Mexico 2016

[zako85]

Will Power was fined 30,000USD for showing fingers to the officials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScDjyS7SYZU

[Bagwan]

It's pretty muddled , in my view .
Brundle is saying there was never a directive from race control regarding giving the place back , whilst JA says the opposite .

We did hear the team tell him he should .
It isn't clear whether Charlie was involved from what we heard , but , given the reds were so adamant he was , I think it's likely we just didn't hear the transmission .

As you point out , though , it would have been a directive about an "opportunity" to give the place back to avoid sanction , if it was anything at all .

In a way , it's a "get out of jail free" card for the perp , being faced with a charge , knowing they don't charge you if they don't think you're guilty .
It's a "give it back , or else..." scenario , really .

If I were Max , I would understand wanting to take his chance in the steward's room , because he saw what had happened earlier at the start , and had taken pretty much the same line .


Something that occurs to me now , is that Max , who , in a normally investigated incidents would have been interviewed before being sanctioned for one , clearly wasn't , before being unceremoniously removed from the podium ante-room by Herbie Blash on Sunday .
Certainly , Seb was interviewed before his podium was stripped .

[Nitrodaze]

Having reviewed the stewards' decisions (http://www.fia.com/events/fia-formul...information-19) and the sporting regulations, I think Alex Kalinauckas writing on the James Allen site either understood wrongly, or at least did not accurately describe the situation.

There is no stewards' decision requiring Max to give the place back, only a decision to impose a 5 second time penalty, which is in line with the announcement that the incident would be investigated after the race.


Which is not surprising, because there is no provision in the rules for the stewards to instruct a driver to give a place back. Only this:

So it may be that Charlie gave Red Bull the option to give the place back, in order to avoid a penalty; or advised them that they would receive a penalty after the race if they did not do so. But it's not something that can be ordered or imposed by the stewards. If Ferrari told Vettel that Verstappen had to give the place back on track, they were wrong.

I don't think there is any lack of clarity, except perhaps emerging from PR desks at Maranello and Milton Keynes.

Well said that man :-)

I think the real beef was the brewing dislike for Verstapenn by some drivers on the grid for his defensive antics. The stewards have failed to deal with it. And the new rule brought in to curb Max's reluctance to change has also created further problems for drivers. The interesting development is the clear antagonism between Redbull and Ferrari that has surfaced because of all this. Redbull's former favorite driver versus Redbull current new discovery.

I am sure it would boil down to a storm in a tea cup. Probably the only real action of interest this season.

[Nitrodaze]

The question was, "Did Verstapenn gained an unfair advantage by cutting the corner via the grass". The answer is simply Yes he did. With the team clearly acknowledging that an unfair advantage has been attained and instructing their driver to give the place back, but the driver in question refusing to follow the instruction of the team; created the problem that arose.

The incident has exposed a few disturbing facts:-

1. Redbull are clearly having compliance difficulty with their new recruit. A rookie refusing to comply with a team instruction is a clear indication that the team have a control problem.

2. The stewards and probably race control were abit slow to clarify their position with respect to how they would like to deal with the issue. Either a notification that it would be looked at after the race or a suggestion that the place should be given back. Whatever the case, the lack of notification created uncertainty and frustration. Certainly enough to annoy Vettel.

3. The rules do not have a provision for the stewards or race control to demand a reversion of position to address the infringement of the rules. But it clearly empowers the stewards to impose a punishment during or after the race. Thus it is at the discretion of the team to resolve the infringement of the rules before the stewards impose a punishment. This is where the team in question had failed to prevent the fiasco that ensued from happening.

4. However, once the stewards have deliberated and issued a penalty and rewarded whomever they thought was the aggrieved party, that rewarded driver was formally, in open ceremony acknowledged to be the rightful person to receive the awarded trophy. That should have been it. Any further issue or complaints should have been referred to commitees that deal with complaints. [if one exist]

5. The screening process of improper language over the radio seem nonexistent. Improper language should be properly screened from getting in the public domain.

6. Drivers seem to be quite wayward nowadays. It has become very common to hear and see drivers clearly disregard the instructions of the teams during races. There is a surprising increase of lack of respect between the pitwall and the drivers recently.

These are my observations. I wonder what you chaps have noticed?

[The Black Knight]

I understand why Hamilton didn't get a penalty and why Verstappen did and it's fairly straight forward the reasoning for it.

What I don't understand is how Verstappen's move was any different to Nico Rosberg in Canada (last year I think it was) when Hamilton was overtaking him down the back straight only for him to out-brake himself and keep the position. The position was Hamilton's were it not for that and yet the Stewards did nothing. It's another case of inconsistency.

[Nitrodaze]

I understand why Hamilton didn't get a penalty and why Verstappen did and it's fairly straight forward the reasoning for it.

What I don't understand is how Verstappen's move was any different to Nico Rosberg in Canada (last year I think it was) when Hamilton was overtaking him down the back straight only for him to out-brake himself and keep the position. The position was Hamilton's were it not for that and yet the Stewards did nothing. It's another case of inconsistency.

For a start, it was two cars of the same team and there was no team complaint if l remember correctly. But it was certainly inconsistent from a driver's perspective. I thought they got the Rosberg instance wrong. The Verstappen instance involved two competing teams. The associated politics alone necessitates some sort of action to be taken.

[Phoenix]

I understand why Hamilton didn't get a penalty and why Verstappen did and it's fairly straight forward the reasoning for it.

What I don't understand is how Verstappen's move was any different to Nico Rosberg in Canada (last year I think it was) when Hamilton was overtaking him down the back straight only for him to out-brake himself and keep the position. The position was Hamilton's were it not for that and yet the Stewards did nothing. It's another case of inconsistency.

I think in this instance Lewis retired the following lap - his having outbraked himself was a result of MGUK recovery failure and the brakes overheating and failing.

[Nitrodaze]

The one I refeered to won the race. Got away 150m after turn 3 just by cutting and was never even investigated. Being Ham just forgives everything it seems

Actually both Mercs did cut the corner on the first lap. If any punishment were to be levied, it would have been for both Hamilton and Rosberg. Now that would have made the last few races more interesting, don't you think. Besides the stewards seemed clueless this weekend.