Damon Hill became world champion with Williams in 1996 after a thrilling season that climaxed in BBC commentator Murray Walker famously getting a lump in his throat and handing the microphone to his co-commentator. Hill later went on to almost take Arrows’s first victory only to be robbed in the dying moments of the Hungarian Grand Prix by a faulty seal.

In 1998 Hill moved to Jordan and took the Irish team’s first victory, finishing ahead of his team mate Ralf Schumacher in a very wet Belgian Grand Prix. After retiring at the end of 1999, Hill remained out of the spotlight for a number of years, running a variety of companies, but returned in 2006 to succeed Jackie Stewart as the president of the BRDC, the association that own and operate Silverstone.

Damon Hill has agreed to do two events. It is likely he’s going to do Monaco and another one, and we’ve got a range of other drivers who positively have said they will come along and help us. Graham Stoker, FIA Deputy President of Sport.

Hill attended a number of grands prix last year and has successfully managed to ensure there will be a British Grand Prix in 2010 by persevering with Bernie Ecclestone and picking up the pieces when the Donington Park deal fell through.

Original article by BlogF1.

Damon Hill Set To Join Stewards In 2010

Prost formerly drove for some of the sport’s greatest teams – Renault, McLaren, Ferrari and Williams – and accrued four driver’s titles during his career. Known among his peers as Le Professionnel, Prost had a reputation as being an intelligent driver who carefully calculated decisions both on and off the track. After retiring in 1991 following an unsuccessful season with Ferrari, Prost returned in 1993 with Williams. It was to be the Frenchman’s swansong season, and Prost duly took the title, thrashing his nemesis, Ayrton Senna.

After retiring for the second time, Prost took timeout of motor sport before returning to run his own team. Having taken over the Ligier squad, Prost hoped to continue the team’s building success (Olivier Panis had won the team’s first race in the year prior to the takeover). Alas, it wasn’t the greatest moment in Prost’s career and four years later the team folded due to lack of sponsorship.

Despite having successes and failures in Formula One, Prost is still a highly regarded member of the motor sport fraternity. His contribution to the steward’s team will surely be valuable and shows the FIA are working towards improving the management of the sport, especially when it comes to decisions made at the grands prix.

Judging by the comments in my 2008 post Are The Stewards Ruining Formula One?, it would seem that a lot as to be done to improve this area of the sport. Hopefully this move by the FIA will be seen as a welcome step in the right direction.

Original article by BlogF1.

Alain Prost Joins Stewarding Team For 2010

As the lights went out in Hungary and the race got underway, Kimi Raikkonen was making use of his KERS device and was thundering up the field. The Finnish pilot squeezed Sebastian Vettel over to the right and the German Red Bull driver believes contact was made. After the first corner, Vettel radioed his team to say that he thought there was damage to the front wing, but it turned out to be more serious. The front-left suspension on the RB5 had been broken, and at about the mid-point of the race, it gave way. Vettel was forced to retire his car.

Despite this though, the stewards, who were investigating the incident, said that it was just a racing incident and that no punishment would be handed out.

However, Renault have been given a very harsh penalty following the incident that saw Fernando Alonso’s wheel come off mid-lap. The team, Piquet inclusive, will not race in Valencia in a months time. Although it is rumoured that Piquet will not be racing for Renault again anyway, penalty or no penalty. Further information on the Renault suspension can be read in this post.

Also, Red Bull have been reprimanded for the second race in succession. In Germany, Vettel was released early following a pitstop and the Milton Keynes squad were given a slap on the wrists. And again in Hungary this time, Mark Webber was released into the path of Kimi Raikkonen following a bodged pitstop that almost saw the fuel man get dragged to the floor. Webber thought he had been given the indication to go, but in fact the fuel nozzle was still attached to the RB5. Webber quickly backtracked his motions and stopped, but now under pressure, the team released him without checking the fast lane again and Webber was forced to back out of the throttle to avoid colliding with the Ferrari.

Scuderia Toro Rosso’s Sebastien buemi, who was enjoying a great weekend starting in P10, has not only finished in last place and been beaten by his rookie team mate, but has also received a fine for €1800 for speeding in the pitlane.

All in all, it was quite the Hungarian Grand Prix. Renault are out for one race, Raikkonen got away with being a bit boisterous at the start and Red Bull are treading on a very thin line with regards to pitstops.

• The live race notes can be viewed here: Hungary 2009: Live Race Notes
• The race result can be viewed here: Hungary 2009: Race Result
• The race report can be viewed here: Hungary 2009: Lewis Hamilton Returns McLaren To Top With Victory
• The pitstop and tyre strategies can be viewed here: Hungary 2009: Pitstop & Tyre Strategies
• The fantasy racers round-up can be viewed here: Hungary 2009: Fantasy Racers Update
• The Renault penalty post can be viewed here: Hungary 2009: Renault Have Been Suspended From The European Grand Prix

Original article by BlogF1.

Hungary 2009: Penalty Updates

McLaren have stated that David Ryan, the team’s Sporting Director at the time, asked Hamilton not to mention the fact that the team had asked him to allow Trulli to repass after the Italian Toyota driver fell off the track momentarily. However, Trulli did make his way pass the McLaren and finished the race in third place. An initial investigation found Trulli to be in the wrong and the driver was handed a hefty penalty, although at the time, Jarno professed he had little choice but to repass because Hamilton had slowed significantly and moved away from the racing line.

Toyota started to appeal the steward’s decision, but given the controversial nature of the results anyway (due to the ongoing diffuser issue), Toyota backed down and withdrew their appeal. However, audio evidence from McLaren’s pit-to-driver radio later revealed that the team had been in contact with Lewis during the incident and had asked him to slow down and allow Trulli to pass. Since this information was not given to the stewards at the time Trulli has now been reinstated and Hamilton disqualified. However, there is a larger issue now that needs addressing and it is this that has caused the FIA to consider bringing further action against McLaren.

An extraordinary WMSC meeting has been scheduled for April 29th, 2009, where McLaren representatives will be required to attend in Paris at the FIA’s headquarters. The official charge is that McLaren have breached Article 151c of the International Sporting Code, which details how teams cannot partake in any “fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally”.

The FIA have charged McLaren with five counts of breaching Article 151c.

Vodafone McLaren Mercedes has been invited to appear before an extraordinary meeting of the FIA World Motor Sport Council in Paris on Wednesday, 29 April, 2009, to answer charges that, in breach of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code, it

• on 29 March, 2009, told the stewards of the Australian Grand Prix that no instructions were given to Hamilton in Car No. 1 to allow Trulli in Car no. 9 to pass when both cars were behind the safety car, knowing this statement to be untrue;
• procured its driver Hamilton the current World Champion, to support and confirm this untrue statement to the stewards;
• although knowing that as a direct result of its untrue statement to the stewards, another driver and a rival team had been unfairly penalised, made no attempt to rectify the situation either by contacting the FIA or otherwise;
• on 2 April, 2009, at a second hearing before the stewards of the Australian Grand Prix, (meeting in Malaysia) made no attempt to correct the untrue statement of 29 March but, on the contrary, continued to maintain that the statement was true, despite being allowed to listen to a recording of the team instructing Hamilton to let Trulli past and despite being given more than one opportunity to correct its false statement;
• on 2 April, 2009, at the second stewards’ hearing, procured its driver Hamilton to continue to assert the truth of the false statement given to the stewards on 29 March, while knowing that what he was saying to the stewards was not true. FIA Press Release.

On Friday 3rd April, while at the Malaysian Grand Prix, McLaren’s team principal Martin Whitmarsh suspended David Ryan, and since then the two parties have separated. McLaren made a statement earlier today that they had received the summons to the WMSC meeting at the end of the month and that David Ryan no longer works for any of the McLaren group of companies.

McLaren acknowledges receipt of an invitation to appear at an FIA World Motor Sport Council meeting in Paris on April 29, received this afternoon.

We undertake to co-operate fully with all WMSC processes, and welcome the opportunity to work with the FIA in the best interests of Formula 1.

This afternoon McLaren and its former sporting director, Dave Ryan, have formally parted company. As a result, he is no longer an employee of any of the constituent companies of the McLaren Group. McLaren Statement.

Also on Friday, Lewis Hamilton gathered the press in the media centre at Sepang and offered an apology to the FIA, his team and the fans. Hamilton professed he is not a liar and stated that he was following instructions from one member of the McLaren team.

It has since been discussed all over the Internet how this will impact McLaren’s and Hamilton’s reputations, and of course, the saga from 2007 has been raised once again. Back in ‘07, McLaren banded together and held strong; a philosophy often taken by sporting teams of winning together, and losing together. However, the way McLaren have handled this particular incident is quite different, with the team singling out one person and immediately removing that person from the equation (the team). Perhaps it is the new team principal’s way of doing things, perhaps it was just seen as the better course of action to take.

Undoubtedly this will have a negative impact on the team, and although some will say (myself included) that McLaren pay Hamilton, therefore he should do what they say and it is also up to the team to be correct and truthful, this will also have a negative impact on Hamilton. After all, a lie is a lie. During his apology at Sepang, Lewis stated that he felt like quitting the sport over what had happened, which perhaps sounds a little drastic and melodramatic, does perhaps offer some redeeming value in his reputation. Unfortunately though, while I am absolutely certain this is not the first nor will be the last time a driver or team have lied to the FIA, the fact they have been so publicly caught and shamed by it will only damage the core trust placed in them by motor sporting bodies as well as McLaren’s rivals and supporters.

Possible sanctions that could be imposed on McLaren should they be found guilty of these charges range from complete disqualification from the 2009 World Championship (drivers and constructors) as well as monetary fines, to a mere slapping of the wrists and suspended sentences. It is my opinion though, given how strictly the FIA have dealt with cases like this in the past, that McLaren will be lucky if they are contesting both titles for the remainder of the season. While it is highly unlikely that Hamilton will be thrown out of the drivers – his appeal to fans is too great – the team could very easily be disqualified from the constructors battle, just as they were in 2007.

So what do you think? Should McLaren face further charges/penalties, or is it enough that Hamilton was disqualified from Australia and both driver and team shamed in the international media? How would you deal with this particular case?

Original article by BlogF1.

McLaren Summoned To Extraordinary WMSC Meeting

While McLaren professed that they have not intentionally mislead the FIA Stewards in the investigations that followed Lewis Hamilton’s passing of Jarno Trulli under the safety car, the FIA believe they did and have strongly voiced this in the past two days.

Initially, Jarno Trulli received a penalty following the contravention of the sporting regulations, but as new evidence was presented, the stewards re-opened the investigation and ultimately decided to reinstate the Toyota driver, and disqualify Hamilton. It would appear that team-to-driver radio communication was not initially listened to, and McLaren state that they believed it had already been offered to the stewards.

Whether or not this is the case, McLaren’s and Hamilton’s reputation will have taken a hit over this and the team have decided to take action against those involved with dealing with the FIA over this incident.

In my 20-odd years working for McLaren, I doubt if I’ve met a more dedicated individual than Davey. He’s been an integral part of McLaren since 1974 and has played a crucial role in the team’s many world championship successes since that time.

However, his role in the events of last Sunday, particularly his dealings with the FIA stewards, has caused serious repercussions for the team, for which we apologise. Therefore, I suspended him this morning and he has accepted this. Martin Whitmarsh.

The FIA had the following say…

During the hearing, held approximately one hour after the end of the race, the Stewards and the Race Director questioned Lewis Hamilton and his Team Manager David Ryan specifically about whether there had been an instruction given to Hamilton to allow Trulli to overtake.

Both the driver and the team manager stated that no such instruction had been given.

The race director specifically asked Hamilton whether he had consciously allowed Trulli to overtake. Hamilton insisted that he had not done so. FIA Statement.

A transcript of the communication between McLaren and Lewis Hamilton during the final lap of the race clearly shows the team asking Hamilton to let Trulli through while they contact Charlie Whiting, the FIA’s Race Director, for clarification.

Lewis Hamilton has since held a short press conference in the Sepang Media Centre where he apologised to the FIA and to the stewards, insisted that only he and Dave Ryan were involved and that it was Ryan who had asked Lewis to not mention the fact that they had requested the position be relinquished to Trulli.

Every time I have been informed to do something I have done it. This time I realise it was a huge mistake and I am learning from it. It has taken a huge toll on me. I apologise to you guys, I didn’t speak to you yesterday, but there was a lot to take in and a lot to deal with. I am here to apologise to everyone and I assure you it won’t happen again. Lewis Hamilton.

The FIA may still take further action against McLaren, but for now, let’s hope the matter in the past and we can move forward to the Malaysian Grand Prix.

Original article by BlogF1.

McLaren Suspend Dave Ryan Over Australia Disqualification

Essentially, this all boils down to two things:

• Those teams that spotted a possible loophole and utilised it.
• The rules were not clear enough to begin with, allowing the loophole.

Those teams that saw the advantage should in a way be congratulated. They have spotted a way of making their machine go faster while keeping within the rules as they were written and in their belief. The teams that complain are essentially just complaining at themselves for not seeing what others saw. However, is this really the spirit of the sport? Perhaps not, but when millions of dollars ride on a successful campaign, it is understandable (from a business perspective) that spirit gets sacrificed in favour of performance.

So representatives from Williams, Brawn and Toyota attended a meeting with the FIA stewards to discuss the protests lodged and to consider if the teams had in fact broken the rules. The meeting, held at Albert Park’s race control lasted for more than four hours during which time presentations were made from the accused teams and the FIA stewards. It was judged that the trio are clear to race this weekend.

This isn’t the end of the matter though, and Ferrari, Renault and Red Bull have each said they will lodge an appeal to the decision. Unfortunately for the sport, this appeal cannot be heard until after the Malaysian Grand Prix. Should the appeal be deemed in favour of Ferrari et al, the results of the Australian and Malaysian Grands Prix could be altered. This poses a significant problem to Formula One, but it isn’t one that is new.

The issue surrounding the changing of race results is something I personally am against. It is my opinion that once a driver stands on the podium, or for other points scorers, once the podium celebration has commenced, that the result of the race stands. Once drivers are seen on televisions all over the world celebrating their performances, it seems utterly ridiculous to me to change the result.

Of course, there are some circumstances where it may be necessary to adjust, and I understand when drivers get disqualified after a thorough weigh-in is completed, or other such inspections that may take some time. As an example, I would understand that an investigation would be needed had Michael Schumacher won the race (and championship) at Jerez in 1997. That would apply to any of the drivers on the grids past and present. But the way the process is currently set up, it would appear that teams can lodge complaints and these are not always heard until weeks after the event. Weeks is far too long. At most, it should be following day.

Also, I find it insane that the FIA stewards have deemed the Brawn, Williams and Toyota cars okay to race, yet all their hard work could be undone. The stewards have decided that these cars can contest the Australian Grand Prix. Therefore, whatever results they claim should remain. If the appeal meeting cannot be held until after the Malaysian event, then any results gained from there by the trio should also stand.

If the FIA then decide that these teams need to alter their diffusers, then they should be told to do so and their cars should be inspected at the following event before being given the all-clear to race. If the diffusers still don’t satisfy the FIA, then the team does not race. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that in this scenario, the diffuser would comply and be adorned with I Heart FIA or Max For President sticker.

To me though, this seems better than altering results. Miles better. Yes, the Brawn, Williams and Toyota cars may be running with a component that sits outside the regulations, but it is too late to change. And the alternative of banning the trio of racing is so ridiculous it doesn’t even merit any more of a mention.

As I just wrote in a short ditty to the London Evening Standard (they wanted my thoughts, apparently, although not published yet), these issues should have been raised weeks ago. They should have been dealt with weeks ago, and there should be no reason for a protest unless a team has changed something very recently. It is my opinion that the incompetency of FIA to draw up rules that are not clear and concise combined with teams that are upset at themselves has once again caused Formula One to hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Original article by BlogF1.

Brawn, Toyota & Williams Cleared To Race: Their Diffusers Are Legal For Now

When dealing with drivers and their misdemeanour’s, the FIA have to be open and honest with not just those directly involved, but also the very people who so passionately follow the sport and their heroes. The fact it has taken the FIA this long to work that out is quite simply astonishing, but perhaps it’s a case of slow and steady wins the race. And while the decisions made don’t really go far enough, the WMSC’s conclusions are definitely a step in the right direction.

The WMSC and FIA have announced that video evidence from incidents will be made available through their and F1’s official website, as we saw following the Japanese Grand Prix (although I’m still yet to see on-board footage from Sebastien Bourdais’s car – the very footage that would confirm the penalty as just or bonkers). The video footage, if indeed it is necessary for the particular case, will be accompanied by a written explanation as to how the stewards came to their conclusions.

Also, a new replay system will be introduced to allow the stewards to view video footage while the race is continuing, allowing for a more timely response to infringements of the rules. This implies that the stewards didn’t have any means to view replays of footage during 2008, does it not? Which, if true, proves just how prehistoric the FIA are. I have been criticising the stewards this past season for their shoddy use of the phrase “will be investigated after the race”. However, if the authorities weren’t able to instantly view the video evidence, then I must retract some (and only some) of my harsh words.

Of course, if the stewards require telemetry or need to interview the drivers, then some decisions may be delayed. However, giving the stewards the tools to do their jobs properly is undoubtedly another step in the right direction.

It also came apparent this year that some stewards had never visited a grand prix before in their life and some had little-to-no interest or knowledge of the sport. This absolutely blew away fans, journalists and bloggers the world over, and the fact that the FIA would think this is a good idea left us all utterly speechless. To improve this area, the WMSC announced that trainee-stewards will have to visit five races in an observational capacity to see how it all works. The FIA will post short CVs, or biographies to their website so we can fully see the qualifications each steward has.

Training people for the job… whatever next!?

And one final point that the WMSC clarified on is that of ex-drivers being allowed to officiate races. Some people feel it is a good idea because they have been there and experienced similar situations to those encountered in today’s Formula One. However, others feel that this could lead to bias decisions being made. Well, regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, the WMSC have stated that ex-drivers are eligible to apply for a steward’s super license. So it is possible.

This news of further transparency is definitely good and it shows the FIA are heading along a more correct path, especially when it comes to dealing the very people who keep the sport running – the fans. However, what the decisions have shown is just how inadequate the previous procedures were, and how short-sighted the FIA are. Hopefully though, things will improve for 2009 and we’ll see less idiotic penalties being handed out.

Original article by BlogF1.

Greater Transparency From FIA Stewards In 2009

Of course, it was Jarno Trulli who opted to drive back up the track during the first practice session at Singapore following a spin and the desire to get into the pitlane without having to complete another lap. For driving the wrong way around the race track, Trulli’s €10k fine was more than acceptable, even though the rules to allow his actions for extreme circumstances. But when it comes to race-day, it seems the stewards are flexing their muscles a little too much, in my opinion.

The incident on the penultimate lap of the Belgian Grand Prix still divides people the world over, and the fact that McLaren tried to appeal it in front of the International Court lets you know where they stood on the issue. For cutting the chicane and gaining an advantage without totally rescinding that advantage, Hamilton received a post-race drive-thru, which meant 25s was added to his complete race time. The result left McLaren without the win, and Ferrari suddenly with.

In Singapore, Felipe Massa was given a drive-thru for an unsafe release from a pitstop after the lighting system employed by the Scuderia let them down. Or to put it more accurately, the team member controlling the system let them down. Although Massa was relatively innocent in the infringement – he just goes when he’s told – the penalty was handed to Massa and therefore his team. In this case, a penalty is expected as Ferrari were being unnecessarily unsafe, but surely the punishment of waiting at the end of the pitlane for what seemed like an eternity was enough?

And then earlier today in Fuji, three drivers received penalties that have once again divided opinion the world over, and potentially ruined what could have been a great race at the front of the pack. Lewis Hamilton received a drive-thru for pushing Raikkonen off the track.

The penalty was given despite it happening at the start of the race while going into the first corner, and despite the fact that Ralf Schumacher (just to name one of many drivers) had committed the very same sin more times than I can remember without penalty.

Of course, the move by the McLaren driver was impetuous and immature, but at least he was racing, at least he was trying. Last season Hamilton’s startline antics were being compared to the most ruthless man to start a race in recent history, Michael Schumacher. Yet whenever Hamilton pushed then-team mate Fernando Alonso hard at the start or vice-versa, the stewards obviously overlooked it. In Belgium ‘07, the pair had a fantastic ding-dong at the start which saw Hamilton get pushed right over the apron as Alonso gave his team mate no room. Was Alonso penalised? No, of course he wasn’t, it was superb racing.

Felipe Massa was then penalised at Fuji for having an avoidable accident with Lewis Hamilton. The Briton just about squeezed himself in front of the Ferrari, but Massa then went off, and upon his return to the track clouted the McLaren and sent Hamilton into a spin. Massa was given a drive-thru penalty for his offence.

And finally, after the completion of the race, Sebastien Bourdais was reprimanded for exiting the pitlane and driving the only line that was surely available to him. Massa was coming down the racetrack, Bourdais could do nothing but enter the first corner on the inside, and Massa it seemed just kept coming across until the pair collided and the Brazilian spun.

For his offence, as it happened just prior to the end of the race (apparently 13 laps isn’t enough time to make a decision), Bourdais was given a post-race drive-thru, which meant 25s was added to his total race time. For the second time in as many races, the result has been changed after the celebrations, and the change could prove critical in the outcome of the drivers championship, as Massa was promoted up the points order.

So, are the stewards ruining races by being trigger-happy with penalties?

At the Italian Grand Prix which followed Belgium, the drivers were clearly responding to the issue raised by the Hamilton/Raikkonen incident and every time a driver may have received an advantage for cutting corners, they were very careful to rescind all advantage before attacking again. In fact, one driver handed back a place seemingly unnecessarily.

Of course, cutting corners shouldn’t be allowed, but when drivers are forced to get out of the throttle and be overly polite to one another, it kinda takes the thrill out of racing a little. The obvioius solution is to build barriers around the inside of corners to prevent drivers from skipping them, but the safety-police will no doubt have something to say about that.

And the Bourdais incident is just unfathomable. I do not understand what the Frenchman was supposed to do. From the angle of the video we have seen, and admittedly without all the information the teams and stewards have, it should have been Massa who received a penalty over that incident before Bourdais! And of course, it was just a racing incident, so really, no penalty is justified in my mind. It was a case of wrong-place-wrong-time.

It is my belief that the stewards are currently hacking Formula One to pieces with silly little penalties that take away all that is good about motor racing. When drivers are being unnecessarily dangerous, then fine, hand them a penalty. But when it is just good racing or simple racing incidents, why can’t the stewards just keep out of it? They are turning the sport not only into a joke, but a dumbed-down version of what was once an awesome spectacle of bravery and skill. The stewards a politicising Formula One where it isn’t necessary, I don’t blame people when they say can no longer stand to watch it.

The stewards need overhauling as soon as possible. Not before the next season, but before the next race. Otherwise, I fear the 2008 championships will be decided in the courthouse and not on the racetrack. And that just isn’t racing.

Original article by BlogF1.

Are The Stewards Ruining Formula One?

Currently, there are three stewards at each grand prix, and they vary from event to event. In the past, the sport was overseen by a permanent steward – Tony Scott Andrews – but 2008 has seen the new rotational system, designed to eradicate any chance of bias towards a particular team or driver. However, it is the people who advise the stewards that have perhaps inadvertently caused a lot of the controversies recently, notably Alan Donnelly – a close associate of the FIA president – and race director Charlie Whiting.

Mosley would like to see four stewards at each race, but many Formula One employees and former-employees would rather see a permanent steward; the idea being that one person at each event will see more consistent rulings. A lot of the fans don’t really mind what punishment their driver gets, as long as it is the same as another driver, who infringes the same rule, gets the same punishment. This hasn’t really happened recently and the very people who keep the sport ticking over have been littering the blogs and forums for about a month now, airing their disgust at the FIA.

So to answer my question; are there changes on the way for stewards? Unlikely. It’s just seems that there will be another voice in the mix, adding to the time it takes to reach an agreement, delaying the penalty and potentially the race result even further. Nice one Max!

Original article by BlogF1.

Are There Changes On The Way For Race Stewards?

Toyota went to the stewards upon completion of the race to lodge their protest, but shortly later after the stewards had examined the video evidence and interviewed both drivers, they have decided not to take any action. Therefore, Sebastian Vettel will keep his fifth-place finish, and the points gap between the two teams will remain at 15.

Original article by BlogF1.

Toyota Lodge Protest Against STR, Stewards Throw It Out

Fernando Alonso, Hamilton’s team mate last year at McLaren, feels the penalty is fair. The Spaniard came into the pits at Spa last weekend to change to wet weather tyres and had a storming final lap. Alonso believes he could have won the race had it been one lap longer, although seeing as Nick Heidfeld was ahead and also on wet weather tyres, I feel Alonso would have only managed second. That said, Hamilton’s penalty didn’t effect the outcome of Fernando’s race, so one can presume that the double world champion is speaking without looking for advantage.

Lewis had an advantage by doing that [cutting the chicane]. If he did the chicane properly, he would never have crossed the line one metre behind Kimi. You lose five or ten metres and then you cannot overtake in Turn 1.

There were two or three laps to the end, many more corners to overtake at with the condition of the circuit. It was clear for me that it was not the right moment to overtake. The stewards take their decisions and they have been very strict this year. They are very hard but consistent. Fernando Alonso.

Alonso is in the minority of current drivers, as most feel that while Hamilton did gain an advantage, the penalty was harsh.

I think it is very clear, the rules are clear. Maybe the penalty is very hard but he has made the same mistake twice, he did in Magny-Cours and he did it in Spa. I don’t really understand why there is such a mess around it, there is a rule book and everyone has to obey the same thing. The penalty is rough but it is up to you to give the position back. Sebastien Bourdais.

What happened is that he took an advantage by cutting the chicane. You can ask drivers how many overtaking moves you see there. None between the last corner and the first corner, because there is such a small straight there. That is my opinion and it doesn’t change. Felipe Massa.

I actually don’t get Massa’s comment at all. The Brazilian states that because other drivers haven’t passed between the final turn and the first, that Hamilton shouldn’t have attempted it. Which, in my humble opinion, reads: racing needs to be dumbed down, the drivers need to agree on corners which they can pass beforehand, and to take one step further, permission needs to sought before making any move. I’m sorry Felipe, but just because other drivers may not have been able to pass at La Source, it doesn’t mean all can’t. Of course, the general opinion among drivers is that Hamilton was only able to pass because of the advantage he gained, but despite that, Massa’s comments are quite shocking to me.

I agree the penalty was quite big but I am not a steward. But it is also clear he got an advantage. The rules are very clear, if you cut the chicane you get the advantage you have to drop it and lose advantage, in Lewis’ case he should not attack in the first corner that is it. Jarno Trulli.

I just seen pictures so difficult for me to say if it is right or not what happened. For sure maybe he took a small advantage that is why he had the possibility to overtake him again in braking for Turn One, but obviously 25 seconds penalty was quite a strong penalty. Giancarlo Fisichella.

He did have an advantage because he would not be so close if he had not cut the chicane but the penalty was a bit harsh as it did not have a big result in the end result. But it won’t stop us from trying to attack definitely. Nico Rosberg.

So the general consensus among drivers – those people who fully understand exactly what it is like to drive a Formula One car in the conditions we saw in Belgium – is that Hamilton gained an advantage by doing what he did, but the penalty was quite harsh.

A slightly different view came from Renault’s Pat Symonds. Symonds took the opportunity while recording the team’s podcast to speak about the effect this will have on the sport as a whole.

As it happened in real time, we were talking on the intercom and said: ‘Wow that was definitely a situation where he has to give the place back’. I guess we weren’t that surprised when the stewards were found to be investigating it. Having looked at it again, I feel very, very sorry for Lewis. I think he has been very hard done
by.

It raises lots of interesting questions, and I am not talking about ‘Are the FIA on the side of Ferrari?’ We have to believe that they are impartial, the sport would not exist if we didn’t believe that. But I think it does call into question [the sport's] philosophy, because everyone is saying we need more overtaking in Formula One, we need more excitement, and we need more personalities. And yet it seems to me that everything that actually happens seems to be against that.

Here we had a great race with people really challenging each other and for why? If it’s taken away, then why take that risk?

To me the facts are quite clear in retrospect. I have had a look at the videos, I’ve had a look at the published data which shows that Lewis was nearly 7 km/h slower than Raikkonen across the line, you can quite clearly see on the in-car camera that he lets him get completely in front, and in my view Raikkonen just braked very early.

Lewis went inside him, and if you look at the in-car camera stuff, Lewis drove around the hairpin very easily. He didn’t have a big slide, he didn’t have to correct it, he hadn’t gone in too deep and come out wide, it was a perfectly legitimate manouevre, and it wasn’t that much later that Raikkonen went past him.

This is racing, this is what we want. Pat Symonds.

While attempting to diffuse the situation regarding the FIA and Ferrari, Symonds basically says that we all want to see great racing, and in the final few laps at Spa Francorchamps, that is exactly what we saw. However, the superb race has now been tarnished by the stewards who, according to Symonds, have potentially stifled racing. Renault’s Director of Engineering also went on to say that he feels the decisions made by the stewards need to happen faster. This is something I too feel strongly about, and if the previous posts about this on BlogF1 are read properly, you will see that the crux centres around this very fact. The result of a race should not be changed two hours after the supposed winner has sprayed the champagne on the podium.

I think motor racing should be like football, not like cricket. Let’s have action, let’s know what is going on in real time, not wait for two days to find out the result. Pat Symonds.

I understand that when something happens at the very end of the race, little can be done to penalise the driver or team before the chequered flag is taken. However, the stewards need to find a way to speed up decisions. It shouldn’t take two hours to come to a conclusion, it should take a matter of minutes. And it is my belief that if this delays the podium celebration, then so be it. I would want to see the winner on the podium, hear the winner’s national anthem and see the team collect the winning constructors trophy. I do not want, as Lou from F1Break put it, go to make a cup of tea only to find after returning the result has since changed.

Original article by BlogF1.

What Others Have To Say On That Penalty

And neither am I, but not for the reasons you may think. I am absolutely disgusted that the result of a race has once again been changed after the podium ceremony. Everyone at the saturated Spa Francorchamps circuit saw Lewis Hamilton lift the winners trophy and spray the victory champagne. Yet, when they get home later this evening, they will learn that in fact Massa has won. That, in my mind, is completely wrong. It is so wrong, it nothing short of ridiculous. If the stewards cannot decide after an incident if any punishment should be handed out, then quite simply, no punishment should be handed out. And certainly not a punishment that affects the result of the race.

Do you agree with me, or do you think the penalty is perfectly reasonable for the infraction and also for the sport? As ever, the comments are open…

Poll Result:
Lewis Hamilton’s penalty is…

• Completely Disgraceful – 137 votes (75%)
• Perfectly fair – 31 votes (17%)
• He should have been punished, but in another way – 14 votes (8%)

Total Votes: 182

Original article by BlogF1.

Belgium 2008: Hamilton Loses Victory, Massa Now Winner

Alonso clipped the armco has he left the corner, but Monaco being unforgiving, the resulting damage to the rear-left of his Renault was quite severe. However, with the car still driveable and not wanting to add further interruption to his running, Fernando continued on the lap and returned to the pits.

Although Alonso was travelling at a reduced pace, he upset a few drivers who were on-track at the time, causing his fellow racers to take caution when moving around the flailing Renault. Rubens Barrichello in particular, was upset at the Spaniards actions, gesturing so as he passed.

Alonso’s rear wing finally parted company with the car halfway around the circuit and the session was briefly red-flagged to allow marshals onto the track to clear up the debris. However, while moving around the Monaco circuit with a damaged car is perhaps not the wisest of decisions, Fernando explained to the stewards that he felt there was no where for him to safely stop and insisted he drove the remainder of the lap without endangering anyone else.

I told them that I thought I had driven safely, without endangering anyone, and also that there wasn’t any good areas to stop. Fernando Alonso.

While Monaco is undoubtedly a nightmare when it comes to places to stop without hindering the progress of others, there are places to park; Portier and the exit road for Nouvelle Chicane to name just two. And as Michael Schumacher proved in 2006, Rascasse can also be used for temporary parking as well.

Image © Steven Tee/LAT.

Original article by BlogF1.

Alonso Summoned To The Stewards’ Office

Now the FIA have put in place three nominated officials for each race and will be assisted by president Max Mosley’s representative, Alan Donnelly. The three officials will be neutral, therefore not hailing from the nation holding the Grand Prix. The FIA say that it is hoped this change will bring about swifter resolutions to incidents, apparently prompted by the five days it took to solve the saga of Lewis Hamilton’s driving behaviour following the Japanese Grand Prix last year. The cool-fuel saga also took a fair amount time to resolve, delaying the final result of the final race and leaving fans frustrated.

Please forgive me, but I have to ask: Am I the only person who, based on this information given, is failing to see how this will speed up decisions? Because I simply don’t understand how taking two stewards and a chief steward and turning them into three stewards and an advisor is really going to make that much of a difference. I am also failing to see how this will improve the consistency of the decisions made; the FIA have gone from three stewards to four. If anything this will add complication if it came down to split in opinion and it was 50:50. At least with three stewards it would fall in someones favour. I’m sure it doesn’t work like that, but you get what I’m saying.

Maybe it is that I’m not fully understanding this, or have missed some salient piece of information, but I just don’t get it. Feel free to try and explain this to me in the comments, because I really do want to understand, but currently I’m sitting here wondering what planet the FIA are on. Really, I am!

Original article by BlogF1.

FIA Overhaul Stewarding Process, Possibly From Mars