Teams communicating with the Stewards during a race

[Hawkmoon]

Alonso's penalty in the British GP has been thoroughly discussed but this article from Autosport raises another question.

The article (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85320) gives Ferrari's version of the events surrounding Alonso's pass on Kubica. If it's to be believed, and there's a partial transcript of the radio communication between Ferrari and Charlie Whiting, then it sheds some light on why Ferrari didn't tell Alonso to let Kubica through after apparently being told to do so ïmmediately" by Whiting.

There are two telling parts:

13:33 Ferrari makes a second radio call - 1m55s after the pass. Alonso has completed another lap plus one sector, and is behind Nico Rosberg and Jaime Alguersuari, while Kubica drops further back.

Whiting tells Ferrari that the stewards think Alonso could give the position back. Rivola asks: 'Is this the decision?'

Whiting replies: 'No, but that's how we see it.'

13:33:22 Ferrari makes a third radio call.
Rivola tells Whiting: 'Alonso doesn't have only Kubica behind. He would have to concede two positions now.'

While they discuss the matter Kubica is overtaken by Barrichello so Alonso would have to now give up three positions.

Whiting replies: 'We have given you the chance to do it or not. Things being this way, the stewards will hear the drivers at the end of the race, but I understand your position.'

First Whiting tells Ferrari that the stewards "think" Alonso should give the place back and then when asked whether that's the decision he says "No, but that's how we see it." Who's we? The stewards or Race Control. First he tells Ferrari that they have to give the place back and then says that it's not really the decision it's just how "we" see it.

After further questioning from Ferrari Whiting says "We have given you the chance to do it or not. Things being this way, the stewards will hear the drivers at the end of the race, but I understand your position." Alonso is then given the drive through. How can this be when Ferrari are told that it would be discussed at the end of the race?

During the race I was angry at the penalty. Then I was angry at Ferrari for ignoring directions from race control. Now I'm bemused at the whole process and questioning Whiting's handling of the incident.

As far as I know, teams have no direct communication with the stewards during a race. They have to go through Race Control and thus Whiting. Why? Whiting has shown that his opinion is not the same as the stewards (Hamilton/Raikkonnen at Spa '08) and that he gives ambiguous information to the teams in regards to the stewards decisions (Alonso/Kubica Silverstone '10).

In my opinion Whiting should either be fired (unlikely as he's Bernie's mate) or replaced as the team's contact with the stewards during a race. If the teams had a person in the steward's room they could contact after an incident then Ferrari would have been able to get the stewards opinion and acted accordingly. As it stands they had to get the stewards opinion as interpreted by Whiting. We saw what Whiting's interpretation was worth.

[wmcot]

I totally agree! The whole penalty matter must be straightened out. I also watch the ALMS series and penalties are handed out and served swiftly because they have one person in charge of dealing them out, not a committee. Granted that they are occasionally wrong (rarely) but you know who really won the race as the checkered flag comes down.

As much as I criticized Mosely for being a dictator with the rules, the race director is one position that needs a strong dictatorial presence. You can't rule by committee in F1. The most blatant example I can think of was the USGP in 2004 when Montoya ran nearly the full race before being black-flagged for an incident that took place on the starting grid. Ridiculous...

One solution would be to get rid of the stewards and put the race director in total charge of the race. Or, if his job is too busy with the race in general, have one permanent steward who makes the calls immediately and is in direct contact with the team. There is no reason that Alonso could not have been told to give the position back within 15 seconds.

Alternatively, if F1 wants to keep the stewards as they are, set a limit of 3 laps for them to impose a penalty. If they can't decide within 3 laps then there is no penalty! Simple!

[ioan]

I totally agree! The whole penalty matter must be straightened out. I also watch the ALMS series and penalties are handed out and served swiftly because they have one person in charge of dealing them out, not a committee. Granted that they are occasionally wrong (rarely) but you know who really won the race as the checkered flag comes down.

As much as I criticized Mosely for being a dictator with the rules, the race director is one position that needs a strong dictatorial presence. You can't rule by committee in F1. The most blatant example I can think of was the USGP in 2004 when Montoya ran nearly the full race before being black-flagged for an incident that took place on the starting grid. Ridiculous...

One solution would be to get rid of the stewards and put the race director in total charge of the race. Or, if his job is too busy with the race in general, have one permanent steward who makes the calls immediately and is in direct contact with the team. There is no reason that Alonso could not have been told to give the position back within 15 seconds.

Alternatively, if F1 wants to keep the stewards as they are, set a limit of 3 laps for them to impose a penalty. If they can't decide within 3 laps then there is no penalty! Simple!

This would be too good to be true, and also way to simple.
F1 needs gray areas, late and stupid steward decisions in order to create the show that is 'needed' by the 'fans'.

[wedge]

Agreed.

I'm currently in the middle of watching an old NASCAR race - 1993 Splitfire Spark Plug 500 to be exact and Ray Evernham has just twisted NASCAR's arm into applying a ludicrous 5 lap penalty for Jeff Gordon accidently bump into Geoff Bodine.

[Mia 01]

He deserved the penalty.

[52Paddy]

He deserved the penalty.

I also think that, when the incident happened, Alonso should have been penalised. He was in the wrong in my opinion. But, the handling of the situation was out of order and very amateurish. It's been a strange year for the stewarding sport in general, what with the calls in F1 this year, the ridiculous refereeing in the world cup and the fiasco at the GAA Leinster Finals last week!

[wmcot]

He deserved the penalty.

Jeff Gordon?

[I am evil Homer]

With Hamilton's penalty at Spa, Alonso's penalty was also correct - the precedent has been set for two years now.

Whether the decision is right or wrong (personally I think it was wrong as Spa and probably wrong at Silverstone) there has to be consistency.

[Retro Formula 1]

With Hamilton's penalty at Spa, Alonso's penalty was also correct - the precedent has been set for two years now.

Whether the decision is right or wrong (personally I think it was wrong as Spa and probably wrong at Silverstone) there has to be consistency.

I'm afraid the two situations are different.

In Spa, Lewis gave back the penalty but because Kimi was so much slower in the wet, was able to take it straight back again. In fact he did a complete 360 around the Ferrari but the Stewards decided that he should still be punished for cutting the corner to avoid an accident.

Now, where the two instances ar similar is that Alonso cut the corner to avoid an accident. It was VERY hard racing by Kubica but totally fair. Alonso was coming up the inside but not enough that Robert had to cede the racing line. Alonso could either drop back and have another go or cut the corner. In cutting the corner, he made the pass stick therefore gaining an advantage and should have immediatly given the position back. As I say, imagine there was a wall there instead of a nice flat run-off and then consider what he would have done.

So, in my opinion, he had to give the place back and didn't. He shouldn't need to speak with the stewards or his team but should have let Kubica back before the next corner and be done with it. This isn't Rocket Engineering and we all know you cant gain an advantage by putting 4 wheels off the track, especially taking a position like that.

What is more relevant is what happens after an incident like that? Charlie is in charge of race control and his opinion carries weight but isn't a judgement as we saw with Lewis. He avoided an accident, he gave the position back and he repassed the Ferrari again but was still penalised becaus the Stewards deemed that in giving the place back, he hadn't conceeded all of his advantage as he could overtake before the next corner. They then brought a new "guideline" in after the race and penalised Lewis with it. Interesting Justice but this was the Mosley era I suppose What is imortant to note is that Charle confirmed several times that by giving the place back, he should be OK. He was wrong.

With the last incident, Race control told Ferrari 3 times that they think he should give the place back including immediatly afterwards before he overtook anyone else. Now, it was not a definitive ruling as the Stewards provide but it's a bloody good yardstick. They were foolish not to tell him to give it back in the first place as Fred was for not knowing to but when Charlie tell you to do something, it's not really anyone's fault but your own if you don't and he's right.

It was a fair penalty but the amount of time it takes the Stewards to scratch their balls is not fair at all.

The stewards need all TV feed directly and should be able to arrive at a decision a lot quicker. I think that there should be a maximum of 3 laps for a decision to be arrived at once the Stewards have been notified to address an issue and a further 2 full laps for the driver to come in.

[52Paddy]

Alonso was coming up the inside but not enough that Robert had to cede the racing line. Alonso could either drop back and have another go or cut the corner.

It was a fair penalty but the amount of time it takes the Stewards to scratch their balls is not fair at all.

That pretty much sums up my opinion on it too. Alonso made a decision to go down the inside. He put himself in a position where he had to avoid a potential accident. And his actions were of advantageous nature. Kubica did nothing wrong at all. A penalty was right to be handed out.

But, with such a blatantly obvious advantage being incurred by Alonso, what the hell were they analysing for all that amount of time - their fingernails?