Shanghai is horribly smoggy. Facebook and Twitter do not work and last night we enjoyed some interesting local delights which looked like boiled jellyfish and a rather tasty soup which seemed to have parts of a dead bird in it. Ah, the joys of international travel… We caught the Maglev from the airport to downtown and then found a taxi driver we liked and so, with a little help from the hotel bellboy, our driver was enlisted for the weekend. His English was good enough to say “Manchester United”, but he was not very clear where England was geographically.
“Nor far from Germany,” we said, noting a Bayern Munich sticker in the cab. It emerged that Mr Yan shares his cab with a Mr Pan and it was the latter who drives the cab on Fridays. So Mr Pan showed up this morning (bang on time) and then proceeded to show us that he did not really have the faintest idea where the circuit was. Hopefully Mr Yan will do better tomorrow…
The good news was that I have been able to make some discreet inquiries about the penalties given at the Malaysian Grand Prix and I think that I now understand what happened. The first point was that the FIA is not being inconsistent, but rather trying to establish limits that will create consistency in the new world of DRS and KERS. This is important to avoid dangerous wheel-over-wheel accidents. The drivers and teams are very keen to know the limits and both teams strongly urged the FIA to create clear guidelines during the hearings after the race in Kuala Lumpur.
However there are a couple of other things that need to be borne in mind about the processes involved. There was no complaint from any team. The decision to look at the incidents came from Race Director Charlie Whiting. The fact that one decision was listed as “following a report from the Race Director” and the other was not seems to have been a clerical error. The question of Lewis Hamilton’s penalty for weaving was due to two factors: the first was that Lewis was warned about weaving a year ago when he got away with zig-zagging in front of Vitaly Petrov. That was deemed to be a question of trying to break a tow, but this year he was reckoned to be blocking. The difference was that in this day and age of KERS and DRS there is going to be more speed differential between the cars and so blocking may become more of an issue. The stewards seem to have concluded that it was necessary to punish Hamilton so that no-one in the future could complain that they had been punished when Hamilton was not… A line was being drawn in the sand.
In the case of Fernando Alonso running into Hamilton from behind, it was much the same story. With DRS and KERS in action there is more danger this year of wheel-over-wheel incidents and the FIA wanted to make sure that drivers know exactly where they stand. There is no question that Alonso caused an accident while trying to pass Hamilton. The fact that only he suffered from the accident is not the issue in question. He was behind and ran into Hamilton and could have taken the McLaren driver out. It was not a racing incident because Hamilton did not move, nor did he lift off or brake. In road accidents the driver behind is deemed to be responsible because he or she ought to have allowed space for whatever is happening ahead. Alonso did not do that. The fact that Ferrari argued strongly for proper guidelines in relation to Hamilton meant that the team ended up being hoist on its own petard when the spotlight switched from one driver to the other.
So, Alonso misjudged the situation, which seems rather odd given his level of skill. On this matter there is no explanation, although one might hypothesize that he was caught out when Hamilton’s car ran out of KERS. The FIA would know this, but the federation is not allowed to divulge details of data from one team to another and so would not be in a position to explain the accident, without rival teams learning something about the McLaren…
It is just a theory, but it might explain why Alonso was caught out.
joeblogsf1 
Thanks Joe, very insightful and goes someway to explaining the penalties.
Thanks for the clarification. Although I still think these explanations should come direct from the stewards.
Well ask 1 of your colleagues to show you Mike Gascoynes twitter messages regarding his taxi from the airport last night if you are having problems – laughter guaranteed 🙂
When Alonso & Hamilton have so little love for each other, yet neither complained publically about the others driving in Malaysia I can only assume neither of them did much wrong.
If the stewards will be consistently harsh on offenders from here onwards that’d be fine, but history says F1 stewards do not do consistency.
If anyones actions in Malaysia are worthy of a drive-thru penalty just what would Schumacher have received for some of his antics last year?
Maybe but why there were no information about possible penalities after the race for car number 3 and number 5.
The FiA is consistent as the Pirelli tyres are : new people, same stories, see the WRC calendar for 2012 with the old FAX gimmick !
An excellent discreet inquiry!! Great stuff Joe! Thanks!
Thanks Joe! The whole thing now makes a lot more sense 🙂
Yes and explains why the 2 drivers have politely put it behind them.
All blocking must be banned, the car must stay on the racing line. Worked in Champcar for years. Promotes overtaking & re-overtaking.
It is also possible (sharp intake of breath), that Alonso just made a mistake!
Ben,
You don’t take a hint, do you?
This is the kind of information you can only get from this website – very clear and consise and it makes the penalties a lot clearer…I just hope some of the people who were on here before will now apologise for the rubbish they have spouted…I doubt it though.
Joe,
In this context the penalties make a lot more sense now – and seeing as the drivers were lower down in the points they didn’t lose out too much anyway.
Here’s hoping from now that the stewards go back to the good work they started in 2010…
Thanks for sharing more insight on those accidents, Joe. Your explanation seems very reasonable and I guess the drivers have to be more cautious after FIA “drawing that lines”.
Very good summary Joe! Makes you wonder where Martin Brundle got his info from when he mentioned that Ferrari made a complaint, hence the stewards looking at Hamilton
good read!
Actually, if Hamilton had run out of KERS allowance, and the FIA KERS graphic had been on screen at the time (I don’t recall whether that was the case or not), then would we not all have seen and known that to be the case? So what harm is there in the FIA releasing that info, if they have it.
Maybe I am also missing a subtle hint…
Thanks Joe for the insights. Love the bog. Love GP+. New graphics are good, too.
Richard,
I try to be subtle…
Why not just go for the simplest explanation given all the information available? Alonso made a mistake – he made many last year and made one last week
I find Alonso’s penalty very confusing. Remember Brazil 2009 when Lewis clipped the back of Rubens, ruining the Brazilian’s race while he got away with it? Wasn’t that an avoidable accident??
Hamilton did not move? Little less time making lap charts are more spent watching the races wouldn’t go astray Joe. Go watch a replay of the incident. Hamilton moves off line by a few feet actually.
Chris,
You are bound to be right. You sit at home with your TV and the stewards have four different views from different angles. And I am stupid schmuck who does not pay enough attention. Great. You are a really terrific advert for why I may stop allowing comments. Brilliant.
Thanks for some light there Joe, I was trying to decide whether it was mist, fog or smog. Taiwan used to have thick blue coloured air when I visited long ago, but I hear it’s a lot better now. This looks grey on telly.
It was good to hear that no team had complained, though I have to admit it is nowadays an automatic assumption that they have unless proved otherwise.
As Richard said the teams only have to watch the tv to see when the KERS is activated, no doubt that have someone watching and noting.
Ragerod
“…I still think these explanations should come direct from the stewards.
So do I.
I still don’t understand why there were penalties for anyone.
Hamilton didn’t weave, fact 1.
Alonso made a mistake (which he is prone to doing), fact 2.
No need for any penalties. The stewards got this one completely wrong, wrong , wrong, fact 3.
Joe Cowan,
Well, I guess that when you are an FIA Steward you can declare such things. Until you are, they are right, right, right.
Great insight Joe, thanks.
What i’m missing is why no action was taken against Vettel for weaving on Hamilton at the start.
Do you have any thoughts on this?
Actually, Hamilton did move. He started to drift across to the right as Alonso pulled out. This is quite clear from watching the replay of the incident on the BBC website. However, Hamiltons movement was probably very small compared to Alonsos misjudgement of where his front wing is.
Luke
Actually, you have seen it from one angle. The stewards and the teams saw it from several, as I explained in the piece. This is why they have hearings.
Great insight, as usual.
I’m still wondering why Vettel wasn’t penalized for making three blocking moves on Hamilton between the start and the first corner. If Whiting was looking to set a precedent, Vettel’s violation was a lot more obvious. 100% of TV viewers saw Vettel clearly violate the rule, yet nobody except Whiting and the stewards saw Hamilton’s alleged move on Teflonso.
Joe,
How do you reconcile the statement
“There was no complaint from any team. ”
with
“The fact that Ferrari argued strongly for proper guidelines in relation to Hamilton meant that the team ended up being hoist on its own petard when the spotlight switched from one driver to the other.”
I love Ferrari bashing as much as anyone (part of the sport isn’t it?), but seems that if Ferrari did not complain, then the petard hoisting is mute! Was there an informal complaint?
Seems we are missing a detail here with the chronology especially with respect to the spotlight switching and proper guidelines in relation to Hamilton ? Or I am just really slow this AM……
Adam,
They were both hoist on their own petard. There is no Ferrari bashing involved. All I am trying to do is explain what happened and end all speculation. If people attack me for doing this I will just not bother in the future.
@Pandabater
I agree with you that blocking should be banned, but having single lane racing as they did in Champ Car (and do so now in IndyCar) does not make for entertaining racing.
Drivers must be allowed to defend their position.
“It is just a theory, but it might explain why Alonso was caught out. ”
What happened to the theory that Alonso was attempting to cut Hamilton’s tyre (while magically causing no damage to hos own car)?
Bill Day,
It was not a theory. Why is it that some people cannot differentiate between statements of fact and questions. It is not rocket science.
Ferrari brought an update to the Front wing for the Chinese grand prix. There are two bayonets attached to each of the end plates
Nice to see that baseless accusation about Alonso/Ferrari complaining to the stewards are proved wrong. I know Joe that you have issues with some Alonso/Ferrari fans but lets be honest, a lot of British journalists always assume that Alonso/Ferrari are guilty unless proven innocent. If you look at the British F1 coverage, its bias toward Hamilton/Button/McLaren.. and I don’t have a problem with local journalist supporting local talent, every country does that to some extent. What really bothers me is when a lot of uk journalist get self righteous when someone says that they have predispose positive view about Hamilton/Button/McLaren and a predispose negative view of Alonso/Ferrari. Of course its not all journalist at every occasion but its definitely a trend.
Here’s an example: “In the case of Hamilton there was no mention of any report from Race Director Charlie Whiting, which means that the Stewards were probably acting because of a complaint from Ferrari as Whiting obviously did not think anything had been done wrong.”
I give you credit Joe for correcting your accusation about Alonso/Ferrari, but why assume the worse when there is no information available? Can you honestly say that you would have written that: “In the case of Alonso there was no mention of any report from Race Director Charlie Whiting, which means that the Stewards were probably acting because of a complaint from McLaren as Whiting obviously did not think anything had been done wrong.”
If you can take a step back and look at it from a objective point of view, I hope you can see the point I’m trying to make.
I mean no disrespect by writing this, I greatly appreciate your work that you are kind enough to provide it for free and its great that we can interact with you.
Regards
JF
JF
No accusation was made. I was looking for answers. I found them. If you want to make a fuss about that, you are welcome to do so. I have a right to ignore it.
Joe:
Why do you figure the FIA are so reluctant to provide an explanation or some form of minor narrative outlining the incident that concluded in the penalties. Wouldn’t it go a long way towards reducing all this speculation and talk about bias and inconsistency?
it almost seems like they want to create this controversy in order to be in peoples mouths, it’s the reality TV syndrome, show drama and if you don’t have it, create it.
As always, great insight from you Joe,
Best regards,
Joe
Thanks for clarifying!
During the pre race show here in the states they made a hypothesis about stopping blocking by removing the rear view mirrors and how in the glory days the best drivers didn’t have mirrors on their cars and considered it an embarrassment to run mirrors.
What do you think?
Again thanks for the stories behind the headlines. I know that’s what keeps me coming back!
Yes, my instincts when the penalties were first announced were that they were trying to set a precedent, it’s just a pity they couldn’t explain it better to the fans.
Having said that, while Alonso did make a mistake in hitting Lewis, there is no doubt if you look at the video that Lewis definitely moved, so much so that the collision was 1/3 across the track.
Ed,
There are several different angles. One makes it look like that. Others show that it did not happen.
A question for Joe:
The term ‘racing incident’ is one that I hear thrown around a lot in commentary and on the internet with respect to these situations, but I’ve not totally clear what is meant by it. Could you let me know what you understand it to mean please?
Cheers,
Nazdakka,
It means two guys try to claim the same piece of tarmac at the same time, without one or the other being at fault.
Do you find yourself consuming throat lozenges due to the Shanghai pollution? The broadcast pictures from Shanghai made it look like a foggy day in San Francisco.
Thanks for the info Joe.
I still disagree with both penalties but I guess we can’t all agree. There is just no way Hamilton can be deemed guilty of weaving and Vettel was not penalised for what he did at the start of the race. No doubt the FIA will say there was no DRS at that stage of the race so it does not count.
It is also odd that if the race director instigated both penalties that the investigation was not announced in the usual manner.
I hope we are not going to get penalties every time there is a racing incident. I am so glad Charlie Whiting and co were not at Dijon in 79. Gilles and Rene would probably have been banned for life.
Joe, if your “theory” about FA having been (maybe) caught out by LH (maybe) running out of KERS is correct, then that puts a very dim light on the whole “Eco-Hybrid-but-just-for-x-seconds-per-lap”-concept. In other words, if that is the case, then KERS being implemented as a time-limited boost (rather than as a permanently available one) proves to be the real source of danger, not the driving standards of the respective drivers.
Punishing the drivers for that would then seem rather cowardly, instead of the FIA owning up to putting a rubbish concept into written rules … I wonder whether these boost-gizmos are going to discreetly disappear over the next two years.
Hi Joe. I wasn’t disagreeing with the penalty or decision of the stewards, I was just clarifying the point that Hamilton clearly did move across the track (however small that movement may be).
Joe
Could you point to some kind of statement from the stewards indicating that Hamilton did not move? No? Thats right, because its a statement YOU made, not the stewards. And it was clearly an incorrect one, just watch one of the many videos – all are available on youtube. From a number of angles.
You are a really terrific advert for why I (and thousands of others) detest some of the F1 journalism coming out of the British media.
Chris,
I would reply to you in a personal way but you did not have the good grace to provide a real email address and so I have no choice but to reply in a more public environment, which is sad because you probably do not wish to read this stuff in an open forum. I know it is a hard concept to grasp but you sit on your couch at home and have an opinion based on Youtube. The race direction, the stewards, the drivers and the teams have access to multiple camera angles and GPS data, which is revealed during a hearing. They looked at all of these and concluded that Lewis did not move. So, either you are a genius, all the machinery is wrong and everyone else is stupid. Or you have an opinion that is wrong. All I did was report what what was found during the hearing. I do not feel that I need to justify my work to you and there is certainly no need for personal attacks on me, or on the F1 press in general. As your view was ill-informed and your expression of that view was rude and offensive, I do not think you have a right to an opinion on this blog any longer. You are banned. You can serve as an illustration to others of some of the crap that I have to put up with…
Hi kaminski,
about MB’s comments. I am not certain as to the timing, but in the BBC quali relay, Brundle pretty much repeated what Joe just said.
I’m all out of synch, on the time shift today, so don’t take my word for it, but put it this way: Joe hasn’t the benefit of the BBC broadcast feed, no matter how you argue who said things first!
– j
Joe,
must dig out this quote sometime, but it came from a genuine rocket scientist, and was along the lines of “Most of rocket science isn’t rocket science anyhow.”
I think he meant there was a lot more common sense involved than people like to think, which in turn, looked like your point to me 🙂
So as not to be a kurmudgeon, there is lots of great counterintuitive thought in physics and science*, you just don’t have to go deeply into current Quantum Electro Dynamics and shake hands with those who plausibly could be both nutters and genuises in unmeasurable measure. Needs to be noted more often, that Einstein’s big paper was writ in plain language. He knocked out the equations as an appendix a while later.
– j
*i’d say a lot of good counterintuitive thought is delightfully obvious, once exposed to it. Penny drops, etc., The AI crowd have a word for one angle there, “counterfactual”, but of course, being AI lot, they have a problem defining whether that is you faling to resolve counterindicative thought in your head, or whether it means truth is just wierder than fiction. Stopping now, as stepped over that mark beyond which are too many jokes.