The Belgian Grand Prix was frustrating not just because of the stewards’ decision to penalise Lewis Hamilton, but because for almost all of the race the indispensable Live Timing was not working. Live Timing is without doubt the best feature of Bernie’s website. And like many of life’s great things, you never realise how much you depend on it until it’s no longer there.
That is on the back of a number of failures over the past fewgrands prix where individual transponders have failed, causing drivers to start falling down the order on the screen when in fact they had lost no places at all. But this was a whole lot more serious — the live timing application simply wasn’t loading at all.
I wonder what caused the failure. I spent periods of the race trying whatever I could think of to get live timing to work — using different browsers and so on. I noticed that Formula1.com as a whole was slow. I do wonder if the failure was simply caused by too many people trying to access it. If that is the case, I hope it has sent a message to Bernie Ecclestone. The fans love circuits like Spa-Francorchamps, and we want fewer Tilkedromes!
In addition to the live timing problems of the past few races, there have been a number of incidents involving fuel rigs. There were a number of fires during the Hungarian Grand Prix while drivers were taking on more fuel. Then in Valencia, in addition to at least one more fire, a Ferrari fuel rig became stuck, partially causing the nasty incident when Kimi Räikkönen left his pit box too soon.
Fuel rigs ought not to be having these sorts of problems as they are all standardised and supplied by the FIA. These types incidents of by no means unheard of. But it does seem unusual that there have been so many problems in such a short period of time.
Now Renault have criticised the meteorologists employed by the FIA to provide all of the Formula 1 teams with weather data. All the teams contribute to pay for the service provided by Météo-France. But it seems as though Pat Symonds doesn’t think the system is working well enough. Here is what he said during the post-Belgium Renault podcast:
We use a weather prediction service this year from Météo-France. It’s really not been terribly good at the best of times. But it actually failed for fifteen minutes during the race just before that [the rain shower towards the end of the race] occurred. I think if you were to listen to the recordings of our pit communications, you’ll find a bit that would definitely need to be bleeped out when the radar comes back on and we see what’s on it. So it was very difficult for us to make those decisions at the time.
I have done so much blogging about that incident that I still haven’t got round to writing a full race review of Belgium yet, which I feel I should do. So that will have to wait until after the Italian Grand Prix.
In the meantime, I have just listened to the post-Belgium Renault podcast. As always, it was a great listen. Pat Symonds really is a joy to listen to. He is opinionated without being ranty, and he is usually forthright and honest in his opinions, even when it reflects badly on the Renault team.
I was interested in what he had to say about how the team decides when a driver should come in for a pitstop. It was reported immediately following the Belgian Grand Prix that Fernando Alonso was very frustrated with the Renault team. He claimed he wanted to switch to wet tyres earlier and that if he did he would have won the race.
I was therefore quite surprised to hear what Pat Symonds had to say about how the team decides when a driver should switch to wet tyres when it is beginning to rain.
…with what we had to deal with at the end of the Belgian Grand Prix [i.e. when a track is going from dry to wet conditions], we leave it entirely to the driver. He is the only guy who can really judge what it’s like. He’s the only one who knows if the car is aquaplaning, he’s the only one who knows whether he thinks he can keep it on the track and out of the barriers.
So if a car is on dry tyres and it’s raining and the driver feels he needs wet tyres, he comes in. He comes in as quickly as he can. He doesn’t even have to give us a complete warning. We have a system on the car whereby if he presses a button on the steering wheel it sends a signal to the pits. It’s superimposed over the TV picture that the mechanics are watching, saying which car’s coming in and how far away it is in seconds from the pitstop.
So [it was] Fernando’s decision there, and I think a very good one.
I have some concluding thoughts about the incident which I have gathered after seeing how the debate has unfolded on blogs and forums. Basically, the problem boils down to the lack of clarity in the regulations.
First of all, I notice that people keep on referring to what the rules are. “The rules say he needs to let him past”, “The rules say he needs to lose any momentum he gained”, blah, blah, blah. What is interesting is that no-one can ever actually find these rules. That is because they don’t exist.
In comments sections I have referred several times to the wording of the stewards’ decision and the rules that it cites. I will do that here so that you can see what I am talking about.
The stewards, having receieved a report from the Race Director and having met with the drivers and team managers involved, have considered the following matter, determine a breach of the regulations has been committed by the competitor named below and impose the penalty referred to…
Facts: Cut the chicane and gained an advantage Offence: Breach of Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code Penalty: Drive-through penalty (Article 16.3(a)), since this is being applied at the end of the Race, 25 seconds will be added to the drivers’ elapsed race time
During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits.
Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code (available from this page) says:
The race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race.
Note that the regulations and the Code say absolutely nothing about gaining an advantage. If the stewards are to apply the letter of the law, every driver who ever ran wide or cut a chicane whether or not he gave any gained positions or momentum back would be penalised. That would have probably meant almost every driver in the Belgian Grand Prix getting penalised.
Clearly, this would be a farcical situation and it is right that the FIA exercises caution when it comes to enforcing these rules. Over time it has become a convention that a driver who is perceived to have gained track position by going off the race track should give back any positions that he gained.
The problems with this are obvious though. It is almost impossible to measure what gains a driver made by going off the circuit. For instance, where does the Bus Stop begin? Is it when Kimi Räikkönen brakes? Is it the first apex? Is it when Lewis Hamilton brakes. We just don’t know — there is no set definition. This is where the arguments stem from.
So, you can argue, as Clive has done, that Lewis Hamilton was ahead of Räikkönen going into the corner. Certainly, Hamilton had the edge during the braking zone of the first apex. It is also clear that Hamilton was catching Räikkönen very quickly for a long period running up to the chicane.
But you can also argue that Hamilton braked later than Räikkönen knowing that the escape road was an option that he could take. Conversely, you can argue that Räikkönen braked earlier than Hamilton simply because he was not coping well in the wet conditions, as is evident from his sector times leading up to the incident.
The problem is that we don’t know how the stewards came to their decision. Presumably they think that under any other circumstances, there is no possibility that Hamilton would have been as close to Räikkönen coming towards La Source unless he took the escape road. This is what the argument that Hamilton should have been penalised boils down to.
But the rationale for how the stewards reached this decision is shrouded in mystery. The convention, as I mentioned before, is that a driver who gains a position by using an escape road must give it back. That is what I understood it to be.
Now all of a sudden other people are saying other things such as, “the convention is that a driver must give back a position then not attempt to overtake for another corner (or two).” Or, “the convention is that a driver must give back a position then get back into the dirty air of the other driver” (how this is supposed to happen when F1 is supposedly getting rid of dirty air next year, I don’t know). Or, “the convention is that a driver must give back a position and any other distance he gained” (how this is supposed to be measured by anyone, as I have pointed out before, I don’t know). I saw another person say that he should have given a “courtesy pause”.
I have to confess that these “conventions” are all news to me. Given this myriad of “conventions” that people have come up with, it is clear that there actually is no convention. And let me just reiterate that anyone who says that any of the above are rules is simply lying. The regulations say absolutely nothing about giving back a position or anything. It is quite clear that the rules state that anyone who goes off the race track — whether they gain from it or not — should be penalised.
The problem is when it comes to asking: where do you draw the line? The debates have shown that there is no agreed point at which the line should be drawn. And here is the problem with the FIA as many fans see it at the moment. This is where the perceived inconsistencies come from. When there is no set convention, there are bound to be inconsistencies.
When there are three different stewards at every race, this only compounds the situation. When the stewards are assisted by a man, Alan Donnelly, who is perceived to be politically close to Max Mosley and who until he was appointed in the post listed Ferrari among the clients of his company, that is when things start to become really bad. Whether the fans are right or not, they perceive there to be a pro-Ferrari bias within the FIA. You can’t really blame them.
It is legitimate to ask why Lewis Hamilton got penalised in Belgium when Michael Schumacher was not even investigated for cutting the same chicane in two consecutive laps while trying to defend his position (first at 4:20 then at 5:50).
Was that permissible because Schumacher was ahead and defending his position? Or was it permissible because his car was red? Is it a coincidence that the other car is silver?
Perhaps a better video to use is the instance where Felipe Massa didn’t get penalised last year in Fuji for this driving, when in dangerous conditions he barged Robert Kubica off the road twice before taking a wide line onto the run-off area coming towards the finish line, which gave him the speed to beat Kubica. (Before anyone starts, I was highly critical of Hamilton’s driving at Fuji last year — check the archives of my other blog.)
Was Massa given the benefit of the doubt because of the torrential conditions? Or was it because his car was red?
At the time, Martin Brundle commentating on ITV said that it looked “50:50″ between Massa and Kubica for naughty driving. It is true that Kubica cuts a chicane a couple of times as well, although he never gained anything like the sort of advantage Massa got coming out of the final corner.
I use this clip because it is an instance where both drivers were a bit naughty. This is just like what happened in Belgium. Hamilton was a bit naughty by cutting the chicane. But when he gave back the position, Räikkönen was a bit naughty by making two moves going towards La Source. Then Räikkönen was a bit naughty by crashing into Hamilton at La Source.
Then Räikkönen was a bit naughty by running wide at Pouhon (Hamilton ran wide at Pouhon as well, but Hamilton re-joined the track much earlier than Räikkönen did. Räikkönen just carried on taking the wider line through the run-off area and this gave him the momentum to catch right up to Hamilton again). Then Räikkönen was a bit naughty by overtaking under a yellow flag (understandably, given the situation).
My point is not that Räikkönen should have been punished for anything he did in that hectic lap. As far as I am concerned, this was just tough racing. It wasn’t completely clean from either driver. Both drivers were pushing it to the limit in all senses. But not in any case was there a clear instance of a driver deliberately setting out to gain an unfair advantage at any point, nor do I think either driver ever seriously endangered anyone’s safety.
For me, this is just the sort of instance where you have to say to yourself, “these things happen in racing”. For me, it was an example of what good racing is all about. Watching the onboard video is an absolute joy for me. I think it is excellent edge-of-your-seat tension. I feel bad that it has been ruined in a way by the overly-officious stewards who somehow managed to overlook all of Räikkönen’s transgressions yet punish Hamilton’s transgression.
It’s great racing, and Hamilton got punished for it. My worry is that a driver who is 50:50 about whether he can make an overtaking move without having to take the escape road will now be more likely to hold back and settle for second. As BBC commentator David Croft and none other that Renault’s director of engineering Pat Symonds have pointed out, this penalty distorts the incentives that an F1 driver has to overtake. When F1 is supposed to be encouraging more overtaking and more great racing, this is a major retrograde step.
If anything is clear, it is that the regulations in this area are clear as mud. Since tarmac run-off areas came into vogue, this has slowly become a greater and greater problem for Formula 1. It was inevitable that sooner or later there was going to be a big controversy over the interpretation of the rules about using run-off areas.
My problem is that now too many rules in F1 are down to interpretation. The vagueness of the rules demands that this be so. But that leaves it wide open to corruption, or allegations of bias. Given the inconsistencies, it is highly possible that the drivers do not know how far they can push it. And the fans certainly don’t know. That is not acceptable.
I don’t think there is a single race that goes by when there is not some pathetic person who says things like, “driver X cut the chicane, driver Y crossed the white line, driver Z farted in the wrong place, therefore they should all be penalised so that my favourite driver can win the race.” With F1′s rules as vague and flexible as they are today, fans can craft a race result that suits them. So can the stewards.
My problem with the Hamilton penalty is that I cannot feel confident that the stewards would have penalised a Ferrari driver for doing the same thing. Many other people feel the same way. At worst, the system is open to corruption. At best, Formula 1 has become a judged competition. Slowly but surely, Formula 1 is changing from a sport where the winner is the person who crosses the line first into a sport where the winner is whoever the stewards thought did the best job. Figure skating on wheels.
Perhaps the FIA really likes that idea. But I don’t. What the FIA needs to do is sort this mess out once and for all. If there really is a need to rotate the stewards, at least have one or two permanent stewards — and make them credible. Also, make the rules on using run-off areas and escape roads much, much clearer so that drivers, stewards and fans alike know where the line is drawn. Because just now we are all guessing, and that is where the debates are coming from and that is why Formula 1 keeps on having these controversial situations.
So often last year, during McLaren’s torrid, controversy-filled 2007 season, I heard people saying, “If only McLaren were more open. If only they provided the radio transcripts. If only they showed us the telemetry. They could have avoided all of these PR problems.”
For instance, there was Hamilton’s alleged radio conversation with Ron Dennis where he told his boss to “go fucking swivel!” A week later McLaren denied it in a press release — but still refused to release even a transcript of the actual conversation, thereby doing absolutely nothing to quash the rumours.
Then there was Hamilton’s rumoured error in Brazil where he was said to have pressed the wrong button. Again, this has been strenuously denied by the McLaren team. But did they provide the data to prove that this was the case? Did they heck! Many still believe that Hamilton did indeed press the wrong button, and you have to say that as long as McLaren refuse to release the data then the more that view is vindicated.
Renault are obviously smart enough to realise this (even if they are not smart enough to build a quick car at the moment). The team is well-known for being among the most open and fan-friendly on the grid. While Ferrari and McLaren kept their radio conversations encrypted, Renault positively exaggerated their messages to entertain the viewers back home. And you can follow the Renaults in a unique way during the race with live telemetry output and more all accessible from the Renault website.
Soon after the race finished, as word spread across the pitlane about ITV’s “brake testing” horseshit, Pat Symonds printed out the relevant telemetry for everyone to look at. Now the facts are not in dispute. Unquestionably, Fernando Alonso did not brake test Hamilton. The data proves it.
Now only the most ignorant of F1 fans will still believe that Alonso deliberately caused a potentially race-ending and dangerous crash. If only McLaren could realise it was this easy to stop the tide of controversy.
It was not the greatest Grand Prix there has ever been, but there are still a few talking points to come away with.
Firstly, it has to be said that Felipe Massa did a solid job today. Everyone has been throwing stones at him for the mistakes he made in Australia and Malaysia, so the pressure on his shoulders must have been enormous. What a relief it must be for him to have won at Sakhir so authoritatively.
For Kimi Räikkönen, it was a bit of an off weekend. After a disappointing qualifying session he was firmly in the shadow of his under-fire team mate and was unable to pull any rabbits out of the hat during the race. Having said that, he pulled off an aggressive move on Kubica near the start of the race. Other than that though, Räikkönen had a fairly anonymous race. Nonetheless, he goes away from Bahrain leading the Championship for this first time this year.
Ferrari can be happy with the progress they have made in Bahrain. The disastrous opener in Australia feels like a year ago. Malaysia only partially made up for it as Massa fell off the track. But this time both drivers finished with a thoroughly authoritative 1-2 and you wonder what McLaren can do to fight back.
However, Ferrari still do not lead the Championship. That honour goes to BMW. The Hinwil-based team has wooed F1 fans the world over with their methodical approach and steady progress. They seem to be the most popular team around at the moment.
Robert Kubica made up for the near miss in Australia by grabbing a popular pole position in Bahrain (and can someone please tell James Allen to stop using that terrible “Pole on pole” pun?). Many suspected that Kubica was lighter than his competitors — he was the first of the leaders to pit — but this was no Trulli-style fake pole position. Kubica and BMW genuinely have the speed to compete with the front-runners now, as we can see from the fact that Kubica finished 3rd.
Both BMWs were ahead of both McLarens as Nick Heidfeld finished ahead of Kovalainen to take a well deserved 3-4 for BMW. McLaren must be scratching their heads wondering how they allowed BMW to gain this advantage, especially after BMW had such a terrible start to winter testing.
This may not be a permanent advantage. We saw last year how different circuits can suit different cars in radically different ways. But it is clear that whenever McLaren are on the back foot, BMW will be ready to pounce. This will eat into McLaren’s Championship haul in a way they never came close to experiencing in 2007.
Meanwhile, it’s not clear if BMW have the ability to beat Ferrari in a straight fight. You have to say that this clearly hands the Championship advantage to the Scuderia. Nevertheless, it is clearly now a case of when and not if BMW win a race.
As for McLaren, it was a bit of a disastrous day. They clearly didn’t have the pace of either Ferrari or BMW. Lewis Hamilton had a truly terrible start. It has since transpired that he began the race with the incorrect engine map, as I suggested during the race. Hamilton was swamped by his competitors who all have the ability to turn a knob at the right time, unlike Hamilton clearly.
To compound this, he managed to impatiently run into the back of Fernando Alonso. It was a racing incident, although the protests from the ITV commentators suggested that Alonso “brake tested” Hamilton.
This was clear nonsense and you would think Martin Brundle in particular would know better. I have a great deal of respect for Martin Brundle, but he is beginning to lose it. The contrast between ITV’s coverage and other broadcasters was apparent.
Radio 5 Live had a completely different approach. They only mentioned the possibility of brake testing as a jokey aside several laps later. At one point David Croft even said that Hamilton tried to use Alonso as a ramp! Meanwhile apparently Speed TV didn’t even mention the prospect of brake testing at all!
The situation was clear. Hamilton has a faster car than the Renault and he was unable to cope with the fact that Alonso doesn’t have that kind of acceleration underneath him. It was as simple as that. Alonso had nothing to gain from brake testing (why would you want to cause a potentially race-ending crash?). Moreover, if it was a brake test then the speed differential would have been much greater.
The ITV team have egg on their faces this evening as the brake testing theory has been proved to have been completely lacking foundation. Pat Symonds has printed out the relevant telemetry for journalists to peruse and it shows that acceleration always went up and Alonso took no unusual actions.
Meanwhile, Hamilton and Ron Dennis have both come forward to admit that it was driver error on the part of Hamilton. I applaud Hamilton for having the decency to come forward and hold his hands up. Some of Hamilton’s apologists in the media are doing him absolutely no favours, and you have to wonder if some journalists are starting to get nervous that their premature “new Senna” proclamations will end up making them look very stupid indeed.
Meanwhile, I find it most amusing that many of the people who were calling for Alonso to be punished for “brake testing” Hamilton today are some of the same people who defended Hamilton’s disgracefully awful driving behind the Safety Car in Fuji last year in dangerous conditions. During the Japanese Grand Prix, Hamilton clearly brake tested Mark Webber, leading to a huge accident involving Sebastian Vettel. Now all of a sudden lifting off the throttle even when you don’t lift off the throttle is a heinous crime!
The only other major talking point from the race is that accident between Coulthard and Button. It was not high stakes stuff — the battle was for 19th position! Nevertheless, both drivers felt it worth a gamble and they soon found themselves sharing the same piece of asphalt.
Button had been all over the back of Coulthard for several laps and had clearly become impatient. I had noticed during the race that is appears as though the Honda is very fast in braking zones. I wonder if this caught Button out slightly as Coulthard slowed more.
Button was trying down the inside and looked like he lost control a bit on the dust. Meanwhile, Coulthard was late to block the move as he abruptly jutted to the right. Button has pointed out that this is not really cricket. The end result was an accident that was amusingly similar to the one DC had with Massa in Melbourne, which made me wonder how many colours of shit DC would threaten to kick out of Button.
I get the sense now though that David Coulthard is beginning to look quite rusty. He is getting involved in too many accidents nowadays, and I would be surprise if he lasts longer than the end of this season. He can be pleased with his innings though. He is set to end the season as the second most experienced driver of all time (behind Rubens Barrichello, assuming he too lasts out the season).
Jarno Trulli finished 6th, proving that the Toyota does indeed have the pace to regularly finish ahead of Red Bull and Williams. But Timo Glock is yet to repay the faith Toyota have shown him. He will have to start performing soon.
Glock did succeed in keeping Fernando Alonso behind, but it has to be said that the Renault looks like an absolute dog and Alonso certainly won’t be contending for podium positions any time soon. Nelsinho Piquet had another disappointing weekend. He spun on some oil on lap 1 and later retired with technical problems. Piquet has time to improve, but he must do better than this in the long run.
Williams were disappointing again. They had such a great Australian Grand Prix, but Malaysia was a disaster. Come Bahrain practice and everything was looking good again. But it was a false dawn as Rosberg confesses to being disappointed to just scrape into the points. Nakajima, meanwhile, continues to disappoint.
Overall, I am less confident about the prospects of a close championship. As Ollie has pointed out, the Championships look really close at the moment. But the comprehensive nature of Ferrari’s victory today means that it might not be that way for long. Meanwhile, BMW will be eating into McLaren’s ability to respond to the red team.
1 comment