Schumacher’s Monaco penalty will stand after Mercedes withdraw appeal

Posted on | Author Keith Collantine

Mercedes canned their appeal but called Schumacher's penalty 'disproportionate'
Mercedes canned their appeal but called Schumacher's penalty 'disproportionate'

Mercedes have withdrawn their appeal against Michael Schumacher’s penalty in the Monaco Grand Prix.

However they described Schumacher’s penalty as “disproportionate” and said the FIA has agreed to discuss the terms of article 40.13 under which Schumacher was punished.

They added they were supportive of drivers having a role on the stewards’ panel. Damon Hill, who served as the drivers’ representative to the stewards last weekend, received hate mail after Schumacher was punished.

A statement from the team said:

On the final lap of the 2010 Monaco Grand Prix, Mercedes instructed our drivers, Michael Schumacher and Nico Rosberg, to race from safety car line one until the finish line as permitted under articles 40.7 and 40.11.

Mercedes were fully aware of article 40.13 which states that no overtaking is permitted if the race finishes under safety car conditions. However we believed that the combination of the race control messages ‘Safety Car in this lap’ and ‘Track Clear’ and the green flags and lights shown by the marshals after safety car line one indicated
that the race was not finishing under the safety car and all drivers were free to race.

This opinion appears to have been shared by the majority of the teams with cars in the top ten positions who also gave their drivers instructions to race to the finish line.

It was clear from our discussions with the stewards after the race that they understood the reasons for our interpretation and acknowledged that this was a new and previously untested situation but ultimately disagreed with our interpretation.

Mercedes would like to emphasise that we fully support the inclusion of past drivers on the stewards panel and are completely satisfied that the Monaco Grand Prix stewards acted professionally, impartially and properly in this matter.

The FIA has agreed to include article 40.13 on the agenda of the next Sporting Working Group for discussion and to consider the scale of post race penalties. We believe that the 20 second penalty imposed on Michael to be disproportionate in the circumstances.

Whilst we cannot be happy with the outcome, we are pleased that the FIA has recognised the reasons for our interpretation. Therefore in the best interests of the sport, Mercedes will not be submitting an appeal.

It’s interesting that Mercedes’ claim their view racing was permitted after the safety car went in “appears to have been shared by the majority of the teams with cars in the top ten positions.”

We already know Ferrari and McLaren instructed their drivers not to race at this moment. Presumably Mercedes is referring to Red Bull, Renault and Force India when it speak of the “majority” – these were the only other teams with cars in the top ten at this point.

Appeals against drive-through penalties (which is essentially what Schumacher got) have been deemed inadmissible in the past, most famously when Lewis Hamilton was stripped of his win in the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix. So it’s no great surprise to see Mercedes drop their attempt to have Schumacher’s sixth place restored.

Schumacher’s Monaco penalty

143 comments on “Schumacher’s Monaco penalty will stand after Mercedes withdraw appeal”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3
  1. That’s a shame. Schumacher pulled off a fantastic pass, and gets penalised for it.

    1. Fantastic pass?? Alonso wasn’t even aware that they were racing?

      But then again I guess thats the only way Schumi can get by Alonso. I would love to have seen that proud smile on Schumi’s face just after he pulled this move, and then his reaction after he found out he was relegated to last of all the finishers. PRICELESS!

      1. Nah, Alonso was caught napping.
        The move was epic and clever. The team, however, mis-advised Michael.

        Nonetheless, this doesn’t ditract from the move itself.

        1. Alonso coming sideways out of Rascasse didn’t look like the action of a guy who wasn’t racing.

          1. Well to me, Alonso going sideways at Rascasse looked to me like he was trying to defend his position.

          2. As much as Ferrari will deny it, there can be no doubt that Alonso was sideways because he was racing.

            And Schumacher’s move wasn’t any less fair than Alonso passing Massa into the pit lane.

            Scribe described Mercedes perfectly below me
            “Mercedes argument did sound supiciously like an attempt at simultaneous possesion and consumption of cake.”

          3. Looked like a guy on cold, worn tyres slipping a little, didn’t look very racey to me, UNTIL Schumi went for it, at which point Alonso probably wondered if his team had advised him incorrectly, as McLaren did with Lewis last year when they told him to let Trulli back past.

      2. If Alonso wasn’t racing and fully aware of this rule, why didn’t he let Rosberg, who was already beside him, through as well???

        1. Alonso comming sideways out of Rascasse was clearly a case of a man sliding on cold and presumably knackered tyres. Probably not a case of him napping, regardless Schumacher pass was a wonderful bit of oppourtunism. Shame about the result of all this but Mercedes argument did sound supiciously like an attempt at simultaneous possesion and consumption of cake.

          1. Absolutely with you on this Scribe. A great Schumi moment.
            Even if he would not make any impressions in the rest of the season this is a much better Monaco moment to remember than the last one. Good for him trying, good for Ross to have a go in an unclear situation.

            OK, in the end it was ruled to be illegal, but a great moment all the same. Keep going for every chance on track, thats the Michael we need.

      3. Oh no! Alonso was pretty aware. When exiting rascasse Alonso pushed too hard the gas pedal, the rear of his sliped towards the barriers.

      4. Hang in there Todbod , ’cause soon you will see his smile on the top step of the podium , and that will be the first of many more to come.

        1. The majority of overtaking MS has done in his carrier is in the pit lane, I doubt he will be able to overtake on the track, which is the reason for his lack lustre races this year. Thus, you are probably going to be waiting for a long time, to see MS smiling from the top step of the podium, besides if he is thrown out next season, your wait is going to be till eternity, mate.

  2. “Mercedes would like to emphasise that we fully support the inclusion of past drivers on the stewards panel and are completely satisfied that the Monaco Grand Prix stewards acted professionally, impartially and properly in this matter.” What is that all about?

    1. Damon Hill. They want to distance themselves from the simple-minded and venemous criticism some people have levelled at him.

      1. Quite right too. No real F1 fan would hold a grudge against DH. He’s there to advise and assist, not interpret FIA rules and he’s said as much on Autosport.

        1. Hotbottoms
          19th May 2010, 9:34

          Actually, Hill has said that he had to interpret the rules in Schumi case

          ” “It was a fascinating experience but I wonder whether it is right that drivers are put in the position of interpreting the regulations,” he said. “I imagined I would be there as a consultant providing driver insight to the stewards, who would then make the decisions. My expertise is as a driver rather than a lawmaker or interpreter of regulations.

          “Partly, of course, my discomfort was because I was called to make a ruling on an incident involving Michael,” Hill said. “I acted entirely properly but I have already received some stinging e-mails accusing me of prejudice.” ”

          I’m not saying accusing Hill is rightful, but this is the kind of problem we get when FIA lets people who have grudges with current driver(s) be a steward.

          Many spectators will think this was Hill’s revenge and Hill can never prove them wrong. F1 looks stupid. Everbody loses.

          1. I’m not saying accusing Hill is rightful, but this is the kind of problem we get when FIA lets people who have grudges with current driver(s) be a steward.

            Many spectators will think this was Hill’s revenge and Hill can never prove them wrong. F1 looks stupid. Everbody loses.

            And everybody will just have to get over it. It’s more important that we have people who can bring experience of racing these cars into the stewarding process. It was widely known before the weekend began that Hill would be a steward, none of the teams complained and we should take that as a sign they were confident in his impartiality.

          2. There are lots of drivers who have enough experience of racing and even if the driver steward is different in every race you’ll only need less than 20 of them. If it’s possible to pick Damon Hill or another as experienced driver, who doesn’t have grudges with other drivers, to consult the stewards, I’d pick the other driver any day.

            I’m just saying this all looks silly. Bad luck that Hill had to make decision concerning Schumacher, but this all could’ve easily been avoided.

            In any other “legal” procedure judges/stewards/whatever would be disqualified if they had grudges with the defendant. Why should F1 be an exception?

            And yet again, I’m not accusing Hill of anything. It’s just that this all looks unfair even if it wasn’t, which is bad for F1. I’m pretty sure Hill would’ve turned down the chance to be a steward, if he had seen this coming.

          3. You want to pick an F1 driver with a grudge against someone else? (or a perceived one)

            Good luck.

            Keep in mind the driver steward doesn’t have a vote, he is just there to shout his opinion.
            If the race stewards can’t handle that, and use the advise with caution, they probably won’t make great stewards anyway…

      2. It’s obvious that DH and others took right decision. It’s race control’s fault who left the “truck clear” and green flags that misguided teams.

        1. Team, singular. Only Mercedes read the rule wrong, everyone else understood there was to be no overtaking.

  3. As Alonso was not defending his position it wasn´t what I´d rate as fantastic, but at least it was a better move than Trulli´s.

    1. Hi, I think Alonso tried to defend his position, he looks like we wanted to close the line for a moment, not sure though….

      1. Next time Alonso could put Schumi into the wall(NASCAR style)and the track would have been blocked…but really Trulli is the one that needs to be slapped up side the head for his bone head move.

        1. Lol! I don’t think Schumacher would like that, he got in trouble last time he blocked the track in that spot!

    2. I’m no Schumacher fan but Alonso was certainly defending his position and all of the top 10 seemed to think they might be racing as they all floored the throttle after the safety car line. Why do that if not racing? It was just that Alonso got bogged down a bit. I know McLaren had instructed Hamilton not to overtake, but even he floored it so there must have been doubt there.

      Very interesting of Mercedes not to apeal in the interest of the sport. I thought they had very good grounds to do so. Also I can remember most of the established teams over the years agreeing to things “in the interest of the sport” but can’t remember that from Ferrari…. but may be that is selective memory.

      1. The FIA may have told them not appeal and in return they will make it up for them next year WHEN YOU REALLY NEED IT :)
        Now this is what is meant by the “interest of the sport” opps I mean the show :)

        1. Looks like there are gonna be some bans onparts/upgrades of competitors. Schumi cant make himself faster.. so .. i guess we have to slow down the field for him.

          1. Actually in this case it seems to be Schumacher is making himself faster so FIA has to do its best to slow him down.

          2. @Todfod

            bla bla bla… zzZZzzzZZzzz

  4. That’s in reference to comments regarding Damon Hill’s influence upon the decision, which, was absolute rubbish in the first place.

  5. Sush Meerkat
    18th May 2010, 14:43

    Is this to do with however the appeal goes even if its in Mercedes’ favour, the penalty ITSELF cannot be rescinded?.

    Also the websites RSS feeds and general front page news seems to now be filled with articles related to Mercedes F1 whether its this appeal, Schumacher or how Merc now feel about the updated car (according to them, they thinks its a positive step).

    Call a huge cynic but I smell the hand of a marketing department knowing the dull week we tend to have straight after the Monaco GP.

    1. Good point, everyone is talking about Mercedes an not about Red bull.

    2. I am with you in that. The move itself got Mercedes and Michael in the headlights and on the front pages. The appeal made it continue for a few days.
      In the end they can present to have been right at not too great a cost (with Schumi not fighting for WDC this year)

      Good PR for them, nice for Schumi to have some posetive engery going towards him.

  6. There’s a simple solution that the FIA can do with this.

    “If you’re not allowed to pass, do not show the drivers a green flag”

    I think almost all the viewers thought the pass was legitimate and most were annoyed at the ruling. Things like this make F1 look bad and they need to make it easier for the F1 viewers to understand without having to refer to the rulebook.
    Yellow Flag – No passing.
    Green Flag – You can race and pass other cars.
    Exceptions should not be allowed.

    1. Chalky is correct here. The only issue for me is the green flag.

    2. Actually if you look at the FIA regs, that’s basically what it says, although in a far more complex way. The green flags seem to have been the real issue. If they had still been yellow then the race would definitely have been finishing under the safety car. But as they were green all the conditions in the regs that the race was restarting at the safety car line seem to have been met, so the way I read it they should have been racing.

      Here is the relevant bit, draw your own conclusions:

      40.11 When the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car the message “SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP” will be displayed on the timing monitors and the car’s orange lights will be extinguished This will be the signal to the teams and drivers that it will be entering the pit lane at the end of that lap.
      At this point the first car in line behind the safety car may dictate the pace and, if necessary, fall more than ten car lengths behind it.
      In order to avoid the likelihood of accidents before the safety car returns to the pits, from the point at which the lights on the car are turned out drivers must proceed at a pace which involves no erratic acceleration or braking nor any other manoeuvre which is likely to endanger other drivers or impede the restart.
      As the safety car is approaching the pit entry the yellow flags and SC boards will be withdrawn and replaced by waved green flags with green lights at the Line. These will be displayed until the last car crosses the Line.

      1. On re-reading the regs there should also never have been a “SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP” message, if the race was not being restarted. The only provision in the regs for giving that message is if the race is being restarted at the end of the lap. It says nothing about giving such a message in any other circumstances e.g. when ending under the safety car.

  7. todt did talk with his old friend brown, i suppose. I think it is right what they are doing. They will look into the rule, and try to make it work better in the future, but right now, there is nothing that they can do. Todt is way much better than mosley already.

    1. I kind of agree. But why not check the rules are watertight before the season starts. Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted springs to mind…

      but I do agree that this is better than Mosely who just left the gate permanently open.

      1. Are we devising sporting regulations or legal legislation? What was at stake here were a couple of points, not life or death decisions.
        What is most important in a sporting code is the intent, and in that context 40.13 is unambiguous.

        Brawn, just as he did at silverstone in 98′, thought he could manipulate the system. He would have been fully aware of the intent of 40.13 and know it applied and would try to exploit the track condition signage but on this occasion rightly, ended up with egg all over his face.

        One last point, Schumacher in comparison to Hill is akin to something you’ed pick up on the sole of your boots and best kept at arms length.

    2. When looking at the rule, they might have a look at the possibilities for the Stewards to give an appropriate penalty as well.

      Dropping a driver less than 20 seconds in this specific case, or just giving a little bit more room for judgment (say 5-20 seconds depending on circumstances), although that might be invite critisizm of lenience towards some drivers

    3. Well, as I understand it, even if Ross Brawn would get an upper hand in appealing Steward’s decision, Michael would still be 12th. That is also a some ridiculous piece of FIA legislation! Perhaps, that is a reason why they dropped the appeal in the first place.

  8. This is a shame. This means the FIA wants to have a “pretend” race to the finishing line once a safety car period is over.

    1. Yup! that’s the thing that annoys me most!

      I think either you say the track is not safe, and you have the safety car finish or not,

      Or you say, the track is safe, and they race.

      This is meant to be a sport and not a reality TV show….

    2. That is precisely the purpose of 40.13, it’s the show that matters especially at Monaco

  9. The funny thing is, if there was a chance to do so Charlie would have instructed Schumacher to let Alonso pass again and that would be sufficient.

    That’s the real problem. The written rules do not adequately reflect the real-time advice on the track whereby drivers usually get a warning and a call to ‘let him back through and you won’t get a penalty.’

    1. It’s exactly the sort of thing they can and should do. It happens in IndyCar and other forms of racing. We could have been spared the rows at Spa in ’08 and Melbourne in ’09 and others if race control took a consistent pro-active role.

      1. They did in Spa ’08. The only problem was that Hamilton immediately overtook Raikkonen after he let him pass and did not give it back, even though McLaren asked race control if it was okay.

        And in this case it was impossible, because the race finished seconds after the pass.

        But I agree it should be done more often after illegal overtaking (or blocking) manoeuvres.

        1. Well to be fair Hamilton let Raikkonen past twice. Once just after the start finish line and then again later in the lap when he went off the track because of the water and to avoid another car. ha. ….then of course Raikkonen let Hamilton by because he span. ..and finally Raikkonen crashed into a wall.


      2. I don’t understanding the reasoning, partly because Brawn would not have been ignorant of the rule relating to the final lap under a SC.

        In any event ignorance isn’t a defence and Brawn/Schumacher’s history suggests opportunistic and cynical exploitation in every possible situation.

        In such circumstances such as Monaco it’s hardly appropriate to revert to the previous order, it requires a punitive response.

        1. … please … the rule is about when the safety car period is going to stay in place until the chequered flag, it’s been around a while, and EVERYBODY has known of it for a long while now. It says that the SC won’t take cross finish line but instead pull into the pits, while the cars complete the race (without overtaking, obviously, ‘cos it is still SC conditions).
          End of.

          Have you ANY proof, going by the actions of Race Control and the regulations as written, that the safety car condition was still in place when it pulled it?

    2. @John H

      good point

  10. Is anyone bothered by the fact that Hill received hate male? Pretty soon we’ll see riots in the stands and drivers protected by security guards with automatic weapons to keep the rabid fans under control. Next will come Tonya Harding-style attacks where some fan breaks Hamilton’s wrist at some nightclub so that he can’t compete. Let’s try to maintain that thin veneer of civilized behavior as long as we can. People are crazy.

    1. Heheh, what have you been drinking? Perhaps all spectators should be put through the xray scanners before they are let inside for the race. Or spectators should be randomly detained for 3 hours and put in a dimly lit room. The Middle Eastern spectators should be waterboarded too, right?

      1. I wouldn’t fancy a male full of hate being sent to me! :-P

  11. If Alonso didn’t think he was racing – why was he sideways getting the power down lol!?

    1. Trying to save his position, just in case the move was legal?

      1. Yep I guess that could still be it but if he was so sure you’d have to wonder why he’s bother nearly cracking the barrier. Easy to say sat here calmly at my desk I guess.

        Interesting though, watch the timing of it – it’s the sideways action I think that triggers Schumi’s move in the first place.

    2. Probably because he’d done 77 laps on the same set of tyres!

      1. Hmmm, again I couldn’t be sure but even if he was down to the canvas, surely a man of Alonso’s caliber could handle applying the power for what he would have perceived as a formation finish. He looked like he was racing to me.

        1. the tyres were cold however and as he did not expect to be racing after the instruction from his team, he did not work as hard on getting temperature in them before this SC line.

    3. He spotted MSC starting to overtake Him and put the power down, in racing conditions it is virtually impossible to overtake there.

      1. Yeah absolutely, that moves not on in racing conditions – I’m off to take another look! I’m sure his moment happened before Schumi tried anything…perhaps Fernando’s reactions are just that quick!

        1. If you watch MSC line through Tabac its the same as Mansell chasing Senna in 92, in racing conditions you dont stand a chance if the driver in front is on the ball.

          1. Years later I learnt He was taking a `slow in fast out` line through the corner hopeing to take Him on the straight. This is excactly the reason why Monaco should stay on the race calender.

          2. Yep I’m agreeing with you Gusto – I think actually Fernando saw MSC looming and was just covering it off. Just interesting that Micheal hadn’t accelerated when Alonso’s car got all out of shape.

          3. I like the way Alonso takes the last corner on the curb trying to take the place back.

          4. If Alonso took the place back, that would be Illegal was well right? I mean, two wrongs doesn’t make a right. Would Alonso get a 20 second penalty as well?

    4. Also the fact that a couple fire extinguishers had just been sprayed across the Lotus and I’m sure the corner wasn’t the stickiest place on the track anymore.

  12. Don Speekingleesh
    18th May 2010, 15:31

    According to the BBC article on the subject: “This interpretation was shared by all the team managers bar that of Mercedes – I understand that upon seeing Schumacher’s move every single one of them got in touch with race director Charlie Whiting to say it was not allowed.”

    1. Well, someone’s telling porkies…

    2. Lets see. The team in the top 10 were

      1.RedBull – we don’t know, but the BBC would have probably asked and mentioned it if they would have thought about racing.
      2.Renault – we don’t know for sure, but unlikely to be racing like Red Bull
      3.Ferrari – no racing
      4.McLaren – no racing
      5.Mercedes – racing allowed
      6.Force India – we don’t know
      7.Torro Rosso – we don’t know (included, because they might be taken as top ten finishers after the penalty).

      So for Mercedes to be right, they would have had to get “support” for their interpretation from 3 of the teams we are not sure about. Not sure about that, but we might be learn about this from those teams.

      1. From what Adam Cooper writes here, it seems STR and probably FI certainly did not agree with Mercedes as they had a lot to gain by the decision, while he indicates Renault and RedBull were supportive of Ross having a good case, as they had nothing to loose by it (indeed rather gainging as Alonso would be a further 2 points behind RBRs drivers).
        As always, that is more about their own interests as about the rules.

        here’s the complete blog:

  13. So it’s no great surprise to see Mercedes drop their attempt to have Schumacher’s sixth place restored.

    Essentially they got what they wanted, since the penalty can not be appealed.

    The rule 40.13 as well as after-race penalties are on the agenda of the next FIA meeting, so there was no use to continue the appeal (it would only be a waste of money).

  14. A couple of interesting Tweets from Jonathan Legard add a little more detail:

    Hearing that Schumacher told in FIA meeting in Spain to obey lights/flags after confusion in Barcelona FP3. System needs clarifying.

    Suggestion by two team managers that fairer punishment would have been to switch Alonso and Schumacher because of green light/new SC rule

    The second point makes a lot of sense to me – I said much the same here: The FIA’s badly-written rules leave Formula 1 looking stupid once again

    1. As the rules were confusing MSC should of had the positions reversed and draw a line under it, ammend the rules so as to avoid confusion, but the FIA being the FIA coundn`t resist making a mountain out of a mole hill.

      1. When things happened earlier this year with Hamilton weaving, wasn’t the answer to let it go, but not let it happen again?

        Swapping them back, would have achieved this and been consistent.

    2. It’s good to know they at least acknowledge the rules are somewhat ambiguous and need looking at.

      Do you know what the available options are to the FIA in this case? I know you have written articles before Keith on the unwritten rules and such, do they need a full review and complete agreement by the teams to change anything?

    3. Exactly Keith, even in football the referee is allowed to consult with 4th offical looking at different angels if a penalty is justified or not.

      I haven’t watched footy for long time so I hope such rules still exist???

      OK then the world cup is near and I am rooting for Scotland :)

      1. No Scotland then, well Cardiff boys then agaist England what a wonderful match that would be. Did I say anything about Rugby?

    4. What does that first line mean? Did Schumacher have problems with the lights in FP3 in Barcelona too?

      1. I’m really not sure about that one. Any thoughts? I’ll dig out a video of Barcelona FP3 later.

        1. I think that in Barcelona FP3 there were a couple of issues with drivers setting “green” sector times during a yellow flag period – initially there were some questions over whether five or six drivers might receive a grid penalty. Presumably Schumacher was one of those involved and warned not to do it again.

      2. For me it seems to mean, that Schumacher was warned to pay more attention to yellow flags being out.

        So now he payed attention to the greens and they were wrong? Or should it mean, that he already got warned and this was taken to be a clue of him not respecting the rules repeatedly?

  15. Really don’t understand the reason why the withdraw their appeal? Is this what Schuamcher wants that his comeback be without any trouble? But I am feeling very bad about this he did nothing wrong it was an awesome pass & still he gets no reward for that.

    1. I agree with you to 100%. Terrible news.

    2. They agrred a deal under tha carpet for next year wasF1 willF1 :)

    3. Mercedes probably just thought that any appeal would be unsuccessful.

      1. They had all the evidence to proof that the move was not illegal under the circumstance that they did.It’s the FIA that made the mistake not Schumi.

        1. I think there was not much to gain for Mercedes by putting in the appeal.

          1. the penaly would not have been reversed, even if they won their appeal.
          Therefore the only reasons to appeal would be 2. being morally right (PR) and
          3. having the rules improved to avoid such unclear situations in the future.

          With the press statement they get pretty far on the 2nd point and from the comments by FIA the uproar has allready resulted in getting point 3 on.

          Not much reason go on with appealing. This is good, the FIA admits, that the situation is not as it should be and moves to improve the rules and procedures.

          1. They knew there was no hope of a reversal, they also knew they were totally in the wrong.

            Interesting to see Brawn’s blustering on sunday, wonder what the humble tastes like on wednesday.

          2. JamesR – “they also knew they were totally in the wrong” …

            I’ve yet to see any attempt to prove – by you or anyone else, using the regs as they stand – that they were in the wrong.

            If it is so blindingly obvious to you, please could you help me out, showing me why – by quoting the relevant sections of the regulations – rule 40.13 was enforcable?

            And please don’t just go on about what *you* think the ‘intent’ of 40.13 is – remember, it is an old rule that has been used before, for when the race is to end under the SC, it won’t take the line but instead go into the pits, but the race cars must keep order and not overtake on their way to the line, as per standard SC rules (ref. 40.7). If you think it has any other ‘intent’, then please bear in mind that it was written before the SC line was written in to the rules…

  16. Keith,

    When you say: “So it’s no great surprise to see Mercedes drop their attempt to have Schumacher’s sixth place restored.”

    I think that Mercedes where merely going through their “appeal motions” to prove a point.

    On autosport ( they claimed the following:
    “Mercedes, however, has appealed the decision, which will now be handled by the FIA’s Court of Appeal.”

    “The FIA said the appeal is strictly against the decision, not the penalty itself as drive-throughs cannot be appealed.”

    So they probably knew already that they wouldn’t get that penalty reversed, but they would have their name cleared and the stupidity removed from the rules (or race control)

    I guess they won that battle already.

    1. Oh excellent news that is even if only to serve the FIA an egg on their face for not being so stubborn.

  17. Andrew Benson on his BBC blog makes a good point that the idea behind the rule was to stop the safety car being visible when the winner crossed the line i.e. make it look better for TV.

    1. I think it pulls in anyway at the end of the last lap – even if the race is still under SC conditions (although without overtaking at all of course)

      I was kind of hoping the safety car would continue and not come in at all, Mayländer opting instead to park in the P1 spot in front of Prince Albert.

  18. After Spa 08 we all know you cannot appeal a stewards decision, its obvious that it was a illegal move, according to a ambigious FIA ruling, He was guilty, What concerns me is a football mentality emerging from this situation, for Hill to recieve abuse over this is digusting an I for one would like to say that the vast majority of F1 followers would like to distance themselves from these comments and say that its not whether you win lose or draw its how you play the game.

  19. marmenaller
    18th May 2010, 18:03

    If Shcumi could overtake Alonso there is because Alonso wasn´t racing. It would be imposible in any other situation to get by him. And the way Alonso reacted is correct, as he could have lost the position because of going no fast enough or maybe it was allowed to overtake.

    puxa Nano!!

    1. FelipeBabyStayCool
      18th May 2010, 19:10

      Exactly my point. I’ve heard too many times he was napping. If he had been told it would be back to racing, he would have been trying to make a move on Lewis, but would have failed because Lewis would be trying his move on Massa, and so on. You can’t pass there in racing conditions

  20. Nathan Bradley
    18th May 2010, 18:38


    I have a simple but elegant solution that I believe works, so here goes:

    Why not borrow something from our NASCAR friends in America and in cases such as this i.e. last lap safety car, how about finishing under the green-white-checker rule?

    It would allow drivers to race for 2 more laps and remove any controversy. I don’t forsee any problems with fuel consumption, as you save fuel under a safety car anyway.

    Nor do I see a problem with tyre wear, as as Fernando Alonso just proved, the Bridgestone tyres can easily last a little longer.

    I know this wouldn’t happen too often in F1 but at least it would be there if they needed it.


    P.S. This may already have been mooted, so sorry if I’m repeating :)

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3

Leave a Reply

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

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.