Stewards Reprimand both drivers.

[wnut]

Silverstone and the stewards once again guilty of an odd penalty.
Alonso avoids a collision with Kubica by running wide, is ordered to let Kubica back through - fair enough, then ordered to serve a drive through when Kubica's car breaks down before it can be let through.

How does this fit in with the previous decisions allowing both Alonso and Hamilton to overtake in pit lane entrance by leaving the circuit entirely?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Silverstone and the stewards once again guilty of an odd penalty.
Alonso avoids a collision with Kubica by running wide, is ordered to let Kubica back through - fair enough, then ordered to serve a drive through when Kubica's car breaks down before it can be let through.

How does this fit in with the previous decisions allowing both Alonso and Hamilton to overtake in pit lane entrance by leaving the circuit entirely?

How long after Alonso cut the track, did Kubica's car retire?

[wnut]

Alonso passed Kubica in Brooklands on Lap 16 ad Kubica retired on lap 17.
No connection with the pass or Alonso running wide.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Alonso passed Kubica in Brooklands on Lap 16 ad Kubica retired on lap 17.
No connection with the pass or Alonso running wide.

I'm aware there's no connection, just wanted to know the time frame, as people are asking, why didn't Alonso give back the position.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I'm aware there's no connection, just wanted to know the time frame, as people are asking, why didn't Alonso give back the position.

Everyone watching knew he was likely to get a penalty whether or not that was the right decision. The smart thing to do was to let Kubica back immediately (on the straight following the corner) and then seek to make a cleaner pass later.

It is not the stewards job to tell him to give the place back Alonso knew he should and the team knew he should, they pushed their luck and paid the price dictated by the rules.

As to blaming Nigel Mansell for the decision this is patently absurd, the driver steward is hopefully highly respected by the other stewards but is only really there in an advisory capacity. Their presence has been a positive thing so far this year and if fans continue to vilify and accuse them personally of bias at each race we are likely to find a shortage of F1 drivers willing to serve.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Everyone watching knew he was likely to get a penalty whether or not that was the right decision. The smart thing to do was to let Kubica back immediately (on the straight following the corner) and then seek to make a cleaner pass later.

It is not the stewards job to tell him to give the place back Alonso knew he should and the team knew he should, they pushed their luck and paid the price dictated by the rules.

As to blaming Nigel Mansell for the decision this is patently absurd, the driver steward is hopefully highly respected by the other stewards but is only really there in an advisory capacity. Their presence has been a positive thing so far this year and if fans continue to vilify and accuse them personally of bias at each race we are likely to find a shortage of F1 drivers willing to serve.

So you're saying Ferrari and Alonso just pushed their luck?

I never blamed Nigel Mansell for the decision.

[wnut]

The F1 drivers serning on the stewards panel is just a sham anyway to give respectability to decisions they appear to have no input in making.
Any driver seving on the panel without the ability to speak to the media about a decision or have an active vote in the makeing of the decision should not allow his good name to be associated with bad decisions.

The stewards should further be required to give written reports of the reasoning behind their decisions and have to cite the instances that grant them a precedent for making the decision. This is a professional business where many interests are involved and a great deal of money is being spent and the stewards decisions should be beyond reproach.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

So you're saying Ferrari and Alonso just pushed their luck?

Yes, they knew the intelligent thing to do was to give the place back, they elected to roll the dice and see if they would be penalised.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I never blamed Nigel Mansell for the decision.

Sorry, never meant to imply that you did, however others are and that was my point.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Yes, they knew the intelligent thing to do was to give the place back, they elected to roll the dice and see if they would be penalised.

I think you hae a point there. Alonso gives his 'version' of events in this interview with Autosport: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/85223

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Sorry, never meant to imply that you did, however others are and that was my point.

No that's ok, I sort of got the wrong end of the stick.

[Wims]

One thing i dont get is why ferrari didnt just ignore the penalty and drive on and then take whatever penalty they would get after the race instead. If I was calling the shots on the pitwall i would have seriously considered that option. It seems like obviously cheating would be less of a disadvantage than taking the penalty right there, like how LH got a 30 second penalty after Valencia, while the people following the rules basically lost a lap

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Wims

One thing i dont get is why ferrari didnt just ignore the penalty and drive on and then take whatever penalty they would get after the race instead. If I was calling the shots on the pitwall i would have seriously considered that option. It seems like obviously cheating would be less of a disadvantage than taking the penalty right there, like how LH got a 30 second penalty after Valencia, while the people following the rules basically lost a lap

So if Alonso had done as you suggest and got a 30 second penalty, would the outcome have been much different?

What position on the track was Alonso, when he 'passed' Kubica? I saw the incudent but wasn't paying too much attention to track position at the time.

[Wims]

Alonso went from 5th position to the back of the pack with virtually no chance of scoring any points.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wnut

The F1 drivers serning on the stewards panel is just a sham anyway to give respectability to decisions they appear to have no input in making.
Any driver seving on the panel without the ability to speak to the media about a decision or have an active vote in the makeing of the decision should not allow his good name to be associated with bad decisions.

The stewards should further be required to give written reports of the reasoning behind their decisions and have to cite the instances that grant them a precedent for making the decision. This is a professional business where many interests are involved and a great deal of money is being spent and the stewards decisions should be beyond reproach.

I would agree with this idea.
If the stewards panel is really an independent judicial body they should be responsible and professional enough to be able to justify their decisions in written statements that would provide all with a guide to to the reasoning and evaluations about the offence and the disciplinary sentences made.

it would lead to clearer more consistent decisions because they would become more accountable, and at this level that would be no bad thing.
What is important is that the FIA doesn't intefere in their decisions or manipulate any part of the judicial process once the machinery is in motion.

[Kempi]

One thing i dont get is why ferrari didnt just ignore the penalty and drive on and then take whatever penalty they would get after the race instead.

They'd have been black flagged. You need to serve a penalty within three laps.

[Wims]

Originally Posted by Kempi

They'd have been black flagged. You need to serve a penalty within three laps.

I know, but surely it would have been better to continue driving, then arguing their case post race rather than go to the back of the pack and be guaranteed 0 points for this weekend.

[mini1400]

Originally Posted by Wims

I know, but surely it would have been better to continue driving, then arguing their case post race rather than go to the back of the pack and be guaranteed 0 points for this weekend.

Being Black Flagged means you are disqualified and therefore would get zero points....

[Wims]

Originally Posted by mini1400

Being Black Flagged means you are disqualified and therefore would get zero points....

They were going to get 0 points anyways. At least if they continued and finished in the points they had the remote chance of being able to argue their case for why they should not have recieved a penalty and thus had the chance of scoring more than 0 points. I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant. Yes, I meant cheating so their penalty would have been less than if they had taken their penalty right there and then. Why follow the rules when breaking them might yield a better end result. I've seen it happen in other categories several times before.

They might as welave parked the car and saved the engine instead of taking the penalty. At least if they had continued they would have had a non 0 % chance of scoring points. Taking the penalty would ensure no points

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by wnut

The stewards should further be required to give written reports of the reasoning behind their decisions and have to cite the instances that grant them a precedent for making the decision. This is a professional business where many interests are involved and a great deal of money is being spent and the stewards decisions should be beyond reproach.

If they did have to write reports for the public, the reasoning would be that Alonso gained an unfair advantage by leaving the track - which the driver was aware of - and he should have given the place back immediately. It's all written down in the sporting Code as are the punishments. The precedent would be an easy one to establish: Hamilton/Raikonen Spa 2008.

[Wims]

Originally Posted by phoenix

If they did have to write reports for the public, the reasoning would be that Alonso gained an unfair advantage by leaving the track - which the driver was aware of - and he should have given the place back immediately. It's all written down in the sporting Code as are the punishments. The precedent would be an easy one to establish: Hamilton/Raikonen Spa 2008.

They did allow Räikkönen to pass on the grass in Spa 2009 tho

[old man]

Originally Posted by phoenix

If they did have to write reports for the public, the reasoning would be that Alonso gained an unfair advantage by leaving the track - which the driver was aware of - and he should have given the place back immediately. It's all written down in the sporting Code as are the punishments. The precedent would be an easy one to establish: Hamilton/Raikonen Spa 2008.

The two incidents are not the same, Hamilton gave the place back and re-passed as Raikonen was caught napping. We never got a proper report on that incident and the stewards decison was just plain wrong. It was that incident as much as any that led to loud calls for drivers to be stewards and I agree with the idea that reports are made public.

In this case Alonso should have given up the place and didn't and although we may think the penalty was too severe, a 5 or 10 second time penaly would have been more appropriate, the rule book may not allow such flexibility.

Drivers as stewards is a step forward but I would prefer to see a more constant selection rather than different drivers at each race.

[mattt]

Originally Posted by wnut

Alonso passed Kubica in Brooklands on Lap 16 ad Kubica retired on lap 17.
No connection with the pass or Alonso running wide.

I dont think thats quite right

He overtook into Club on lap 17

And then Kubica retired on lap 19


He passed Alguesauri into Brooklands

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Wims

I know, but surely it would have been better to continue driving, then arguing their case post race rather than go to the back of the pack and be guaranteed 0 points for this weekend.

I'm not sure of the exact rule, but I think if you deliberately ignore a black flag, then you would probably lose your race licence and/or lose many more points from the team as a punishment. It's probably the worst possible infringement of the rules.

It's like a red carded player refusing to go off when ordered by the ref. Ever seen that happen?

[Spritle]

Do the stewards make a decision and THEN confer with the X-F1 driver?

Because if so, that may explain the delays in decision making that have made the recent penalties work for some drivers and totally ruin the chances of others.

I admit I cringed when Alonso made that move but a drive through? Especially considering the advantage gained would have been realized one lap later and it may have taken him two to give the position back if it was his intention?

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Spritle

I admit I cringed when Alonso made that move but a drive through? Especially considering the advantage gained would have been realized one lap later and it may have taken him two to give the position back if it was his intention?

Alonso had a reasonable and proportionate penalty available to him by simply dropping back behind on the following straight, there is no way he would have been penalised had he done so and he could have followed round the next corner and then immediately resumed his attack. He chose to turn down the opportunity to do the smart, and sporting thing. Sure luck played a part but I for one have zero sympathy for him.

I like to see a driver with a bit of passion but lately Alonso's head seems to be so full of frustration and anger that there is no room left for the stategic intelligence he used to show.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by wnut

The stewards should further be required to give written reports of the reasoning behind their decisions and have to cite the instances that grant them a precedent for making the decision. This is a professional business where many interests are involved and a great deal of money is being spent and the stewards decisions should be beyond reproach.

After 2008, I thought this was supposed to be happening. There was some mention of it.