Alonso’s race ruined after Kubica pass

2010 British Grand PrixPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

After a frustrating race in Valencia Fernando Alonso had more bad luck in the British Grand Prix.

But this time he was at least partly the architect of his own demise.

He was handed a drive-through penalty after the stewards judged he’d passed Robert Kubica by going off the track – and Alonso failed to give the position back.

Alonso passed Kubica at Club, pulling alongside the Renault driver on the outside. Kubica gave him little room, forcing the Ferrari driver onto the run-off.

Alonso rejoined the track in front of Kubica and didn’t cede the position back. This was surprising, as we’ve seen on several occasions the stewards order drivers to hand positions back having taken them by going off the track.

At Singapore last year Alonso was given a place back by Mark Webber after a similar incident on the first lap.

Instead Ferrari and Renault debated the matter with the stewards. Predictably, Alonso was eventually told to give the place back to Kubica.

But within moment of decision been taken, Kubica was out of the race. Now the stewards told Alonso he would have to serve a driver-through penalty.

This was harsh, but completely in line with past decisions – and entirely avoidable had Alonso had the sense to give the position back to Kubica in the first place.

It got worse for Ferrari as the safety car was summoned onto the track moments later, meaning Alonso would have to serve his penalty after the field had bunched up, costing him even more dearly.

Ferrari’s press officer Luca Colajanni referred to the team’s frustration after Valencia when interviews about the penalty on the BBC:

Today we had another example that maybe people need to think about it. We had to give back a position and no-one was around to collect it.

But there are referees in every sport and you have to respect their position, wrong or right.
Luca Colajanni

Their less vehement reaction to this setback compared to their fury after Valencia is perhaps a tacit admission that their driver could have avoided this penalty.

2010 British Grand Prix

Browse all 2010 British Grand Prix articles

Image (C) Ferrari spa

187 comments on “Alonso’s race ruined after Kubica pass”

  1. To me, the right decision.
    I was surprised (or not so surprised in fact) that Alonso didn’t give the position back immediately.

    I agree that the drive-through / SC combination ruined his race, but a little common sense would have given him a good result.

    He has passed Kubica outside the track: give position back !

    1. Yeah, in Valencia Alonso was furious with the stewards taking so long time to make a decision, today his race was not ruined by Penalty + SC, but by him failing to make the decision to let Kubica past straight away.

      1. Everyone at home knew it was going to result in a penalty why didn’t Ferrari. Surely someone should have told Fernando to let Kubica back through, we all knew EXACTLY what was going to happen.

    2. the stewards acted way too late. how many laps did it take them to agree that ALO should give back the place? was it 3? they should have made a decision after at most 1 lap.

      1. Fernando should have made the decision straight away, to a) not make any trouble for himself and b)to stay with him trough the new section and have a go at him into Brooklands.

        1. to stay with him trough the new section and have a go at him into Brooklands.

          Given what happened to Hamilton at Spa two years ago I think it’s safe to assume that wouldn’t have been allowed.

          1. keith, i am thinking the title of your article is not quite correct. “Alonso’s bad start “again” ruined his race”, not giving back the position, it’s something the team must look into, and look to see who is responsible. Alonso, stella even domenicalli. What a sorry shadow of the team once was.

          2. Thats why I didn’t say – to overtake in the twisty section. After the Spa indecent the rule was clarified that you can’t overtake for two corners after letting driver past. Is that correct? If it is as I thought before then, if Alonso had done what Hamilton did and let him past straight away and held onto him for the fast 11 and the twisty stuff, then that would have been more than two corners going into Brooklands, wouldn’t it?

          3. miguelF1O (@)
            11th July 2010, 18:45

            can i quote fernando on a message?

            “I think we did what we had to do and I don’t think we had to change anything,” Alonso told Spanish reporters after finishing outside of the points at Silverstone.

            “There will be a lot of opinions from people watching on TV while having a beer, saying we should have let Kubica by in a moment when, first, there was nothing to do – if there’d had been a wall instead of grass I would have crashed against it and they would have penalised Kubica most likely.

            “So it depends on how you look at it. We thought it was fine. A few laps passed and there were no news and then if we had wanted to let him by, Kubica had retired already so there was nothing to change.”

            The Spaniard insisted he did not feel unfavoured by the race stewards, just two weeks after the European Grand Prix controversy.”

          4. mateuss: No, it’s not 2 corners. It is ‘you can’t gain advantage by cutting the track’ if cutting the track allows you to get a run on someone a la Hamilton then you’ve gained advantage. If cutting the track allows you to pass, as it did with Alonso you get a penalty. If you hold a place by cutting the track you get a penalty. If you set a new quick sector, you’ve gained advantage and you get a penalty.

            The only time you don’t get a penalty, is if you voluntarily give back the advantage you gained. Being ordered to give back a place by the stewards, isn’t so much an order as it is a threat – you’ve gained advantage, and you’re about to get a penalty unless you voluntarily give the place back.

            Also, 3 laps is about 5 to 6 minutes. I’d say that’s not too slow a turn-around time. Any quicker than that and you risk making the wrong decision.

          5. @Daniel
            But if you are side by side one corner and three corners later you are side by side again then the net advantage is 0. But even still if the stewards wouldn’t have liked it then he still could have let him by and have another go.

          6. @mateuss: Failing to lose time when you would have done had you stayed on track is also considered gaining an advantage.

    3. miguelF1O (@)
      11th July 2010, 18:29

      alonso should have yield immediately but on the other side when fia took their decision some 5 laps after (not very late) alonso didint had the chance to get behind kub cause some miles further kub started running slow to retiremet so this is a case of harsher rules which i agree but this referee has no compensation on valencia the team who was hurt was the only one who didnt made a mistake and they rectified the rules to make another mistake penalise ferrari again ferrari should have acknowledge that fia is a bit bias a bit earlier now they are paying consequence for some comments again really professional martin brundle transmiting always the right comments on the opposite im getting mad with leggard that shouldnt be an f1 commentator

      1. miguelF1O (@)
        11th July 2010, 18:35

        how can i let kubica pass me back if he is dnf ? it is simple if kubica was still on track and alonso ignored the decision the righteous thing to do is drive through of course but that wasnt the case like brundle said how can alonso get behind someone who is out at that point everyone thought ferrari got lucky that kub had a problem but no that wasn even worse if this was an referre he would be light to ferrari because they clearly made on of the worse mistakes on this last 20 years compensation

        1. Kubica left a lap later, you have to give the place back immediately.

      2. Maybe Miguel, the sensible answer for’lonso, would have been to hit the brake pedal, and ease out of that corner confrontation with Kubica, and use the momentum for the next sequence of corners, as a racing driver he knows this, and he took the decision to try, and force the issue, and……

    4. maestrointhesky
      11th July 2010, 23:04

      There should have been no debate. Rather than massaging Alonso’s over inflated ego, his team should have ordered him to give the place back. If Alonso had any sense, he would have done it himself. They were effectively trying it on to see what they could get away with. It’s not a good situation to be unable to communicate with your driver (referring to the ‘no more radio’ comment). His attitude is definitely showing as his main weakness at the moment.

      1. Exactly. They took a gamble and thought they’d argue the point while Alonso made a nice gap, hoping it would work out in their favour.

        Unlucky for them Kubica retired which meant the penalty they were thinking might appear turned into a bigger one.

        Even more unlucky was the timing of the safety car (ironically caused by a Ferrari engined Sauber).

        So many times in the past Ferrari were given the benefit of the doubt (such as Silverstone ’98) I doubt many non-Ferrari fans have that much sympathy.

        It was very similar to Spa ’07 (driver cutting a corner to avoid a collision) and even then, despite sort of giving the position back, Lewis still got a penalty so it was always going to be likely that the outcome was going to be either let Kubica through or some other time penalty.

        They took a gamble but it didn’t work out. Live with it and move on. The end.

  2. He had to imediately hand the position back to Kubica, though, penalty is a lttle bit too harsh. Alonso should blame only himself.

    1. I agree, I am usually the first to attack Alonso, but I feel sorry for the guy here.
      The Penalty was fair, as he should have given the place back straight away, but still it wasn’t a light penalty. and In the heat of the moment, I doubt he wanted to go back bechind Kubica, and possibly be stuck there for another 20 laps.

  3. Definately the right decision, though leave it to Ferrari to make martyrs of themselves. Alonso has no-one to blame but himself for the situation. The golden rule for this kind of thing is that when in doubt, there is no doubt. Jumping on the radio to send a message to the viewers and the stewards to make yourself look innocent does nothing.

    1. I think thats a bit harsh, but you have to admit bad decisions and plenty of bad luck was what ruined his race.

  4. To be safe, Alonso should have given it back immediately like Massa in 08 at Monza with Rosberg. However, Alonso is desperate for points at the minute, he isn’t the calmest driver so I can forgive him for trying to argue his point. Ferrari should have told him to be safe rather than sorry as they have to be the driver’s brain in racing as a driver is so focussed. Alonso clearly asked immediately what to do and they were talking for so long that Kubica retired and there was no choice. Alonso is partly to blame and he could have taken the easier route but the stewards have prooved yet again to be too slow to make the decision although they were caught short with the Renault troubles.

    It’s another case of circumstances conspiring against Ferrari but them not making life any easier for themselves.

    I do find it ironic though that Alonso wanted quicker decisions from the stewards and then his deliberation and Ferrari’s cost him everything today.

    1. I think your completely right in your assesment here Steph. Alonso should have let Kubica by, or Ferrari should have told him to do so.

      I also think they could have gone straight into the pits, as the penalty was shown quite a while before the team informed Alonso. They might have gone in immediately and Alonso would be at the end of the top 10. Then the SC could have given him a chance to fight back towards Hülkenberg, Schumi and Sutil at least, maybe even on the back of Rubens and Button.

      But i am glad Ferrari is not making such a fuss about it. And i actually liked Alonso stating, that it’s how penalties should be served. Make them really punishing! Great remarks, shows he is not giving up.

  5. “there are referees in every sport and you have to respect their position, wrong or right.”

    Decent attitude, and its probably best for the team to let this one go, regroup for Hockenheim and start getting Fernando back into this title race.

    1. Agree that was good from Luca. Alonso seems to say much the same. He’s had his sulk and now he’s accepted it. I like that way, I know many think he moans etc but personally I like that style (not the whingeing but the passion).

      As for the title, they need a miracle. It can happen.

      1. *notes which Luca said it*

        Again, what Alonso did was natural for him, maybe a bit dumb, but he didn’t do something horrendously bad.

        On the other hand, Where’s Monty in Ferrari’s backtrack on their allegations? …
        not in attendance?

    2. @David A

      I agree that it is how teams should react if feeling hard done by. However I am gobsmacked that they feel hard done by. Alonso gained a clear advantage by cutting a corner and made not immediate attempt to hand the position back. I did not see Ferrari complaining when Hamilton was given a points deduction a few years ago in spa when Kimi held his line forcing hamilton off track and then handing the position straight back! In fact I seem to remember them asking for tough penalties to be handed to him! Ferrari seem to have very selective memories. I think the drive through is a little harsh but what else could they do once Kubica was no longer in the race? If Alonso had given the position straight back he would not have got the penalty.

  6. chaostheory
    11th July 2010, 16:01

    You could think Alonso is more mature driver after all those years behind the wheel; so all he needed to do is think and give back the position, a position he would take back even if Kubica would stay in the race (the Renault was way too slow for top 5 today).
    But Alonso decision not to give the position back immediately is one thing, the time it took the stewards to decide what to do is -again- disgraceful. It was as straightforward as it could be in F1 – the guy overtook the other by going off track – what there is to think about for soooo long?

  7. hAHA. This is getting real interesting. I thought that is what Ferrari made a big noise of the race before, ? something like Manipulated race?

    So this race, they come and say, again another manipulated race? haha.Ferrari might as well say any race not won by them are manipulated by other teams, and the one they win (Bahrain), are manipulated by they themselves.

    1. But they haven’t said that the race was fixed or manipulated or whatever like last week. This time they’ve stated that they respect the decisions from the stewards.

  8. Instead of asking the team over the radio to handle that with the stewards, had he given the position back to kubica on the straight following Club he could avoided all that trouble.

    1. I agree, he should have acted himself. It was stupid to wait for a decision, given how quickly he pulled away from Kubica. Maybe Robert’s car was already sick by then.

  9. missing kimi already… alonso has made too many mistakes so far this year!! that car deserves much better..

  10. Same thing happened to Hamilton in spa 2008. Raikonnen crashes out. Still gets penalty. Fair play FIA

    1. Forgot to say but the decision for Hamilton at spa was harsh but good consistency by the FIA

    2. Good point Oli, gooooood point…

    3. You’re right, but Hamilton’s penalty was wrong and completely disproportionate to the advantage gained, as with Alonso today

      1. If I remeber correctly, Lewis gave the position back to Kimi…

      2. Remember, Hamilton even gave the position back, but was still penalised – for the 2 corner rule that was not even in existence at the race. It was clarified for the next race!

        1. There is no 2 corner rule! Hamilton gained an advantage by cutting the track, letting Kimi back past just enough so he could slip stream him down the straight is still an advantage. That was the point.

          1. Daniel – Yes, there was no 2 corner rule at Spa. It was clarified for the next race – so in essence, he was punished for a rule that was not in existence.
            Remember, the rule initially only specified that the driver deemed to have an advantage by cutting the corner should give the place back – which LH did. The rule did not initially specify when or how this should happen. Read the post properly

          2. He gave back the place he gained by cutting the track but didn’t give back all of the advantage he gained.

            It was obvious to me at the time that he was going to be penalised for this – I’d seen the exact same thing happen in another category of motorsport.

            The 2 corners thing isn’t really a rule. It is a clarification. What it says is that it should be obvious to you that if you cut a corner but still manage to get past another car within 2 corners then you haven’t redressed the situation properly.

            The rule was “You can’t gain advantage by cutting the track.” Advantage can be anything from gaining a position to not losing time you would have otherwise. Hamilton did gain an advantage, he was in a position to slip-stream Kimi that he couldn’t have been in if he’d followed the route of the track.

            Hamilton broke the “can’t gain advantage” rule that was in the book. The 2 corner clarification only came about because Hamilton didn’t understand what can’t gain advantage meant.

      3. What is all this talk of a penalty being disproportionate? You break the rules you get the penalty mandated by the rules. How much time you lose with respect to others shouldn’t come into it, unless what you did was the equivalent of a professional foul.

        Usually breaking the rules is a mistake. You break the rules you take the consequences, just like any other mistake. Going slightly off line is a minor mistake, but if there is a wall there then the consequences are disproportionate to the error – that’s racing. Same with corner cutting.

    4. maestrointhesky
      11th July 2010, 23:28

      You forget, Hamilton gave the position back but was still penalised in that instance! The rules had to be clarified after that and that’s how the ‘wait for 2 corner’s’ came to fruition. If they had to clarify the rule then the penalty should have not been administered in the race where the question was asked.

  11. No. Way too harsh, and now Ferrari must take it on the chin for fear of another backlash against wingeing. But are the rules to blame or the referees? No idea. With Kubica’s retirement they should have given Alonso a 5 sec time addition at the end of the race. That would have been fair and more than he gained.

    1. but we don’t want consistency we want fair and proportionate punishments that don’t ruin the race!

      1. Sounds like you just want want flexible rules that can benefit your man at their convenience… No.

        Write the rules down, break them and you accept your fate. Fernando broke the rules and paid his price.

        He’s been crashing, jumping starts, waving at other drivers, being generally anti-social all season. These are not the attributes of a champion. Sack him Ferrari, and count your chickens.

    2. That was exactly what i was thinking. A 5 second penalty would have been well balanced imo.

  12. F1 looks stupid again when they give out a penalty who’s impact was completely disporportionate to the crime. We saw it with Schumacher in Moncao and Hamilton in Belgium 2008. If the stewards had made a quick decision and got on the radio to Ferrari and told Alonso to immediately let Kubica back through they could have avoided this, instead like in Valencia they took ages deliberating about it and ended up giving him a penalty for harsher than the crime warrented.

    The stewards need to take decisions far faster in F1 and need to be given more flexibility in the penalties given, a drive through penalty is disproportionate in damage to the advantage gained by Alonso today or Hamilton a couple of years ago. Would it not have been better that they could have given Alonso a 5 second penalty after the race once Kubica had retired and he had no-one to give a place back to?

    But there’s another solution to the problem of drivers going off track simply use gravel to make sure they don’t gain an advantage by going off track.

    1. it’s not stewards job to tell driver to give the position back, that should have been done by his team… stewards will go by book…

    2. This is some poetic justice against Ferrari, but still not enough, for Spa 2008. Then Hamilton gave the position back and asked race control for confirmation that all was okay – which they got, remember? This time Alonso makes an even clearer overtake via the grassy bits and doesn’t return the position – but Ferrari want a quick race control decision! In their favour, obviously. Ferrari are getting stung now by their own presumption from the Max era that all the decisions go their way. They’re not learning. And losing valuable points because of it. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

      1. “This is some poetic justice against Ferrari”

        The stewards made the decision in 08. Ferrari may have got the win but it was the stewards fault and two wrongs don’t make a right.

        1. I agree overall Steph, but my point is Ferrari need to reassess their attitudes to these decisions. Alonso clearly should have returned the position but he and Ferrari preferred the risk of arguing it with the stewards. They’re making the wrong calls. As you rightly said above, Alonso is too heated up to make them himself so the team needs to be more level-headed.

          1. I think the team should have reacted quicker to be safe but I can see why they argued; the idea of passing Kubica (a great defender who showed he wasn’t willing to give up) was too much given their championship hopes. I think Ferrari were partly responsible but the stewards should have said immediately “give it back or you’ll risk a penalty”.

            I know Ferrari’s attitude isn’t always the easiest to get along with and they can seem petulent so I understand when people complain and I can be a soft touch.

          2. I also think these issues should be sorted immediately by race control *if* the teams ask for clarification – but that was precisely what Spa 2008 ruled out! wrongly in my view. Even if Whiting etc. are ‘wrong’ sometimes, it’s like in a soccer match, you have to accept whose arbitrating might make an iffy call. This kind of incident – chicane cutting – is different from other decisions needing a stewards inquiry – but if unsure race control could then always then call for the stewards. The same could apply to teams if they disagree with race control too. It’d be a much better system I think.

        2. Alan Donnely = Ferrari

    3. Seems like no one talks about what exactly happend… Fernando would be infront if Kubica didnt push him out of the track… so in that case Kubica “manipulated” the race with risking hes own race by over pushing Alonso off the track… in my opinion punishemt isnt fair at all, and i dont want to speak again when the punishment came… much to late

      1. Pushing drivers off track is unfortunately legal. Kubica does it all the time.

      2. Im sorta with you on this. If you watch the replays you will see that Kubica didnt run wide through lack of traction he ran wide because he wanted to either push Alonso off circuit or get Alonso to plough on the brakes. It was ‘manipulated’ by Kubica, fair do’s but he cant be expected to not loose position pulling moves like that. Anyone can run someone off wide on an outside of a corner, its was very calculated. Alonso’s move was really good and if Kubica didnt run him off track Alonso would of definataly had the line into the right hander. Kubica aint stupid, he knew what he was doing by drifting wide.

    4. Totally agree. For example in Nascar it takes “seconds” or 1 minute to define a penalty. One more time a manipulated race and 2 in a row again Ferrari….we all know that kubica its not a clean driver (and one of the most ugly people in the paddock)…he cheats on Villeneuve and still crying on the radio to Alonso…. and whitting…well he must go to mosley…

      1. How did Kubica cheat on Villeneuve?

        1. off the track, “managment things” (He´s not the only one, for example, the same happened into Minardi with Mazzacane and Fontana, the first with large $$$$ behind, and Fontana one of the fasters drivers in that moment…but… you know what money can buy…. JV develpment the car and some mid-grid driver took the glory (I´m still too hangry for this morning race!!!)

      2. Kubica does WHAT?!

      3. @Pablo: Yeah, Kubica is an aggressive driver, and is known for his robust defense. You know who else is known for this kind of driving? All the best drivers, including Alonso, Hamilton and Schumacher. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that! So he’s ugly, huh? That’s your argument? I’m actually pretty happy hearing rumors about Buemi joining Kubica in Renault next year. We would have two of the ugliest drivers in one team, and you know what? I bet they would kick butt ;) Renault’s development goes in the right direction and they can be very competitive next year.

    5. I agree totally with you

      1. It’s not a beauty contest Pablo.

  13. Jhonnie Siggie
    11th July 2010, 16:22

    I feel bad for him but he knew he did something wrong (re on his radio asking about it) so he should have given the place back straight away. The timing of the SC was unfortunate for him 2 races in a row now. However, he really should be cursing his luck or matter of fact try not to curse as much and just be positive. Maybe things will turn around for him soon.

    I think it is unfortunate however that some will try to make this about the rules and the FIA’s perceived bias. Again, the FIA dispensed punishment according to rule book.

  14. What are you saying??? This is not a sport any more. They should let the software drive…. Tragic decision! Am i only one who see it??

    1. Are you from ferrari? :-)

  15. “Their less vehement reaction to this setback compared to their fury after Valencia is perhaps a tacit admission that their driver could have avoided this penalty.”

    Keith, this is your speculation but nothing close to reality.

    Ferrari immediately asked stewards about Alonso’s move and they answered there was no problem and no need to give position back..

    but after 10 laps they changed ideas 2 times (give a position back to no one still racing and then a drive-through).. wonderful choices!

    I don’t know how Colajanni was translated in English but I can assure You there is no trace of “tacit admission”.

    Ferrari did all the errors it can in the start of the race.. the rest are wrong choices of stewards.

    1. Are you one of the steward’s? How’d you hear that? :-)

      1. I was going to say! If the stewards actually told ferrari there was no need to hand the place back, kubica retires and then they decide to give Alonso the penalty….well that’s very bad!

    2. reveal your sources…

      have you made them up?

      1. I haven’t made anything.
        This is what italian television said and it doesn’t matter if happened to Ferrari or to any other team/driver.

        Stewards decided the race.

        1. It doesn’t seem in the least plausible that Ferrari were told first that it was OK, but then later that it wasn’t – stewarding in F1 is far from perfect, but surely Ferrari would have protested if what you say really had happened. It doesn’t add up.

          1. So I wonder why the Anchor man said the false… looks strange to me.

            Teams are always in contact with the Stewards..

    3. Ferrari immediately asked stewards about Alonso’s move and they answered there was no problem and no need to give position back.

      I haven’t seen anything to back that claim up anywhere.

      I don’t know how Colajanni was translated in English

      It wasn’t, he spoke in English.

      1. I’m telling you where i heard this.. Anchormen (Ivan Capelli, Cesare Fiorio) said Ferrari asked the stewards informally about the overtake.

        I’m not saying the overtake was legal but why the stewards said no problem and then applied a penalty?

        1. Asked informally, heard what they wanted to hear and decided that was enough. There’s a lesson there…

          1. Didn’t that happen to McLaren/Hamilton in Spa 2008 too?

  16. The stewards are getting very wrong by thinking that the ‘rule’ is more important than the race. The rules are made so there’s a fair race.
    EVERYONE could see the maneuver between Alonso and Kubica as it was on focus in the transmission. If it was wrong, then they should swap back the positions soon after. How come they should wait for Renault to complain?
    After Kubica left the race, there was no reason for a penalty anymore SINCE NO ONE ELSE HAD BEEN DISFAVORED.

    The good referee is the one that goes unnoticed.

    1. Are you from ferrari too? :-)

    2. You’re blind, you do not realise that Alonso took a massive lead in front of Robert which he would not of had if he was behind. he gained an advantage.

      The penalty was sound, the car wasn’t on the track anymore the only penalty they could give was drive through.

      1. Or a 5 second post race penalty or a grid drop next race. Drive through was a bad decision.

    3. You’re completely wrong to say no-one else was ‘disfavoured’

      Alonso was being (fairly) held up by Kubica. Once he was past him, that unfairly disadvantaged the other (slower) cars he was chasing,as it potentially allowed him to catch and attempt to pass them sooner than he should have.

      yes Kubica’s retirement and the safety car made it all rather academic – and made Alonso’s decision to speed off into the distance rather than give the place back seem even more foolish, but they Kubica wasn’t the only car racing with Alonso when looked at in a ‘whole race’ context.

    4. SINCE NO ONE ELSE HAD BEEN DISFAVORED.

      Alonso gained time after passing Kubica that he would not have gained had he not overtaken him.

      1. And he returned in front of Button after pitting because of it, Button would have been disfavored if not for the penalty-

  17. Now who’s the cheater? Hahaha! See, if he’s in Lewis’s place in valencia, he’d do the same Lewis did but the sad thing is he was caught by the safety car after Lewis passed. Alonso is a more radical cheater than any driver in F1. He should have given back the place to kubi immediately and that should be a common instinct for a straight and honest F1 driver. Last week, they want good punishments from the stewards for those who break them rules…now they got it…as they wish! Bwaaaahahahaha!

  18. Here here… he might be a great driver and they may be a great manufacturer, but they’re also cheats, and the FIA are watching, at last… Karma, ahhhhh….

  19. Roger Carballo AKA Archtrion
    11th July 2010, 16:47

    I’m really disappointed with this forum…. who has gained position in that corner? Come on, even David Coulthard said it was unfair…. comparing this issue with Valencia’s is absolutely out of place. This time you don’t need a rule modification to let it clear.

    I’ve heard that after the incident Alonso inmediately turned down revs and waited to give position back, but Kubica’s differential broke and nothing could be done. I don’t know if it’s true, although it could be seen by telemetry.

    Alonso (and I don’t mind if it is the Fred, the Hamilton or any other driver in this case) was at the inner side of the turn, absolutely paired with Kubica. If there was a penalty to give it was to Kubica for dangerous driving.

    1. What’s wrong with a lift immediately after the corner? A bit easier than to “turn down the revs”. Or is Alonso THAT stupid that he needs the ECU to make him slow down ?

    2. Agree. One thing is go side by side into the corner and one different thing its try to take out the track another driver (I race karts, i know “a little” the difference)…but, you know… if Alonso was Hamilton there was no penalty

      1. I agree. Ham would have let Rob back through immediately with a little lift and would therefore not have been penalised unlike Alonso who deliberately chose to ignore a basic rule of F1 and then goes all emotional…again. You can’t ignore rules and then moan. Simples.

    3. I appreciate your point Architron and if I was writing the rules from scratch I wouldn’t allow drivers to push their rivals off the track.

      But these are the rules we have and we all know if you overtake another car by going off the track – regardless of whether the other person forced you off the track – you have to give the position back.

      We saw that on several occasions last year – Button at Valencia and Webber at Singapore for example.

      1. Yes, these are the rules. The problem is that sometimes they are applied and many other times they are NOT applied. Drivers never know what is going to happen; if this were as you said it would be quite silly on Fernando/Ferrari not to have Kubica past (I think they should have done it).

        We could see in catalonian TV how two members of Ferrari team (boss included) and Fernando’s agent were talking to him before he had to leave for the TV interview. I can imagine them telling him “you better keep your mouth shut (meaning do not tell what you are thinking) if you do not want to get another penalty next race”. And that is quite logical, I do not recall the FIA referring to something Fernando has done like “you bad boy, did something wrong, but that is OK as far as you do not do it again”… do you?

        1. “Yes, these are the rules. The problem is that sometimes they are applied and many other times they are NOT applied. Drivers never know what is going to happen”

          There is a question of consistency from circuit to circuit but in this case the stewards at Silverstone were being consistent. For all of the support races over the race weekend the stewards were handing out penalties for cars with all 4 wheels off the circuit who were gaining an advantage from it.

      2. Roger Carballo AKA Archtrion
        11th July 2010, 18:59

        appreciate your point, and agree with it. And you know, as I know, that this issue is far away from easy reading of the rules, just a planet appart from a fanboy argument, what I dislike so much.

        Maybe we will find FIA clarifying rules next week in order to bring late justice to racing, like it happened with the safety car overtakings, empty tanks qualifying laps, waving on straights, driving on the blue line of the pits, etc etc etc.

    4. I don’t know about turning down the revs, and I’d like to see the full race data, but watching it on the BBC’s race tracker, Alonso appeared to open up a large gap as soon as he was past. If he wanted to give the place back, all he needed to do was lift off the throttle for a second, but he didn’t, he sped off into the distance.

      1. Roger Carballo AKA Archtrion
        11th July 2010, 19:01

        knowing that in that turn Kubica lost his differential, the gap was innevitable

    5. I completely disagree with all you say, but good point about the BBC pundits getting it wrong AGAIN though.

      It seems to be getting worse and worse.

  20. All Alonso had to do was think “Oops I cut the corner there” let him back passed and he’d have finished 3rd or 4th.

    1. At the end of the day, regardless of whether things got unfair with Alonso, that is what should have happened and as Keith said, I think Ferrari realise it.

    2. yep i agree, pretty simple

      1. Alonso,being so passionate and fiery is with the wrong team,as Ferrari are the same as him — so easily fired up..look at the way all this is affecting Felipe Massa? The poor man looks a shadow of how he was with Michael Schumacher.
        Ferrari need cool headed drivers,and Alonso needs to be with a cool headed team.

        They are destroying each other.

        1. Good point. If Alonso was in a more level headed team they would have told him to cool down. They would have explained that it was his own mistake and just deal with it.

          Now his team is just as nuts as he is and they are freaking each other out to the point where Alonso cannot even overtake Buemi or Liuzzi anymore.

  21. According to La Sexta reporters, it seems ALO asked the team what he should do, and the Team told him to keep the place as the movement was legal.

    In any case I think ALO should have returned back to KUB the place without asking his team. That movement was clearly cutting the chicane, so cristal clear for everybody what to do…

    ALO is not managing properly the pressure he feels, and that could be the end for any top driver, if he don’t fix it quickly.

    1. We clearly heard Alonso tell the team that HE felt that he did nothing wrong. maybe the team confirmed this, but Alonso did not sound uncertain about it at all.

  22. Seems like some people would do weel to read this:

    http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85223

    In particular

    “There will be a lot of opinions from people watching on TV while having a beer, saying we should have let Kubica by in a moment when, first, there was nothing to do – if there’d had been a wall instead of grass I would have crashed against it and they would have penalised Kubica most likely.”

    I feel that a 5 to 10 sec penalty would have been more fit. Allthemore when considering that Kubi dropped out one or two laps after the incident and the fact that he left Alonso no room to pass.

    1. actually something different Alonso said there made me much happier:

      “Forty seven points seem a lot, but we don’t see it that way. Besides, before coming to Silverstone I trusted I could fight for the title, but we had to confirm that the car was working well at this track.

      “And now after Silverstone, regardless of the points we have lost, the car was flying in the race, so now I believe I can win the title much more than I believed before.”

      Alonso not giving up and feeling OK as his car was certainly up to the job. I still see him giving it some good fightback this year.

      1. Yes, that is the attitude Ferrari and Alonso need to have. Try their best and don’t get down when things don’t go your way, but come back like Webber did.

    2. “I think we did what we had to do and I don’t think we had to change anything,”

      This means Alonso/Ferrari still thinks that move was legal and not a tacit admission.

      Ferrari knows is not useful to argue anymore so there is no fury like Valencia.

    3. 5-10 sec penalties would not be given during for incident that are investigated during the race. The minimum that the stewards give during a race is drive through!

  23. Bartholomew
    11th July 2010, 17:06

    And now Lou diMonty will step up to the microphone
    LOL
    Ferrari should just pack up and go race in America

    1. Copy and paste from other thread:

      They have been here for 60 years, and have been through worse times than where thy are now. So there is no reason they should suddenly quit.

  24. I must say I was rather conflicted by the penalty.

    On the one hand I thought Alonso deserved it due to the precedent set but on the other hand it rather messed up my prediction because before that, I had four drivers in the right positions lol.

  25. I am a little unclear as to whether the stewards would investigate an incident such as this as a matter of routine or only do so if (in this case Renault) made an official complaint about an unfair advantage being gained. In other words, if Renault took the view (however unlikely) that Kubica had, in fact, left Alonso with nowhere to go and that it was all just a racing incident and didn’t want to make an issue of it, could the stewards turn round and say, irrespective of that, Ferrari were wrong and should be punished.
    I only ask this because, if it is the latter, it could go some way (perhaps not all the way!) to answering the question as to the length of time for the decision to be taken. If Renault complained, I suppose in the interests of fairness, the stewards would then need to seek Ferrari’s response. All of that I can see would take longer than if the stewards, having seen the incident for themselves, simply took a view based on the video footage.

    1. I remember how Raikkonen at Spa 2009 was pushed off track by a start incident between (IIRC Trulli and Heidfeld). Raikkonen went wide and with his KERS button actually got a great exit out of that wide corner.

      Brundle said that perhaps no one complained about an unfair advantage and that’s how he got away.

      Same race and at the end of Kemmel, Barrichello simply neglected to brake, went straight through, skipped a whole corner blatantly passing 3 or 4 cars and got no penalty either.

      In that incident there was a crash too so maybe no one complained there either.

      Especially the Barrichello incident was pretty obvious.

  26. It wasn’t completely Alonso’s decision to overtake in this instance. Possibly 75% of the fault lay with him? The sensible decision would have been to penalise him one position, in event he was penalised 15 or so?

    1. “in event he was penalised 15 or so?”
      Thats why it was too harsh. I agree with what the stewards gave but the fact that it took too long to decide on what was a easy decision annoyed me, then the penalty got mixed with a safety car. Without the safety car they would have got demoted what 2 places in which he probably would have gained back. Lack of speediness in the steward’s room hits farrari again suprisingly, but thats coming from a fustrated and disipointed ferrari fan.

      1. Ferrar were contesting the decision. It’s their own fault it lasted longer than need be.

  27. Just BAD LUCK really… the stewards could have easily ruled that Kubica pushed Alonso off the track as the cameras, on board and otherwise show Alonso ahead in the corner. However, being that Alonso was deemed to have gained an advantage, the stewards had to punish him… further bad luck 1) the pit lane is very long in Silverstone and 2) the SC came out and bunched up the field, relegating Alonso to the back of the field…

  28. I looked at the video of the incident a few times. I can clearly say that Kubica gave Alonso enough space to have atleast 2 of the left side wheels on the track. Alonso preferred to go away from the track to gain an advantage so that he can get a better run after! End off story as this is the minimum penalty that could be issued by Stewards during a race as Alonso did not give the place back before the next white line mark. The 5/10 sec penalties can only be applied if the stewards make a decision after the race.

    1. One of the videos is from Alonso’s onboard camera and you can see that he changed the direction of his steering wheel and took the shortest path and cut the corner. It is an instinctive decision made by Alonso.

      1. when I say two wheels of Alonso’s car on the track, I mean the track + Kerb, then he would not have got a penalty!

  29. I guess i’ll be alone on that one, but anyway…

    I think Alonso was in front of Kubica when they brake, and Roberts pushes Fernando out of the track. I’m not sure, but i think Alonso was in the clean part of the track and in front of Kubica.

    Anyway… Let say Alonso did it wrong, and he deserved a DT. Why he announced incident involving cars 8 and 11 will be investigated after the race, but one lap later he announces the DT? And after that they deployed a SC for cleaning small pieces on the track that were there for several laps.

    I think they deployed the SC just after the DT to move Alonso to the past position. And the did that to punish Alonso’s staments after Valencia.

    That’s the way FIA punishes: harsh, late and unfair. At least they are unfair with everyone, so in some way that’s fair (a very special, sick and disgussting justice)

    1. Never heard that the race control ever said that they will investigate the incident after the race!

      Coming to the cutting the corner, Alonso cut the corner by such a big margin and drove straight across the corner cutting it, he should have known that he has to give the place back. Even the BBC commentator said very instinctively that he should give the place back as he cut the corner in a big way and go an advantage over Kubica.

      1. My mistake. I thought they said after the race, but i was wrong, it was incident involving cars 8 and 11 is under investigation.

  30. Rules are rules but FIA must review their way of applying. Stewards are too slow in taking decisions and when they take, very polarized to UK drivers… what did Alonso to FIA?? Winning 2 championships??

    1. Btw Spa 08, even though Hamilton (UK driver) gave the place back to Raikkonen, he still got a penalty for the incident after the race! Guess what the FIA are polarized to? Errr … their rule book!

  31. This reminds me of Spa 2008.

    Personally, I think Alonso was pushed over and not given a car’s width… and hence was right to keep the place.

    Still, as with Hamilton at Spa ’08, Ferrari could have helped themselves by allowing Kubica to re-pass, and not take the risk.

    The SC timing was very unlucky though.

    1. Why should he be given car’s width? Do you call that racing? that too between to immediate corners?

    2. Btw Hamilton at Spa 08, even though he gave the place back to Raikkonen he still got a penalty for the incident after the race!

  32. michael mair
    11th July 2010, 19:11

    Alonso surely can’t have much more bad luck to draw on.the underlying performance does not match the results,so he should be optimistic of some good results to come this season.

    ps sooooo glad webber won

  33. Alonso asked for prompt decision by the stewards. He got it.
    Alonso asked for a harsh penalty for the offending driver. He got it.
    Unfortunately he got it all. Even Mosley would have been proud of this moment. :-)

    Make fun of the FIA and they use u as an example at the slightest opportunity.

    Realistically we need to get back to racing and not this obsession with punishments. This is a professional sport, a little elbowing and kneeing is to be expected. For such a forced situation the driver should keep his position

    1. He he he … Well then we should have tracks with out corners like nascar

  34. There a lot of these twin corners on various tracks and none of these places are for overtaking as there is no place for 2 cars at the speeds they go! This is not a place for overtaking end off!

  35. Fran, actually you are wrong in thinking you may be alone in what you are thinking because I live in Spain and I see your line of argument almost all the timem
    As long as a decision goes against Alonso, however fair, as per the rules, people here never seem to accept it.
    It’s probably understandable because of the passion you have for Alonso but that should not cloud your judgement.

    The stewards didn’t get the penalty out of the blue. There are lots of precedents accumulated over the years and perhaps the most overt and rather popular one was the Hamilton/Kimi pass at Spa in 2008.
    Although Hamilton gave the position back, he retook it shortly after. Ferrari protested profusely and Hamilton was penalised ever if Kimi had crashed out of the race for reasons not connected with the passing. The rule was clarified after that race and you would think Fernando/Ferrari would remember that.
    I know this has been referenced to above but it would seem some people haven’t read it or looked back into the history of chicane cutting.

    1. Is what i said…

      FIA usually takes the wrong decission with everyone, so at the end the mistakes are balanced, and all the drivers supporters very angry.

      Probably next time Alonso makes something bad he won’t be punished, just to compensate last mistakes.

      Why do it right if you can do it arguable?

  36. Gutted for Alonso – one of the drives of the day. He was great to watch.

    IMO – fair overtkae as he was pushed off the circuit AFTER he made the pass. If they had made contact, KUB would have been penalised as he was behind.

    Its really about time we stop penalizing drivers for racing, Its racing, not a funeral procession! GRRRRR.

  37. From Autosport.com
    When Alonso was asked if he thought the penalty was fair, he replied “It’s always fair”.
    I’m guessing there must have been a private dressing down from the FIA after the Valencia outburst.

  38. I think the penalty was justified. Of course Alonso had bad luck with SC, and also with the fact that Kubica retired so he couldn’t let him back past. However, how about slowing between three to five seconds in one lap, if that had been OK to do.

    But, I say that despite Kubica was not giving much room, Alonso was not enough ahead to have completed the pass.

  39. Im surprised by ferrari.
    Low performance, wrong strategies, stupid decisions (or no decisions when needed). What happened to this team?

  40. The race analysts at RAI weren’t impressed with the penalty, but it is understandable from them since they’re Italians.

    The incident reminded me of Hamilton at Spa, but that day, Hamilton did give back his position, yet still received a post race penalty which robbed him the victory. Strangely, at that time, Ferrari said it was a fair thing. Now that they committed the infringement (which Hamilton did not!), they are saying it was unfair on them. Can anyone explain their view to me please?

    1. I can’t explain their view for you. I will tell you that Hamilton did infringe the rule. The rules says you can’t “gain advantage” that doesn’t just mean you can’t gain a place, it also means you can’t cut the track and get a run on someone into the next corner.

  41. As a die hard Alonso fan, I cannot blame anyone else but Fernando himself for his result today. A poor start, followed by no overtaking attempts on Rosberg, followed by a cut corner overtake, and no motivation to make places up towards the end, just goes to show that Fernando fu!#ed up.

    Sure he got screwed by the SC period while serving his penalty, but he repeatedly puts himself in these positions instead of doing what is expected of a 2 time WDC.

    I think Fernando needs to throw in the towel on this years championship.

  42. maestrointhesky
    12th July 2010, 0:13

    I bet Alonso is loving the comparison with his old Nemesis where Hamilton is absolved for an idiotic stewards decision (Spa 2008), on the other hand, Alonso is currently being vilified for a an idiotic driving decision!

  43. correct decision was made enough said

  44. How about this. If the guy you illegally passed retires, then you have to let the next guy behind pass. After all, the point of the rule is that you do not gain a position.

    Alonso is not stranger to this situation. He knows he has to give the position back. And you have to think that if you don’t give the spot back, and race on racking up a big advantage, you are tempting the stewards to throw the book at you. Especially since, say, unlike Hamilton’s latest foul, both the malice and the advantage were immediately obvious at the time of the infraction.

    He and the team basically tried to see if they could get away with a basic black and white violation. In this regard, the penalty may well have been too lenient.

    1. The rules are very clear… if you gain an advantage you have to give that advantage back.

      If Kubica had retired on the following straight, then Alonso would probably have got away with not letting him back through, but seeing as Kubica lasted at least another lap and Alonso clearly floored it as soon as he was through the corner, it was clear there was no intent by Alonso to give the place back.

      He didn’t have the racing line and Kubica had every right to continue following it. Alonso makes a clear move to the right to avoid having to slow down and in the process skipped the corner.

      The FIA can do 2 things… 1) put a brick wall there so in future people crash, or 2) hand out penalties… I think we are all in agreement that a penalty is better than a crash.

      Alonso was just plain stupid. In exactly the same way as his rash attempt to overtake Luizzi at the end which probably cost him at least one point.

  45. to me it is a correct decision. Remember Spa 08 where Hamilton was punished although he gave back the position and Kimi was out of the race. This case is much worse as Alonso didn’t cede the position.

  46. 17 points in two races
    12th July 2010, 9:05

    How old is Charlie Whiting? He needed 9 laps to decide the penalty!!
    He wait 2 laps for SC after incident involving Sutil and Pedro de la Rosa?

    He is the fan number 1 of LH!!!!

    1. Someone else who doesn’t remember Spa 2008.

      If it should have been obvious to Whiting that quickly, you can say exactly the same of Alonso.

      And Alonso doesn’t have 23 other cars to worry about.

      1. 2008 is the only moment FIA attacked LH. And not only Spa. In the season they punished several times extremely hard many incidents involving Hamilton. After first season extremely soft for Hamilton came another one harsh.

        That’s reason because i think FIA doesn’t judge only race incidents and also judges paddock incidents, like Alonso’s staments after Valencia.

        For me the problem was the moment FIA chose to deploy SC. It was intentional. Just one lap after announcemt of DT, and 4 laps later of De la Rosa lose the rear wing.

  47. I apologise for not reading all the posts here, as it was a long weekend.

    To me, this is quite clear that such an incident, picked up on the TV was not actioned quicker by the race stewards. The stewards should not need more than 1 lap to work out if he left the track to pass another car. It is very simple rule.

    Do the stewards need someone to prompt them into action (i.e: Renault)? Are the not pro-active enough to have someone watching the TV screens and initiate a simple instruction?

    Maybe you could argue that Alonso, should just hand the place back. Well I don’t think he should as he should not be 2nd guessing such actions. Yet again a late steward decision from race control has penalised Alonso.
    It was unfortunate, but the FIA should look to see if they can react quicker to these incidents.

    1. Maybe you could argue that Alonso, should just hand the place back. Well I don’t think he should as he should not be 2nd guessing such actions.

      Perhaps, but I think the value of being aware when you’ve transgressed is clear. By leaving it to the stewards when he was clearly in the wrong, Alonso ended up suffering far worse than if he’d let Kubica past.

      1. By leaving it to the stewards when he was clearly in the wrong, Alonso ended up suffering far worse than if he’d let Kubica past.

        Only because of the safety car incident and Kubica retiring.

        The problem here is that if the stewards deem the best corrective action for such an incident is for the driver to hand the position back, the decision must come quicker. Otherwise the penalty applied becomes greater the longer they deliberate.

        I know F1 should not be compared to football, but you are taught when playing football to “play to the whistle”. In other words, in a competitive game, you carry on until the referee decides there has been an infringement. The same should apply in F1. If the FIA need more people to watch the TV screens for such incidents then I’m sure a they can bring in a better system to apply penalty’s. With today’s technology, there’s probably an iPhone app for it. :)

  48. I’m no great fan of Alonso or Ferrari, but it wasn’t even a penalty. ALO was ahead in the braking zone and level coming out of the left-hander – he had the line for the right-hander, and so had legitimately won the corner, but got pushed over the grass by KUB. If Fernando had held his line, or diverted less and run fully over the right-hand kerb, there would have been contact.

    I’m also a little surprised there was no investigation of Vettel’s very heavy move on Sutil at the end. Not saying it should have been penalised, but at least looked at.

    Speaking of penalties, I thought the punishment for pit-lane speeding was a drive-through? DLR only received a fine – http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Documents/gbr-document-53.pdf

    1. Had it been a Ferrari, you can bet it would have been a drive-through.
      But I guess that’s what you call ‘interpretation of the rules”.

    2. He was probably already out of the race by the time the penalty was given.

  49. “I know F1 should not be compared to football” – Then dont compare it. The stewards job is to enforce transgressions of the rulebook. It is the teams and drivers jobs to know what the rulebook says.

    It is common sense for the teams to err on the side of caution if they are not sure – though this does not guarantee anything. McLaren erred on the side of caution and gave Kimi the position back; but it was deemed Lewis had not done enough and still had an advantage.

    1. “I know F1 should not be compared to football” – Then dont compare it. The stewards job is to enforce transgressions of the rulebook. It is the teams and drivers jobs to know what the rulebook says.

      F1 teams and drivers do know the rules, it doesn’t stop them pushing the rules to the limit. Hence you carry on until the steward says otherwise. So the analogy of “playing to the whistle” is true, especially in such a fast paced sport.

      Maybe I should have said “Many F1 viewers do not like F1 being compared to football”. Both are a sport that require quick decisions by the referee in charge.

    2. maestrointhesky
      12th July 2010, 12:43

      We all know that football rules are in a state of disrepute due to the very fact that the haven’t embraced technology. This is the last sport I would compare with!

  50. Somehow I was expecting a story about “Massa’s race ruined after Alonso move”. Alonso went wide in corner 4, Massa tried the overtake, and Alonso’s wing destroyed Massa’s back tyre. That was a ridiculous move. Massa’s race was over.
    It seems to me that now Ferrari have two drivers who need urgent psicological work.

  51. So long as Faster drivers can’t pass slower drivers…this aero package makes for boring racing

  52. As soon as Alonso got past Kubica I thought that he would have to give the place back considering decisions in similar cases in recent years, so I was surprised when Alonso didn’t let Kubica through straight away rather than continuing as if it had been a clean overtake.

    The penalty was harsh because of the timing of the safety car, but what else could the stewards have done.

    I thought Ferrari’s calmer reaction was because of the criticism they received from some quarters after what they said after Valencia.

  53. I will put it briefly:

    Alonso did not ‘simply’ cut the corner.

    Kubica pushed him out of the track.

    Alonso was ahead.

    The incident became investigated very late (pay attention: I do not speak of the penalty, but the investigation).

    Which is the part you do not understand?

    1. It’s clear but not accurate—you are leaving out one point: It is perfectly legal to push a guy passing on the outside into the grass. This is of course the corollary to the Hamilton-Spa Rule. Whatever Kubica did or didnt do is moot.

      Further, the complaints about the lateness are not appealing. If the investigation and penalty were later still, after the field strung out again, then Alonso’s disadvantage would have been less relative to some earlier point.
      The bottom line is that if you flout the rule and gamble on the timing and weight of the penalty, you should be prepared to take the loss. At the end of the day, Alonso’s specific calculation at the time of the pass was that a probablity-discounted cost of a penalty later was better than the sure cost letting Kubica back through now. He did the math wrong. The complaint that the authorities should have saved him from his daft gamble lest he injure himself even more is a little bit too bold.

    2. Again, as we saw at Spa in ’08 it doesn’t matter if the driver was pushed off the track.

      I don’t like the rule, but the rule is clear.

      1. Alonso would not have got past Kubica at Monaco where there are walls instead of run off so he would have backed down.

        At Silverstone he chose to use his get out of gaol free card and then tried to gain an advantage from it.

        You have to be very blinkered to think that this didn’t deserve the penalty it received!

      2. I am an ignorant. Which is this funny spa-rule? A written one? And what exactly does it say?

        Maybe you are right and France 08 is a better precedent, but sadly I do not remember the footage and do not find any to compare.

        Otherwise I have checked the incident in Spa 08, and I do not think that they are the same (ok, similar). In the chicane at Spa Hamilton is not ahead of Kimi and Kimi cannot see Hamilton, so he is not pushing him off the track. This could provide a different basis for a judgement.

        On the other hand, I wonder what did people think/say of those penalties for Hamilton. I guess many people, like me, thought they were unfair (at least in Spa; it seems that the penalty in France was based on additional tv-evidence bla bla bla nobody could see).

        1. Maybe you are right and France 08 is a better precedent, but sadly I do not remember the footage and do not find any to compare.

          You could have tried the link posted two comments down from here!

          http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/22/video-hamilton-under-pressure-after-error/

          1. Thank you, Keith, I tried but it was no good, I’m sorry (you just see LH…). Are you able to compare? I am not.

            [Great site].

  54. Right decision by the Steward. Ferrari should have gave the place back to Kubica within 2-3 laps instead of arguing with Charlie as we all know the rules.

  55. Just realised there’s an even clearer precedent for Alonso’s penalty than Spa ’08 which also involves Hamilton – France ’08.

    Hamilton went off the track to pass Vettel, didn’t give the place back, and got a drive-through penalty:

    http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/22/video-hamilton-under-pressure-after-error/

    1. To counter that, there’s Hungary 2006 – Schuie vs De La Rosa and Schuie vs Heidfeld..

      However that was during the Ferrari-Schuie days so of course it was fine ;) How short some memories are…

      1. Wasn’t Hungary 2006 cutting a corner to defend a position? While I think this is just as bad this still seems to be allowed as I recall it happening a few times at the Canadian GP this year at the final chicane without any punishment.

        Also didn’t Alonso get ordered to let someone through after going off track to overtake at the 2005 Japanese GP?

        1. Wasn’t Hungary 2006 cutting a corner to defend a position?

          Exactly, so not quite the same thing.

          But complete bunk, of course: cutting a corner and gaining an advantage by not losing a position should be thought of as the same as cutting a corner to take a position. But, for whatever reason, it isn’t, and Schumacher got away with much the same at Montreal this year.

          1. I was just adding Hungary to the mix for debate and remind the Ferrari conspiracy theorists that there is little reason to think there is a bias against them.

            My view is that Schuie should have been penalised the first time and never in a position where he could end Heidfeld’s race (which he was also unpunished for).

            Going back to the early 90s didn’t Prost get penalised for cutting the new ostcurve chicane at Hockenheim (maybe ’93?) I have a feeling a Ligier got a penalty too (Brundle?)

    2. The overriding precedent, though, is the one that has been set this year, which holds that the first time someone commits an offence that – although blatantly against the rules – hasn’t been committed this year, he will get a reprimand and everyone else will be told that subsequent offences will be met with a penalty. Same should have applied to Alonso. :P

      1. I’m sure you’re joking but I expect some people will take that one seriously!

  56. maestrointhesky
    13th July 2010, 12:48

    No one’s really mentioned but why was ALO having to scrap with KUB? He had a dog of a start that’s why! It’s quite funny to hear Maranello complaining about ‘the dirty side of the track being faster’ when KUB passed him starting directly behind him. ALO was obviously trying to take back what he thought was rightfully his!

  57. Haven’t seen this mentioned so far, from Charlie Whiting:

    >> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85258

    “We told Ferrari three times that in my opinion they should give the position back to Kubica.

    And we told them that immediately, right after the overtaking manoeuvre. On the radio, I suggested to them that if they exchange position again, there would be no need for the stewards to intervene.”

    If that’s what happened then it shows that (a) Ferrari / Alonso got everything they deserved in that race and (b) the role the stewards play isn’t always portrayed fairly.

  58. It’s the kind of silly incident that just doesn’t happen in racing series with common sense.

    1) On a real race track, Alonso would have gotten beached in the gravel trap on the inside of club, or at least severaly slowed and destabilised by grass.

    2) In decent series, such as Grand-Am, drivers spontaneously give the position back or the decision is made in less than a lap. Example: Foggarty pushing Taylor off the track at Daytona in DP. Within 30s he served a drive through.

    A self inflicted blow by race control, ferrari and the track. If there is no ‘off track’ any more, why would anyone bother staying on it?

  59. Alonso said that if instead of the grass there had been a concrete wall, he would have crashed and the stewards would have given a penalty to Kubica. Fernando had to give immediately back the position, but the stewards didn’t have to hand hima drive-through. 20 seconds are too much. They could have added 5 seconds to his race time like to the 9 drivers in Valencia.

  60. You can read here about the conversations between Charlie and Ferrari (well, according to the Italian press):

    http://www.sportmediaset.mediaset.it/formula1/articoli/articolo37281.shtml

    I insist on a point made long ago: the incident got investigated too late…

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.