thought a bit about Sunday’s safety car events, Alonso’s bitter complaints and Singapore 2008.
I’ve concluded that Alonso’s indignation is way-over-the-top coming from him. I grant that it is possible that he was not in on the Singapore 2008 scheme. Although many would disagree with that, I would be prepared to grant him that benefit-of-the-doubt. However, if he really felt so strongly about races being manipulated then he should have spoken out strongly when the truth about that race (i.e. Singapore) came out. As the “winner” of that farce, it would have been quite powerful if he had come out firmly against what had been done. However, he was very nonchalant about it and everything he did and said essentially conveyed the message: “Oh well, stuff happens…”
It is from that perspective that I find myself unable to work up any sort of sympathetic outrage. It was a close call, Hamilton was penalized (and it may have cost him the race win) but Alonso and Massa lost out much more. However, the real issue here is the lottery that a safety car can bring to a race. If Hamilton had been 11 feet further down the race track, it would not have been an issue at all and yet Hamilton would still be at the front of the race and Alonso back in 8th or 9th. THAT is the issue worth discussing.
I agree with your sentiment on the great performance of the car and the tire barriers in Mark’s crash. As I saw that crash unfold live on TV, it seemed to happen very slowly and my stomach really tightened up as I thought this was going to be a ferocious one that could injury Mark or worse… It reminded me of Marco Campos’ fatal crash. Thank heavens for the great strides in safety of modern racing, but I think we all know that when a car flies like that, it is a lottery too.
Thanks for clarifying that for me Joe!
I really want to like the FIA but there was such a lack of judicial procedure under Mosley that it has (apparently) left a bitter taste in my mouth that I can not shake as of yet…
Joe,
Couldn’t agree more on that last paragraph. Sleazy indeed. Makes you wonder what kind of dirt Flav has on some of the powers in F1 to be able to return, because it should be a lifetime ban, no question.
It’s difficult to know where to start to comment on this discussion. I have maintained for a long time that the rules for deployment of a safety car are inadequate, confusing and unfair. There is always an element of luck in any competition. For example, a crash during qualifying can mess up one competitor’s qualifying run giving another an advantage. However, it would, in my simple opinion, be preferable to have race outcomes determined by racing on the track rather than by where you are when a safety car is deployed.
Formula 1 uses an impressive array of technology. For example, the teams monitor massive amounts of data streamed from the cars in real time. But for reasons that totally baffle me F1 makes no attempt to use technology to minimize the impact of a safety car. I do NOT want F1 to become like NASCAR. Without doubt, F1 has the technology to know exactly where every car is when an accident happens. As a consequence they can infer the gaps between all cars. So why not restart the cars in the same order and with the same gaps as before the accident.
This could be achieved in many ways, and I am sure smarter minds than mine can improve on the following idea. But here is one simple idea.
Restarts would be accomplished as follows:
The safety car pulls off and all cars engage the pit speed limiter.
The leader is allowed to come off the limiter as he passes the start/finish line.
The race control computer signals every car in sequence when it can come off the limiter so that cars restart with the same gaps as before.
The pits should be open during the safety car but use of the pits entails an adjustment of your restart position. Again, this could be achieved with technology. Each pit stop could be timed electronically (the stationary part) and this time would be added to a standard bogey time of the time lost by, under racing conditions, coming into the pits, coming to a complete stop and restarting. I am sure the teams could agree with a standard bogey time for each track.
Using a system like this, which would be unbelievably simple for the numerous geniuses in F1 to develop would take a lot of the havoc out of safety cars. There would never be any incentive at all to rush into the pits, or pass a safety car, or anything else AND it would be fair.
The current system is grossly unfair. As pointed out earlier in this thread, had Hamilton not hesitated he could have legally past the safety car. This would have broken the field into 3 groups; those ahead of the safety car, those who were before pit in when the SC was deployed and those past pit in. The people in the second group all received an unfair advantage over the people in the third group.
Finally, a brief comment on Alonso. Alonso whined and whined about Hamilton but his real beef should have been that he was now behind Button et al. Putting Hamilton down to 8th in front of Alonso wouldn’t have improved Alonso’s position at all; he would still have been hard done by. But Alonso is disinterested in facts – he just wants Hamilton to suffer. The idea that Alonso could have won in Montreal is absurd. Hamilton passed him on the track. Alonso is a pretty good driver, but he needs to grow up and realize that he got beaten by a rookie in 2007 and take it like a man. He also needs to come to grips with the fact that unlike Mosley, Todt isn’t going to manipulate the results to ensure the red cars win.
This will no doubt prove contentious, but I felt that Webber’s accident was entirely avoidable. It was a bad piece of driving, in my view, which resulted in a terrible accident which thankfully resulted in no loss of life or even serious injury. But it could have been much, much worse.
Whilst everyone is debating Alonso’s toys out of the pram moment, should there not be an argument for Webber to be penalised for causing an avoidable accident?
Good to know Valencia sounds like it has potential. The track can be fixed with money. But money alone can’t guarantee buying effort and heart in trying to put on a good show. Unlike other venues as you said. So should we be bullish on Abu Dhabi and Bahrain?
No one paying for technology in trying to improve the show? Someone go tell Bernie and the pinstripes to fork out some. Asap.
Joe and Nick Stewart
Was really waiting for your opinion on this Joe, and though Valencia was boring in terms of overtaking and on-track action (though Webber’s crash and Kamui Kobayashi’s great driving somewhat made up for that), there were plenty of things to talk about, just like in Canada.
Nick Stewart,
Alonso’s temperament is really getting the better of him. I fully believe he has gone too much with his childish complaints, but temperament is indeed a character of a great driver, isn’t it? Senna and Prost had temperament, Schumacher was known for it, and Sebastian Vettel proved he is no different at Turkey. Hamilton himself couldn’t be spared of this behavior (openly speaking harshly against his mentor Ron Dennis over the radio at Hungary 2007, and even questioning some of his team’s decisions over the radio at Monaco this year).
It’s not just an Alonso thing, though in the light of Singapore 2008 the Spaniard’s bad-mouthing doesn’t do him any favors. Any driver with the burning desire for supremacy displays such character (though I can’t, in the moral sense, justify it). But I can’t help thinking that this makes these characters colourful and larger than life. You can either like them or hate them – there is no neutral feeling.
And it’s drivers with such a burning desire that become World Champions. Drivers who say and do things in a diplomatic manner are nothing more than cardboard cut-outs, whom we’ll forget as the years go by (though morally they are ideal characters).
@Richard Sillett
“..provide as much evidence to show that in some areas, safety in motor sport has regressed, rather than improved.”
I’m sorry but what absolute nonsense!!!!
In terms of safety cell, catch fencing, helmets, roll over bar, wheel tethers, sporting code (adhered to or not
), car reliability, for goodness sake how far are the crowds kept back from the ‘spectacle’ nowadays.. etc etc.
I realy cannot see where the FIA, FOM, Teams or drivers themselves have failed to move all aspects of safety forward. Pleas enlighten us.
Positive comment about Ferrari: I actually liked the way the cars looked without the white box painted on the engine cover — together with the absence of the snorkel exhausts the cars looked great, just an expanse of scarlet. Everyone knows that Philip Morris sponsor them, the bar code still appears on helmets, shirts and firesuits, and the name of the team still has Marlboro in it — but those red cars do look good…
Now for some negative comments about Ferrari: too bad about the paranoid nutter driving for them. For all the reasons articulated above by various commenters, particularly the fact that F. Alonso’s last win but one also involved a small infraction and a timely safety car, I have difficulty having even an iota of sympathy for Alonso’s position. The screaming paranoia, however, is hugely entertaining. It will be amusing to see if Alonso’s belief that everyone is out to get him will translate into strong drives in the back half of the season, particularly if Ferrari’s development curve is maxed out (as seems likely after the introduction of the blown floor). It does make one nostalgic for Raikkonen, who whatever his other merits or demerits did turn up and do the job. When Raikkonen had a lousy result it was because he was unlucky or couldn’t be bollocksed, rather than because Heinz-Harald Frentzen and Ron Dennis ran into each other over cocktails in Monaco and therefore clearly were conspiring to fix the Valencia race.
Regarding the 5 second penalties given to the drivers who recovered to the pits faster than the mandated delta times, Button has said that he was given his required sector time just as he was on the verge of entering the pit lane anyway, so the only way he could have gone slowly enough in the final sector would have been to stop at the pit lane entrance and wait for sufficient time to tick by!
Yet again, this just shows that too many arbitrary laws have been created to paper over deeper-seated problems with the regulations.
And regarding Alonso complaining that Lewis cost him a podium… no: maybe Lewis should have finished a few places further back if he had fallen in behind the safety car, but that would have had zero impact on Alonso finishing 3rd or 9th.
As an Alonso fan, I think the “manipulation” comments were over the top. It was bad luck. I DO think it’s bad form to not follow the spirit of the safety car rules – I know F1 isn’t about following the spirit of the rules, but c’mon, the safety car should be the exception. I think Alonso is also annoyed that Hamilton keeps getting away with things. Throughout the season they’ve usually been nearly-penalties where an non-call is understandable, but there have been an awful lot of them.
This year the FIA has made an effort to make more consistent and more transparent steward decisions. I’m glad to see it, but we’ve seen that it hasn’t really fixed everything. I think they should start with a clean slate. I’d like to see an emphasis on proportionality. A drive-through is too harsh for speeding in the pit lane by 1mph. A drive-through that doesn’t drop you any positions is too light. Have any other racing series come up with anything different?
Lastly, as a Valencian (in the US now), I’m sad to see this race be such a dud.
I have a question for people regarding the Hamilton penalty:
If the drive through had cost him a couple places, would it have been a sufficient penalty?
My feeling is the only reason people think Hamilton’s drive through wasn’t a stiff enough penalty is because he didn’t lose any positions. Two factors go into this. One, the Valencia pit lane is quite short. Two, he gapped the field enough to come back out in the same place.
I personally don’t see any problem with the situation. He was penalized. At another track, with different traffic, the penalty probably would have resulted in a different outcome for Hamilton. To me, it’s important that the penalties be consistent. Say one track has a stop and go penalty and another has a drive through for the same infraction. How do you think fans would react to that? Not to well, I’m guessing.
Fernando never complained about the Singapore win he got though the famous safety car did he?
If you accept that Hamilton passed the safety car, and that is a big No-No in F1, the delay in the punishment made the punishment totally meaningless…
There is a degree of good/bad luck with safety cars, but there is no denying that the Ferrari of Alonso was right on Hamilton’s gearbox, and by not breaking the rules, Alonso lost a bunch of places… Shouldn’t the goal of a penalty be to repair a wrong ? (talking F1 here, not judicial process)
So do you punish with a fixed penalty (drive through in that case) or with something that restores the race to it’s pre-violation condition ?
If I were Alonso (and I’m no Ferrari fan), I’d be furious too. The guy who “cheated” essentially got a free pass (not a huge cheat, mind you, but the FIA found him guilty)… Next time this happens that would make me think twice about whether I should try this as well ! 20 secs was cheap… That’s sending the wrong message IMO.
I like the idea of closing the pits during a safety car…
Wow! I am very disappointed by this article. I was expecting a much more thoughtful analysis from Joe, particularly on the following points, and instead of the usual Flavio bashing!
1. The rules clearly state that under safety car conditions, all drivers rushing back into the pits must stay below the ECU time. What was that time actually? And did Vettel and Hamilton stay below it (in Hamilton’s case, after having passed the safety car)? If so, then do you think it’s fair that the ECU time is so far off the safety car’s actual lap time, and since Alonso pitted 25s after Vettel, and he was only trailing by 5s prior to the incident? Alonso lost 20s behind the safety car, just because it happened to get out of the pits in front of him! C’mon this is ridiculous! The rules need to be changed ASAP! This shouldn’t be permitted in such a high value sport, and journalists should be pointing it out instead of not even mentioning it, or worse, pointing out other mistakes in the hope of justifying this one!
2. As for Hamilton’s so called penalty, I remember the Webber accident having taken place on lap 9. Hamilton’s penalty was declared around lap 23 and he served it at around lap 25 if I recall correctly. That’s 16 laps or about 25 mn! That’s like calling a red card on a player at the 50th minute of a game when the foul occurred on the 25th. Again ridiculous!
3. As for the retroactive 5s penalty, that’s just the icing on the cake in terms of hypocrisy and foolishness! A retroactive 5s penalty! Since when did that exist? Was it not always 20 or 25 seconds? And for infringements that occurred on lap 10! It actually makes it more useful to cheat than respect the rules… Why not call an immediate stop and go (or at least 16 laps late) like Hamilton? Why wait until after the race when everybody knew by mid race that the infringements occurred? If that’s not manipulation then what is???
All in all, the way this race was handled by the stewards was appalling! And the fact that Joe or some other (most likely English) journalist can’t openly see that makes me doubt their ability to objectively analyze what’s going on in the world of F1. Since Joe has been attending every race since 22 years, I really think that he ought to be buzzing around in the paddock, pushing for the changes that will finally bring a fair and stable application of the rules, while changing the rules that are outright stupid… I for one have been religiously watching f1 since over 15 years, and have rarely seen such a shamefully overlooked race; and rarely just because it’s f1!
Alonso’s and Ferrari’s responses are very disappointing. Did a Ferrari not win the British GP in the late 90s by taking a Stop n’ Go once the car had already completed the race? Talk about race manipulation.
I may be a Brit but I like to think I can be balanced in my views. The reason why Lewis hesitated with the safety car is that the riules surrounding it have been altered so many times in the last few years that no-one’s certain where they stand anymore. After Monaco it’s no surprise that Alonso’s done his homework.
Seriously, though, Ferrari weren’t racing McLaren in Valencia so their cries of manipulation are unfounded.
As far as Flabio goes, it should be down to whoever issues the passes. Sure, he can turn up to Grand Prix… but buy a ticket for the stands like everyone else.
Regarding this whole incident, I am pleased to report that pretty much all of Joe’s loyal readership has stayed with sensible discussion and the fanboys have not been allowed to take over. Even poor old James Allen had a bit of that. So given we’re all grown-ups here and accept alternate points of view, here is a link to Mark Hughes analysis on the BBC website, if you forgive me linking to alternative sites Joe. I think he puts together a pretty good summary of events.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8770322.stm
Glad MW is OK. I don’t know if anybody knows the height he reached. I watched that DHL sign being taken out and just wondered when the weight of the engine and gravity would overcome the lift being generated under the car.
Joe,
Not sure if you saw Briatore’s comments about how Hamilton should have been disqualified. What an absolute scumbag – does he have no shame? How dare he comment on someone else’s misdemeanor when he has taken the sport into disrepute.
Briatore back, complaints of race fixing, and a Briatore managed driver (Webber) in a rather strange accident.
Coincidence? I hope so.
If we’re talking about race fixing, how come Massa (in a Ferrari, a supposedly top car) has managed a non-points finish in the last 3 races? And why did Alonso give up 2 places so easily at Montreal?
Am I being overly suspicious?
There was another odd matter (perhaps too hard a word) during the race which nobody else seems to have picked up on, so I don’t know if I’m wrong about it. If you watch the BBC Replay at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sxffc/Formula_1_2010_The_European_Grand_Prix/ , between 1:13.07 and 1:13.20 you see cars pitting and then leaving the pit lane, even though you hear and then see other cars on the main straight. Shouldn’t the pit exit have been closed at that point? Or was it open because the cars on track weren’t immediately behind the safety car?
I found it odd to have witnessed that and then hear Schumacher explain how he was held up by the pit exit being closed unnecessarily.
The Briatore matter just further proves how removed Ecclestone is from reality. Now the business has other shareholders, they should push harder to replace him.
Think it’s a disgrace that Flavio would show up to F1 and not get eggs thrown at him.
I’d probably have used goose eggs. They’re big, have better aerodynamics when thrown from above, hit harder than FIA bans and leave a stain more noticeable than your average glob of spit. More than he deserves for branding F1 corrupt.
I suppose Ostrich eggs are even bigger, and if kitted out with a blown diffuser could really do some damage…
I passionately believe that open wheel, open cockpit racing cars are too dangerous for modern racing. The Valencia race weekend showed us that chillingly with two nearly identical crashes on two different parts of the course that could have been so much worse. The faster car meets slower car hypothesis proffered by some pundits is plainly not the problem as the GP2 accident was in identical cars. It also shows that these are not freak accidents, this happens rather too often.
The fatality in Melbourne was due to a flying car, Jeff Krosnoff lost his life in an airbourne crash and scores of Indycar drivers have been hurt in flying cars, Mike Conway as recently as this Month of May.
The solution already exists. Sports cars provide thrilling racing, as far as endurance racing allows, and despite the closed car being inherently safer in some respects there is still more than enough danger to satisfy the thrill-seekers and more than enough challenge for the drivers. The response I get when I rant on this subject is usually that open wheels are fundamental to F1, but so were gorgeous cars and epic race tracks for me, but they got swept aside in the name of safety. Ultimately its thrilling racing, hi-tech machines and world class competitors that are the key ingredients for most folk, all of which can be achieved with a more Le Mans style of car.
All the research into trajectories and the like surely can’t stop the problem of flying cars? I know sports cars can occasionally flip but that can almost be engineered away, but interlocking wheels will always remain. Imagine if that happened in the tunnel in Monte Carlo. Actually, don’t.
Sorry, rant over! Agree with your assessment of the weekend. Boo hiss to the Briatore the pantomime baddie!
Joe,
I agree with the general tone of all the comments about Valencia. FB “should” be banned, but probably improves ratings due to controversy. The track looks like any ship dock could put on something similar, just rearrange the shipping containers like LEGO blocks and viola, a purpose built something or other.
In a follow up question then upon a theme from your Montreal “audience”, does Bernie show up in Valencia? Due to the fact I was forced to watch FOX coverage, I didn’t see him, but again we are talking FOX.
Joe, right on about the sleaze factor. Valencia is a race that I have been willing to give up watching, because of the boring venue. Also, watch out for the FIA having a knee jerk reaction to “cars in flight”. If they wanted to avoid that situation, they would have to mandate fenders on the wheels. Oh, I forgot; they already have that, it’s called “sports car racing”. Thank you for your work and keep up the good fight.
Great post Joe!
Also @ Allan. Good comments and Alonso seems to do that with all controversy. I lost all liking for him when he didn’t speak out against the racial inicents with some of the Spanish fans against Hamilton a few years ago. Very sad indeed. He never speaks out about anything when he should and then runs his mouth when it effects him. Who listens to him anymore or cares what I thinks? Not me
Joe,
Glad your away from those nasty French airports.
What was the opinion in the F1 Paddock regarding the latest Hamilton incident? The british TV stations seemed to want to gloss over it and point the finger at Alonso as unsporting.
My personal view is that following a harsh penalty in Spa the FIA have gone too far the other way with him. Allowing his pole lap to stand in Canada, allowing the weaving in Malaysia, allowing the overtake in Valencia with minimal punishment, allowing McLaren two fairly unsafe releases with Hamiltons car in Canada and Spain (not that it doesnt make things entertaining!).
I question if any other driver on the grid would be given such leniency.
As a fan of Jenson Button I also look at whats happened this season and think that he’s had one penalty, for getting to his pitbox too early when he was virtually onto of the pit lane when the delta came on, and that makes me question if it’s the team or Hamilton pushing the rules. I remember Schumacher used to get slated for such things, yet now it’s a british driver our wonderful TV coverage seem to be happy to ignore it.
Is there any talk in the pits regarding Lewis’s numerous infractions, or am I just looking for things that aren’t there?
Didn’t realise that Flav had popped back up again untill youi mentioned it Joe.
Did any of the pre race intiverwers pop the question
“So flav, when will the safty car appear in this race?”
Webber used to be managed by Flav (is he still)?…… Oh now there’s a conspiracy!
I know we’ve talked about this at length before, Joe, and I suspect you won’t publish this, but your obsession with Flav seems unhealthy! Whatever your personal feelings about him, the fact is that the reason he is free to do as he wishes is because Max stuffed up the process of punishing him. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Singapore 2008, (unfortunately perhaps) Flav is perfectly at liberty to go to whatever GP he wants. One assumes if he was on the grid then Bernie had some role in issuing him a pass. Morally its maybe a little uncomfortable for him to be seen to be luxuriating at a GP but morally a lot of far worse things happen too.
That aside, frankly I had no idea Flavio was there until you mentioned it. I’m as big an F1 fan as the next man but so far as I’m concerned Singapore 2008 was an unfortunate and isolated event from which lessons can be learned and then to be moved on from. Indeed the lessons to be learned aren’t that Flav broke the rules (we all knew this anyway), they are that Max was incompetent, he was personally motivated and that the FIA needs to have some ‘fit person’ qualification – which they are introducing. The race itself is largely forgotten. Constantly bringing Flavio up as you do merely raises his profile. His credibility as a major serious player in F1 is destroyed and while you may have personal feelings against him, I’m sure there are people who have done far worse things who are currently involved in F1 more seriously than being an onlooker.
As an F1 fan, I couldn’t really give a stuff one way or the other about Flav, so long as he’s not directly involved in F1. You going on about him just makes him seem more important than he truly is. His time came and went and if he got away Scot-free then its hardly his fault is it?
Drez:
I was referring specifically to the number of wheel on wheel accidents that have happened recently, which have ALL been caused by driver error, or drivers unpredictably changing lines or chopping at others in order to dissuade them from passing. Simply by watching racing from different years comparatively, it’s obvious that this particular problem has got worse, not better — even as improvements in safety cells, wheel tethers, and tracks themselves have made impacts considerably less risky.
All the safety improvements in the world (well, bar keeping everyone hundreds of yards away from the track itself) will only work on predictable, repeatable accidents. By their nature incidents where cars become airborne are anything but that.
Agree on Briatore. He should be banned from the paddock.
Ironically, I also agree with Briatore on Hamilton.
I thought at the time that he tried to time his track through the two safety car lines so that he would get ahead of it and Alonso, who was breathing down his neck, would get stuck behind it. Maybe I am overestimating him, since none of the pros I read have speculated on that. But he has shown in the past that he is aware and able to take every regulation to its very limit.
People may call it clever (and it is), but it creates an unacceptably high risk of a Tom Pryce kind of incident, so it should get a black flag treatment.
I agree with LeighJW that pit stops should no longer be permitted during safety car periods, now that there is no refuelling. That would remove the unfairness that Alonso and Massa suffered.
Having said that, can someone please explain to me what this is all about? I thought everybody could overtake the safety car except for the leader. So as nobody can overtake a race car, everybody ends up behind the safety car with the leader at the front.
Yet here it was apparently the case that Alonso had to stay behind the SC, while Hamilton was penalised for not passing it quickly enough, and Vettel who passed the white line just before the SC did, drove off into the distance.
So had Vettel not pitted, he would have ended up at the back of the queue but almost a lap ahead of Alonso. That can’t be right, can it?
I don’t remember Alonso passing the safety car in Singapore, so i’m not sure what that has to do with Valencia. I believe Hamilton set up Alonso to ensure they were on opposite sides of the pace car, that’s why he hesitated, he just missed getting away with it by a marginal amount. It amazes me that Hamilton is considered to be one of the best in F1, yet we keep hearing “oh I didn’t mean to” or “oh I didn’t know”, the weaving, the fumes qualifying and now passing the safety car. If Hamilton had not planned to pass the safety car and thought he might be at fault, why did he not drop back behind it immediately and hope Whitting ignored the indescrection.
Valencia is not such a great circuit, however, the race could have been extremely interesting if not for the Webber accident and the ensuing way the safety car was deployed.
Without the safety car, we would have had Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso and Massa within a few seconds of each other. The race could have looked a lot like the Turkish race with very competitive drivers having a go at each other, or at least pushing each other all the way to the end. Instead, Vettel had an easy Sunday afternoon drive. The fans lost out.
If the safety car had gone out in front of Vettel the spectacle would have been so much better. The FIA appears to understand the problem so here’s hoping they make the necessary changes. There is something to learn from the IRL and NASCAR’s way of handling a full course yellow and the ensuing pit entries and exits.
Had the SC come out before Vettel and all the drivers pitted on lap 9 whould have been in front of him