29/06/2010
NEWS STORY
 |
Personally speaking, if there is one overriding memory of the European Grand Prix, it is Mark Webber's horrendous crash. Watching it as it happened I shouted out in horror. Subsequently, no matter how many times I watched the replays, I felt a shiver throughout my body.
We may have given him a hard time over the years, and are delighted that he decided not to stand for another term - we are even satisfied with the job his replacement is doing - however, full credit must be given to Max Mosley for his sterling work in terms of safety.
Yes, the sport has been emasculated over the years, but when one watches accidents such as Webber's, and Kubica's in Canada in 2007, one comes to appreciate that it is simply not acceptable to see our heroes maimed (or worse) in the name of sport.
Funny enough, shortly after Saturday's qualifying session, ESPN Classic showed a review of the 1976 season, the year in which Niki Lauda missed out on the title by just one point. Returning to the grid at Monza just eight weeks his horrendous crash at the Nurburgring, the Austrian had at one stage been given the last rites.
Watching the 1976 season one couldn't help but get a little dewy eyed, remembering the legendary drivers, circuits and legendary cars of that era. However, while I remain a fierce critic of 'circuits' such as Valencia, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain, I am also delighted to see the progress made in terms of safety, delighted to see Mark walk away from such a sickening crash, having lived through the era when we lost a driver almost every fortnight.
Yet, it is not Webber's crash that dominated proceedings down the Marlborough last night or even on the various message boards and fora. Instead, the main talking point is what happened afterwards, namely the deployment of the safety car.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Lewis Hamilton's handling of the deployment of the safety car, the fact is that he subsequently received a penalty and duly served it. After the race nine drivers were punished with five second penalties for breaching the safety car rules, a decision that barely changed the finishing order.
Not for the first time this season the safety car has become the focal point of fan and driver criticism, many now asking why F1 cannot adopt the same rule used in numerous other series, whereby the safety car picks up the leader and allows the other cars past until the proper racing order is re-established.
Instead, on Sunday we had a mess, with one wag on the Pitpass forum declaring that it was the work of the FIA's Random Penalty Generator.
Then there's Fernando Alonso and Ferrari, whose reaction to Sunday's race has overshadowed not only the miracle of Webber's survival but the outstanding performances from a number of drivers, most notably Kamui Kobayashi.
When Alonso asked what position Hamilton had been in before and after he served his penalty, you could hear the trembling in his engineer's voice as he advised him "second" on both counts. The Spaniard subsequently told his team that they must focus solely on getting an answer from the FIA as to how this could be.
The following day, Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo and vice president Piero Ferrari both expressed their outrage in no uncertain terms, clearly throwing down the gauntlet to the FIA. The Italian team even resorted to using quotes from members of its own fans forum - hardly the most objective and neutral of sources - where posters described McLaren as "thieves" and "part of the English mafia" and the FIA as the "Federation of Clowns".
In all honesty, some of the rhetoric borders on taking the sport in to disrepute, and while Jean Todt has chosen to play a low key role thus far, if the Maranello outfit continues its sabre rattling action will have to be taken.
As for Alonso, whatever the rights and wrongs of Sunday afternoon, it appears clear that he has a personal problem with Hamilton that is causing him to lose sight of the bigger picture. It is somewhat reminiscent of the situation between Piquet and Mansell, and if Alonso is not careful his obsession will take over, dominating his every thought. While one can understand the Spaniard's nose having been put out of joint in 2007 we are now three years down the line and it is time to move on. However, it appears that Fernando cannot move on, which causes one to wonder whether his contempt for his McLaren rival is merely about issues on the race track.
All in all, this whipping up the fans and the media is not good, and both Ferrari and Alonso have benefited from safety cars and FIA rulings in the past, swings and roundabouts. While we all like a bit of controversy, this current episode is unworthy of all concerned.
However, we're probably wrong - we usually are - so let us know what you think about the various points raised in this Talking Point, be it the Webber crash and safety in general, the deployment of the safety car and Hamilton's penalty or Ferrari and Alonso's reaction.
Let's hear what you think.
Chris Balfe
Editor
To send your thoughts, click here
Note: Please include your full name - without a full valid name we will not publish your entry.
Anna Parker
I totally agree with your assessment. Alonso has a psychological problem with Hamilton due to him being matched and beaten by a rookie in 2007. He has never got over it and it is obvious that it is consuming him. What I find worse is that the Ferrari hierarchy are echoing Alonso's whinges and whipping up hatred and unnecessary conflict. I actually think it could be a serious security issue for Hamilton especially following the bottle being thrown on the track. Alonso, instead of unequivocally condemning this, has instead said he "understood it". I think that alone demands some kind of censure.
Hamilton's infraction was marginal, he served his penalty. What is at fault is the safety car rules, but the stewards have explained they came to a decision as quickly as was possible considering the other issues they were dealing with. And as has been said, Alonso has benefitted from the safety car twice this year, in Monaco and China, and not to mention Singapore 2008 so he has no right to complain!!!!
Alonso needs to move on - Hamilton is rightfully finding all this amusing - he has only expressed his admiration in the past for Alonso but Alonso in turn is a mass of seething hatred, jealousy and resentment when it comes to Hamilton.
Doug Armstrong
The only "fair" way to penalize Hamilton would have been to slot him in front of Alonso twenty laps later. The drive through was a joke. Seeing as Lewis appeared to have 2 versions of what happened in his post race interview leads me to believe he was not telling the whole truth about seeing the Safety Car when he did. (He has been known to have different versions of the same story in the past) There was also talk (in the media) about his "brake check" just before passing the Safety Car. Was this to hold up Alonso? If so it was brilliant and he got away with it. But if it can be proven that it caused Alonso any positions in the race and Lewis went on to pass the Safety Car then he should be DQ from the race results for such an un-sportsman like move. The whole thing was not racing and the FIA needs to adopt a better system of deploying the SC in the future.
Dick Baarse
The reactions from Montezemola and Alonso are pathetic ,this is a sport and as with football sometimes you are a little lucky and sometimes you are little unlucky with the desicion of the referee or stewards.
Gianluca Mattioli
Firstly, it is amazing to see Mark Webber walk away from his crash - really quite remarkable how safe the tubs are these days.
As a Ferrari fan it was a bit of a bitter pill to swallow on Sunday. Ferrari seemed to be the only team who really got knocked by the timing of the safety car, then they also appear to have been the only team with team mates running one after the other and so suffered stacking in the pit lane, making things even harder for Felipe, and then to see a Sauber blitz past in the last few laps due to a better strategy was the final straw.
All credit Sauber and Kamui - a brilliant drive and its good to see one of the more racier drivers showing how its done when possible.
I don't think Alonso has any issues with Lewis per se - its probably easier for him to focus his competitive energy on Lewis as the personification of McLaren as he sees it from his past experience. And if that is something that is going to stoke the fire in order to get him to drive better then Ferrari will use it, but to say that Alonso has a vendetta against Lewis, I would say is the making of the media.
Perhaps its just Karma for the Singapore race which benefitted Alonso due to the Safety Car, but it has to be said the rules (for the second time this year) need to be looked at. Its simply not good enough to have a race ruined because of such rulings that lack common sense. I completely agree that safety should always come first, but allowing the field to form up behind the SC in race order surely needs to the be the way to go.
Is the reaction by Alonso and Ferrari justified? Who knows.... We'll see at the end of the season, but I can only imagine what the headlines and the tabloid outcry would be if it was Hamilton or Button getting stuck down in 11 at Silverstone.
Savraj Dhalay
Firstly, I was very happy to see Mark Webber escape from that crash without any injuries. The fact that Mark just walked out of the car without any injuries, and simply went back to the pits to un-wind is a testimony to the safety of today's Formula One cars. However for me, the biggest discussion point has to be Ferrari's outburst over the safety car issues. I think Ferrari's accusations of Hamilton and Mclaren go much further then just having an outburst, they are unproven and very personal. To hear a team that is supposedly professional, support unfounded accusations from their fans such as 'the English mafia' and 'Mclaren thieves' is a sad day. If Ferrari is willing to get involved in cheap insults such as these, then I am afraid that the credibility of Formula 1 should be not be questioned, but Ferrari's own credibility needs to be brought into question. And lets not forget, Ferrari described the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix as a 'circus' Presumably because they had a disastrous race. If they continue to hurl around these sorts of remarks every time that a race is not to their liking, then I think that Ferrari's own image only diminishes. They resort to playground antics whenever something is not in their favour, which shows their inability to remain calm in difficult situations. Michael Schumacher was also hard done by in Valencia, by the red light suddenly appearing at the end of pitlane and ending up in 17th position. But, Mercedes or Schumacher did not accuse the FIA of fixing a 'scandalous' race. Mercedes and Schumacher behaved like total professionals afterwards, they questioned why the red light appeared, but they did not hurl around cheap insults at the governing body - like the 'federation of clowns'. If the Mercedes team can remain professional in situations that they did not like, then so should Ferrari.
I think Ferrari in general face a tough period ahead, the upgrades that they brought to Valencia did not leapfrog them ahead of Mclaren, as Hamilton qualified ahead of Alonso. Which ultimately means that they still only have the third fastest car, and Alonso appears to have an obsession with Lewis that is getting unhealthy. We heard in Valencia how Alonso behaved very emotionally in the car, clearly enraged by Hamilton's driving, I do wonder whether that rage caused him to get distracted and get overtaken by Kobyashi - which surely must have been an embarrassing moment for the double world champion. If he wants to win another world title, then he will need to stop having emotional outbursts and concentrate on driving his car as fast as possible and making less errors.
Yavuz Macun
Some parts of your article I agree and some parts I do not. I agree that it would be better for Alonso if he keeps calm about these issues and perhaps voice his oppinion in a slightly more intelligent way. However I think the reactions stems from his culture as a warm blooded mediterranean person, rather than mal-intent. Southern European people tend to react in a more heated way than others.
Although Alonso may or may not have personal issues with Hamilton, this particular event does not provide any clue about this. Alonso's reaction was to the unfairness of the situation rather than Hamilton himself. I think the reaction from both Alonso and Ferrari would have been the same if the driver in question was a different one. As you can read from the statements the reactions are much more towards the FIA not Hamilton. This issue aside Alonso did not speak much, if at all about Hamilton during the past 2 years. So I am not sure there is enough evidence to suggest he has personal issues with him.
Coming to this specific event, the issue here is that Hamilton overtook the SC quite deliberately, it's not that he tried to stay behind him and couldn't, it was quite obvious that there was a big accident and the SC was quite visible to him just alongside. So the diligent and safe thing would be to slow down and let it past, regardless how close he is to the line. He did not and overtook the SC illegally. Now the real way to see how much advantage he got by doing that is to see where somebody close to him ended up, i.e. Alonso. Therefore that is approximately where he should have fairly ended up. Therefore it is quite obvious that his punishment did not fit his crime. It is simply incorrect to compare this with other SC interventions we had this season with this one, not only because the impact was much smaller, but in this situation the problem stemmed from illegal driving not from the unluckiness of the of the SC's position. In previous incidents this year Alonso did not break the rules to gain advantage.
In fact the penalty that was given to Hamilton simply encourages what he did by allowing him to gain a huge advantage who was only a few seconds behind him. Therefore It does set a dangerous precedent for the future races.
I don't think Hamilton should have responded to this stuff, as the accusations are not really aimed at him, but rather aimed at FIA, whose punishment did not fairly fit the crime.
Pete Thurlow
Ferrari are effectively the senior team in F1. They have seen it, been there, and experienced all the highs and lows that GP racing can bring. Indeed, their position and experience has given them privileges and perks which other teams can only dream of. It is surprising, therefore, to hear them complaining so vociferously in this way, and at such a senior level. Do they not realise that it is them, and not the FIA or Lewis Hamilton, who will be most adversely affected by such petulant behaviour? Yes, the stewards could have responded faster. Hamilton's decision was marginal (how long does it take an F1 car to travel a metre?) and it was only with a helicopter view that the error was obvious. Did the stewards have that shot? But Ferrari have a responsibility as much as any other team not to be guilty of bringing the sport into disrepute, and are also as guilty as any other team of selective memory syndrome.
Ferrari's response should have been measured and not emotional- and what is increasingly obvious is that they have employed a flawed talent who cannot allow his ego to move on from the difficult experience he had at McLaren. Ferrari need to rein him in, but it seems that they are not presently in control of their own emotions as a team to realise this.
James Delloyde
It is the old smoke and mirrors trick, Ferrari are world champions at it. The much heralded upgrades to their car have not worked as planned and instead of putting their hands up and saying "our car is a sack of s*** this year, AGAIN" they try to blame someone else, in Sundays case Hamilton.
Every time the safety car is deployed a driver/team is disadvantaged and another gains an advantage, Ferrari NEVER complain when they gain an advantage and NEVER complain when any other team gain an advantage, with the exception of McLaren.
Message to Ferrari just shut up and race, you are the longest serving team in F1, the elder statesmen, aren't you supposed to be setting an example to rest of the grid? Instead you are an embarrasment, a laughing stock.
Message to Di Montizemelo, you frequently bring the sport into disrepute with your comments, the recent comments about small teams was shameful.
Instead you should look to getting your own house in order, how many of the small teams cars have driven away from their pit box with a fuel hose dragging along behind and a couple of clowns running after it? President of Ferrari, they must have been desperate or no one else wanted the job!
Message to Alonso, grow up and get back to what you used to do best, drive better than everyone else. I used to think he was something special as a driver, but his behavior since he left McLaren has been disgraceful. There have been a few "scandals" around this overgrown baby, is it really possible that he has not been involved in any of them, or did not know anything about them?
All of these complaints just days after Ferrari run a test at Fiorano whilst filming a promotional film. The expressions POTS & KETTLES and GLASS HOUSES spring to mind.
Clean up your own act Ferrari, or better still do us all a favour and shut up!
Tops marks to the FIA for the improved safety of cars and protection of drivers. Mark you are one lucky bloke.
Leigh O'Gorman
I think the issue that needs to be looked at is the length of time it takes for incidents to be looked at and penalties assessed.
For example, Lewis Hamilton overtook the safety car after the Mercedes had joined the circuit - did it really require approximately 25 minutes to investigate something so clear cut? In that time, Hamilton had pulled a gap and once the penalty was announced had a further three laps with which to secure the position. Regardless of Alonso's feelings for the McLaren driver, the slow actions of the stewards needs to be investigated.
Add to that the second raft of penalties after the race. Nine cars we found to gone too fast upon the safety car's release (beginning of lap 10) - did it really require the rest of the race and then two afters after the end of the event to figure out that those drivers had broken the rules. Surely the stewards have all the necessary information and if not, why not??
As much as I am not a fan of NASCAR, one of the golden rules they have is "once the TV coverage finishes and once the fans leave the track, the result stands" (unless there is some outside influence such as dodgy fuel, etc...)
In this case, the results after Valencia changed little, but only because unheard of 5 second penalties were applied; essentially rendering the penalties utterly irrelevant for most of the runners.
It would be nice if the FIA looked into this situation regarding how incidents are investigated and penalties applied, but it may eventually be swept under the carpet. I hope not.
Phil Newnham
To me it looked as though Hamilton saw the safety car coming out of the pits, slowed down thinking he might have to follow it, realised he wasn't over the critical line yet, and put the hammer back down, resulting in being almost alongside the safety car at the line. I'm unclear about what the rulemakers want to happen next - at a track where the pitlane exit is more obscured, eg. Silverstone, should the drivers fly around Copse at full speed, and then brake hard to avoid overtaking the safety car, in similar circumstances? Surely this is a recipe for the next car to come through the corner at full speed and not spot that the car in front is now following the safety car. The rules seem to be somewhat odd, in this particular tight circumstance.
The second thing I don't understand is why Alonso, not being the race leader at the time, was held up by the safety car - shouldn't he anyway be allowed past? At the time, before replays clarified what happened to Hamilton, the only shot I saw of the safety car was of it loitering near the last corner, allowing a backmarker through, waiting for Vettel. That being the case, what happened to Alonso defies explaining - he should have been allowed to follow through behind Vettel and Hamilton, and the safety car should have then let the whole field past until finding the race leader. Vettel's subsequent advantage over Alonso was equally as unfair as Hamilton's, in my view, but because Vettel's was legal so far nobody is complaining, which tells you all you need to know about Alonso's fixation with a certain ex teammate.
Ivan Nikolic - Serbia
If race in Valencia didn't provide lot of overtaking, like it never did, at least it delivered us something to talk about and stories that should be discussed.
The first of all, as we all may agree, it is great to see safety of the cars proved their role and Webber walked away unharmed. But then we might not agree why that incident happened.
This incident lead to next big thing of the race, and that is safety car deployment. It is truly amazing to see that the highest-end sport like F1 can not manage this basic situations (like one in Monaco regarding last lap under SC). It is not embarrassing to adopt some rules from another series if they are better.
I personally don't like what Hamilton does, as there is controversy around him on almost every race. From my perspective he was well aware of SC and he slowed Ferrari-es. That is not fair play, that is not sport's spirit what he shows off. On another hand, reaction from Ferrari in not on their level. I would like to see them handle situation like this without such flame. It would be better for them to put their strength in building better car and for Alonso to concentrate in driving and avoiding mistakes. At the end, safety car is gamble in every circumstance.
And last, but not least, Kamui made the best from SC situation and afterward from light car on option tires. It is good to see Sauber scores as they deserves it.
Half way through the season, championship race is on and I believe that this not final chapter of controversies that fallows it.
Robert Passman - Maryland, USA
One can't help but notice Ferrari and Alonso seem a little more vocal than usual this year. Perhaps Alonso does have some sort of obsessive feelings towards McLaren/Hamilton or someone. But, the real issue is the handling of the Safety Car. The FIA did act quickly after Monaco to straighten out the interpretation of the Safety Car and racing line at race end. But, the issues which came up in Valencia showed clearly, what the fans have known for some time - the performance of the stewards is arbitrary and poor. Adding a "real" former racer to the group hasn't made a wit's difference.
Everyone watching saw Hamilton pass the safety car. Yet, by the time the "penalty" was applied, so much time had passed (and the team knew in advance) and his team had told him to speed up to increase his gap over third place, there was no real penalty.
The "five seconds" applied to others after the race had relatively little import except for a couple of points for Alonso. The issue is 1) If Hamilton's penalty had been applied within a couple of laps, it would have been a penalty, 2) five seconds would mean a lot if everyone was lined up behind the safety car but over the race distance was as good as meaningless. Other rules with wording like "too fast" or "too slow" show that the FIA and others want certainty in controlling the outcome.
If you like this pitiful show, wait until next year when the drivers will be anxiously waiting for their electronic notification to activate their "adjustable bodywork". I can't wait until the software for this system is written. When something that is relatively simple as the safety car, made simpler by having no need to refuel, can't be handled, how do you think these rocket scientists are going to handle penalties for one car being in front of another.
So, let's see, Webber leading, Vettel 0.5 sec behind and Hamilton 0.3 sec behind him - will Hamilton be the only one who can activate his bodywork? Hmmm. i would say this should be fun but it might be more like real racing if the FIA simplified the rules, let people design their cars and perhaps have a race. As it is, weather, racing accidents and racing luck normally come into play but in F1, you add some capricious and arbitrary stewards whose poor performance has been clearly on display week after week, and perhaps an electronic penalty for being in front and you have something. I wouldn't call it the pinnacle of anything. Maybe I will go watch Cirque de Soleil instead. At least they admit being a circus.
Terence Groening
The events over this season indicate that the FIA doesn't have a firm grasp on their rules, or the rules are too unclear. This isn't a unique problem to the FIA, and it's probably even more difficult that they have to handle several different languages. But as much respect as people have for Charlie Whiting, I think he's in over his head, possibly due to the unnecessary complexity of the rules.
After some safety car rules were clarified after Monaco, we have yet another rash of problems with them. Why was Michael Schumacher held at pit exit (nobody seems to be talking about this, despite Mercedes' clear explanation of what the FIA did wrong)? Why was Robert Kubica penalized for taking a whopping 1.2 seconds to react to the safety car message? Why was Hamilton's penalty not at least a 10-second stop/go to make it closer to being proportional to gaining a full lap on the rest of the field? I have no problem with Whiting's crew taking enough time to get the call right, but they still didn't actually quite get it right.
Then there is Ferrari's 'photo' session last week where they freely admitted to, even bragged about testing their new exhaust system. It appears that they did several hot laps after the photo ops were finished. Where's the penalty? If there is none, then clearly more teams should be running 'photo' sessions.
Alfonso Benavides Iglesias
This is not about ferrari and McLaren, about Alonso and Hamilton; it's about the sport; the SC rules, right now, are potentially damaging, withoFt reason the racing of several drivers, and they may continue to do so if everyone sit down (FIA, FOTA, drivers) and discuss how to use the SC for safety reasons, not to stir the race up. It's time for the FIA to establish a race director rotation; Withing has done terrible decision in the last seasons and its time to bring fresh perspectives to the races.
As for all Alonso haters; the truth here is that Hamilton did what he thought was the best for his race…and so close to the SC he made a decision to overtake a little before the SC "line". Alonso and Massa were a few yards behind so the overtaking manuever was out of question….and both lost the race there! Any other driver could have done the same as Hamilton…and probably got a worse penalty, based on the rules, how much did he gained (not how much did the other lose). Hamilton's move was perfect; the penalty basically oddly calculated, just a bow to a Ferrari claim, but not a fair panalty IMO. 10sec stop and go could have at some point leverage his infraction and move him down the field, still in front of the Ferraris. SC rules also damaged Schumacher's race; whether he was racing in the mid-pack or at the dead last, the infamious pit exit red light screwed him up.... with such a long and safe exit at Valencia circuit, was that red light logical?.....What could have happened if Hamilton were the one stopped right there, without critical contenders witing right in front of him?
Some readers of your excellent column describe the SC post-race reaction as Alonso having "psicological problems" with Hamilton, "Hamilton blew him away in 2007", and some other big fat lies of the same caliber. It is sad to read that hatred and shortsightness is among us. It is very likely that issues like the SC rules can not be improved when the general public and the ones with the responsability to deliver a fair "sport" (not a show about racing) are not really interested in allow the drivers to race and get the point they deserved by their own effort under the rules.
Dougie McKechnie
One thing that non one seems to have mentioned or reflected on is that if Lewis did not pass the SC and held position Alonso/Ferrari would still have finished no better than 8th as Hamilton would still have been in front of him. If LH was managing his position prior to passing the safety car then it's is no different from any other racing situation he just made the mistake of not passing the SC prior to the SC car line 2, the subsequent punishment was delayed for whatever reason but to claim favouritism or what ever smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order from a team that had its own personal veto on the rules for a number of years.
Dave Kane - Scottsdale, AZ
First thank goodness Mark is safe. Looking at videos on YouTube, Mark has history all the way back to his Formula Ford days in Australia of running into the back of fellow competitors.
If anyone should be screaming it's Mercedes and Michael; but they kept their composure like true Champions. Obviously Ferrari didn't have the right strategy and made some bad calls that were unlucky.
One of the reasons these drivers are so good is that they push, really push every perceived opportunity. Lewis was doing just that.
Fernando should have been doing the same instead of playing with his radio.
Kamu got the bit between his teeth and got on with it too.
Frankly I would have expected a more masculine response from Ferrari than this pounding of their purses on the pitwall.
Paul Flumian
Hamilton do overtake the safety car that is a fact that has not been refuted.
As a result, Hamilton should have been accessed a penalty.
The fact is it took the stewards took over 20 minutes to access the penalty which as a result caused no harm to Hamiton's initial error.
If an error is made that contravenes the sporting rules than there should be a consequence. But not making the decision in a timely manner, the stewards in fact did not access a penalty to Hamilton.
I also suspect that the over drivers that were accessed a 5 second penalty after the race no doubt gained more than they gave back at race end.
I saw a headline that said FIA got it right…what a joke!
I am, for the record, not a Ferrari nor an Alonso fan.
A. Bushell - Victoria BC
When the safety car is deployed, the pits must be closed! it's as simple as that. If F1 is going to keep stealing things from American racing , they have to do it right.
Oscar Daniel Hernandez Olvera
I think that most of you are missing the big picture, as you have to consider what will happen in the future. What if the safety car is deployed in the next race, and the driver behind it thinks "I will pass it so I can complete the lap quicker than the rest and then get into the pits, anyways the will hand me just a drive through penalty"; add this to the fact that there are a number of teams that may benefit from this situation as they are making progress in terms of aero, and the chance of returning to the track in the same position is very high.
Mario Martinelli - Canada
Yes, Alonso over-reacted and nursed his grievance far too far. But I couldn't help thinking that if Alonso had violated the 'don't pass the Safety Car' rule, he would have been much better off. Had he passed the Safety Car and been given a drive-through penalty, he would have been in the same position as Hamilton, and we might have been treated to a one-on-one fight for second place (at least). As it was, the ultimate blame must go to the Stewards. Had they addressed the problem instantly (say, within a reasonable number of laps), Hamilton would have ended up at the back of the field, and I'm sure we'd still be hearing from Hamilton and McLaren about how unfair that would have been. Has it ever taken so long to assess a penalty?
(Some) drivers suffered, but ALL the fans moreso. It's a pity that it takes occurrences like Sunday's to make F1 shuffle and improve the rules as they go along.
But let's not forget the outstanding race that Vettel ran! A superb drive and a deserving win.
CVG
Even though the FIA has had an SC rule for more than 15 years it has never quite digested it. Maybe not "purist" enough, something too Americanized.
At Valencia it took a good 20 seconds after Webber's accident before the SC was sent out and only after it was announced on the TV monitors that it would be going out. Announcing that the SC is about to go out prompts all sorts of preemptive moves on the part of teams in order to best manage the impending risk/opportunity brought about by a full course yellow flag. Fairer rules should prevent smart asses and/or fate/chance prevailing over the outcome of the race.
It should be quite clear that the first rule to be followed should be: once the full course yellow is given the pits must be closed until the cars bunch up in an Indian file behind the SC. Only when all the cars are running at suitable speeds behind the SC the pits would reopen and cars should be allowed to be serviced.
But the real problem lies elsewhere, in the FIA sporting rules. The chain of command is what requires some rethinking. Rather than allowing one man - the Race Director - take all the decisions, the FIA opts for a collegiate ruling whereby the Race Director consults with other Race Marshals before making a ruling. We know racing is about speed and speed requires immediate decisions - even if at times they may not be the best ones. In order to make quick decisions one must have a Race Director that is trained, unbiased and very quick on his/her feet but most of all someone who can and will take all the decisions, swiftly, on his own.
Stemming from its long experience with SCs American oval racing should be the source of FIA's inspiration. There, decisions - be them good or bad in hindsight - are taken in a blink of an eye. In the US the Race Director is the only person who calls all the shots. He might make use of the assistance of several race marshals, but the ultimate decision is his, whether he consults his peers or not.
Once all of the above will have been digested, then the FIA might come to realize that most European/Tilke circuits are not suitable for SC and full yellow course rulings that make for a level terrain to all participants. If you are to bring in all cars to be serviced at the same time then you need at least two things that are not present in most if not all non-American circuits: (a) much wider deceleration and acceleration lanes inside the pits (de facto an extra lane) and (b) a muck longer pit lane so that all cars of the same team can be serviced at the same time avoiding the sorry constraint of the second driver having to wait in line until his teammate gets the heck out of the servicing pit bay.
Incidentally, I was just wondering who wants to break this piece of good news to the owners of the recently built Tilke circuits.
Kevin Eckley
Do Ferrari really want the SC rules to state that the SC has to wait until the leader comes around, thus delaying the medical teams from getting to an accident, just to make the race 'fair'?. That surely would be madness.
The primary role of race control at the time was dealing with the most horrendous looking accident since Kubica's (but a walk on the park compared to Mike Conway's Indy 500 crash). It was perfectly understandable Race Control weren't evaluating penalties until this was dealt with. From Charlie Whiting's explanation it seems he co-ordinates both safety and steward investigations. In the interest of 'fairness' that role should now be split.
In Red Bull Air Racing Championship the Race Director and his team can investigate, review and issue penalties within seconds of an incident so lets get them involved with the FIA to speed up the penalty procedures.
I can understand that Alonso has issues with Hamilton but this has now spread to Ferrari's management. Now Max has finally gone LdM seem to want to pick a fight with everybody else in the pitlane this year (Red Bulls turn in the spotlight at Silverstone anyone?). I wonder is that just a side-effect of more Italians in charge of Ferrari post Ross Brawn era?. Whatever the reason it's not becoming of a Grandee team to behave like this and the FIA need to step in now.
The marshall who retrieved that bottle was exceedingly brave and thankfully it didn't hit a driver as it was thrown!
If the crowd at Valencia behave like that when things don't go right for their man this GP should be dropped and replaced by a non-TTT (Tilke's Tedious Tracks) venue.
Kevin Belson
I guess this is Ferrari coming to terms without having their "International Assistance" on hand any more. What we don't know is if Hamilton had not slowed and had passed the safety car legitimately then would Alonso have passed the safety car illegally and suffered the penalty or slowed and still been disadvantaged. I don't think that any of Ferrari's management should be saying what they are given the years of special treatment that they received including their veto on developments. They have obviously gotten used to having things go their way for far too long and are now suffering the pain of having to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Aleksandar Nikolic
Regarding safety, I agree. I can not express how glad I was to see Mark moving in cockpit and then walking away.
Regarding safety car rules, I must say that I am little bit confused and it seems that I am not the only one ... All of a sudden there are too many unclear situations and problems with it, this year... Why SC rules are changed. Before all why it got out in front of second and not in front of leader or why SC did not let everyone to pile up behind leader?
But I think that you are little bit unfair to Ferrari and Alonso. You missed the point in this talking point. It could be: How Hamilton got away yet again!?! Ferrari management should never have allowed themselves to react the way they did, but in the heat of the moment and adrenalin rush, I can find some excuses for Alonso. And can not find excuse for Hamilton. Alonso is not Kimi after all, he is Spanish. But this time probably Kimi would react also (Canada 2008?) because there is way too much serious controversy around Hamilton. In some point there will be drop too many in full cup. Where to begin, waving on start straight, wrestling with Vettel in pit lane, in first corner in Valencia, running out of fuel after quali in Canada, overtaking safety car ... list goes on and on, and all of that is just from this year, do not even want to start with lying and else from before. And what does he get for all of that? Reprimanded, and again, and again, then nothing for Canada (team was fined, but as bbc team said, Mclaren bought at least 0.1 second per lap for 10K, incredibly good deal ... only for Hamilton ... 2007 with whole team behind him repeating?) and in Val. he got 20 sec which meant nothing.
What reprimanded means at all? I thought it means that first time you get it next time you will be punished much more serious. No? What then?
Please do not get me wrong, I am not specially fond of Alonso, and I do not hate Hamilton. He is lion heart racer, great driver, one of the best on the grid in this moment, no doubt. I do not like that Australian authorities bothering him for "intentional loss of control over vehicle" or something like that. I am sure he had that Merc under absolute control at all times. I really wish to like him, but he keeps giving me reasons not to.
Fidel Valle
While i respect Alonso and Hamilton because they are also excellent drivers, i'm not a fan of their actitude. In this case is at least suspicious at how convenient is always on everything to Hamilton's interests, IMO Vettel's victory was absolutedly deserved, but hamilton's 2nd place looks manipulated, i have been following F1 for more than 30 years and never had seen a driver overpassing the pace car, (have you seen the photos of just two Ferraris between the pace and the medical cars, Ridiculous!) it seems to give the clear message that any driver can bend the rules as punishment is better than being respectfull on them (specially if you are LewisHamilton), i think he deserved a black flag period, then FIA could be certain no one will ever even think about it.
Some races back we saw Hamilton and Vettel racing on the pit lane given away with a reprimand, they where surrounded by tens of people, they put human lifes at risk, we all understand that racing is a dangerous sport by nature, but thats's the reason there's speed limits on the pit lane i think they both should have been punished in a exemplary way.
On that same race Alonso also race his team mate Massa on the pit entrance way in a very dangerous way, he, by the same criteria, deserved an exemplary punishment.
By the way, just to clarify I'm Mexican, so Alonso is not my favorite driver, please forgive me in case of grammatical errors.
Bob Boffin
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the events at Valencia last weekend it will be difficult to for the FIA to come up with an acceptable and fair set of changes to the safety car rules. As things stand when the SC emerges from the end of pit lane any cars ahead of it (or who believe they are ahead of it) are free to race back to the pits which seems a bit odd as the incident will necessarily be ahead of the SC. Any cars behind it which are in a position to do so may enter the pits if they wish. The SC only picks up the leader when he gets back round to the SC during which time he may have visited the pits and then the rest of the field forms up in whatever the new race order is after any pit stops. This unfairly advantages those cars that find themselves ahead of the SC . At Valencia Vettel gained just as much as Hamilton and had Hamilton been another metre or so ahead of the SC the problems would be seen more clearly as Alonso would have lost just as much and Hamilton would have committed no offence.
Let's consider the most popular option which is to close the pits until the SC has picked up the leader and allow the rest of the field to form up in current race order.
Once this has happened the pits would be opened and then what happens? Due to the poor pit design used in F1 whereby only a single car can be serviced at a time the second placed member of each team will always be at a disadvantage as they will either have to stack in the pits or stay out another lap if they wish to stop. Either way they will be unlikely to return to their original position on track. So maybe the SC rules should allow them to rejoin in their original position? This however would be unfair as it ignores those cars that choose not to pit (as Kobayashi did) or those that gain time in the pit stop and would also waste a lot of time shuffling the cars around for an incident that may be cleared in only a couple of laps.
If you watch any of the North American series that feature frequent pit stops (NASCAR and IRL are the two most obvious) take note of the design of their pits. There is always a pit for every car which I believe should also be the standard for F1 even if there isn't a fully equipped garage behind it. The only things needed for a racing pit stop are tyres and possibly a spare nose/front wing. If the car needs more attention than this then it should 'go behind the wall' in American parlance (that is it has to be moved into the garage) This way closing the pits until the SC has picked up the leader allows all drivers to pit if they wish without needing to stack and without disturbing the race order except by superior pit work. Drivers who choose to stay out will gain track position quite legitimately.
I think that any SC rule changes will need to be very carefully thought out in order to minimise any charge of unfairness but that a change to having a pit per car would remove many of the difficulties.
Adrian Foster
Yes, I think Alonso is beginning to sound obsessed with Hamilton's apparent luck and i am slightly surprised that other media haven't picked this up too.
Funny, isn't it, how he seems to fall out with all his racing teams? I think somebody at Ferrari should be urging 'El Gloomio' to let this go and refocus on winning races for Ferrari.
Dave Maxfield - Mesa, Arizona, USA
I too, am relieved that Mark Webber is safe and sound, I still remember the events of past years when indeed we seemed to loose an F1 driver every couple of weeks. But I believe the safety of F1 has nothing to do with the so-called, safety car, they are an abomination in any form of motor sport. Yes, yes, their role is to shepherd cars around AFTER an accident to prevent another, but I wonder, how long does it take to alert, deploy and then have the safety car gather up the field? Would it not be better to build a procedure around the light that illuminate on all the race car's dash? Lets have two lights: yellow for an incident that's not awfully bad and red for one that is. Once the dash-light comes on, it means go slow, so how about drivers having to select their pit speed limiters, have their rear flashing "rain light" come on, no overtaking (race cars or safety cars!) and then proceed - slowly. If it's a red flag situation then there should be few options, proceed slowly until you get to the pit, where you stop and switch off until the situation is cleared, or if the track is blocked in front of the cars, they must stop when they see the marshal(s) waving a red flag. If all cars were travelling relatively slowly (pit speed) had their rain lights flashing and are not allowed to overtake anything, wouldn't that be a safer situation than having a "safety Car" hurtling around with a gaggle of impatient drivers unsure of who can do what, and when can they get into the pits, following behind?
Maybe we should encourage designers to re-install starter systems so that red-flagged cars can be restarted when a situation clears up, as a side benefit if you spin and stall, you can restart and at least clear the road. I guess I'm suggesting that safety should be in the hands of the drivers and the marshals on the scene, not race directors and fancy-schmancy "safety cars" that are nothing more than rolling advertisements for their manufacturers.
Finally, a word on hot-blooded people, Spain is a lovely place, a lot of Spanish people are lovely folks, but they are fiercely partisan. Watch any Moto GP and you'll understand, and as a former cyclist I remember many Tours of Spain where competing Spanish teams would gang together to eliminate the possibility of a non-Spanish rider from winning the event (I particularly remember Robert Millar's experience some years ago). Is that all bad? I dunno! There are times when I wish my fellow countrymen would show a little patriotism, but maybe the Spanish example is a little too warm for us Anglophiles.
Larry Ware - Rotorua, New Zealand
Alonso and Ferrari certainly have a problem this season, on reading their post race notes since Melbbourne, they have actually won every race since, it is just that the results published are all wrong. They have made excuse after excuse as to why some other action (driver/FIA/Tyres) is the only reason their name is not #1.
I believe it has been pointed out previously that Ferrari never really got a consistent winners attitude until the premium positions in the team were filled by non-Italians /Latins - too much soul and pasta maybe. We know that Ferrari has had special priviliges in the past, at their peak their #1 driver was focussed on winning on the track and they achieved their goals year after year - best driver in the best car- but as alway these go in cycles and their cycle has a flat tyre at present.
Go visit Hispania, Lotus, and Virgin and see how to fight again.
PS, should not have allowed the Lotus name to be used - every race lost means their glorious race % record of wins / losses gets worse. I am a McLaren man because I am a Kiwi, I follow the team not the driver.
Joe Gallo - Toronto, Canada
Safty cars have become part of F1, But turning the race into a lottery is not. The safty car should pick up the first car, no passing, no pit stops. No excuses from drivers and their teams about low fuel under the currant no refueling rule. Once the safty car gos into the pits, let the fastest driver win.
Onno Berfelo - Netherlands
As a Ferraristo I was angry and upset when I saw what happened. I stopped watching the GP after Hamilton served his drivethrough because I was too frustrated. I understand why Ferrari are outraged, they lost the chance of a good result due to the safety car. If Alonso and Massa would have overtaken the safety car, they would have achieved a better result and this makes this situation very frustrating. I understand why Alonso was so obessed with Hamilton, its called rivalry. If Alonso would have pitted together with Hamilton he would have overtaken him because Hamilton changed his nose. What made it particularly frustrating for Alonso is that all this happened in his home country.
The safety car rule should be changed and an apology must be issued towards Ferrari.
Graham Endersby
Given that most of the field will have driven through the scene of an accident at least twice before the safety car is deployed why is it required?? Get rid of it. If any driver in F1 is unable to respect the double yellow flags get rid of him.The safety car was invented as a contrivance to close up racing, no other reason.
Angel A. Alvarez
I almost always agree with your opinions in Pitpass, but this time I think there is more to say:
First:
In violating the SC Rules, Hamilton went from 8th to 2nd. When that happened I expected the order to be restored by the stewards, but nothing was done in this respect.
I do not know how nobody speak about this. You suppose to take your position after the safety car, Hamilton was eight and should have sloted in the eight position behind the safety car but he did two bad things: He overtook the SC- and he deserves one penalty- and second he went to slot himself in the second position, which was not his. Even Steve Wonder will see this, but nobdy told Lewis to do the right thing, to go back to eight. Or Hamilton is too smart for F1 Stewards or the Stewards are just blind no matter all of the equipment they use.
I wonder how Hamilton gets with some stuff in front of all the stewards and the world to see. I remember seen Hamilton sitting in his car, lifted with a crane -against all Rules and Elementary Safety- and not been black flagged. You should remember that. Maybe Hamilton is just lucky and other people just not but in Monaco a driver was penalized for overtaking a car under green and here a driver ovrtake the safety car and in top of that goes to slot himself in second position instead of the one he should have taken and nobody from the FIA see it. Just amaizing.
Second:
The SC Rules and its application are just a mess. After Monaco the FIA had the oportunity to make the right thing: To write easy to understand and apply SC Rules. That didn't happen. In Valencia again, the application of the Rules and its arbitrary application made a mess from MS race, Lewis got with overtaking the SC and sloting in the wrong slot...I will trade any day a drive thru for six position on the race.
Maybe the safety car Rules we have in place are good for the spectacle, but for sure are terrible for the sport, made even worst for Stewards that no always seem to be up to the task.
If you look at the recent interview of the FIFA President, he apologized to two teams for the mistakes of his Stewards, instead the FIA is saying that they will not punish Ferrari for what they said.
I think Ferrari behavior is not civilized and left much to be desired but in light of this you can't approve what happen on Sunday. I find that the Rules and how the Stewards apply them is just a big issue for the FIA that needs to be address ASAP.
Larry Hallett
I must say first of all that I drop by your site at least six times per week so I believe I have a fairly wide perspective of the views expressed here. Some of course I agree fulyl, some not at all and some are in the middle. Over all it can be asumed the site is por British, this any frequent reader knows for a fact. I enjoy the writing stye for the most part, of course there are a few fringes but hey, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. As to the Sunday Gran Pre, IMO it was a joke, an outright joke. The fans of F1 like to bash NASCAC, (I myself do on occasion) but the rulings there compaired to what happened on Sunday are akin to a comarrison between a supreme cort and a kangroo court, (F1 being the kangaroo here!). The crash was handled properly and there is no dought that F1 has in all its glory done a fantastic job in the safty department, but the safty car ruling, an outright joke. I venture to say if it was any other team except a British team which pulled off the stunt which Hamilton did, this site would be in flames. Bottom line, people like to watch Hamilton and he is "forgiven," more than aby driver presently occuping a seat in F1. He should have been penalized much sooner and the least which he should have received should have been a stop and go, on the harsher side, disqualified, full stop.What is the point of the safty car if it is there as a field marker to pass. I understand the argument...it wasn't over the white line, cummon, that is not the spirit of the rules, he cheated the viewing public and if you pro British aren' man enough to view this through netural eyes, well I guess every opinion here should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Wake up, support the sport, don't harbour a cheat...and this isn't the first time, not even the first time this year for Mr. Hamilton. Netural and fair eyes will do much more to promote your literary creditability.
Jaime Duque
While I do believe the fact that Hamilton was the one who broke the rules made the situation more infuriating for Alonso, I also think his reaction wasn't one any other sportsman would've had if a direct rival broke the rules and the penalty handed to that person served no purpose.
Let's look at a recent example: Carlos Tevez' offside goal against Mexico. Obviously all the other teams that are up for the title will complain about another team getting away with such a "feat", but it should surprise no one if Brazil's (their eternal rival) stabs at the issue are deeper than those of the rest. Rivalries are natural in sports, specially if said sport involves millionaire egos driving billion-dollar-cars at hundreds of kilometers per hour.
PS: The punishment under no circumstance fitted the crime in this case (as proved by the delay in Hamilton's chase of Vettel, which didn't even affect his on-track position). Going back to the Tevez example, it's as if they had shown him a yellow card ten minutes after the goal.
Keith Simonian
A couple of quick points. Yes, Alonso & Massa got screwed by the safety car. Yes, Alonso whined too much about what happened. Yes, Hamilton broke the rules. Yes, the FIA is incredibly inconsistent with the penalties they hand out.
Michael Schumacher gets a 20 second penalty for racing when the lights went green at Monaco, while 9 drivers who broke the SC minimum speed limit at this race got the newly invented 5 second penalty.
A quick check on the official FIA website shows that LH pitted 27 seconds before Alonso did even though he was just a few feet in front on him before he passed the safety car.
So the FIA in their infinite wisdom gave LH a drive through penalty that at most cost him 15 seconds. Yes, something is very wrong with that. Worse yet for Alonso was that if LH had stayed behind the safety car and pitted just a few feet in front of Alonso he would most likely would have been passed during the pit stop because he got a tire change and a front nose change while Alonso just got a tire change.
Maybe the FIA could call somebody over at Nascar and ask them how to deploy a safety car correctly and safely. Being that Nascar deploys the safety car at almost every race, they are the experts to ask.
Pier Rodelon
This seems rudimentary. Hamilton's penalty and the "5 second" penalties were insufficiently strong given the nature of the transgressions. In addition, the long wait for enacting Hamilton's penalty should have been taken into consideration by measuring the gap at the time of the infraction and at the time of the penalty's imposition, thus turning the penalty into a stop and go with the duration of the stop equal to the difference in the gap between hamilton and the following car at the two different times. That would have been reasonably fair, though there is a thought that transgressions in safety car periods should, by their nature, be stiffer than other penalties.
Surely everyone can see the 5 second penalties were DESIGNED to not upset the apple cart, so to speak. Stewards were afraid to impose more realist penalties for fear of changing the racing outcome, which sort of flies in the face of what the word "penalty" means in the first place.
Not a big Alonso fan, but he has an extremely good point in this case. Hamilton clearly violated the safety car with malice aforethought, and deserved a stiffer punishment. Ditto the other SC violators.
Mario Stjepanovic
First I must express myself by saying that I'm totaly unsatisfied with F1 last few years, how on action (action???) on track that around track (politics and all that).
We witnessed already few 'black spots' this season and still I have a feeling that nobody in F1 know the real rules (if there are solid and clear rules at all) so all this is grey area and what happend is will you (reffering at F1 teams) have luck to go through it or u will be punished.
Now, regarding Valencia. All this above aprove my points. Rules must be simplier and more clear and understable to all, how for those which they are writen that for us spectators and fans. From my understanding, and what may before me stated, SC must be in front of leading car and to have align others behind him (that 1st error in this race), overtaking SC in not alowed, except in some cases when slower cars are allowed to take their actual race position (not sure if this was before in F1 but know that it is in some racing series). So by my understanding from SC can 'just' profit those cars that have bigger gap between car in front and opposite. So again, it is not about Hamilton and Alonso or Ferrari and McLaren (it could be Trulli and di Grassi), it is about fair RACING and not 'gambeling'. So those panishments in both cases (drive through for Hamilton and 5 sec for 9 drivers) is weird at least to say.
What I want (and i belive many of us FANS) is good and fair racing and not processions and 'politcal games' which seems to be main attraction last years. By that I doesn't say that we didn't witnessed some great passing manouvers but that is in shadow of 'behind the scene desidions and actions'.
I know that this is not paticulary about Valencia race last week but is it Valencia nad F1 in general. F1 is in crisis and something must be done about that. Big Time.
And in the end just to say few words about Webber 'salto mortale'. It is great to see those cars secure as pissible and in that are can't be pointed anything particular. Good job regarding safety issue. In my view only bright spot by FIA.
Ian Dudley - Le Mans, France
No doubt about it, the safety car altered the outcome of the race, as they very, very often do, worldwide. Safety cars also save lives, by keeping the idiots under control until it is safe to drive at racing speeds again. But we are now in the 21st century - and this is glitzy F1. Has no-one heard of Gatso? Why doesn't every corner on the F1 circuit have a Gatso camera, centrally controlled and monitored, so there is an instant report of any driver exceeding the mandated restricted speed? Simple, and affordable in F1 terms.
But, hey, teasing Ferrari is just SO worthwhile!
Vince Pruner
The thing that surprises me about all the discussion of the Hamilton penalty, is that no one seems to have mentioned that the 3rd place car was so far behind him. My memory (no guarantees) tells me that there would be few, if any, races where the 2nd place car would have a drive thru penalty and not be passed by someone. To me, that is why Hamilton suffered no real penalty. Two other points: Would the 10 sec stop and go really have made a difference since the 3rd place car was so far behind? I don't remember it even being in the picture when Hamilton got back on track. Also, how long is the pit entrance-to-exit at Valencia compared to other tracks?
John LeChette - South Dakota, USA
I watched the situation with Hamilton and the SC, and quite frankly, I initially did not see anything wrong. The SC was not on track when Hamilton pulled up, it appeared he was slightly in front of SC and the SC slowed, still inside the white line, to allow him past, on the track. It may have been the camera angle that distorted the view, but in any case the decision was made to give him a drive through, which he accomplished. To take further punitive action, now, simply because Alonso is a whiner and complainer is unacceptable. My suggestion for Alonso, man up! I am, quite frankly, tired of the "spoiled child" routine when things do not go his way.
Greg Cunneen - Tokyo
You would think they could get the timing of the SC right, what with all the GPS information they have about the location of all the cars. I don't see why they can't just limit the speed of all cars, under SC conditions, from the pits; they all use a common ECU. This is the second race this year where all sorts of fluff took place because of SC lines; what's wrong with having just one, say the start-finish line! Geez.
As for Alonso, it's time to let go. Hamilton was right, although he probably shouldn't have done so publicly, when he said "sour grapes."
George Slater
F1 is a joke now getting closer & closer to having identical cars and relying on safety cars & rain to provide entertainment.
I only watch the highlights now as do most of my friends
Tony Geran - Sydney
You are absolutely spot on Alonso does appear to have a psychological problem with Hamilton. I would have thought it time he moved on however it seems Latins certainly hold a grudge forever.
Without getting into the vagaries of the safey car rules it seems that some of them need to be clarified or simplified at least, however I guess you will get situations like this reoccurring and you really can't do much to safeguard a race's natural order when you impose something foreign (safety car) onto a track during a race.
Like you I was grateful that Webber was able to walk away from an accident that would have left someone severely injured or worse 20 years ago. We must be thankful to the hard work put in by people like Prof Sid Watkins and Max Mosley that accidents like these are now survivable.
One safety issue I would like to raise is the height of kerbs and their ability to diminish the effectiveness of rollover hoops. Seeing how the Red Bull landed upside down on or in the vicinity of kerbing I wondered if someone has looked at whether the current rollover hoop rules still allow enough gap to ensure the driver's head cannot come into contact with a kerb - for example the rear rollover hoop is on the track but the rest of the cockpit has straddled the kerb - in the event of a similar accident to Mark's.
Neil Sheffield
I don't think Alonso or Ferrari, would have complained half as much, if it was anyone else apart from Hamilton, that over took the Safety Car.
A grey area, as the Safety Car is supposed to pull up in front of the race leader, and so should have waved thru all the cars. As it was leading the Medical car around, it picked up Alonso instead.
Hamilton over taking the car, was marginal at best. Could he have stopped in time, I don't thinks so. With the sides of the cockpit now higher, he did not see the safety Car, till it was too late.
If it was the other way around, would there have been so many nasty remarks from other teams?
Peter Johnston
As I understand it from Button's penalty every car now has GPS and can be told to speed up and slow down according to positions and speed behind the safety car.
Surely it is only a small jump to effectively freeze the race. Instead of all stacking up behind the safety car every car can stay exactly where it was when it is deployed, within a few metres or so. Thus the whole grid can go around just as they were before the race was interrupted and restart without anyone getting a benefit from the safety car. All we need to do then is prevent cars from pitting under these conditions (or giving them a time penalty which would put them back where they should be if they do pit).
Thus the race would not be changed by a safety car. Or is that what Bernie wants?