The collision between Pastor Maldonado and Lewis Hamilton during qualifying at Spa provoked much debate over drivers deliberately causing crashes.
In light of the strong action taken against Stefan Mucke for a similar collision in a GT1 race at Silverstone earlier this year, was the five-place grid penalty handed down to Maldonado too lenient?
For
During the FIA GT1 world championship race at Silverstone in June, Stefan Mucke was knocked into a spin following a clumsy overtaking attempt by Richard Westbrook.
Mucke retaliated by driving into the side of Westbrook’s car on the Hanghar straight, one arm raised from the steering wheel in gesticulation and the pair made contact:
Mucke was given a ten-place grid drop and the stewards reported him to his licensing body, recommending that his license be withdrawn.
Although the two incidents were not identical they were similar and Maldonado’s punishment should have been correspondingly higher.
Against
From what little we’ve seen of the Maldonado-Hamilton clash it’s clear neither driver gave the other enough room.
Maldonado was best-placed to prevent a collision and did least to avoid it. But he was not the sole instigator, which is why Hamilton received a reprimand.
That makes it hard to justify giving Maldonado a punishment anything like as severe as Mucke’s.
I say
Both Mucke and Maldonado came off worse in a collision with another driver and retaliated by pointing their car at their rivals. So how do we explain the differences between their punishments?
Clearly, Mucke’s move was more blatant than Maldonado’s. And, reading the stewards’ report (PDF link), it seems he further aggravated them by trying to spin an unconvincing line about how it was all an honest mistake.
But who knows what reasoning the stewards applied to the Maldonado-Hamilton incident last weekend, because the corresponding documents they published are so short on detail. The documents note only the pair “caused a collision” and were “involved in an incident”.
The report on Mucke’s crash with Westbrook, though written in less than perfect English, nonetheless offers much greater detail and reasoning for the decision:
The stewards are convinced that the driver, Stefan Mucke, drove in a very dangerous manner causing an unnecessary accident. His statement to drive to the lest side for the next corner and his explanation that he misjudged the line cannot be accepted. The distance to the next corner was considerably far away and the width of the track would at a straight an undangerous overtaking.
The gesticulating of Mr Mucke proved that he had realised the slow car of Mr Westbrook and the racing incident between Mr Westbrook and him two corners before.
In view of the serious incident and the previous incident in Zolder and the behaviour of the driver, Stefan Mucke, the stewards must report the driver to the ASN because there is no power of the stewards to ban the driver from the next event.
Did Maldonado’s actions deserve a punishment closer in severity to Mucke’s? It’s hard to answer that without knowing what information the stewards considered when making their decision.
But in the final reckoning he and Hamilton collided during non-competitive running (both had been shown the chequered flag) and the strongest penalty handed down to either of them was less than what a driver gets for changing an engine.
The FIA’s lack of vigour in prosecuting a deliberate crash, and the almost total absence of detail explaining their decision, make this a doubly unsatisfying case.
You say
Were you happy with the penalties handed down? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.
What did you think of the penalties for the Maldonado-Hamilton collision?
- Neither driver should have received a tougher penalty (12%)
- Both drivers should have received tougher penalties (13%)
- Hamilton should have received a tougher penalty (4%)
- Maldonado should have received a tougher penalty (71%)
Total Voters: 216
An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here.
Debates and polls
- Will Alonso win a world championship title with Aston Martin?
- How long should Red Bull give Ricciardo to prove he’s not lost his touch?
- Were stewards right to penalise Alonso over his driving before Russell’s crash?
- Are Williams right to bench Sargeant so Albon can race after crash?
- Is the FIA right to make ten seconds the new standard for penalties?
- Which F1 drivers will beat their team mates in 2024?
- Has anyone caught Red Bull? 20 questions for the 2024 Formula 1 season
- Which F1 team has the best livery in 2024?
- Does F1 now need rules to reverse the rise of colourless cars?
- Will Lewis Hamilton win a world championship for Ferrari?
Image © Williams/LAT
spursfan39 (@)
2nd September 2011, 9:58
Nice work Keith. I noticed a mistake though, below the Mucke video you say ”and the stewards” twice.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
2nd September 2011, 10:00
Corrected, thanks.
curedcat
2nd September 2011, 10:06
The stewards haven’t been consistent for a while . May be the FIA needs to hire a full time team of stewards with a full time back up team . When a member of the first team cannot make it to a race on of the sub stewards can be dratfted in . All stewards will then be able to give similar punishements to similar offences consistently throughout the season.
How does button and hamilton clash at canada not look like buemi and heidfield clash at silverstone ? In both cases the leading driver was unaware of where the other driver was . Yet different views were taken . In most cases you can judge an incident without need for long debates and telemetry. It was clear that maldonaldo drove into lewis . That is dangerous driving .
TheBrav3
2nd September 2011, 13:04
I don’t see that hamilton did anything wrong he was going slow session was over. The only way he could have done anything about it would be if he could see into the future. You don’t expect a driver to cut across you like that and cut across him maldonado did, he comes from the *inside* and almost smacks the *outside* barrier infront of hamilton he was so offline he was kicking grass up. The whole situation was farcicle.
I think hamiltons had a poor year but the way he has been treated by the stewards has been even poorer. If they reprimand him for that situation they may as well just send him one everyday for having the tenacity to breath.
Jack Holt
2nd September 2011, 17:52
Yes I agree, I can’t see that Hamilton did anything wrong, I’d assumed the warning had been for the robust way he passed Maldonado on the previous lap. As for the stewarding, it’s miles better nowadays but I still see that Hamilton comes in for more stick than most – the penalty in Malaysia was ridiculous in my opinion. The drivers are partly to blame, they asked the FIA to investigate every transgression at the start of the season, it’s partly why the stewards have been overly picky. Hamilton always skates close to the edge so he’s going to be reprimanded more than others, but he seems to get something nearly every race nowadays. Do we really want to discourage people from driving like Hamilton? Surely he’s the most exciting driver in F1.
bosyber (@bosyber)
2nd September 2011, 10:15
I voted for both drivers tougher penalty, although I am really only sure Maldonado should have gotten a stronger penalty, and a review of his license.
Since we don’t know what the stewards found upon investigation, we don´t know if Hamilton could have done a lot more, or was indeed slowing just a bit to let Maldonado catch up with him, so it is hard to say if a reprimand is all that he should have gotten. I like to think he doesn’t, but I certainly think this sort of incident should be avoided too.
There is no doubt they had no reason to get so close on track to be able to risk a collision, especially since the flag was already out. That to me asks for a stronger indictment than what happened, since we know that the stewards also like to give reprimands to send a signal, here they should have strongly considered more. Hence my vote.
matt90 (@matt90)
2nd September 2011, 15:05
The trouble is they didn’t show an on-board from Maldonado. From outside it looks like Hamilton moves into the middle of the track a bit, but his on-board showed him seeming to keep parallel with the outer edge of the track which was curving slightly at the time. I’d be interested how it viewed from the missing perspective. There is a chance that Maldonado expected Hamilton to maintain a straighter line, so although he should have been more aware he may genuinely have not expected to find himself making contact.
@HoHum (@hohum)
2nd September 2011, 16:03
@Matt90, hard to excuse Maldonado with that argument when you see Hamiltons onboard, as many others have said Maldonados line took him of the track with 2 wheels on the grass he was lucky not to crash out. This kind of driving cannot be excused.
matt90 (@matt90)
2nd September 2011, 16:32
Good point, and it doesn’t help that I can’t even find a Hamilton on-board on youtube. I’m just saying that without seeing it from Maldonado’s view it is difficult to ascertain whether it was intentional or just stupidity.
Icthyes (@icthyes)
2nd September 2011, 10:16
I don’t really have much to add to what I wrote at the time. I do think part of the leniency of both punishments (not that I agree with Hamilton’s) was that the accident was fairly small, which is a bad precedent as a much more serious accident could come from exactly the same kind of manoeuvre. Maldonado should have been thrown out of the race at least.
Bleeps_and_Tweaks (@bleeps_and_tweaks)
2nd September 2011, 10:42
Yep, totally agree with this Icthyes.
The minimum punishment for Maldonado should have been exclusion from the race. I would have liked to see him personally be given a hefty fine as well, which then could have been donated to a road safety group or something similar.
The fact that he went on to score his first championship point and produce sound bites such as “I’m going to keep on fighting” sends out completely the wrong message about F1 in my opinion.
I have no desire to see Maldonado ‘keep on fighting’ in the way he did on Saturday, he was extremely lucky the incident was quite small in the end, but the intent was certainly there and that is more than enough for a tougher punishment in my view.
TommyB (@tommyb89)
2nd September 2011, 11:00
Being kicked out of the race may be a bit harsh but I do think the five-place penalty needed to be harsher as it sends completely the wrong message to young drivers.
It’s ridiculous really that you get the same penalty for changing a gearbox as you do for deliberately crashing into another car and putting drivers as well as fans lives in danger.
The FIA really need to think about that.
Franton
2nd September 2011, 11:34
You could pretty much see the glint in Maldonaldo’s eyes during the interviews where he was thinking “Wow I totally got away with that!”
Then he blames Lewis in the BBC interview I saw … The man hasn’t learned anything and it’s almost a virtual carte blanche for people to drive dangerously badly. I mean racing drivers risk their lives voluntarily, but anyone who’s out to deliberately cause a crash at 100+ MPH isn’t a racing driver: they’re a liability.
Fixy (@)
2nd September 2011, 12:01
That’s the main reason why I agree that his punishment was too lenient.
Remember Alonso vs. Petrov at Abu Dhabi 2010? Alonso waved at Petrov, who later turned towards Alonso to force him to go away, but he didn’t crash into him. Maldonado left Hamilton no room and then turned towards him, damaging his car.
BasCB (@bascb)
2nd September 2011, 22:17
Exactly Fixy.
How is this making clear that such behaviour is not tolerated in any circumstances.
The drivers can talk all they want about driver behaviour on track when justifying why they get penalties for knocking off their own front wings.
But when they all feel this was OK somehow, then we shouldn’t even punish drivers who hit someone during the race by accident.
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
2nd September 2011, 11:46
Remember Yuji Ide got his licence revoked for causing an accident that didn’t even look intentional! I would have personally given Maldonado a 1 or 2 race ban on top of being excluded from Spa…
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
2nd September 2011, 14:29
No, Ide had his licence revoked because the FIA felt he didn’t have enough experience to be racing. The collision with Albers (I think) was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Alfie
2nd September 2011, 15:45
Yes, Ide racing only in Formula Nippon and being extremely slow (see: rubbish) raised a few eyebrows before the Bahrain Grand Prix and sending Albers into a four-time barrel roll, as PM says, was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
BasCB (@bascb)
2nd September 2011, 22:19
Didn’t Ide get his licence only with a probationaly clause (as he would not normally qualify for one from his “achievements”).
Same was done for Kimi Raikkonen initially, but he proved he was worthy of one within a few races.
@HoHum (@hohum)
2nd September 2011, 16:04
Ditto.
W-K (@w-k)
2nd September 2011, 10:18
Probably the FIA needs to appoint a permanent advisor who can advise the stewards what the correct penalty should be based on presidence as in most courts.
Adrian J (@adrian-j)
2nd September 2011, 16:31
Problem with that idea would be if that adviser took a particular dislike to one driver or team…
BasCB (@bascb)
2nd September 2011, 22:20
I think they should make the rules clearer, change less and possibly give the stewards a database of previous cases to help them compare the punishment to those. That way they might get some consistency into it.
saltireF1
2nd September 2011, 10:23
If we don’t have consistency between races in F1 how can we have consistency across different series? The rules are different, the stewards are different and, by your statement above, Mucke made it patently clear with his gesticulation that his was a deliberate act. Lying to the stewards is never a good idea so I would thin that that accounts for the much harsher penalty.
Luis
2nd September 2011, 16:40
Very good points.
Different series, different stewards, different rules, and also different race situations (Ham x Mal wasn’t even during the race!), different speeds when the incidents occurred, different behaviours from the ‘victim’ drivers, and different resulting damages
tobinen (@tobinen)
2nd September 2011, 10:26
I voted for both to receive harsher penalties. I think Hamilton’s quick move to the right just before PM drove in to him was provocative, not that it means PM was excused for what he did.
Plus it sends out the wrong message to the lower formulae and younger drivers in general.
Stamp it out, and properly IMO.
PJ
2nd September 2011, 11:47
From what I saw of the Hamilton/Maldonado video, Hamilton pretty much had to turn right as he’d end up in the wall at Eau Rouge otherwise. Then again you could say that since the session was over he could have slowed down and tucked in behind the Williams.
pSynrg (@psynrg)
2nd September 2011, 13:47
You could say that yes but Lewis was clearly starting to just follow the normal racing line from La Source to Eau Rouge (moves right), he sees another car (Maldonado) in the way and jinks back to the left.
Just before Maldonado makes contact you can see Lewis starting to raise his right arm. Which he quickly withdraws as Maldonado makes contact. My guess here is Lewis was going to attempt to apologise or at least acknowledge for barging through at the chicane just prior.
Regardless of my speculation, Maldonado should have been DQ’d from the weekend + a significant fine.
I don’t like to think along the lines that Lewis is being victimised but this incident only adds fuel to that fire…
matt90 (@matt90)
2nd September 2011, 15:22
There was a quick move right and then a steady move right. The quick one I thought was Lewis spinning his tyres a bit as he exited the hairpin, but I doubt it now as there wasn’t reason to be pushing at that point. I agree with the other comments that it may have simply been him moving over, then seeing Maldonado.
Hamilton then did a steady move right, but this was actually keeping an equal distance to the edge of the track. In relation to the direction of the track (i.e. the track itself was turning) Hamilton was actually going straight. He had some room left still, but didn’t expect Maldonado to swerve into his path as he didn’t seem to acknowledge the curving nature of the track. As I’ve said before though, it is difficult without an on-board from Maldonado.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
2nd September 2011, 10:30
I think the difference between Mucke and Maldonado lies in Westbook and Hamilton. I still think that Hamilton’s move was overly-aggressive, and he squeezed Maldonado off the racing line coming out of the Bus Stop, potentially costing Maldonado two grid places. If Hamilton was in danger of being eliminated at the end of Q2, then that’s his fault. Looking at the Q2 times, Hamilton ultimately finished 1.8 seconds ahead of the Q3 cut-off. I just can’t swallow the argument that a less-aggressive approach into the Bus Stop would have cost Hamilton a Q3 berth.
On the other hand, Westbrook’s passing attempt was just flawed. Call it being late on the brakes, or just a little too close to Mucke, it was little more than an error. And he was visibly limping around the circuit afterwards, so he did not gain from it – unlike Hamilton, whose move into the Bus Stop was clearly designed to give him an advantage.
So, in the end, I think Maldonado got away with a lesser penalty because Mucke’s collision with Westbrook was unprovoked, whereas Hamilton squeezing the Williams provoked Maldonado into doing something silly.
adamf184 (@adamf184)
2nd September 2011, 10:43
Have you read the text or watched the video? As Keith wrote and the video shows.
Stefan Mucke was knocked into a spin following a clumsy overtaking attempt by Richard Westbrook. He then sort revenge like Maldonado.
Hence the parallels drawn
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
2nd September 2011, 10:56
Did you read my post? I clearly said that Westbrook’s move on Mucke was an error. But Hamilton’s move on Maldonado – squeezing him off the dry racing line and onto the wet circuit – was deliberate.
Mike
2nd September 2011, 15:44
Hamilton didn’t go out of his way to hit him, it was in order to get the best lap time possible.
Lewis can’t possibly have known what time he needed, and to suggest that he should not have attempted to a achieve the best time possible is ridiculous.
Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
2nd September 2011, 10:52
I honestly think you could argue the complete opposite.
Mucke was taken out by Westbrook in a race. Through no fault of his own, Mucke was taken completely out of contention in an actual racing situation. That doesn’t make what he did any more excusable, but I’d say that Mucke had more right to feel aggravated towards Westbrook as Maldonado did towards Hamilton.
As for Maldonado, while he was clearly just about to start another hot lap before he was compromised by Lewis, the fact is the clock hit 00:00 almost exactly when the two made slight contact exciting the Bus Stop. That means Maldonado wasn’t even going to be able to start a new lap in the first place. Even if Lewis hadn’t come up behind him, he never had a chance to start a new lap. That makes what Maldonado did even more inexcusable, because while he was obviously angry at Lewis he wasn’t going to start that lap whether Lewis had passed him or not. That’s why, if anything, you could argue that what Maldonado did was far more ‘unprovoked’ than what Mucke did.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
2nd September 2011, 11:01
But Maldonado wasn’t trying to get an extra lap in. He only qualified three tenths of a second behind Sutil and eight tenths behind Barrichello. One good lap on an increasingly-dry circuit could have put him fourteenth on the grid (because we saw lap times dramatically prove during the full hour of qualifying), not the sixteenth he finished with before the stewards’ intervention. But Hamilton squeezed him wide coming out of the Bus Stop – clearly making contact with Maldonado – and forcing him onto the wet outer rim of the circuit. That would have compromised Maldonado’s lap massively. He wasn’t trying for an extra lap, he was trying to beat his existing lap time and maybe move further up the grid. Hamilton’s move robbed him of that when Hamilton could have made Q3 without the move on Maldonado.
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
2nd September 2011, 11:55
The thing is though, because both of them were on a hot lap, Hamilton had every right to nudge Maldonado off the road, it’s the rules of F1. They’re all on track, not doing an individual time trial run. Had Barrichello been in Maldonado’s position and vice versa, Lewis would have certainly done the same, but Rubens would NEVER have driven into the side of him, on purpose at least. Either Hamilton or Maldonado were going to get their laps ruined, and Hamilton was never going to let his get destroyed. And that’s perfectly fine.
I think what annoys me most about the whole incident, was Maldonado came down towards Eau Rouge at full speed after the qualifying session had finished. I cannot tell because I haven’t seen his onboard, but it almost seems as if Maldonado didn’t even hit the brakes as he drove into Hamilton… It’s impossible for anybody to say that it was not intentional.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
2nd September 2011, 14:34
If a driver has a right to set a lap time without being impeded by a slower car in front of him, then he should have an equal right to set a lap time without being impeded by someone overtaking.
Tango
2nd September 2011, 15:23
That is one ridiculous thing to say Prisoner Monkey and I’m sure you know it. You must really have something against Hamilton to use such a non-sensical sentence.
Mike
2nd September 2011, 15:48
@PM Unless the impeding car is also on a fast lap.
matt90 (@matt90)
2nd September 2011, 15:59
But a driver doesn’t have the right to set a time without being impeded by a slower car in front… If a faster driver comes up to a slower one and both are on their fast laps, then the driver in front doesn’t have to move over, and the driver behind doesn’t have to sit back.
Hamilton tried to get past, and I believe Maldonado wasn’t expecting him to be alongside in bustop so turned in normally and they bumped wheels a bit. Unfortunate, but all within the rules and quite innocent, although it’s understandable Maldonado was annoyed.
gabal
2nd September 2011, 12:46
Actually, both Maldonado and Barrichello were trying to get another flying lap and they thought they had pace to enter Q3. This claim has some merit as Barrichello posted a purple first sector but then got stuck behind Kovalainen and failed to both set a good time and get another flying lap.
We don’t know did Maldonado know at that time that contact with Hamilton in final corner didn’t make him miss out on another flying lap due to FOM failing in both giving us the team radio between him and pitwall AND any on-board shot.
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
2nd September 2011, 14:00
Spa is different. You can be half a second quicker in both sectors 1 and 3 yet be 1.2 seconds off the pace in sector 2 and end up way down the order. Yes, you cannot blame the Williamses for getting stuck behind Kovalainen, but because he was also on a flying lap, they could not expect him to move over. It was simply a case of Maldonado running wide at the chicane and Hamilton had no option but to take him on the track. Hamilton bashing into the side of Maldonado (which is fine) did NOT prevent him from starting another lap.
bosyber
4th September 2011, 21:25
But since Barrichello did get stuck, he knew pretty well before that final corner that it wasn’t going to happen. And Maldonado got stuck behind those two, so same for him: Willliams tried to get their drivers last on the track, but that is risky, and here they cut it too close. Neither had time for another lap.
This all had happened before HAM showed up in their mirrors, and if MAL didn’t know it he should complain to his team and look at what went wrong with their timing.
PM, I know you love an argument, but you are really stretching too far trying to justify the unrealistic view.
HAM had the right to overtake, even if it impeded someone else also on a hot lap. KOV,BAR and MAL all were allowed to not go aside for HAM, or eachother, as they were all on a hot lap. HAM was the only one of the three behind KOV who had the speed and ability to overtake into that corner, that’s why he did it, and as a result he lost less time than those directly ahead.
Anyway, as there still isn’t any further clarity, I’d say I should have voted for only MAL to get a much harsher penalty.
TheBrav3
2nd September 2011, 13:11
Hamilton wouldn’t have made q3 with out that move and maldonado did him self in by going stupidly wide and slow so what exactly are you on about? Any racing driver would have gone up the inside it was completely fair. Hamilton overtaking maldonado with a clean pass is in no way compareable to one driver causing another driver to spin out.
TheBrav3
2nd September 2011, 13:15
should point out my message was to pm
pSynrg (@psynrg)
2nd September 2011, 13:54
PM won’t hear.
Even if Maldonado had parked, found a stick and walked up to Lewis and started wacking him over the helmet it would still be Lewis’s fault for being in the way of the stick.
David-A (@david-a)
2nd September 2011, 14:08
Maldonado already cost himself any chance of a good lap by sitting behind his teammate and a much slower Lotus.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
2nd September 2011, 14:32
Like I said – the circuit was drying and the lap times falling. And he wasn’t nearly as close to Barrichello as Barrichello was to Kovalainen. We also hadn’t seen the early part of that lap, so it’s entirely plausible that Maldonado was doing exactly what Hamilton did and catching up to the cars in front.
David-A (@david-a)
2nd September 2011, 15:17
And then it’s Maldonado’s responsibility to complete his lap as quickly as possible- by passing Rubens and Kovalainen. Otherwise he left himself open for even faster cars to get by. He just wasn’t enough of a racer in the mad dash to get in a good lap.
Steph (@)
2nd September 2011, 14:52
I hope that’s not true becausen it shouldn’t really matter what happened before. There’s no justification for taking a swipe at another driver.
javlinsharp
2nd September 2011, 17:28
I really must agree here. My job is at least as frustrating as a that of a racecar driver, yet I would never think of accosting my rivals with a car. In my world, that is a criminal action.
Professionals of all types must check emotion, otherwise face whatever consequences
BasCB (@bascb)
2nd September 2011, 22:24
Exactly Steph. There is no justification for any such behaviour, even if we can feel understading for how someone let themself be provoked at times.
@HoHum (@hohum)
2nd September 2011, 16:18
PM, what the heck are you talking about the bus stop for? are you suggesting Maldonados qualifying was more important than Hamiltons? are you suggesting that what happened before the finish line justified what happened after the finish line?
If you are going to be the champion of dissent at least talk about the incident on which the stewards made a ruling “causing an accident”.
alig2605 (@alig2605)
2nd September 2011, 10:31
Re the Maldonado/Hamilton incident I thought that Hamilton made a fair move to overtake. Maldonado’s retaliation was just stupid and dangerous and he shouldn’t have been allowed to start the race. As it was he earned a point. So way too lenient. If he’d done that in a race the stewards presumably could disqualify him?
Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
2nd September 2011, 10:40
As I said after the incident, I can understand why Pastor was annoyed with Hamilton. I wouldn’t blame Lewis for that either, he had a right to try and finish his lap didn’t he? It was an unfortunate set of circumstances that led to this whole incident occurring.
If Pastor genuinely had a problem with Lewis, he should have waited until after qualifying and gone down to see him and spoken to him about it face-to-face. That would be the mature, adult thing to do. If he had done that, he’d have had my sympathy and my respect. But no. Pastor decided that the best thing to do was to try and send Lewis a message on the track instead. The way I see it, he wanted to get alongside and then to cut Hamilton up to demonstrate to him that he wasn’t happy with what just happened. However, I think he misjudged his act of petty revenge terribly and ran into Lewis instead.
I honestly don’t think he meant to make contact, because I really don’t want to believe that he would even consider it in the first place. Seeking to deliberately hit another driver has got to be the single worst thing you can possibly do on a race track because you’re not only putting yourself and the other driver in danger, but the marshals, other drivers coming along and even the spectators at risk as well. We all saw the debris fly up after the contact – that could’ve gone anywhere.
What gets me the most about the stewards decision was that they gave Pastor the penalty which clearly indicates that they believe he was most at fault. I would only ever consider a 5 place grid penalty as appropriate punishment for a collision like that if it was genuinely a complete accident and nothing more. If that really was the case, I’d have expected Pastor to have gone straight to the McLaren garage to apologise profusely and to insist that it was all a complete misunderstanding and had nothing to do with what happened at Monaco or at the end of the last lap. However, nothing about what happened on track or afterwards suggests to me that that was the case. This looks like a open and shut case of on track retribution and if you are found guilty of that, contact intentional or otherwise, you deserve to receive a very severe penalty. This is Formula 1, the supposed pinnacle of motorsport. As a driver, you are not only expected to act professionally at all times but you are a role model to young drivers and fans across the world. A 5 place grid penalty is HALF of the penalty you used to get for changing your engine a few seasons ago. Not only did Pastor act in a way that is totally unacceptable for a Formula 1 driver, the stewards also completely failed to hand down a punishment to fit the infraction.
What message does a 5 place grid penalty send to drivers in Formula 1 and motor sport in general about deliberately trying to take ‘revenge’ out on track? In my opinion, woefully little. When you consider all of the men and women who have lost their lives throughout the history of Formula 1 because of accidents and unintentional contact, I’d almost go so far as to say that the 5 place grid penalty the stewards handed Maldonado completely disrespects the memories of all of those who were lost over the years.
TheBrav3
2nd September 2011, 13:19
Seeking to deliberately hit another driver has got to be the single worst thing you can possibly do on a race track because you’re not only putting yourself and the other driver in danger, but the marshals, other drivers coming along and even the spectators at risk as well. We all saw the debris fly up after the contact – that could’ve gone anywhere.
And that is why i think pastor should have gotten a more severe punishment because I believe it was his intention to make contact.
Mike
2nd September 2011, 15:52
I completely agree.
Steph (@)
2nd September 2011, 16:57
I agree with every single sentence in your huge comment. I don’t have anything else to add
BasCB (@bascb)
2nd September 2011, 22:26
Fully agree with that MAG. I even read the whole essay ;-)
jake
2nd September 2011, 22:45
comment of the day…in fact, comment of the season
raymondu999 (@raymondu999)
2nd September 2011, 10:43
Well as my friend likes to say, “It wasn’t Lewis’ fault. The other drivers know he is the fastest driver and best overtaker out there, so when they see him on track, they want to prove a point. They want to prove that they can keep up with, and battle with, Lewis.”
/end sarcasm :P
raymondu999 (@raymondu999)
2nd September 2011, 10:56
Going back on topic; I know it isn’t FIA; but it kind of smacks of what Montoya did in NASCAR
Youtube
matt90 (@matt90)
2nd September 2011, 15:40
Pretty interesting to see that, thanks.
streetfightingman
2nd September 2011, 10:56
Would be great if the article said anything about what punishment Mucke got.
Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
2nd September 2011, 10:59
It says directly under the video.
streetfightingman
2nd September 2011, 12:43
oh, thanks! lol I must be blind
HounslowBusGarage
2nd September 2011, 11:12
If a driver impedes or baulks another driver during a qualifying session, what sanction can he expect from the Stewards – a five place gid penalty?
So these Stewards judged a deliberate act of aggression by one driver against another, whatever the cause and after the end of competition, as the same seriousness and deserving the same penalty.
Doesn’t stack up, does it?
Look at it this way. If I drive my car into yours while parking in the local Tesco through my stupidity and ignorance, you do not have the right to deliberately ram me from behind outside Burger King. My action is careless, yours is deliberate.
I had thought it was a good idea to have an ex-F1 driver on the Steward panel, but I was really disappointed when so many different and varying drivers seemed to be selected to sit with these other amateur stewards. As a result we have amateur ‘judges’ taking decisions on professional sport, which is always going to lead to ridiculous variations in interpretation, judgement and punishments.
I think it’s time for a single set of trained, professional Stewards (or maybe a panel of 12 from whom four are drawn for each race) to accompany the race series just like Charlie Whiting does.
Steph (@)
2nd September 2011, 16:59
Agree. I thought the set up would be great at first but every weekend my doubts are growing and I know you’ve expressed concern a couple of times now. I agree with everything you said and I particularly like your last paragraph I think that could be a great idea.
Girts (@girts)
2nd September 2011, 11:15
Well I generally think that drivers should be punished only in exceptional cases. For sure, these are exceptional cases as both collisions were more or less deliberate and avoidable. However, I believe that stewards made the right decision in both cases. Mucke’s case is much more clear so he should get a higher penalty than Maldonado and Hamilton but I think that a 10-place grid penalty is enough. It’s fully understandable that the drivers’ emotions sometimes run wild and that they can do something stupid as a result. They should be punished for that but not excluded from the event(s) after the 1st case. What I don’t want to see is motor sports becoming clinically clean.
As regards Hamilton-Maldonado collision, I think the case is too close to 50/50 to be able to give a harsher penalty to either driver.
bosyber
4th September 2011, 21:34
I agree that it would be best if the stewards were less eager to punish. If they did, maybe this penalty would be less of a joke.
And that’s the reason I voted that here both drivers should get a real, heavy, penalty in case guilt can’t be attributed to one party only: that just means both were stupid and reckless.
So, I’ll repeat: we know Maldonado was and he should have been adequately punished, I am now less convinced Hamilton was than I was a week ago, but even so, if he played a large part in the outcome, a reprimand isn’t enough. If he is innocent of wrongdoing the reprimand is too much compared to the weak penalty of Maldonado.
Alex
2nd September 2011, 11:35
If the stewards were convinced that Maldonado caused the collision deliberately, then they would surely have awarded a harsher penalty.
It follows that the stewards were not convinced that Maldonado caused the collision deliberately.
The camera angles I saw during the race were inconclusive, but it seemed just as plausible that both drivers were merely ‘not wanting to be the one to yield,’ rather than one or the other making a deliberate attack.
How else could they end up colliding when both drivers had space on the side of the track? Again, I didn’t see enough to be sure of what happened. It could have been a reckless shunt from Maldonado. But it could equally have been an idiotic game of chicken, played by both the drivers.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
2nd September 2011, 11:41
You can’t apportion blame equally because one driver was behind the other and could see him, and was therefore in a far better position to avoid a collision.
But I take your point that there are too many things unknown – e.g. did Hamilton slow down to let Maldonado catch him, or did Maldonado speed up?
Mike
2nd September 2011, 15:54
They both acted aggressively towards one another, I’m sure neither wanted to actually crash. But shouldn’t unwarranted aggression that leads to an accident be punished?
Alex
2nd September 2011, 17:40
I’m not saying they shouldn’t be punished; or actually that the blame is shared equally.
My point is that we’ve seen very limited footage, and it was hardly conclusive.
The stewards are the only ones who’ve seen all the evidence, and been able to put their questions to both of the drivers.
I certainly wish they’d laid out the reasoning behind their penalites, but I think to some extent, we’ve just got to trust them.
Mark Hitchcock
2nd September 2011, 11:50
Thinking about this a bit more broadly, it displays the inconsistency of the stewards regarding most penalties.
We’re always moaning that drivers aren’t going to make a lunge because mistakes during overtakes are punished too harshly.
Now we have the opposite, where a deliberate accident is punished lightly.
It just doesn’t make sense.
Alex
2nd September 2011, 12:15
Actually, I was talking about it after quali on Saturday, and we reckoned they might be *too* consistent now – always following the rulebook, and never adjusting for common sense. A couple of examples:
– Schumacher’s overtake of Alonso in Monaco the other year, after the safety car had gone in on the final lap. It was clearly an inoccent mistake resulting from an unusual rule being called into play. The common-sense thing to do would have been to switch their places back. But instead he was given a time penalty (when the cars were all bunched up following the safety car!).
– Hamilton’s overtake of the Safety Car last year. Again, the common-sense thing to do would have been to negate the advantage he gained. Instead, he was handed a stop and go penalty worth about 20 seconds – when he had already gained more than that from the accident!
What both of these had in common is that the stewards strictly followed the rules. The decisions *were* consistent – they just seemed a bit silly, given the circumstances.
Similarly, these decisions are consistent: contact -> penalty. But the stewards have followed the rules to the letter, instead of taking the circumstances into account.
I wonder what kind of brief they’re given: is it their job to apply the rules, or to interpret them?
Hyoko
3rd September 2011, 23:41
This wasn’t an innocent mistake at all. Overtaking the SC is a extremely serious offence and at the very least was worth a black flag, although revoking the F1 superlicense would have been more appropriate.
TimG (@timg)
2nd September 2011, 11:58
The lack of a detailed verdict from the stewards at Spa is unhelpful. In the aftermath of the Hamilton-Maldonado incident, some fans assumed Hamilton had been reprimanded for his move towards Maldonado after La Source, just before Maldonado retaliated. Actually it was the move at Bus Stop. Despite the commitment made some time ago to publish the reasoning behind penalty decisions, there’s still some way to go on this front.
In comparison to the Mucke-Westbrook incident, the intial incident and Maldonado’s retaliation were less serious. It may also be possible (although I don’t think we know for sure – see above) that Maldonado didn’t intend to make contact with the McLaren, just demonstrate his unhappiness with Hamilton. Not that a lack of malicious intent saved last weekend’s driver steward from a one race ban for crashing into Ayrton Senna in Portugal 1989, despite having been black flagged.
In any event, I would have favoured a harsher punishment for Maldonado and a one race suspension does not seen unfair. F1 is the top flight of motor racing and the drivers should all be aware of the possible consequences of causing accidents with other cars. There was some comment recently in the Forum about whether the BBC documentary “Grand Prix: The Killer Years” was too graphic – perhaps Maldonado either missed it, or it wasn’t graphic enough for him. In the 1960s/1970s, few if any drivers would have even considered running into a rival – Clay Regazzoni was accused (and subsequently cleared) of pushing Chris Lambert off-track in a Formula 2 race, with fatal consequences for Lambert.
Another consideration for Maldonado specifically is that he’s been involved in serious incidents before. When racing at the World Series by Renault at Monaco in, I think, 2005, he failed to slow down under yellows and hit a marshall, who was seriously injured. Maldonado was banned for four races for that. The incident at Spa was obviously less serious and no one was hurt, but Maldonado as much as anyone should have learned by now. If he hasn’t then that deserved more than a five place grid drop.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
2nd September 2011, 12:15
Can I ask what makes you say that? Because to me, both decisions on Maldonado and Hamilton (25 and 26) refer to the same time (14:48.00) which I took as meaning they both referred to the contact after La Source.
Of course I agree with you on the lack of detail about the decisions. Here’s a bit more I wrote on that which was cut from the article:
Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
2nd September 2011, 12:36
The FIA’s lack of information doesn’t help, but I also assumed that Lewis’ reprimand was because of the contact he made with Pastor coming out of the Bus Stop. I guessed that if he had passed him without making contact, there’d have been no issue. I can’t really see anything that he did afterwards that was worthy of a reprimand.
John H
2nd September 2011, 13:24
He jinked at him just like Alonso did to Petrov at Abu Dhabi after the race had finished.
Hamilton gets a reprimand, Alonso got nothing.
Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
2nd September 2011, 14:49
Did he ‘jink’ at him, though? I know what you’re referring to, but I interpreted that as Lewis spotting Maldonado in his mirrors and jumping out of the way.
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
2nd September 2011, 13:47
I didn’t agree with Lewis’ reprimand at all. Maldonado made a mistake and Lewis tried to take advantage of that. Admittedly it was at the end of the session pretty much but you could forgive Lewis for trying to squeeze as much as he could out of the last corner.
TimG (@timg)
2nd September 2011, 13:22
As Magnificent Geoffrey says, because they made contact at the Bus Stop. I couldn’t see why Hamilton’s move after La Source was worthy of a reprimand in itself, even for someone as familiar to the stewards as Lewis, when the two drivers actually made contact earlier. But maybe my expectations of the stewards are too high.
Could it be that the incident investigated related soley to the contact after La Source but the stewards took the previous contact into account when determining blame, hence only one time? Either way, if it’s unclear why a driver was reprimanded then it just adds more strength to the argument for more information.
BasCB (@bascb)
2nd September 2011, 13:26
As MAG writes Keith, there were quite a few people commenting here who thought the reprimand for Hamilton could have only been for the earlier accident (as they saw no fault whatsoever with Hamiltons driving in the later incident).
This was off course before the very cryptical official documents got available to make clear the reprimand really was for the same incident as Maldonado’s grid penalty.
Bleeps_and_Tweaks (@bleeps_and_tweaks)
2nd September 2011, 15:24
Good summary BasCB.
I can’t imagine why Hamilton was penalised for his involvement at La Source. We are constantly being told on the BBC coverage that the stewards have a vast array of additional information like steering wheel angle, throttle, break etc etc. So maybe there was something in their that lay some of the blame at Hamilton’s door.
But the footage of Maldonado going completely off the racing line to hit Hamilton is damning enough for me, it’s just obvious. Couple that with his arrogance and defiance in post quali and race interviews, I just can’t fathom why he hasn’t received a more serious penalty.
I think we should be aware of just how disappointing and harmful this is for Williams as well, a great team already having one of their most difficult F1 seasons in years.
maxthecat
2nd September 2011, 12:13
I like to see driver Vendettas on track, racing is so dull these days. Come on who doesn’t want to see a real hate between drivers like Senna and Prost and all the excitement that brings.
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
2nd September 2011, 12:33
Because that could end up in somebody getting seriously hurt…
maxthecat
2nd September 2011, 14:06
Oh come on really! What’s the point of an elite sport that any man off the street could do? Seriously i’m pretty sure with time i could drive an F1 car, you could too but it’s not the driving that makes them who they are, it’s the guts it takes to keep your foot down no matter what that separates them from us.
I’m sorry but with no danger you have no F1 and before you ask, No i don’t want to see people hurt but i want to see people who care so much about winning they want to lumb someone who costs them that victory.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
2nd September 2011, 14:10
No, what sets F1 drivers apart from others is skill.
People were making the “F1 drivers have to be brave, it’s what makes the sport” argument in the seventies to try to block improvements in safety. It was nonsense then and it still is today.
Girts
2nd September 2011, 14:39
I am not sure I can agree with that. For sure, if Vladimir Putin and Tom Cruise can drive an F1 car, then we could learn to do it as well. But I don’t think I could ever learn to drive it as fast as Vettel or Karthikeyan. That would require some talent, a lot of physical and mental strength and very specific abilities and skills. Of course, braveness belongs to the ‘package’ but it’s only one of many things.
Girts (@girts)
2nd September 2011, 12:34
You are pretty right about that. This reminds me of the following lines from ‘The Phantom of the Opera’:
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
2nd September 2011, 13:46
Racing against someone and hating them are two different things. Racing implies respect, hating doesn’t. That’s dangerous ground and we should never advocate drivers being reckless for the wrong reasons.
bosyber
4th September 2011, 21:41
Well said. Racing while hating your opponents seems like a very risky way to go around the track, not just for you, but certainly for the other drivers, the marshals and the audience.
vjanik
2nd September 2011, 12:25
I think Maldonado should have been relegated to the back of the grid at least. if not banned from the race.
what message is the FIA giving to younger drivers by only giving him a 5 place grid drop for deliberately crashing into another car when the session was already over?
on the one hand, stewards are handing out penalties during the race when they see the minutest contact (not on purpose), but when there is actual intent in causing an accident, they fail to make a point to avoid such behavior.
after the incident DC was already implying a race ban, and you could see his surprise when they learnt that it was only a 5 place drop. I would like to hear what were Nigel’s thoughts on the incident.
Keith makes a good point. Making an engine change gives you a higher penalty than crashing into someone on purpose. that just doesn’t feel right.
The FIA are constantly talking about safety concerns, banning DRS in dangerous corners, etc, but don’t have the balls to penalize reckless driving with enough severity to show their position.
bosyber
4th September 2011, 21:42
We can really only conclude that the stewards didn’t find it deliberate, I think. I’d like to see their reasoning for that.
John H
2nd September 2011, 13:18
Why don’t they release the footage from inside the Maldanado’s car and if there isn’t any, then why isn’t there any if they are going to be fair to ALL drivers with how the judge and penalise them?
BasCB (@bascb)
2nd September 2011, 22:31
There isn’t any, as FOM can only tape a limited amount of camera’s, and Maldonado was not one of those!
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
2nd September 2011, 13:44
Good article. I pointed out the Mucke incident at the time while commenting on the original article.
Of course there needs to be consistency but I do believe that the FIA got it right with appointing former Grand Prix drivers to the stewards panel for F1 events. How much control they have however needs to be limited. I don’t know what control and power they have but perhaps making that information public would create an incentive for them to apply consistency.
Tango
2nd September 2011, 14:14
I am what you would call a Hamilton fan : don’t really like the man, still think Alonso is the best complete racer on the grid today, but I always feel disappointed when Hamilton is out of the race : suddenly, everything becomes duller.
You could see twenty seconds in advance that the Williams was sitting in front of Hamilton’s car and that sooner or later Hamilton would have to overtake to get the time right. I cheered when he did it in such a manner. After all, until the finish line, they were racing. When Maldonado overshot and hit (on purpose or not?) Hamilton, all I could think was : “How on earth would he have ended up doing that?”. Then “Why would he do that?”. So I could hardly put both events on the same scale. One was a bold racing move and the second a stupid error or a vicious attack.
Simon_Marden (@simon_marden)
2nd September 2011, 14:49
Maldonado should have been given a harsher penalty, definitely looked like he drove into Lewis, but my main question is why Maldonado wasn’t also penalised for blocking at the corner when Lewis squeezed by? This was what started the whole nasty spat. Lewis could have been on pole if he didn’t have to negotiate his way around Maldonado.
Alex
2nd September 2011, 14:53
Firstly, Maldonado was in front and on a racing lap, so he had no obligation to let Hamilton through.
Secondly, Hamilton could not have won pole with that lap, because it took place in Qualifying 2 – the best you can do is make the top 10 (which he did).
I happen to feel Hamilton’s pass, while rough, was fair. However Maldonado had just as much right to hold his line as Hamilton did to pass him.
It’s what happened later which was potentially unacceptable – at least, if it was deliberate.
Simon_Marden (@simon_marden)
2nd September 2011, 15:14
Ah yeh. P1 in Q2, not pole, even so.
I disagree about the corner pass incident. We’ve seen slower cars on “hot” laps impede faster drivers and get penalised for it. It’s not as if he could reasonably race against the McLaren. Lewis’s pass was rough and fair, but that’s clearly what Maldo’ was getting so snippy about after the hairpin, the fact that Lewis bumped wheels with him. Frankly looked to me as if Maldo’ tried to close the door on Lewis too late at the last corner, then got vindictive over the fact that he got bettered. (I know the TV angles aren’t great, but hey there’s my rant over.)
sw6569 (@sw6569)
2nd September 2011, 14:59
The ‘for’ argument from the article sums up my feelings entirely. The stewards have to be consistent.
It was dangerous and unsporting. Maldonado has no place in F1. As a Williams fan it saddens me that they have no disciplined him in some form themselves. It was disgraceful!
SupaSix-1
2nd September 2011, 15:15
I cant beleive the inconsistancies of the stewards.
Its no secret that they see a big cross-hairs on Hamilton’s back and will always punish him harder than the rest….especially with guys like mansell who are quick to show their resentment towards Hamilton, in the stewards room.
Lets take the Hamilton/Kobayashi incident:
Had it been Lewis in Kobayashi’s position, there is no doubt whatsoever that Hamilton wouldve definately been investigated at least.
The lack of any investigation regardless of if any punishment was given was nonsense.
As for maldonado…..It was as clear as day that he was being dirty and that he caused the collision on purpose out of frustration and anger – Once again had the roles been reversed and Lewis wouldve been given a ban or something more severe.
maldonado got away with it purely because it was Lewis who was on the recieving end.
This is a big hurdle that only Lewis faces….the stewards will always look at Lewis harder than anyone else – Its not fair and all the other drivers know that that will always be in their favour.
Its not fair.
I have no doubt that certain powers that be are trying to taint Lewis Hamilton’s legacy.
And the hypocrisy shown by these ex-drivers like mansell who themselves were involved in very questionable incidents is a joke!
SupaSix-1
2nd September 2011, 15:22
The FIA should allow for all stewards investigations to be videoed and shown to the public (available on F1 website) so we can see 1st hand how these guys come to their decisions & how much influence an ex driver has there.
Alot of these ex-drivers have their favourite drivers and teams in the current world of F1….as well as some of them having direct interest with some of the competing teams.
There is a massive question about fairness in the stewards office.
f1web.it
2nd September 2011, 16:51
I think one should compare F1 just with F1. And although we do this for the Maldonado-Hamilton crash in Spa, we find inconsistent decision anyway considering the past. In fact: many times we have seen drivers being punished for blocking other collagues in qualify. They did not do it on purpose, but they have been demoted 5 places because they did IT anyway. Maldonado pushed Hamilton on purpose, damaged his car and risked an even worse accident. From my point of view he should have been put at the end of the grid, or even excluded from the race. It was an unpleasant move from him but it was also an unpleasant action from the stewards.
OmarR-Pepper (@)
2nd September 2011, 17:38
Even when Hamilton move was aggressive, he didn’t touch Maldonado’s car on the overtaking move at any moment. But besides that, I think a tougher penalty for Maldonado would be just over reacting. It’s the heat of the moment and the punishment was good enough to make MAL think about it. I remember two situations in which anger was shown (not against other pilots though), one: Barrichello’s throwing his steering wheel on the road and being caught by somebody else (DANGEROUS action not penalised) and one less dramatic when Hamilton crashed in Singapure last year and threw his steering wheel, well not afecting anyone with that, and NO PUNISHMENT. So MAL’s punishment was ok and that’s all.
Mahir C
2nd September 2011, 18:58
Didnt MS get a 10 place grid drop after Hungary last year. I cant believe Maldonado got away with less, he actually hit Hamilton whereas MS didnt hit Barrichello. Both are deliberate, so punishment should be similar.
Mads (@mads)
2nd September 2011, 19:15
At least the GT1 crash was in a racing situation. I know that don’t change much of the accident, but they were both going for it, and close overtaking is expected.
In the Ham-Mal case the session was over. There was no need for Maldonardo to go fast, neither get close to Hamilton and certainly not sideswipe him!
Of cause there was no need for Mucke to get that close either, but at least he should be going fast.
I think what happened for Mucke was that he was looking at the Nissan to give him “the bird”, and usually your hands move the way you look, so if he looks left he will automatically turn left ever so slightly.
It was a total brainfade move no doubt! And i am not trying to defend him at all.
I just think that Maldonardo should have been penalized much harder then he actually was. At least as hard as Mucke.
George (@george)
2nd September 2011, 19:21
It’s a difficult one to judge without telemetry and additional camera angles. I think the punishment was fitting assuming Maldonado was more at fault but it wasn’t intentional. If there was evidence it was intentional I would have banned him for at least one race, no question.
I’m of the opinion that Mucke just lost control of his car, it was quite badly damaged from the previous contact and he seemed very sheepish when his car stopped. I think he just wanted to get alongside to shake his fist (similar to Maldonado), but forgot that the wheel would jerk when he took his hand off it. Even so I think the punishment was justified.
Nick
2nd September 2011, 19:45
The Maldonado case isn’t as clear-cut as the Mucke situation, which was a race scenario and so was taken more seriously. The fact that it did not in the event affect Hamilton all that much in qualifying – he ended up on the front row, remember – may well have also been taken into consideration.
That said, I’m with HounslowBusGarage on the subject of having a panel of fully trained and paid stewards who take it in turns to act at each Grand Prix, similar to how in international cricket the umpires are chosen from a select group of (usually) former professionals. Having one ex-F1 driver as a guest steward isn’t enough.
bosyber
4th September 2011, 21:51
I, and I think others too, think that because it wasn’t a race scenario is reason to take it all the more serious that two drivers made contact.
Had it been overtaking for position or for free air to lose the least amount of time in qualifying (as what HAM did in that last corner), then yes, accidents can happen, but to some extend it is part of racing – just a question if either of them could have done more to avoid contact while engaging in close racing.
But here there should not have been any reason at all to be so close on the track at speed, nothing to gain, just get back to the pits in one piece, so either they/one of them was really very clumsy or not paying attention at all (dangerous!), or it was even worse, namely deliberate.
wasiF1 (@wasif1)
3rd September 2011, 2:43
To me if the punishment should have been applied it should be bear by both the driver.Yes Maldonado may have been a bit frustrated by the action of Hamilton but I do think Hamilton did everything right ton get a good lap time when the chequered flag is out.
Tiffoc (@tiffoc)
3rd September 2011, 8:39
Lewis Whamilton has a history of winding up other Drivers on the track, which he did, to Pastor Maldonado in saturdays Qualifying. This does not exonerate Pastor Maldonado for his retaliatory actions, far from it, his actions put peoples lives at risk. This is a Sport not a Death Race. For sure accidents happen, but deliberate ones should be ousted with harsh penalties. Lewis should of been disqualified from the Spa Race and fined. Pastor should of had a three Race Ban, which should have included Spa and also fined. In both cases should have been warned that any future incidents would result in the loss of their F1 Super-Licenses…
KiwiUK (@kiwiuk)
3rd September 2011, 10:01
I wonder if the former drivers sitting on the stewards board should be looked at again. Nigel Mansell was on the F1 Racing cover only in August calling Lewis immature for his aggressive driving style.
Perhaps a more unbiased approach is needed? Or maybe the driver should be seen as more of a consultant as opposed to a decision maker to achieve some consistency.
Christopher Vissing
3rd September 2011, 16:25
I didn’t see the qualifying for spa.. where can i see the incident???
dfektor
3rd September 2011, 20:47
i think peoples views on the incident are clouded and more pro-hamilton because of the initial comments from the BBC commentators which slammed maldonado. but after watching replays and listening to maldonado after qualifying and seeing a sheepish hamilton with defensive body language after qualifying, and then seeing hamilton walk up to maldonado and shake his hand (to make peace?) it seemed it wasnt as clear cut as the bbc commentators saw it. it looked like both drivers were angry at each other, first hamilton made a swipe at maldonado, then maldonado accerated past hamilton, keeping his car close to hamiltons, to show his presence, but not meaning to contact, but contact was made as hamilton was also showing his presence to maldonado by staying close in the moment. i dont believe either driver wanted contact, but it happened, it was unfortunate. the incident was actually much less serious then made out if you watch the replays, it was 2 drivers with an attitude, that just happened to touch. it wasnt “maldonado bashing into hamiltons car” and it wasnt “hamilton forcing an incident”.
Oliver
4th September 2011, 18:07
There was no swipe.
After qualifying Hamilton began to slow down. Then as he follwed the curve of the road drifting to the right, he suddenly saw Maldonado approaching very fast. He then sweved off his path.
Now, Maldonado then suddenly slowed down such that as Hamilton had nowhere to go as he tried to drift back into his wake, following the direction of the road.
In other words, Maldonado crossed his path deliberately.
It is not normal for a car to get so close to another on a slowing down lap.
Maldonado had all the space in the world to get past especially as he was coming from behind.
He should have been fined.
The incident at the busstop didn’t warrant any attention. Maldonado drifted wide and Hamilton ensured he himsel maintained the reasonable line on the track.
Impeding another driver, only applies to when you are not on a fast lap. Justling for position during qualifying is fair game.
Maldonado still has plenty of GP2 blood in him and will do well to alter some of that mentality.
DaveW
5th September 2011, 0:30
Is it really so complicated? If either incident was at the local kart track, you would permanently banned and possibly reported to the cops.