British Grand Prix result

Pos Num Driver Car Laps Gap Difference Grid
1 6 Mark Webber Red Bull-Renault 52 2
2 2 Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes 52 1.360 1.360 4
3 4 Nico Rosberg Mercedes 52 21.307 19.947 5
4 1 Jenson Button McLaren-Mercedes 52 21.986 0.679 14
5 9 Rubens Barrichello Williams-Cosworth 52 31.456 9.470 8
6 23 Kamui Kobayashi Sauber-Ferrari 52 32.171 0.715 12
7 5 Sebastian Vettel Red Bull-Renault 52 36.734 4.563 1
8 14 Adrian Sutil Force India-Mercedes 52 40.932 4.198 11
9 3 Michael Schumacher Mercedes 52 41.599 0.667 10
10 10 Nico H?â??lkenberg Williams-Cosworth 52 42.012 0.413 13
11 15 Vitantonio Liuzzi Force India-Mercedes 52 42.459 0.447 20
12 16 Sebastien Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari 52 47.627 5.168 16
13 12 Vitaly Petrov Renault 52 59.374 11.747 15
14 8 Fernando Alonso Ferrari 52 62.385 3.011 3
15 7 Felipe Massa Ferrari 52 67.489 5.104 7
16 18 Jarno Trulli Lotus-Cosworth 51 1 lap 1 lap 21
17 19 Heikki Kovalainen Lotus-Cosworth 51 1 lap 0.251 18
18 24 Timo Glock Virgin-Cosworth 50 2 laps 1 lap 19
19 20 Karun Chandhok HRT-Cosworth 50 2 laps 57.888 23
20 21 Sakon Yamamoto HRT-Cosworth 50 2 laps 0.619 24
17 Jaime Alguersuari Toro Rosso-Ferrari 44 8 laps 6 laps 17
22 Pedro de la Rosa Sauber-Ferrari 29 23 laps 15 laps 9
11 Robert Kubica Renault 19 33 laps 10 laps 6
25 Lucas di Grassi Virgin-Cosworth 9 43 laps 10 laps 22

2010 British Grand Prix

Browse all 2010 British Grand Prix articles

Advert | Go Ad-free

39 comments on British Grand Prix result

  1. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th July 2010, 14:34

    Trying to work out what happened to Petrov there. He was fighting Hulkenberg … and then showed up fifteenth. I think he had a second, unscheduled stop in there.

    • James_mc (@james_mc) said on 11th July 2010, 15:21

      Yeah, he did I’m pretty sure. Not long after he had his off when Vettel took him. I think it was roundabout the same time the Ferraris pitted

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th July 2010, 15:52

        Well, he was on the hard tyres. I suspect he came under pressure from Vettel, over-cooked it and ran wide at Farm, picking up a slow puncture for his efforts. Ferrari may have pitted to try and get fresh rubber and pass him so that they weren’t totally emarrassed by their race.

  2. rob said on 11th July 2010, 14:41

    Sigh. I lose hope in F1 more each time I watch it.

    British FIA & stewards, helping their british pet drivers at a british race by handing out any pathetic penalties at every opportunity to anyone who drives in red.

    Imagine a football or rugby match betweem SA and UK, with a line-up made up of SA ref’s.

    Just pathetic.

    • JSC said on 11th July 2010, 14:43

      I guess you’re suggesting that ALO didn’t deserve a penalty?

      • rob said on 11th July 2010, 14:47

        Of course he didn’t deserve the penalty. They should have told him to allow Kubica past.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th July 2010, 16:16

          That is something his team should have told Alonso immediately after the incident. The FIA stewards have to do an investigation after they failed to do the right thing.

          Had Alonso served the penalty immediately, he would have been back before the SC and had the same chance to get back to the front as Vettel had. Now he did it after, it lost him every chance to fight for good points. Ferrari are at foult as well for not instructing him on time.
          Or do you thing the SC should not have come out with carbon parts on the main straight?

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th July 2010, 14:50

      Sorry, rob, but Alonso could have avoided the penalty altogether if he’d bothered to give the place back to Kubica straight away. Instead, he decided to keep racing to see what happens. Well, he was playing Russian roulette and got the penalty equivalent of a bullet to the brainpan.

      And before you jump at the stewards for the delay, bear in mind that they can only act when someone reports and infringement. If it took Kubica and Renault a few laps to report it, the stewards’ hands are tied. By the looks of things, Kubica picked up a differential problem and Renault were more concerned about it than the Alonso incident at the time. That the safety car came out just as Alonso was served a penalty was just bad luck for Alonso, who got exactly what he deserved for not yielding.

      But I daresay Luca di Montezemolo will see it differently.

      • Electrolite said on 11th July 2010, 14:53

        ^ My thoughts exactly PM. I think the penalty was aimed the face he didn’t give the place back – there was plenty of laps for him to do so.

        Saying that though, the stewards did take a long while before saying anything.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th July 2010, 14:55

          The stewards cannot act unless someone reports it. I’m willing to bet that Kubica was in the same position as Petrov was in Malaysia: he had the problem for a few laps before he retired. In that case, the problem would have been Renault’s first priority, and they would have dealt with it before focusing on Alonso.

      • bananarama said on 11th July 2010, 19:02

        Maybe Alonso was thinking the Stewards would give him the same penalty as they give Hamilton for bad behaviour .. a reprimand after the race …….

    • djdaveyp said on 11th July 2010, 15:12

      Alonso completely deserved the penalty.

      He didn’t just gain an advantage over Kubica with his illegal move. He was released and able to do faster laptimes because of it, which helped him gain through the pitstops (helping him stay ahead of Button).

      If he had yielded immediately and tried again he wouldn’t have been in this situation.

      I have no sympathy.

    • claudioff said on 11th July 2010, 15:37

      The way I see Kubica had the preference on the previous curve and his trajectory for the next very close corner could not be changed (most probably he started braking in the very last millisecond). Alonso was, therefore, pushed out of the track by him. Who commited a fault here? In my oppinion no one, just pure nice racing. Alonso came back to the track in such way (almost crossing the track) that induced a speed reduction in Kubica´s pace, otherwise Kubica could passed him back. For me it´s clear, Alonso should return the position back to Kubica and try again next lap.

  3. Electrolite said on 11th July 2010, 14:51

    Elated to see Barrichello and Kobayashi right up there again.

    Vettel once again wins the plonker of the race award. And his ‘comeback’ surely wasn’t even that impressive? Until his grand faff with Sutil it was rookies and cars much slower than him that passed.

    • djdaveyp said on 11th July 2010, 15:16

      “plonker of the race award” love it. We should award one every race!

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th July 2010, 15:20

        We do over at F1 Rejects. We call it the Infinite Improbablity Drive of the race, and it’s named for the driver who is absolutely everywhere despite the fact that, by rights, he probably shouldn’t be. It’s named after the starship in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which allowed the ship to be everywhere in the galaxy all at once.

        • Klon said on 11th July 2010, 19:28

          Wrong award, my friend :-)

          The “plonker of the race” is known at our place as “Reject Of The Race”

    • sato113 (@sato113) said on 11th July 2010, 17:18

      how was Vettel a plonker? wasn’t his fault he got a puncture.

  4. Jacaru said on 11th July 2010, 14:55

    We could discuss if he deserved a penalty altogether. It is not that he was late on the brakes. He was left out of space.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th July 2010, 14:56

      Alonso forced Kubica off the road, ran off the road himself and gained a place from it. Textbook case for a penalty on the grounds of travelling beyond the boundary of the circuit to gain a place.

  5. claudioff said on 11th July 2010, 14:56

    As Webber said by radio to his team at the end of the race:
    Not too bad for a second pilot…

  6. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th July 2010, 14:59

    http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85214

    “You can just say one thing: if a penalty must be punishing it must be always like this,” said the Italian team.

    Oh, that’s rich. Firstly, Ferrari go looking for a reason to penalise everyone in Valencia. Then they whinge about it when it doesn’t go their way. Now they turn themselves into martyrs for it.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th July 2010, 17:03

      Well it’s better than having Alonso complain about an unfair penalty. He accepts it without whining, just a jab at the Valencia situation.

    • RaulZ said on 12th July 2010, 13:24

      Try to forget ALO and stop talking about whining. Please, think about stewards incompetence. They are really bad in every situations they have to manage, with every pilots and teams.

      • JSC said on 14th July 2010, 11:43

        And now that Charlie Whiting has come out to say that Ferrari were told 3 times to give back the position, starting immediately after the incident? Do you still think the stewards were ‘incompetent’? Or do you admit now that it was the Scuderia Ferrari who were the stupid ones?

  7. Johnny86 said on 11th July 2010, 15:02

    @prisoner monkey. Why should he have yielded back a place?he wasnt asked to.. Do you even remember what happened in suzuka 2005??. I have never heard someone being served a drive through for cutting a chicane and overtaking. And dont tell me its hamilton because he was penalised for not properly giving back the place. And going by the leniency of the stewards it was clearly harsh if not biased.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th July 2010, 15:06

      I have never heard someone being served a drive through for cutting a chicane and overtaking.

      Do you listen to the commentary? Haven’t you noticed how Martin Brundle is always talking about how cutting a chicane and not losing a place because of it is the same as cutting a chicane and gaining a place? Because that’s what we’re talking about.

      And dont tell me its hamilton because he was penalised for not properly giving back the place.

      And that’s exactly what we’re talking about here: Alonso left the circuit, cut across the first section of Club corner and gained a place out of it. So how is that not worthy of a penalty?

    • JSC said on 11th July 2010, 15:39

      I don’t understand why this is even a discussion. ALO cut the corner and passed KUB, that’s an illegal move according to the rules of F1, and usually the offending driver gives the position back. ALO didn’t, Ferrari played ‘wait and see’, and Charlie laid down the usual drive-through penalty. And Ferrari know this, which is why they are readily saying “we accept the penalty, they should all be done this way… bla bla”

      Your comments are also a bit misleading about the Spa incident. HAM was penalised for cutting the chicane, he did give the place back and VMM were prepared to argue this using telemetry data, but the FIA deemed the appeal inadmissible. And the penalty for that cutting the chicane was? A drive-through penalty, which because of it being applied post-race meant an additional 25 seconds being added to HAM’s time. There is your precedent.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th July 2010, 15:54

        Because I think people are trying to make a case for the stewards being idiots. It’s a shame, really – they’ve stayed out of it for the most part this year unless there’s been a) a clear violation of the rules, or b) the situation is uncertain and demands judgement. For the msot part, they’ve let good racing take centre stage.

        • JSC said on 11th July 2010, 17:01

          I completely agree. Everybody is saying (particularly the drivers) that they are letting them ‘race’… it doesn’t surprise me that the drivers who are most often in the stewards’ rooms are the ones we like to say are real ‘racers’…

  8. Dev said on 11th July 2010, 15:09

    already missing Kimi… it’s was such a stupid move by Alonso on Kubica… i really think he has lost it in his head… what was he thinking!!

    brilliant race btw!!

  9. Johnny86 said on 11th July 2010, 15:23

    @Pmonkey Hamilton was orderded to give back the place which afterwards the stewards felt he didnt.They didnt penalise him after he overtook kimi illegally. They asked him to give back the place . But alonso wasn’t because kubica wasnt there any more. And if they desperately wanted to penalise him then why not slap him a 5 sec penalty. And whatever brundle say doesnt justify alonso’s ridiculous penalty because he didnt gain around 20 secs advantage through that move so that he could be served a drive through.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th July 2010, 15:27

      But alonso wasn’t because kubica wasnt there any more
      By passing Kubica, Alonso entered into free air, which allowed him to set faster lap times and benefit in the pit stops. Even if Kubica had retired, it was justified. Alonso went off the track, and in doing so, gained a place which he did not give back. That’s grounds for a penalty, and the standard penalty for leaving the circuit and gaining a position from it (without giving the place back) is and always has been a drive-through. Alonso was not penalised because he left the circuit – he was penalised because he did not give back the position.

    • Dev said on 11th July 2010, 15:31

      stewards did not ask Hamilton to give position back, but his team (McLaren) told him to give that postion back….

      Stewards will act only when the driver or team does not give the position back & if they find that the overtaking move was not legal….

      Alonso should have given the position back, backed off for a couple of corners and then had a go again…

      what he did & said was pretty childish…

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 11th July 2010, 15:41

        I think he was trying to justify it. Alonso knew that the incident would be seen on-camera and guessed that the BBC would pick up his first radio transmission afterwards, even if it was Ferrari talking to him. He instanly said something defensive about Kubica forcing him to run wide to justify it.

      • JSC said on 11th July 2010, 15:49

        Rightly said Dev, I’m not sure how the FIA could have decided and them told HAM to give the place back within the 300m or so between the final chicane and the start/finish line at Spa, as Johnny86 is suggesting. In fact, at the time VMM had called Race control and asked them if they were satisfied with HAM giving back the position, to which Charlie had responded ‘yes’. Then of course the argument came that Charlie is not the chief steward etc…

  10. slr said on 11th July 2010, 17:06

    Congrats to Yamamoto for finishing. After Brundle was pointing out that he was getting tired during qualifying, I thought for sure he was retiring.

    Also kudos to Barrichello and Kobayashi.

Add your comment

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

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