Romain Grosjean made a mistake at Spa. He did not do it deliberately but his actions resulted in a accident that could have been a lot worse if the flying cars had landed differently. It is irrelevant whether these cars were driven by Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton, or if they had been driven by the guys at the back. He was not banned because he hit Hamilton and Alonso, he was banned because the accident should not have happened. By imposing such a ban the stewards are hoping that Grosjean will reflect on his driving and understand that he needs to change his ways. Grosjean is a man under pressure. His first foray into Formula 1 was a disaster and he needs to prove in his second F1 adventure that he is a man who is worthy of a place. So there is a level of desperation in his driving that others do not have. Particularly on the first lap of races, when much is decided. The hope is that the Frenchman will calm down a little, learn from his mistake and mature. It is not unusual for top class drivers to get themselves into such situations. A look back through the history of the sport reveals a number of similar stories, although it is 17 years since the last such ban.
The last driver banned was actually Mika Hakkinen, who was not allowed to race in Hungary in 1994, after casing a first corner accident in Hockenheim. However, the last driver to SERVE a ban was Michael Schumacher, who was given a ban at the British Grand Prix (the race before Hockenheim) for ignoring a penalty and then paying no attention to black flags. His team appealed the decision and so Schumacher did not miss races until after the Court of Appeal had heard the case. He ended up not racing in Italy and Portugal that autumn.
Earlier that year a wild young Eddie Irvine was banned after causing a multi-car crash in Brazil. The Jordan team appealed the ban and lost. The ban was increased to three races.
Before that the most famous incident along these lines was in 1998 when Nigel Mansell was banned from racing in Spain in 1989, after taking Ayrton Senna off AFTER being black-flagged.
Beyond that Felipe Massa was “rested” by the Sauber team in 2002 after he was given the very first 10 grid position penalty after a crash at Monza when he crashed into the Jaguar of Pedro de la Rosa at the Ascari chicane, after the Spanish driver had overtaken him the previous lap by running across the chicane. Sauber decided that it would give the car to another driver rather than race with Massa.
There is a feeling in F1 circles that Pastor Maldonado also needs to calm down after a string of incidents. At Spa he was given two separate five grid-place penalties in the same race. If this goes on, Pastor will probably get a one-race ban at some time in order to see if he will calm down.
Alonso made a very valid point after the crash.
“I think that certain drivers should try and take fewer risks at the start: it’s a bit of a tendency currently in the junior formulae, but it would be better, if right from the start of their career, they got used to respecting more strictly the rules relating to behaviour on track.”
Agreed. No need for any conspiracy theories or unfounded allegations.
Thanks Joe
I am unable to remember what if any penalty Keke Rosberg served when he toook out half the field at start of Brit GP???
I honestly can’t recall that event. Could you be thinking of Sheckter in 1973? If so, that was nearly forty years ago, and not all that useful a point of reference for 2012…
It is an interesting subject and raises two points:-
1) Was Grosjean’s ban handed out for his incident on Sunday, or was his involvement in previous incidents taken into account? Do race stewards have the remit to look back over previous events when coming to a judgement.
2) Had his move on Sunday resulted in a much more minor crash, would his punishment have been the same? I suspect not – which raises the question whether the stewards punish an action or the outcome. I’ve often thought it an anomaly that a driver is much more likely to be penalised for causing an avoidable incident if it results in an opponent retiring than if it just knocks of a bit of body work – seemingly regardless of the strength of hit or recklessness of the move.
If they had the right to look at other incidents, I think Maldonado would have had a one race ban by now.
“I suspect not – which raises the question whether the stewards punish an action or the outcome.”
The outcome would make more sense though. Think about it, is there a difference if you lose control of your car and hit a parked car, or lose control of your car and hit two children crossing the road?
Exaclty.
Grosjean is usually in the middle of such incidents and where there is smoke…all he needs to do is what most other drivers do which is choose a line (normally dictated by how they and peers get off the marks) and hold it into the first turn. DC has it right – he said he assumes that everyone is everyhwere going into the first corner – and that is a healthy attitude in my book.
As for Pastor, as a Williams fan he is really starting to annoy me. It is not so much the mistakes – where are regrettable – but his lack of remorse in public for his mistakes and the fact he seemingly doesn’t learn. His response is always “it doesn’t matter” but it does. The more I see of the Williams FW34, the more I think it is actually a suprisingly quick car. P3 in Q3 at Spa shows the car has some serious ability. It’s controlversial, but I think the car is being made to look very ordinary by its drivers. Only with Pastor in Quali do I feel we see what that car can actually do.
I wonder how JB, Seb or Kimi would have gone around Spa in that car?!
Any more transgressions, and I think Pastor should be benched for multiple events – 3 sounds about right with a suspended element to keep him in check. It would also get the very promising Bottas the opportunity to show us what he has got in the tank!
agree re Pastor – bring back Rubens!!
Come on – we don’t need to be stupid about this now
What is stupid about it? I too often wonder what Rubens could have done in good Williams car this year. But I think what I am most frustrated about… is the fact that Pastor performs better than Bruno. That really grinds my gears, because I really would love to see Bruno doing better in Formula One, and I really, really dislike Pastor.
I agree that the Williams (and perhaps the Sauber) are being held back by their drivers. In the right hands they would certainly be further up the field on a more consistent basis.
How can you argue that Sauber are being held back by their drivers when they just had a 2-4 qualifying result and were both unlucky to be involved in someone else’s incident?
It’s pretty clear (and admitted by the drivers & the team) that Sauber’s ‘qualifying problem’ is caused by their tyre handling. It’s the same for Lotus and is the reason why both teams are so strong on race day.
Depends if you believe (like me) that Sauber’s qualifying performance was indicative of the car’s true performace all season and the drivers have only just been able to get to terms with it.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Kobi’s aggressive driving style, I just can’t help thinking that if they had tier 1 drivers, they would be consistently placed higher up. Perhaps Massa would improve his stock by switching to Sauber and driving a car that might suit his driving style more.
Well yes, if Vettel and Alonso were in the Saubers they’d probably be further up the field. For the moment though, I’d say that Sauber’s drivers fit the standard of the team pretty well, top 10 but not podium standard.
Given that both the Sauber-Ferraris qualified ahead of the two Ferrari-Ferraris, perhaps a simple swapping of drivers would be worthwhile.
Pastor Maldonaldo should be dropped asap like right about now.
A total liability is what you call him. He is living off his Spanish GP win still.
With a few races to go, high time to blood Valtteri Bottas in as well.
I am surprised Patrick Head has not kicked up a whole lot of a bloody fuss against Crashnaldo. Remember this guy was given some headaches by R.Schumacher and Montoya in their habitual crashes and he gave them a good old rollicking whenever that happens.
Not directly relevant to your point (or much else, seeing as it happened 23 years ago) but wasn’t the Mansell ban for ignoring the black flag and carrying on racing, rather than the Senna incident per se?
Ignoring a black flag is bad. Taking out a fellow competitor when one should not even be in the race is VERY bad.
A fair point!
It should be said in his defence that Mansell said he didn’t see the flag (and he only reversed into his pit box after all). I know, they always say that. However, Senna was guilty of worse than that during his career.
“It should be said in his defense”. No… just stop. There is no point in defending situations like that. “Oh but I did not see the flag”. Okay… so does not knowing that you are black flagged suddenly make it okay to take out a fellow driver?
Schumacher was banned for two races for black-flag-ignoring. It wasn’t even VERY bad, though, meaning he didn’t take out a fellow competitor.
1994 is a long story that one day will be told.
Well, Brundle DID call it the danger zone in his grid walk, with good reason. How happy is Williams with Maldonado at this point? They obviously have a good car, but Maldonado seriously fails to deliver (not to mention Senna). Sure he brings in a load of sponsorship money, but I can’t imagine the guys in the garage are particularly happy with his on track antics at the moment. People can say what they want about Rubens, but my guess is that he would’ve brought the car home within the points a whole lot more.
I think you miss the point. Maldonado brings something like $40 million a year in sponsorship to Williams. They will smile and take the grief with those sort of numbers…
I guess you can’t blame Williams. They need the money I suppose. It’s just sad it’s come to that. After having such a disastrous year last season, I’m sure the boys in the garage are craving for some success. Especially since they have a car that’s quick enough to compete for points (and perhaps an occasional podium). Hopefully for them he’ll calm down some (whether it takes a ban or not) and start to deliver.
However I think Grand Mal is starting to hurt Williams’ long honed “good guys” image (itself a reaction to their now respected owner’s long past reputation) and 40MM quid or not, irrespective they are a stock bet on highly attractive tech to the wider auto world, and so I fear they are risking a hit in the future.
Just one cannot put it so simply, that Grand Mal is knocking sponsor options, with the market where it is. I’ve been off, quietly looking at the ad / sponsor game for products perceived as elite (whilst a few too many friends and prospective customers seem to have luxuriated in Fin de siècle indulgences of holidays) and there is good news and bad news. I get the feeling that there is wariness to be associated with present or future links to elitism, yet historical associations to elitism are viewed with less caution. Just in the same way we all probably have a boast or two about adventures as a teen, well, that’s mostly allowed.
Of course, I can only add anecdotal evidence, and from a pretty small sample (it having been the holidays) but this presents a conundrum for Williams GP. They have both history of their own, and a conundrum between Bruno S and their bull in a china shop Mal. Not only do these highly apposite characters not fit, nor compliment, they if anything highlight the difference between them, Bruno being
modesty compared with his famed Uncle, ad Mal some kind of shoehorned colt. Of any team, I would have thought Williams would have had him reigned in, by now.
Take it all told, and it may even out. But contracts aside, I have started to wonder, is Grand Mal going to become a point of negotiation. I tried, really tried, to like the guy, having originally considered him a thug, and then considered I called him too soon. Unfortunately, I think my early call was instinctively correct. I am not geared to assessing brand damage, not in any quantitative way, but I am fairly sure he is hurting medium term prospects, and the Williams’ engineering quoted stock is in no small way backstopped by their F1 income.
Maybe Mal would have had a better time in a far hungrier team, where kid gloves would not be deployed. If anything, Williams certainly used to know how to handle extreme characters, but it seems they have had little to no influence upon Mr Venezuela.
Therefore I think there is another good seat going for next season.
Well, your reaction was and is the same as mine: the guy’s a thug. A rich thug. I hope he is gone soon, just on general principle.
Perhaps Maldonado’s $40 million backing imbues him with a sense of immunity to punishment? It surely does not grant him immortality. He’ll be lucky not to kill someone or himself. Another flagrant transgression should warrant a season ending sit down, the FIA has set the tone with Grosjean.
“They will smile and take the grief with those sort of numbers…”
Your point made ME smile too Joe; whether or not you agree with me is subjective, but it’s kind of relevant in another way too… Formula 1 racing is bl**dy DANGEROUS! Everyone knows that, and the drivers are no exception. The drivers WANT to get in those missiles and are 100% aware of the risk factor. They do not get forced to race in F1 cars; it is their choice, and most of them get rich rewards for doing so. They accept the grief because they crave what F1 gives them.
I’m not condoning anything, just stating what I see as a fact of racing. This http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/102213 could be adding rather than reducing danger.
Just because something appears in Autosport does not mean it is right. I did John Noble’s job for many years…
Too true. I saw a headline for an article on Autosport Plus written by Dieter Renken which appeared to be singing the praises of a certain Mr Mallya Beginning with:
“The Force India boss is seen by many as a playboy, but there is far more to him than that”
I didn’t read the full article, however. I didn’t have the stomach for it, to be honest.
We all choose our own poisons.
He’s also much quicker than Senna. Easier to make a crashy driver careful than a slow driver fast.
The problem is that we have been saying that about Maldonado since his days in Formula Renault.
Joe,
Please, can you tell us more about Maldonado’s ban in WSR for seriously injuring a Marshall?
Thanks.
I remember it being disgraceful behavior and the ban being serious, but I cannot remember the details.
It stuck in my memory as an indication of his character.
Injuring Marshalls or other trackside staff (unpaid volunteers who keep the sport going at many levels) has always been a big no-no.
Like many others I’ve tried to like Maldonado, there’s some very good engineering guys at Williams who deserve success. But his consistent inability to learn from his mistakes makes him (for me) the only real villain amonst the current crop of driver.
Grosjean seems like a good lad really, hope he learns from the experience and has a long F1 future.
Similarly, it’s a shame about Lewis’s apparent inability to learn who his real friends are…
I don’t agree… what Bruno needs is a good mentor at that team. He turned out the fast lap at Spa this weekend. I think he has potential still.
He already has a good mentor in Alex Wurz
Also… a crashy driver like Maldonado crashes because of an serious attitude problem. Not because of lack of skill… but because of attitude and driving “angry”. That is not something you can fix. That is a personality problem and not a driving technique problem, and when he plays the incidents down in the paddock it proves this. The fact that Bruno is slower I feel IS something that can be worked on and fixed.
There is also an escalation clause in the contract in that 2013 is worth some $60M US – not chump change. Surely this is the highest fee ever paid per year by a pay driver. It was just the other day I was speaking with a friend when I mentioned that the yearly bill to Hugo for all of his motorsport sponsorships must be close to half a billion dollars per year! When you take into account all of Maldonado’s fellow countryman who are sponsored by the ‘state’ (either directly by the tourist board or through one of the state owned companies such as Citgo etc.) it surely ranks as the largest auto racing welfare program we have ever seen – it makes the Russians look cheap! That vast majority of these welfare drivers are simply out of their depth or complete wankers. There are a few good ones and I count Pastor as a good driver but for every Pastor there are four Milka Duno’s… Virtually every North American series open or closed wheel – have at least two Venezuelan drivers in each series. World Challenge, Indy Car, Indy Lights, ALMS, Mazda etc. etc. I’m getting tired of blue flagging them quite frankly but I guess it’s keeping some of these series financially above the water line so we put up with most. I don’t know how it is in Europe but I hope the European versions of the great Chavez motorsport master plan are better then our imports…
I am delighted that you know so much about the contracts.
I guess that has always been Sir Franks ethos, build the best car and the best driver will be knocking on your door!
It’s a shame that McLaren and Red Bull have contracts sewn up then, isn’t it.
Its the other team car that is the issue and the driver who should be most nervous. I can’t help thinking that it was a bit of a romantic jesture by Sir Frank to employ Bruno, perhaps influenced by the (unfair) guilt from Ayrton’s death in a car with his name.
You can think like that, but the truth is that there was a pile of money from Bruno’s supporters.
But how does that situation change if Williams could snag a number of new sponsors based on the promise shown by this year’s car? It seems to me that sponsors were leaving because Williams looked to be a sinking ship. By showing that they’ve found their mojo again, a new sponsor might be prepared to take a chance. Similarly a top tier driver might be pursuaded to join the team.
The ban seems imposed only because the accident nearly killed a driver. That seems very unfair for Grosjean. Sure he made a mistake but he did not do it out of anger. He was being stupidly aggressive at the start. Maldonado’s treatment of Lewis and Perez, on the other hand, was intentional and out of spite. He got off with a lighter rap only because the incidents didn’t escalate into something worse. The stewards and everyone else seems to be punishing Grosjean because of the outcome, not the crime.
If I kill someone because I ignore a red traffic light, you bet I get charged with manslaughter! Rightly so!
“He was being stupidly aggressive at the start”…”the accident nearly killed a driver”
Seems like reason enough for a ban to me!
I do understand your point, that others have done more silly things without censure but perhaps that’s the problem. People need to calm down a little. Having had no fatalities since 94 is a wonderful thing but how much of that is down to judgement and how much pure blind good luck.
The move was VERY dangerous. Interlocking wheels is very dangerous in F1, it can bring driven wheel into contact with driven wheel and that’s really not a good thing at all. He really should exercise more prudence at the start. He allowed a very dangerous situation to develop at Spa – and that’s why he’s being punished.
If Maldonaldo’s clout on Lewis or Sergio had resulted in his car jumping up onto their respective noses, diffusers metres from their heads, they might have dealt with it differently.
And on another note, the commentators harping on about driver safety, and even closed cockpits is ridiculous. You can’t stop freak accidents from happening. The marshals are probably more at risk than drivers nowadays.
Well, duh! But what you are forgetting is that you can prevent the effect of a similar accident in the future from having deadly consequences. Now that the FIA has seen video of the side of a car almost decapitating a driver… it would be absolutely stupid to NOT put canopies on these cars. The next time it happens, and a driver loses a head… it won’t be a freak accident. Somebody, somewhere will point out that F1 ought to have learned something from the accident we had on Sunday.
It depends on where one draws the line. Put “a lid” on an F1 car and it becomes a sports prototype. F1 needs to be sensible about safety – and it is – but too much “health and safety” is not good.
So what would you propose as an alternative, Joe? I am not fond of a lid myself…I just feel that such a move would in fact be “sensible”.
I wouldn’t exactly mind the top tier of track motorsports looking more like sports prototypes. Neither would Newey from the looks of his Proto in GT5.
You say the race ban is not about the drivers Joe, but I’m really struggling with that. Look at Liuzzi last year at Monza, a non-deliberate error, which you could argue was a significantly more dangerous accident given the higher speeds involved. He took out 3 or four cars with that, non of which were front-runners and was handed with a 5 place grid drop for the next race.
Whilst I’d prefer F1 to be more stringent with it’s punishments, there also needs to be consistency. It could be argued that Romain’s error was no worse than the error that Lewis made last year in Spa when he thought his car was fullt ahead of Kobi’s but wasn’t. I don’t think he got anything for that.
That’s not to say I don’t think he shouldn’t be banned for a race; he should, but others should have had similar bans in recent history if that’s the way we’re going racing.
Paul, I think the point it that if you swerve all the way across the track to chop in front of a driver who is traveling in a straight line at the edge of the track, the onus is entirely on you to judge the move correctly.
If you do this at the start of the race with a dozen cars all around trying to get through a tight first corner, then you shouldn’t be surprised by a race ban.
This was not a ‘racing accident’.
(For the record, I like Grosjean, and do not think there was any malice involved. I hope he comes through all this a more complete driver.)
In a post-race interview with Fernando Alonso, it was mentioned that Grosjean has been involved in crashes in 7 of the last 12 races – most of which happened at race-start or just after. If this is true, then I can see why the race stewards would impose such a stiff penalty on the young french driver.
Stewards cannot penalise for previous indiscretions. They banned him for this incident alone, probably largely because it nearly killed Alonso.
To be honest, the FIA press release made a mistake by mentioning the cars taken out were ‘championship leaders’, since it made it seem like they were punishing him because of the championship.
We’ve all seen a lot of drivers do a lot worse than what Grosjean, and Hamilton is amongst the worse along with MSCH at changing direction like this. Had Button been the driver of the Mclaren, would there have been a crash? No, because Button would have backed off. Hamilton has to take responsibility for this crash as well. I’d put it at 50/50. The car behind has to avoid hitting the car in front. Hamilton crashed into the BACK of the car in front, not the side.
No way! As a Lotus fan even I can’t stand up for Grosjean on this one! And if you think Hamilton had any chance of “backing off” you can have no idea what happens when a front wheel comes back on to a rear wheel!
” I’d put it at 50/50.”
So Grosjean swerves across the track, Hamilton continues driving in a straight line at the edge of the track, and the front of Grosjean’s rear tyre makes contact with the rear of Hamilton’s front tyre.
That’s not the car behind hitting the car in front.
Groan.
I always wonder when I see these kind of posts if some people just have a default setting where there’s an incident with Hamilton therefore it must automatically be his fault.
I wonder if you’d say the same thing if it had been button that grosjean took out.
Btw if your in the outside lane of a motorway an someone cuts in front of you and the back of their car hits you is it still your fault then for not stopping?
Hamilton crashed into the Grosjean’s back AFTER they touched side by side and Hamilton was pushed onto the grass.
Grosjean did make a mistake, but I am still wondering if his behaviour did significantly differ from what Alonso did to him in Monaco. Had he been fined for aggressiveness, I could understand (Maldonado would be next, then?), however stewards claimed it otherwise and I must admit I don’t like it.
Go and have a lie down.
No. Watch the footage again; the front of RG’s rear hit the back of LH’s front. Their wheels were interlocked, Hamilton had nowhere to go.
Whatever criticism anyone may have of the punishment (and the written reasoning), do you seriously think that the stewards who had a lot of time to view a great many camera angles, presumably multiple times, have got the apportioning of blame wrong (supported, it appears, by just about every knowledgable commentator I have read) but you have it correct?
I don’t mean to be insulting in any way, but unless you have a comparable level of experience, I think you are seriously off base.
Hamilton was in no way too blame
I think you need to watch footage of the incident again….
Hamilton didn’t hit the back of Grosjean. When Grojean moved across he put his rear tyres between Hamilton’s. Braking or accelerating would have caused him to hit Grosjean and since he was already on the edge of the road he effectively couldn’t move.
At first, I wondered the same thing about whether Hamilton owned a part of this. But then I watched the DVR’d incident several times… frame-by-frame. After that, I was convinced there was nothing Hamilton could have done. The wheel-to-wheel contact initiated by Grosjean resulted in a lot of things happening very fast, during which time Hamilton’s car was not under his control. I appreciate that you wondered about it, as I did too, but I’m sure your conclusion is wrong.
Whilst I don’t think it’s 50/50 (more like 100/0) I agree that several other drivers on the grid wouldn’t have had this accident, like Button or Alonso, (although many also would have had it – Maldonardo, Kobi, Massa etc!).
Or as Martin Brundle puts it….
“I can’t help but wonder if Lewis could have done a little more to try to avoid the contact, just as with Maldonado back in the closing stages of the Valencia European GP. In both cases Lewis was at zero fault, but he still needs to finish the race. He might just have lifted off, braked slightly, or moved a half a metre further right to avoid his car being collected by the errant Lotus. It’s like having some clown pulling out in of a T Junction immediately in front of you, it’s all his fault but there still no point in having the accident if you can avoid or minimise it.”
Thinking back to Montreal last year when JB had contact with Lewis, it was another of those moments where Lewis didn’t minimise the risk of getting taken out. So whilst the Spa accident wasn’t his fault, he did nothing to help prevent it either by holding his ground and not using the half metre or so of tarmac to his right (see tweets from Grosjeans race engineer). That might appear harsh, but how many times do you see Lewis back off to avoid an accident? Rosberg in Bahrain – he’d rather keep his foot in and overtake off track than brake – another example (and another example where FA backed off!).
BTW Joe no story about Lewis tweeting confidential data from McLaren (and Buttons annoyance/other teams delight/disbelief at it?).
No, I did not write about that. I don’t think that it made any difference to anything. The rest of it is PR spin. It does however give an insight into the state of Lewis’s mind at the moment. In my opinion he needs to be better managed, but that is his decision. It is his career to mess up.
Was the twitter stunt and previous swearing tweets contrived with management advice to develop a bad boy personna for Lewis, is it the old any press is good press approach at work?
Once again, you are reading far too much into things.
Hi Joe, Firstly a huge thank you for providing this blog for all F1 fans. Going off topic slightly, surely after this first corner accident the race should have been black flagged and restarted afresh. It would then provided an opportunity for the mechanics to check for damage, especially the tyres.It would also give spectators a full face to watch
You don’t black flag races, you red flag them.
Also, nobody picked up a puncture under the safety car because of the good work of the marshalls. This was probably aided by the length of the lap, compared to say, Germany.
Did Kobayashi not pit on about lap 7 due to a slow puncture? Not sure when he picked it up though.
Nice article! The thing that sets this article apart from all the other articles about this subject on the great world wide web is all the background information you give. To be honest it comes a bit of a shock to me that the last man actually given a race ban is Mika Hakkinen (In my memories of him he wasn’t a racer who was known for doing stupid things).
Although I really like the suggestion of Alonso, and many others, that drivers in the junior formula should be held more strictly on the driving rules but that does nothing for the current generation and the next generation. It is more a matter of changing the mentality that these drivers have then anything else. For instance the thing that still surprises me is that when Pastor Maldonado was asked after taking out Hamilton at Valencia if he thought he did anything wrong he responded: “Lewis did not leave me any space,”. It’s like there isn’t a single hair on his body that believes he did anything wrong while the stewards clearly did believe he did something wrong. This mentality should not be in F1.
Maybe an additional measure should be something along the lines of: “If the driver clearly shows in his response to the stewards or in the media that he/she does not intend to change his behavior then additional penalties can be handed to the driver.”. And the additional penalties can be anything from a 3 place grid penalty to a ban for one or more races. But will something like this be effective? (Is there any previous experience with such a rule? Or is there any previous experience with changing the mentality of a group of racers to make the sport safer?)
The last thing F1 needs is the passive-aggressive blandness of PR-friendly interviews to be actually enshrined in the regulations.
I agree I think it is irrelevant who he crashed into, i thought that part of the statement was a bit strange.
Maldonado could have been given a ban as well, he had 2 incidents, indeed the first one was the catalyst for the pile-up. if he had not jump started maybe Grosjean would not have had a big gap to propel himself into
These pay drivers bring in money but are they really worth it – $40 million, it maybe a lot but for a season. Williams lose money from constructors points but more seriously they are degrading their image even further. So is F1 in general – in a proper sport a “pay” competitor would be a disaster (football, rugby, etc)
Williams have fielded plenty of hot-headed drivers in the past (Mansell, Senna, Villeneuve, Montoya) without eroding their image.
It’s not that problem people have – it’s just unlike the above, Maldonaldo is there purely for monetary reasons, not for his talent.
I recall Vettel weaving at the start of a race last year or maybe the year before. He pushed Hamilton onto the grass and we heard that the single change of line rule didn’t apply at the start. He’s done it several times to other drivers and could easily have caused an accident similar to this one. Perhaps a penalty would have stopped others taking such risks.
Formula 1 has always been inconsistent in how it applies penalties and that detracts from the racing.
I recall that move on Jenson Button at Suzuka. I don’t recall a crash. Vettel was in the lead from the start and moved steadily across the track. It was also a sorry manuever. While I agree that the FIA is not by any means “consistent” with their penalties… I don’t see how Vettels move last year merits a penalty like this.
I think it’s worth mentioning that despite winning a race Maldonado is only a few points ahead of Senna>
If Senna finds a little more luck and/or qualifying performance, he should be able to pip Maldonaldo’s points by the end of the year.
I sincerely hope he does.
Sebastian Vettel’s start in Suzuka last year when he came across Button was even more blatant than Grosjean’s move.Button saw him coming and lifted. He also has enough room to move and ended up with 2 wheels on the grass. The replay showed Seb almost touched Button’s front wheel. If they had touched it would have resulted in carnage at Turn 1.
Vettel did not even receive a reprimand for that incident : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=egHvWj0Jz3Q&NR=1
Hence the suspicion that the FIA is inconsistent and more severe on certain drivers and they are punishing the outcome rather than the offence itself
Vettel started from pole position ahead of the entire field. Grosjean started in the middle of the pack. There is actually a major difference there. When Vettel claims that he “did not know Button was there”… it makes more sense. What can Grosjean say? “I did not know I was surrounded by cars”?
With respect, when starting on pole, the one place you can pretty much guarantee to find other cars is behind you, in your mirrors.
If Maldonado gets a race ban will Williams have to find another Venezuelan to fill his seat? I think PDVSA’s contract has a clause that a Venezuelan has to be in one of the two cars in every session – hence Senna having to sit out on some friday mornings.
Both Alonso and Stefano Domenicalli have made the point that there needs to be better driving standards in the junior formula. This is an eminently rational point, and one that needs to be front and center. There is a generation of drivers, Grosjean included, who have spent their formative years watching bad behavior in F1 (principally but not exclusively Mr. Schumacher).
The fundamental problem is that the FiA has long seemed unwilling and unable to be consistent in how it, or its race stewards, deal with driving standards during races. Their decisions are belated and often come after the races have concluded, significantly limiting the punishments that can be applied. And this is in a single formula with comparatively limitless resources available for the stewards should they need it.
Given the challenges that the FiA is having consistently policing its flagship racing series, it does not bode well for its ability to do so in the numerous junior formulas. If, as Alonso and Domenicali suggest, enforcing driver standards in the junior formula is intended as a learning tool rather than simply a punitive exercise…then the need for consistency across the different formula and series is even more essential. Again, the FiA would need to seriously improve its own stewarding to achieve this, but the FiA has steadfastly opposed professional stewarding. Nor (at least from where I’m sitting in the US) does it appear that there is a robust “staircase of talent” for race stewards, where good officials are promoted up the ranks along with the drivers.
The hope or desire that the FiA police driving standards more rigorously in the junior formula is desirable, but until the federation demonstrates that they can do so at the top level of the sport, asking them to do so in the junior formulas goes a bit too far. Perhaps Jean Todt can use some of the money he’s trying to get out of Bernie’s pocket to do something about it.
Joe has there ever historically been a license points system in F1? Something akin to a road driving licence where there are a fixed and pre-determined number of points defined for certain infractions and at various accumulation thresholds a race ban or two or three or whatever comes into play.
Do you think this could work?
It seems to me that this would be a good way to keep people playing fair – being out for a race is surely a major blow to any driver and I would imagine be an incentive to reduce the volume of slightly lower severity incidents than Grojean’s – certainly Maldonado would surely have accumulated enough points by now to spend a weekend on the sidelines.
Not that I know of
I rather like Shake n Bake’s idea.
If it could only provide for new drivers to come up.
My memory is fuzzy, but I somehow recall that at one point the team drivers’ numbers were restricted, so I think there is a angle there, a change and a exception to be used.
I was utterly taken aback by Autosport’s headline that closed cockpits may be inevitable in F1, consequent this weekend. For me, then it might almost start to look like LMP racing, and loose much distinctiveness.
A three race ban would have two effects: serious punishment for the infringer, serious chance of points loss for the constructor, and three races for a upcoming driver to show himself. That would be genuine incentive for who directly manage the drivers, to encourage more sensible driving. To me that would encompass both real penalty and also enough time for whoever is new to display some talent. Maybe the rule may have came in to prevent back marker teams from switching pay drivers at will, but certainly in the 80s it gave us a lot of names to be interested in.
Had a visit today from my decorator, who was all over the question whether the new regs and lower noses saved lives, but I have yet to watch the recording properly. Yup, even decorators get a little more consideration from me, if they know their F1 . .
Personally I like this idea or something along the lines of yellow/red cards or strikes because it shows factually the number of infractions and the responses could become more harsh
Joe, do you think there was a case that the start should have been aborted due to the heavily smoking Sauber? Wasn’t Maldanado’s jump-start possibly in part a reaction to knowing that he was very quickly going to have to avoid a slow starting, or potentially non-starting front-row car?
Personally, I would have sent them around again after seeing Kobayashi’s brakes smoking; I would have red flagged it with that amount of debris from the pileup.
I read a quote from Pastor somewhere – said his hand ‘slipped off the clutch”, but yes the brakes on the Sauber were definetly ‘up to temp”…
No, he said it himself on TV “My hand slipped off the clutch”.
This penalty is absolutely appropriate. Alonso was within three feet of being killed yesterday. Nothing more really needs to be said.
Fully agreed, Joe. It’s interesting you are saying RG is a man under pressure. Jean Alesi said immediately after the reace on RAI1 (I watched on BBC first!) that he thinks Romain’s bosses are putting maybe too much pressure on him. He went on to say he knows him personally as Jean is the “captain of the French pilots”. Apparently I missed something here. Can you elaborate on Alesi’s “captain” hat?
I do not think that Jean has much involvement. He was involved with Group Lotus but that is now an irrelevant organisation in F1 terms
Wasn’t Ide’s Super License revoked after Imola 2006?
When I was a racing instructor I had a rule for the start of a race. If your starting position made you line up on the right side of the grid you had the right half of the track to work with, i.e. from the right edge of the track to the centre line. Naturally, those on the other side used their half of the track. That restriction was in effect from the start line to the exit of the first turn. Using this rule eliminated all start-related incidents.
I’m out of the business now but once in a while I race karts with my friends and after a few start line incidents that ruined some potentially great races, I suggested the same rule to my mates. It eliminated those accidents allowing for great races from beginning to end. Everybody got to play.
I don’t think F1 drivers need such a rule but when I look at replays of yesterday’s start it’s clear that Alonso and Hamilton would have made it through La Source without a problem and we would have had ourselves one hell of a race if Grosjean hadn’t radically turned right.
Grosjean had an empty track on his left so was not forced over into Lewis. It appears he had decided to go into La Source on the inside – which would be the safer side in case of an accident ahead as the cars’ momentum would take them to the outside – however he completely misjudged Lewis’ position.
I think the penalty was appropriate if a bit late. Had the FIA acted earlier this season two WDC contenders wouldn’t have been taken out yesterday. I just hope Maldonado is not going to influence the outcome of the championship which means the FIA needs to act quickly.
” If your starting position made you line up on the right side of the grid you had the right half of the track to work with”
A karting style “no mans land” in the middle of the track for starts would clear up a lot of the weaving and blocking.
While I agree that the punishment was probably driven more by the outcome than the action, I think we are all missing the point to a significant extent. The penalties imposed on drivers vary drastically from one race to another and clearly depends on the stewards at the meeting. While, in general, I hate to see F1 become like NASCAR, there are some things F1 could learn from NASCAR. One improvement would be to have full time professional stewards who officiate at all races around the world. This would bring some much needed consistency and the stewards, by virtue of seeing the drivers constantly, could have quiet words with drivers BEFORE they have accidents by warning them of actions that don’t yet merit official action. Such a system would also ensure that stewards would be able to take into account a driver’s past history.
I think Grosjean was just silly but non malevolent, but if a driver is involved in a lot of first corner accidents then it’s likely he is partly to blame. Maldonado, however, has used his car as a weapon on a number of occasions and is due for serious punishment. Sadly, Schumacher made the deliberate crashing of competitors an acceptable form of racing with his many antics years ago.
The only solution is a known, consistent group of respected and reliable stewards. It seems rather silly that each F1 Grand Prix has different amateur stewards for each race.
You need to learn a little more about the stewarding and the people who do it. There is a core group who are in communication with the others and are working hard to create consistency. And the majority of them are very experienced. It is easy to sling mud, but if you are going to do that at least know a little bit more before you do it.
With all due respect Mr. Saward, the truth is that the majority of your blog readers do not have your vast experience, knowledge and intellectual capacity. We reply based on limited knowledge and are simply humble opinions. Much has been made of the stewarts lack of consistency but little has been stated of the system of rule enforcement. I have the utmost respect for Charlie Whiting and his incredible talents but IMHO he wears too many hats. Early in his F1 career he work for B.E. for about a decade and has continued to rise in stature within F1. I wonder if he still answers to some degree to Ecclestone’s wishes? Is it not time for Charlie to elevate one of his core group to a position that solely provides authority to ensure compliance to the FIA rules and regulations? Would this not assist C.W. to spend more time on some of his other responsibilities? There are only so many hours in the day and at some point and time it maybe necessary to delegate responsibility to other equally talented individuals. To ensure consistency and credibility for F1 fans.
With all due respect, isn’t this why you read this blog? I am writing this to share my experience and knowledge. The thing that I find rather tiresome is to be told that I am wrong by people who really do not know anything about the sport. I am not saying that I always get it right, but that is always my goal and while there is precious little respect for the media these days, it would be nice if fans appreciated what I am trying to do with this blog and understood that I am doing it for them and have no particular axes to grind. If people do not understand this then there is no real point in me doing any of this.
In relation to Charlie, one must remember that when we change jobs, we get different goals and different allegiances. And different bosses. I used to work for Autosport but they do not tell me what to do these days. Jean Todt used to work for Peugeot, but does that have any impact on the job he does? Charlie works for the FIA. His goals may be aligned to those of Formula One Management in lots of ways, but that does not mean that he follows their orders.
Joe:
If you took my earlier comments as an attack on you then I first assure you that you are mistaken, and secondly apologize if I gave you that impression. I was commenting solely on the stewarding as I see it. And, in my defense, I read every post of yours in my RSS feed, something that is not true of any other F1 blogger’s posts. If you have blogged in the past about stewarding in F1 then I claim senility as a defense for having forgotten it. I saw my first F1 race at Aintree in 1962.
This is your house and I apoligize if you feel that I have attacked you and stated that you are wrong. This was not my intent nor do I see where I did do that. Why I read this blog is to gain insight into F! by reading your articles of knowledge and experience. Apparently this still leaves me in the “don’t know anything about the sport” category. Thought I could state my observation for discussion but I now realize this is not the forum for that. On that we can agree to disagree.
Heading back to the original point, the potential downside of permanent professional stewards is a degree of favouritism and corruption creeping in – even subconsciously. Getting to know the drivers is a double edged sword.
Not saying the idea has no merit, but it’s a concern I’d have with such a system.
Speaking of Charlie Whiting… is there any criticism of him that is deserved?
He seems to be universally respected, but I really have no way to really know. Does everyone think highly of him? Or is it unwise to indicate otherwise? Or what?
Charlie is well respected. We all have detractors and he is no different. He has made the occasional odd decision during his career but not in the Todt era.
What’s your opinion? Do you see any downside to having one crew of stewards who do the job at each and every race? The advantages seem obvious, and I can’t think of any disadvantages. Am I missing something?
The disadvantage is that they would likely form biases over time.
F1 has indicated that they are reviewing how stewards determine penalties. We can only hope that the primary objective is to ensure consistency. Currently however that is far from the case. I agree with the penalty on Grosjean as the potential for injury was great. Now I would like to ask why do the stewarts consider a repeat offender (Maldanado) who leaves the track and returns on a path to intentionally t-bone Hamilton not a serious offense and simply add 20 seconds to his time. F1 maybe the pinnacle of motor sport but it is so political that they fail miserably in the management of their own rules and regulations.
A Spaniard almost beeing killed in a F1 car, that reminds me of de Villota’s crash, are there any news on her?
I agree with you and with Alonso…but, knowing the ways the new pilots in F1 are behaving right from the start it’s my very own opinion that there’s also something related to the maturity of the pilot…There are things that come with age, with younger pilots in the grid we can expect from irresponsible behavior in the race or outside…we have seen fights, tantrums, doghnuts in the streets of host cities…Good timing and fair sanctions must be applied…like when were little kids “for our own good”…
Joe, Wasn’t it Portugal that Mansell crashed into Senna after receiving a black flag not Spain?
He did itin Portugal and was banned from Spain.
One wonders if all the speculation over the weekend in the UK broadsheet newspapers about Hamilton and where he will end up has played a little part in Grosjean action, given that this is his second try at F1.
Not sure where the story originated from, but it appears to have spread around the newspapers, saying that Hamilton’s people had talked to Red Bull, Mercedes, and Ferrari, and all had said no deal, and that they were talking to Lotus. The BBC web site mentions this, briefly, and then next day said that Hamilton’s people were talking to McLaren about the amount of PR and Travel concession Hamilton will have to do/get with McLaren.
So is the Grosjean seat at Lotus safe? Plus we do know that the owners are topping up the Bank account, as the current sponsors don’t meet all the budget requirements, so far. I am aware of who (Grosjeans) manager is which of course ad’s to the mystery.
The Hamilton tweet of data is very strange, never seen that done before, what was he thinking of. Do McLaren really want to keep him?
Maybe Hamilton’s people should have a look at Williams; the car is starting to come good, let’s hope the engineering people can keep it up, and that they join the top 4 or 5 very soon. Back where they belong.
You are reading far too much into this
Renault have a history of altering results via crashes, the difference this time is Raik did not win!
Joe you are wrong in this: “He was not banned because he hit Hamilton and Alonso….”
As per stewards statement: “”The stewards regard this incident as an extremely serious breach of the regulations which had the potential to cause injury to others,” said a statement from the officials. “It eliminated leading championship contenders from the race.”
(source autosport.com)
I do find it absolutely outrageous that such justification comes from stewards at such a level.
As for Maldonado getting a 5 place penalty for a jump start in the previous race on top of another penalty for blocking Hulk in Q1 without costing Hulk anything at all… Well, there is a limit in being strict and being obsessive. At the end of the day Pastor got lost it all when he was hit by an out of control Perez, what is more to punish?
You are making assumptions that this was part of the decision-making process, I am telling you that it was not. You can believe it if you like, if you do not believe it then I see no point in you reading this blog. As for Maldonado, I don’t think yo are following it that closely. he got a three-place grid penalty on Saturday and TWO five place penalties on Sunday. In addition to a long string of other silliness over the last two seasons.
I also wanted to query your comment on this point. All of the other reporting I have seen has used the “It eliminated leading championship contenders from the race” quote which would seem to infer that who got taken out WAS a consideration in the penalty, but you are adamant that it was not. What I haven’t been able to find is the complete statement (which I assume you have seen). So are other news outlets taking a comment out of context or do you have some other information?
If you read into things however you prefer… then you can make anything you want of anything. But you could also go on the idea that they made the decision based on the incident… and then said: “It eliminated leading championship contenders from the race” because it obviously did. Just because they say the obvious does not mean they based their decision on it. Maybe they should have said “Romain screwed up and we banned him. By the way… he also eliminated two championship contenders. That jerk.”"
Once upon a time (last December) I wrote the English versions of the press releases for a ski race and I can happily tell you two things :
1) Random bits of text get added for flavour. No-one writes a press release like a German engineering report.
2) Your words can and will be copied and pasted directly into website reports and then discussed by avid fans.
Bonus thing :
3) The volunteers running the press office eat a lot more of the buffet food than the actual journalists do.
I would imagine that Joe has had off-the-record chats with people close to the decision-making process, given how sure he seems to be as to the stewards’ thinking.
I do agree that mentioning the bit about championship contenders in the press release was unhelpful though.
Since other credible media outlets quote a FIA statement I am sorry Joe but I will believe them.
I suggest you go and read their stuff as well and stop bothering with this blog.
As Dale D said, the FIA statement doesn’t actually say that they banned him BECAUSE he took out the championship contenders. The latter was a statement of fact, albeit one I think they would have been better to leave out because it does lead people to think it had some bearing on the decision. I assumed it had myself, at first.
However if Joe, with his wealth of contacts in the sport, says it didn’t, then I believe him.
Still, it’s your choice, Go_For_Pole. You can either go to other (allegedly) credible media outlets and read the FIA statement there… or you can come here to read the views of someone who has read the same FIA statement AND has most likely spoken to the people involved behind the scenes on the afternoon it happened.
You need to look at the root causes of this sort of behaviour. In my mind there are two.
For years in both F1 and junior formulas, the start was the only opportunity to make up positions before the “Trulli train” took hold. I think a generation of drivers have learn that its better to risk all on the first lap to make up a few positions rather than risk being held up by slower cars. This is especially true when you have cars that have qualified out of position.
In addition, you have all these Tilke tracks where its virtually impossible to pass. Drivers only had the start lap to make up a few positions.
So I don’t blame the drivers for using the only tool at the time to improve their result. The rules were to blame for this sort of behaviour. If you knew you could pass later on because you have the inherent speed advantage in one car over another, then there is a lot less need to take risks on the first lap.
However, the introduction of DRS (love or hate it) has shaken up the formula a bit. Fortunately there are more opportunities to pass now. But it will take time for drivers to unlearn the behaviour and take less risks on the first lap knowing that there will be more opportunities later in the race.
Interestingly though, I think some of the behaviour is about setting up a driver’s reputation in the pack. I think Ayrton was best at this in his prime. If a driver saw him in their mirrors, they would give him room in that crucial passing move knowing that he would take whatever risk he needed to in order to pass. Once you have this in your opponent’s mind, you have the advantage. Perhaps Pastor believes that he can get his opponents to give him room by being ultra aggressive. That other drivers will yield rather than defend in order to preserve their car.
I was unaware that Spa was a Tilke track.
A very lenient ban, and his subsequent comments show he’s not yet learned the lesson.
On a more positive note:
The phlegmatic response from Snr. Alonso has earned him a lot of respect, and helps assuage his earlier incendiary image.
Furthermore, the incident has catalysed ideas on the forward roll hoop, which will save a lot of hot-heads from spilling blood.
I understand why Grosjean has been told to sit down for a race.
What I don’t understand is how Maldonado hasn’t been told to do the same… a few times…
There’s a fairly obvious reason that comes to mind, unfortunately…
Is this the first time ever that a driver has been given a penalty in one race for jump starting another? I don’t see the point – you penalise a driver in the race they jump started so they get no advantage from doing it. It’s not like making someone suffer in the next race is going to make them never jump a start again.
Maldonaldo crashed out before the penalty could be issued. Like Vettel’s Germany indiscretion, if the penalty is deserved but cannot be issued in time, the stewards still have to issue *something*, else he’s essentially got off scot free.
There is no point, it is a completely stupid decision.
Irony points : if the stewards officially can’t punish you for indiscretions at previous races, why not jumpstart every race in an attempt to gain the five positions you lose through penalties?
@ J.Saward
Any gossip regards to,
Massa 2013?
Sauber drivers resigned?
Torro Rosso drivers?
Cheers.
Nothing on Massa.
Nothing on Sauber.
I expect Toro Rosso to be unchanged.
While I totally agree that Grosjean deserved the penalty and that his driving and his peers driving techniques push beyond the boundary of what is deemed safe, this is a situation that has been cultivated by the Formula 1 management to increase the spectacle and ultimately the viewing figures. Formula 1 thrives on danger and it’s management believes it needs incidents to attract media attention. If last weekends carnage had not happened then the casual viewer and certain pundits to the masses would have declared the race boring! We do not need to create incidents to have a good race, this is just the way Formula 1 has decided to go.
As for the stewards decision, we were lucky that they took the right decision on this occasion and handed down a race ban. I say lucky because their inconsistency is appalling. F1 needs a full time set of steward’s to attend all races. This is not football where there are thousands of games played every weekend, we have 19 or 20 events per season which would be easily manageable. This would also then ensure parity across other formulae at the same weekends, and they could also attend other GP2 & GP3 events that are not scheduled with F1. Having different stewards at each race is like each race team having a different pit crew for each race.
We need to ensure penalties are penalties with parity across races and across the different formulae. We do not need closed cockpits or even cages. This would change the sport and give the drivers an even more false sense that open cockpit racing is safe. This would then lead to even more incidents of drivers pushing to far. Drivers need to improve their driving standards and if not they should not be in F1. F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport in all aspects and it needs to be treated with respect and that is what some drivers (young and old) do not do!
hi joe
there’s been some pretty ordinary behaviour outside the cockpit as well. what on earth was hamilton thinking when he posted data sheets on twitter?
when hamilton is 100% focussed he’s probably the best driver. unfortunately over the last 2 seasons that focus has drifted too often. – shame
Lewis was being an ill-mannered brat… sad but true…
Two things ruin sport for the moderately interested fan…
1. Inconsistency (with the application of the rules). Check.
2. Unfairness (with the application of the rules). Check.
It’s like video replays with football, hawkeye with tennis and cricket etc. The sports have had to use technology to get these two right.
If the FIA ban Alonso for performing an equally dangerous move in Monza then that’s great, it’s consistent and fair – they’ve turned a corner. Somehow though I can’t imagine it happening…
If you were allowed to visit Race Control you would be shocked by just how much technology there is these days. The Race Director and the Stewards have way more than you can imagine, ranging from a huge number of TV feeds that no-one else has; to programmes that automatically flag highlight anomalies from various data streams (notably GPS data) that may be incidents. There are no longer arguments about what happened, but rather only questions about why. Thus it is often necessary to have hearings after the races to get input from the teams and drivers if there is an odd story. This was seen clearly in the Vettel-Schumacher pit entry incident, where Red Bull’s explanation of what was happening helped Michael to get off without a penalty.
As another example, in Spa I spotted that Senna has passed Webber behind the Safety Car. No-one seemed to have picked that up and I was curious to know why – given all the technology that Race Control has – there had not been any investigation nor punishment. I checked the lap charts after the race and found I was right and investigated and discovered that this had not been an oversight, but rather that the technology had been used to solve a problem before it became a problem. Senna did overtake Webber under the Safety Car, but that was at the request of Race Control because Webber had overtaken Senna at the very moment the Safety Car was deployed. In the interests of fairness, and to avoid arguments, Race Control sorted all of that out by asking the drivers to switch back without making a fuss about it – at the same time as it was dealing with the mess after the accident. Pretty impressive.
Wow! A very neat story! Thanks for sharing that! Absolutely amazing how much they must deal with during a race.
Thanks Joe. Consider this a binary hat-tip.
What is most of the times not clear to the fans is why rule A applies to incident A and why in a situation that is similar rule A doesn’t applies. Or too put it differently for most fans the rules contain too many shades of gray.
I often agree with the stewards while on the internet there are all sorts of discussions about consistency/fairness of the rules. In those situations it is almost always the case that there is a small, but important, difference between the two situations and that difference then explains the difference in ruling.
It is a difficult discussion because what most fans want are simple clear cut rules while the stewards take every detail into account in order to prevent unfairness (I think that’s also why most drivers only complain about the severity of the penalty but not about if the stewards were right to dish out a penalty, especially after the drivers have been to Charlie Whiting. Okay maybe the only exception is our fast rich friend from Venezuela).
The only unfair point is blaming Grosjean for the 7incident he was involve in. Sure some are his fault some are arguably part his fault 2 of them at the beginning of the year and in Monaco were not his fault! And while the end of this incident took out a lot of cars Shumi’s squeeze at Monaco was similar and he didn’t get any penalties. Forget about this issue for a second an let’s bring up a more relevant issue in mind and that is the consistency of the penalties. Maldonado following the current logic shouldn’t be driving anymore!
Rules have to be the same for everyone.
They are. The only one I have minor doubts about these days is Schumacher. He is a mate of Jean Todt and I wonder sometimes if subconsciously some of the stewards are influenced by that. I do not think there is any intervention at all from JT but FIA people are politicians and may influence themselves. Other than that I think the whole thing is now very professional and straight.
If i remember it correctly the last driver to get banned was actually Irvine after causing this start pile up at the italian grand prix 1994. So much for bean counting hehe
A suspended ban is not a ban.
I think it’s Grosjean’s inexperience they are cracking down on, much for his own good as the others around him: if you’re not able to know that you’re squeezing the car to the right of you off the track then you need to learn (quickly). I think Alonso succinctly summed it up asking for ‘common sense’ – I think it’s this that the stewards are trying to instill into Grosjean. No argument from Eric Boullier who is clearly nurturing him for the future.
I think that if a driver receives three driver penalties he should automatically get a race ban unless a ban is deemed necessary before totting up takes place. The system as such still has an air of inconsistency about it.