Renault is to be excluded from the European GP because a failing on their car might have caused a catastrophe though it ultimately didn't. A failing on a Brawn car did cause a catastrophe and there is no penalty in sight.

Let me be very clear here. A large coil spring from a Brawn car was left bouncing down the track and ultimately collided with Felipe Massa's head. It should not take a degree in engineering to understand that for such a large coil spring to be detached from a car is the result of a series of failures. For a start the spring would have at least one, and probably, more retaining devices on screw threads to tension it and allow it to serve its function. Then, as is the nature of coil spring usage, the shaft upon which the spring would be situated would be mounted at two ends and the coil spring could only fly free of the car if one of these mountings failed. Which, in simple terms, means that there must have been two points of failure on Rubens' Brawn to precipitate the accident which so horrendously injured Massa.

Were arguments apropos culpability to be heard within the jurisdiction of any decent, democratic court things would turn on the concept of negligence. In this context I urge you to consider that a Renault team member may not have got his wheel nut in place in time and not secured his retaining device which resulted in a wheel falling off the car and ruining its race and not much else. An apparent chain of failure at Brawn has probably ended Massa's F1 career. And yet Brawn will race at Valencia and Renault will not.

Though I do not count myself among them, cynics have sprouted their thoughts all over the internet which seem to suggest that Brawn's initial supply of Honda cash has been exhausted and that, in an effort to extend the meagre resources at their disposal, "lifing" of parts has been extended. This roughly means that in the critical world of F1 where any given part of the car has a life that is likely measured in minutes and seconds, these lives have been extended beyond the limits that their engineering authors intended.

Whatever the case, I am wont to question the FIA stewards' penalty. Is excluding Renault from the next GP likely to discourage them from a future transgression more than a large fine or deduction of points would? I personally doubt it. Indeed I suspect that the reaming the relevant team members might have copped from Flavio is far worse than any penalty the FIA could impose. Moreover, Renault's car was in the lead when it pitted and stood a show of winning the race. The biggest penalty of all must surely have been Fernando's retirement.

All of which leads to the questions of crime and punishment. Is an FIA imposed sanction supposed to dissuade others from committing a similar crime? Is the punishment, even if unprecedented, supposed to change the behaviour of all the teams? If so, would it not be easier to simply define punishments and crimes in the venerated and oft-cited Sporting Regulations? By dent of intent, Formula One teams are encouraged to ensure wheels are properly affixed to their cars, particularly when leading a Grand Prix, without FIA sanction.

Yet again, I find myself wondering what the point of the FIA actually is. The FIA is in charge of all racing and yet Henry Surtees lost his life because a wheel that was insufficiently tethered to a car that crashed bounced back onto the track. The FIA and its outgoing master pride themselves in trumpeting the safety they have introduced to both road and racing cars. Henry Surtees died and Felipe Massa may never race again under the current governance of the FIA. Renault offer some of the safest road cars on offer but are still set to sit out the Valencia GP because their actions do not please FIA representatives.

Miffed as I am, I decided a closer scrutiny of the Hungarian GP stewards decision was in order. According to salient extracts of the transcript of that decision I have before me I regard the following:

1. "The competitor knowingly released Alonso without out one of the retaining devices for the wheel-nuts being securely in position, this being an indication that the wheel itself may not have been properly secured.

Being aware of this, failed to take any action to prevent the car from leaving the pits."

If I am reading this correctly, this says that the team, whose individuals are apparently treated in this case as a cogent whole and expected within seconds to relay all information to all others, allowed the car to leave the pits when any member of the team had reason to believe that a wheel was not securely fitted. I suspect that this would accurately describe the case in every other mid-race wheel loss.

We speak here of men who are drilled for hours on their role of removing and refitting wheels as fast as possible. I invite any mechanic whose F1 car has lost his particular wheel after a pitstop to tell me that he didn't know it was likely to happen.

Moreover, I can recall watching cars leave their pit box with fuel rigs still attached, sometimes with a refueller also attached to the rig, and, in one case, a rear jack still attached. I have seen teams release cars into the path of other cars which has resulted in near misses and near hits. I have even seen the lollipop man change his mind after lifting his indication sign only to slam it back down. I have seen a Benetton burst into flames in the pitlane but without a race suspension. But not one of these "knowing" transgressions that I recall resulted in a team being excluded from a subsequent event. In other words, in this regard, I can personally see no reason for the unprecedented penalty handed out to Renault.

2. "Failed to inform Alonso of this problem or failed to advise him to take appropriate action given the circumstances, even though the driver contacted the team by radio believing he had a puncture."