Autocar - First for car news and reviews

Advertisement

Top bloggers

Advertisement

Wed
Jun 11 2008

Double standards strike again?

Alan Henry

Right, so answer me this, dear reader. Which is worse? Lewis Hamilton nudging the back of Kimi Raikkonen's Ferrari in the pitlane at Montreal at 25mph. Or Kimi Raikkonen running flat-chat into Adrian Sutil at Monaco at 130mph?

Hamilton shunt You might be forgiven for thinking it was the latter, but the FIA stewards felt the former was the really serious offense, blaming and penalising Hamilton with a ten place grid penalty at the upcoming French GP. Despite wiping out the race chances of the completely blameless Adrian Sutil, Raikkonen got off scot-free.

I willingly concede that there may be aspects of this episode that I have either overlooked or don't understand, but on the face of it this looks like a perverse and contradictory judgment, lacking in either consistency or logic.

I don't know why I write columns like this because, if you try to give the governing body a bit of the kicking it so often deserves, you risk a visit from 'men in suits' inquiring just what you thought you were getting at.

Don't get me wrong here; there is no question of censorship or intimidation from the FIA. That said, I well remember the time that Max Mosley said that the governing body would tolerate dissent. Very decent and progressive of him, I thought: even if it was said through grinding teeth.

Anyway, I think Lewis Hamilton was badly served by the sport's governing authority in Canada. I do wish the FIA - like any government - would realise it is the servant, not the master, of those who provide a measure of its funding. Including the drivers.

Sign-in or register to add your comments

About Alan Henry

Our F1 expert has been covering the sport since Lewis Hamilton's father was a teenager (do the maths yourselves on that one), and writing for Autocar since 1994.

Comments

David Harrington-Wright June 11, 2008 3:12 PM

I personally think in this instance the stewards were right, it was the decision for Raikkonen that was wrong.

Its surely time for the FIA to bring in a panel of former drivers to adjudicate on these matters, after the race. That way at least there would be some real experience to decide what is a "racing" accident and what is just plainly careless.

If I had driven into the back of someone at "traffic lights" I would expect a penalty - so why should it be any different for Hamilton or any other driver.

On the subject of the FIA, why oh why is Mosely still hanging on - maybe waiting to negotiate a massive payoff!! Perhaps Hamilton can collide with him in the pit lane and do the sport a favour!!

PoleDancer June 11, 2008 4:30 PM

In my opinion both got off lightly - Kimi should have been given a 10 grid slot penalty for driving into the back of Sutil in Monaco, while Hamilton should have been sent to the back of the grid in France, at least. Why? Because not only did he screw up in the pit lane, when you're supposed to be super-cautious, but he actually drove into the back of Kimi on purpose (he was actually heading towards Kubica at first). Now, Schumacher got excluded from the '97 championship for  taking his rival out when he knew he was about to lose the race. In this light, Hamilton's got off really lightly.

The Colonel June 11, 2008 4:36 PM

Blimey, how far up Hamilton do you want to get?  And, how long have you been reporting on motorsport, including F1?  Do you really need the difference spelt out to you?

One is a racing incident.  A driver at high speed loses control, it can happen at any time out on the circuit.  Sutil was desperately unlucky, but, he was to some extent the architect of his own downfall as he had gone into the corner too deep and  needed to recover.  Had he not done so, he may have gone on his way and Raikkonen might have come to rest in the run off area.  Who knows?  Either way it is one of those things.

The other?  In the pit lane, I'll explain as you have clearly not noticed, the drivers are under a lot of control as to what they can and can't do.  One of the things they must do, rightly or wrongly is stop at the end of the pit lane if the light shows red.  Also, for cars that are still moving, they are restricted in speed.  One driver, not going very fast, failed to see either the red light or the two stationary cars and came to a bit of an unfortunate end.

But of course, it wasn't only one driver, was it?  It was two and a second driver also got the same penalty as Hamilton, but obviously you got some of the vaseline smeared all over your glasses to notice.

Personally I think both should have got points deductions rahter than place penalties.

The Colonel June 11, 2008 5:10 PM

And another thing, Mr Autocar F1 Reporter (HA!), it seems to have escaped your memory that, in the past drivers, have been disqualified for existing the pit lane under the red light, including at the Canadian GP.

I'm not saying that the race stewards get it right all of the time, but if that doesn't show a level of consistency in applying a rule, then I don't know what does.

kamika76 June 11, 2008 7:54 PM

Dear Mr. Henry,

                        You say that failing to stop at 130mph is the same as failing to stop at 25mph. I completely agree with you. Trying to stop at 130 mph is in fact even easier than trying to stop at 25mph. Furthermore, again I am in agreement with you that driving in a pit lane should be easier than driving flat out on the racing line. With all due respect, I would like to suggest to you and a lot of the other British motoring press, instead of going about it in a roundabout way, to just directly ask us to sign a petition for the FIA to hand over the World Championship over to Hamilton. The World Championship is after all his birthright.

The only reason I read Autocar is because of Mr. Colin Goodwin and Mr. Andrew Frankel.

Regards,

Beowolf June 11, 2008 8:38 PM

Jeepers, what's up?  

'....I don't know why I write columns like this because, if you try to give the governing body a bit of the kicking it so often deserves, you risk a visit from 'men in suits' inquiring just what you thought you were getting at....'

Blimey.  

I had no problem believing Raikkonen's accident was just that, a racing accident.   And Hamilton's was carelessness.  

I can see where there is an overlap: both could be seen as racing accidents/carelessness.  But there are fundamental differences too.  And yes, given I had Hamilton down to win, there is disappointment.  

Been reading your column years!!  Will see this as a hiccup based on..... your own frustrations ;-0)  So chin up, keep giving the racing bods a kciking when needed.  

skiwi June 12, 2008 11:08 AM

mmmmm, clearly your years in f1 are wearing thin.  I might not have your years of experience, but even i could notice that the monaco incident was the result of a high speed loss of control, and the canada one of a careless mistake which took out a chanpionship rival.  if you think those are the same, then you need to to limit the intake of cool-aid.

actually, of more concern is the use of journalistic "cover" to make a peronal statement.  you should know better - it simply makes you look biased.  and you're not, are you???

jerry99 June 12, 2008 1:22 PM

The live commentators from Monaco concluded that Railkkonen was not to blame as he had braked early and than lost control before striking Sutil's car.

Hamilton should have been properly advised by his team that he had to stop behind cars at the red light.

Maybe it was wrong to penalise Hamilton as the driver and rather than the team but if it was a accident in the high street the driver almost always get the blame regardless of what else was on his mind. On this basis maybe Raikkonen should have lost places as well but Hamilton's accident was more forseeable

Sandy T June 12, 2008 1:49 PM

Have to say I'm with the Colonel on this one: good, logical summary, just like I'd expect from an experienced impartial journalist. Oh no, hang on, that's supposed to be Mr. HENRY.

I confess my partiality: I'm a Ferrari fan who is fed up with years of sycophantic, biased UK motorsport media reporting, and with Hamilton's arrogance from day one. I wish the media would at least be honest and own up to their bias.

On Sunday Martin Brundle went through 3 stage of denial: 1). 'I'd like to see what colour the light was immediately before impact'. It was red, Martin. 2). 'The light you have to remember is very high up...'. Didn't seem to affect the other two. And finally 3). 'The team should have told him'. Really - is that the best you can do? Maybe they should wipe his nose too?

Hamilton made a school-boy error through a combination of impetuousness and impatience (can't have been inexperience) at his being overtaken in the pits. He set off with a red mist which clouded the red light, and for that reason he got a deserved penalty which if anything does seem rather light. Raikonnen was careless: but it was a race incident - you could see him lose control.

Take off the blinkers Mr. Henry - you're part of the reason why people don't like him. That and the fact he'd rather live in Switzerland than pay his fair share of tax like the rest of us, so denying the country a new wing hospital wing each year.

ex_pat June 13, 2008 2:41 AM

It's fair to say that the FIA have been in bed with Ferrari since the late 90's and it ruined F1- with millions tuning out worldwide. Something needs to be done, and

the idea that Jean Todt would replace Max Mosley as FIA chief is scarey! Finally, in 2006 and 2007 we had interesting championships, but because Ferrari weren't winning they cut the shits and tried their best (and succeeded in most cases) to ruin the seasons.

The decisions made in Monaco and Canada are more examples that Ferrari think

they follow their own rules and I hope to see some repercussions soon. However I fear the chances are near zero.

As for someone commenting that we should not support Hamilton because he lives abroad- who cares? If I had his money I would do exactly the same! The money definitely wouldn't go to a new hospital wing!!!  

kevsart June 14, 2008 11:42 AM

F1 is getting unpredictable again - hooray!

First the weather , then the track..whatever next will the gods of motor racing think of to keep us interested , maybe a commentator's curse every now and again (a-la Sutil Monaco) or even somebody straying onto the track to bare a grievance (please,please keep away from politics,though).I believe the current "newbies" are falling into 2 distinct categories : one who you want to win,and one who thinks he has a divine right to win just because he's related to someone who used to win all the time (only 2 members of that group at present,neither of whom are doing their respective dad's proud).Kubica has all the marbles in his bag,but he shouldn't have to rely on strange circumstances to succeed - only skill,bravery and a trusty steed ever won a race properly.I'd love to see him stick it to Herr Heidfeldt again,but maybe the way he did in Canada.

I still think Moto-GP could teach F1 a thing or two about actually racing though....

Jast June 25, 2008 5:39 PM

Alan, would a driver that smashes into the back of a competitor's car under yellow flags/safety car be just as guilty as another one who would cause an accident by losing control in the heat of a direct battle for points? I do not think so and I completely agree with David, Colonel & the rest. Beside that I believe Hamilton and his team are completely capable of achieving top results without such "support" from the press. Their record may not be absolutely immaculate but it still very convincing.

tommallett July 1, 2008 11:59 AM

Yep; have to agree I'm afraid. I think the stewards were right in this case; and may have even let Hamilton off lightly. I am a Hamilton fan as an Englishman; but the press is driving me away from him. Can't remember where he was placed in the top 100 of greatest F1 drivers but I would have to point out that the latter end of last season was very disappointing.

Hamilton will be a world Champion I am sure. But probably not this season.

The comment about the 'monkeys at the back' still rankles me. He would be one of them if he wasn't in a Mclaren.

Having said all that I wish him good luck for the rest of the season and look forward to having a British World Champion to cheer again.

p.s. didn't cover himself in glory in France either did he?

All about Autocar

Newsfeeds

Subscribe to our news with our RSS feeds

Advertise

To advertise with Autocar contact us

Buy our magazines

Discover our titles at themagazineshop.com

Autocar latest issue - Autocar Cover 8 Oct 2008

NEW ISSUE OUT NOW

FAST, EASY & SECURE
SUBSCRIBE NOW>>