Hamilton penalty: FIA closes the stable door after the horse has bolted (Video)
Race control admitted Alonso shouldn't have been penalised at Suzuka in 2005
Five days after the Hamilton penalty controversy the FIA has announced how drivers should behave if they cut a corner and gain an advantage while racing a driver for position. According to Autosport.com:
Drivers [have been] informed that in the event of a driver cutting a chicane and gaining a position, he not only had to give that place back but should also wait for another corner before he could attempt to retake it.
This is a useful clarification ahead of the Italian Grand Prix, as the first two corners at Monza are chicanes. But it goes against the precedent the FIA set in the Alonso-Klien battle at Suzuka three years ago, which I think proves Hamilton is in the right. Here’s a video that shows why.
The Alonso-Klien incident, Suzuka 2005
The best precedent for the incident between Lewis Hamilton and Kimi Raikkonen in the closing stages of the Belgian Grand Prix is, in my opinion, Fernando Alonso and Christian Klien’s battle at Suzuka in 2005. Here’s a video that shows everything that happened:
To summarise:
1. Alonso lines up Klien to pass him on the outside of the chicane
2. Alonso fails to make the corner and cuts it, gaining an advantage by passing Klien
3. Alonso allows Klien to re-pass him
4. Alonso passes Klien again at the very next corner
We could quite easily substitute ‘Alonso’ for ‘Hamilton’ and ‘Klien’ for ‘Raikkonen’ in the above and it would suffice for an explanation of what happened at Belgium. But what happened next is what helps us understand why McLaren managed the Hamilton incident as they did, and gives me cause to think he is in the right:
5. Alonso catches Michael Schumacher but is informed by race control he must let Klien pass again
6. Alonso lets Klien pass him again
7. Race control cancel the instruction to Alonso to let Klien pass – but it is too late, because he already has.
Point seven is crucial. Race control decided Alonso did not need to let Klien pass after all. Why they did this I cannot say but presumably they decided Alonso’s original re-pass on Klien – which was so much like Hamilton’s pass on Raikkonen – was fair.
And presumably the stewards were happy as well, as Alonso did not get a penalty after the race.
Why McLaren cleared the move with race control
I think the fact of the race stewards changing their mind about the Alonso penalty is sometimes overlooked because Suzuka ‘05 was, by any standards, an absolutely stunning Grand Prix, better remembered for Alonso’s round-the-outside pass on Schumacher at 130R or Raikkonen passing Giancarlo Fisichella on the final lap to win.
This was exactly the kind of thrilling racing Spa served up last weekend – only this time the stewards got involved, contradicting the precedent they set three years ago.
At Spa, McLaren twice asked race control (Charlie Whiting) whether Hamilton had complied by the rules. Whiting twice replied that Hamilton had. Looking back at the Autosport report from after the Suzuka race it’s clear why McLaren were so keen to ensure the move was legitimate:
A message had appeared on Renault’s pitlane screen from race director Charlie Whiting to the effect that Alonso must surrender his place to Klien – again. Alonso was three seconds down the road down the road from the Red Bull by this time, so far from trying to pass Schuey, he instead had to wait for Christian and let him by. The team has protested that Alonso had already surrendered the place – and back came the message cancelling the previous instruction, saying it was okay for him to stay ahead. By which time he’d allowed Klien past…So Alonso had to repass again, going into lap 13. Autosport October 13, 2005
The words speak for themselves. The stewards were so inconsistent with their penalty for a similar incident at Suzuka three years ago that McLaren wanted to make utterly certain they would not get caught out. They did everything they could and were prepared to cede the lead back to Raikkonen, but race control never instructed them to.
Read more about the 2005 Japanese Grand Prix
Appeal date set
Max Mosley today gave a typically condescending retort to the suggestion that decisions such as those against Hamilton give the impression the FIA is biased in Ferrari’s favour:
I think it’s a reflection, and I’m sorry to say this, of the stupidity of the people who say it because they haven’t really thought the thing through and put themselves in the position of the people who have to take these very difficult decisions.
I’m not saying the FIA is biased in favour of Ferrari. But, Mr Mosley, I’ve thought this case through, I’ve put myself in the position of the stewards and I’ve looked at the regulations and their past decisions.
Unless, since Suzuka ‘05, the FIA has put out some other clarification of how drivers should handle this sort of incident, I cannot see how Hamilton is guilty in light of the facts. (Do you know of any such changes? If so please post details below).
The World Motor Sports Council will render a decision on Monday 22nd of September.
Loads of other F1 bloggers have written about the penalty. These observations and reactions illustrate the mixed views on the penalty. Here are a few choice articles:
- Miscarriage of justice in Spa – An excellent blow-by-blow dissection of the controversial move by Clive at F1 Insight
- The role of the stewards – Doctorvee looks at why race director Charlie Whiting might have changed his mind about the pass
- What others have to say about the penalty – A round-up of reaction from Ollie at BlogF1
- Much more on my StumbleUpon page
The comments below have been split across multiple pages. If you’ve having trouble viewing the pages click here to view all comments.
Hamilton is not in the right, cheating is cheating, there is no ‘right’ side to it. He should have waited and he never truly relinquished the advantage as the ferrari is faster on the straight anyway.
I think the reaction of the other drivers has been interesting. Trulli, especially Bourdais and rather strangely one ‘unnamed’ driver on the BBC.
Amy, by your logic, in the video I’ve posted, Alonso “never truly relinquished the advantage” on the straight either – and race control (eventually) decided he shouldn’t have been punished. So why should Hamilton?
Of course, the stewards could have said this in their judgement. Or the FIA could have said this after the judgement was released, a week ago. Rather than let the world talk about it for days on the internet and only bother to clarify it when the drivers themselves ask what is required. It only makes it look like it took their combined brain power a week to find a justification for giving Hamilton a penalty.
“Cheating” is the kind of inflammatory word that helps noone and does not allow for sensible discussion. Cheating would have been not bothering to try to pass Raikkonen but simply driving across the chicane and staying ahead and not even bothering to cede the place back without being told to. Hamilton tried to do the right thing – he just didn’t do it correctly, in the eyes of the stewards. To call it cheating is over-egging it.
Well Kieth, rules do change and I guess it also depends on the circumstances, what they have now said about the corner thing cements the fact hamilton did not fully relinquish the advantage. If it was Monaco or somewhere similar would would have happened to hamilton had he tried the same thing, BANG!!! You cannot just cut corners because it is more convinient.
Amy – are you saying that Hamilton should be punished by a rule the FIA changed five days afterwards? Or do you know of an earlier occasion when they announced they had changed the rule?
Here’s how I see it. If practically all the other drivers on the grid think Hamilton was in the wrong, then he was more than likely in the wrong. I would have thought they would know.
Kieth, yes, I think he should have been punished anyway, cut the corner, gained an advantage, did not properly relinquish it. What happened with Alonso is not important for Hamilton’s decision simply because it was a different situation, different stuards, etc. You cannot compare 2 incidents where the same rule was broken from different years and different situations because it always amounts in a different result.
Amy – I don’t see how the two situation are so different – as I wrote above they’re extremely similar. What do you think makes them so different?
As for comparing different years, it’s not as if we’re comparing today with 1950, this was less than three years ago and the rules on racing have hardly changed at all since then.
“Kieth, yes, I think he should have been punished anyway, cut the corner, gained an advantage, did not properly relinquish it. What happened with Alonso is not important for Hamilton’s decision simply because it was a different situation, different stuards, etc. You cannot compare 2 incidents where the same rule was broken from different years and different situations because it always amounts in a different result.”
This is the problem F1 has – no consistency. Different stewards + different drivers + different year = different penalties – then you decide the rules after. It’s not helpful.
my point exactly robert, no consistency which is why the 2 incidents cannot be compared due to the lack of inconsistency. I THINK the penalty should stand, my opinion only, I am not claiming it to be the correct one, I am simply stating that were it up to me (which it obviously is not) I would make the penalty stand.
Extremely similar is not the same thing as exactly the same—which the two incidents are clearly not.
the only thing i can really add, that’s not already covered here, was something discussed in fp2 on 5live earlier today between maurice hamilton and ian phillips.
apparently during a driver’s meeting charlie raised this issue at some point in the past, and told drivers to relinquish a place and wait for the next corner before attempting another.
the two didn’t mention any specifics, but i recorded the conversation so i’ll try and dig out the relevant part (from a 90min chat, may take a while), and post a link.
if that’s is true, and it happened post suzuka, mclaren don’t stand much of a chance, and the fia clarification is just fine.
Sidey – That’s very interesting. I wonder, then, what happens if that remarks was in 2006 when Hamilton wasn’t racing in F1? How would he have been informed about it?
“apparently during a driver’s meeting charlie raised this issue at some point in the past, and told drivers to relinquish a place and wait for the next corner before attempting another.
the two didn’t mention any specifics, but i recorded the conversation so i’ll try and dig out the relevant part (from a 90min chat, may take a while), and post a link.
if that’s is true, and it happened post suzuka, mclaren don’t stand much of a chance, and the fia clarification is just fine.”
We discussed this on the live blog today, was interesting as I hadn’t heard it myself. The question was asked why, if Charlie knew about this rule, he then told Mclaren twice that they were ok. And it doesn’t also explain why the other drivers don’t seem to know any more about it than us.
Would they have made Hamilton cede the position again had Kimi not crashed.? Maybe they wanted to punish him in a similar way but Kimi took himself out.
Regardless of where you stand on the penalty, you must admit it was handled poorly.
“I wonder, then, what happens if that remarks was in 2006 when Hamilton wasn’t racing in F1? How would he have been informed about it?”
the guys were sketchy on the details. it’s possible, even probable that lewis had no clue such matters were ever discussed. it may have come up post magny-cours though, impossible to speculate really.
The ‘clarification’ was obviously made to protect the besieged FIA stewards. It appears clearer but this new ‘clear ruling’ actually means, in effect, that if, say, driver B cuts a corner, overtakes driver A in the process and then returns the position (as Lewis did), driver A can now drive as slow as he wants to the next corner without driver B being able to pass.
This occurred to me because, really, Raikkonen was passed at La Source because he braked too early (insert famous Lewis ‘balls’ quote here) not because Hamilton ‘got an advantage’ at the chicane. (It’s tiresome repating this but: how did he gain an advantage if he returned a position – a full car length – when in fact he was level with KR at the entry and into the chicane and was shoved off line by him? The implicit argument of everyone claiming Hamilton deserved the penalty is that he ‘knew’ he wouldn’t make the corner without cutting it. But the fact is he *did* make the chicane and got alongside KR with enough room on track for both, i.e. it was a legitimate pass in full control of the car.)
Anyhow, so no matter how slow KR had been in the rain, LH would have been stuck behind him, trundling along, until they got past La Source.
Now imagine a scenario where driver A can help his team mate by slowing down driver B. Like most ‘clarifications’ of previously simple rules, it generates more potential problems than it solves. The rule was simple and understood by everyone – until it became convenient for FIA to undo their own mess by changing it.
in matters like this, where the rules are not completely clear you have to look at precedent. This is commonly done in most courtrooms and should also be applied here. Another thing is the fact that McLaren put their best effort at relegating the situation. No matter what you think abot the team, its a stab in the back. Everybody knew it was a close call and they asked for approval. They got the go ahead and then later received a penalty. If a referee misses something at first they shouldn’t be able to go back and make decisions later. This is not fair to the drivers.
Maybe Raikkonen should be given the win since he can argue that if Hamilton had been ordered to let him repass, Kimi wouldn’t have spun. Why make Massa the winner? Why put Hamilton 3rd? This is stupid and ridiculous. Make the call on the spot and stick to it. Don’t take a win from someone after they have tasted the champagne couse you sat in front of a screen watching replays for 3 hours and pondering about what should happen!! the stewards should be held responsible for making quick and stern decisions, and not change their minds after the race.
Makes you think maybe they should just put it in the rules. You know, like every other sport does…
Hamilton was third because of the 25seconds rule which I believe is the time taken to serve a drive through penalty.
Also I think it was mentioned somewhere that in the drivers briefing all the drivers were made aware of this on more than one occasion that if you cut a corner you have can’t pressurise the guy immediately into the next corner.
And there’s only one difference between Suzuka and Spa and that is the distance between the two corners.
rules? no, this is the FIA. as the saying goes rules are made to be broken, or in the FIA’s case, rules are meant to be made according to how it feels.
seriously though, good, Hamilton is a well known kerb jumper, so now he gets told off its a travesty?.
Sush – The last time Hamilton got penalised for cutting a chicane I was all for it for the reasons I explained at the time, which is quite different to this situation: Video: Hamilton under pressure after error in French Grand prix
It´s not fair that Driver B take a tow that he would never achieve (with today’s aerodynamics f1 behavior) if he didn´t came close enough to driver A.
Alonso was a big cheater, if we can say that lousy thing about someone, because he clearly take a tow behind Klien.
Hamilton didn´t even tried to go behind Kimi to take the unfair tow. He was only in a brief moment behind Kimi when the Finn decided to enter la Source wide open.
If Kimi braked in the inner point , Hamilton would try to pass him outside again. And he would be not penalized in that case, I thing , because the overtake would be finished in the middle of the la Source or even after it.
For sure there was no intention from Hamilton to cheat. That is the same thing to say a driver wants to have an accident or break the car.
Kimi got to the left side of the track perhaps an unexpected move. If that move didn´t happened the Lewis maneuver would look quite clean
The 3 events: 1)Chicane cut 2)devolution 3)overtaking thus, came in a stream that turned to be suspicious as the Alonso one was. And the drive need to bear in mind that he need to prove he is innocent in this case because he was already benefited by a run-off that could made he lost the race or have an worse accident…
Keith:
I think you made a great investigation! While I think Hamilton’s punishment was correct, because he indeed had an advantage by overtaking immediately after surrendering the position, we have a serious precedent that made McLaren and Lewis think they did enough to respect the rule and, altough stewards may vary from race to race (correct me if I’m wrong), the FIA Court of Appeal is the proper place to standartize jurisprudence.
The need the FIA felt to clarify the rules “ex post facto” only makes McLaren’s chances grow stronger.
The telling part of this decision, for me, is McLaren being informed….twice…..that Hamilton’s actions after the cut-corner were OK.
I think in a group of reasonable people the interpretation of Hamilton’s pass might vary.
But, I can’t conceive of a situation in which a team was told….DURING THE RACE….TWICE……that they were within the rules, and then after the race that decision was reversed. And importantly, not with with a minor punishment, but with one that may change the driver’s championship.
And…did I miss, at least, an apology by the stewards over their own misdirection?
It seems the stewards, above all others, would have previously insisted that this “problem area” be clarified, so as to avoid a situation like the one we have at present.
As a result of the decisions and penalties coming out of Spa, my first question as a team manager would not be about procedures surrounding a driver cutting a corner while fighting for position; but about a more general situation………are directions from the stewards, during the race, to be considered reliable?
If the answer to this question is no, or even maybe, we have a larger problem than that surrounding overtaking procedures.
The very fact that they have come out and said this means that they concede that it was not clear from the rules. As you mentioned Keith, they should amend the rules.
I think the decision will be reversed in the courtroom as there is ample evidence that FIA botched the whole issue during the race and now they are doing everything to save face. I wouldn’t be surprised though if McLaren were not allowed to argue this as drive-through penalty cannot be questioned.
I think this clarification is not only very welcome, it is a very fair and clear rule.
“And presumably the stewards were happy as well, as Alonso did not get a penalty after the race.”
That’s where the comparison breaks down though. Unlike Hamilton, Alonso did let Klein re-pass again, so the decision by the stewards was never needed. Guessing what the stewards might have decided had Alonso not allowed Klein to re-pass again is pure speculation.
do i read a message of hope here? is it possible that the fia may actually consider a decision in the favour of what is actually right and just gave themselves the reason to do it?
bated breath, brethren.
btw- keith, you rock for finding the vids you post. especially since this one isn’t just a snippet. just a yanks point of view, i can see why everyone likes brundle. hmmm. if the beeb doesn’t want him, we’ll take him. he’d make a nice bookend for matchett-who they can’t have.
This could have gone either way. It happens in sports. Get over it.
@Brar #24,
You don’t even have an idea what a tow is. You talk like you know what you are saying when in actual fact you do not. If you have watched a replay of the pass you’ll find that the word “tow” doesn’t even figure in this incident.
We could quite easily substitute ‘Alonso’ for ‘Hamilton’ and ‘Klien’ for ‘Raikkonen’ in the above
Sorry but I dont agree with that. You have missed a crucial point in the argument:
Could anyone overtake the car in front at the next corner following the car thru the previous corner properly?(you know the chicane in question)
The answer to this question in Lewis-Kimi case is a solid ‘No’(echoed by every driver except Lewis). I dont know the answer to the quesion in Suzuka 2005 case but I think(with my limited F1 knowledge) its ‘Yes’.
There you go the argument given by the drivers against the Belgium move is different than the incident at Suzuka.
My next point is that just coz FIA changes a rule does not mean it wasnt valid at a different situation in the past. What a rule change genrally means is that FIA realized that some knowledge wasnt ‘clear’ and had to explain it using the constraints of cars and tracks.
They can make a long complex rule explaining the length of straights you may be allowed to overtake on… For example Belgium’s back straight is (I think) the longest in F1 calendar. If the incident had happened there, then I doubt the Stewards would have questioned the move, simply looking at the difference in speeds of the Mc Laren and Ferrari.
What I find hard to digest is that ‘the drivers’ for whom this rule means the most seem to understand it the best and agree that infringement happened, its just the fans and the tv viewers that are hell bent on making this a conspiracy theory!
For sure
Hass: Sorry I was ansewering to Oliver.
Haas: there is not new Fia rules. Perhaps new formalisition on things we should agree abour
@Brar
I must have got things mixed up when reading your comments. I thought initially u were referring to Hamilton, when in actual fact you were talking about Alonso.
Taking the win away from Hamilton for the alleged offense is akin to issuing a death penalty for jay walking!
Regardless of our differing opinions on whether the stewards were right or wrong, it’s the severity of the penalty that rubs most (including the referenced drivers) the wrong way.
And hence, all the “FIA Favors Ferrari” implications.
Very biased article Keith, I did not see this coming.
I can’t understand why you are trying to defend Hamilton’s pass at La Source, which was clearly a case of not handling back the advantage.
In my book, what lets Hamilton off the hook is his spin while passing the Williams. Since, he inadvertently returned the place and advantage there; in the very same lap.
Alonso returned the place and advantage to Klein about 2-3 laps after passing him illegally, and he was not penalized. Hamilton did that in the same lap, but he was penalized.
You chose to ignore these facts.
Haas,
You make a fair point and applied some logic to your reasoning. But it’s very difficult to arrive at that conclusion you just did, because, The way Kimi took that final chicane was not the optimum way. So its very possible he would not be able to accelerate out of that corner as normal had he used the correct line through it.
We also have to take into consideration that, It was raining at this time, and Kimi was already suffering from a lack of grip which was why he braked very early prior to the chicane and also afterwards.
.Sumedh
There is nothing biased about this article. Keep an open mind. The subject isn’t if Hamilton crossed the chicane. Or of he deserves the win.
The matter at hand is, why did “Race Control”, after Mclaren had sought clarification, say Hamilton had surrendered the lead. Not once but twice.
Do not allow your dislike for a driver cloud your reasoning.
And from your statement it is also obvious you did not understand what Keith just wrote which was. “The stewards were satisfied that Alonso had surrendered the lead the first time and where comfortable with him repassing on that same straight.” But by then the stewards had already “made a mistake” by asking him to surrender the lead a second time.
Read the article again and understand what is being said.
Keith. I think also the FIA has to cut down on all use of extra track space. Not just only when a driver over takes. Because running off track can also be used to make up ground on cars ahead. This is something Kimi is known to do very much. If you have the video of last years race at Fuji. Kimi was able to overtake Coulthard, by running off track repeatedly and gaining ground. And that is cheating. And he keeps getting away with it.
FIA”T” keeping the rules muddy is in the best interest of FIArrari. ’nuff said.
Oliver
By Keith’s chronology of events;
Move no. 4 = Alonso passing Klein at Turn 1, Suzuka. This WAS wrong. Thus, step 5 : Instructing Alonso to let Klein re-pass him is totally justified.
However, the step 7. canceling the instruction, this WAS a mistake by stewards. You can’t re-take a place in the next corner; its just unfair.
Did the stewards ask Lewis to return the place after La Source ( Like Alonso-Klein)?? We will never know. Why?? Since he returned it fairly soon by spinning.
Also, the ‘2 Charlie Whiting okays’ refer to Lewis’s letting pass of Kimi at the chicane. And they do not refer to the pass of Lewis at La Source. Read that part carefully, since I think you are confused about what exactly Charlie Whiting was okay with.
Oliver, relax: I also like Lewis, but his pass was wrong. We both want him to be off the hook; except our reasons are totally different
HAMILTON SHOULD BE PENALIZED!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Sumedh
“Also, the ‘2 Charlie Whiting okays’ refer to Lewis’s letting pass of Kimi at the chicane. And they do not refer to the pass of Lewis at La Source. Read that part carefully, since I think you are confused about what exactly Charlie Whiting was okay with.”
So are you saying that in between Lewis abandoning the pass at the chicane and overtaking into La Source, McLaren asked CW twice if the chicane move was ok?
All this talk of ‘unfair’ and ‘cheating’ etc just doesn’t wash with me. It either complies with the rules or it doesn’t. In this case, Hamilton’s move did comply with the law in it’s previous state. Just about! The rule did need clarification and hopefully we shouldn’t be robbed of an exciting finish again.
I think it’s worth asking the question, would there have been hundreds of comments on this site complaining about the stewards if there had been no investigation and no penalty?
The jury is out on this whole saga, I must say. And no matter what the Court of Appeal decides, later this month, it will not stop discussions and disappoint people one way or an other.
However, I would like to emphasise two point already mentioned above:
1) Charlie Whiting is NOT the stewards — McLaren said to themselves. Whiting might have said that Hamtilton’s move was OK twice, but the stewards make the calls, not Whiting. By the way, Jonahtan noble says something interesting in this week’s Autosport Journal: “McLaren were certainly in enough doubt about the legality of the situation by asking FIA race director Charlie Whiting twice for confirmation that it was okay.”
2) Hamilton effectively DID give back the position which he won during the doubtful move into La Source, namely when he went off the track in the Rosberg incident. This is what actually makes it comparable to the Alonso-Klien incident at Suzuka ‘05.
An other interestion observation: Hamilton moved off his line several times to defend his position from Räikkönen on Kemmel straight. He was on the right of the track coming out of Radillion, swered left with Räikkönen on his tail, then right again, and finally left to make the corner. Maybe he should be penalised for that?
That Lewis should have waited till the next corner is exactly what the Ferrari pilot Marc Gene said in his blog (I did post that here when the storm started). Since that apparently was discussed in pilots meetings that makes sense. Lewis might not know about that, the team should. Again, an example of how to mess a beatiful race.
@Juan H, exactly, most of the drives know the rules more than the weekend f1 watchers in here, they are all briefed on the rules and things to watch for before every race weekend and the team was in enough doubt to confirm 2 times about the situation, if they were in so much doubt they should have told him to wait the extra corner.
Supposing there was no wrong thing done, and I say supposing (as there was), saying that Charlie gave the clearance is like telling a referee didn’t say a penalty but finally it was.
Things live look far different that those things once you can see when you have some seconds to think about this.
But hey! let’s continue with the fanboyism forever!
btw, what about a report on Lewis last words about their colleagues?