Grand Prix Special – Spa-Francorchamps, Nigel Roebuck
Let us begin with a simple fact – a simple fact this particular week, anyway. The penalty for almost causing a collision in the pitlane is a drive-through penalty. This we know because Bruno Senna was thus punished in Saturday’s GP2 race at Spa, and it cost him the race.
In the following day’s Belgian Grand Prix Lewis Hamilton drove a quite brilliant race, scoring his fifth victory of the season, and moving himself into a commanding lead in the World Championship, with five races to go.
After the race, though, those dreaded words appeared on the TV screens in the press room: ‘Incident involving cars 1 and 22 under investigation’.
This referred to Kimi Räikkönen’s Ferrari and Hamilton’s McLaren, which had been locked in battle all afternoon. “I’d been pushing and pushing,” said Lewis, “but four laps from the end I thought, ‘I can’t catch this guy’. I was praying for rain, because I knew it was my only chance to pass him. When I started getting spots on my visor, my hopes were raised – and when I saw Kimi start braking earlier, I knew it was on…”
On the increasingly slippery surface, Hamilton swiftly closed on Räikkönen, and as they approached the right-left chicane at the end of the lap, with two laps to go, he jinked left of the Ferrari, as if to pass it on the outside. Kimi, Lewis said, had braked very early, and that had presented this opportunity. Side by side into the turn, though, Räikkönen was not ready to cede, and Hamilton, keen to avoid a touch, went over the corner, in the process momentarily taking the lead.
Told by his team to let the Ferrari by again, Lewis did as bidden, but into La Source he immediately wrong-footed Räikkönen, and went by once again, there to stay. Whereupon Kimi, fighting harder than we have seen for a very long time, spun off into a wall on the penultimate lap.
The matter under investigation, apparently, was whether, although he allowed Räikkönen to re-pass, Hamilton had ‘gained an advantage’ from the manoeuvre as a whole. “I did not do anything wrong,” Lewis said, “and if we get a penalty there’ll be something wrong, but we know what they’re like, so…”
We do indeed. But even as he murmured the words, we wondered at the wisdom of it. Free speech is hardly encouraged, after all, in the Formula 1 of today.
A couple of hours later came the verdict of the FIA stewards – and perhaps we should have expected nothing else. Hamilton was indeed adjudged to have ‘Cut the chicane, and gained an advantage’, this despite the fact that Räikkönen was clearly ahead once more as he and Hamilton began their penultimate lap. It was hardly Lewis’s fault that Kimi made a novice’s mistake at La Source, and left the door wide open.
The punishment for Hamilton’s offence, the stewards decided, was a drive-through, but this – given that the race was long over – was somewhat difficult to administer, so the stewards instead added 25 seconds to Lewis’s elapsed race time, which neatly moved him from first to third, and made Ferrari’s Felipe Massa the winner of the Belgian Grand Prix. Instead of leading Massa by a comfortable eight points, Hamilton suddenly found himself a scant two points ahead.
I ask the reader now to consider the opening paragraph again, the one dealing with Senna’s drive-through penalty in the GP2 race. In Valencia, two weeks before, Massa’s Ferrari was involved in an identical incident, and after the race it was announced that the incident was ‘under investigation by the FIA stewards’.
Open and shut, surely. The penalty for almost causing a collision in the pitlane is, as we saw from the Senna incident, a drive-through penalty, and if it is applied after the race, that equates to a 25-second penalty, right?
Well, not exactly. Or at least not always. That was the punishment if you were Senna at a race in Belgium in September, but if you were Massa in Spain the previous month, it was a fine – for his team – of 10,000 Euros, which Ferrari found themselves well able to pay.
What a lucky fellow Massa is. A 25-second penalty in Valencia would have dropped him from first to third, as with Hamilton in Spa, but as it was he kept his Spanish win – and inherited a Belgian one.
This is no longer, happily, the era of Jean Todt, and we may believe Stefano Domenicali when he says that at no stage did Ferrari enter any sort of protest: rather, he pointed out, he and his driver were summoned by the stewards.
Whatever, one marvelled yet once more at this sport’s unrivalled ability to shoot itself in the foot. What we saw on Sunday afternoon was a magnificent motor race, utterly compromised and belittled by a post-race decision most considered obscenely unjust. But… perhaps we should have expected nothing else.
Massa won the Belgian Grand Prix, then, although at no point did he threaten the chief protagonists. For 40 of its 44 laps, the race was a relatively mainstream affair, with Räikkönen and Hamilton running first and second, rarely more than a couple of seconds apart. There was no lack of tension, but, as Lewis said, the closer he got to the Ferrari, the more difficult his McLaren became to drive: the old ‘dirty air’ problem which has plagued motor racing for more years than we care to remember.
At around the 25-lap mark, though, it had been announced that ‘Rain was expected in 20 minutes’, and on this occasion the forecast proved uncannily accurate. On lap 38 Fernando Alonso, running fourth, radioed the Renault pit to reports ‘drops of rain’ at one particular point on the circuit, and a couple of laps after that it began to come down rather harder, and over the entire track. That was when Sunday afternoon at Spa came truly alive, and when Hamilton did the work that won him – or should have won him – the race.
Joining Hamilton and Massa on the podium was Nick Heidfeld, and although the BMW driver had qualified well for once, you wouldn’t have put much on his finishing as high as third (which became second, of course), for he was turfed off the road by Heikki Kovalainen at the first corner, and spent the afternoon playing catch-up. At the start of the last lap, indeed, he was in eighth place.
Ah, but Nick had made a smart move. “When it began to drizzle,” he said, “I thought no one would have the balls to change tyres – so I thought I would. I went onto intermediates, and they were perfect…” They were indeed. So treacherous were the conditions by now that in the course of the last lap Heidfeld passed Bourdais, Kubica, Vettel and Alonso.
If, over the last few races, the World Championship appeared to be distilling to a fight between Hamilton and Massa, as big a talking-point, as Spa approached, was the fall from grace of Räikkönen – the reigning World Champion, lest we forget. In Ferrari circles the belief, while not publicly aired, is that for some time Kimi has done justice neither to himself nor to their car, and this they find vexing, not least because he is paid approximately five times as much as team-mate Massa.
Stefano Domenicali insisted there was no crisis involving Räikkönen, no suggestion that his motivation was not what it should be, but still, in assessing Kimi’s form, state of mind, whatever, the Belgian Grand Prix was thought crucial, for Spa is the purest of driver’s circuits – and a place in which Räikkönen has traditionally excelled. If he were to fall short here, of all places, there really would be cause for serious concern – and not only because, at two million dollars a race, he is a pricey item on any team’s budget, Ferrari included.
Through qualifying Kimi was always thereabouts, but never there, and as usual it was Massa who took the fight to McLaren.
In the race, though, Räikkönen began to drive like Räikkönen again, for the first time in months, and looked very settled in the lead, apparently heading for his fourth consecutive victory at Spa, a record which would have equalled that held by the late Jim Clark. In the end, though, it all came to nought, and Kimi was not in a great frame of mind as he left the circuit – with first practice at Monza only five days away.
Before the race Hamilton, the man on pole, was asked if he had any worries. “Not really,” he said, “although if it’s a wet race the white lines are going to be slippery as hell…”
Not only the white lines, some wag said on Sunday evening.
Filed under: Grand Prix Special, Reports
Tags: FIA, Spa, Spa-Francorchamps
It’s been Formula 1 all the way for Nigel – he started covering the sport in 1971. In the mid-1970s he worked for Graham Hill’s Embassy F1 team, before joining Autosport for whom he has written over 400 Grand Prix reports. Nigel joined Motor Sport full-time on January 1 2008. As well as reporting on F1 for national newspapers, he has written 19 books on motor racing. His insightful writing and candid interviews with the great names in racing have made him one of the recognised authorities on F1. 
Neil Stretton:
September 8th, 2008 11:00am
What a totally crass judjment on the part of the race stewards, whichever way you look at it. Let’s hope that an appeal doesn’t result in further punishment for McLaren for having the affrontary appeal. Ex-Ferrari technical boss, Ross Brawn, presumably with no pro-Ferrari axe to grind these days, said prior to the race that there was no FIA “conspiracy” favouring Ferrari. Now is the opportunity for the Court of Appeal to confirm it.
Mike Allen:
September 8th, 2008 12:22pm
As ever Nigel Roebuck has it absolutely right. Over 40 years of avidly following this great sport, my patience has beern sorley tested many times by the authorities, but the bitter aftertaste of manipulation and sheer spite which this pathetic misjudgment leaves, is the final straw. I saw more sport at the Silverstone classic this summer, and intend to indulge my love of motorsport sans F1 from now on.
Simon Panton:
September 8th, 2008 12:34pm
Heikki Kovalainen penalised for causing an avoidable accident at the Bus Stop, Lewis Hamilton penalised for avoiding an avoidable accident at the Bus Stop. Hmmm…
Tom Ball:
September 8th, 2008 12:44pm
GP2 penalties seem harsher than F1 ones. Are the rules officially the same?
As well as the pitstop releases, the stewards banned Pantano from Sunday’s GP2 race for an incident that appeared similar to Kovalainen’s ‘drive-through’ in the Grand Prix.
Or was it anything to do with Senna and Pantano standing to gain a big championship lead before their penalties were applied? I couldn’t possibly comment!
Andy Monis:
September 8th, 2008 1:12pm
I wonder what the punishment would have been for the last few laps of Dijon 1979 if the FIA were in charge?
Dave Cubbedge:
September 8th, 2008 1:14pm
So, once again the FIA makes itself look like a bunch of bumbling idiots! After watching a fantastic GP with the type of ‘leaning’ on each other like we haven’t seen since Dijon ‘79, I fully expect now to hear that the FIA has looked at the tape and has decided to give G. Villeneuve a 25 second penalty for using Arnoux’s Renault as a launching pad! What an unbelievable joke! Are these guys allowed to actually race anymore?
Oh, and for the rumor that the 2010 USGP will be in Las Vegas, I won’t be there! Long Live Indy!
Aleš Norský:
September 8th, 2008 1:30pm
It was a surprise to me to hear about the reason for the penalty for sure. Granted, it was a bit of yield-or-crash maneuvre from the Michael Schumacher manual, but I thought that this kind of thing was now acceptable in F-1. Nonetheless, Hamilton’s subsequent blocking antics seemed much more questionable to me. I believe that he deserves a penalty for that. Bottom line, Raikkonen should have kept it on the road. McLaren will probably be successful in reversing that penalty anyway.
Paul Tarsey:
September 8th, 2008 3:57pm
If they are going to fine Hamilton they should also be prepared to say what he should have done otherwise. Presumably the answer is to run around the circuit like an obedient puppy, never daring to pass a Ferrari. Hardly the recipe for great racing! Maybe Balestre wasn’t so bad after all.
Aubin Roger:
September 8th, 2008 5:01pm
The stewards again are perceived as incompetent in the application and consistency of penalties. Have they any real racing experience to fall back on? 2 points to ponder. Do they make any allowance for the conditions at the time of the so called advantage and what is the situation for the driver (Raikkonen for instance, laps 1 and 43) who leaves the track and finds greatly superior traction in the run off areas, providing improved momentum for the subsequent overtaking manouver. Should this be deemed illegal also!!
I always thought the point of racing was to maximise your advantage vis-a-vis your opponent!
Paul Ricketts:
September 8th, 2008 6:43pm
Just remember back to Fugi last year and the fight between Massa and Kubica, both drivers were on and off the track, at one stage Massa gained by cutting a corner, and yet no penalty, and no one after the race thought one was needed.. F1 as a sport died this last weekend
Gordon McCabe:
September 8th, 2008 7:10pm
Max Mosley and the FIA take the view that the majority of Formula 1 viewers are casual viewers, and do not possess the necessary level of judgement to spot the systematic manipulation of the sport. I wonder, however, what is going on becomes obvious even to the most casual spectator, and people begin to switch off their televisions in disgust…
Tony W:
September 8th, 2008 9:10pm
If you want to see a prime example of how the FIA has always favoured Ferrari over Mclaren, check Shumi’s blatant cutting of the chicane in a Hungary GP followed by a highly dangerous chopping of Pedro de la Rosa. Pedro was unfairly and illegally prevented from passing Shumi but no penalty was levied. The action starts 5 minutes after the start of the video at …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDtCvbkQhtY&NR=1
Enjoy and then please sign the reinstate Lewis’s win petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/belgp08/petition.html
JP Limodin:
September 8th, 2008 9:34pm
From what I saw on TV, I’m rather inclined to agree with Massa:
“What Lewis did is the sort of thing that can happen, but I think he was maybe a bit too optimistic in thinking he could just hand back the position, albeit only partially to Kimi and then immediately try and pass him again.”
But then I’m a great fan of Kimi and I was overjoyed to see him in front .
Iacopo Bonanni:
September 8th, 2008 10:53pm
I usually don’t appreciate the way the stewards applies penalties in these recent years, and Belgian GP is not an exception to that. Anyway I’ve got to say that before the event the stewards informed teams and drivers that the previous approach on applying soft penalties for dangerous or risky driving (Massa-Sutil incident in Valencia, for example) was over from the Belgian GP on.
The new-deal started with the GP2 long race, and I think it was a good thing, because too many drivers are simply wild rather than aggressive.
I can’t judge properly if Hamilton should be penalized or not, but I’m quite sure that it will end in nothing. McLaren appeal will be accepted and, at worst, Lewis will lose 5 or 10 grid positions in one of the following races. Not at Monza, of course, but in one of that silly circuits invented by Mr. Tilke.
John J. Carroll:
September 8th, 2008 11:11pm
Amazing what a proper track and a little rain can do for an F1 race! I do think that Hamilton was guilty of keeping his foot on the pedal at the chicane in question but noted Kimi subsequently pulled a similar stunt just before leaving the track permanently. Conspiracy theories aside, I think that had Kimi won, they would have been forced to give a similar penalty resulting in double the amount of angst displayed here. Kudos to Nick Heidfeld - he gets the brass balls award!
peterg:
September 9th, 2008 7:58am
A few seasons back this decision would have had me seething with rage. The FIA has slowly but surely transformed me into a hardened cynic. When the penalty was announced I barely flinched so accustomed am I to their rulings.
The FIA’s role is at worst pro-Ferrari & at best “making sure the championship goes down to the last race”.
Mike King:
September 9th, 2008 8:11am
Below is a copy of an e-mail I tried to send to the FIA but it seems their e-mail has been shut down and they are no longer receiving!!!
I am sure this will probably never be read but is the only way I can think of to register my disgust at the appalling decision at the end of the Belgium grand prix. I have been a lifelong fan and participant of motor racing seeing formula 1 as the pinnacle but after Sundays decision it just seems pointless taking any interest in it whatsoever. How on earth you can penalise Lewis Hamilton after giving a display of the most talented and skilled piece of driving seen in formula 1 for a long time is beyond belief.
The whole situation stinks
Totally Disgusted M C King
Edds:
September 9th, 2008 9:02am
I have been a Grand Prix fan for well over 30-years and have enjoyed the greats race over that time.
Last year I had a sour taste left in my mouth after seeing how the it went to the final race where it looked as if Lewis was told not to win in Brazil. It all went down to a comment made by Ecclestone on the grid when he said Lewis will not win the title he has years to do that, but not this year.
Now this year, for the first time, I have not been interested in F1 however I sat and watched Spa as I like the circuit and that race was superb. The final few laps were the best I have seen for a long time. As for the stewarts inquiry what for this is motor raceing only to be marred again by FIA politics sorry but F1 has now become a boring parade with one winner??
Pedro Martins:
September 9th, 2008 10:32am
“Let us begin with a simple fact – a simple fact this particular week, anyway. The penalty for almost causing a collision in the pitlane is a drive-through penalty.”
I do not recall such a big concern after the German Grand Prix, when Alonso was pushed by Vettel… I could not find a single line on this in any GP report of the main British publications or websites. Ah, but it is Alonso, and I am sure he is not very high up the order on the sympathy list in England. A cameraman on his knees (in Valencia) is definitely much more of a hazard than the entire Force India pit crew (in Germany).
If you are so adamant about the uniformity of criteria used by the stewards, you should defend it across the entire field, and not strictly when it applies to a title contender or is not beneficial to Lewis.
Jonesracing82:
September 9th, 2008 10:52am
Funny isnt it?
Valencia was dead boring so Spa gives us a decent race and this decision is only further deterring drivers from attempting to pass!
It’s getting to the point whereby F1 is no longer worth watching as Ferrari get beaten farely and yet the FIA just hands them victory back!
The whole FIA-Ferrari alliance is now well beyond a joke!
Filipe Amoroso:
September 9th, 2008 11:45am
Letting Kimi through doesn’t mean Lewis didn’t gain an advantage. The position from which he attacked Kimi was unobtainable had he not cut the chicane.
Alonso vs Klien in Suzuka 2005 goes someway to show what Lewis should have done. There are indeed grounds for a penalty.
Lewis also swerved twice on Kemel while defending position from Kimi. That is surely against the one-move rule?
Given McLaren and Lewis’ advantage in the wet and cold tires, they could, with hindsight, have had a better plan.
Lewis will win the championship anyway.
Pete Fenelon:
September 9th, 2008 12:13pm
Ah joy. Perish the thought that the stewards and the FIA are in any way seeing the world through Rosso Corso-tinted glasses, but just think, it does “help keep the title battle alive down to the wire”. And hasn’t he of restricted stature and silver Beatle wig told us that that’s important?
Don Capps:
September 9th, 2008 4:12pm
“F1 as a sport died this last weekend”
My goodness! Sorry, but that already happened several decades ago….!
Steve, East Yorkshire:
September 9th, 2008 9:27pm
A terrific finale to the Belgian GP but what a shame it ended in such an unnecessary controversy. As Nigel says, the sport really does know how to shoot itself in the foot.
The stewards had the great benefit of hindsight in assessing Hamilton’s ‘chicane incident’, but still decided to hand the race to a driver who (with all due respect to Felipe Massa) had not been battling for the win all afternoon.
Did Hamilton gain an advantage from his move? Well, he gained an advantage when Kimi left him a large inviting gap going into La Source. But surely that was as much to do with Kimi’s mistake and/or tip-toeing Ferrari than Hamilton’s move at the chicane? Fair enough, a close call perhaps and a tricky decision for the stewards, but Kimi subsequently re-taking the lead and then binning it all of his own making ultimately meant that the race result had not been affected and common sense could prevail. Or could it?
For the sake of the sport, I hope the McLaren appeal is successful. For the sake of the championship, let’s hope there can be a level playing field for all teams for the rest of the season. And that includes McLaren!
Dave Musson:
September 10th, 2008 1:15am
Without getting involved as a pro or anti Lewis fan, I do question what the FIA is up to. Recently I was watching the 2005 review and saw how Max Mosley appealed against his own stewards against BAR. It seams when Max is unhappy with a team they suffer. There is no consistancy in the rulings and this more than anything makes me question why I watch every grand prix live year after year!
Mario Pizzi:
September 10th, 2008 2:44am
I thought the penalty a little harsh when I first heard of it but upon review of the incident and the FIA explanation I feel it was justified. Hamilton’s belief that he has the corner because he has oubraked his competitor on the outside of the corner (ie:French GP) will no doubt get him into trouble in the future. As for his complaint at being squeezed wide by Raikkonen mid-corner reminded me of his move to keep Massa behind him at Hockenheim…..just that then the British press were peeing in their pants with joy.
Rich Ambroson:
September 10th, 2008 4:16am
Don Capps is correct. Years ago, a McLaren driver punted a Ferrari challenger for the WDC off at high speed on the first lap, at the first corner of Suzuka. With the full field behind him. The FIA did nothing to him.
I find these endless comments about the FIA favoring Ferrari tiring. I mean no disrespect to Nigel Roebuck at all, he has long been my favorite F1 writer.
However, after Fuji last year, in which Hamilton’s shennanigans behind the safety car were not penalized, though it did cause troubles and seem to contradict the procedures the lead driver is to follow; after the Nurburgring last year, when Hamilton was craned back on the track,; and after a minor blocking in Interlagos for which Hamilton was not penalized as several other drivers have over the last few years, I see that young Hamilton has received as much preferential treatment as Ferrari is perceived to get.
And for him to complain about Kimi forcing him to the outside, that’s more than a bit rich considering he made the same type of moves on Piquet and Massa at Hockenheim…
As well, for finishing second on the road when WDCs were tossing it at the wall, at a treacherous course like Spa in the wet, Massa did a great job this weekend, which he is getting little or no credit for because of the focus on the steward’s decision. Regardless of first or second, Massa drove well to silence the post-Silverstone critics. Again.
Fraser Mackay:
September 10th, 2008 8:11am
I had to smile at Niki Lauda throwing his old Parmalat cap into the ring after Spa, when he said that he felt that there was indeed a bias in favour of Ferrari, which he felt until now had been a “bull****” notion. This season is turning into 1976 again between Hunt and Lauda, when we didn’t hear too much from Lauda when Hunt was getting disqualified (Spain and Brands, I think? I was only 8 at the time). Anyway, I look forward to more such pearls of wisdom when BBC1 get the GP back next year, and start a sister show of “Grumpy old F1 drivers”……………
Neil Birch:
September 10th, 2008 8:34am
1. Massa did not “do a great job” on Sunday. On this day at least, he was always going to be behind the two drivers putting on such a great display of skill in front of him.
2. There have indeed been days on which Hamilton seems to have got the benefit of a dubious decision. You could say the same of almost every driver on the grid. And that surely is the point - these penalty decisions are very, VERY inconsistent. Surely the time has now come to have regular stewards at every Grand Prix - preferably ex racing drivers who actually know what they’re talking about.
3. On this particular occasion, having re-watched the in car footage of the incident, I have no doubt at all that the penalty was incorrect, ill advised and unbelievably stupid in the way it has opened the door to allegations of, at best, amateurism and, at worst, blatant bias.
p graham:
September 10th, 2008 11:21am
I have little interest in F1, but I know a conspiracy when I seen one.
A crass and transparent attempt to liven up the Championship at the tail end of the season.
Perhaps a motoring journalist should put the question to whoever is concerned…
Rich:
September 10th, 2008 12:39pm
I feel that by the strict letter of the rules - although they are very loosely worded - Hamilton is at fault as he would not have been able to overtake Raikkonen where he did, when he did, had he not cut the chicane at the Bus Stop.
Similarly, regarding Massa’s pit release in Valencia, the timing of Massa’s release relative to the the position of Sutil’s car to the Ferrari pit crew would render it unsafe. I feel that a time penalty, stop-go or grid penalty would have been too harsh as there are mitigating circumstances. Ferrari were fortunate to have the final pit garage meaning that Massa could take a straighter line out of his pit box and would have done so even had Sutil not been there. The positioning of the photographer at his right seems to verify this. Once released Massa lifted and safely slotted in behind the Force India. Thus a penalty changing the course of the race would be too harsh and the appeal should have been thrown out.
I also believe the same applies to Hamilton’s penalty as the driver over whom he gained the unfair advantage did not finish the race. Had Raikkonen not crashed when he had a course of action similar to the Alonso-Klien incident in 2006 would have been available. The fact that it occurred in the final three laps of the race should have no bearing as it took race stewards only one lap to decide on an (unprecedented) penalty for Heikki Kovalainen at the same event. In essence Hamilton has been heavily punished seemingly for the simple fact that his misdemeanor occurred late in the Grand Prix and that Raikkonen did not finish the race.
Throughout this season and many seasons past there have been countless examples of poor Stewarding decisions being taken. With consistency in the enforcement of the sporting regulations, accusations of corruption, favouritism and conspiracy cannot take root. One of the main reasons in my eyes is that the stewards have insufficient footage on which to base their judgements. Why not have cameras at all the chicanes, affording the umpires an opportunity to look at these instances in detail? Such transgressions as Vettel’s Hockenheim pit antics and Montreal’s final chicane chicanery would not be missed.
In the end two things seem fishy to me. Why did the ruling on Felipe Massa’s, mid-race misdemeanor get postponed until after the race result when there seemed to be ample time to make it during the grand prix? Secondly, how can a 25 second penalty seem justifiable when its outcome makes no effort to right the wrong it penalises? Hamilton still scores more than Raikkonen despite having fouled him and instead Massa benefits and scores a race win that neither man nor machine deserved.
malc:
September 10th, 2008 2:58pm
I’m a big ferrari fan, but have to concede that Hamilton did not do anything wrong that i could see. However, same old conspiracy theories etc- why don’t you press your remote ‘off’ button from the armchair instead of moaning. Me, i’m going to monza this weekend to see the latest twist in the best f1 season i’ve seen for years. Good luck to all the drivers.
30 years on, long live the memory- Ronnie Peterson
Rich Ambroson:
September 10th, 2008 3:07pm
Let’s not forget that Bernie wants good TV ratings. No matter how many of us may complain about his various decisions and the FIAs rulings, the ratings seem to go up after controversy. And Bernie likes a tight championship race, a la NASCAR.
So, if there WAS manipulation, perhaps it wasn’t so much to benefit Ferrari, as to just plain tweak the championship. They already tweaked the rules to do so back in ‘03, when Ferrari was dominating. Yeah, that really was helping Ferrari, wasn’t it…
Aleš Norský:
September 10th, 2008 7:23pm
I don’t know. People say that Raikkonen ‘robustly’ defended his position. But what else would be there to expect? I believe that when Hamilton launched himself on the outside, he already knew that more than likely he will need to cut the chicane. Some years ago they used to put cones or tyres in such places, and knocking one over was a problem for the driver. I guess it was not such a bad idea. With ever more run-off areas being paved instead of gravel, some drivers would always just consider them part of regular race track and use them accordingly.
Negative Camber:
September 11th, 2008 2:20am
Surely the team who is penalized deserves an explanation but at what point does the FIA feel it would be prudent to also explain the penalty to the fans? They turned the race upside down and should we not be afforded an explanation? This is the Mosley Regime after all and while his sexcapade had copious explanation and justifications of which has been unfortunately seared into my brain; a simple Steward ruling is beyond reach. shameful.
martin tomlinson:
September 11th, 2008 8:35am
Whenever a grand prix result is left to the findings of an appeal court, it can only be a bad thing for the sport. Alas this years’ Belgian GP was not the first, nor will it (I’m sure) be the last!
Leaving aside the wrongs and rights of the Belgian incident, I can’t help but feel that it is the ’sanitisation’ of the circuit that has a lot to answer for. Consider; If a driver goes off the circuit it’s usually because of an an error of judgement by that driver. Usually it means that at best, the error costs that driver time, at worst it’s the end of his race. If, by going off the circuit that driver drives safely onto a run-off area and can actually gain an advantage (even momentarily) by doing so, where’s the incentive to stay on the track? Had there been a gravel trap or tyres instead of a run-off area I doubt this whole, sorry episode would have occurred.
Filipe Amoroso:
September 11th, 2008 8:46am
According to Autosport, McLaren were told by Race Control that they were ”ok” in terms of handing back the advantage to Kimi.
If that’s so, I cannot understand how FIA could hand out a penalty afterwards.
It doesn’t change my opinion about what happened, but it changes in regard to the penalty. In the sense that it’s a farse.
Patrick Pepper:
September 11th, 2008 5:55pm
Rich Ambroson at 3.07pm September 10th, drop the sarcasm please, because “yeah, it really WAS helping Ferrari” when the FIA tweaked the rules in ‘03, forcing Michelin to abandon a tyre design which had Bridgestone-shod Ferrari in a spot of bother as the season climax approached. Far from dominating that 2003 season, as Rich Ambroson claims, with just three GPs left Ferrari were actually trailing Michelin-shod Williams by eight points in the constructors’ race and were only six ahead of Michelin-shod McLaren; Schumacher led the drivers’ race by just one point from Williams’ Montoya, who was himself just one point ahead of Raikkonen, who was then with McLaren, of course. There certainly wouldn’t have been many takers for the “FIA just want the title to go down to the wire” conspiracy theory that particular season, because, after Ferrari complained about those pesky Michelins, the FIA duly changed the procedures and the French company was forced to revise its tyre. Not only did this neutralise the Michelin threat for the remainder of 2003, it seemed to pretty much destabilise it for much of the following season too. The result was that a suddenly rejuvenated (or reprieved) Ferrari were able to romp home for the final three races of 2003 and then dominated 2004 as well. Certainly one exciting championship season ruined, possibly two.
Steve:
September 12th, 2008 8:23am
Wow! Some actual racing broke out in F1 and look what’s happened… One can only hope that Monza will see a return to the “normal” modern-day F1 parade we’ve all become accustomed to.
peter:
September 12th, 2008 12:03pm
That’s it for me. I’ll find something else to do on Sunday afternoons.
Rich Ambroson:
September 12th, 2008 2:51pm
Patrick, I didn’t say Ferrari dominated the ‘03 season, the rules were changed in ‘03 because of their ‘02 domination, amongst other reasons.
If you’re going to complain about the Michelin tread width situation, please complain about Ron Dennis having the “clarification” regarding rear wings last year.
Edds:
September 12th, 2008 3:31pm
Talking about the tyre issue, who can remember the other farce in the US GP where the tyres were claimed to be unsafe on that circuit? What did they do? Let Ferrari drive around and get all the points, while all the other teams pulled out! All they had to do is put a chicane in.
Andrew, Monaco:
September 12th, 2008 8:06pm
When Nigel Roebuck confirms what I think, I know it is correct. Yet again he has judged the situation perfectly. The only unbeliebvable part of this activity masqerading as a fair sporting contest is that the FIA have no shame.
Consider this, Ferrari refused to back the ill-fated GPWC and immediately signed up with Ecclestone. Ever since, they have been taken care of. Mercedes, however, have not and are really paying the price.
We are now seeing almost continuous draconian penalties each season - it does not matter if one team is on the receiving end of them all, what is important is that it is NEVER Ferrari.
Anyone who knows people in the teams will be familiar with the term “Formula Ferrari”
I watched my first GP when James Hunt won at Mount Fuji, I watched my last GP last weekend.
Good luck Lewis but I for one am tired of being regarded with contempt by a pensioner - at least the drivers get paid well to suffer him.
Andrew Scoley:
September 12th, 2008 8:40pm
Three laps to go and the second placed driver tries a move down the inside at the Bus Stop chicane. The first placed driver, running out of road, cuts the chicane, and emerges in front. He was in front going into the chicane and therefore has not gained a place by cutting it, but concedes the place despite having led 9/10ths of the race. Going into the next corner he attempts to regain first place but finds the door closed and he finishes second. Two hours later he finds he didn’t finish second at all, but, having been handed a 25 second penalty for gaining an advantage by cutting the chicane, he is now fourth. Pretty stupid really. Wouldn’t it be more sensible to penalise a driver the same number of places he is thought to have gained? It seems to me that no account has been taken of how quickly Hamilton caught Raikkonen in the first place. Several comments suggest that if Lewis had followed the Ferrari through the chicane he wouldn’t have been close enough to pass him, which is just nonsense. How many other out braking passes were made into La Source throughout the race by drivers who hadn’t cut the chicane? And wouldn’t it be great if Kimi had gone to the stewards and said Lewis had given the place back and I didn’t cover the corner, my mistake. Which reminds me of clouds and cuckoos.
Patrick Pepper:
September 12th, 2008 8:57pm
Errr, what you actually said, Rich, was “back in ‘03, when Ferrari was dominating”. If you didn’t actually mean Ferrari was dominating in ‘03, you shouldn’t have written it.
I wasn’t “complaining” per se about the Michelin tread width situation - I was complaining that you had written that the rules were tweaked when Ferrari were dominating in ‘03, when precisely the reverse was true. It’s hardly my fault if this only arose because you hadn’t expressed yourself clearly.
And don’t make silly and wholly false comparisons with Ron Dennis asking for clarification about Ferrari’s rear wing last year, because the clarification he received was that the rear wing was legal, within the context of the existing technical regs. Perhaps once again you meant to write something else, of course, because McLaren also asked for clarification about a floor attachment mechanism on the Ferrari, which the FIA did indeed rule to be illegal, according to the EXISTING technical regs, but nonetheless it allowed Ferrari’s victory in the Australian GP, using this illegal device, to stand.
How on earth that therefore compares to the rules being CHANGED to outlaw the Michelin tyre in ‘03, goodness only knows. I await your next comedy masterpiece to find out :)
Douglas:
September 12th, 2008 9:07pm
Raikkonen thumps the back of the Force India at Monaco, and gains a place.
Hamilton thumps the back of Raikkonen, and is penalised.
Massa gets away with the pit-lane incident.
Come on, Ron. Paint the McLarens red. They might not notice, and let you win something.
Perhaps Hamilton’s real crime was in reminding everyone how exciting real overtaking is, in contrast to overtaking by pit-stop strategy which has sadly become the norm.
Rich Ambroson:
September 13th, 2008 6:52am
Ferrari was dominating from 2000 through 2002, so the rules FOR 2003 were changed because of that domination. You can twist the semantics of my quick typing (and lack of copyeditor to proof my posts for clarity and such), but that much is reality. Comedy? That’s almost what listening to the folks who perceive Ferrari as the root of all that is bad in F1.
What about that special fuel in the Brabhams in ‘83 (or at least in Nelson’s at South Africa)?
What about those special hydraulic suspensions used to get around ride height rules back in ‘82 or so.
What about the other infractions and worse by many of the non-Ferrari teams in the last 20 years? Why do we not hear so much grousing about that?
And why do many drivers on the grid this weekend say they agree with the penalty? I’ve read comments from non-Italian drivers such as Bourdais and Webber amongst others?
Well, if you find my views comedically in the wrong, at least you’ve described them as constructed in a masterly fashion. That’s something, innit… ;-)
John Kent:
September 23rd, 2008 2:48pm
I have been a follower of Grand Prix racing for 50 years and a reader and subscriber to your august Journal for most of this time. Some years ago, I turned away from the sport for a period when I felt that politics was ruining the spirit of the sport and that those such as myself who enjoy every aspect of racing were being ignored by bodies that cared nothing for our views or enjoyment.
Where is the sport going ?
I don’t condone industrial espionage or infringement of intellectual property rights but last years actions and heavy-handed response to the ’spying scandal’ unsettled my interest again. Since the sport began, teams and drivers have always sought to gain advantage over their rivals and whilst the actions of Stepney and those others involved were so blatant, I could not help but believe that ‘there for the grace of god’ go many others. The sanctions applied to McLaren appeared to me to be inequitable and showed what I felt was a bias towards Ferrari that I found unpalatable.
Mosley has a right to privacy and I don’t frankly care what he gets up to but his perversions become public knowledge, for whatever motive, and thus I have to question the workings of the man’s mind in all things and ask myself how he is perceived in places such as Bahrain and Abu Dhabi where the culture is a million miles from that apparently acceptable to him.
Then we have Ecclestone finally winning his battle to take away the British GP from Silverstone. Whether Donington can deliver what he wants in the time available is questionable and, if not, where does our GP go to. Britain is the spiritual home of motor racing and the technology and innovation that fuels the industry and secures jobs in this country is built on that heritage - how can Ecclestone be allowed to prostitute his position by even contemplating giving our Grand Prix away.
And so to Spa which has also been under threat. Spa which is everything the spectator could wish for, speed, sweeping bends, hairpins, fast straights and overtaking, in a lovely setting that is guaranteed a large and knowledgeable audience, rather than the sterility of the recently created Mickey-mouse cement and sand circuits that are being added to the calendar.
But does any of the above matter. The answer is no, not one jot, when the Stewards can demote Hamilton to third place for racing to a brilliant victory today. Hamilton was the best driver today, in a car that was able to cope with the variable conditions. To have the victory and winners points handed to Massa who clearly couldn’t drive faster than Hamiliton at any point in the race was a travesty. Another action which, in my mind is totally against the spirit of the sport and which again brings it into disrepute. I don’t have a copy of the Rule Book but surely Hamilton did what was demanded by letting Raikkonen take the lead again ? Whether Hamilton gained an advantage that helped him to overtake again is open to question and in my mind irrelevant, because I suggest that even if he had not made the second pass when/as he did, there would have been no chance of Raikkonen staying ahead of him until the end.
Without my reading the rule book it seems that the Stewards are making up the rules as they go and, yet again, these rules favour Ferrari. Today’s debacle and Massa’s inconsequential fine for dangerous manoeuvres in the Pit Lane seem hugely inequitable again. We seem to be back again to the times when Schumacher was allowed free rein to behave as he liked in the knowledge that there would, apparently, never be punitive sanctions against Ferrari.
Why should I bother to watch another Grand prix when it’s obvious that racing and being the best driver on the day don’t matter. My time would be better spent continuing the renovation of my Mk2 Spitfire and enjoying driving it around the Donegal roads - at least idiots such as those at Spa cannot turn that into a charade.
David Peek:
September 23rd, 2008 2:48pm
The steward’s decision brings shame on the already filthily soiled reputation of the once glorious sport of Formula 1. Democracy is being stilfled because if you visit the Formula 1 website you can’t even record your disgust; you have to vote for one of 3 insignificant drivers as ‘the man of the day’. It is now time for enthusiasts to revolt in every way possible. BRING DOWN THE EVIL DICTATORS THAT ARE DESPOILIMG THIS ONCE NOBLE SPORT OF HEROES.
Richard Hulford:
September 23rd, 2008 4:09pm
Why should the victory go to Massa? This is a colossal insult to the sport of motor racing. Hamilton’s win will go down as a great race of impeccable brilliance and timing on his and McLaren’s part.
If Hamilton had genuinely erred he should have been fined and kept the race win. Ron Dennis may not be the race organisers’ favourite team leader, but you don’t keep on thumping him. The $100m fine was too much as it was.
Dave Cubbedge:
September 23rd, 2008 6:13pm
I, also, have been following F1 since the mid-60s. I guess I should have expected the FIA to rule this way. They rarely see the light - just look at the regs for the last 15 years!
Not to compare events, but in a similar way I will always think of this years’ Spa race as a Hamilton victory much in the same way I remember Martin Brundle finishing 2nd at Detroit in 1984. Don’t forget, the latter mentoned was only a few years removed from almost everyone on the grid having an illegal car, so why punish Brundle for such an amazing drive regardless of circumstance?
Over here, race results almost always stand. Punishment is handed down through fines and suspensions. The fans leave the track knowing for better or worse, who won.
Here’s to the end of those that make the decisions… New blood is desperately needed.
David Holmes:
September 23rd, 2008 6:24pm
Now I know that F1 has become a corrupt farce. At the end of last season I wrote to MS making the comment that Ferrari and the powers that be, would do everything in their power to stop Hamilton from becoming World Champion. The last races on the calendar maybe wouldn’t have had the anticpation if Hamilton had kept his win. I recorded the race and, based on decades of F1 watching, I can say that Hamilton gained no advantage from what happened and there could have been an accident if he had not cut the chicane. He gave Raikonnen his place back so nothing changed. The fact that he is the best driver out there seems to have Ferrari in a tizzy and, coupled with the influence of Ecclestone, the task for Hamilton is made unfairly difficult. Scrap the whole F1 system and start anew, with the aim being motor sport, not Ecclestone’s bank account.
Don Capps:
September 24th, 2008 4:19pm
The Men in Blazers have always been more slightly off the mark, so this is all no surprise to me. Of course, if they did not have all those silly, poorly designed chicanes in the first place…..
Sorry, but this statement, “Britain is the spiritual home of motor racing….” almost had me fall out of my chair. Sorry, but I somehow never knew that. Considering that Britain languished for many, many years in the backwaters of the racing world, bringing real meaning to the concept of being “insular.”
Long before Brooklands and The Right Crowd emerged, motor racing was a vibrant, dynamic force in France and the United States. Indeed, the first racing as we know racing took place in America. The W.K Vanderbilt Cup of 1904 helped lead the way to the GP de l’ACF in 1906. Brooklands is long done as a venue, but racing continues at Milwaukee and the IMS, both contemporaries of Brooklands.
Sorry to veer off topic, but, by Jingo, nearly two decades prior to the first RAC British GP there was the Grand Prize Race for the ACA Gold Cup in Savannah. Britain’s ascent to the fore during, roughly, the 1951-1960 period (sports cars and grand prix racing included as well as drivers) is a remarkable story. However, any claims for “Britain [being] the spiritual home of motor racing” need to be looked at with serious reservations.
John Sorrie:
September 30th, 2008 1:50pm
Re: Don Capps’ comment.
Don, I would agrue it would be safe to say Britain is very much the ’spiritual home’ of motor racing.
Look through the history books of F1 and Sportscars and Britain in inexorably linked to so many wins, championships and key moments.
The key personnel in most teams, back through the history of the sport are almost always British, even today, most teams have more Brits than any other nationality. Most F1 teams today too, are based in the UK.
The wider public always sees F1 as ‘motor sport’ and the leading teams, from the 50s onwards in particular are predominantly British. Lotus, Tyrell, Williams, McLaren, Brabham: all, essentially, British. Ferrari is the only team which has been constantly at the forefront of the sport yet is not British. (Although it should be pointed out that many of their key team members now, including Massa’s engineer, are British.)
Try taking Britain and Brits and anything connected with the two out of motor sport history and see what you are left with.
Coming back to the original issue for debate here, any right thinking person can see that this penalty was totally unjust but, somehow, it seems like divine retribution that Ferrari’s pit devices broke, levelling the playing fields again.
Örjan Bergstedt:
October 3rd, 2008 9:39am
Here’s what I think:
Lewis Hamiltons punishment was wholly unjust, he won the race fair and square!
Now, I’m commenting from a distance - both time and geographical - since a month has passed since the race and me being an overseas reader (Swedish). I thus may not be a Hamilton fan by default, but my - is he a d****d good driver!
Lewis Hamilton is a genuine r a c e r, very much in Ayrton Senna’s spirit. I’ll freely admit it didn’t appear to me last year: it looked too easy for much of the time for him. And the post qualifying/race press conferences were generally a boring legacy of the Schumacher-Ferrari era. It wasn’t until the Parkinson interview that it struck me what a racer he really is.
So, Lewis’s overtaking of Kimi was what any racer would have done or should have done anyway.
To me, this episode resembles more of FiA’s (read Max Mosleys) antipathy with the McLaren team rather than any actual contravention of the sporting regulations!
Örjan Bergstedt
Sweden
John Painter:
October 3rd, 2008 11:36am
Why not just face facts. The “Spiritual Home of Motor Racing” lies fairly and squarely in one B. Ecclestone’s (increasingly) fat wallet..
Carlos:
October 10th, 2008 10:36pm
Completely disagree with Mr. Nigel. We can not justify a mistake with another one. In Belgium, Hamilton took advantage and that’s it.
Anyway he will be world champion despite this incident.