Charles Pic, Caterham, Korea International Circuit, 2013

Bianchi and Pic get penalties after reprimands

2013 Korean Grand PrixPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Charles Pic, Caterham, Korea International Circuit, 2013Jules Bianchi and Charles Pic will have ten-place grid penalties for the Japanese Grand Prix after collecting their third reprimands of the season.

Both were reprimanded for failing to slow sufficiently when yellow flags were shown during the Korean Grand Prix.

For both, it was their second reprimand of the weekend and their third in total following other infractions earlier this year. They will therefore receive ten-place grid penalties for the next race a Suzuka.

Their team mates Max Chilton and Giedo van der Garde also picked up reprimands after the stewards found they failed to slow sufficiently when the Safety Car was first deployed. Van der Garde was separately cleared of going too quickly through a yellow flag area.

The stewards took no action over two incidents involving Sergio Perez, one involving Felipe Massa and another with Paul di Resta, ruling that “no driver was determined to be wholly or predominantly to blame” for either.

Adrian Sutil was also cleared over his collision with Mark Webber. The stewards ruled the Force India driver “did not brake later than the drivers around him”, adding “his brakes locked causing him to lose control”.

2013 Korean Grand Prix

Browse all 2013 Korean Grand Prix articles

Image ?é?® Caterham/LAT

62 comments on “Bianchi and Pic get penalties after reprimands”

  1. At least the system works…

    1. Why wasn’t Sutil punished??? His brakes locking wasn’t a factor out of his control, he could have stopped the brakes locking if he controlled the car better

      I remember Schumacher getting a penalty for locking his brakes and crashing into someone (JEV possibly?) in Singapore last year. Sutill shouldn’t have been let off the hook, he ruined Webbers race.

  2. Epic fail FIA!

    1. Same penalty as Webber, it’s the penalty that comes with breaking the 3 reprimands rule. What’s the fail, exactly?

      1. @philereid What’s the difference really? The pair that usually start in 19th and 20th drop one grid spot. Not really a penalty is it.

        1. The relative performances of each of the drivers and cars is not a factor, regardless of how much it impacts them. For example, let’s say Massa got a penalty, but he mucked up qualifying and would have started 19th-20th, the penalty would still be the same, but it would have far less impact, and it’s pretty much guaranteed no one would even care that the penalty lacked severity in that situation.

          1. @philereid My point is the penalty is pointless is has no point. In this case, relative performances is a factor, the penalty has no impact on these particular drivers, this will not educate them not to do it again.
            See@BasCB and many other comments below for further reference

          2. @funkyf1 And my point stated that it doesn’t matter that’s it’s pointless, it’s the penalty that’s given as it’s fair to everyone. As I said, no one would even bat an eyelid if say a normally front-running car qualified 20th for some reason, and then the penalty applied afterwards, dropping them 2 positions.
            Also, why should they get a different penalty just because they are further back? And what penalty would they get instead?

          3. Yes it’s fair, but it’s pointless, it’s a bad system as it doesn’t effect everyone in the same way, this a perfect example. The reprimand system is to broad an unworthy.

          4. You must be from Finland, where fines are based on a person’s income. Otherwise, any sort of legal fine is completely pointless, right?

        2. What places they will going to start next race? 31, and 32?
          they usualy start since 20 until 22 grip place, so what is the penalty?

      2. David not Coulthard (@)
        6th October 2013, 16:58


        It’s a bad system as it doesn’t effect everyone in the same way

        this adjective is what the stewards operate on, so I think the penalty is fair.

        Let’s put it this way: If somebody is sentenced to death and then commits a murder, shouldn’t (s)he be trialled again?

    2. I know right? How they expect to get away with applying the rules fairly and consistently?

      1. There was meamnt to be a sarcasm close tag at the end of that, but it got swallowed.

  3. Really? No penalties for Sutil and Massa?

    1. I think its good, because they were just racing and messed up. Not doing anything especially stupid/mean

    2. Was this the one for speeding under SC period and if not why haven’t they said anything about it

    3. madness. Wasn’t a GP3 driver banned for a race because of the first corner Monza crash? I dont see how thats any different to Massa’s loss of control. Grid penalties are surely needed for taking out other cars.

  4. Heading into this weekend their average qualifying positions were 19.6 (Bianchi) and 19.7 (Pic) so this isn’t going to hurt them too much…

    1. Maybe now they will have to stay in Korea and race from the Yeonham track to the harbor and take the boat to Japan to reflect starting 10 spots back their likely qualifying spots of 21st and 23rd for Suzuka.

      1. They should have to start from 10 physical grid spots back. Ie: the equivalent of starting in 30th place!

        1. Hahaha good one but they’d gain it under braking in turn 1 anyway, since nobody’s racing immediately ahead of them, so there’s no compounding effect.

          1. David not Coulthard (@)
            6th October 2013, 17:06

            But still fair at the end of the day. Now, how can that be penned as > a sentence in an article in the regulations?

        2. That would make sense actually ^^

  5. Surely Sutil should have got a penalty, especially if Hulkenburg got one last season at Brazil for something similar and far more tricky than what Sutil did. Sutil locked his own brakes… In the dry…causing a collision and gets no penalty? I don’t get it.

    1. Michael Brown (@)
      6th October 2013, 15:35

      Yeah, HĂĽlkenberg didn’t try to pass Hamilton with an over optimistic move or anything like that, he just lost it on the wet surface.

    2. If you’re going to penalise Sutil for losing control, then you also have to penalise Perez for flat-spotting his tyre.

      He made a mistake. Nothing more, nothing less.

      1. @raceprouk We can say the same about HĂĽlkenberg in Brazil last year.

        1. Just found that on YouTube – absolutely agree.

        2. David not Coulthard (@)
          6th October 2013, 17:08

          Let’s just call that one of the (increasingly seldom seen, I think) racing stewarding incidents.

  6. Oh my god…

    Max Chilton ‘might‘ start somewhere other than the back row! :O

    1. Giga Gasp

    2. @bradley13 I’m sure he could find a way.

    3. He might be starting just 100 meters in front of Vettel on pole :-P

      1. @bascb vettel would have lapped him before chilton starts his marussia thereby ending up at the back of him ;-)

        1. Lets just hope he won’t get in the way and have Alonso clip his own front wing, not stop, drop out and then tell the world it was not his mistake, nor his teams.

  7. pointless penalties.

    bring back monetary fines, make it suspended monetary fines.

    1. These teams barely make a penny of profit as it is, a fine wont help their survival odds in F1

      1. racing safety should be reinforced with fines.

      2. Not the teams, the drivers…

  8. Is there any point in them attempting to qualify in Suzuka? May as well start from the pit lane…

    1. I would say it doesn’t matter much either way. They will be the back of the field wether they try or not!

      1. I think they need to get within the 107% so they still need to do a lap.

        1. Michael Brown (@)
          6th October 2013, 15:36

          They don’t need to do a qualifying lap, as long as they are within 107% during any practice session. It still makes more sense to go out anyway.

  9. Hang on so reprimands for going to quickly under the safety car? Was that whilst they were catching back up to the pack having unlapped themselves? If so, the track would have had to be declared clear for them to do so and therefore, why limit the speed they can catch up!?

    1. I’m not sure if it was while they were catching the pack back up, but that is my main gripe with the “lapped cars can unlap” rule, as I understand it they have to still go at the safety car delta time, which means it takes ages for the lapped guys to catch up. By the time the lapped guys are allowed to unlap themselves they should have a good idea of where the danger is, so they should be able to exercise caution at the relevant part/parts of the circuit, and go quicker round the rest of it.

      1. Michael Brown (@)
        6th October 2013, 15:39

        This lapped cars can overtake the safety car rule sounds nice in theory, but it doesn’t work that we’ll in actuality. It makes safety car periods last longer than they should. Why can’t the lapped cars simply drop back to the rear of the queue when there is enough space to do it (like the Korea straight), and the live timing can promote them up a lap?

        1. David not Coulthard (@)
          6th October 2013, 17:13

          Why can’t the lapped cars simply drop back to the rear of the queue when there is enough space to do it (like the Korea straight), and the live timing can promote them up a lap?

          I think because the de facto things would be inconsistent with how it is de jure.

    2. Yes, it was for catching up I believe…
      So they were supposed to drive slowly to the back of the pack and run more pointless laps behind the safety car while we struggle to keep our eyes open as viewers? Amazing, lets penalize them!

      inept FIA

  10. And the award for least effective penalty of the 2014 FIA Formula 1 World Championship goes to…

  11. This is all caused by this “lapped cars can unlap” rule. Why can’t they just go slower and let other cars pass until they are last again? That would make sense and be less dangerous.

    1. @paeschli There was a good explanation of why sending lapped cars to the back of the field wouldn’t work posted by Andy G – it was Comment of the Day a while ago:

      1. @keithcollantine Well, why not just award another lap to these lapped cars then? Meaning, you still save time on the lapped cars dropping back to where their respective positions are, but just add one lap to their “log” or whatever, then voila, they’re now on the lead lap…

        Or is that just too simple of an answer?

        1. @beejis60 They’d save a extra lap’s worth of fuel and save a lap of their tyre life, which would also be unfair.

          1. @keithcollantine I doubt the front-runners would care if backmarkers save fuel and tires…

            I know I don’t.

          2. @beejis60 The other drivers they’re racing against will.

            We can’t go making the sport grossly unfair for some of the participants just to create more artificial entertainment for the benefit of those who only care about a few of the competitors.

    2. No, it was caused by the lapped drivers driving too quickly whilst unlapping themselves. Chilton and van der Garde managed to do it properly, so there is no reason why Bianchi and Pic should not have been able to do it.

  12. Now this is how you properly word one of these headlines.

    That being said, the penalties are rather useless but these are the rules and they must be adhered to.

  13. Sutil didn’t get a penalty for that while Hulkenberg got an immediate drive-through penalty in Brazil last year after smacking Hamilton.

    And yeah, I’m still pretty bitter about that.

  14. Didn’t Webber set his fastest lap while unlapping himself in Germany?

Leave a Reply

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

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