Teams communicating with the Stewards during a race

[Hawkmoon]

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

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

There are two telling parts:



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

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

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




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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[wmcot]

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

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

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

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

[ioan]

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

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

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

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

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

[wedge]

Agreed.

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

[Mia 01]

He deserved the penalty.

[52Paddy]

He deserved the penalty.

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

[wmcot]

He deserved the penalty.


Jeff Gordon?

[I am evil Homer]

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

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

[Retro Formula 1]

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

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

I'm afraid the two situations are different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[52Paddy]

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

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

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

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

[Hawkmoon]

My issue isn't with the penalty. It's with the fact that Ferrari couldn't get a straight answer out of Charlie Whiting, nor could they go directly to the stewards and ask them for their ruling.

Whiting didn't tell Ferrari 3 times to let Kubica back through. He said the stewards "think" Alonso should let Kubica back through. When asked if that was the stewards decision Whiting tells Ferrari "no, but that's how we see it." What the **** does that mean?

Why do the teams have to talk to this guy when he doesn't know **** all? The teams should be talking directly to the stewards and leave Charlie to play with his safety car button. You can bet that Ferrari would have conceded the position if they called the stewards and were told to do so.

[wedge]

Even worse: Charlie mentions the Stewards were 'thinking' of speaking to Alonso after the race and then changed their mind.

[Retro Formula 1]

The situation really is screwed. I remember Charlei saying that he thought it was OK that Lewis had handed the position back to Kimi and then instructed the stewards to do the opposite. :rolleyes:

I do have sympathy to an extent that Alonso was so harshly treated because of fate but really this wouldn't have happened if he had just given the place back. I don't think Ferrari has a leg to stand on with that one.

What is becomming more and more clear is that decisions need to be quicker and more transparent. How do the FIA achieve this moving forward? I think they need to tighten up the procedure and have a maximum 3 lap window in which a decesion can be made for an on track misdemenour but drivers and teams need to be more realistic as well.

[motetarip]

I think the system is fine as it is. The stewards need time to review the footage and make a decision, maybe in 3 laps or maybe in 20 laps. They probably do their best to make what they believe is the right decision in the shortest time possible. To suspect that they're actually ignoring the event, quaffing champagne, chomping cigars and laughing at the 'injured' parties is to believe in a Ferrari-style conspiracy theory. I think their decision would also be best made without 2 or more team representatives yabbering down the radio at them like squabbling children.

We know Charlies opinion is just that - opinion, but its a third party view of your indiscretion that you should probably take account of.

[truefan72]

My issue isn't with the penalty. It's with the fact that Ferrari couldn't get a straight answer out of Charlie Whiting, nor could they go directly to the stewards and ask them for their ruling.

Whiting didn't tell Ferrari 3 times to let Kubica back through. He said the stewards "think" Alonso should let Kubica back through. When asked if that was the stewards decision Whiting tells Ferrari "no, but that's how we see it." What the **** does that mean?

Why do the teams have to talk to this guy when he doesn't know **** all? The teams should be talking directly to the stewards and leave Charlie to play with his safety car button. You can bet that Ferrari would have conceded the position if they called the stewards and were told to do so.

This is a problem entirely of their own doing.

Alonso as a crafty racer should have given the position back immediately and be done with it. In almost every other circumstance that I can think of, the driver had given the position back almost immediately, so why not Ferrari, did they think they could get away with it?

Alonso did not have to wait for his team to tell him to give that position back, he could have done it himself. so what amounted to a minor race incident that would have been resolved in minutes and probably Alonso passing him anyway in a few corners, turned into a big mess and a subsequent penalty, compounded by the safety car period. Ferrari only need to look at the mirror to figure out what went wrong and whom to blame.

btw, excellent post SKC

[Easy Drifter]

As pointed out in post 14 Charlie can only give his opinion and Ferarri are well aware of this. Charlie is up to his kazoo with trying to listen to umpteen reports from corners, radios, teams squawking about something and watching several monitors all at the same time.
Race Control is a zoo even if there is nothing contentious going on.
Ferarri know darn well that any decision will be made by the stewards not Charlie.

[AndyL]

I think the system is fine as it is. The stewards need time to review the footage and make a decision, maybe in 3 laps or maybe in 20 laps. They probably do their best to make what they believe is the right decision in the shortest time possible. To suspect that they're actually ignoring the event, quaffing champagne, chomping cigars and laughing at the 'injured' parties is to believe in a Ferrari-style conspiracy theory. I think their decision would also be best made without 2 or more team representatives yabbering down the radio at them like squabbling children.

We know Charlies opinion is just that - opinion, but its a third party view of your indiscretion that you should probably take account of.

Good post, I agree.

The way I see it, Charlie is like the police, and the stewards are the judiciary. When Charlie says what he said in this case, it's like Fernando's been arrested and charged. At that point Fernando can choose to make a plea bargain by giving the place back... but that choice will inevitably have to be made without knowing whether the judge is ultimately going to find him guilty.

[Mia 01]

This is a problem entirely of their own doing.

Alonso as a crafty racer should have given the position back immediately and be done with it. In almost every other circumstance that I can think of, the driver had given the position back almost immediately, so why not Ferrari, did they think they could get away with it?

Alonso did not have to wait for his team to tell him to give that position back, he could have done it himself. so what amounted to a minor race incident that would have been resolved in minutes and probably Alonso passing him anyway in a few corners, turned into a big mess and a subsequent penalty, compounded by the safety car period. Ferrari only need to look at the mirror to figure out what went wrong and whom to blame.

btw, excellent post SKC

Agreed.

[slorydn1]

This is the one area that NASCAR and IndyCar has gotten it spot on right over the last several years. I'll stick with NASCAR as that is what I know best.

There are no stewards, no committees, nothing of that nature at the race track on race day. Control of ALL on track activities from apprx 2 hours before the race until after the Victory Lane Celebration rests with one person and one person alone: the race director.

In the Sprint Cup Series that man is David Hoots. He is responsible for everything, which on race day that can mean up to 70 moving vehicles (43 race cars, the pace car (actually called the caution car) the other grand marshal cars, ambulances, fire trucks, jet driers, the trucks that fix the SAFER barriers), 43 pit road officials, spotters all over the track, the 2 flagmen, the speed limit computer watcher, the chief scorer, the guy that waves the flag opening and closing pit road (which is now really a back up to the light system at both ends of pit road), and he communicates directly with the teams via 2 conduits: to each official posted to all 43 teams pit stalls on pit road, and to the officals posted in the spotters stands with the the teams spotters. He also communicates indirectly to the teams by general radio broadcast that the spotters can all hear and relay to the driver.

His word on the race track is final. When the 29 car is busted for speeding on pit road for example, he'll broadcast "29, too fast exiting, pass through....." before the 29 ever even makes it back up to full speed on the back stretch after exiting pit road. Not 5,10, 30 laps later, but less than a half lap after the infraction. And the 29 gets black flagged and has 3 laps to answer before he sees the black flag with the white cross, which means he is no longer being scored. No committees to deal with, nothing. Yet he is able to officate the race while controlling every facet of what the safety crews are doing, especially under caution periods when there is a lot going on. No one grabs a tissue to blow their nose without asking Hoots for permission first.

This man is God during the race. Yet no one outside the sport itself, or the most hardcore fans have heard of him, and less would recognize him if they bumped into him at the store.

During the race itself he is more powerful than the chairman Brian
France, President Mike Helton, VP of Competition Robin Pemberton, and Sprint Cup Series Director John Darby. He is subordinate to all of them, and they are the ones who make the day to day decisions in Nascar, and hand down the post race penalties, etc, and are well known to the press and fans. But for abut 6 hours a day, 39 days a year he is the nascar god. We may not agree with some of his decisions but he makes them and they are final.

F1 needs a David Hoots type person, and quick.

[Easy Drifter]

At one time (when I was involved) that was the way it was on F1 except each country appointed their own Clerk of the Course as he was called. The Stewards only got involved after the race.
However the Clerk could not hand out penalties.
That was done by the stewards after the race. Result was too many changes after the race.
As time evolved, because of different calibers of Clerks in various countries and F1 rules got more complex (confused?) a permanent Race Director was appointed.
He still does not have any power to hand out immediate penalties.
Now the stewards can hand out penalties during a race.
That can be required today.
One trouble is the Stewards change every race and until this year you could have a Steward body where not one of them had ever driven a race, or maybe even seen a F1 race before.
The taxi cabs have a better system in my opinion.
You can still have the Stewards to rule on eligibility or protests but let the Race Director handle race infractions.

[ArrowsFA1]

F1 needs a David Hoots type person, and quick.
It's a thought :up: Whether it be Charlie or someone else the idea of having one person making rulings and issuing penalties if required has some merit.

As it is now teams can ask Charlie for an opinion, but his opinion is not binding. Because of that there is a team of stewards and they often need to look at video, data, and even talk to the drivers involved which takes time.

One official making on the spot decisions won't lessen the controversy, but at least a decision is made. The race continues; the result is known at the end of the race. While there may be a lot of disputes initially, maybe over time, as respect for the official grows, this system would work in F1.

Bernie has always been in favour of a dictatorship :p

[Retro Formula 1]

I don't think it can be Charlie although someone that reports directly to him is OK.

For one, he has too much going on and second he has lost some credibility in the last couple of years.

[Dave B]

It wouldn't work in every incident, sometimes you need to look at footage from various angles and to speak to the drivers concerned - this would still need to be done after the race.

But for simple "black and white" transgressions such as speeding in the pitlane or cutting the white line I agree there's no reason why the steward(s) should take more than a few seconds - certainly no longer than one lap - to issue a penalty.

In the Alonso - Kubica incident I fail to see why Ferrari weren't ordered (not advised) to surrender the place or face a penalty within a minute of the transgression occurring.

[Hawkmoon]

In the Alonso - Kubica incident I fail to see why Ferrari weren't ordered (not advised) to surrender the place or face a penalty within a minute of the transgression occurring.

That's my point exactly. Instead of getting "I think", "maybe" and "possibly" from Whiting teams should be able to get a definite ruling from the stewards. If the stewards can't decide and need more time then they have the ability to look at it after the race. While that's not ideal it's better than the situations that occured at Valencia and Silverstone.

And yes Alonso could have given the place back of his own volition but that's like asking cricketers to give themselves out or footballers to give themselves a yellow card. It's the officials job to make rulings, not the competitors.

[Dave B]

Whiting's input simply muddies the waters. He's not a steward and while he undoubtably has influence his word is not binding.

ITV-F1 has an interesting article (http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Ted_Kravitz&id=43894)by Ted Kravitz, writing after the Lewis-Kimi incident at Spa in 2008, in which this appears (my bolding):


“We think that’s okay, Charlie, what do you think?” Ryan asked. I am told that Charlie replied, “Yes, I think that’s okay”.

Hence my question to Ron Dennis: Was it normal for an opinion given by the race director mid-race later to be overturned by the stewards?

Ron replied that yes, since it is only Charlie’s opinion, it is possible.

But if Charlie thought what Lewis did was okay at the time, why was the incident put under investigation at all?

Did Whiting change his mind? Did the stewards instigate the investigation? (They are allowed to do this, by the way.)

Or did someone else in the FIA advise Whiting to have another look at the incident in detail?

This highlights the absurdity - Whiting gives an opinion, nothing more; the stewards are free to see things differently.

[slorydn1]

It wouldn't work in every incident, sometimes you need to look at footage from various angles and to speak to the drivers concerned - this would still need to be done after the race.

But for simple "black and white" transgressions such as speeding in the pitlane or cutting the white line I agree there's no reason why the steward(s) should take more than a few seconds - certainly no longer than one lap - to issue a penalty.

In the Alonso - Kubica incident I fail to see why Ferrari weren't ordered (not advised) to surrender the place or face a penalty within a minute of the transgression occurring.

Definitely :up:

Take the latest dust up between Carl Edwards and Brad Keselowski that occurred on the last lap of Saturday Night's Nationwide Series race at Gateway. It took until Wednesday for Nascar to decide if there was going to be any punishments handed down. Situations like that take time, video needs to be looked at, parties invlolved spoken with, etc. A situation like that is generally not within the purview of the Race Director, and is usually handled by the higher ups during the Tuesday meetings in Daytona. But black and white balls and strikes calls are made pretty much immediately by the race director several times a race every week, and the race director in a Nascar race isn't any less busy than Charlie Whiting is during an F1 race (heck the opposite argument could be made that the Nascar guy is busier due to twice the number of cars crammed into 1/4th the track length and the fact that there is passing going on through the entire field on every lap!!) The calls get made and they generally don't create much controversy because its pretty black and white: You were either speeding, or you weren't. Either you cut the chicane and improved your position or you didn't. By the time Alonso passed the start/finish line the next lap we would have known for sure what the deal was.

Formula 1 is the pinnacle of all motorsport. It's time that the officating in F1 measures up to that lofty status. Whiting may not be that guy, but there has to be someone in the paddock that could be.

[SGWilko]

Whiting's input simply muddies the waters. He's not a steward and while he undoubtably has influence his word is not binding.

ITV-F1 has an interesting article (http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Ted_Kravitz&id=43894)by Ted Kravitz, writing after the Lewis-Kimi incident at Spa in 2008, in which this appears (my bolding):



This highlights the absurdity - Whiting gives an opinion, nothing more; the stewards are free to see things differently.

Indeed, and I recall at the time the discussion on the Spa penalty thread that the question arose as;

Why do the teams have to ask Charlie rather than the Stewards direct.

I mean, cut out the (dare I see useless) middleman?

[Easy Drifter]

If it goes to the Stewards you have now 4 people looking at an incident. It will be rare where all view the situation the same and even if they do they still have to discuss it. Takes time and if something else occurs while they are arguing/debating even more delay.
IC and ALMS plus all short tracks have one guy, with maybe an assistant, calling the shots.
Major incidents or eligibility can be discussed by the Stewards later.
Jump starts, corner cutting, blocking, etc should be able to be called by the Race Director.
F1 Stewards are a throwback to the old boys club.
Hopefully the FIA will come to this conclusion and give the Race Director the authority.
They can keep the Stewards, who basically are a bunch of beaurocrats getting a little perk, but relegate them to after race penalties and eligbility discussions where time is not so important.

[Dave B]

Here's some news which had passed me by until this morning: from Germany onwards (ie this weekend) the teams will no longer have the option of making their radio traffic private.

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.auto-motor-und-sport.de%2Fformel-1%2Ffreier-formel-1-funk-keine-funksperre-ab-gp-deutschland-1939828.html&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

[Dave B]

I'm sure some enterprising soul will make it available soon. A group of radio amateurs did stream all the public traffic from the Australian GP, but the server could only support a dozen or so listeners.