This blog has now closed. Please visit my new blog, Stepreo.

Archive: cutting

Why did McLaren rely on Race Control to tell them the obvious?

28 March 2011 23:00

Categories: *, Formula 1

One of the most incredible moments of the Australian Grand Prix was when Jenson Button gave up trying to overtake Felipe Massa properly and cut the chicane at turn 12 instead.

It’s easy to see why Button became impatient — he was clearly faster than Massa for several laps, but just couldn’t quite find a way past. The result was a desperate attempt at the high-speed chicane, which wouldn’t normally be regarded as an overtaking spot. Finding that two cars can’t run side-by-side here, Button had no option but to take to the escape road.

Button’s rare error of judgement

What was remarkable was that Button didn’t just give the place back straight away. Button is a mature and intelligent driver, and you would have thought he would know that it was plain for all to see that he gained an unfair advantage by overtaking Massa by cutting a corner.

My initial thought was that, having had to back out and take the escape route, he would immediately give the place back to Massa. I was stunned when he didn’t because, the scale of his unfair advantage was so huge and clear.

Then Ferrari did the smart thing and swapped Alonso and Massa, ensuring that if Button had to let Massa back past, he’d have to let Alonso through too. Smart thinking from Ferrari, and a rare gaffe from Button who can’t have realised that this could be done.

Meanwhile, the stewards investigated Button. Presumably the discussion was more about what the penalty should be than whether he should get a penalty. When Massa pitted, this decision was made for them — it had to be a drive-through penalty.

McLaren show they have failed to learn lessons

What amazes me even more though is McLaren’s naive approach towards the situation too.

After the race, Martin Whitmarsh said that they tried to deal with the situation by seeking advice from Charlie Whiting and Race Control, then waiting and waiting until a penalty arrived. I wouldn’t be surprised if Race Control were like this just to punish McLaren for having the cheek to ask about a situation in which they were so clearly in the wrong.

McLaren have been damaged by this approach before, most notably two years earlier at the same race when Lewis Hamilton got mixed up behind the safety car. Here, too, McLaren sought advice from Charlie Whiting, only to find that it was not forthcoming.

In addition, Martin Whitmarsh claimed that McLaren were not in a position to just tell Jenson Button to move over themselves, as no-one on the McLaren pit wall saw the incident — despite the fact that it was broadcast clearly on the world feed, complete with replays. This simply beggars belief — it cannot be true.

McLaren’s constant mis-steps with the FIA

McLaren are notoriously nervous when it comes to dealing with the FIA. This has particularly been the case since 2007′s famous $100 million fine. As such, McLaren often make the most incredible errors of judgement.

By now they really ought to have shaken this off, or at least come up with some proper procedures as to how to deal with the FIA. McLaren know from experience that asking Race Control for advice doesn’t always work. So why do they still do it?

Is it a simple case of ducking responsibility? Martin Whitmarsh basically blamed Button and the FIA for the whole incident. But McLaren ought to take responsibility for their decisions too. They lose vital points simply as a result of failing to do the right thing.

3 comments

Crikeynen! Kimi wins again at last

1 September 2009 13:33

Categories: History, Report

What a grand prix weekend that was. It just goes to show you what a decent circuit can do for racing. Boy, can Spa do it for racing. It also clearly does it for Kimi Räikkönen, who is always mesmerising in this most inspirational of settings.

Räikkönen confuses people a lot of the time with his apparent indifference. Often he simply does not seem to be bothered. But he always goes well at Spa. Indeed, he is the only current driver to have won there. His record includes a remarkable fight to the front from 10th on the grid in what was an otherwise barren 2004 season for him.

There are some parallels between that victory and this year’s one. Like McLaren in 2004, this year Ferrari began the season with uncompetitive machinery, but have developed the car into a winner for Belgium. This victory ends a 25 race drought for Räikkönen; the 2004 victory ended an even longer one.

In a lot of ways, Räikkönen’s victory was among the least surprising things to happen during an extraordinary weekend. The Finn usually gives a good performance in Belgium, but despite winning the race he was overshadowed by Giancarlo Fisichella, a man who would have been sacked at the end of last year if I had any say in such matters.

Question marks remain over a victory margin which perhaps ought to have been longer than one second. Then some say he wouldn’t have won were it not for kers — this is probably true. Others say that he gained an advantage by running wide and taking the run-off at La Source on lap 1.

However, David Coulthard says that Räikkönen will have gained no advantage from running wide, a fact which is apparently corroborated by the fact that Button took a similar line and lost places. It’s more likely that Räikkönen gained those spots by deploying his kers, the exit of La Source being the ideal spot to unleash that kers energy on lap 1 rather than the start itself. See Axis of Oversteer for a good debate on this matter.

Even so, the plaudits are going to Giancarlo Fisichella for his stunning drive to second place in the Force India. Is it a coincidence that he should up his game so much when there is a sniff of getting a Ferrari drive? I don’t think I have ever been so impressed by Fisichella, who I have always seen as a mid-grid sort of guy who only just about deserves his continued presence in F1.

Some of the upsurge can be put down to the car, which the team also expects to do well at Monza. In the sister Force India car, Adrian Sutil looked especially good through Raidillon, giving him an enormous advantage through the Kemmel straight, capitalising too on the grunt of the Mercedes engine, no doubt the best in F1. This led to him making a few impressive overtaking manoeuvres, though sadly for him it came to nothing and ended up in 11th.

Force India weren’t the only backmarkers to rise in Spa though. BMW, for the first time since Australia, looked quick. Both drivers scored points, and indeed Kubica did well to finish fourth despite picking up a substantial amount of damage in the lap 1 mêlée at Les Combes.

Lap 1 was an eventful lap all round, with Fernando Alonso’s race effectively ending at the start. But we were not to find that out until his first pitstop, when the Renault mechanics were unable to satisfactorily change his left front tyre. Renault didn’t want another controversy involving badly fitted wheels, so he toured into the pits to retire. A clever replay from FOM revealed that Alonso’s wheel was actually damaged in a turn 1 collision with Sutil at the start.

It is yet more bad luck for Alonso. Renault will not like the fact that in the Constructors’ Championship they are now behind BMW, a team which has been lamentably poor for most of the season. With the announcement that the FIA is investigating the unusual circumstances behind their victory in the Singapore Grand Prix, all-in-all it’s been a pretty torrid time for Renault. The move to the red car cannot come too soon for Alonso.

As for the sharp end of the championship, yet again three of the major Championship contenders failed to score a good result. This time, Vettel was the only one of the four challengers to have a good race. This makes Red Bull’s decision over whether it should start favouring one driver over the other yet trickier. Vettel now leads Webber in the Championship. But he still faces a massive 19 point deficit with only five races remaining.

Vettel actually had a strong race. In his analysis of the race, rubbergoat reveals that, when you consider competitive laps only, Vettel had the fastest average lap time of all the drivers. But he was hindered in the vital first stint due to being heavy on fuel.

Jenson Button had a DNF as he crashed out in that Les Combes pile-up. It is his first DNF of the season, making his sixth bad race in a row. Yet again, he has gotten away with it relatively unscathed. Another disastrous race, another two point dent in his lead which remains at 16 points. His main challenger is Rubens Barrichello who, with all due respect to the Brazilian, is not the most threatening of his three main challengers — not least because he is in the same team.

This has been a most strange season. Jenson Button couldn’t stop winning in the first half of the season. Now he can do nothing to help himself win. But his Championship chances remain high because the last six races have had six different winners. In stark contrast to the early Brawn dominance, you just don’t know who is going to be strong at a race and I would be a mug if I tried to predict what would happen in Monza. I daren’t even predict which car this week’s second placed man will be driving — I don’t want a wrap on the knuckles like Ian Phillips!

4 comments

McLaren appeal ruled inadmissible

23 September 2008 16:25

Categories: News, Opinion

The FIA Court of Appeal today rejected McLaren’s appeal of the stewards’ decision to penalise Lewis Hamilton after the Belgian Grand Prix. This was precisely the outcome that I (and, I guess, most others) expected. So I assume we won’t see the same kind of fall-out that came when the penalty was originally handed out. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be questions asked.

First of all, I see the sense in a team being unable to appeal a drive-through penalty. After all, if a driver takes his drive-through during the race then he can obviously not appeal it because there is nothing you can do to undo the drive-through.

However, I have to wonder about the wisdom of awarding “drive-through penalties” after the race has finished. The concept is wholly nonsensical. Yes, it is an appropriate punishment to hand out during a race. But after a race it is obviously a non-existent punishment. The FIA gets round this by automatically converting such “drive-through penalties” into a 25 second time penalty. But this seems just silly. Why not call a spade a spade and admit what it is: a straightforward time penalty. Hamilton took no drive-through.

The current situation allows stewards to cowardly wait until after the race has finished (and the crowds have long gone) to change the result of the race and never be called up on it. Is it right that the stewards can twiddle their thumbs for two hours, re-write the classification sheet then drift off into the sunset? Or should there be a proper process that ensures that all time penalties handed out are justified?

This isn’t an argument about whether or not Hamilton gained an advantage or not. I don’t want to go into that any more because it has been gone over countless times now. This is an argument about FIA accountability. Max Mosley may think he is oh-so-great to call those who believe that the FIA is biased against McLaren “stupid“, but the fact is that the perception exists, it is widespread, and it spreads wider by the week. And the FIA is doing absolutely nothing to stop it. There is no accountability whatsoever. The stewards can fudge a race result, and the Court of Appeal can decline to make a proper decision about anything due to a technicality.

And it is a technicality that appears to be dispensable enough when the FIA isn’t ruling on a car that is red or silver. Part of McLaren’s argument that they were allowed to appeal drive-through / time penalty was that Vitantonio Liuzzi was allowed to appeal exactly the same punishment following last year’s Japanese Grand Prix.

McLaren’s lawyer pointed out that in that instance Liuzzi was given a drive-through penalty after the race, just like Hamilton’s penalty after the Belgian GP. The decision was appealed with no discussion whatsoever as to its admissibility.

The FIA claimed that this instance was a “error”. The FIA’s legal department contacted McLaren to say that Tony Scott Andrews, who was chief steward at least year’s Japanese GP, acknowledged that he had made a mistake. But when McLaren double-checked this with Tony Scott Andrews himself, the steward was apparently “outraged”, calling the FIA’s allegations “grossly inaccurate and misleading”. Oh dear.

Here is what Ed Gorman from The Times notes:

What on earth was the FIA up to? Why did they make such a big effort to discredit McLaren’s precedent, even misrepresenting Scott Andrews in the process, when their lawyer could have dealt with it in court? It certainly smells fishy but I suspect it will be no more than a sideshow and will not affect the overall findings.

The FIA Court of Appeal may have made the predictable decision, even though it is quite a cowardly one. But there are still plenty of questions still to be answered regarding Charlie Whiting’s conduct, both during the Belgian GP itself and with his misrepresented phone call to Tony Scott Andrews.

As far as I can see, there are two possible explanations as to what is going on. The first option is that the FIA is completely incompetent. The second option is that the FIA is completely corrupt. Doesn’t say much for the ability of Max Mosley to run the organisation, does it? And he claims he has so many people telling him to stay in the job? What a mess this sport has become.

2 comments