OFFICIAL: Trulli gets 25s penalty, Hamilton gets 3rd, Vettel gets 10-places grid drop...

[Giuseppe F1]

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=37367

[Daniel]

Rubbish! Why did Vettel get a penalty? It was clearly a racing incident! As for Trulli it's a pity he lost his place but rules are rules.

[ozrevhead]

Rubbish! Why did Vettel get a penalty? It was clearly a racing incident! As for Trulli it's a pity he lost his place but rules are rules.
and why didnt hekki or rubins (whoever was at fault) didnt get a thing!

[Daniel]

These things just happen and can never be stopped in my opinion and i can't remember anything that wasn't anything more than a racing incident.

[Giuseppe F1]

Vettel also given a $50,000 fine now for the incident!!!!!!!!!! Are they taking the ###??

Why?? Racing incident at best.

I also have a strong suspicion that Kubica turned in a bit extra on Vettel during the end of the crash when he didnt need to....just to ensure completely that Vettel wouldnt be able to continue - now thats wrong

[Ranger]

25 seconds that's ridiculous. :down:

Should have just done the switcheroo.

$50,000 fine that's ridiculous. :down:

[F1boat]

Stupid, stupid, they should have just reversed him to 4th

[Daniel]

I suppose they need to be consistent (yes I know i'm talking about the stewards), wasn't that what Lewis got in Spa last year?

[Ranger]

I suppose they need to be consistent (yes I know i'm talking about the stewards), wasn't that what Lewis got in Spa last year?

But that was also ridiculous.

[spudrsca]

Have you read the link?
It's because he was still going and did not stop on the side of the track with his damaged car that he was penalysed.

[Daniel]

I don't think it was but let's not start on that again :p At least the punishments are consistent. It's another thing entirely that they'r fair.

[Giuseppe F1]

These things just happen and can never be stopped in my opinion and i can't remember anything that wasn't anything more than a racing incident.

Besides Adelaide'94 and Jerez '97 of course :)

[spudrsca]

I don't think it was but let's not start on that again :p At least the punishments are consistent. It's another thing entirely that they'r fair.

Ok but that's how I understand the statement : " Not pulling off to the side of the track, when instructed."

[Daniel]

I was replying to mallen. Stupid mobile forum doesn't allow you to quote.

[ioan]

Rubbish! Why did Vettel get a penalty? It was clearly a racing incident! As for Trulli it's a pity he lost his place but rules are rules.

Disgusting.
F1 is evolving into some kind of freak show.

[ioan]

Have you read the link?
It's because he was still going and did not stop on the side of the track with his damaged car that he was penalysed.

In that case it might be right if they would have shown him the meatball flag, however I didn't see that happening.
I hope Red Bull appeal, not like it can be done before Sepang anyway.

[RJL25]

he wasn't penalised for the accident, he was penalised for driving around a damaged car when the rules quite clearly state that you must pull over. He was also instructed to do so and he didn't, hence the fine

[ShiftingGears]

Trulli penalty was fair enough, Vettel's was a dumb racing incident and there should've been no penalty.

[woody2goody]

I thought it was smart to go round for a lap or two just in case he scored points or others dropped out. 50, 000 is over the top though. Another one of the FIA moneymaking schemes...

As for Trulli, just swap them round and have done with it. 25 seconds is such an unfair penalty when the race finished under SC anyway. Such a stupid penalty to dish out.

On the plus side that probably means Bourdais gets a point :)

[jens]

In safety car conditions 25-second penalty is indeed way too harsh. It has basically the same effect as disqualification. The decision will be appealed though, so we will see. Toyota isn't having an easy weekend, are they? Their diffusers are protested, DQ from qualifying and now a penalty. It's not easy to be a competitive team. :p :

Shame for the Vettel penalty, it really looked like a racing incident. They better make the new front wings narrower. :p :

[christophulus]

I thought it was smart to go round for a lap or two just in case he scored points or others dropped out. 50, 000 is over the top though. Another one of the FIA moneymaking schemes...

As for Trulli, just swap them round and have done with it. 25 seconds is such an unfair penalty when the race finished under SC anyway. Such a stupid penalty to dish out.

The commentators on BBC did mention Vettel was probably going to be heavily punished for dragging his car with three wheels around so I'm not overly surprised. No blame apportioned for the clash with Kubica which is good.

A 25 second penalty for Trulli is ridiculous but at least consistent. I doubt there's anything in the rules for a special exemption to the time penalty if a race finishes under the safety car. He should have been dropped to 4th but they're the rules I guess.

[F1boat]

I hope that the appeal restores a 4th place. I always thought that Lewis was third and was stunned to see Trulli, but the penalty is too awful.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

25 seconds that's ridiculous. :down:

Should have just done the switcheroo.

$50,000 fine that's ridiculous. :down:

From F1 Sporting Regs

The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident :
a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping ;
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
c) a drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.
However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.

The stewards' hands were tied. I agree a simple position switch would have been a better decision.

[ShiftingGears]

Trulli penalty was fair enough, Vettel's was a dumb racing incident and there should've been no penalty.

As I realise it was for dragging the car around and not the collision, fair enough.

[harsha]

i sort of agree with the fine imposed on Vettel...

that could have been a major safety issue...had the wheel come out and hit another car

[christophulus]

he wasn't penalised for the accident, he was penalised for driving around a damaged car when the rules quite clearly state that you must pull over. He was also instructed to do so and he didn't, hence the fine

Vettel got the grid penalty for the clash with Kubica

And the team get a $50,000 fine for letting him drive a damaged car around

Two distinct penalties apparently

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74059

[Dave B]

Trulli's penalty seems harsh but the rules were applied correctly.

Vettel wasn't fined for the incident with Kubica, but rather his stupid attempt to emulate Gilles Villeneuve limping round with three wheels on his wagon getting in the way and risking damaging the track.

[BobbyC]

As I realise it was for dragging the car around and not the collision, fair enough.

A driver cannot attempt to nurse the car to pit lane during caution.

That's the simplest of racing philosophy; nurse an ill car home to pit lane to see if a decent finish can be salvaged. How many drivers are taught that? Or is this a byproduct of the silly "all or nothing" idea for the Championship?

Does F1 have rules regarding safety car speed during the caution period?

And of course, the thought "no GWC" robbed fans of what would have been more drama.

[F1boat]

From F1 Sporting Regs

The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident :
a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping ;
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
c) a drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.
However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.

The stewards' hands were tied. I agree a simple position switch would have been a better decision.

Thanks for the clarification. From now on we have to see whether FIA can do something about this.

[BDunnell]

Trulli's penalty seems harsh but the rules were applied correctly.

Absolutely.



Vettel wasn't fined for the incident with Kubica, but rather his stupid attempt to emulate Gilles Villeneuve limping round with three wheels on his wagon getting in the way and risking damaging the track.

It was nowhere near as 'heroic', was it, given that it was under the safety car! I think Vettel's penalty for that is deserved; one for the incident with Kubica would have been unfair.

[jens]

I feel really disappointed and annoyed. Trulli fought in qualifying in a car that he found hard to handle and got disqualified as a result. Had to fight hard again today to rise upwards and again got penalized. I don't dear to cheer for anyone's good results after the race any more. :( F1 = emotionless sport.

It's especially frustrating considering that Trulli doesn't usually have many opportunities to get a truly great result. All this creates a question whether it will ever come together? Will the results ever come? Especially now finally in a fast car it's a real shame to waste opportunities.

[BDunnell]

I feel really disappointed and annoyed. Trulli fought in qualifying in a car that he found hard to handle and got disqualified as a result. Had to fight hard again today to rise upwards and again got penalized. I don't dear to cheer for anyone's good results after the race any more. :( F1 = emotionless sport.

It's especially frustrating considering that Trulli doesn't usually have many opportunities to get a truly great result. All this creates a question whether it will ever come together? Will the results ever come? Especially now finally in a fast car it's a real shame to waste opportunities.

But both the penalties inflicted on Trulli are beyond question, surely, being straightforward breaches of the rules?

And I'm not sure that F1 can be described as emotionless when one considers the obvious, genuine joy of all at Brawn after the finish of today's race.

[jens]

But both the penalties inflicted on Trulli are beyond question, surely, being straightforward breaches of the rules?

And I'm not sure that F1 can be described as emotionless when one considers the obvious, genuine joy of all at Brawn after the finish of today's race.

Penalties beyond question, I agree. It's just disappointing that these misjudgements have happened, at all. As for emotions or lack of them - was talking about myself. :) Recent tendency has been that usually after exciting races some kind of penalties appear, but also exciting races usually bump emotions up. But life proves that there is nothing definite after a great race and can't cheer properly. :(

[ioan]

I have to say, after thinking it through, that from an objective POV both penalties are right.

[dj_bytedisaster]

The 50K penalty against Red Bull is justified, as according to several sources it was them who told Vettel to go on despite the damage.

The grid penalty against Vettel is a travesty, he basically was punished for being honest. He was penalized because he had admitted that he was in trouble (his tires had completely packed in) and so the stewards deemed it an infraction to fight being overtaken. The replay shows that both drivers did a mistake that in a combination resulted in their retirement. Penalizing Vettel and not penalizing Kubica is simply ridiculous.

[Dave B]

It was nowhere near as 'heroic' [as Gilles]...
For what it's worth I don't think Gilles' famous incident was particularly heroic either. I know it typifies his legendary "never say die" attitide; but it also betrayed a hot-headedness and a flagrent disregard for his fellow competitors, spraying gravel all over the track when it was clear to all that his race was scuppered.

[Dave B]

Refreshing though it may have been, it appears that Vettel's honesty may have caused his penalty. Seems he's practically admitted fault for the incident with Kubica:


Sebastian Vettel was also in trouble for the incident with Robert Kubica, although most people felt this odd because it looked like the Pole’s mistake. I even went to ask the FIA why the decision had been made and was told that Vettel had admitted that he was in trouble but wanted to hold his position. Kubica was a little impetuous but the stewards felt that Vettel was to blame.
Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/the-results-of-the-protests/

[BDunnell]

For what it's worth I don't think Gilles' famous incident was particularly heroic either. I know it typifies his legendary "never say die" attitide; but it also betrayed a hot-headedness and a flagrent disregard for his fellow competitors, spraying gravel all over the track when it was clear to all that his race was scuppered.

I certainly agree, hence my inverted commas! Personally, I suspect that the incident wouldn't be as fondly remembered had it not been Gilles doing it.

[SilverArrows]

Lewis might even get 1st place if the teams win their appeal against the Brawn/Toyota/Williams diffusers!

The Vettel penalty is silly, it was just a racing incident and it looked like he and Kubica were both to blame. They need to stop handing out penalties for the tiniest things! The fine is fair as the team should've told him to pull over.

[christophulus]

I'd like to see the footage of Trulli passing Hamilton. Weren't the FIA going to make this sort of thing available after the race?

[jens]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74072

"When the safety car came out towards the end of the race Lewis Hamilton passed me but soon after he suddenly slowed down and pulled over to the side of the road.

"I thought he had a problem so I overtook him as there was nothing else I could do."

Haven't seen the video, but if so, then probably the penalty was unjustified?

[markabilly]

Funny--to me it seemed to me Kubica was overly aggressive on the outside BUT since Vettel said he was in trouble (ie losing ground to Kube because of his tires) and even had the stupidity to apologize, he gets penalized.

Sort of rhymes don't it

Makes perfect sense to me....those Stewards are thinking with perfect clarity, must be the Kool aid.....and that should be enough to scare the rest of you.

BTW--I remember a race at Spa in heavy rain where MS took off one front wheel by hitting the butt end of ole DC, and then continues on at consider speed sans one front wheel so he could quickly go into the pits and beat up David in his little pit box....Very smart man, he followed the rule I learned in fights in football, never take of your helmet when charging into enemy territory---wait until after it is all clear before unbuckling, but since ms was not trying to score he points except those he could bounce off david's head, that made it okay, i guess

As to Trulli, it looked to me that Lewis passed Trulli first under the SC, even if trulli was truly spinning around, so Lewis knew he was wrong and let Truly by.......where in the rules does it say that one should not pass, except when another car is somewhat off course????
(and spiinng)
Should not lewis be equally penalized as well.....BUT

Trulli is Italian, and ole Lewis could use some extra points----

makes sense to me :beer:

[Dave B]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74072

"When the safety car came out towards the end of the race Lewis Hamilton passed me but soon after he suddenly slowed down and pulled over to the side of the road.

"I thought he had a problem so I overtook him as there was nothing else I could do."

Haven't seen the video, but if so, then probably the penalty was unjustified?
That's merely Trulli's opinion, the stewards would have seen video evidence and telemetry. I hope the FIA keep their promise and make the evidence available on the F1 website, in the interests of transparancy.

[BDunnell]

Having seen the Vettel/Kubica incident again, the more I am convinced that there was absolutely nowhere for Vettel to go. To avoid a coming-together, his only options were to go onto the grass or basically stop. Racing incident, for sure.

[jens]

That's merely Trulli's opinion, the stewards would have seen video evidence and telemetry. I hope the FIA keep their promise and make the evidence available on the F1 website, in the interests of transparancy.

Well, 2008 showed that stewards can't be trusted to make a justified decision. :p : It looks like it may have largely been a misunderstanding between Trulli and Hamilton, especially if Jarno really intended to let Lewis ahead. But it would be nice to see the evidence!

[harvick#1]

its comes half true :laugh:

now when the appeal goes through and the diffusers are illegal, it'll still be Hamilton winning Australia :mark:

[markabilly]

its comes half true :laugh:

now when the appeal goes through and the diffusers are illegal, it'll still be Hamilton winning Australia :mark:

So what?




It takes great driving talent to pass someone on the very last lap on the very last corner to win, but it takes even greater driving talent to pass drivers several hours or days after a race is over..

.. :beer:


Lesson to be learned: Never call yourself an idiot (as did Vettel) because the other idiots might beleive you and act accordingly

[dj_bytedisaster]

Basically we can nail it down to one simple fact - t's been one entertaining race, but those dim-witted halfwits of stewards just again ruined it afterwards. Simple as that. It almost looks as if the powers that be are trying to ruin it on purpose for pete's sake. The Vettel penalty was flat-out ridiculous and in the Trulli/Hamilton case it was more like a misunderstanding rather than an intentional seek of an advantage.

To hammer the point home. In first SC period the pace car waved Massa by, and it took three or four waves for Massa to finally believing that he is *REALLY* allowed to go by. They have gone so much overboard with their stupid penalties that drivers are utterly confused by now. Shoot those FIA idiots in their f***ing heads, they're ruining the whole thing :mad:

[F1boat]

You are right, dj_bytedisaster. This is very sad, because the season looks good. :(

[Dave B]

I don't know how long this'll stay on YouTube, but the start of this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_PZWe85nlI) clearly shows Jarno running on the grass and Lewis going by.

The rules say no overtaking under the SC, but if your rival isn't actually on the track at the time then you can't exactly hang around on the offchance he rejoins.

[jens]

http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-hamilton-team-asked-me-to-let-trulli-past/

‘I was behind Trulli under the safety car, and clearly you’re not allowed to overtake under the safety car. But he went off in the second to last corner, he went wide on the grass, I guess his tyres were cold. And I was forced to go by. I slowed down as much as I could. I was told to let him back past, but I mean... I don’t know if that’s the regulations, and if it isn’t, then I should have really had third.’

A real shame that 25-sec penalties can't be appealed. It's like a death penalty.

:(

[Dave B]

Hamilton didn't need to let Trulli back past, but given recent history it was prudent for McLaren to take the cautious approach. At worst they would have cost themselves two points had Trulli not been penalised.

But yes, it does seem daft that the penalty can't be appealed. If Toyota genuinely believe they've been wronged they should have a right to have the decision reviewed.

[ioan]

The 50K penalty against Red Bull is justified, as according to several sources it was them who told Vettel to go on despite the damage.

The grid penalty against Vettel is a travesty, he basically was punished for being honest. He was penalized because he had admitted that he was in trouble (his tires had completely packed in) and so the stewards deemed it an infraction to fight being overtaken. The replay shows that both drivers did a mistake that in a combination resulted in their retirement. Penalizing Vettel and not penalizing Kubica is simply ridiculous.

I thought the 10 place penalty was for staying on track after the accident, if it was for putting up a fight with Kubica than you are right the penalty is a travesty and I hope they lodge an appeal against such stupid penalties (not sure it is permitted though).

What I think it's even worse is that this way they will turn a sincere person into a liar for next time he has a racing he will not say the truth anymore. And I find this sad.

[ioan]

http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/f1-hamilton-team-asked-me-to-let-trulli-past/

‘I was behind Trulli under the safety car, and clearly you’re not allowed to overtake under the safety car. But he went off in the second to last corner, he went wide on the grass, I guess his tyres were cold. And I was forced to go by. I slowed down as much as I could. I was told to let him back past, but I mean... I don’t know if that’s the regulations, and if it isn’t, then I should have really had third.’

A real shame that 25-sec penalties can't be appealed. It's like a death penalty.

:(

So this penalty was given because McLaren decided to let Trulli back infront? What was Trulli supposed to do? Stop behind the McLaren and wait?!

This penalty is looking like a travesty too, now.

[dj_bytedisaster]

I thought the 10 place penalty was for staying on track after the accident, if it was for putting up a fight with Kubica than you are right the penalty is a travesty and I hope they lodge an appeal against such stupid penalties (not sure it is permitted though).

What I think it's even worse is that this way they will turn a sincere person into a liar for next time he has a racing he will not say the truth anymore. And I find this sad.

The 50.000$ fine is for the "staying on track" thing, the 10 positions penalty if for the shunt with Kubica. I'm so upsets, I'm only inches from losing it, really - the bigwigs of FIA turn the whole thing into a bloody travesty, as they say in russia "The circus left, but the clowns stayed." :mad:

[Roamy]

WOW the WWF-F1 season has now began. It looks like thiesen (gaysien) will move to have the title transferred to BMW despite the fact they won't win a race this year. OH but my tires were better so I would have won!! this guy has been in the beer garden far too long

[dj_bytedisaster]

WOW the WWF-F1 season has now began. It looks like thiesen (gaysien) will move to have the title transferred to BMW despite the fact they won't win a race this year. OH but my tires were better so I would have won!! this guy has been in the beer garden far too long

forget it, that dude's pissed out of his skull before he even has the first beer. No idea what he's been smokin' but if it is legal I want some of that. Evrybody in a remotely sane state of mind can see that Kubica is as much to blame for the shunt as Vettel, but the one who own up to a mistake gets punished, bo wonder they turn into a bunch of tossers making up stupid excuses. So first rule in F1 - lie and you'll be off the hook, what a f***ing shambles

[BDunnell]

So this penalty was given because McLaren decided to let Trulli back infront? What was Trulli supposed to do? Stop behind the McLaren and wait?!

This penalty is looking like a travesty too, now.

Equally, there was no way Hamilton could have been expected to effectively stop while Trulli had his moment under the safety car. Then he/McLaren did what they thought was right and let Trulli through; again, Trulli couldn't have been expected to not pass him. I agree — it now looks like the penalty on Trulli was unfair.

[markabilly]

Equally, there was no way Hamilton could have been expected to effectively stop while Trulli had his moment under the safety car. Then he/McLaren did what they thought was right and let Trulli through; again, Trulli couldn't have been expected to not pass him. I agree — it now looks like the penalty on Trulli was unfair.


mark this down as a first, I agree with you!! :eek:
something is wrong, I must be drinking too much kool aid :confused:

Interesting you tube clip--I can see why Mac told hamilton to let him back in front---and I could see the Stewards penalizing Hamilton for passing trulli, if he had NOT

BUT who was that in the red bull who later passed another car at the end of the TV clip--I could not tell, but would that be a penalty??

[Simmi]

The Vettel penalty is sooooooo harsh. Can the officials not just go one race without penalising someone? Clear 50/50 incident. A product of hard racing which the fans love. Vettel was stuck on the apex, if Kubica doesn't squeeze him he doesn't hit Seb's left rear and cause the spin/damage.

Drivers are scared to do anything. If I was SV I would be castigating the officials not apologising for being a racer. What is the need for this iron-fisted officiating? Just let it go for f**k sake. I also dont see how Rubens causes a five car collision and gets nothing. They badly need ex-racers to make these calls and not someone who has never overtaken a car.

[jens]

Nothing new: Trulli and Vettel (I can understand the fine for keeping his damaged car on the circuit, but 10 places for that collision is a mystery) are simply the next victims of incompetent Stewards' decisions we got plenty of already last year. Wonder, who will the next victim be... :mark: A shame that recently almost every more interesting race ends with penalties...

Those unfair penalties in the past resulted in Hamilton's and McLaren's decision in today's race during SC session, which has led to further penalties... Considering all this no surprise teams don't know what to do even by themselves if the ruling is such as it is.

[Daniel]

its comes half true :laugh:

now when the appeal goes through and the diffusers are illegal, it'll still be Hamilton winning Australia :mark:

Then we can say the FIA is biased towards McLaren!

[Bradley]

I thought I remembered to have read that in 2009 there would be less punishments ?

I must have been dreaming ... These latest decisions (against Trulli and Vettel) are ridiculous again. Poor F1.

[BDunnell]

I will voice one small word of sympathy with the stewards in the Trulli/Hamilton situation, and this is that passing and repassing people unavoidably under yellow flags or the safety car is one of those things that we might think should be discretionary, but is probably best setting in stone so people know exactly where they stand. In which case, of course, the result of today's race should either not have been altered, or both drivers should have been penalised. The latter outcome would have been blatantly absurd; the former eminently sensible.

At least the Trulli penalty puts to bed the bullshyte notion that the stewards would do anything to prevent Mclaren winning the title.

They had an opportunity not to penalise Trulli, since it''s not a cut-and-dry situation, but didn't. Net gain to Mclaren, which is both fair and reasonable too.

[Nikey]

The Vettel penalty is sooooooo harsh. Can the officials not just go one race without penalising someone? Clear 50/50 incident. A product of hard racing which the fans love. Vettel was stuck on the apex, if Kubica doesn't squeeze him he doesn't hit Seb's left rear and cause the spin/damage.

Drivers are scared to do anything. If I was SV I would be castigating the officials not apologising for being a racer. What is the need for this iron-fisted officiating? Just let it go for f**k sake. I also dont see how Rubens causes a five car collision and gets nothing. They badly need ex-racers to make these calls and not someone who has never overtaken a car.

I share your view 100%. It seems that everybody is in too much hurry to make any decisions regarding F1 (it's better to make a poor and fast decision than a good one that requires some time). Officials could have had a word or two with the drivers and teams and do the right thing and not make a discrase of this great sport.

[BDunnell]

I can think of many examples in other formulae in which overtaking under yellow flags/safety cars has been dealt with in different ways, but all entirely satisfactorily.

There was, for instance, the famous British Touring Car race at Donington in 1998 involving a certain Nigel Mansell, who blatantly passed Yvan Muller's Audi under the safety car. I believe that, on that occasion, Ford suggested to Audi that Muller might like to re-pass Mansell. Audi said 'no', Mansell helped turn it into the best BTCC race of all time, and then thankfully didn't win otherwise a more controversial penalty would have been required than that which dropped him from fourth to fifth, conveniently one place behind Muller. And I can think of several instances in which a pass has been unavoidable under yellows or a safety car, for instance because of someone making a mistake like Trulli's, but never with anything as draconian as a post-race penalty being required. Nonetheless, I can see the advantages in applying the letter of the law, even though I now disagree with it in this case.

[Jag_Warrior]

All the fecking idiots who screamed FIA unfairness in the past, please form an orderly queue infront of the "I'm a Penis who needs to apologise" desk.

Be patient, Grasshopper. The season is still so very young. The FIA will have many an opportunity to prove that exceptions don't negate the rule. :p :

[yodasarmpit]

Vettels personal penalty is ridiculous, it was a racing accident.
As for Trulli, 25 seconds is madness, at most it should have been a swap of places with Lewis and nothing more.

[nigelred5]

Most all of this goes back to the core problem that the FIA/F1 have no freaking clue how to properly and effectively use the safety car. What the hell took so long for them to pick up the leader in the first place? Then, by the time they did, the accident was practically cleared and then they ran around for what, three more laps for no apparent reason.

We certainly can't expect McLaren to lobby fot Trulli's penalty to be reversed, but it seems Hamilton deliberately slowed to ALLOW Trulli his place he lost due to cold tires on a drawn out SC period, but it would be the right thing to do since hamilton has admitted that's exactly what happened.

[aryan]

The Truli penalty is fine.

The $50,000 penalty to team RBR is fine.

The 10-grid position penalty for Vettel, for the accident with Kubica is wrong. At best, it was a 50/50 incident, and a racing incident nevertheless. Yes, they were both boneheaded, but it was a RACING incident.

Vettel will now learn to act like any other racing driver, and never take any blame for anything he has done.

[markabilly]

Most of the posters on this thread are more qualified and capable than the officials who make these stupid decisions

The remainder would be qualified except for their repeated and loudly broadcast professions of pure love for one team or driver over another that make their decisons somewhat suspect, but then that would merely make them a better choice because we would clearly know it was favoritism instead of wondering whther it was favoritism or stupidity and extreme ignorance/incompetence providing the basis for their decisions

[Valve Bounce]

I can think of many examples in other formulae in which overtaking under yellow flags/safety cars has been dealt with in different ways, but all entirely satisfactorily.


.

In a safety car situation, where marshalls could be working on the track or even an injured driver trapped in a car, drivers should proceed in such a manner so as not to lose control of the car and run off. Don't you agree?

[Valve Bounce]

Vettels personal penalty is ridiculous, it was a racing accident.
As for Trulli, 25 seconds is madness, at most it should have been a swap of places with Lewis and nothing more.

With his suspension buggered and the wheel hanging teh way it was, I think Vettel was supposed to stop on the track.

As for Trulli, I have to agree. the 25 seconds under a safety car bunch up is harsh.

[markabilly]

In a safety car situation, where marshalls could be working on the track or even an injured driver trapped in a car, drivers should proceed in such a manner so as not to lose control of the car and run off. Don't you agree?
True but that was NOT the reason for the penalty
Nor should they be stopping on the track to make another car pass them....as in who really caused this penalty "pass", it would seem to Hamilton

[Bagwan]

If , as Hamilton has stated , he slowed to let Trulli past , then it was merely the confusion of the moment that has skewed the results .
Hamilton , should be in second , it seems , but as Jarno had little choice but to pass , or make an even more dangerous situation by stopping behind Lewis , it seems to me , the stewards should see fit to let Jarno back in behind Lewis in the final standings .

[Valve Bounce]

If , as Hamilton has stated , he slowed to let Trulli past , then it was merely the confusion of the moment that has skewed the results .
Hamilton , should be in second , it seems , but as Jarno had little choice but to pass , or make an even more dangerous situation by stopping behind Lewis , it seems to me , the stewards should see fit to let Jarno back in behind Lewis in the final standings .

What about poor Rubens - shouldn't he be second?

[CNR]

how far off the track was trulli did lewis pass him under yellow it could not be to far for only lewis to pass him

as for the fine redbull should have called him in to pit lane

[christophulus]

As for Trulli, I have to agree. the 25 seconds under a safety car bunch up is harsh.

I agree, but it's the only thing the stewards could do. I have sympathy for the stewards, if they didn't enact the penalty then sometime later in the season people would be up in arms about a similar event, especially if a McLaren or Ferrari was involved! :p

It sets a precedent for appeals - "the safety car was out 10 laps ago so my gap isn't as large as it could have been" etc etc. It means that there'd have to be some complicated formula in the rules based on how long the SC had been out and so on to be a fair system, and I don't fancy working that one through..

No one could really argue with a single place demotion but that's not in the rules, they can't just be changed as and when it's convenient. The stewards were heavily criticised for being inconsistent last year; it's harsh on Trulli but ultimately the right thing to do.

[wmcot]

Vettel's fine (or Red Bull's) is justified since he obviously couldn't make it to the pits for repair and rejoin the race. He was just endangering other cars who were moving much faster than him if he continued to lose debris as he made his way around the track.

The penalty for the incident with Kubica is questionable since it was a case of trying to pass a car whose tires were going off without leaving enough room so Vettel wouldn't slide into him.

Perhaps Trulli was penalized 25 seconds for losing control of his car under safety car conditions? ;)

[I am evil Homer]

The fine is perfectly justified IMO..what the hell were RBR telling Vettel to stay on circuit when the rules state a damaged car must pull off the track?!!!?

Trulli penalty seems right...if rules say 25 seconds for passing then fair enough. So long as it's consistent for the rest of the year.

The penalty for Vettel does seem harsh...it was a racing incident.

[Dave B]

The fine is perfectly justified IMO..what the hell were RBR telling Vettel to stay on circuit when the rules state a damaged car must pull off the track?!!!?
I suppose their thinking was that so long as the Safety Car stayed out, reducing speeds and preventing overtaking, then Vettel was on course for 2 points.

Still doesn't make it any less boneheaded. :dozey:

[BDunnell]

In a safety car situation, where marshalls could be working on the track or even an injured driver trapped in a car, drivers should proceed in such a manner so as not to lose control of the car and run off. Don't you agree?

Yes, but overtaking can still be done at slow speed and in a safe place under a safety car.

[Mark]

I suppose their thinking was that so long as the Safety Car stayed out, reducing speeds and preventing overtaking, then Vettel was on course for 2 points.

Still doesn't make it any less boneheaded. :dozey:

I wonder why he wasn't shown the black and orange flag? I know the rules state you have to recognise it yourself but I would have thought that for a penalty to be applied and for it to be fair you'd have to be shown the flag first.

[Dave B]

True, the rules already cover this eventuality and it's the competitor's responsibility to be familiar with those rules, but for safety's sake if nothing else Vettel should have been "meatballed".

[Knock-on]

The penalty for driving that wreck around was perfectly justified IMHO but the crash itself was a racing incident and nothing more. Very harsh.

As for JT's penalty, what a joke. Absolute farce.

As it was under SC, they should have just reversed the positions. The penalty is a joke but at least it shouldn't be repeated.

[Valve Bounce]

The penalty for driving that wreck around was perfectly justified IMHO but the crash itself was a racing incident and nothing more. Very harsh.

As for JT's penalty, what a joke. Absolute farce.

As it was under SC, they should have just reversed the positions. The penalty is a joke but at least it shouldn't be repeated.

Change your sig, Knockie. Fair's fair!!

I think one of the commentators said the rule is that Vettel had to get off the track as soon as possible. The way he drove around, if that wheel came off, someone could have been injured.

[Knock-on]

Change your sig, Knockie. Fair's fair!!

I think one of the commentators said the rule is that Vettel had to get off the track as soon as possible. The way he drove around, if that wheel came off, someone could have been injured.

Why?

[Robinho]

Vettel's i'm unsure - it was a rcaing incident, but on balance i'd put the fault more with Seb than Kubica - although i think Kubica could have avoided it, or waited for a better opportunity in an obviously quicker car.

a drive through, had they both continued would have been fair - therefore i guess the 10 grid penalty is therefore right, albeit a bit harsh.

the fine for the team instructing to continue with a 3 wheeled car is right on, IMO.

as for Trulli, i see no reson they could not have just reversed the position - and had they finished under the safety car i think they would have - but by letting them race from the pit entry to the line that proabably screwed that up - Lewis was obviously concerned about having passed Trulli when he was off the track and proabbly rightly gave the place back - there was time for the stewards/officials to tell both teams who should be were and sort it out before the end

[ArrowsFA1]

Information, particularly relating to the stewards decisions, is on the FIA's Media Centre (http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Pages/home_page.aspx). No video I could find so far...

[pino]

I can't believe Trulli was punished so hard, ok rules are rules but what Jarno was supposed to do when Hamilton almost parked is car ? :crazy: Very unfair decision if you ask me...and all Trulli's fans ;) I hope stewards next time will use more brain :rolleyes:

[Bagwan]

What about poor Rubens - shouldn't he be second?

Aaaaargh , you're right , Valve .
Brain dead bagwan .
Make that 3rd .

Pino , Lewis forced your boy into breaking the rules . That's not fair .
Toy car needs to defend the lad , and ask the stewards what he should have done in the situation .
Was it not a dangerous move to slow in front of other competitors when there was no requirement to do so ?
As such , was Jarno trying to avoid a dangerous situation ?

Neither driver knew what to do , and once Hamilton slowed , Jarno had no choice but to go by .

From what I've read , Jarno had to make that choice by himself , whereas Lewis was instructed to slow , presumably by his team .



So , in the end , I see that Lewis got bad advice , which made Jarno choose the safest option , to go by .
So , who the hell is at fault here , and for what ?

It was too close to the end to ask for clarification , so Jarno is stuck being sanctioned , but at least alive , since stopping might have resulted in his being hit from behind in the confusion .


I hate the way this all worked out .
It's just stupid that being safe got him sanctioned .

[Dave B]

I'd imagine that Lewis was asked by the team to let Jarno repass, to avoid a repeat of Spa '08.

The onus, rightly or wrongly, was on Trulli to know the rules and refuse to pass. He got it wrong and was punished. It does seem awfully harsh, given that the SC had bunched the field right up so that a 25 second penalty translated to a 9-place drop; but the stewards can't make up their own punishments, they're bound by the rules. Yes, a fairer solution might have been to demote Trulli to the 4th place he should have been in, but that option isn't prescribed in the rulebook.

[Bagwan]

I'd imagine that Lewis was asked by the team to let Jarno repass, to avoid a repeat of Spa '08.

The onus, rightly or wrongly, was on Trulli to know the rules and refuse to pass. He got it wrong and was punished. It does seem awfully harsh, given that the SC had bunched the field right up so that a 25 second penalty translated to a 9-place drop; but the stewards can't make up their own punishments, they're bound by the rules. Yes, a fairer solution might have been to demote Trulli to the 4th place he should have been in, but that option isn't prescribed in the rulebook.

I guess you're right Dave , but it makes me crazy , especially when Lewis has said that he also chose the safe option of passing Jarno , because he didn't want to stop on track , as it would not have been safe to do so .
When confronted with the same decision , Jarno made the same choice , and was penalized , essentially , for conducting himself in the safest way he could .

It seems to have been caused by the bad advice from the Mac box .

[ArrowsFA1]

It's just stupid that being safe got him sanctioned .
I'm confused. Did Jarno run off the road because Lewis slowed unexpectedly? Or did Jarno make an error, go off, and Lewis slowed because he wasn't sure whether he could pass under the SC?

According to Autosport reports "Trulli's third place was put under investigation after the Italian regained his position overtaking Hamilton during a safety car period, having run off the track when the SC was on track."

According to Jarno: "When the safety car came out towards the end of the race Lewis Hamilton passed me but soon after he suddenly slowed down and pulled over to the side of the road. I thought he had a problem so I overtook him as there was nothing else I could do."

So Jarno makes no mention of having run off track, and says Hamilton overtook him first :crazy:

Either way, the outcome of what appears to be a misunderstanding between drivers, was harsh for Jarno and Toyota.

[Bagwan]

I'm confused. Did Jarno run off the road because Lewis slowed unexpectedly? Or did Jarno make an error, go off, and Lewis slowed because he wasn't sure whether he could pass under the SC?

According to Autosport reports "Trulli's third place was put under investigation after the Italian regained his position overtaking Hamilton during a safety car period, having run off the track when the SC was on track."

According to Jarno: "When the safety car came out towards the end of the race Lewis Hamilton passed me but soon after he suddenly slowed down and pulled over to the side of the road. I thought he had a problem so I overtook him as there was nothing else I could do."

So Jarno makes no mention of having run off track, and says Hamilton overtook him first :crazy:

Either way, the outcome of what appears to be a misunderstanding between drivers, was harsh for Jarno and Toyota.


"Or did Jarno make an error, go off, and Lewis slowed because he wasn't sure whether he could pass under the SC?"

As I understand it , Lewis was told that he needed to slow to let Jarno past .

Jarno had gone off , and Lewis gained position on a car not on the racing surface , and Jarno came back on behind . They were then , again , in the correct order .

It was then that Lewis was told to slow , and Jarno made the safest move he could . He evidently was not expecting to be able to re-pass after having been off track , and thought Hamilton "had a problem" , so did , rather than stop , in dangerous conditions with the field bunched behind .

[555-04Q2]

WTF :?: The whole point of the new regs is to promote overtaking. Inevitably, some cars are going to collide with each other, thats racing. And the guy gets penalised :?: After such a great start to the season, and hope that 2009 would be a great season, it looks like nothing much has actually changed for 2009 :down:

Shame on the powers that be...

[Bagwan]

Now that I've read a few more sites's take on this , I now think that Jarno should , and may , get his third position in the race back .

Just as RBR and Vettel are being fined for having him stay out on track (bad advice) , Mac is having a driver moved up the grid , having had Lewis slow to let Jarno by (bad advice) , forcing Jarno to pass .

It is apparently legal to pass under safety car for the very reason that Jarno passed Lewis , as he was confused by Hamilton's slowing , and made a perfectly reasonable assumption that he was having problems .


I predict that Jarno will get his trophy back , and deservedly so .

[ioan]

If I was Jarno I would have done what Lewis did in Canada, it would have been a fair move given McLaren's tactics and he wouldn't be regretting it now.

[ArrowsFA1]

Jarno had gone off...
That may have counted against him.

[Bradley]

The penalty for driving that wreck around was perfectly justified IMHO

Maybe I'm getting old, but I remember Gilles Villeneuve getting a hero status for doing the same thing some 30 years ago.

[Bagwan]

That may have counted against him.
Of that , there is no question .

However , Hamilton , on advice from the team , let Jarno back through by slowing at the side of the track .

The 2 moments are definitely related , but completely separate as well .
Jarno had no choice but to pass , just the same as Hamilton had had no choice but to do the same .

Hamilton didn't screw up , but , as his move created the situation that forced Jarno to break the rules , the decision should be appealed , and the order returned .
Jarno was not trying to get the position back , and Hamilton's response that he slowed for Jarno backs that up .

Jarno should get that trophy back .

[Mark]

Not the third place. But 4th definitely belongs to Trulli.

[Bagwan]

Not the third place. But 4th definitely belongs to Trulli.

It was Mac that screwed up Trulli , after Trulli was willing to take that 4th place , Mark .
Since Lewis slowed , and incorrectly , according to the rules , as he was legally right to take the place once Jarno was off-track , Jarno was forced into passing , against the regs .

The pass by Jarno on Lewis , was , as both said , because he had slowed at the side of the track .
Other than stop behind Lewis , making for a potentially dangerous situation , what other choice did Jarno have but to pass ?

Essentially , by poorly interpretting the rules , McLaren telling Lewis to slow was exactly like the mistake that Jarno had made to let Lewis through in the first place . Jarno spins out of order and McLaren spins Lewis back into the same order as before .
2 mistakes , quite nicely negate each other in this case , and there is no need for penalizing anyone .

[jens]

I'm surprised we haven't had any conspiracy theories yet! Let me create one. :p : McLaren knew the rules perfectly, but asked Lewis to let Jarno repass him, because they feared Toyota's challenge in the WCC fight and wanted to "organize" a penalty for Trulli. 6-5 advantage in WCC sounds better than 6-9 loss points-wise, doesn't it? :p :

Anyway, the general problem with stewarding in recent years has been that they always want to clarify someone's fault in an incident. Hence we have seen so many penalties after all kinds of incidents. For them situations, where none of the participants can really be deemed as guilty, don't exist.

[Shifter]

On the Kubica/Vettel contact. I'm a Kubica fan, but I can certainly take off my BMW White/Blue glasses off long enough to call out Kubica for having caused the contact. If you overtake on the outside and chop the line, you can't expect the other car to disappear into thin air. Vettel could not avoid contact with the BMW.

[TMorel]

Jens. Really? Cause I thought Toyota were so desperate what with this being their last year that they thought they'd try and get Lewis excluded for passing under SC, especially knowing how much the FIA like to pick on McLaren. Luckily it takes a cheat to catch a cheat and McCheat weren't falling for any of Toyotas hankypanky.

Either that, or Lewis got confused, saw a toyota on the last lap and assumed it was Glock letting him past again and then realised his mistake just in time.

OR... heat of the moment, mistakes were made, and not for the first time, an unjust penalty was handed out.

[Knock-on]

I'm surprised we haven't had any conspiracy theories yet! Let me create one. :p : McLaren knew the rules perfectly, but asked Lewis to let Jarno repass him, because they feared Toyota's challenge in the WCC fight and wanted to "organize" a penalty for Trulli. 6-5 advantage in WCC sounds better than 6-9 loss points-wise, doesn't it? :p :

Anyway, the general problem with stewarding in recent years has been that they always want to clarify someone's fault in an incident. Hence we have seen so many penalties after all kinds of incidents. For them situations, where none of the participants can really be deemed as guilty, don't exist.

I think that's what Baggy's building up to. He already has the fault at Lawis and McLarens door :laugh:

"Straws", "grasping", "at".

Rearrange that into a sentence :D

JT should get his 4th place as he made a mistake and lost a position, even if it was under the SC. The rest is 2 drivers trying to do the right thing and unfortunatly the FIA has no common sense built into the rule book so the order will stand.

JT lost out on a technicality which is horrible but so can life be.

[Bagwan]

I think that's what Baggy's building up to. He already has the fault at Lawis and McLarens door :laugh:

"Straws", "grasping", "at".

Rearrange that into a sentence :D

JT should get his 4th place as he made a mistake and lost a position, even if it was under the SC. The rest is 2 drivers trying to do the right thing and unfortunatly the FIA has no common sense built into the rule book so the order will stand.

JT lost out on a technicality which is horrible but so can life be.

Sorry , Knockie , old man , it wasn't Lewis , but his team made a bad mistake .
Lewis did the right thing when he passed Jarno , because Jarno went off , but he should have kept the position , rather than slowing to let Jarno through .
Jarno was making no attempt to pass , but , he had to , just as Lewis had had to do the same when Jarno went off .

After Jarno's off , Lewis was rightly in 3rd .

In my opinion , whether you think I'm building a conspiracy or not , the advice to Lewis was no less a mistake than Jarno's off .

[woody2goody]

Does anyone think it could be possible that McLaren deceived Trulli out of his third place? It sounds like Hamilton passed illegally first, then slowed down so Jarno had to overtake him out of common sense.

Didn't Hamilton cause shenanigans behind him in 2007 at Fuji? When he did the same thing, slowing down too much under SC conditions.

It seems to me that McLaren made a mistake then dobbed Toyota in to the stewards. It's like the school bully who hits a taunts a kid so much that he hits him, then gets him expelled because the other kid broke his nose and he goes sobbing to the teachers.

[wmcot]

If I was Jarno I would have done what Lewis did in Canada, it would have been a fair move given McLaren's tactics and he wouldn't be regretting it now.

You mean run into the back of Kimi??? ;)

[wmcot]

I'd imagine that Lewis was asked by the team to let Jarno repass, to avoid a repeat of Spa '08.

The onus, rightly or wrongly, was on Trulli to know the rules and refuse to pass.

The problem then becomes that both cars would eventually stop on the track with a "You first," "No, You first" stalemate. Imagine seeing all the other cars stopped behind Trulli & Hamilton! :0

I think it is just a simple misunderstanding on either one or both drivers' part. At most, the positions should be reversed, but without a full video of the entire scenario, it is impossible to tell who was in the right.

[Dave B]

I think it is just a simple misunderstanding on either one or both drivers' part. At most, the positions should be reversed, but without a full video of the entire scenario, it is impossible to tell who was in the right.

This is why the FIA promised they would make available any evidence the stewards used to reach their decision. Thus far they've failed to deliver on that promise, and as a result we're all making up our own stories and conclusions.

[christophulus]

This is why the FIA promised they would make available any evidence the stewards used to reach their decision. Thus far they've failed to deliver on that promise, and as a result we're all making up our own stories and conclusions.

Perhaps the scepticism we all had last year over that actually happening was well-founded? :p

[ArrowsFA1]

Perhaps the FIA are having trouble agreeing a fee with Bernie for the use of the video clips :p

Perhaps it would show Mclaren in the wrong again, and the FIA want to spare them that?

[Bagwan]

Can we all agree that it was bad advice to instruct Lewis to slow to let Trulli by ?

A team incorrectly tells it's driver to pull over and let another competitor through .
He does .

The other competitor , correctly , passes , as he is not aware that the move is deliberate .
He is sanctioned .

If this is allowed , does it not set it up as a possible last resort tactic ?

[Bagwan]

This is why the FIA promised they would make available any evidence the stewards used to reach their decision. Thus far they've failed to deliver on that promise, and as a result we're all making up our own stories and conclusions.

While you are right to say that we should have video , in this case we don't really need it .

Hamilton said he went by , and then slowed to allow Trulli back into 3rd .
Trulli says that after Hamilton went by , he passed Hamilton when he slowed .

Why he slowed was obviously not clear to both drivers .

Why do we need video ? The drivers agree on what happened .

[Nikey]

While you are right to say that we should have video , in this case we don't really need it .

Hamilton said he went by , and then slowed to allow Trulli back into 3rd .
Trulli says that after Hamilton went by , he passed Hamilton when he slowed .

Why he slowed was obviously not clear to both drivers .

Why do we need video ? The drivers agree on what happened .

Yes, but how would FIA listen to drivers? That would be...wise. They can't do that, can they? It's like selling your soul to God.

[woody2goody]

Does anyone know if Toyota are going to appeal it?

[Bagwan]

Does anyone know if Toyota are going to appeal it?

One story I read had it that they couldn't appeal to the race stewards as it isn't an appealable penalty , so they appealed to the course director .
Another story I read had it that they could only appeal the race results .

Whether they will , or have , I don't know .

It wasn't Jarno's fault that Lewis pulled over .
He should be in 3rd , not 12th .

[AndyL]

One story I read had it that they couldn't appeal to the race stewards as it isn't an appealable penalty , so they appealed to the course director .

I seem to recall that was the ruling when McLaren tried to appeal Hamilton's penalty at Spa last year... that a stewards' decision on penalties during the race was not appealable.

[BDunnell]

Which is in itself unfair and inconsistent with other penalties.

[Bagwan]

Which is in itself unfair and inconsistent with other penalties.

As someone else in the thread pointed out , it is not appealable in itself , as it is a penalty in the last 5 laps , and replaces a drive-through .
It's not really possible to retract a drive-through , so I see the point .

Because Hamilton admitted to letting Jarno pass , Jarno should get his trophy back .

I want to see video .

[truefan72]

Trulli penalty was fair enough, Vettel's was a dumb racing incident and there should've been no penalty.

agreed

[ArrowsFA1]

Why do we need video ? The drivers agree on what happened .

I want to see video.
Make your mind up :crazy: :p

Unfortunately the FIA haven't posted (http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/Pages/home_page.aspx) the video evidence the stewards had available, if there was any available to them.


One story I read had it that they couldn't appeal to the race stewards as it isn't an appealable penalty , so they appealed to the course director .
Another story I read had it that they could only appeal the race results .

Whether they will , or have , I don't know.
According to this (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74093) Autosport report:

An FIA spokesman said on Monday that the governing body was now awaiting final confirmation that Toyota wanted to see through the appeal, which would likely result in an FIA International Court of Appeal hearing.
"Toyota communicated their intention to appeal to the Clerk of the Course last night," said the FIA spokesman. "They were reminded by the Stewards that, as with Spa last season, penalties of this kind have proven to be inadmissible to appeal. They have 48 hours to consider their position."

[christophulus]

Toyota decline to appeal, but then it was only going to be ruled that they weren't allowed to anyway (see: Hamilton at Spa).

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74120

[Knock-on]

It wasn't Jarno's fault that Lewis pulled over .
He should be in 3rd , not 12th .

Woooohhhhhh there fella.

It wasn't Lewis's fault that Jarno went off track due to a driver error under the SC gifting Lewis the place. Do we agree?

"It wasn't Jarno's fault that Lewis pulled over." I agree but it was confusion by both drivers/teams under the SC rules and I think an understandable mistake by both.

As such, I think JT should be in 4th as it was his initial mistake that caused this balls up and have always said so. You can't promote a driver back up the grid because he makes a mistake and loses a place no matter how much you want to :confused:

It's such a pity that when they know the race would finish under SC, they didn't just red flag it and avoid all this silliness, then you would have got your wish.

[ioan]

It wasn't Lewis's fault that Jarno went off track due to a driver error under the SC gifting Lewis the place. Do we agree?

That's not the move that was judged by the stewards.
The question is why did Trulli pass Hamilton under SC? Because Hamilton almost came to a halt on the side of the track.

I still think this was a dirty trick from a dirty team like McLaren. And it's sad that Toyota decided to drop their appeal against it.

[Knock-on]

That's not the move that was judged by the stewards.
The question is why did Trulli pass Hamilton under SC? Because Hamilton almost came to a halt on the side of the track.

If you had bothered to read Baggys post, you would see where my comment fits in rather than jump to conclusions.

I never said, (and I don't think anyone else has) that Trulli should be penalised for losing control of his car and going off track.


I still think this was a dirty trick from a dirty team like McLaren. And it's sad that Toyota decided to drop their appeal against it.

You do a lot of thinking don't you. I often wonder what would be the outcome if you applied some logic and rationale to your deliberations instead of drifting into the absurd. On the occassions you have done, your posts are very informed and constructive but when you let yourself down with this drivel...... :(

[Bagwan]

Woooohhhhhh there fella.

It wasn't Lewis's fault that Jarno went off track due to a driver error under the SC gifting Lewis the place. Do we agree?

"It wasn't Jarno's fault that Lewis pulled over." I agree but it was confusion by both drivers/teams under the SC rules and I think an understandable mistake by both.

As such, I think JT should be in 4th as it was his initial mistake that caused this balls up and have always said so.
It's such a pity that when they know the race would finish under SC, they didn't just red flag it and avoid all this silliness, then you would have got your wish.

Knock , I won't go as far as my friend Ioan , and suggest they were trying to screw Trulli out of the place , as I agree that it was Jarno that made the original error .

We agree on the fact that Jarno screwed up , and Lewis had the place .

"You can't promote a driver back up the grid because he makes a mistake and loses a place no matter how much you want to :confused: "
On this point we agree as well , but the fact is , that is indeed what I see has happened .

They didn't both screw up in the confusion , though , as it would have been dangerous to stop on track . That was what Lewis said was his reasoning for going by Jarno when he went off .
Jarno thought he was slowing due to mechanical issue , and decided , as Lewis had , not to stop , but to go by .

2 mistakes . Jarno spin , and Mac advice .

Unfortunately , the success rate on appeal , I have read , is only 4% .

[christophulus]

It never ends:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/04/01/hamiltons-third-place-under-threat-again/


However there is not yet any footage of the moment Trulli passed Hamilton, which is at the heart of the stewards’ concerns.

The AMuS story claims Hamilton told a journalist after the race that he was instructed by McLaren to let Trulli past. But Hamilton either did not tell the stewards this, or told them it didn’t happen.

The stewards are now investigating what radio communication there was between Hamilton and the pits at the time, and whether Hamilton’s claim he had slowed down because he was examining his car’s display is true or not.

Toyota accepted they are not able to protest the decision for the same reason that McLaren were not allowed to protest Hamilton’s penalty at Spa last year. However the stewards may choose to investigate of their own volition. And if Hamilton is found to have lied or misled them, the punishment could be severe.

Or, failing that, this is just a strange German April Fools’ joke. What do you think?

[Tazio]

Wednesday 1 April at 20:00 : Apr.1 (GMM) Toyota has withdrawn its appeal, but the case of Jarno Trulli's confiscated Melbourne podium may be far from over, according to a report in the German press

The authoritative magazine Auto Motor und Sport claims FIA officials are concerned Lewis Hamilton may have lied during the post-race stewards investigation

The reigning world champion was promoted to third place while Trulli demoted to twelfth, after stewards ruled that Trulli illegally passed the Briton's McLaren behind the safety car

Toyota had argued that the Italian only passed Hamilton because the 24-year-old pulled over and slowed down. Hamilton was subsequently quoted by a reporter as admitting the team told him to let Trulli past

Auto Motor und Sport claims, however, that Hamilton denied driving slowly to let Trulli past. Instead, the Briton told stewards he simply moved off the racing line "because he was busy reading the safety car instructions from the (steering wheel) display"

FIA officials, however, are now querying this explanation, as the safety car instructions would have long been cleared from Hamilton's display

Moreover, despite his apparent admission to the reporter, Hamilton is believed to have told the stewards that he did not intentionally let Trulli pass

In the past days, the FIA officials have checked Hamilton's radio traffic at the time of the incident, and speculation suggests that the stewards investigation may be re-opened in Malaysia this weekend

If the re-investigation goes in Trulli's favour, the Italian may have his podium reinstated. And if Hamilton is found to have lied to the stewards, "serious consequences" for the Briton are possible,

[Daniel]

Wednesday 1 April at 20:00 : Apr.1 (GMM) Toyota has withdrawn its appeal, but the case of Jarno Trulli's confiscated Melbourne podium may be far from over, according to a report in the German press

The authoritative magazine Auto Motor und Sport claims FIA officials are concerned Lewis Hamilton may have lied during the post-race stewards investigation

The reigning world champion was promoted to third place while Trulli demoted to twelfth, after stewards ruled that Trulli illegally passed the Briton's McLaren behind the safety car

Toyota had argued that the Italian only passed Hamilton because the 24-year-old pulled over and slowed down. Hamilton was subsequently quoted by a reporter as admitting the team told him to let Trulli past

Auto Motor und Sport claims, however, that Hamilton denied driving slowly to let Trulli past. Instead, the Briton told stewards he simply moved off the racing line "because he was busy reading the safety car instructions from the (steering wheel) display"

FIA officials, however, are now querying this explanation, as the safety car instructions would have long been cleared from Hamilton's display

Moreover, despite his apparent admission to the reporter, Hamilton is believed to have told the stewards that he did not intentionally let Trulli pass

In the past days, the FIA officials have checked Hamilton's radio traffic at the time of the incident, and speculation suggests that the stewards investigation may be re-opened in Malaysia this weekend

If the re-investigation goes in Trulli's favour, the Italian may have his podium reinstated. And if Hamilton is found to have lied to the stewards, "serious consequences" for the Briton are possible,
If Hamilton has lied I hope they throw the book a him.

[ioan]

If Hamilton has lied I hope they throw the book a him.

A 20 place grid demotion is in order in that case, with any remaining places over 20 to be applied in future races until the full punishment is completed. :D

[Daniel]

A 20 place grid demotion is in order in that case, with any remaining places over 20 to be applied in future races until the full punishment is completed. :D
I've always felt grid penalties are meaningless because a good team can find ways to negate the disadvantages of a grid penalty. I personally feel a driver losing points is a better punishment for serious violations. Of course this all hinges on whether Lewis lied or not. If Lewis is telling the truth then let Tulli's penalty stand no matter how unfair it may seem.

If Hamilton has lied I hope they throw the book a him.

If.

Until it is confirmed to be true, I shall withhold my scorn.

[Daniel]

If.

Until it is confirmed to be true, I shall withhold my scorn.
Certainly, considering there is little or no evidence of Lewis doing anything wrong so far I won't go as far as saying Lewis or McLaren have cheated or done anything wrong :)

[Tazio]

In the past days, the FIA officials have checked Hamilton's radio traffic at the time of the incident, and speculation suggests that the stewards investigation may be re-opened in Malaysia this weekend

This seems to be the potential smoking gun! Very easy to verify!

It would also imply that this alleged transgression would be a team order!
worth at least 1,000,000 quid :p :

I've never used this term before, however if they are found guilty I will have no recourse but to refer to them as McCheaters!

It may also explain Ron's current duties with the team! :confused:
:rotflmao:

[Tazio]

F1: Hamilton Facing Possible FIA “Perjury” Hearing
Written by: Adam Cooper
Sepang (MAS) Hamilton initially told Adam Cooper that he was instructed to let Trulli past.

Lewis Hamilton is to be called up by the FIA on Thursday afternoon in Sepang to answer questions on his role in the incident that got Jarno Trulli penalised in Australia.

It's understood that SPEEDtv.com's exclusive story on Sunday night first alerted the FIA to the possibility that Hamilton might not have been entirely truthful with his comments.

He is believed to have specifically told the stewards and the race director Charlie Whiting that he did not deliberately let Trulli past under the safety car. However just a few minutes earlier he had told this journalist and a TV crew that the team had asked him to do exactly that.

FIA has apparently now got a copy of McLaren's radio transmissions from the race, which were recordedby its equipment, but not heard live by officials in race control.

Trulli told the stewards that Hamilton had gone so slowly that he thought he was in trouble, and the FIA Sporting regulations allow a driver to pass another car behind the safety car if he believes it to have a problem.

It seems highly likely that Trulli could get his third place back if Hamilton's original story does not stand up, and the World Champion could clearly face some kind of punishment

[Hawkmoon]

That's it! I'm getting my pitchfork and flaming torch! Burn the lying, heathen, heretic, blaspheming, cheating, cat-loving, tofu-eating, Celine Dion listening, spawn of the devil! Burn them all!

;)

We could wait for the evidence I suppose, but my way's more fun!

[tintop]

Is the implication here that Mclaren was intentionally trying to trick Truli into a penalty?

[Bagwan]

Is the implication here that Mclaren was intentionally trying to trick Truli into a penalty?
"But Trulli went off in the second to last corner - he went onto the grass, I guess his tyres were cold. I was forced to go by. I slowed down as much as I could but I was told to let him back past, but I don't know if that's the regulations and, if it isn't, then I should have really had third."


No .

McLaren screwed up here , and nearly got away with Trulli taking the rap .
But , it seems that Lewis has dropped them in it , unintentionally .

Just as I've been saying , Trulli will get his place back .



What should have happened , is that they kept the original positions , as Lewis should have told the stewards that he was instructed to slow to let Jarno by .
But , what happened , it seems , is that Lewis must have thought he was helping his team , by not mentioning this very important little tidbit of information .
By doing so , he gained a position , and a trophy , and illegally knocked a fellow competitor back to 12th .

He could perhaps have been instructed by his team to keep quiet , but that doesn't really sound any better to the stewards .



If it indeed is true , even though this came out on April 1st , then Lewis Hamilton is in big trouble .
The FIA will throw the book , the other drivers will all have an opinion , and the team and Lewis will be flayed in the press .

[gloomyDAY]

Hamilton lied?

Tell me it isn't so!

http://www.soundoffcolumn.com/images/britney-spears-stunned.jpg

[Tazio]

Hamilton denied the allegation of intentionally slow driving. He changed line, because he was busy reading off the Safety Car instructions on the dashboard display.”

But after examining this, the stewards have apparently discovered that at that point in time and on the circuit, the dash display would have been cleared and there was nothing more on the display, which could have diverted Hamilton.

FIA officials, however, are now querying this explanation, as the safety car instructions would have long been cleared from Hamilton's display.
http://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=105728&newlang=&topic=1&catid=1


The story continues: “The central issue however to be gleaned is whether the team instructed Hamilton to drive intentionally slowly. Hamilton answered in the negative. However after the race the following story circulated: Hamilton is said to have told a reporter that the team told him over radio to let Trulli through again,”

The story then develops: “This contradiction brought the FIA officials to listen once again to the recordings of the radio traffic. Although there is no statement from official sources, speculation increases that the stewards from Melbourne will be reconvened in Malaysia.

“There are two scenarios. If Hamilton, from ignorance of the rules, let Trulli by, then Trulli would be given back his points and could be restored to third place. Hamilton would then be fourth. But if it should turn out that he did not tell the truth to the stewards, then there could be serious consequences, possibly exclusion from the results. Also in this case Trulli would be again third.”

It sounds like Lewis will either end up losing a point, or all of his points. If the stewards find that he misled them, he may face carrying a suspended ban over his head for a while, or worse….
http://allenonf1.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/hamilton-could-be-in-trouble-in-malaysia/

Oh what tangled webs we weave
When first we practive to deceive.
And when we've practiced for awhile,
How we do improve our style! ;)

:rotflmao:

Sir Walter Scott

[woody2goody]

Is the implication here that Mclaren was intentionally trying to trick Truli into a penalty?

Even though I am a Hamilton fan, I think that they tried to pull a fast one on Toyota. I can't believe that a veteran like Trulli would pass Lewis under such bad judgement. It was his 200th Grand Prix I believe.

I'll just put this to everyone: If it turns out that McLaren and/or Lewis have deliberately deceived Trulli and/or the stewards, then is it worth a more severe punishment than what Vettel got?

After all, when all said and done, Trulli did finish third...

[Tazio]

Even though I am a Hamilton fan, I think that they tried to pull a fast one on Toyota.
I'll just put this to everyone: If it turns out that McLaren and/or Lewis have deliberately deceived Trulli and/or the stewards, then is it worth a more severe punishment than what Vettel got?

After all, when all said and done, Trulli did finish third...
Hell Freakin' Yes!! :confused:


I can't believe that a veteran like Trulli would pass Lewis under such bad judgement. It was his 200th Grand Prix I believe.

This is why :dozey:

Trulli had told the stewards that Hamilton had gone so slowly that he thought he was in trouble, and the FIA Sporting regulations allow a driver to pass another car behind the safety car if he believes it to have a problem.



When the decision comes down I hope your not gutted mate :(

[wmcot]

If Hamilton has lied I hope they throw the book a him.

...or at least an 800 page copy of a Ferrari technical document! ;)

[wmcot]

Is the implication here that Mclaren was intentionally trying to trick Truli into a penalty?

I'm no LH fan, but this is my guess of what took place (for what it's worth.) When Trulli went off, Hamilton went by. McLaren wanted to cover themselves against any penalty so they instructed Lewis to let Jarno past. Not a big deal - at most, Jarno would get 3rd and Lewis would be 4th.

However, if Lewis was not truthful with the stewards, that opens a whole new kettle of fish for McLaren and Lewis. (But I doubt that's the first time someone lied to the stewards.)

One race and the season is already a mess of controversy and we haven't even gotten to the diffuser question yet! (Officially, that is.)

[Dave B]

This just goes to show what a kangaroo court the stewards' room is sometimes. If they didn't have the recording of the McLaren radio transmissions to hand, they should have deferred their verdict until they were in posession of the evidence.

A driver should be honest in the hearing, and if it does transpire that Hamilton lied then he should be suitably pubished; but surely basic human nature is to at the very least paint yourself in a favourable light, so to make a ruling without the evidence is a major mistake by the stewards.

So much for the FIA's promise to be open and transparent: no wonder they haven't made the evidence public when they don't even have it themselves.

[ArrowsFA1]

Oh dear, once again it appears the FIA are taking F1 into the basement of farce :rolleyes:

We've had an incident. We've had a stewards investigation. We've had an un-appealable penalty imposed. Is that the end of it? No, of course not :laugh: Time for the FIA themselves to intervene.

If Tazio's right that FIA Sporting regulations allow a driver to pass another car behind the safety car if he believes it to have a problem then neither driver was in the wrong. Simple. Trulli goes off, Hamilton passes. Hamilton slows, Trulli passes. No need for the stewards to meet and discuss it.

Instead we get all of this :dozey: Again :rolleyes:

[Dave B]

James Allen's blog has a recording of the Toyota team radio, it appears that Toyota told Trulli he could re-pass. It's a bit hard to follow becuase Glock's radio is also on the transmission, but it seems that Toyota were somewhat confused:

Jarno (3.30s): "So what I did I overtook him [Lewis] to overtake, I slowed down to let him by but he didn't re-pass me."
Team: "This is very clear, you are P3. No-one can overtake you."

Jarno (6m07s): "Behind the safety car I was trying to understand but it was impossible. You were giving me so much that I didn't know what to do; I was in trouble."

http://allenonf1.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/trulli-spells-out-what-happened-with-hamilton/

[ioan]

Oh dear, once again it appears the FIA are taking F1 into the basement of farce :rolleyes:

We've had an incident. We've had a stewards investigation. We've had an un-appealable penalty imposed. Is that the end of it? No, of course not :laugh: Time for the FIA themselves to intervene.

If Tazio's right that FIA Sporting regulations allow a driver to pass another car behind the safety car if he believes it to have a problem then neither driver was in the wrong. Simple. Trulli goes off, Hamilton passes. Hamilton slows, Trulli passes. No need for the stewards to meet and discuss it.

Instead we get all of this :dozey: Again :rolleyes:

Not so fast , not so fast.
How is that you are conveniently forgetting that there is a question mark over Hamilton's answers to the stewards?!
You wouldn't be trying to cover cheaters and liars by chance?

[Dave B]

On a seperate note - but related to this thread - the FIA are apparently asking Alan Donnelly to sit down with Vettel and explain the rationale of his 10-place grid penalty.


It is not clear whether the FIA is considering revising the penalty off its own back, but Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner made it clear his outfit was not involved in any formal bid to reduce the punishment. (source) (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74141)

So either the FIA believe in their own system, in which case they should stick by it, or they don't. Either way, they're making themselves look like utter buffoons at the moment.

[ioan]

On a seperate note - but related to this thread - the FIA are apparently asking Alan Donnelly to sit down with Vettel and explain the rationale of his 10-place grid penalty.

So either the FIA believe in their own system, in which case they should stick by it, or they don't. Either way, they're making themselves look like utter buffoons at the moment.

Maybe they are trying to learn more about racing.
Vettel must be explaining them in detail with examples from the past what a racing incident looks like.

These stewards are a bunch of lunatics whom never turned a wheel in anger.

[ArrowsFA1]

How is that you are conveniently forgetting that there is a question mark over Hamilton's answers to the stewards?!
Dave's already covered that:

A driver should be honest in the hearing, and if it does transpire that Hamilton lied then he should be suitably pubished; but surely basic human nature is to at the very least paint yourself in a favourable light, so to make a ruling without the evidence is a major mistake by the stewards.
And I agree. If the stewards did not have any, or sufficient, video/audio evidence, in addition to the comments of both drivers, then they should not have made a jdugement until such evidence was available. The team radio would have confirmed, or contradicted, what the drivers said.


There will be another protest vs Brawn diffuser this weekend, from another team. hamilton about to speak after seeing the stewards again
http://twitter.com/Jamesallenonf1

[Knock-on]

If Lewis deliberatly mislead the FIA then he deserves punishing. If McLaren tried to trick Toyota then they deserve the same and I consider this to be a grave case to answer.

However IF is a very big word.

I will say that is was instances like this that turned me off Schumacher as a driver and IF there has been deliberate cheating, then I will be disgusted.

At the moment though, there is nothing more than rumours.

[Dave B]

@Arrows: that's possibly the only good thing about Twitter, the ability to follow people like James Allen (and LeeMcK and 5LiveF1 amongst others).

[Dzeidzei]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74146

Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

McLaren doesn´t lie!

Lewis doesn´t lie (he´s too busy and confused thinking about his cat´s pussy... his pussy´s cat... his pussycat.... his doll...)