Sidepodcast

The Stewarding Process, Now With Added Drivers

Credit: Williams F1

Alain Prost and Damon Hill, pose with a sponsor at Kyalami, '93. The FIA is putting it's trust in these men.

For the 2010 season, the FIA are introducing an F1 driver to each stewarding panel, in an attempt to make their judgements fairer, and to provide a little insight into what was happening during each incident. We've previously discussed this idea at great lengths, pondering whether it's right to allow drivers in. Their added experience can only be useful, but might they be a little impartial to their former teams? It's an unknown at the moment, but what we do know is who will be taking those positions for the next few races.

Alain Prost

Prost is at the helm in Bahrain this weekend, taking the reigns as the first former driver to participate in the stewarding process under this new ruling. The Frenchman was last seen driving in the sport in 1993 for Williams. He's also driven for McLaren, Renault and Ferrari - and had a held a bitter rivalry with Ayrton Senna along the way. Prost has four world championships under his belt.

Prost went on to start his own F1 team which lasted just five seasons.

Heinz-Harald Frentzen

Frentzen hails from Germany, and was last behind the wheel of an F1 car in 2003. He's since been competing in DTM. He's driven with Sauber, Williams, Jordan and Arrows, but never managed to grab that elusive championship. He won three Grands Prix, though, the last being in 1999. He was disqualified only once during his F1 career - for leaving the pit lane under a red light.

Alex Wurz

Wurz has never been far from our consciousness, last seen racing in China 2007. He attempted to launch his own F1 team for the 2010 season but the application was not successful. He's driven for Williams, McLaren and Benetton, but made more of an impact as a good development and test driver than a sparkling racer. He has no championships or wins to his name, but is known for speaking his mind, and as a comentator on his home TV networks in Austria, he'll be good at calling things as he sees them.

Wurz has on occasion been trusted at the wheel of the FIA medical car.

Johnny Herbert

Herbert has driven for quite a few teams during his 12 years in the sport, with the last Jaguar Racing in 2000. He's also been involved with Stewart, Sauber, Benetton, Ligier, Lotus and Tyrrell. Herbert never won the championship but stood on the top step of the podium three times, and picked up 98 points during his F1 career. Since leaving the sport, he has participated in Le Mans and BTCC, and advised Jordan and Midland before they became Spyker.

Damon Hill

Since leaving F1, Hill has kept himself extremely busy heading up the BRDC and managing their exploits at Silverstone and in keeping the British GP alive. The former champion won 22 races and one title in his eight years - driving for Jordan and Williams amongst others. Damon is a media friendly figure, but isn't afraid to share his frustrations, making waves and headlines in equal measures. Hill has been confirmed as a steward for two races.

What do you think of these driver choices? Will they make sensible decisions? Who else should be added to the list, and more importantly, who should not?

F1 Advent Calendar 2009 - Day Fourteen

• Length: 3:24 
• Size: 3.2 MB 
• File: advent14.mp3 
• Transcript: advent14.pdf 
• Torrent: advent14.torrent 

Welcome to another episode of our extended mini series, the F1 Advent Calendar 2009. Each day, we're running through a key moment from the 2009 season, as found behind the door of our F1 advent calendar. Today, we're on to Day Fourteen - Not Quite Banned.

The fallout from the Hungarian Grand Prix continued for a long time afterwards. The qualifying timing incident was cleared up pretty quickly, and attention focused on Massa’scondition. He began to improve, much quicker than anticipated, although it seemed as though it would still be quite a long road to recovery. With all that going on, what we really needed was a little bit more controversy.

Yesterday, we ran through what happened on Sunday in Hungaryitself, and touched upon the loose wheel that flew off Fernando Alonso's Renault, after not being secured properly during a pit stop. It could have been a pretty dangerous incident, there were spectators, marshals and other cars around at the time, but thankfully, the errant wheel avoided contact with anything other than the barrier.

Alonso finished his lap on three wheels, pitted for a new one, but retired later with an unrelated problem. Afterwards, the team were called to the stewards. Now, things flying around the track was a very sensitive subject at the time, with Massa's welfare praying heavily on people's minds, and the tragic death of Henry Surtees just a week earlier being caused by a stray wheel. It was not a surprise then, when the stewards gave Renault a one-race ban - they would not be allowed to participate in the European Grand Prix.

The reasoning behind the ban was that the car was released from the pitlane without a wheel-nut retaining device, so the team must have known it wasn't safe. They didn't make the driver aware, try and stop him, or recall him, and allowed Alonso to continue in a dangerous car.

With the European Grand Prix at Valencia, one of Alonso's home races, the timing of the ban couldn't have been more harmful for the team. Renault immediately appealed the penalty, and even the organisers of the Valencia race got involved, arguing: "It would be a shame if he missed the race and we are confident that he will be able to race, although we know it will be hard especially considering the other accidents that took place over the weekend. What happened is serious, but we hope it doesn't hurt the European Grand Prix or the fans."

Thankfully for them, the traditional Formula 1 summer break came next, which meant the FIA could schedule an appeal hearing before the race itself. This came on the 17th August, where Renault's lawyer, Ali Malek, defended the team: "Was there a conscious wrongdoing from Renault? There was none what-so-ever. The only persons who knew were the two mechanics. Nobody on the pitwall knew there was a problem and the driver did not know either. "There was a series of unfortunate events but no conscious wrongdoing."

The FIA examined all the arguments, and decided that the best course of action was to overturn the penalty, meaning Renault could race in Valencia after all. Instead, they were given a $50,000 fine, with the FIA stating there was not enough proof that the team released Alonso knowingly, and they had also received four letters of support from rival teams - with two of them admitting they were changing their own pit stop procedures in the wake of what had happened.

For a short while, at least, Renault had the support of their fellow racers.

That is all for this episode of our advent calendar. I think we may be moving on from Hungary in tomorrow's show, but you'll have to join me then to find out, as we open the advent door for Day Fifteen.

Daily: 12th December 2009

It's Saturday at long last, and the day of the Sidepodmeetup/real life Christmas party. We know many of you aren't able to make it to the party itself, but we'll keep it as interactive as possible, and I'll be glued to the comments, as usual. Anyway, it was a busy week in F1, so here's some related stuff we're talking about:

• Talking of meetups, Joe has been mulling over the concept of fan meetups and how he can connect with you, the reader, more. It seems to be aimed at people who might attend a race, and who might part with some cash to spend some time chatting about F1. Seems like a brilliant idea to me, head on over and leave your thoughts.
• The FIA introduced a lot of information yesterday, including a revised calendar, confirmation of the new points system, and some revised stewarding plans. We posted a breakout thread on the story, and there is more info over there. The stewarding looks to be improved, but Abu Dhabi as the last race of the year again? Were they actually watching this year?
• Since launching his new blog, Stuart has not stopped writing, which only serves to make me wonder how much we've missed out on whilst he's been blogless. Nevertheless, he has some post-Forum thoughts from Monaco, summing up the experience nicely. I don't think anything came out of the Forum that was a surprise, but it's always good to hear what is said.

That'll do it for now. Let us know how you're spending your weekend, and I will see you in the comments.

Daily: 19th October 2009

Naturally, we are still recovering from the events of yesterday, not only a massive championship-deciding race, but also hosting the debrief into the late hours. Still, that doesn't take any shine off what was another awesome weekend in F1.

• Barrichello has proved what a nice guy he is once again by lending Button his private jet so he can fly back to Britain in his own time - allowing the new champ time to party in Brazil, like it's 1999 presumably.
• We're still wondering about the FIA and their penalty decisions - but only really that they keep pushing the rulings until after the race. It seems like a growing trend to put off the investigations until post-GP, and I don't think I like it.
• The headline on this story makes me laugh: Alonso says DNF cost him points finish. You don't say! There were quite a lot of retirements in Brazil, but the one I feel sorry for is Heidfeld. Running out of fuel is embarrassing!

Anyway, that'll do it for now. As ever, let us know what you're doing with your week, whether you're celebrating or commiserating. I'll see you in the comments.

Pat Symonds Offered FIA Immunity

The ongoing Renault saga now focuses in on head of engineering Pat Symonds, who has reportedly been offered immunity by the FIA if he answers some questions. A steward's report seems to hint he knows too much:

"On 28 August, Mr Symonds was summoned back before the Stewards to be asked if he wanted to give further information on the questions he had declined to answer. Mr Symonds again declined to answer the questions."

A transcript of the conversation between FIA representatives and Pat Symonds has also been published. It includes an awful lot of "don't", "won't" and "can't" quotes.

Would You Sponsor the New US F1 Team?

With the fallout from McLaren's latest indiscretion still reverberating around Formula 1, guest writer Jeremy takes a look at the story from a different angle.

Maybe I'm just naive, but I found the recent news of Team Vodafone McLaren Mercedes misleading a stewards enquiry quite outrageous and disappointing. What shocked me even more, was the revelation on Australian TV during an interview with Peter Windsor, that he would have "tried to cover it up in front of the stewards" if he was in the same situation as McLaren's Sporting Director, Dave Ryan.

During the lead up to the 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix, Peter Windsor publicly discussed that, having previously been a Team Manager with Williams, if he was in Dave Ryan's shoes, he likely would have taken the same course of action. In his own words:

We're talking about the sort of thing that goes on in the stewards office, probably every day of the year and has been going on for the past 50 years at all motor racing events around the world.

If I put myself in Davey Ryan's shoes, I probably would've done the same thing.

Perhaps Mr Windsor can put this information on the website for his own Formula 1 team - USGPE. I'm sure that would be a great tactic for generating sponsorship. While I say that sarcastically, I'm actually wondering if that statement could in fact be correct.

What do you think, is Peter right and has the latest McLaren scandal been blown out of all proportion? Does this sort of thing happen every day in motor sport, or are USGPE off to a bad start before they even enter F1?

_{Photograph by Released under the GNU Free Documentation License.}

McLaren Admit Lying to Stewards

This article was originally written for BellaOnline, but is republished here for posterity.

The matter of Lewis Hamilton's disqualification from last week's race results has now moved on to a much bigger problem. It's not simply about getting an extra point or having to pay a fine, it's now a matter of being dishonest with the stewards. More and more details are emerging about this incident, and while there is a case to make that it is being blown out of proportion, it is still clearly a case of lying to the stewards. We've had press conferences from McLaren and Hamilton, and we've had access to the pit-to-car radio that the stewards reviewed as well.

Hamilton went past Trulli when the Toyota ran off line, and immediately asked his team if that was okay. They said to let the car back past. Then they came back on the radio and said to hold station, but by that time, Lewis had already allowed Jarno through. Hamilton then spent the next few minutes asking the team to check with race director Charlie Whiting if he could take the place back, as he didn't think he needed to let the car past. Race control was busy at that point, overseeing the last few laps of the Grand Prix under the safety car, so they didn't get an answer.

When Hamilton exited the car, he did an interview with the waiting media, telling them what had happened, and then he was ushered to the stewards office. He met with sporting director Dave Ryan to discuss the situation, and conscious of not wanting to receive any kind of penalty, they decided to omit the fact that the team had allowed the car through.

Thus, they lied. Or they omitted the truth, but either way, the dishonesty meant Trulli got the penalty.

Now, with things regarding the race rectified, the only matter remains how the FIA are going to deal with the fact the team lied. McLaren have suspended Dave Ryan, sending him home on a plane the moment they did so. It seems as though he is taking a lot of the blame, but Hamilton also held a solo press conference where he held his hands up and admitted he should have told the truth.

The FIA are still reviewing the situation, but this is yet another bit of seriously bad PR that McLaren could have done without.

Daily: 2nd April 2009

Now that April Fool's is completely out the way, we can start taking the stories we see pop up today seriously. Well, you know, within reason. Here's what's been catching our attention:

• Clearly, the number one topic is the Malaysian stewards picking up where the Australian guys left off. Moments after Toyota announced they were giving up their appeal on Trulli's penalty, the stewards decided that Hamilton's version of the truth might not be entirely accurate. Apparently he'll face questioning ahead of this weekend's race. When will the FIA realise that if there must be politics, then what we really need is for it not to drag on forever?
• I'm slightly surprised by Williams' reluctance to bring KERS in, or even name a date when they can do so. I always thought they were one of the teams who were ahead of the game when it comes to this technology - they even bought out a company! But as yet, the status remains: we're working on it.
• F1.com has a nice little feature asking Vettel some questions that don't always have to do with Formula 1. It looks like this will be a series with more drivers coming soon, so worth keeping an eye on. Also, the man knows the ingredients to Red Bull Cola. I'm officially freaked out!

That should keep you busy for now, but we must stay tuned to the stewards in case they change their minds, or choose to investigate someone else, or maybe, finally, issue their report from Australia. While we wait, I'll see you in the comments.

Ferrari's Pit Lane Problems

This article was originally written for BellaOnline, but is republished here for posterity.

For the last few years, Ferrari have been the team to beat when it comes to precision in the pit lane. The twenty or so mechanics were like a well-oiled machine as their drivers came in for a scheduled stop, changing tyres, adding fuel and sending them on their way again.

This season, things seem to have become a little less organised, and at the European Grand Prix, it all went horribly wrong.

The team don't have a lollipop man as their competitors do. Instead, they run a complex system of traffic lights. As the different sections of the pit stop are complete, a button is pressed to allow the lights to update. Once all buttons are pressed, the orange light shows for the driver to get ready, and once it goes green, he can be on his way.

For their first pit-stop misdemeanour, Ferrari released Massa into the path of an oncoming car. Sutil for Force India was making his way to the end of the pit lane, and suddenly found himself battling for position with Massa. The traffic light system does have an override for a specific mechanic, who should be watching for any oncoming cars in the pitlane. Obviously this didn't happen at the time, although we have seen it in action earlier in the year.

The stewards announced the incident was unsafe and the team would be investigated, meaning their win wasn't assured until the result was announced post-race. They escaped with a fine and a reprimand.

Their next calamity came when Raikkonen arrived for his pit stop. He was battling Kovalainen out on track, and the pair arrived in the pit lane at the same time, meaning a head to head battle for position. Raikkonen was obviously keen to get out in front, and pulled away when the lights were orange, and not green. The refuelling rig was still attached, and the refueller was knocked to the ground.

The inevitable delay lost Raikkonen the position to Kovalainen and another place as well. Ultimately it didn't matter, because his engine gave up before the end of the race anyway. But the mechanic was stretchered off to the medical centre, and later it was announced he had a fracture in his left foot. Raikkonen has admitted the mistake was his and apologised, but in a weekend of pit lane catastrophes, it has led some to wonder whether the traffic light system is really the best way to go.

Square Balls and Round Pitches

If the FIA ran football, so the saying goes, we'd have square balls and round pitches.

Yesterday's announcement regarding the FIA's revised plans for Formula One race stewards didn't come as much of a surprise, given that grandprix.com highlighted the expected change over a week ago.

The new plan is to bring three random stewards to each race, plus Max's right hand man, Alan Donnelly. Last year's permanent steward Tony Scott Andrews has stepped down from his role, so the consistency that a regular face brought to the table has now been nullified.

Strangely this new structure is supposed to speed up the decision making process, although one fails to see how it could? A cynic might suggest that the introduction of Donnelly is just another way for Max to exert yet more control over the sport.

As grandprix.com points out, Donnelly isn't exactly a model of impartiality either. His company Sovereign Strategy currently list Formula One Management Ltd as a client. It's not hard to imagine the sport's commercial interests being taken into consideration when looking at future rule infringements. Would last year's embarrassing 'cool fuel' episode have gone as far as it did if Donnelly had any say in the matter?

Of further interest a quick perusal through the Internet Archive, sees Sovereign Strategy at one time listing Ferrari as a previous client:

It's not clear when the Italian manufacturer was removed from the client list (the archive displays the page as recently as June 2007), but one could speculate it was probably very recently. One also wonders whether the Scuderia have completely severed ties with Sovereign, and what bearing that may have on future 'difficult' decisions?

Ollie rightly wonders how any of this speeds up the process? The fact is, a problem any F1 steward faces, is that Formula 1 rules are not properly documented and are therefore open to all manner of interpretation by all manner of individuals.

Until that situation is rectified, everything else will just be a band aid over an ever expanding wound.

Square balls indeed.