Four of F1′s ‘unwritten rules’

F1 video

How do F1 drivers know when they\'ve pushed too far?

How do F1 drivers know when they've pushed too far?

At the Italian Grand Prix weekend driving standards was a hot topic again – hardly surprising given the furore over Lewis Hamilton’s penalty at Spa, and Monza’s combination of two tight chicanes plus a soaking wet track.

With Hamilton’s appeal against his penalty due to be heard on Monday 22nd September it’s a good time to try and clear up the vast grey areas surrounding the rules of racing in F1.

The only thing that has become clear about the rules of F1 racing during the past two events is how unclear the regulations are. The rules of racecraft occupy a tiny portion of the vast tomes of FIA regulations – the detail is supposedly filled out by a number of implicit or ‘unwritten rules’ though it can be hard to work out what they are by looking at past precedents.

What the rules do say

The regulations governing wheel-to-wheel racing in F1 are detailed in the Sporting Regulations (articles 16 and 30) and Appendix L to the International Sporting Code (Chapter IV, Article 2.g).

The latter is what Hamilton was punished under at Spa and simply reads:

The race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race.

A rigid interpretation of that ruling would likely have seen hundreds of penalties dishes out over the Monza weekend during the GP2 and F1 races. Of course, these rules aren’t enforced to the letter, which is why the unwritten rules are so important. So what are these unwritten rules?

Cutting corners

Let’s start with the ‘unwritten rule’ that’s at the heart of the recent controversy: cutting corners.

Unwritten rule 1: You can cut a corner and gain an advantage if you’re defending

At Hungary in 2006 Pedro de la Rosa dived down the inside of Michael Schumacher at the turn six/seven chicane. Schumacher missed the chicane and kept the position. Fans who had been used to seeing drivers penalised for gaining an advantage by cutting the chicane were perplexed to see Schumacher not receive a penalty. Here’s a video showing the contentious move:

Afterwards de la Rosa spoke to the stewards who told him they’d ‘clarified’ the rules:

The position is that if you are not side by side with the driver ahead of you going into the chicane, then the driver who is ahead of you can jump the chicane and keep his position without being penalised.

Unwritten rule 2: If you cut a corner while attacking you can’t overtake your rival at the following corner

Leaving aside the vexed question of whether or not Hamilton had gained an advantage by cutting the chicane at Spa after he’d yielded his place to Raikkonen (see here for a debate about that), the stewards announced before Monza a change in the ‘unwritten rules’ about what happens when an attacking driver cuts a corner.

In future, they said, if a driver passes another in front of him by cutting a corner, not only must he give the place back, but he must not pass the driver at the following corner.

There’s a discussion of this new ‘unwritten rule’ and whether or not it contradicts past practice in this article.

Pushing a rival off the track

Should drivers ever be allowed to push their rivals off the track? I’m a bit uneasy about the idea but the stewards actually turn a blind eye to it in a lot of cases:

Unwritten rule 3: A defending driver can push their rival off the track

There’s actually quite a few examples of this happening. A famous one involved Schumacher and Juan Pablo Montoya on the first lap at Imola in 2004. Montoya had his Williams alongside Schumacher’s Ferrari at the exit of Tosa, but Schumacher pushed him off the track.

Schumacher stated in the press conference afterwards that he hasn’t seen Montoya (!) to which Montoya uttered his famous response that Schumacher must have been “blind or stupid”.

Similarly in 2003 Schumaher pushed Alonso off on the Hangar straight at Silverstone, to which Alonso reacted with outrage.

But Alonso’s no fool, and realised that if Schumacher was going unpunished for it he could to, so he pushed Hamilton off the track on the first lap at Spa last year. But Hamilton’s no fool, and he pushed Glock off the track at Monza last weekend. And Raikkonen did it to Hamilton at Spa.

It’s not pretty, and as F1 is usually preoccupied with being safe and desperate to improve overtaking opportunities, perhaps this is an unwritten rule we could do without?

Defensive driving

This often goes hand-in-hand with the above rule. It’s been tested a lot in recent years and I wrote a post about it in April when GP2 racer Romain Grosjean pushed the unwritten rule too far.

Unwritten rule 4: A defending driver may move off-line once to defend his position and then move back to his original line on the way into a corner, but cannot push a rival on that line off the track

In the run-up to the controversial move at Spa, Kimi Raikkonen gave a typical example of how to execute this move. He moved off the racing line to the right of the track to cover the inside of the corner, then moved across to the left to get the best line possible into the corner, while Hamilton was trying to pass him on the left-hand side.

What Raikkonen’s didn’t do was commit Grosjean’s error at the Circuit de Cataluinya. Grosjean pushed rival Kamui Kobayashi clean off the track when he moved to claim his line for the first corner:

Grosjean’s punishment was a drive-through penalty.

Hamilton was pulling the same move on Webber at Monza when the pair made contact. So had Hamilton broken the unwritten rule? Here’s the video of what happened:

I haven’t been able to look back at onboard footage from the cars but it looks to me as though Hamilton gave Webber – just barely – enough room for Webber to get into the corner without hitting the McLaren or going off the track. Webber’s car appears to slew slightly to the right before striking Hamilton’s wheel. It’s possible that Webber may have out-braked himself, which might have been a factor in the stewards’ thoughts.

But certainly, Hamilton cut this one extremely fine, if my interpretation of the ‘unwritten rule’ is accurate. He was probably only a few centimetres from getting another penalty.

Of course, if this were a written rather than unwritten rule it would probably be a lot easier to make a call on close decisions like this. And the same goes for the other unwritten rules.

A bizarre way to regulate a sport

It’s difficult to understand why important clarifications like this aren’t written down – either as hard-and-fast rules, or just guidelines to give stewards a bit of wiggle room.

Why aren’t these rules written down? Why are they apparently only covered them in drivers’ briefings? Do the FIA not want fans to understand the rules of the sport?

If a ‘clarification’ gets made in the briefing room ahead of the Singapore Grand Prix, but isn’t announced to the press, how are fans supposed to know what’s going on? And how do future drivers find out about them unless a charitable rival tells him (not likely)?

A cynic would suggest the stewards issue whatever decision comes into their head and then ‘clarify’ their position with ‘unwritten rules’ afterwards simply to look consistent. And ???ber-cynics would suggest they tend to favour one team when they do it.

Max Mosley gave a typically withering response to criticism of the FIA’s inconsistency and lack of transparency over the latest row:

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.

But when the rules as written give so little detail, and when the stewards issue ‘clarifications’ that seem to contradict past precedent, and when controversial decisions are published with so little reasoning (the Hamilton-Raikkonen incident was summarised in seven words), you have to question the sense of leaving important rules of race-craft shrouded in secrecy.

It’s like a trap designed to catch unlucky drivers out and give them arbitrary penalties. It’s almost as if Mosley gets some sort of thrill out of punishing people.

The comments on this article are split across multiple pages. If you are having trouble viewing them via the links below click here to see all comments.

Advert | Go Ad-free

79 comments on Four of F1′s ‘unwritten rules’

  1. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 16th September 2008, 13:25

    Madurai – It’s been 14 years since a driver lost a win due to a stewards’ decision (see here). It’s a rare event and definitely worth looking into in detail. And elsewhere on the blog people have been asking for an article along these lines.

    There are loads of other incidents like the Fuji one that could have been included here but I didn’t want to make the article too long and it made sense to use examples from the last two races. But perhaps this is something I’ll do a sequel to in future.

  2. S Hughes said on 16th September 2008, 13:27

    John Spencer, you are exactly right. None of the other drivers in their haste to blame Hamilton after Spa, mentioned this “next corner rule”. They said things like “spirit of giving up the advantage”, “mustn’t be impatient”, “could have waited a bit”, but nothing CLEAR, which means that they obviously didn’t have a clue about the “rule”. Then at Monza they “clarified” it. Mmmm, more like made it up on the spot to justify the penalty. I hope Ron is aware of all this and shows what a disgrace it is in the court case.

  3. Keith, thank you for this article. I personally think Hamilton crossed the fine line in the incident with Webber but the stewards took no action, so I thought maybe I was “the cheese who stands alone” on that one.

    I’ve been thinking of the job of stewards per se and was thinking of the role of stewards in another sport which has a high priority on safety of its participants, horse racing. One particular rule I find interesting is the rule of interference (actually a group of subset rules under interference) Horse racing has very strict rules and very strict consistent adherence to them, is it only because formal betting money is involved?

    Agree with John Spencer, given that other rules are detailed right down to the minutia of measurements, it seems odd that driver behaviour is not more detailed. They can no longer rely (if they ever could) on the intangibles of driver etiquette & sportsmanship vs competitiveness.

    I don’t think that McClaren will win the Spa appeal. None of the other drivers have come out publicly to support the appeal. There was a large reaction from fans & some commentators but not as severe a reaction to past decisions. The other thing against the appeal is paradoxically the fact the McClaren checked twice with the referee if their “damage limitation” action was enough. This suggests that they were not confident that they had in fact done enough.

  4. S Hughes said on 16th September 2008, 13:32

    Craig, interesting that race control seemed to know what to suggest to Ferrari in Monza, whereas Mosley said that the teams were not to ask race control because he’s not the steward, and that race control shouldn’t have answered McLaren in Spa.

    Or is it that race control can competently advise Ferrari during a race, but if he advises McLaren during a race, it means diddly squat?

  5. Journeyer said on 16th September 2008, 13:34

    ‘I hope Ron is aware of all this and shows what a disgrace it is in the court case.’

    Nope, I don’t think it will change anything… The clarification just reiterated how the drivers seem to have understood it anyway. While it was not explicitly mentioned, their statements of patience and waiting all imply that they agree with the ‘next corner rule’.

  6. haha love that last line.

    I’ve always thought that un-written rules were like a gentleman’s agreement. i.e if you break them you lose the respect of your fellow competitors and face the prospect of revenge in the future. But you can’t really be punished for them by a governing body because…well they’re not actually in the rules of the sport.

  7. S Hughes said on 16th September 2008, 13:39

    Journeyer, your understanding of clear rules is obviously vastly different to mine.

  8. John Spencer said on 16th September 2008, 13:57

    Madurai – you’re right that there has been more focus on recent steward’s decisions and these do involve Lewis Hamilton, but that’s because he’s leading the championship and the decisions the stewards make after races are having more effect on the championship than the racing that takes place on the track. It’s pretty clear that many infringements further down the field are not investigated by the stewards because these are not ‘brought to their attention’ and don’t affect championship points.

    The ‘furore’ as you put it has arisen because of the inconsistency and opacity in decision making. Stats presented in previous posts on this site show that McLaren ARE more penalised than other teams and have a lower appeals success rate as well. This alone is insufficient evidence of conspiracy, but it does make the matter worthy of investigation (contrary to Max Moseley spluttering assertions).

    And Hamilton was ‘let off’ in Fuji last year because, er, Vettel ran into Webber. However, that incident did set an important precedent because the FIA stewards relied on YouTube footage posted by a fan several DAYS after the event. Maybe the FIA sporting regulations should set out a statute of limitations on race events. Otherwise I’m sure we can turn up footage of Fangio cutting Nuerburgring chicanes in the 1950s, and the FIA can strip him of a championship or two….

  9. madurai said on 16th September 2008, 14:17

    wat abt HAM getting help from stewards in EUROPEAN GP 2007.?????Is there conspiracy against TONIO,BUTTON etc….????We need to investigate..@@@

  10. Journeyer said on 16th September 2008, 14:19

    ‘Journeyer, your understanding of clear rules is obviously vastly different to mine.’

    Yep. Well, to be honest, ever since I watched F1 in the 1990s, that’s how I always understood that rule. The FIA only reiterated it for me.

  11. madurai said on 16th September 2008, 14:23

    May be Mclaren doesnot using it owns technology for developing its cars have caused FIA to react in such a way….Just a thought@@@@wat say….????

  12. Keith,

    I do enumerate a dozen of cases on the post about Vettel´s win so I must to say thank you for the article, it summarized my confuse and poorly written comment there.

    In the Lewis-Webber´s case, Coulthard, “Mr Movable Chicane” and Webber´s team-mate, has wrote this on his column at iTV about Kimi´s defensive line:

    “…Clearly Kimi took a defensive line into the corner, making Lewis go the long way around – but that was his right as the lead car, and HE DID NOTHING UNFAIR…”

    (http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=David_Coulthard&id=43932)

    So, if there is “Driving etiquette” to Kimi´s defensive moves, why this can´t works to Lewis too?

    Is interesting how ones scrutiny Lewis moves while Kazuki try to dangerously overtake at Parabolic and none seems to “remember” the move. I guess what is behind this forgiving…

    Craig has mentioned GP2 and I must to say that the same Timo Glock who complained about Lewis, was the same one who crossed the white line and “defensively” pushed Lewis off the track dozens of times at Turkey in 2006.

    I could use another example of how “the rules could be held as consistent between GP2 and F1”: in Barcelona, Lewis were leading the race and fighting for the championship and his team-mate, Alex Premat, pushed him off track and won the race. Do you know what Lewis has said after the race?

    “This is racing…”

    Anyway, I know why some drivers are complaining. Looking back to the history, you can understand how sometimes they try to get together, acting like a corporation. I hate to make comparisons between Senna and Lewis, but we have the same fuss that we did see on the days of The Great Man. Alboreto has said that about Senna once:

    “…Senna acts like a bandit on track. I have the impression that, under his helmet, he drivers with a knife between his teethes (I do not know if there are this linguistic expression in English!)…”

  13. Niki Lauda made the best comment for the whole weekend which was to have full time racing stewards that are consistent from race to race rather than having different stewards at different events. If that can be done than many of these unwritten rules can remain unwritten.

  14. lokiparan said on 16th September 2008, 15:28

    “Sounds more like a dictatorship than a governing body to me.”

    Funnily enough the ‘unwritten rules’ rather remind of the Westminister parliamentary system where many things are governed by conventions and practices that are not actually codified in any constitution or the like. Even, I believe, regarding such important things as the position and responsibility of the Prime Minister and how to Cabinet is appointed.

    Bit of an obtuse example, perhaps, but it just shows that Formula One is not the only case where things are sometimes governed by ‘unwritten rules.’ And we are talking about a sovereign nation, not just a sport!

  15. Fergus Gallas said on 16th September 2008, 15:58

    Keith,
    The unwritten rules were created alongside with the F1 Champ, back in the 50′s. Every driver knows the unwritten rules so damm well, they just pretend they don’t, to freeely push the boundaries.

    PS: Great article.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.