[Aish Heydrich]

I don’t know if somebody brought up this topic before, my apologies if one has, but I want to know how do the stewards decide which incidents will be investigated during and after the race? I reckon if it is investigated after – then it’s lenient on the driver/team, because a stop-go/drive through can be sheer heartbreaking as well as moral shattering.
I also feel sometimes the stewards are rather biased, they don’t like to penalize their favourite drivers. Your thoughts…

Thanks

[Bradley Downton]

Generally the incidents investigated after the race are ones that have happened in the closing laps, or ones where one or more of the drivers in question are no longer in the race.

I agree with you that the stewards could be biased, however this is why they have a number of them now, in the hope that not every steward will favour the same driver(s).

[Keith Collantine]

Incidents that get investigated after the race are also often those where one or more of the drivers involved (usually the antagonist) has retired, and so there’s no need to respond to it during the race.

[Prisoner Monkeys]

I want to know how do the stewards decide which incidents will be investigated during and after the race? I reckon if it is investigated after – then it’s lenient on the driver/team, because a stop-go/drive through can be sheer heartbreaking as well as moral shattering.

The stewards tend to defer investigations until after the race when the incidents that trigger them happen duing the final few laps. I believe they do it because they don’t want to interfere with the outcome of the race, and so they tend to resort to grid penalties for the next race instead of drive-throughs, stop/go penalties, or adding time to a driver’s race time unless it’s something serious.

I also feel sometimes the stewards are rather biased, they don’t like to penalize their favourite drivers.

I’m not sure who you are characterising as the “strewards’ favourites”, but there’s a reason why the likes of Alonso and Button don’t get called to the stewards’ office very much: it’s because they tend to stay out of trouble. On the other hand, they frequently call the likes of Hamilton and Maldondo to explain themselves because they tend to get involved in incidents far more often than anyone else. It’s not so much bias as it is trying to drive home a point: that these drivers are getting involved in on-track incidents far more often than they should be, and they’re clearly not learning from it. In 2011, Hamilton was involved in more on-track incidents than everyone else combined; Maldonado nearly did the same thing in 2012.

[Girts]

@prisoner-monkeys

In 2011, Hamilton was involved in more on-track incidents than everyone else combined

That’s an exaggeration. Firstly, at least two drivers are normally involved in every incident, which makes the maths pretty simple here. Moreover, it was not like other drivers never collided with each other in 2011.

I also doubt if drivers are called to the stewards’ office just because they have been crash-prone before or haven’t learned from their past mistakes. The past record might bring them harsher penalties but that’s a different issue.

[Anonymous]

“Incidents that get investigated after the race are also often those where one or more of the drivers involved (usually the antagonist) has retired, and so there’s no need to respond to it during the race.”

Exactly- for example when Grosjean hit Webber in Suzuka as he was still in the race the Lotus got a drive through (or maybe even a stop-go, I cant remember??) but if Romian was out of the race he would have most probabaly got a 10 spot grid penalty in Malaysia.

“I also doubt if drivers are called to the stewards’ office just because they have been crash-prone before or haven’t learned from their past mistakes. The past record might bring them harsher penalties but that’s a different issue.”

@girts– I agree & disagree on this one mate. A driver SHOULD be pulled into the stewarts office if they done something wrong. Fact is that those (i.e. Romain) do it alot it will be investigated rather than a ‘racing incident’ that will be called if a clean driver (Alonso) does something. But yes they are harder on a track record- it was openly said (and on this site) that Grosjean got one race based on his actions, past record AND influence on the WDC.

………………. but yes, cant help think that the same decision would not always be made with the same drivers stewart at any counrty!……….but thats F1 politics……

[Aish Heydrich]

Thanks to everybody for your substantiated inputs, however there have been many incidents when the race is far from over, for example lap 27-29 of Abu Dhabi 2012- incident involving Webber and Massa at Turn 13, it was a 55 laps race I think, it was far from over, the antagonist in this case was Webber who had been running into people quite a lot in that particular race, he closed the door early on Massa, ran wide, then made his way in a very dangerous fashion and Massa had to avoid any collision so he hit the white apex and spun out.
Stewards investigated it and declared it a racing incident. Massa was actually furious and opined that Webber should have been penalized.
We all know how Stewards love the Red Bull, they probably place huge bets on them themselves.
Again in Belgian GP, 2012 there was an incident involving the Stewards’ top 2 favourite drivers Vettel and Schumacher in pit lane entry, as Schumacher basically brake tested the Red Bull just before entering the pits, this was lap 23. Race Control initially wanted to investigate it after the race. I am pretty sure if it was anybody else in Schumi’s place he would have been penalized spot.
The Sky commentator, I don’t remember his name, the one who sits with Martin Brundle, expressed his confusion regarding the Stewards’ decision of investigating it after the race. Even Brundle was not able to substantiate it.
Soon after that Control came up with the statement that it will be investigated now and subsequently they ruled it as a racing incident.
Ha!
See what happened to Montoya when he did something same to Schumacher back in 2002.

[the_sigman]

Again in Belgian GP, 2012 there was an incident involving the Stewards’ top 2 favourite drivers Vettel and Schumacher in pit lane entry, as Schumacher basically brake tested the Red Bull just before entering the pits, this was lap 23. Race Control initially wanted to investigate it after the race. I am pretty sure if it was anybody else in Schumi’s place he would have been penalized spot.

I agree. I think Hulkenburg was actually penalised for moved across Raikkonen to pit – that’s what MSC did.

[Karthikeyan]

@aish – Watch the onboard from Massa’s car and if you still believe that Massa lost it because he tried to avoid Webber let us know. From what I believe Massa was furious about the pervious corner(in which they made contact?), which was the reason he ended up making donuts in the next corner.
Regarding the second incident, MSC was trying to pit and Vettel was trying to overtake on the outside, more importantly no contact was made. Regarding the Raikkonen incident it happened in Monaco when Sergio trying to pit, closed the door on Raikkonen which cost him a place to Hulkenberg, which might have warranted stewards decision to handle a penalty to Sergio.
Favouritism does exist, but the reasoning process behind handing out a penalty is more complex that it never reaches the casual fan or gets ignored by fanboys.

[Aish Heydrich]

Mr. Karthikeyan
@ridiculous: Actually Massa had hit the curve first and spun out, I agree, but that was mostly because Webber was muscling him out. In any case if it was somebody else in place of the Aussie, he would be black flagged lol. Ok may be a drive through at the most.
However I sincerely hope you return to F1 as soon as possible, not be a cucumber and take out front runners.

[Author]

Posts