planetf1.com

DC and Suzie Wolff were very vocal that Kimi's penalty was not harsh enough at the weekend, their main thrust seemed to be that in that situation the offending driver should be put back behind the driver who was sinned against. Leaving aside that it was Lewis who got hit at the British GP, and that Susie is hardly impartial, how does the forum feel about that idea in general?

What if the car that had been hit had suffered a puncture and had to limp back to the pits, is it acceptable to put the car that hit him back that far? And how would it be done? Would it be realistic to give say a driver a 2 minute penalty?

And they made a big fuss about the Championship being all important and everything, so what if Vet or Ham ended up qualifying 8th for some reason and they locked up and hit Grosjean. Surely they would have to be put behind wherever Grosjean ended up, I can just imagine DC whining about that and 'ruining' the championship.

But you can't have one set of rules for two or three guys and another for everyone else, they already have a huge car advantage over the rest of the field as it is so if one of those drivers hit Grosjean they would likely end up in front of him anyway.

I have already said previously that I don't agree with penalties being tailored to suit consequence. I beleive penalties should be fixed for the incident involved, and I don't care if one the drivers is fightring for a WDC or not, they should all be getting the same treatment. There is some room for common sense in all this but I'd rather have consitsency than something new every time.

it was absolute nonsense from dc and wolff. completely biased clap trap because it was hamilton in the british gp. its never going to happen and one of the stupidest ideas ive ever heard. people need to accept that in this sport crashes are going to happen and its never going to be fair.

although there has to be consistency i do think the severity and outcome of the incident should be taken into account. basically kimi got 10s because there were a lot of complaints about vettel only getting 5s in france. kimi did minimal car damage to lewis whereas vettel did significant damage to bottas and gave him a puncture. lewis was in a better position after this incident in terms of time lost/car condition.

Kimis error this race was a lock up in the first braking area of lap 1 and he missed the apex by what 2 or 3 metres. it was a classic first lap mistake it was just unluckly for hamilton to be in the position he was. it was not reckless imo. he was virtually alongside hamilton going into the corner. now if he had been 20m back, clearly braked too late and ploughed into him that would be reckless and a higher penalty would be deserved. then you are getting into the mine field of stewards interpretation of incidents and people will agree and disagree with the penalty etc etc so its a difficult one to solve. i think they got this one right. vettel should have had 10s maybe 15s in france and if it was a blatant reckless move give them a drive through or for the most severe a 10s stop and go.

ps love it minttu

It would have made more sense to give Seb 10s and Kimi 5 secs... but a few years ago this wouldn't have even been investigated - a first lap crash on cold tyres and full tanks, instant racing incident. As CoN said, it wasn't remotely reckless, just unfortunate... it's almost like they don't want the drivers to overtake (well, only a nice clean overtake with DRS).

I think matching the punishment to the consequences is a terrible idea. It should be about punishing errant behavior, not revenge. And I feel like weeping when I read that the "public outcry" over Vettel's 5s penalty may have been factored into the one given Kimi. I'd hoped we'd seen the last of that kind of idiotic knee-jerk behavior with the change of ownership but sadly it seems that muppets still run the sport. Jesus wept

Zoue wrote:I think matching the punishment to the consequences is a terrible idea. It should be about punishing errant behavior, not revenge. And I feel like weeping when I read that the "public outcry" over Vettel's 5s penalty may have been factored into the one given Kimi. I'd hoped we'd seen the last of that kind of idiotic knee-jerk behavior with the change of ownership but sadly it seems that muppets still run the sport. Jesus wept

Well said Zoue

Fascinating that we, more and more, spend time discussing things that aren't actually related to drivers racing hammer and tongs against each other. I wish we talked as much about the great scraps and how exciting the last laps were with Merc and Ferrari battling it out. I don't think the penalties should match the consequences, racing incidents will always happen, and putting them into categories would just be impossible.

jimmyj wrote:Fascinating that we, more and more, spend time discussing things that aren't actually related to drivers racing hammer and tongs against each other. I wish we talked as much about the great scraps and how exciting the last laps were with Merc and Ferrari battling it out. I don't think the penalties should match the consequences, racing incidents will always happen, and putting them into categories would just be impossible.

The irony of it is though that the more drivers go hammer and tongs against each other the more potential there is for accidents. The whole point about being on the edge is that it's the edge. The slightest miscalculation can upset things. I often think that people who call for draconian penalties for every misdemeanor don't fully understand the implications of what they are demanding, which is that drivers will not try and push the boundaries for fear of being sent to Coventry. And we will miss out as drivers will be much more cautious and drive within themselves.

Maybe it was more punishable to punt Hamilton than it was Bottas?

How vocal were they when Vettel got hit by Vestappen (in China I think) ?
If they were not as Vocal then they are just biased and should not be taken seriously.
But consistency in penalty's are a joke and somewhat devalues the sport.

AravJ wrote:How vocal were they when Vettel got hit by Vestappen (in China I think) ?
If they were not as Vocal then they are just biased and should not be taken seriously.
But consistency in penalty's are a joke and somewhat devalues the sport.

Did you watch it?

The punishment should always fit the offence and not the outcome of it, unless clear and real intent can be established.

Accidents happen, this is racing.

Susie Wolf biased as regards Hamilton and DC never misses a chance to have a go at Kimi so not surprised about what was said - probably goes back to McLaren days with him. As regards Hamilton's comments nothing that comes out of his mouth surprises me, have no time for him at all. Kimi is one of the cleanest drivers out there and for Hamilton to accuse him of 'dirty tactics' which he did, just shows in my eyes what a bad 'sportsman' he is. What about Canada 2008? no excuse whatsoever for what happened there.

Zoue wrote:for fear of being sent to Coventry.

Not seen that phrase for a long time!

Susie Wolf biased as regards Hamilton and DC never misses a chance to have a go at Kimi so not surprised about what was said - probably goes back to McLaren days with him. As regards Hamilton's comments nothing that comes out of his mouth surprises me, have no time for him at all. Kimi is one of the cleanest drivers out there and for Hamilton to accuse him of 'dirty tactics' which he did, just shows in my eyes what a bad 'sportsman' he is. What about Canada 2008? no excuse whatsoever for what happened there.

Given the three high profile penalties in recent history I don't see much inconsistency. Max got 10 seconds in China for punting Seb. Kimi got 10 seconds for hitting Lewis. Both happened well past the funnel into turn one.

Sebastian got 5 seconds for smashing into Valtteri in turn one lap one. While even Sebastian admitted at being at fault, it was on the start and everybody's got their elbows out. Seems to me that Sebastian's offense was less than Max's or Kimi's.

What I don't get is Hamilton finished ahead of Raikkonen so what else do people want?

Flash2k11 wrote:

Zoue wrote:for fear of being sent to Coventry.

Not seen that phrase for a long time!

Ive never heard that one before. But i love it! Though i think modern human rights acts would block it.

i'm for eliminating so many of these penalties

Lojik wrote:I have already said previously that I don't agree with penalties being tailored to suit consequence. I beleive penalties should be fixed for the incident involved, and I don't care if one the drivers is fightring for a WDC or not, they should all be getting the same treatment. There is some room for common sense in all this but I'd rather have consitsency than something new every time.

I felt 10 seconds was the right penalty.

I don't really mind them taking into account the fortune of the offender. Had Kimi broken his suspension and retired when he hit Hamilton I wouldn't have seen any need for a penalty for the next race.

shoot999 wrote:

AravJ wrote:How vocal were they when Vettel got hit by Vestappen (in China I think) ?
If they were not as Vocal then they are just biased and should not be taken seriously.
But consistency in penalty's are a joke and somewhat devalues the sport.

Did you watch it?

Watch what? the race - yes
Susie and DC - no, that's why I ask the question.

AravJ wrote:

shoot999 wrote:

AravJ wrote:How vocal were they when Vettel got hit by Vestappen (in China I think) ?
If they were not as Vocal then they are just biased and should not be taken seriously.
But consistency in penalty's are a joke and somewhat devalues the sport.

Did you watch it?

Watch what? the race - yes
Susie and DC - no, that's why I ask the question.

Just checking as your last point; 'consistency in penalties are a joke', was what started the debate. Think it was Jordan who asked why was there differing penalties for basically the same offence. From what I recall various ideas were put forward to make the system fairer and equitable, but with no real clear resolution. I didn't get the impression that Wolff or Coultard were promoting more draconian penalties just because they involved the Ferrari drivers. But I do need to watch it again if its still on the iplayer.

I think the penalty was a bit harsh but it also cost Lewis greatly.

Having said that, one thing to keep in mind is that Kimi has been one of the cleanest drivers throughout his career. He's always fought wheel to wheel as hard as anyone but I can't recall Kimi blatantly or aggressively turn n on anyone and if anything, his quick thinking and reflexes have prevented accidents with many drivers. If it was a driver who had a history of questionable behavior, then I could understand a 10 second penalty. Since it's Kimi I think I think it was too much and as a supporter of both, I would have been ok with no penalty at all given because there was no malice in any regard. Just 2 guys going at it hard for a few corners and one of them locked up a little and the incidental contact was juuuuuust enough to send the other guy around.

Of all the incidents we've seen chalked up as nothing more than a racing incident, I feel this one should have been ruled as such.

Covalent wrote:Maybe it was more punishable to punt Hamilton than it was Bottas?

Some people do inexplicably believe this, yes. Not Hamilton specifically, but there are some prominent figures in the paddock who seem to believe that hitting a title contender warrants a larger punishment than normal and this has been cited as a factor in some stewarding decisions in the past (Grosjean's race ban in 2012, for instance). It's utter nonsense and another sad indication of how many people who run the sport don't seem to appreciate how competitive sport is supposed to work.

j man wrote:

Covalent wrote:Maybe it was more punishable to punt Hamilton than it was Bottas?

Some people do inexplicably believe this, yes. Not Hamilton specifically, but there are some prominent figures in the paddock who seem to believe that hitting a title contender warrants a larger punishment than normal and this has been cited as a factor in some stewarding decisions in the past (Grosjean's race ban in 2012, for instance). It's utter nonsense and another sad indication of how many people who run the sport don't seem to appreciate how competitive sport is supposed to work.

Yes indeed. It's much like when in the past we've heard that the other drivers are told not to get involved in the title fight - which is ridiculous, since they may have got involved earlier in the season and disadvantaged one driver. It's like they they are so desperate for it to come down to this one last race that the rest of the season has no meaning whatsoever...

If I hear Susie Wolff calling for Lewis to be put behind a driver he hit, then I'll take her seriously.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I think the penalty was a bit harsh but it also cost Lewis greatly.

Having said that, one thing to keep in mind is that Kimi has been one of the cleanest drivers throughout his career. He's always fought wheel to wheel as hard as anyone but I can't recall Kimi blatantly or aggressively turn n on anyone and if anything, his quick thinking and reflexes have prevented accidents with many drivers. If it was a driver who had a history of questionable behavior, then I could understand a 10 second penalty. Since it's Kimi I think I think it was too much and as a supporter of both, I would have been ok with no penalty at all given because there was no malice in any regard. Just 2 guys going at it hard for a few corners and one of them locked up a little and the incidental contact was juuuuuust enough to send the other guy around.

Of all the incidents we've seen chalked up as nothing more than a racing incident, I feel this one should have been ruled as such.

I agree 100%

ALESI wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I think the penalty was a bit harsh but it also cost Lewis greatly.

Having said that, one thing to keep in mind is that Kimi has been one of the cleanest drivers throughout his career. He's always fought wheel to wheel as hard as anyone but I can't recall Kimi blatantly or aggressively turn n on anyone and if anything, his quick thinking and reflexes have prevented accidents with many drivers. If it was a driver who had a history of questionable behavior, then I could understand a 10 second penalty. Since it's Kimi I think I think it was too much and as a supporter of both, I would have been ok with no penalty at all given because there was no malice in any regard. Just 2 guys going at it hard for a few corners and one of them locked up a little and the incidental contact was juuuuuust enough to send the other guy around.

Of all the incidents we've seen chalked up as nothing more than a racing incident, I feel this one should have been ruled as such.

I agree 100%

....... But, but, but... he "rammed" Lewis...

Lojik wrote:I have already said previously that I don't agree with penalties being tailored to suit consequence. I beleive penalties should be fixed for the incident involved, and I don't care if one the drivers is fightring for a WDC or not, they should all be getting the same treatment. There is some room for common sense in all this but I'd rather have consitsency than something new every time.

I fully agree any penalty assessed should be based purely on the incident, not who was involved or the points affected.

Believe it or not, there are sixteen other cars in a Formula One race, cars that are not involved in any championship battle. The teams paid their entry fee, met the regulations, and have just as much right as anyone else to race hard. It would be a farce of epic proportions if a Formula B car had to get out of the way when a Red Bull, Ferrari, or Mercedes got close. It would certainly drive away sponsors and any teams seeking to join the circus.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

Lojik wrote:I have already said previously that I don't agree with penalties being tailored to suit consequence. I beleive penalties should be fixed for the incident involved, and I don't care if one the drivers is fightring for a WDC or not, they should all be getting the same treatment. There is some room for common sense in all this but I'd rather have consitsency than something new every time.

I fully agree any penalty assessed should be based purely on the incident, not who was involved or the points affected.

Believe it or not, there are sixteen other cars in a Formula One race, cars that are not involved in any championship battle. The teams paid their entry fee, met the regulations, and have just as much right as anyone else to race hard. It would be a farce of epic proportions if a Formula B car had to get out of the way when a Red Bull, Ferrari, or Mercedes got close. It would certainly drive away sponsors and any teams seeking to join the circus.

Agreed with one caveat. The Stewards need to take into account the recent history of the offending driver. Drivers with a history of dumb, reckless moves should be hit harder for repeat infractions. Ricciardo has a history of daring passes which he mostly pulls off cleanly. Max also tries the same kind of moves with much lower success rate. Therefore Daniel deserves just a bit more leniency than Max for the same infraction.

Championship position should have nothing to do with the penalty. It should be assessed based on the incident, and the same penalty should be given out for the same infraction to everyone. I can see some leniency for drivers with cleaner records -- or perhaps more to the point, I can see giving harsher penalties to repeat offenders -- but team, standing, and the like should not be considered when assessing penalties.

In this particular case I do think a penalty was fair (although 10 seconds felt excessive); however, I could also see a case for it and similar first lap collisions being deemed racing incidents.

Mort Canard wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

Lojik wrote:I have already said previously that I don't agree with penalties being tailored to suit consequence. I beleive penalties should be fixed for the incident involved, and I don't care if one the drivers is fightring for a WDC or not, they should all be getting the same treatment. There is some room for common sense in all this but I'd rather have consitsency than something new every time.

I fully agree any penalty assessed should be based purely on the incident, not who was involved or the points affected.

Believe it or not, there are sixteen other cars in a Formula One race, cars that are not involved in any championship battle. The teams paid their entry fee, met the regulations, and have just as much right as anyone else to race hard. It would be a farce of epic proportions if a Formula B car had to get out of the way when a Red Bull, Ferrari, or Mercedes got close. It would certainly drive away sponsors and any teams seeking to join the circus.

Agreed with one caveat. The Stewards need to take into account the recent history of the offending driver. Drivers with a history of dumb, reckless moves should be hit harder for repeat infractions. Ricciardo has a history of daring passes which he mostly pulls off cleanly. Max also tries the same kind of moves with much lower success rate. Therefore Daniel deserves just a bit more leniency than Max for the same infraction.

Agreed, but surely each incident should be examined separately. If the stewards have their heads full with "oh yeah, he did this before" then there's the risk that they will be biased already. I'm not sure how to solve this exactly

ALESI wrote:

j man wrote:

Covalent wrote:Maybe it was more punishable to punt Hamilton than it was Bottas?

Some people do inexplicably believe this, yes. Not Hamilton specifically, but there are some prominent figures in the paddock who seem to believe that hitting a title contender warrants a larger punishment than normal and this has been cited as a factor in some stewarding decisions in the past (Grosjean's race ban in 2012, for instance). It's utter nonsense and another sad indication of how many people who run the sport don't seem to appreciate how competitive sport is supposed to work.

Yes indeed. It's much like when in the past we've heard that the other drivers are told not to get involved in the title fight - which is ridiculous, since they may have got involved earlier in the season and disadvantaged one driver. It's like they they are so desperate for it to come down to this one last race that the rest of the season has no meaning whatsoever...

If I hear Susie Wolff calling for Lewis to be put behind a driver he hit, then I'll take her seriously.

Remember Coulthard getting stuck behind Bernoldi's Arrows for most of the Monaco GP one year? I couldn't believe that DC had the audacity to moan about it after the race and genuinely claimed that Bernoldi should have let him past because he wasn't competing for the championship.

j man wrote:

ALESI wrote:

j man wrote:

Covalent wrote:Maybe it was more punishable to punt Hamilton than it was Bottas?

Some people do inexplicably believe this, yes. Not Hamilton specifically, but there are some prominent figures in the paddock who seem to believe that hitting a title contender warrants a larger punishment than normal and this has been cited as a factor in some stewarding decisions in the past (Grosjean's race ban in 2012, for instance). It's utter nonsense and another sad indication of how many people who run the sport don't seem to appreciate how competitive sport is supposed to work.

Yes indeed. It's much like when in the past we've heard that the other drivers are told not to get involved in the title fight - which is ridiculous, since they may have got involved earlier in the season and disadvantaged one driver. It's like they they are so desperate for it to come down to this one last race that the rest of the season has no meaning whatsoever...

If I hear Susie Wolff calling for Lewis to be put behind a driver he hit, then I'll take her seriously.

Remember Coulthard getting stuck behind Bernoldi's Arrows for most of the Monaco GP one year? I couldn't believe that DC had the audacity to moan about it after the race and genuinely claimed that Bernoldi should have let him past because he wasn't competing for the championship.

Like Alonso and Petrov in Abu Dhabi.

Blake wrote:

ALESI wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I think the penalty was a bit harsh but it also cost Lewis greatly.

Having said that, one thing to keep in mind is that Kimi has been one of the cleanest drivers throughout his career. He's always fought wheel to wheel as hard as anyone but I can't recall Kimi blatantly or aggressively turn n on anyone and if anything, his quick thinking and reflexes have prevented accidents with many drivers. If it was a driver who had a history of questionable behavior, then I could understand a 10 second penalty. Since it's Kimi I think I think it was too much and as a supporter of both, I would have been ok with no penalty at all given because there was no malice in any regard. Just 2 guys going at it hard for a few corners and one of them locked up a little and the incidental contact was juuuuuust enough to send the other guy around.

Of all the incidents we've seen chalked up as nothing more than a racing incident, I feel this one should have been ruled as such.

I agree 100%

....... But, but, but... he "rammed" Lewis...

I think if any one of us were in Mercedes or in the shoes of their drivers we wouldn't have a hard time thinking, feeling and reacting the way Lewis did after the race.
The adrenaline was still pumping and he was pretty peeved overall. Having said that, fans had a clear view, as well as several replays that showed how it all unfolded
and I don't think anyone with the ability to think rationally, (die hard Mercedes or Lewis fan or not) can genuinely say that there was ANY kind of malice or haste on Kimi's part.
Just good ole hard white knuckle RACING.

The problem with this kind of stewarding is that you're never going to know what you're going to get, since there is seemingly no baseline and the penalty can be anything. In theory, you could attempt that kind of move on purpose and have it labelled "racing incident" if the car being hit manages to recover without losing positions, or you could make that kind of move by accident and have X second penalty, if the car being hit spins out, with the X amount of seconds depending on how badly the car spun out. That just doesn't make any sense.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Blake wrote:

ALESI wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I think the penalty was a bit harsh but it also cost Lewis greatly.

Having said that, one thing to keep in mind is that Kimi has been one of the cleanest drivers throughout his career. He's always fought wheel to wheel as hard as anyone but I can't recall Kimi blatantly or aggressively turn n on anyone and if anything, his quick thinking and reflexes have prevented accidents with many drivers. If it was a driver who had a history of questionable behavior, then I could understand a 10 second penalty. Since it's Kimi I think I think it was too much and as a supporter of both, I would have been ok with no penalty at all given because there was no malice in any regard. Just 2 guys going at it hard for a few corners and one of them locked up a little and the incidental contact was juuuuuust enough to send the other guy around.

Of all the incidents we've seen chalked up as nothing more than a racing incident, I feel this one should have been ruled as such.

I agree 100%

....... But, but, but... he "rammed" Lewis...

I think if any one of us were in Mercedes or in the shoes of their drivers we wouldn't have a hard time thinking, feeling and reacting the way Lewis did after the race.
The adrenaline was still pumping and he was pretty peeved overall. Having said that, fans had a clear view, as well as several replays that showed how it all unfolded
and I don't think anyone with the ability to think rationally, (die hard Mercedes or Lewis fan or not) can genuinely say that there was ANY kind of malice or haste on Kimi's part.
Just good ole hard white knuckle RACING.

Oh, I understand.... I was just having a bit of fun at the expense of a drama queen forumite's claim of Kimi RAMMING Lewis....

Siao7 wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

Lojik wrote:I have already said previously that I don't agree with penalties being tailored to suit consequence. I beleive penalties should be fixed for the incident involved, and I don't care if one the drivers is fightring for a WDC or not, they should all be getting the same treatment. There is some room for common sense in all this but I'd rather have consitsency than something new every time.

I fully agree any penalty assessed should be based purely on the incident, not who was involved or the points affected.

Believe it or not, there are sixteen other cars in a Formula One race, cars that are not involved in any championship battle. The teams paid their entry fee, met the regulations, and have just as much right as anyone else to race hard. It would be a farce of epic proportions if a Formula B car had to get out of the way when a Red Bull, Ferrari, or Mercedes got close. It would certainly drive away sponsors and any teams seeking to join the circus.

Agreed with one caveat. The Stewards need to take into account the recent history of the offending driver. Drivers with a history of dumb, reckless moves should be hit harder for repeat infractions. Ricciardo has a history of daring passes which he mostly pulls off cleanly. Max also tries the same kind of moves with much lower success rate. Therefore Daniel deserves just a bit more leniency than Max for the same infraction.

Agreed, but surely each incident should be examined separately. If the stewards have their heads full with "oh yeah, he did this before" then there's the risk that they will be biased already. I'm not sure how to solve this exactly

Just like going to see the grade school principal. If he has had to deal with you before and has a file on you, expect to get some sterner penalties than another student who is being sent to the office for the first time.

That is why they also issue penalty points with an expiration date. Get too many penalty points in a certain time frame and you get to sit out a race. Behave yourself and the penalty points will expire.

froze wrote:The problem with this kind of stewarding is that you're never going to know what you're going to get, since there is seemingly no baseline and the penalty can be anything. In theory, you could attempt that kind of move on purpose and have it labelled "racing incident" if the car being hit manages to recover without losing positions, or you could make that kind of move by accident and have X second penalty, if the car being hit spins out, with the X amount of seconds depending on how badly the car spun out. That just doesn't make any sense.

Just because the stewards don't come out and explain every penalty doesn't mean there is not a rational basis or consistency in the way they hand out penalties. The Stewards are all men with long histories in racing and have seen hundreds if not thousands of incidents. They have more camera angles to see an incident than we do and can roll the footage back and forward to observe every nuance captured. They also have a limited time to evaluate each incident which means that they have to give it their full consideration and quickly decide so the offender can serve his penalty in a timely fashion.

There is also the situation of shifting emphasis in enforcement. At some tracks they push pretty hard on staying on the racing surface and they let the drivers know ahead of time that there will be added enforcement. As new problem arise with racing the stewards have to make adjustments in rules and penalties. They need to and do announce it to the drives. As fans that info does not always trickle through to us.

You have guys driving at the edge, trying to eek out any advantage on a first lap, with about 3 different stories playing out around their immediate vicinities.

Raikkonen made a minor error that was nothing we haven't seen 1000 times before in the first few corners. It was unfortunate he tapped Hamilton.

That is racing.