Raikkonen excluded from qualifying, will start last

2013 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

Kimi Raikkonen, Lotus, Yas Marina, 2013Kimi Raikkonen has been excluded from qualifying after his Lotus failed a floor deflection test.

He will be allowed to start the race from the back of the grid.

The stewards considered video and telemetry evidence and invited Lotus to explain why it had failed the test. The stewards noted Lotus’s justification for the part failing was that “the relevant part broke upon contact with a kerb”.

But the stewards added they “did not accept that the incident referred to constituted an accident, or excused failing the relevant test”.

Raikkonen’s floor was found to transgress article 3.17.5 of the technical regulations because it “deflected more than 5mm vertically when the load was applied vertically to it at the point which lies 100mm of car centre line on the left-hand side”.

The rule which was broken states: “Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 2000N load is applied vertically to it at three different points which lie on the car centre line and 100mm either side of it.”

Team mate Romain Grosjean’s car failed the same test at the Hungarian Grand Prix, however on that occasion the stewards accepted the team’s explanation that the damage was caused accidentally.

See the updated Abu Dhabi Grand Prix grid

2013 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

Browse all 2013 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix articles

Image ?é?® Lotus/LAT

Advert | Go Ad-free

102 comments on Raikkonen excluded from qualifying, will start last

  1. PhilEReid (@philereid) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:16

    Pretty much as expected. If a car fails to comply with the rules in qualifying, generally it’s started from the back of the grid, (HAM Spain 2012, VET at this very same track last year).

  2. Malik (@malik) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:18

    Unfair :(

    • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:21

      @malik How? If your car fails scrutineering, it’s not legal. Exclusion from qualifying is the standard penalty (think Vettel last year, or the over-flexible Toyota wings at Melbourne in 2009).

      • Malik (@malik) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:24

        @Red Andy: I meant that it was the team fault not Raikkonen. I think stripping the team of points scored by Raikkonen’s car would be more fair. Now the chances that Raikkonen will win is going to be very slim which is unfortunate :(

        • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:26

          But Raikkonen still potentially benefited from having an illegal car. It would be very unfair to allow him to keep that benefit just because he wasn’t personally responsible for the car being illegal. That said, if the floor really did fail the test because he hit a kerb too hard with it, then it is his fault anyway. There isn’t really any way you can justify not penalising the driver in this case, even if you were to treat driver and team as separate entities, which doesn’t generally happen.

          • Malik (@malik) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:28

            @Red andy: I totally respect your opinion but in Hungary 2007 the stewards penalised the team McLaren and Alonso’s penalty (5-grid) was not that harsh

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:29

            @malik That was not a technical infringement so it doesn’t bear comparison with this.

          • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:31

            @malik I deliberately used the word “generally” because there are occasions when it hasn’t happened (Spygate being the most obvious one). But in most cases the driver is not treated separately to the team, and there’s no real reason why they should be. Think about it the other way – if a driver jumps the start and gets a drive-through penalty, the team suffers even though it is solely the driver that is at fault.

          • Malik (@malik) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:35

            @Keithcollantine: I still believe that if it was other driver, the penalty will no be that harsh. Example: when Hamilton and Alonso were championship contenders and McLaren cars have advantage by spying on Ferrari, McLaren was penalized while the drivers were allowed to keep their points. Politics…

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:39

            @malik Which driver it was is also irrelevant to this discussion. Raikkonen has been sent to the back of the grid because his car failed a technical inspection. The incident you are describing did not involve a car failing a technical inspection, it doesn’t matter if it was driven by Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton or Perry McCarthy.

          • Malik (@malik) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:41

            @keithcollantine: I have changed my mind. The decision was fair, but still HARSH

          • tmekt (@tmekt) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:43

            @red-andy – Agreed. I’ve always thought drivers getting punished to what mistakes or deliberate actions their teams have done, even with the driver not taking part, is completely justified. Though, saying it was his fault because he drove over kerb is a bit of a stretch (I mean it might be, in a sense, but he simply couldn’t have known beforehand that a complete normal way of driving an F1 car could break it), and also that he could’ve benefited from the broken floor (if it was broken, that is, but generally speaking if something is broken it’s not usually to your benefit) doesn’t seem likely.

          • JCost (@jcost) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:55

            Its consistent with last years penalties handed to Hamilton and Vettel.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:29

          First of all – its the team that builds the car, and its a team effort. The car is not OK, so the lap is annuled, nothing unfair with that. Otherwise we should compensate teams for times when their drivers get penalties in the race too @malik?. Compare it to horse racing and the horse is found to have been doped – in that case the whole entry (horse and rider) get DSQ too.

        • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:50

          @malik I love when this sort of thing happen and it’s “unfair”.

          Same with Hamilton running out of fuel at Barcelona this year.

          Everything is unfair these days… there’s a set of rules to follow…

    • TheBass (@) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:23

      @malik A rule was broken, and a consistent penalty was given. Nothing about this was unfair. Unforunate, sure, but not unfair.

      • Malik (@malik) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:25

        @silence: I agree that a rule was broken but it was not Raikkonen fault

      • tmekt (@tmekt) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:52

        If only these kind of comments would appear for example when Hamilton gets a such penalty. But they don’t. When it’s Hamilton, we get pages and pages of comments of how unfair and inconsistent the decision by the stewards was, but when it’s Kimi, it suddenly couldn’t be any more justified.
        ….
        disclaimer: I, myself, think that in both situations, the decision (to penalize the driver) is the right one to make

    • So we have a mind changer here, good luck @malik

    • Neel Jani (@neelv27) said on 2nd November 2013, 19:18

      @malik It’s a TEAM sport mate.

    • Breno (@austus) said on 2nd November 2013, 23:02

      If Kimi had illegal active suspension, traction control and whatever else we had 20 years ago, should he keep his points? An illegal car is an illegal car, no matter what.

  3. Set-up changes then? What was Lotus’ top speed like?

  4. BasCB (@bascb) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:22

    oops. I hope we are not still under investigation with going out of track limits, as both RBR were outside of them during their hot laps (not sure whether Rosberg wasn’t too)

    • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:24

      @BasCB Haven’t heard of anyone else being summoned to see the stewards, so I would assume they are overlooking all the various track limit infringements.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:25

        I guess that is good @red-andy, although when they say they will be punishing it and then about half the drivers still do it, you would think they would make some kind of point about it.

        • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:28

          Does seem very inconsistent @BasCB. Though as others have said elsewhere, the simplest solution would be to redesign the runoff areas so that they don’t provide an advantage when you drive onto them. That doesn’t excuse the stewards for not doing what they said they were going to do, though.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:32

            Indeed, the worst thing one can do is to declare a firm stance will be taken before qualifying and then fail to follow up on it @red-andy. Personally I would be fine with the stewards annuling all times that were set while going off track, even if that meant that Hamilton would get pole, with Hulk on the first row and VdGarde and Chilton in the second row (for example).

            But on the other hand its crazy that we have to wait for what 3 hours after qualifying for the grid still not to be set in stone

    • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:33

      @bascb, I didn’t see qualifying, but I did see some of the GP3 qualifying, and there the stewards were very quick (like within a minute, still during the session) to take away a lap from Sainz who marginally put all four wheels over the white line at the final corner. Perhaps the stewards are a little more hesitant in handing out these penalties in F1.

      • Dizzy said on 2nd November 2013, 19:15

        The support categories have different stewards to F1 as GP2/GP3 & Porsche Supercup are not FIA world championship categories (Hence why they don’t have there champions crowned at the FIA gala).

  5. Dion (@infinitygc) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:26

    If I were Lotus’ Twitteraccount, I’d go ahead and brace myself for the “le kimi is 2 good 4 u, if u no pay, give him good car” hatemail…

  6. DaveF1 (@davef1) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:28

    Bit fishy bearing in mind Kimis recent threats towards the team.

    • Malik (@malik) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:29

      I had the same thoughts too :)

    • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:29

      @davef1 Given that Lotus are fighting for second in the constructors’ championship, they’d be colossally stupid to sabotage one of their cars, no matter how objectionable they find the bloke driving it.

    • TheBass (@) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:35

      @davef1 Yeah, the best way for Lotus to convice Kimi to race for them (which they are trying desperately) is to sabotage his car. Because that totally makes sense, right?

      • DaveF1 (@davef1) said on 2nd November 2013, 19:37

        @red-andy @silence

        Oh I agree that Lotus would not sabotage Kimi’s car at all, especially considering the money situation they’re in and the points they get towards the constructors. All I was doing making the observation that it’s quiet odd that the same weekend that Kimi makes threat towards his team, his car is found illegal. It wouldn’t be the first time a a driver has been given a clip around the ear to remind them who employs who but as I said before its probably just a coincidence.

  7. Douglas (@mwahahaha) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:32

    Is there a chance that Kimi won’t bother starting the race now, given his recent threats?

  8. caci99 (@caci99) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:33

    Ah, that’s not the way I want to see a driver penalized, but fair enough.
    On another note, this is the second time Lotus was caught up with the same infringement, should it mean they were doing it pretty much all the time?

    • TheBass (@) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:37

      @caci99

      should it mean they were doing it pretty much all the time?

      Think a bit more carefully before posting. They weren’t caught up on a random test, but on a standard test that’s done every single race.

      Kinda illogical to suggest they were doing it “all the time” if they have passed all tests besides those two.

  9. Start from the pit lane with a few setup changes and Kimi might be able to so a Sebastian Vettel, Abu Dhabi 2012, or a Kimi Raikkonen, Suzuka 2005.

    That’d be just grand.

  10. Krichelle (@krichelle) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:44

    So:

    Last year, Vettel excluded from qualifying, changed the setup of the car for the race.
    Today, Raikkonen excluded from qualifying.

    Question: Are they allowed to change the setup of the car on Kimi’s car since RB did this with Vettel last year?

    • Malik (@malik) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:46

      If he is to start from pitlane rather than back of the grid

    • Red Andy (@red-andy) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:46

      Yes – they can take the car out of parc ferme, make whatever changes they like, and start the car from the pit lane.

      • Sergey Martyn said on 2nd November 2013, 19:30

        Since the car is not compliant with rules and damaged Lotus SHOULD take it out of the parc ferme and repair. So the start from the pit lane is the only solution for them.
        But for me Lotus smells of sabotage.

        • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 2nd November 2013, 19:53

          It would be great to hear the argument for what Lotus would gain by sabotaging their own car. Please enlighten.

          Though I would still like to see a response, I can say that Lotus have more to lose than Kimi does by sabotaging their own car. They desperately need to finish as high as possible in the WCC standings for the prize money to be gained. The only purpose served by sabotaging Kimi’s Lotus for this race or any other would be extremely childish at best.

          Oh, by the way, I am a Kimi fan and have been for his entire F1 career.

          • Sergey Martyn said on 3rd November 2013, 5:13

            Not paying one of the world’s top drivers for the whole season is not childish but just plain stupid.
            We only heard some brief heated exchange between Kimi and Permane but I can only imagine what Kimi and Lotus management had said to each other behind the closed doors. If Permane so easily loses his tempers in minor racing situation, sabotage can be fuelled by the blind rage.
            BTW I’m a big fan of Kimi too and conspiracy theories as well. :-)
            Epic justice – Kimi wins and Boullier brings bags full of cash to the podium.
            Tears of joy, everybody embrace, Lotus clinches WCC 2nd place blah blah blah.

        • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 3rd November 2013, 4:04

          I don’t agree on the sabotage part . the higher they finish in WCC , the more money they get . Simple .

  11. Paul (@8l23ub) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:45

    so two different outcomes for the same circumstances (here and hungary)

  12. scuderia_fan85 (@scuderia_fan85) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:51

    Two things: this will be a blessing in disguise because now Lotus can effect further set-up changes they had in mind, also his straight line will be the fastest by quite a bit.

    Second thing, the stewards SUCK. They r the worst at being consistent. Regardless whether a curb broke the floor or not, give a penalty. They pick and choose who to inspect, FIA is wrong for giving them more power

    • JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1) said on 2nd November 2013, 18:56

      I’m pretty confident it isn’t a blessing in disguise – why would Lotus rather make setup changes than start 5th. If they’d wanted a race car with fastest straight line speed they could probably have done that and still put the car in the top 10.

      As for your argument that the stewards should be more consistent by NOT penalising a driver who they found to be in an illegal car – that really doesn’t hold much sway.

      • Dr. Jekyll (@dr-jekyll) said on 2nd November 2013, 19:11

        It’s probalby not a blessing no…

        on your other notion though, scuderia_fan never said that Rai wasn’t supposed to get a penalty, but that Gro had the same situation earlier this year and that did not warrant a penalty…
        that is weird and wrong, and it really shpuld be one or the other not both when the stewards feel like it

      • Dr. Jekyll (@dr-jekyll) said on 2nd November 2013, 19:21

        now I saw some earlier posts where it was argued that the driver should get no penalty… I don’t agree with that but I still think they set a presedent when this same situation happened the last time, albeit with Gro

        • scuderia_fan85 (@scuderia_fan85) said on 3rd November 2013, 12:32

          they said the stewards penalized Lotus because they let off Grosjean with the same excuse. so my thing is did the stewards REALLY examine all the evidence or soon as they heard that…said nope, wont fly twice. Im sure if they did LOOK, they could see that a piece was broken and obviously was the fault. Abu Dhabi stewards r gonna take a lot of flak from this from EVERYONE.

      • scuderia_fan85 (@scuderia_fan85) said on 2nd November 2013, 20:37

        Thats the thing about blessings in disguise, its not planned…

  13. A bit disappointing. Lotus was supposed to be a challenger for pole and the victory. Grosjean had some problems, Raikkonen is now at the back of the grid.
    Anyway, I hope we are going to see a great recovery drive from Kimi. He has the pace to do it.

  14. Patrick (@paeschli) said on 2nd November 2013, 19:22

    Does Alonso still has the choice for his tyres tomorrow?

  15. spoutnik (@spoutnik) said on 2nd November 2013, 19:27

    Alonso now lies P10: dirty side of the track, no tyre choice. Closest rival sent to the back but still… Don’t know if he is happy with this :)

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.