Sebastian Vettel at the 2017 Azerbaijan Grand Prix
James Moy Photography
I have attempted to steer clear of writing about Baku since Sunday. The dust kicked up by Sebastian Vettel’s lap 19 contretemps with Lewis Hamilton has now begun to settle, thanks in no small part to the FIA confirming that it is investigating whether or not there is due cause to initiate a hearing on the matter. As such, now is perhaps a good time to try to make sense of it all.
The incident itself has been pored over countless times and yet there still appears to be some confusion over exactly what happened, the rules which surround Safety Car periods and how they change when those periods are coming to a close, and finally about exactly what the FIA investigation represents.
I’ll do my best to explain, in the knowledge that I will, as I have been countless times this week already, likely be dubbed a Hamilton fanboy, a Vettel sympathiser, an FIA apologist and an anti-FIA zealot hell-bent on taking the fun out of the sport. Which, if all four come in at the same frequency as over the past few days, means I must be doing something right.
The incident itself is rather easy to dissect, and has been analysed brilliantly by James Allen and the folks at F1.com.
What is clear is that, having been left behind at the first Safety Car restart, Sebastian Vettel didn’t want to allow Lewis Hamilton to get a similar jump on the second restart. As is customary, once the lights on the Safety Car are extinguished it is beholden on the race leader to determine the pace. Now, some have confused the mention of “Safety Car lights” with the Safety Car lighting panels trackside. These are two different things. The leader’s choice of pace comes into effect once the lights on top of the car are out. At this point, the ten car length rule also ends.
The Safety Car leads Hamilton in Baku
James Moy Photography
Hamilton does not brake any differently to his first restart or indeed any other lap behind the Safety Car. The graphic shows him to be on the brakes through the apex at around 50kph, but rather than accelerating down the hill from Turn 15 to 16 he simply coasts. It is at this point, as Vettel accelerates, that the initial contact occurs.
The screen graphic shows a slight touch of brake from Hamilton at the point of first impact. With Hamilton’s foot resting on the brake pedal, such a jolt from behind would likely show a trace of brake as his foot is shaken, but any suggestion of brake testing has already been refuted by the FIA, having monitored the Mercedes driver’s telemetry.
We should be in no doubt then, that the initial contact is simply a regular incident behind a safety car and one we have seen countless times from countless drivers. It is the nature of the beast. With the lead driver slowing the pack, some are caught off guard, and contact can and does happen. We’ve even seen drivers crash out under Safety Car, caught so unaware were they by the slowing of the field ahead. Look back to the Italian Grand Prix at Monza in 2000 and Jenson Button’s moment as Michael Schumacher slowed the field for the restart.
So, is it Hamilton’s fault for slowing too much? Is it Vettel’s fault for driving too close? Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Hamilton had been warned by his team that his first restart had left him too close to the Safety Car. One only need look at the GP2 races at Baku in 2016 for a reminder of how easily one can catch the pace car if the throttle is buried from Turn 16. As such, on the second restart Hamilton slows the field all the way through Turns 17 and 18 before putting his foot down.
The first moment of contact can, then, be put down as a simple and quite usual occurrence under the Safety Car. Contact shouldn’t happen, but it often does. With no major damage done to either car, it probably wouldn’t even have been worth investigating.
It’s what happens next that has caused the debate.
Vettel and Hamilton make contact
c/o F1.com
Vettel first lifts both hands in a questioning manner, asking what Hamilton was doing. He then drives alongside Hamilton on the left hand side, gesticulating at him with his left hand raised. The Ferrari moves across the track and its rights wheels connect with the left wheels of the Mercedes. Vettel, intentionally or otherwise, makes contact with Hamilton.
Given the position of his left arm and the angle of the onboard camera it is impossible to see whether Vettel has his right hand on the wheel at this point. It is also impossible to see whether, should his right hand actually be on the wheel, he makes any deliberate move towards the Mercedes. There has been a suggestion that in gesticulating, he inadvertently allowed his car to stray into the path of the Mercedes. Some think he may have intended to manoeuvre his car in a way that would let Hamilton know his displeasure. A frightener, if you will. And that he simply miscalculated and made contact. There is a third suggestion, that he deliberately drove his car into his rival.
Camera position makes it impossible to ascertain intent
c/o F1.com
Without Vettel’s steering and throttle trace, it is impossible to know exactly what happened in this moment. While we have been allowed to see the telemetry absolving Hamilton of blame for brake checking, we have not been shown Vettel’s telemetry for the secondary collision. Of course, data will only tell us so much. The only person who knows what the intent or lack of, was in this moment is Sebastian Vettel.
But as of the last time he spoke to anyone about the incident publically, he was refusing to even accept the second contact had happened, referring instead only to the first front/rear contact and to his gesticulation. His ire at a stop-go penalty for dangerous driving remained clear. He ignored any and all calls to explain the second contact and whether it had been deliberate.
So we have a suggestion of deliberate contact between drivers on track. And then we have the penalty handed down by the stewards of the meeting.
To many, the penalty of a ten second stop-go, was woefully inadequate. Given the options available to the stewards, which included a race disqualification and/or suspension from the next event, to lose just 30 seconds and two positions by the time the flag fell could be argued to be incredibly lenient. What happened to Lewis Hamilton in the race, as regards his head rest coming loose and the time he lost as a result, is neither here nor there. It does not and should not form a part of the argument.
What we are looking at here is the precedent which has been set. And that precedent is that, whether by intent or as a result of a loss of control (figuratively and literally), a driver has made contact with another under the Safety Car. And perhaps that’s the most worrying element. The track is not a closed environment under pace car conditions. Marshals and track workers are operating. Yes, we were due to go back racing so it is unlikely that anyone would still have been on track, but the SC lights were still flashing trackside. We were still under caution.
Wheel banging while racing for position is part and parcel of racing. Watching drivers jostle for position is part of what makes this sport so exciting. But aiming your car at another, whether at 50kph or 250kph has never been deemed to be acceptable at any level or in any championship. It is the one absolute that exists in racing. You do not use your car as a weapon. Ever.
Thus for the stewards to hand down only a stop-go penalty for the one, single and absolutely clearest misdemeanour on the books, one must drop any faux pretence of shock that the FIA wishes to look deeper into the incident itself and the manner in which it was handled.
FIA President Jean Todt has based his leadership on a basis of road safety initiatives.
James Moy Photography
The stewards are not law makers. Just as the Judiciary in a democracy, the stewards’ role is to interpret the law, to pass judgement and to hand down the correct sentence within the structures of the law as written. In legal and political parlance, we would refer to this as the creation of Common Law, where precedent fills in the gaps left by the law makers themselves. Should that Common Law stand at odds with the objective of the law makers at the time they passed the law, it would not be uncommon to see new legislation passed to clear up the confusion which led to a precedent at odds with the intention of the law. Similarly, in many democracies it would not be uncommon for someone in the position of a Secretary of State, or a Home Secretary, to have the right to request the sentence be re-examined should it be deemed too lenient.
The FIA has such a system in place, too.
There are two courts at the disposal of the governing body of our sport. There is the International Tribunal and the International Court of Appeal. Should the FIA’s investigation into Vettel’s conduct in Baku deem a hearing, it is at the International Tribunal that the case will be heard. It is this court that has the right to hand down whatever sanctions it sees fit, its judgement superseding that of the stewards. The judgement may then be appealed through the ICA, should it be deemed appropriate by the parties against whom the judgement and sentence was levied by the IT.
We must state for the time being that the FIA has not said the International Tribunal will hear such a case. Merely that it is investigating whether there is grounds for it to do so.
The general feeling, however, is that the Tribunal will sit.
The FIA President has based his entire leadership on the noble aims of improving road safety around the world. His initiatives have included not only the safety of the build of the cars on our roads, continuing the work of Max Mosley via the NCAP safety ratings, but have extended to road construction and infrastructure and worldwide campaigns for safer driving, responsible driving and mindful driving.
The FIA’s Action for Road Safety logos are highly visible in F1.
James Moy Photography
Every Formula 1 car carries the FIA’s “Action for Road Safety” logo. Every driver is an ambassador for the programme.
How, then, does it countenance the actions of a four time world champion in what many will argue is a clear show of “road rage,” with a slap on the wrist? If the FIA holds up these drivers as the best of the best, as role models for drivers around the world, can it allow such driving to go by unchallenged and unpunished?
Again, remember, this is not a racing incident. This is under safety car. This is not wheel to wheel racing, all arms and elbows and for the glory of victory. This is a frustrated driver making contact with another, deliberate or otherwise.
The other reason many believe that this will go to the Tribunal is not just because the stewards arguably awarded too light a punishment, but because nobody can think of another occasion on which this occurred. Of course, we can look back at Pastor Maldonado’s contacts with both Lewis Hamilton and Sergio Perez in qualifying sessions for which he was awarded grid drops. But there has never been, to anyone’s recollection, an example of a driver positioning his car alongside and driving into a rival under a Safety Car.
Because this is the first example of its happening in Formula 1, the punishment must be proportionate and appropriate. Something this potentially important should not be left to part-time stewards to decide. It goes higher than that because the precedent it sets will be applicable from top to bottom, from Formula 1 to karting. It has to be right.
Zidane was sent off in the 2006 World Cup final for headbutting Materazzi. Both would later be pulled before FIFA’s courts. Both would be awarded fines and match bans.
This situation isn’t unique to Formula 1, of course. All global sports have a system in place whereby the governing body can initiate hearings in the event that a situation arises which, be it by creating a new and unforseen area of law, or is deemed to to so clearly in the interests of the sport that it is required to be taken further and investigated more rigorously. It happens all over the world, in football, rugby, athletics. Think of a sport and there will be examples. This isn’t specific to Formula 1. There is no British media-driven witch hunt against Sebastian Vettel.
It is the due and correct process of a sport’s governing body.
So, for Vettel and Formula 1, what will the result be?
First, as we have said, there is no guarantee that it will even go as far as the Tribunal. But if it does, I cannot see that Sebastian Vettel gets out of it well. His total lack of acceptance of the penalty handed to him in Baku, his total ignoring of a secondary contact and total lack of contrition make him an easy target. Factor in that he is already on thin ice following his outbursts in Mexico last season and that he sits just three license points away from a race ban as it is, and the ground upon which he stands does not look terrifically solid.
From the camera angles we have seen and the explanations from the parties involved in the incident, it also doesn’t seem likely that the German comes out of it looking innocent. Even if the contact was unintentional, the result is still that he drove his car into another. Regardless of the mens rea, the intent, the actus reus, the objective element of the crime, is still present. The responsibility is still his.
What will he be handed? In all fairness, I think disqualification from Baku is the most likely outcome. Whether he is handed a further race ban for his failure to admit his wrong doing and his overall lack of contrition, allied to his previous outbursts and a potential charge under Article 151c for bringing the sport into disrepute, I don’t know. But a DQ from Baku seems the likeliest of outcomes.
Vettel in the Shadows in Baku
James Moy Photography
Should such a penalty come to pass, there will be those who claim the FIA is pro Hamilton, pro Mercedes and are interfering with the world championship. Yet look at 1994, Michael Schumacher’s disqualifications at Silverstone and Spa. Did the FIA think about the championship then, or did they think about what was right to the letter of the law?
Should no further penalty be awarded to Vettel, be that via a lack of Tribunal or their finding Vettel to be absolved of blame, then we’ll get the same “Ferrari International Assistance” jibes. Again look to 1994, and Michael’s arguably deliberate smash into Damon Hill at Adelaide and the lack of penalty.
That’s not to say the incidents are comparable. Merely to highlight that people claiming bias and interference in a world championship is nothing new when the result of a decision leaves the driver of whom you’re a fan, hard-done-by.
Fast forward three years to 1997. A deliberate contact between racing rivals. And one had his entire season’s points erased. He was forced to commit to hours of community service promoting road safety. The FIA made an example of him. They have the power to do the same to Sebastian.
Whichever way you look at this, Sebastian Vettel broke the cardinal rule of racing on Sunday. Deep down he knows that. And, I’d wager, is kicking himself for such a silly, unnecessary momentary lapse.
Make no mistake, it could cost him the title. And he’ll have nobody to blame but himself.
The Buxton Blog 
Vettel also cost Red Bull their first likely victory by ploughing into Mark Webber during the safety car period at Fuji in 2007. He seems to have form here, and also a Schumacher-esque unwillingness to accept that he is not the victim.
Moderator permitting dropping in this number 44 fan club, 44 was already punished for bunching-up the field in the 2007 Fuji GP.
I stand corrected. It was an observation (and memory fade). I have no favourites, just growing ambivalence.
I wonder who was just behind the Safety Car, braking and weaving (even Webber complained on radio about his antics) and forced webber to brake and collect vettel. Just wondering. Same in China a couple of years later.
Intent is surely what’s important in the Vettel case. If he gets an additional punishment then surely that sets a precedent where any one driver who is deemed to be more at fault in an on-track incident could receive more severe penalties, which would be ironic, considering it was agreed in the lead up to this season that penalties should be more lenient.
Secondly, what Hamilton did with the pace under the safety car was as dangerous as Vettel’s turn into Hamilton. I get that what Hamilton did is within the rules and what Vettel did was most certainly not, but if we’re talking about the actual danger here, then I think we need to ask just how dangerous was Vettel’s behaviour. For example, Ocon’s squeeze on Perez was surely more dangerous, no?
I agree that the FIA need to make an example of Vettel and set the right example for future generations, but they also need to be careful about setting precedents and driver safety. What’s important here is not what punishment Vettel receives but what lessons are learned from the incident moving forward.
You’ll also have to factor in environment. Perez and Ocon happened during full-on racing. Vettlel and Hamilton happened during an SC period. Intentional contact, while always egregious, is even more egregious during slow, controlled speeds, since you have so much more time to back out of it.
Great read as always.
If you look at the picture when there side by side you can see vettel only has his left hand up as in the onboard.
The whole ‘I lost control of the car with only one hand on the wheel’ will look pretty silly when you consider that LH maintained control at 200mph with one hand on his headrest…what does that say about SV’s car control?
Well written Will.
But your article got me thinking about the safety car. IN Baku, and countless races in the past drivers have complained that the safety car is driving to slow. Obviously the beautiful Mercedes that currently is the SC cannot perform anywhere near the level of a current F1 car no matter who is driving it.
What is the safety car becomes an open wheel car. Like a GP2 car or even a previous year’s F1 car. It would have the downforce and power to weight ratio to the field “happy” and their operating temperatures in the proper windows, etc.
I realize Mercedes like having a Mercedes as the SC. But that can still be done… lord knows there won’t be a Honda engine in the back of it.
Anyways… I can’t help but think if the SC was another open wheel car that this ‘road rage’ incident may have been avoided.
As I said… just a random though on an early Thursday morning.
Sometimes the Safety Car driver is instructed to be slower than they could optimally drive, to allow marshals more time to clear up problems. The marshals at Baku were not up to the standards of some of the other races F1 visits, so it is likely that a lot of the slow speeds last weekend were mandated by Race Control and the needs of the marshals. Using an open-wheel car does not help when that is not the limiting factor (as here) – though it might help in some other situations.
This might be counter productive for the people cleaning up the track though is my random thought 😉
What I’ve read since regarding the actual SC is that it needs to be ready at all times, before and after the races, which none of the single seaters can be. It is used in all types of weather so still not helpful if it’s a single seater. Also, it’s the same SC for all the races held at the event so you can’t have something too fast for, say, the Porsche super cup.
Well, two things really…
Firstly, the SC needs to be some sort of road car, as it’s needs to be deployable at a moments notice throughout the race weekend, and some sort of saloon car, as it carries two people and a load of equipment.
Secondly, the pace of the SC was not what caused the initial contact – the SC lights were out, so the pace was controlled by HAM. If VET had said afterwards “I was too close, my brakes and tyres were too cold because of the slow SC, that’s why I hit him,” then you might have a point… but he didn’t. Instead, he did something that, on any public road, would have had him arrested.
I’ve often thought the same. For example, they could easily use a DTM touring car as the safety car. Problem solved.
By regulations, F1 cars should never crash under the Safety Car, as that contravenes at least two separate regulations (one prohibiting driving likely to cause danger to other competitors at any time, another specifically prohibiting it under the Safety Car). That it happened is already a breach of regulations – and, if this really happens often without investigation, it shows a serious weakness in the stewarding of race events. It may even explain why Vettel thought his driving was OK (rather than something that was blameworthy for even making contact a plausible consequence).
Regardless of what happens to Vettel (and my understanding of precedent, particularly in other series, is that a ban – from Baku plus another race, since a disqualification is 5 penalty points to add to the 7 he had pre-Baku, and the ban trigger is 12) plus probation would be expected), the low-level routine Safety Car contact issue needs further investigation and to be clamped down upon.
Excellent article!
I also like it that Joe Saward’s title is “Crime and punishment” and yours “Trial and retribution” 🙂
First of all, there is no rule that “brings the sport into disrepute”, the rule is 151c and is about fraudulent behaviour. Second, Schumacher kept his points in ’97 but was disqualified from the championship. Those 78 points is included in his record.
Good, rational commentary!
I am neither a fan of Lewis or Seb. But I have great respect for the driving talents of both.
I am personally unconvinced that Seb hit Lewis with deliberate intent. I would need to see Seb’s right hand to make my judgement.
I am NOT a Steward so it means nothing anyway.
But I do believe the FIA needs to look long and hard at this incident!
It can NOT let F1 go the way NASCAR has into a WWF on wheels.
F1 is more than that, always has been!
These are arguably the best drivers in the world, they must behave as such.
Hi Will. From the quoted FIA statement I have seen in the media (which may not have been complete), it seemed somewhat ambiguous as to whether the FIA is investigating the stewards’ decision because it may have been inappropriate, or whether it is because Vettel was already on probation after Mexico last year. Can you clarify that?
The FIA will “further examine the causes on (sic) the incident in order to evaluate whether further action is necessary.”
On a few videos it appears Vettel overtakes Hamilton if only by inches when he collides with his wheels, thereby overtaking the lead car before the safety car line. Is there an amount that’s permissible or is that another infraction?
Theoretically it’s another infraction. For reference, Magnussen overtook under SC in Canada and immediately gave the position back to Vandoorne, but was handed a penalty.
(good editorial Will!)
But this very point of being in front of Lewis at impact shows Seb’s intent.
For if Sebs hit Lewis’ tire from behind it would be the Ferrari with the potential to be launched. Steering input is not necessary to show the blame here.
I wish the Stewards got it right on Sunday, I think a black flag was in order. Now anything by FIA will be called meddling and (wrongly) tarnish Lewis’ new WC lead.
I really don’t see what the big fuss is. Seb made light contact after he thought his race might be ruined. I can’t tell whether it was deliberate or not. A stop and go with a 10 second penalty seems like plenty of punishment to me given how hard it is to pass in F1.
I see no efforts by Vettel to try and disable another car unlike Schumacher. So, I don’t see those incidents as comparable in any way. We see so little of this in F1 that I’d say the rules are working just fine.
Besides, people like controversy. They like feuds. They like rivalries.
What Seb did is the equivalent of Road Rage. The FIA has been promoting good safe road driving for years, and Sebs actions go against everything the FIA have been trying to promote. It makes their response look weak.
I’d be interested to know where you draw the line?
Sorry, last comment aimed at pizzaforpluto not Bob
Hi Bippy! Where would I draw the line before I’d want to see a greater punishment than Seb got? If you deliberately tried to disable someone’s car either under caution or during the green, I’d park the offender and consider a suspension for one or more races depending upon the severity.
I think the FIA has every opportunity to make an example of this behavior, driving or attitude wise. I don’t expect them to. Whatever the outcome though I agree “…he’ll have nobody to blame but himself.” Even if he has shown he does not agree with such statements.
I have never seen a second placed driver pull up even with the leader under sc conditions, its called a sc for a reason so vettel had no reason to be parallel with Lewis, if Vettel had his right hand on the wheel or not will never be known but saying that he can drive his car more than 4 yards in a straight line with no hands if not then he should not be in a car he can’t control, FIA needs to reassess, did sc go slower than normal (Hamilton radioed this prior) to ensure Marshals clear the area, police do it on a duel or motorway and its called a rolling stop so that obstacle can be removed before the traffic hit it. Vettel should be penalised heavier than was given on the day, it can be seen as Ferrari have been given a pass for unprofessional behaviour purely because of their name and standing in the F1 world, I can also see that driver (not team related) fans see’s it as a blatant act against Lewis. As previously stated had it been elbow to elbow during a race then best man wins but this childish behaviour can not be tolerated by anyone
Well analysed and written Will.
It illustrates, but skirts around the big hole in the FIA discipline and then Judiciary system, starting with the work of the Stewards. In general they have to decide if the evidence available supports a claim that an incident, breach of regs, etc has occurred and who was responsible (blame). Then apart from some obvious cases in the regs, they seem to on their own regarding what level of penalty(s) should be awarded.
I’ve gone through most of the ISC,SR, TR, J&D and can find nothing on that. Not even a compiled document of all previous Stewards Decision, just every individual one.
So the impression is, as you describe, the 4 stewards have to consider the severity of the incident and the intent of the driver and see how that fits to previous remembered decisions. They might not have been ‘right’ anyway.
Stewards do undergo formal training as well as observation events before being licensed (Drivers Stewards ?). I wonder how that prepares them for this dilemma.
They may not like it, but in the UK, even the judges have a code to guide them on sentencing from minimum to maximum for each offence. In industry, on a daily basis decisions are made by consideration of likelihood of an undesired outcome and the scale of it, using Risk Tables of Matrix.
One could be developed from past 10 years or further of Stewards decisions. It could even cover ‘things to come’ like the Vettel incident.
Of course I could be wrong and the Stewards already have a full developed penalty decision framework. If so I wonder why they dont disclose it?!
It’s amazing how almost everyone is giving half-truths regarding the initial contact. Here is a good video:
https://streamable.com/phz5p
So speed goes from 71 just at turn in to 51 at corner exit. And the brake light stays way longer, it’s ridiculous to claim it was the result of Vettel bumping Hamilton from behind.
The FIA “analysis” is also very biased, as it offers NO mention of the speeds, and it does not compare on-board telemetry from the two restarts. The truth is the two restarts were absolutely different. The first restarts is a good example how to bunch up the field, and the second isn’t.
Also it’s naive to assume FOM/FIA would be partial in these decisions, so just saying “they checked the data an….” without checking it all for yourself with what’s available is not the way to go. And there is already a theory why this happened – it has to do with the faulty design of the track which makes it very possible for the lead driver to end up too far ahead in relation to the safety car and be penalized if they did a regular restart. So the organizers/FIA/FOM are saving face and all these so-called “expert” fail to even notice all this in their “analysis” (except one or two reputable blogs) . Yes, I understand the motivation to repeat this spin how Hamilton can do no wrong and nothing is ever his fault, and how Vettel is a typical Ferrari spoiled brat, but the point of analyzing is not to repeat biased, incomplete half-facts.
Bruce, I never claimed the brake through the corner was due to the hit. At the point of impact on the run down the hill, you’ll notice a slight, momentary illumination of the brake graphic. That’s the hit I reference.
The telemetry you say hasn’t been seen, merely referenced and taken verbatim, has been seen.
In terms of the restarts, the speeds through Turn 15 and on the run down to 16 are almost identical on both. The difference is that on the 1st restart Hamilton drops the hammer at 16. On the second he waits until 18.
To assume that the FIA would be biased in favor of Hamilton just screams either Anti-Hamilton, Vettel fan or Ferrari fan. It definitely does not imply unbiased.
Just because you personally have not seen the data / telemetry does not make them any less of a fact. They are just unconfirmed facts in our eyes.
If you cannot take the FIA and its stewards at face value, then you really have no objective basis to even argue a point, since you’re essentially saying, I don’t trust anyone to give me data unless I can get it for myself.
And you’re never going to be able to get that data, so you’ll never have an objective base to argue from.
@willthef1journo
Thank you for your response.
Where can I see the telemetry? As I said, the official F1 video focuses ENTIRELY on what Vettel is doing and where he is. As opposed to comparing Hamilton’s onboards from the two restarts and showing the speed AND dynamics before, through, and after the corner.
Btw, Sir Jackie Steward saw it!
@THE Roen
This is what I’m talking about:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/06/27/why-hamilton-had-to-slow-the-field-more-during-that-controversial-restart/
So Hamilton did not execute the two restarts the same. Or you think Keith Collantine is anti-Hamilton fan?
And yes, I believe the FIA/FOM could be a lot more transparent and provide on-board footage for comparison when comparing the two restarts, it’s rudimentary logic. Instead they are total control freaks regarding what footage is available online.
Btw, I remember one steward saying he really hoped Hamilton would win that day’s race prior to the start.
Great analysis as always. Let’s realize this, Hamilton is not looking for Vettel to run into the back of him, as his car might be compromised by any damage by Vettel. He may have started to initiate the gap before the lights changed, or he may have also been messing with Vettel a bit, but it’s still on Vettel, he was clearly obvious in his intention.
Anyone with a pair of eyes can see it was intentional. He pulled up abruptly alongside and turned sharply into him. How could it be anything other? As Will points out – there is a massive difference between racing hard and petulant retaliation while under the safety car. VET already on a warning after Mexico and other episodes where he lets his temper get the better of him. FIA have no choice to haul him up for this.
You say the leader decides the pace, Didn’t stop Gp2 from banning Matshuchida a weekend .
That’s because he slowed dangerously in order to avoid the Safety Car, having mistimed his launch down the straight.
If rules are to be followed and penalties given, how come Max Verstappen never gets it? Is he out of the ambit of the Law?
Because, despite the moving under braking clarification being dubbed “The Verstappen rule,” he never actually broke it.
Assuming you’re talking about Verstappen moving while under braking – from what I understand, there was no official rule banning this practice, it was more of an unspoken agreement between the drivers. There was no authority specifically banning this practice, so he broke no rule.
Great and reasonable analysis, Will. But I can’t understand the connection with the FIA’s road safety initiative. That’s all well and good but it should be *entirely* separate from racing. Penalize Vettel because it’s unsporting and/or against sporting regulations if that’s the case, but at no point should “because it sets a bad example for road motorists” come into it, that’s insane. Racing is a completely different situation than driving on a road and very little of what is acceptable on a race track transfers to roads!
I mean, yes, “don’t ram other drivers” applies in both cases, but getting road rage because someone cuts you off on your commute is still a completely different environment and situation than an F1 race, and making road safety part of the *reason* to penalize a racing driver makes no sense at all. If we expect racing drivers to set or adhere to the same standards as some guy in a Civic on a motorway, the sport ceases to exist. “We’ve got to stop these racers going for every gap and taking corners flat out, what kind of message is that sending to road drivers??”
The road safety initiative is great but should have *nothing* at all to do with racing; in fact their whole message should be “do not behave like racing drivers, the road is not a racetrack and the rules are entirely different!” I’m not defending Vettel at all here, by all means he should be penalized if he broke the rules of the *sport*, but I can’t see how “setting a bad example for road drivers” should be taken into consideration in the slightest here.
I completely agree. But given Todt’s focus I can’t see him wanting to let Sunday’s actions slide as to do so undermines the work he is doing. Perhaps, like Michael in 1997, some community service for Sebastian on Road Safety could form part of any extended punishment. Should the FIA judge further punishment is necessary.
+1000 Loramir
Was a Vettel fan all through the Red Bull years and but his Ferrari years aren’t living up to my expectations. Sure he is still driving well but as a person he’s not really one I root for anymore. With the 2014 Season at Red Bull, Mexico last year and then his stupidity at Baku he’s getting his wish to emulate his idol and be hated by a fair percentage of people. Glad that smiling Australian is so fun to root for cause Daniel has certainly become my favorite driver since 2014 and him winning in Baku made my Birthday weekend even better.
Brake testing can also be classified as using the car as a weapon, as it’s intention is to give damage to the car behind. I’m not saying Hamilton brake tested Vettel, but let’s say he did, do you believe he would be disqualified or had a race ban? I strongly believe that if Hamilton did not face any problems and won the race, where Vettel finished 5th, we wouldn’t be talking about further actions.
Yes but he didn’t so what is the point of ‘yeah but what if he did’…you might as well ask ‘what if he did get out and let SV’s tyres down’ because he didn’t do that either!…LH didn’t brake test anyone, it’s been proven. Why do so many people let their opinions get in the way of hard facts?
Telemetry has been released by the FIA which shows that Hamilton did not brake test Vettel.
I think that revisiting what Rosberg did to Hamilton at Spa is in order. Even after admitting (to the team) that he could have prevented the collision but chose not to do so “to prove a point”, he (as always) claimed that as far as HE was concerned, it was a racing incident; he received no consequences for hitting LH. Remember the banners at races? Don’t forget to turn right Nico. Rosberg continued to try to “run Ham off the road” without penalties. His first in 5 years occurred at German GP 2016 for running Verstappen of the track. He still claimed it was a racing incident. In the meantime, many other drivers got penalties for lesser infractions. My point? That some drivers seem to be favoured, and Vettel has been let go a few times over the past seasons. of course, this is not just my opinion, but that of the on-air and print experts.
Let’s not forget Turkey 2010, let’s not forget Multi 21. I do not see a further Vettle penalty, what I see is a directive handed down that says from here on out zero-tolerance, with a penalty of race disqualification and a next race ban. That is what I see for the future. IF it goes to the tribunal I hope it isn’t a Baku DQ, I would rather a next race ban. It doesn’t harm the team as bad, and I would allow a replacement driver. The team will still be throughly pissed with not having their #1 driver in the car, but it would allow them to try to get points, and hopefully show off a new talent!
Will I feel like a couple spots in the article should have an asterisk. *except in nascar* haha
And the FIA could take the easy road and increase his petal 3 more points triggering the automatic ban. That would be same result with a much less harsh penalty. It also reinforces that he has been very naughty in the past year.
Frankly, I think if the FIA is indeed serious about this investigation, it should also look into whether slowing down as Hamilton obviously did (yes, I realize he did not actually break and that the telemetry is crystal clear on this) should be permissible. I understand that under the current regulations he had every right to do it, but is it not dangerous? This is obviously what caused the first contact – and I am making no excuse for Vettel, he should have been aware, but it could have been anyone else being unaware for a split second, and we have this situation all over again. Rules are always subject to improvement because they are seldom perfect. On the second contact, I honestly think it was unintentional, but of course that does not make it right and Vettel does no good by denying it. He should face the consequences.
Isn’t the idea of the safety car to slow things down? Otherwise what would be the point. Now that just seems like common sense to me.
Obviously you have visited F1Fanatic and picked up on the word weapon. You can not apply real world road rules to racing. You are completely wrong in using the word weapon. Trying to classify it as a weapon means that going forward, anytime there is contact between cars that is avoidable, a driver has turned his car into a weapon.
Nonsense. Utter and complete nonsense.
I believe it is clear and without doubt that Vettel intentionally drove into Hamiltons car. The worlds’ best drivers do not accidentally drive into another car when side-by-side at slow speed. A very silly maneuver that I believe will cost Seb dearly, likely the Baku points and one or more race bans. We know Sebs’ hero is Michael, but this emulation takes it too far. May very well cost him the championship, and possibly his Ferrari ride if Maranello sees red!
Didn’t the stewards mention that they only imposed the 10 second stop-go penalty because they didn’t want to interfere with the WDC standings? If so, that’s a dangerous precedent. It essentially means if you’re lower than (say) 10th in the WDC and you have a toys-out-of-pram moment, you’re heading for the sin-bin, but if you’re up at the pointy end, you’re going to be let off lightly. Surely, the penalty should be applied regardless of the WDC position and the number on the car, otherwise its going to smack of one rule for the elite and another for the rest – unsustainable.
This was rumoured but was finally admitted by Paul Gutjhar, one of the Stewards in Baku, after I’d published this piece. Yes, he admitted that they had considered black flag but decided against it because a) Hamilton’s car wasn’t damaged and b) they didn’t want to influence the WDC. For this reason alone, I think there’s now scope for the FIA to open a Tribunal. Essentially you’ve got the stewards admitting that the penalty they handed down was influenced by extraneous circumstances to what happened on track. It’s a terrible precedent to set and one I cannot see the FIA allowing to stand. From a purely procedural perspective, I can’t see any way the IT doesn’t now sit. Regardless of the incident itself, the stewards failed in a primary duty.
The incident cannot be studied in a vacuum: Lewis was on the radio begging Charlie Whiting to either make the SC go faster so the drivers could get and keep heat in the tyres and brakes or to go to a VSC and set a high enough speed to allow this to occur. It has been said in NASCAR that cautions breed cautions and in this case, the lack of pace resulted in cars losing control and further safety car periods to clean up the debris. The frustration of the lengthy SC periods (it took forever to get Kviat’s car off the track) made all involved even more unsettled. Finally, Lewis had been warned not to get too close to the SC and Vettel had gotten left behind on the previous restart. The circumstances surrounding the incident do not justify Vettel’s actions, but all of the above needs to be examined by F1 and improved upon, perhaps preventing a recurrence.
While I have been a long time fan of both drivers and love the competition this year, it is clear that Vettel has increasingly become a ‘hot head’ on the track. His frustrations, often understandable, last year with Verstappen have continued whenever things go wrong on the circuit this year. It’s never Vettel’s fault. Amazing how that is. He’s always being treated unjustly. It is pretty obvious to any objective observer that Vettel has an anger issue. Perhaps it is his lack of winning in recent years and the pressure to win this year with a strong car backing him. But, either way, Vettel has a clear temper that needs to be changed. You simply don’t see that level or consistency of temper, anger, and vitriol among most all of the other drivers in F1. It’s not in Ricciardo, Hamilton, Verstappen, Bottas, et al. Raikonnen may be the closest to that. Seems both Ferrari drivers are feeling a lot of pressure and letting it get under their skin far too much. Most particularly, Vettel.
The Steward’s 10sec stop-and-go penalty to Vettel during the Azerbaijan race is incomprehensible, especially under a safety car. Vettel should have been immediately black flagged from the race (with zero points), barred from the Austria GP, and had the 3 points against his license; all in accordance with the racing regulations.
There are zero extenuating circumstances…no matter the driver, the points standings, the constructor; nothing. A vehicle was purposely driven into another vehicle during a race while specifically under a Safety Car.
Furthermore, during the post-race interview process, Vettel continued to angrily disavow his action of turning his vehicle into the #44 vehicle as though it never happened. This type of behavior is a classic sign of road rage; a very dangerous sign.
Vettel should receive the following additional penalties: 1] mandatory daily race weekend (3 days) of Anger Management classes for a total of eight (8) races (24-classes total) and 2] nine (9) additional points against his license (meaning Vettel would also miss a 2nd race, on top of being barred from the Austria GP).
Additionally, the Steward’s (Gutjahr, Spano, and Sullivan) should be barred from any further participation in Formula 1 – in any capacity – during this 2017 season.
The objective of the Constructors, Drivers, Stewards, and Race Director should always be: comply with the racing regulations. The Stewards failed. Ferrari failed. Vettel failed. Mr. Whiting failed.
And Kart racing through F1 are the worse due to the FIA and FOM recalcitrant lack of immediate and heavy response to their own racing regulations. This issue should not have been a week-long media event.
The Azerbaijan Vettel penalty is an issue of credibility for the FIA and FOM and you are both failing miserably.
Vettel penalties should be:
1. Black flag (zero points). [meaning #44 gets 12 points as well as all other positions moving up in the final classification. It is impossible to say where #44 might have ended the race, but additional points awarded to #44 should be considered…maybe an additional 3 points; who is to say maybe the helmet bolster wouldn’t have been secured correctly if the Mercedes team wasn’t so worried the damage Vettel caused to the rear and left side of the vehicle?]
2. Barred from Austria GP
3. 3 points against license (now totaling 9)
4. Because of angry denial:
4a. Mandatory Anger Management class (3/race weekend over the next 8 races)
4b. 9 additional points against license (this means missing another race on top of Austria)
Stewards penalties should be:
1. Gutjahr, Spano, and Sullivan are barred from any further participation in Formula 1 – in any capacity – during this 2017 season
…just imagine a potential death or serious injury if Vettel had held his road rage until the race was at full pace; you would be joining Vettel in the family lawsuits and not have a single leg to stand on in the court of public opinion.
Herr Todt, time for you to be a leader. Right now your “3500 Lives” program is a farce when a 4-time World Champion’s road rage is nothing more than a slight tap on the wrist…