Ricciardo disputes reason for drive-through penalty

2013 Japanese Grand Prix

Daniel Ricciardo, Toro Rosso, Suzuka, 2013Daniel Ricciardo rejected the stewards’ claim he “gained an advantage” by going off the track while overtaking Adrian Sutil during the Japanese Grand Prix.

Ricciardo was handed a drive-through penalty after running wide at 130R as he passed the Force India. The stewards ruled he “rejoined gaining an advantage”.

The stewards penalised Ricciardo for going because, they claimed, his “momentum after the move was not otherwise maintainable”.

However Ricciardo said after the race going off the track cost him time.

“I was moving up the order again after my first stop and then I made a move on the outside of Sutil at the 130R and got past him,” he said. “But after that, I ran wide onto the grass, which lost me a bit of time.”

“Sadly, the Stewards decided I had gained an advantage by going off the track and had to take a drive-through penalty, which of course ruined my race.”

Ricciardo told his team the penalty was “unbelievable” on the radio after the race.

2013 Japanese Grand Prix

Browse all 2013 Japanese Grand Prix articles

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty

Advert | Go Ad-free


56 comments on Ricciardo disputes reason for drive-through penalty

  1. Would he have tried that move if there had been no run off area that large , if there been armco 10ft away would have been a very diff outcome i think

  2. wizardelectric said on 13th October 2013, 19:27

    Ricciardo is right! The drive through penalty in this case of wrongdoing is bad. They should actually give 1 second penalty for every 100ms spent outside of the track with at least one wheel at the end of the race. Maybe this way they’ll actually learn to drive on the track.

  3. It doesn’t matter how many times the stewards penalise drivers for racing each other, I’ll never come round to their way of thinking.

  4. James (@jimmyboy) said on 16th October 2013, 8:02

    The stewards were dead wrong to give Ric a drive through, that is not the correct penalty for what actually took place. Ric did not leave the track in order to overtake, he left the track because he was thrown off line by the kerb. The correct penalty would be to give the place back. His team should have given the call to give the place back before the issue was dealt with by the stewards.

  5. spoutnik (@spoutnik) said on 17th October 2013, 12:11

    @jimmyboy As others said, just imagine a wall instead of a running-off area. He would have crashed heavily while trying to pass Sutil. As for the penalty, Sutil pitted after and thus there was no way to give the place back when marshalls investiguated. He and his team haven’t reacted at all, it is their fault if penalty was too harsh :/

    • James (@jimmyboy) said on 17th October 2013, 18:14

      I think its obvious that Ric’s move was a bit ambitious and the line he took required the use of all of the track on the inside of the corner. If there was a wall there of course it would be too risky to make that particular move and it wouldn’t have been attempted. I’ve looked at the replay over and over and realise now that there was nothing wrong with what he did and deserved no penalty of any kind, including giving the place back. Sure he went wide at the apex, and paid the price and he could have lost the car completely, but he keep it all in check, which was a good save. Nothing wrong with what he did. The stewards need a kick up the backside for making such a poor call.

  6. James (@jimmyboy) said on 17th October 2013, 18:22

    I think some of you guys need to go back and look at that part of the race again. I have and its perfectly clear to me that Ric passed Sutil well before he went off line at the apex. Sure he went off track, but he did not do it in order to make the pass. Plenty of drivers go off track on that particular corner. Plenty of drivers overtake on the outside on that corner. Just so happened Ric didn’t have enough traction in the apex to keep the car on track. In no way did he deserve a penalty. Ric has every right to be pissed and his team should have had the balls to make an official complaint. The stewards need a kick in the backside for such a poor decision…

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.