10 place penalty for Hamilton and Rosberg

[OZ_HCR32]

What is the ruling for merging in the fast lane, ie Kubica and Kimi? Was Kimi allowed to drive on the left side of Kubica? I thought he woudl have had to default to behind Kubica as Kubica was already inm the fast lane?

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Watch it again, without your Lewis hat on. The red light isn't one solitary light, it is two flash (alternating) red lights, so the stewards didn't turn them off, then on again as your post implies.

As for the blue lights, these would come on whether it was a safety car period or not, they are to warn drivers exiting the pits that there are cars on the start/finish straight.

The drivers should be aware of their meaning as well, and if they didnt see the red lights shouldve assumed from the blue lights that traffic was coming and hence wouldnt be allowed to rejoin the track. Hardly sending a conflicting message IMO.

I think a 5 place penalty may have been more justified though. 10 places is reasonably harsh, but they both screwed up in an area of the track thats highly populated by marshals and other people so i suppose the FIA are setting an example there. As has been said as well, if Raikkonen hadnt been in Hamiltons way he wouldve ended up running the light and being DQ'd.

[RaiseYourFist]

I wonder what is the ruling if lets say Kimi's car wasnt there and Lewis didnt brake in time to have all 4 wheels infront of the line but if he still stopped.

And also it is true that Kimi didnt have his back light on when when everyone else in the pitlane did but I dont think that really matered.

[staid davenport]

What surprises me is how difficult it seems for the drivers to see these red lights - they look quite small (from my point on the tv) - and I guess it would be pretty hard to see them when you are sitting in a F1 car a few cm above the ground. Hamilton and Rosberg would have been further affected because they are behind other cars, and therefore had an even worse view?

So...1) why arn't the lights more clear? - they could easily install much bigger systems - maybe like the lights they have that replace marshals around some circuits...or maybe even a marhshal with a flag - they're pretty visible.

2) why don't the teams pay attention to this and have someone on the radio to the drivers saying "Stop - the light at the end of the pitlane is red!"

[andy_b]

theres me thinking a racing driver had a pair of eyes who could see if a light was red. I dont get my mother, from the UK phoning me up on my cellphone to remind me to stop for red lights.

Lewis was slightly closer than the McLaren Prats Pearch to the red light too!

The light procedure by the way was normal. FiA provide a document (which in my day, McLaren added to for their own use) with the light procedure so, no excuse on it was flashing, or there was a blue one. Every driver knows (or should know this) + the history of black flags with red lights (particuarly at Montreal).

I'm a big Lewis fan, but I can't believe some of the excuses being handed here.

[Asp]

There are some valid points raised in defence.

Yes, I think the contradiction between the red and blue lights is daft. I saw the flashing blue lights from the grid on the start of the race and was confused. It shouldn't be too complicated to have it that when the lights are red, the blue lights aren't on. Still, those are the regulations at present, so everyone knows.

Likewise, I think the penalty system isn't the best in the world. I'm a believer that penalties should be fixed to that race, carrying them on confuses matters and in some ways effects a double penalty. Much better to impose fines/ points on licence/ points deductions - so that next time out the driver has a chance to compensate for his error.

However, the rules at the minute allow for 10-place penalty. And when I saw the accident, I immediately thought that a 10-place penalty was justified. Under no circumstances could it be considered anything but an avoidable accident. And it was in pit lane, and under SC conditions - which makes it much worse.

Lewis made a mistake not seeing the red light. But he should have seen it - it's what he's paid for. He should have expected it to be there.
If I ran into the back of a car at traffic lights, I'd expect to lose my no claims bonus, even when it's a simple mistake.
Open-and-shut decision in my book I'm afraid.

[steve nielsen]

with all these people not seeing those red lights lately I wonder if it would'nt be easier for the teammanager to warn the driver on the radio that the light is red.

[Pingguest]

This is the most inconsistent policy you can imagine. Did Raikkonen receive a penalty for hitting Sutil in Monaco? No, why is Hamilton given a penalty? C'mon, people make mistakes. Why reacting soo utterly ridiculous.

The FIA could better change their own rules.

[mac]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

This is the most inconsistent policy you can imagine. Did Raikkonen receive a penalty for hitting Sutil in Monaco? No, why is Hamilton given a penalty? C'mon, people make mistakes. Why reacting soo utterly ridiculous.

The FIA could better change their own rules.

Hang on a minute...

As I've said in another thread, if you ignore the red light and drive out of pitlane on to the circuit, you are... wait for it... DISQUALIFIED!

Pretty big punishment, no? That shows how serious it is viewed.

So what is a fair penalty if you drive down the pitlane in your own world thinking you are "breezing it" and plough into the back of a driver doing exactly the right thing, and destroying his race?

10 places at the next race seems fair enough to me.

And don't even begin to compare it to Kimi at Monaco - they are completely different. Kimi lost control of his car on a greasy surface - it was poor form, but it certainly was not reckless.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

This is the most inconsistent policy you can imagine. Did Raikkonen receive a penalty for hitting Sutil in Monaco? No, why is Hamilton given a penalty? C'mon, people make mistakes. Why reacting soo utterly ridiculous.

I've lost what tiny amount of faith I had in the FIA applying penalties unfairly. It's beyond repugnant. Acts of gross battery don't get penalized yet get within 100 yards of a Ferrari at Monza and it's down the grid for you.

[nobster]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

This is the most inconsistent policy you can imagine. Did Raikkonen receive a penalty for hitting Sutil in Monaco? No, why is Hamilton given a penalty? C'mon, people make mistakes. Why reacting soo utterly ridiculous.

The FIA could better change their own rules.

Raikkonen was seen as a racing incident ( at full speed ), Hamilton's is totally different, a red light means stop ( = no racing ) Stop for a red light is what you learn first when tou start taking driving lessons.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Sheila M

I'd like to add my personal thoughts here.

The lights at pit exit at the time of the accident were two flashing lights on the left hand side (they could have been red but looked more like amber) and FOUR constant blue lights on the right hand side.

Any driver half way down the pit line is unlikely to have seen the flashing lights as the blue lights are more visible at that point.

So, to penalise the drivers for ignoring lights would be incorrect IN MY VIEW as the lights were giving conflicting messages.

No, they weren't. The blue lights mean that there are faster cars coming on the track. They're usually "on" at the pitlane exit. In this case the "faster" cars were the bunch of the cars packed behind the safety car, thus the additional red lights. The rules say that under SC the pitlane exit is is always "green" except when the safety car is passing, when it's red.

[OZ_HCR32]

Originally Posted by ensign14

I've lost what tiny amount of faith I had in the FIA applying penalties unfairly. It's beyond repugnant. Acts of gross battery don't get penalized yet get within 100 yards of a Ferrari at Monza and it's down the grid for you.

Dont get that at all. The Kimi / Monaco no penalty thing. One incident was under green flags and race conditions in the wet at speed. The other was under a pace car and a closed pit lane exit. In perfect visibility and the dry !

A mistake at speed in slick conditions under green flag in race conditions, unfortunate and sad as it may be, is motorsport. Hell DC did it in the dry the day before, so why is it so reckless 24hrs later in the wet? To hit another car waiting at pit exit with another car, in clear dry conditions when the pace car is on the track is not on?????

It isnt about a Sutil being robbed of points, or Kimi beign robbed of points by Lewis. Its about regulations, and what Lewis did is unfortunate and only required a momentary lapse in concentration, but what he and Rosberg did is in my eyes undefendable. Rosberg is even worse as there was already 3 cars stopped, near stopped and he hit Lewis!!!!!!!!

Pit lane has a whole lot of special conditions, it is speed limited and controlled as there are pit teams, equipment, media etc etc. Cars and ppl dont go well together.

Motorsport is dangerous and high risk and there are flags and controls to try and minimise that risk. So under race conditions it is acceptable (but still unfortunate, but inevitable) that accidents will happen. Under safety cars and in pit lanes its a NO NO! It cant be accepted by the powers to be. Never has been acceptable, and never will be. Pit lane is holy ground, you dont miss lights, dismiss warnings on the pit radio to check the pit lane exit light and you dont hit cars!

[climb]

About LH penalty, my point is simple: if one of us does the same move on the road, is he/she penalised or not?

The penalty is fully deserved, for the case itself, and to discourage further possible ones in the future.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by mac

Hang on a minute...

As I've said in another thread, if you ignore the red light and drive out of pitlane on to the circuit, you are... wait for it... DISQUALIFIED!

Pretty big punishment, no? That shows how serious it is viewed.

Well, being disqualified has the same result as a retirement. It means no points in the race you broke the rules. But Hamilton has scored no points for this race and gets an extra penalty for the next race. The FIA is clearly not familiar with the principle of ne bis in idem.

And don't even begin to compare it to Kimi at Monaco - they are completely different. Kimi lost control of his car on a greasy surface - it was poor form, but it certainly was not reckless.

Yeah, but Kimi didn't lose it in the +60 laps before. If Sutil would had lost it and drove in the back of a Ferrari, I'm sure he would had been penalised.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by climb

About LH penalty, my point is simple: if one of us does the same move on the road, is he/she penalised or not?

If one of us drives over 70mph on the road, we'd be penalised.

You can't really compare road driving with race driving.

[Podd37]

I don't get all this. Kimi hit Sutil under braking for a corner. Everyone that has ever driven a racing car of any sort has had a moment like that, fortunately most times without such an expensive ending. Hamilton drove into the back of a stopped car...in the pitlane....under red lights, s/c and all the other reasons to be careful. I hate to say it folks but he made a....thats right, a mistake. As did Rosberg, his being even sillier as he drove into an existing accident. So Lewis is not god after all....even if James Allen would have us believe otherwise. Stop worrying about who got what penalty back in 1999 for walking somewhere without a pass and accept that this is a silly circus that sometimes gives us great entertainment and has no logic to it. Best result to a race I've seen in years! Well done BMW and DC I say.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by OZ_HCR32

Dont get that at all. The Kimi / Monaco no penalty thing. One incident was under green flags and race conditions in the wet at speed. The other was under a pace car and a closed pit lane exit. In perfect visibility and the dry !

Actually I was thinking of Senna on Prost, but that's another story. The LH/NR incident happened in special conditions that do not often apply (I can't remember there ever being two cars parked side-by-side at the pit exit). KR's was in the exact conditions that he's paid to drive in.

[Peter Mallett]

I think its harsh but if you ignore a red light (I'm intrigued as to why these ones always cause problems), you will get a penalty. No issue there for me, although as I said elsewhere, Lewis is mind bogglingly brilliant but he is flawed.

Which then brings me on to the Kimi thing. I can't get TV coverage here so I can only read reports but it seems to me that Kimi suffered from a bit of brain fade and failed to take cogniscence of the conditions in Monaco. Let's not forget that Lewis ran into the back of Alonso at Bahrain and suffered no penalty for it. (From my vantage point just along the track it really did seem like Alonso slowed).

So I don't see any inconsistency here although on a personal note I'm glad it was a Ferrari he hit.

[dsg]

What's the big fuss about the lights. Its not as if they had never driven past them before and should be well aware of the location and that of any other signals.

No excuse for driving into the back of a stationary car. Its also the second time Hamilton has done something stupid during a safety car period.

[JimW]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Well, being disqualified has the same result as a retirement. It means no points in the race you broke the rules. But Hamilton has scored no points for this race and gets an extra penalty for the next race. The FIA is clearly not familiar with the principle of ne bis in idem.

Your reference to 'Double jeopardy' is simply not relevant. He was not punished (prosecuted) twice for the same offence. He was punished once and given one single penalty. Even if he had been given two penalties (some community service, say ) in addition to the 10 places, that would have still been one prosecution and related penalties. Universal legal practice.

The fact that his daft misjudgement (probably) cost him the race and lots of money is just one of the consequences of his actions; it's not a judicial punishment.

Regards

Jim

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by mac

And don't even begin to compare it to Kimi at Monaco - they are completely different. Kimi lost control of his car on a greasy surface - it was poor form, but it certainly was not reckless.

Apart from the comparison with yesterday's incident: Takuma Sato did receive a penalty after the 2005 Belgium Grand Prix for losing control and driver into Schumacher's back. So, it was inconsistent that Raikkonen didn't receive any penalty for driving his car into the back of Sutil.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Let's not forget that Lewis ran into the back of Alonso at Bahrain and suffered no penalty for it. (From my vantage point just along the track it really did seem like Alonso slowed).

If Alonso slowed, surely it would be him getting a penalty for a brake test.

However, what I saw on TV looked like Hamilton's front wing broke clean off, less drag, couldn't help it, BAM!. Not a brake test. Just the only things breaking were composites.

So I don't see any inconsistency here although on a personal note I'm glad it was a Ferrari he hit.

I'm thinking that's why he got the penalty. If he hit Kubica ... would we be talking about the penalty?

Also bear in mind that one of the cars may have been blocking Hamilton's view of the red light. Bear in mind that the on-board camera is higher up up than the position of the driver by a good 20 centimetres at least. I can't find the onboard with Lewis anywhere, I guess you'll have to record ITV's highlights - but it's still useless. Onboards look cool, but aren't a real judge of what you can see in the car.

[OZ_HCR32]

Inconsistant? Vettel got done for hitting Webber behind a pace car. They provided evidence that Lewis had contributed to the accident with his behaviour behind the pace car and the FIA agreed and come China overturned the 10 place penalty. Massa was ruled out of results last year in Canada.

You can find examples to support any argument, I am satisfied that this ruling is line with the general trend and is warranted

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by JimW

Your reference to 'Double jeopardy' is simply not relevant. He was not punished (prosecuted) twice for the same offence. He was punished once and given one single penalty. Even if he had been given two penalties (some community service, say ) in addition to the 10 places, that would have still been one prosecution and related penalties. Universal legal practice.

Hamilton is punished twice effectively. If he would had driven through red he would had been taken out of the race, resulting in zero points. Now Hamilton made the same mistake but drove into Raikkonen's back, resulting in zero points, but he also received a penalty for France what is very likely to result in a point reduction.

This penalty is beyond reason.