McLaren defend Perez over Raikkonen collision

F1 Fanatic round-up

Kimi Raikkonen, Lotus, Monte-Carlo, 2013In the round-up: McLaren sporting director Sam Michael says it’s better for Sergio Perez to be too aggressive than too risk-averse.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Ruthless Perez unfazed by critics (BBC)

Michael: “I’d rather he did that than be criticised for sitting there when he could have had a go. He’s stamping his authority on the sport and showing he has the ability to do that. It’s not always going to come off, just as it hasn’t with other people. Of course you can argue he lost a fifth place, but once he’d committed to that move, Kimi [Raikkonen] threw it away as well as him. Kimi always had the option to turn away from the corner.”

Waiting for the Canadian Grand Prix (Ferrari)

“In the case of Massa?s car, this involved building it around a completely new chassis, following his accident in the race.”

??En el d??a a d??a hay que tener especial cuidado al volante?? (El Pais, Spanish)

This picture of Maria de Villota’s crash helmet gives a frightening impression of her crash last year which resulted in here losing her right eye.

Mercedes-Pirelli-Test in Barcelona (Motorsport Total, German)

Pictures from Mercedes’ disputed test at the Circuit de Catalunya following the Spanish Grand Prix.

2013 Canadian Grand Prix – Preview (FIA)

“Gravel and grass around the outside of turn eight and the apex of turn nine has been replaced with asphalt.”

Sam Michael on MP4-28: “At least the bits are starting to work…” (Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog)

“That?s main thing, just to see progress, and we?ve definitely seen that. Montreal is obviously a very different track, and you can overtake a lot easier.”

Monaco 2013 – race edit (F1)

Video highlights from the Monaco Grand Prix which include some new team radio chatter from Lewis Hamilton and Kimi Raikkonen.

Prost: test limit biggest 2014 challenge (Autosport)

“Today, it is going to be only three tests at the beginning of next year. That is going to be one of the biggest challenges, it’s very difficult.”

Analysis ?ǣ Set up sheet explained (ScarbsF1)

“This set up sheet appeared on the Lotus Media site. It was from Kimi Raikkonen?s debut test at Jerez for the team in a R30 (from 2011). It shows some of the set up detail that the teams go into.”

Hamilton and Rosberg explain how KERS works (F1 Fanatic via YouTube)

Tweets

Comment of the day

Daniel2 on how the FIA should react to the Mercedes test controversy:

Regardless what the Pirelli contract with the FIA says, that document can hardly create exceptions to the sporting regulations, that all teams have to follow. That?s my opinion.

The if/how/when/why of it doesn?t matter all that much. Fact is that Mercedes did a three-day 1,000km tyre test with their current car and their two championship drivers during the season. Disregarding the second party to that test (Pirelli), what?s left is a clear violation of the rules. That?s what they should be punished for and the penalty should first render Mercedes? (alleged) advantage null and void and add more on top of it, to show not only Mercedes but also all other teams, that they can?t just think of ignoring the preexisting rules.

Now, the Pirelli participation in the test is a whole other matter. Maybe they had a general understanding with the FIA, that tyre tests during the season could be possible under certain conditions. But all I’ve read so far suggests, that these were non-specific inquiries from 2012 and the tyre supplier did certainly not ask any of the other teams for a post-Barcelona test. It seems clear, that not all teams had the opportunity to respond positively to that certain test.
Daniel2

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Ratboy!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Michele Alboreto gave Tyrrell their final Formula One win in the Detroit Grand Prix held 30 years ago today.

The slow street track gave the Cosworth-powered teams a chance to put one over their turbo rivals and they duly filled the podium, Keke Rosberg taking second for Williams ahead of John Watson’s McLaren.

It was the 155th and last win for the DFV engine which had first been introduced to Formula One 16 years earlier. Here’s an onboard lap with Eddie Cheever as he struggles to apply his Renault RE40’s immense power on the wet track during practice:

Image ?? Lotus/LAT

Advert | Go Ad-free

84 comments on McLaren defend Perez over Raikkonen collision

  1. celeste (@celeste) said on 5th June 2013, 0:07

    The spanish article saids that Villota has been in F1 15 years. On the other hand is great to see her working to improeve safety not only in F1 but for everyone.

    I guess Mark is getting old, forgeting something that happened 2 years ago ;).

    And I agree with COTD

    • Nick (@npf1) said on 5th June 2013, 13:50

      I saw Mark quoted saying his favorite Canadian GP was the one Mansell retired from the lead with 2 corners to go and Alesi winning, but those were 2 separate events, 1991 (with Piquet winning) and 1995 (where Schumacher did suffer some problem, but Alesi won fair and square).

      Either Mark has someone else writing his quotes for him, or he’s been partying with Kimi.

  2. DaveF1 (@davef1) said on 5th June 2013, 0:21

    Dang, is it selfish to say I was expecting a birthday shout out. I’m sure I added my name to the list :P

    Anyways that picture of Maria’s helmet is quiet scary, goes to show how much safety has improved in various areas of the sport.

    And I’m I the only one who finds those F1.com race edits absolutely rubbish. They have access to loads of team radio and footage and instead they give us clips of random celebrities to bloody awful music.

  3. Crackers (@crackers) said on 5th June 2013, 0:53

    A suggestion to the FIA. Seeing as Mercedes got three extra days of track testing, why not ban them from running on friday at the next three events.

    Seems fair to me.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 5th June 2013, 1:26

      “Seemes” is the right word, because it certainly isn’t fair – the teams use Friday practice to develop the car set-up and do qualifying and race circuits. Banning them from running on Friday would make it impossible to complete a test program, which would affect their qualifying and race performances.

      • Ady (@ady) said on 5th June 2013, 11:37

        @prisoner-monkeys “which would affect their qualifying and race performances”, isn’t that the purpose of a punishment? Anyway the FIA can’t make up punishments on the fly, there will set punishments for breaches of the sporting regulations, probably a fine or a race ban or some such.

        Personally I think someone made a grave error at Mercedes, as the test was on behalf or Pirelli they probably assumed it meant with the 2013 car without thinking it through.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 5th June 2013, 12:08

          “which would affect their qualifying and race performances”, isn’t that the purpose of a punishment?
          Yes, but it’s an unfair punishment. It assumes that, becase of the test in Barcelona, Mercedes gained an unfair advantage, and that as a direct result of that, they won in Monaco – which has not been proven. Furthermore, it puts Mercedes at a disadvantage for three races, when it assumes that they only gained an advantage for one.

          • celeste (@celeste) said on 5th June 2013, 13:43

            @prisoner-monkeys But the punishement is for breaking the rules, no matter if they gained advantage or didn´t…

          • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 5th June 2013, 19:38

            if the fia gives dispensation it’s not breaking the rules celeste but please write another 20 comments about how they did with absolutely no proof or facts. It’s ur own time your wasting the fia is not ghosting this blog looking to see where public opinion is on this matter.

        • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 5th June 2013, 19:32

          “Personally I think someone made a grave error at Mercedes,”

          Right and then someone at ferrari made an identicaly grave mistake in complete isolation from each other considering the ferrari test wasn’t know about until the mercedes one was. Go on pull the other one it’s got bells on it.

    • verstappen (@verstappen) said on 5th June 2013, 8:57

      I’m no fan of Todt, but I guess he won’t scare away Daimler with 100 million fine and the head of Ross Brawn.

      So giving them 5 million fine plus 6 fridays no running seems reasonable to me.

      Still, I keep thinking that Ross found a loophole again.

      • Cranberry said on 5th June 2013, 14:39

        6 Fridays exclusion from testing, that’s FP1 and FP2 for 6 races…. That escalated quickly!
        If they wanted to push Mercedes out of the sport, this would be the way to do it.

        If the FIA gave Mercedes the green light for this test, how can they turn around and punish them? They govern the sport, if they said that testing just this one time was ok, then it was and I wouldn’t be surprised if Mercedes got away without any punishment.

        Brawn is a master in this sort of political tactics, or have we forgotten how he spearheaded Ferrari’s efforts and effectively pushed Michelin out of the sport?
        Ross Brawn is not a fool, the man is razor sharp and he would not have allowed his team to conduct the test if he did not have his own house in order. Brawn says that the FIA gave Mercedes permission for this test and I believe him.
        Pirelli came to Mercedes requesting a test and Brawn may have been cunning enough to word the application letter to the FIA in a way that the representatives that gave them the “OK” were not fully aware on what they signed.

        If they want to come to a fair punishment they would use this opportunity to come to a definitive decision on which comes first; Sporting regulation or business agreements. That should be priority number 1. Only after they’ve sorted that out they can shave off some constructor’s points off of Mercedes and fine them some millions.

    • Mustang said on 5th June 2013, 16:01

      No friday ban for Mercedes please! They should be allowed the same rights as every other team this weekend and all the coming races this year.
      JUST NO CONSTRUCTORS POINTS FOR MERCEDES IN 2013, that’s all.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 5th June 2013, 16:30

        Why should the drivers who participated in the test, and have no excuse for not knowing it was conducted in contravention of the Sporting Regulations, be specifically excluded from punishment?

        • celeste (@celeste) said on 5th June 2013, 17:35

          Well can´t argue with that.

          I have been thinking about it I have wondering how much did Nico and Lewis knew about the circunstances of the test.Some italian journals have even accused Lewis of twitting a picture of USA while he was at Barcelona testing. (Making a case for Button when he told Perez not to tweet)

          In the spygate drivers were offer inmunity for telling what they knew, but in this case I don´t know…

        • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 5th June 2013, 19:42

          well alonso and piquet junior were in their scandles keith short memory much?

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 5th June 2013, 21:32

            The comparison doesn’t hold: Piquet Jnr was granted immunity as a whistleblower and Alonso was judged not to have been involved.

          • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 6th June 2013, 21:50

            Ah i ment alonso in spy gate he was definitely involved I guess you can also include lewis in that. As for piquet junior i don’t see how being a whistleblower means you are no longer in contravention of the sporting regs? Maybe a lighter penalty but still something very severe considering what he did.

        • Mustang said on 6th June 2013, 1:49

          @Keith:
          who said they were excluded from punishment?
          First theres a $2 million fine for each one, but they keep their points to give the team some reason for staying in F1.
          Second they are excluded from the first two rows on the grid no matter where they qualify: a permanent 4 place grid penalty for 2013.
          J Todt will I think accept their defence of “What do I know about tests gov. I just turn up when I’m told and drive.”… so no additional punishment on this occassion.

  4. Manished said on 5th June 2013, 1:12

    Driver upfront has no obligation whatsoever to cut the corner when there’s no car alongside him.

    With such late braking Sergio couldn;t even make that corner.

    Mclaren seems to be run by Carlos Slim now.

    • THIS. Agree. Driver in front should never have to yield to cars behind him.

    • Pennyroyal tea (@peartree) said on 5th June 2013, 2:48

      McLaren have no identity, complete utter lack of values.

    • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 5th June 2013, 2:58

      Driver upfront has no obligation whatsoever to cut the corner when there’s no car alongside him.

      The driver upfront was Kimi, running 2nd in the championship. He should apply the maths before “closing the door” the way he did to Sergio. It would have been far more valuable to lose just that position (maybe, he wouldn’t have been obligated to give position as Alonso had to) than to end up with just one point. And he claims Perez is the idiot? It was Kimi who didn’t think about the outcome wisely

    • Abdurahman (@) said on 5th June 2013, 3:02

      How everyone has jumped in to say how great Perez was for that idiotic move is hilarious. Perez stuck his wheel in where it didn’t belong and it cost Kimi. How is Perez brave and talented for doing that?? It’s like political spin. If you keep saying and saying something over and over, eventually people will accept it as true.

    • mantresx (@mantresx) said on 5th June 2013, 3:07

      Mclaren seems to be run by Carlos Slim now.

      Funny you mention that, since Spain Mclaren has put (very quietly) this sponsorship in their car
      http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/05/23/2013-monaco-grand-prix-practice-in-pictures/sergio-perez-in-action-20/

      But it’s just an introduction of things to come, Slim has already said they will be a major sponsor next year, btw if you’re wondering what “Claro video” is it’s like a crapy netlfix here in Mexico.

    • hawkii (@hawkii) said on 5th June 2013, 7:07

      Indeed, I hate how the defence for Perez seems to be “well Kimi could have backed out of the corner”. Erm, why? He’s in front and there isn’t all that many different ways to take the corner. If there was a wall there – as on most of the rest of the circuit – Kimi would have nowwhere to go. Why should he have to yield solely because there’s monster runoff there?

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 5th June 2013, 7:55

        Had there been a wall there, Perez wouldn’t have even considered the move. He did that move only because he knows the driver being passed can avoid contact by cutting the chicane, making use of the fact that they had more to lose then he had @hawkii

    • Breno (@austus) said on 5th June 2013, 15:49

      I cant blame McLaren for defending Perez, they’re a team. I’m sure he had a talk with the team, especially because he had to retire with so few laps left.

    • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 5th June 2013, 18:03

      Concur. There is a fine line between agressive driving and putting yourself and other drivers in an impossible situation. Webber and Hamilton racing each other hard, but with respect, at Monaco is a perfect example of agressive, clean racing. Perez forcing himself into a squeeze between Kimi and the barriers while not even being close to alongside, is not an example of smart agressive racing. Bound to happen again now that McLaren has given their blessing.

  5. Traverse (@) said on 5th June 2013, 1:48

    I know this is childish, but Hamilton’s face in the video thumbnail above is hilarious! Maybe I should go to bed! :)

  6. OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 5th June 2013, 2:59

    The driver upfront was Kimi, running 2nd in the championship. He should apply the maths before “closing the door” the way he did to Sergio. It would have been far more valuable to lose just that position (maybe, he wouldn’t have been obligated to give position as Alonso had to) than to end up with just one point. And he claims Perez is the d u m b? It was Kimi who didn’t think about the outcome wisely

    • Abdurahman (@) said on 5th June 2013, 3:04

      watch the video again bro. Perez had only just stuck his wheel in. He was nowhere near being alongside him. Not even a third of the way besides him.

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 5th June 2013, 3:30

      @omarr-pepper Don´t you think that it is unfair for the driver behind to expect for the driver in the front to jump out of the way just because he is in the fight for the championship.

      Will be really boring too.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 5th June 2013, 7:15

        @celeste, its taking an advantage of the knowledge that the other guy has more to lose than you (DC mentioning it was how Schumacher often went at it, and Senna did it too), so in that sense its a bit unfair approach.
        On the other hand, as @omarr-pepper mentions, it worked on Alonso, who has been in the hunt for the championship and won it more often then Kimi, precisely because he (mostly) knows when to take home the points and not risk dropping out over one place.

        Sure enough Kimi was fully in his right to defend, and maybe Perez should have recognized that after the move one lap earlier and not pushed on where and when he did. But in the end Perez did attack, Kimi defended, and the result is that Kimi only got 1 point and Perez DNF.

      • Timothy Katz (@timothykatz) said on 5th June 2013, 7:24

        I thought Sam Michael’s phrase “stamping his authority on the sport” was a little injudicious in the circumstances.

    • Manished said on 5th June 2013, 4:04

      That’s a left hand corner…..you can only turn left in order to make that corner……..anyone blame kimi for closing the door need a new spectacles.

      I thought you guys were asking for more racing??

      How is that racing when the car in front just move out of the way to a car that wasn’t even alongside him?? Defensive driving is part of racing dude. Something that Perez needs to learn. And chicane upfront means BRAKE.

    • gilles (@gilles) said on 5th June 2013, 8:21

      @omarr-pepper Do not agree with you on this mate. In Lithuania we have a proverb “duok durniui kelia”, it means “always give way to an idiot”. But you just can’t do it everytime. Kimi played it safe the first time when Checo missed the chicane himself and pushed Kimi out and the second time he clearly indicated that he will not let him past by putting the car in the middle of the road but Checo banzai’ed anyway.
      I saw the picture comparision of Perez’s moves on Alonso and Raikkonen. And Checo was about 17 kph faster at the same spot when trying the move on Kimi than he was with Fernando. No way he was going to make it.
      I like Checo’s determination, but in racing as in life one have to has measure. And encouraging public comments from his team after every incident is not doing him any good. I really hope that at least privately they tell him to calm down.

    • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 5th June 2013, 9:42

      How I see it, Perez was fully committed to taking the inside line and could not deviate from that (he couldn’t “switchback” to try around the outside or yield). Whether he was too ambitious in the first place is up for debate and personally I would agree he was a tad ambitious but for Kimi then to just turn in was foolish under those circumstances.

      Perez had nowhere to go and so the crash at that point was completely unavoidable. If Kimi had just carried straight on Perez may have missed the apex, in which case he’d have to give the place back anyway! As it was though I really can’t see how anyone could justify Kimi moving across as doing the right thing. He only ruined his own race by doing that.

      Simply it was a racing incident: Perez was a bit ambitious in the first place, and Räikkönen was silly to turn in. The stewards agree by the looks of it.

    • JimG (@jimg) said on 5th June 2013, 10:30

      Or maybe Kimi is playing the long game: in future Sergio may not try the same move on him, but will still use the same technique on Alonso, Vettel et al.

    • tmekt (@tmekt) said on 5th June 2013, 10:42

      Watch the onboard footage from Perez’ view. Kimi moves off the racing line right after the exit of the tunnel committing early to the defensive line from which he can still easily turn into the corner while leaving no space on his left.

      If Perez didn’t notice this, more than obvious and consistent move (which Kimi had done on the previous laps as well – in the exact same way), Kimi has all the right to call him “dumb” because along with having a visual impairment that’s what the guy appears to be.

    • Deej92 (@deej92) said on 5th June 2013, 12:48

      It was poor defensive driving by Raikkonen as well. He should be closing the door earlier so Perez has to take the racing line. It was a bit of a late defensive move, and a costly one. The “if there was a wall there” argument is a poor one. Perez would take into account the run-off when going for the overtakes. Raikkonen didn’t even need to cut the chicane to avoid contact anyway.

      • 5150 (@) said on 5th June 2013, 18:26

        Wow! What are you talking about? He defended as early as exiting the tunnel.
        Or maybe you think he should defend aproach to this chicane at St. Devote?

        • Deej92 (@deej92) said on 5th June 2013, 21:42

          @5150 He moved over after the kink, not straight after exiting the tunnel, and only to the middle of the track. Why did he leave Perez room to try an attack? If he left him no room before the approach to the chicane, he could then move back onto the racing line to take the corner with Perez behind, as Perez couldn’t attack down the inside. I’ve said before, it was a racing incident, both can take a percentage of the blame. Seems the FIA agreed as well, and they have more evidence than you or I.

        • fjv said on 6th June 2013, 8:20

          Totally agree, both drivers put themselves in a collision course, both bear equal responsibility for the outcome. That is the bottom line in picking a fight, any fight. One had more to loose than the other and that should have been taken in to consideration before the incident, but not by FIA, tactics for the race, strategy for the championship, that is what Alonso did, smart drivers take both in to consideration before they put themselves out of the race, neither one was the victim of the other, if you think your driver was a victim, then he does not know how to defend his position or how to take it. If some one thinks one did not see what the other was doing at all times, that person does not know what is required of a world class driver, they have to know where everybody around them is at all times and what they are up to, they have radios, they have rear view mirrors and have super licenses to prove they know what they are doing, childish remarks and blaming is not going to get you or your driver anywhere, you will blame pirelli today, the other drivers next day, the engineers the next, and so on. if your driver still does not get better positions after all your complaining, is nobody fault but his team and himself. Your driver plays the cards he is dealt, and great performances start with finishing races, (some times is not up to the driver to finish) clean racing means cars do not touch each other, and defender and attacker bear the same responsibility during the fight, defending does not mean you have less responsibility of avoiding a crash, I dare you to pass is the same as I dare you not to let me pass.

    • anon said on 5th June 2013, 17:08

      Plus this could have all been avoided if Kimi could have managed to lap at the same speed as the far inferior McLaren. There’s no excuse for Alonso, Kimi and Button to have been out driven by a third year driver in inferior machinery (except Button of course he couldn’t keep up with Perez in the same machinery).

  7. Abdurahman (@) said on 5th June 2013, 3:07

    how is this Kimi’s fault???

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2jba0cEqco

    • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 5th June 2013, 14:15

      @abdurahman I’m not saying the accident is Kiimi’s fault, I’m saying that he could have seen, from previous Perez moves, that the result would end in a crash. By letting Perez go, he could probably end with the same amount of points (Perez prone to crash style could take the next victim, clearing way for Kimi to regain a lost place.

  8. wsrgo (@wsrgo) said on 5th June 2013, 3:34

    Yes, dear Mr Sam Michael, Kimi had the option to turn away from the corner. He would have therefore cut the chicane. And would have to give the position back to Perez. Last I checked, overtaking was passing cars on track, not making a “Hail Mary” dive up the inside of someone and expecting them to cut the corner. The chicane is not there for cutting, it’s there for braking, and overtakes should be simple, well-judged outbraking manoeuvers.
    Which is why I agree with Raikkonen here, that someone should punch Perez. The Mexican feels he is invincible at the chicane, so even if he is light years away from the car in front, he’ll still dive and expect the guy in front to give him room and/or cut the corner.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 5th June 2013, 8:40

      Pretty much every pass at the chicane requires a bit of faith on the part of the attacking driver.

      If you watch the replays of Raikkonen and Perez, you’ll see that Raikkonen takes a very shallow line into the chicane. It was obviously a defensive move, but most drivers taking a defensive line cover the attacking line off early, and then cut back to the racing line to make the corner. If Raikkonen had continued the line he was taking without making contact with Perez, he wouldn’t have made the second part of the corner.

  9. David not Coulthard (@) said on 5th June 2013, 9:22

    Michele Alboreto gave Tyrrell their final Formula One win…

    Keith, isn’t Tyrrell F1’s most recent race winner?

    • Nick (@npf1) said on 5th June 2013, 13:57

      Remember when Vettel won for Minardi? Or the time Alonso became a champion with Toleman, a team Senna couldn’t even win a race with? I especially remember Webber finally winning a race for Stewart, at the same track they won their first race!

      I do have to say I find Alfa Romeo’s test with Pirelli less interesting than Matra’s test with them, though.

  10. MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 5th June 2013, 10:04

    Perez and several other drivers had already made moves on that corner which had come off without major drama. The problem is simply that once you commit to the move, it’s either going to work or it’s going to be an accident. This time it was an accident, but that’s racing, that’s what happens. It’s a shame that, after a couple of years of people continually moaning about artificial DRS/tyre assisted passes, as soon as you start seeing someone genuinely pushing it and racing wheel to wheel, you want to complain that it was too hard and he should have just followed others around.

    Perez has been excellent these past few races, showing a real fighting spirit as well as good pace, putting his former WDC teammate slightly in the shade. He should be applauded for the numerous brilliant overtakes he pulled off. Yes, one time it went wrong, but that can happen on any corner on any track. When you make an overtake, you always rely on the other driver giving you room, that’s just a normal part of racing. Every now and then, two drivers point their cars at the same piece of race track and an accident is the result. But that’s fine. That’s racing. If that didn’t happen, then they’d just be following each other round, afraid to race each other for fear of incurring a penalty.

    • Tyler (@tdog) said on 5th June 2013, 11:02

      Yes, one time it went wrong

      No, it twice went wrong for Perez against Kimi.

      Apologies to those who’ve heard me make this point before, but it needs to be said. I don’t know why those defending Sergio continue to ignore his failed overtake on Kimi on (IIRC) lap 53 of Monaco.

      Watch this analysis of the Perez overtakes by Anthony Davidson:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZ7FHgFqhY

      At about 1:35 you will see the first of Perez’s two failed overtakes on Raikkonen. On this this attempt, Sergio goes in too hot and fails to make the chicane. The only reason that a collision is avoided is because Kimi has the awareness to go straight on. Otherwise, it’s a collision for which Perez would have been completely responsible.

      Then, having almost caused a crash and failed to make the corner, he tries the same manoeuvre on lap 69, Kimi defends and the rear left of the Lotus makes contact with the front right of the McLaren. One driver who is in contention for the WDC loses a bunch of points, and Perez throws away his race.

      I can’t see how two failed attempts to overtake the same driver at the same place, once avoiding a collision only because of the skills of the other driver, once leading to race ending contact, can be described as anything other than bad race craft.

      No one doubts that Perez can bring off miracle overtakes, the problem is he has a tendency to overdo it. Just like Suzuka last year, when he tried the pass Hamilton at the hairpin twice. The glory move worked the first time, the second time he ended up in the gravel.

      It might be great to watch, and maybe it’s ok when you’re in the midfield, but for a driver who harbours hopes of winning races and ultimately the WDC, it’s not an approach which rewards.

      • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 5th June 2013, 12:26

        This really just makes Raikkonen’s action seem even more stupid – he’d already nearly been in a crash, so when the same driver tries the same thing on the same corner, why did he expect a different outcome? Perez committed to a line and once he had done so, he had no means of getting off that line again. Raikkonen reacted by putting his car into the path of Perez’s car, and the inevitable result was a smash. Yes, in that case Perez wasn’t close enough to make the move stick, but Raikkonen was in the wrong as well by blocking the line of a car which clearly wasn’t ever going to be able to stop. This is why it’s a 50/50 racing incident, as the stewards decided. And rightly so.

        But hey, it’s Monaco – overtaking is always risky. Ignore who the drivers are for a second and just look at the actions of the two cars, and it’s hard to see how anyone could argue that the two drivers didn’t share responsibility – both had ample opportunity to avoid an accident, but didn’t do so.

      • Steve McGrath (@) said on 5th June 2013, 19:36

        Yes. Well explained by Ant Davidson. BBC also put the blame with Perez.

  11. dragoll (@dragoll) said on 5th June 2013, 10:29

    That onboard footage of the Renault in Eddie Cheevers’ hands was just evil… It seemed that he had opposite locking going for 80% of the corner… Compare that to the cars these days and that thing just looks like it should be parked and scrapped. Great Find

  12. timi (@timi) said on 5th June 2013, 12:24

    You can’t just split up Pirelli and Mercedes in the test row. It seems logical but just isn’t. Since we don’t know many details you just have to assume they’re equal partners in it and therefore blame them for the same things.

    The cotd is rash to say the least. Pirelli asked Merc to do the test. So you can’t just say “Mercedes did a three day test”. The sum of the parts.. and all that haha

    • Baron (@baron) said on 5th June 2013, 15:04

      It might have originally been a Pirelli test, but MGP took full advantage by running the current car with their 2013 GP driver line up, so one could say that whilst Pirelli may have been acting within the spirit of the rules, MGP appears not to have done which does not balance the books 50/50 (in terms of blame) in the slightest. Whatever, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I believe any advantage Mercedes might have gained was not tyre related however.

  13. James (@jaymz) said on 5th June 2013, 15:06

    When will we find out if Merc are getting away with it or not?

  14. Force Maikel (@force-maikel) said on 5th June 2013, 15:46

    I cannot believe some of the comments made here on the Perez-Kimi incident. Since when has the guy in front have to do anything. It is his decision to close the door or not. Kimi decided to do so and perez was stupid enough to dive in there and then even makes angry waves at kimi. This was nothing more than a racing incident and I don’t see how the championship standings has anything to do with this. You can’t base a split second decision on that, let alone be thinking about it when driving a 70+ lap race between the unforgiving barriers at Monaco. Perez undid a beautiful race with a stupid move, trying to pin some of the blame on kimi is just silly.

    Perez will get their no doubt about it but he is not doing himself any favors.

    • anon said on 5th June 2013, 17:03

      No-one was to blame. That’s how the stewards saw the incident.

      Kimi tried to squeez Perez, but mistimed it and caught the front of his car. Fair enough if Kimi wants to be aggressive and protect his position. You’ll just have to deal with the consequences.

      Smart of Perez to put Kimi to the test since Kimi has much more to lose than Perez. And it’s not like Perez made some banzai attempt on Kimi. Perez had been swarming all over the back of Kimi. It was only a matter of time before Perez would muscle his way through. Kimi should have done the smart thing and let the much faster driver through since it was clear Kimi couldn’t match him.

      • paulista said on 5th June 2013, 22:23

        Perez “much faster?” No way. This is Monaco, the front runners are going slow and all the cars are bunched up. So, you can always get alongside the guy ahead simply by waiting to brake until it is too late. Of course you have to deal with the consequences: locking, losing control, crashing, whatever. The move on Button was pretty marginal but came out right. The move on Alonso and both moves on Kimi do not belong in F1. Perez should go back to karting for the next 50 years, he is not ready for a F1 superlicense, and wil be lucky to get out of F1 in one piece.

        • anon said on 6th June 2013, 9:08

          Sorry, Kimi was losing time to the car in front. Perez was gaining on the car in front. Kimi couldn’t drive as well as Perez.

          • Copersucar (@copersucar) said on 6th June 2013, 21:54

            Totally ridiculous. All the drivers were able to go a lot faster that they were going. When Alonso early in the race, or Kimi or other pilots gots themselves a little bit apart from the guy in front it was because they wanted some clear air for tyre preservation or whatever, not because they weren’t able to keep up with the pace. After his late pitstop, Kimi proved beyond a doubt that he could race a lot faster than he had been doing before.

            There is no chance in h+++ that Perez will ever be able to drive one millionth as well as Kimi.

          • anon said on 7th June 2013, 6:46

            Totally ridiculous. All the drivers were able to go a lot faster that they were going.

            I know. That’s why world champions Kimi, Alonso and Button should have lifted their pace so they wouldn’t embarrassingly be over taken by Sutil and Perez. They couldn’t lift their pace without cooking their tyres, so got overtaken. I didn’t see Sutil with cooked tyres at the end of the race.

            When Alonso early in the race, or Kimi or other pilots gots themselves a little bit apart from the guy in front it was because they wanted some clear air for tyre preservation or whatever, not because they weren’t able to keep up with the pace.

            All drivers were preserving tyres. The Lotus is the easiest car on the grid on tyres. No excuse for Kimi not to be driving at least as hard as the McLaren and Force India. And I don’t understand how allowing cars to overtake you could possibly be construed as “strategy”. Pretty poor strategy if you ask me!

            [quote]After his late pitstop, Kimi proved beyond a doubt that he could race a lot faster than he had been doing before.[/quote]

            Of course. The Lotus has been the second fastest car this season, Kimi was on brand new tyres, while he was overtaking back of the grid teams that had been driving around on the same tyres for 25 laps. Proved nothing.

  15. tmax (@tmax) said on 5th June 2013, 17:02

    Well irrespective of Perez being Right or Wrong McLaren will support him. None wants to upset the boy who is bankrolling the team and keeping them alive. Jenson WHOOO???? I am sure Button must be getting quite annoyed with this whole limelight thing on Perez. Jenson must be keeping his options open. McLaren is a mid field team behind Force India et all. Unlike Mark he has nothing much to lose leaving the team. At this pace McLaren and Williams will be competing for the honor of “how to perform worse than the previous year” award.

    My Question to Kimi and Lotus
    If Kimi and Lotus thinks that Perez was really at fault on that move, why did’nt Lotus appeal ? Why was’nt perez was punished like Roman or Nico Hulkenburg like last last year’s Brazil GP ? It is just a racing incident in my opinion so no one to blame for much. Yeah we understand McLaren looks at Perez race as Practice sessions , he could have tried out these stuff on the non championship contenders instead of the few who are giving Vettel a run his his money. Boy that move on Alonso was Cheeky. But Alonso being a smart cookie made sure that he is miles away from him even if it results in a couple of points lesser. I did love Alonso’s comments about Perez after the race.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 5th June 2013, 21:35

      @tmax

      why didn’t Lotus appeal

      Appeal what? There was no ruling on the incident by the stewards.

      • tmax (@tmax) said on 5th June 2013, 21:48

        @keithcollantine Wrong terminology at my end. Appeal was not the word that i meant.

        what I meant was Why did’nt Lotus Protest or refer this move to the race stewards ? Correct me if I am wrong other than the race stewards themselves determining a legality of a move or investigating incident, I understand teams can also refer certain incidents to the race stewards if they feel that their driver was at the receiving end of a certain move due to causes like dangerous driving etc from the other party .

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.